rhys 0 #76 April 27, 2011 QuoteThe PIA has not grounded any AADs. Some of its members have chosen to withdraw approval for Argus AADs in their rigs. Some have not. As you know, the FAA's position is that they cannot legally issue an AD because our sport parachute systems are not "aircraft appliances." Even if an AD is not warranted in this instance, how would you propose to proceed if there were a case where there is no doubt there is a serious problem? Mark Treat a serous problem seriously, Knee jerk reactions with unfounded and incorrect assumtions is not acting seriously. It is acting irresponsibly."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #77 April 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe PIA has not grounded any AADs. Some of its members have chosen to withdraw approval for Argus AADs in their rigs. Some have not. As you know, the FAA's position is that they cannot legally issue an AD because our sport parachute systems are not "aircraft appliances." Even if an AD is not warranted in this instance, how would you propose to proceed if there were a case where there is no doubt there is a serious problem? Mark Treat a serous problem seriously, Knee jerk reactions with unfounded and incorrect assumtions is not acting seriously. It is acting irresponsibly. In this case, there are several instances where the Argus's ability to cut the reserve closing loop has come into question and they have not been addressed other than the San Marco's incident and that still has a lot of unanswered questions. That leaves the other instances unanswered for by the manufacturer as to why the Argus failed to perform. The PIA has no authority to ground anything, where people get the idea that they do is beyond me. It is another example of how some people do not understand how things work, be it their AAD, the USPA(or your governing body) ,the PIA or their personal gear in general. The PIA has served as the focal point of these announcements. In other words, people have been killing the messenger. If anyone has a beef, they should take it up with the Harness Container manufacturer(s) directly as they are the ones who have decided to not approve the use of the Argus in their product. I cannot speak for the H/C manufacturers, but as it has been pointed out already, the possibility of ending up in a court of law is something that manufacturers have to deal with on a daily basis. Even if the H/C manufacturer had nothing to do with an incident, having to go to court and defend oneself is going to cost several thousands of dollars. Apparently many H/C manufacturers feel that until the issues with the Argus are resolved to their satisfaction, they wish to limit their liability. Again, I cannot speak for the H/C manufacturers, which is why I suggest that anyone who has issues with this contact the H/C manufacturer directly and ask them why they have chosen to rescind their approval to use the Argus in their product. To continue to ignore the other incidents and blame the PIA for the Argus being banned is erroneous and short sided. Contact the H/C manufacturers that have banned the Argus and ask them why they have made the decision to ban it. They are the only ones who can be held accountable for their individual company actions in making this decision, not the USPA or the PIA."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #78 April 27, 2011 QuoteIn this case, there are several instances where the Argus's ability to cut the reserve closing loop has come into question and they have not been addressed other than the San Marco's incident and that still has a lot of unanswered questions. That leaves the other instances unanswered for by the manufacturer as to why the Argus failed to perform Argus were banned in Poland, then they were not banned. So that banning was revoked... what whas the reason for them to remove the ban... action?, clarity?, further investigation? The fact is, there was a foreign object in there, the units had been approved for use, and were approved until this recent incident where a foreign object was found in the cutter... This incident was the catylist for the banning, and as there was a foriegn object in the cutter made of very hard steel. . Another previous time it was a dubious experiement where there was minimal to no tention on the loop... Argus have been allowed to be used since that ordeal too... There was something about this incident that tipped the scale even though it was less of a concern than previous falures. The current bullitens are bullshit and were knee jerk reactions with irreversable consequences for many people, it was a fuck up and nobody is willing to admit that. The PIA are (partially) made up of (a good proportion)the very companies that have grounded the Argus. The PIA have republished all the relevant documents that state that the units should not be used, and are in turn pushing the idea that they are not airworthy. IT IS PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOIUS WHERE EVERYBODY GETS THAT IDEA FROM, do you not think!!! QuoteI cannot speak for the H/C manufacturers, but as it has been pointed out already, the possibility of ending up in a court of law is something that manufacturers have to deal with on a daily basis. Even if the H/C manufacturer had nothing to do with an incident, having to go to court and defend oneself is going to cost several thousands of dollars. It looks like they may go to court for anti competitive behaviour, and since Aviacom suggested that this was going on, some have reversed thier decision and the others have gone very quiet indeed or are making excuses. the dirtect competition are trying to drive the nail inb the coffin by claiming that thieir impecabvloe excellence has never put anyone in danger while knowingtly lying to all of us about one of those very incidents. It is a dictionary definition Clusterfuck! This is a royal fuck up and me and many thousand of people are eagerly awaiting the next outcome... QuoteTo continue to ignore the other incidents and blame the PIA for the Argus being banned is erroneous and short sided. Contact the H/C manufacturers that have banned the Argus and ask them why they have made the decision to ban it Like I already if the previous incidents were grounds for a bulliten, then publish a bulliten then, not before you know the outcome of a further incident that turns out to be something completely different, and as par as the manufacturers and the PIA...many of them are the same people... 1+1=2"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
david3 0 #79 April 27, 2011 Quote Like I already if the previous incidents were grounds for a bulliten, then publish a bulliten then, not before you know the outcome of a further incident that turns out to be something completely different, and as par as the manufacturers and the PIA...many of them are the same people... 1+1=2 So what you are really upset about is that they should have published the bulletins sooner. I agree they should have. I disagree that just because they were late with the bulletins they shouldn’t be allowed to publish them at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #80 April 27, 2011 The ability to reliably cut a loop with no tension should be expected, as there are instances where that will be required, such as when the ripcord has already been pulled, but the bag has not yet lifted off the container. For a short time there will be no tension on the loop, and a cutter mounted above the bag will have the ability to lock. Such a scenario presumes a certain cutter placement and timing, but still shows that cutters should be expected to cut regardless of tension. Even after all this time, still no close up examination of the ball, not even a description of damage to the ball was present in the not-so-independent "report". Why is that? If one were inclined to believe in conspiracies , one might think they were covering something up. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,903 #81 April 27, 2011 QuoteIn this case, there are several instances where the Argus's ability to cut the reserve closing loop has come into question and they have not been addressed other than the San Marco's incident and that still has a lot of unanswered questions. I'm looking for some clarity here. As far as I know there have been 3 incidents. One in San Marcos, one in Portugal, and one in Poland. And none of them seem to clearly indicate any more than a possibility of a cutter failure, except for one that the manufacturer is claiming to be caused by a foreign object. Are there more? This does not fit my definition of several. Of course "several" is a very vague term. I'm also wondering if you are speaking as a moderator for the group, or expressing your personal opinion. If you are expressing your opinion, then I completely respect that. If on the other hand you are speaking as a moderator, I must say that I'm not finding that this post sounds unbiased. Rather that it sounds like a defense of the current action being taken against the use of the Argus product. Of course this is just my opinion, but I'm not posting with the term "moderator" behind my name. Being a mod must be a mostly thankless task, so right now I'd like to stop and say thank you for doing it. I think that this whole subject has been starting to get overly emotional, considering that it is really a technical matter. But from where I sit, the action taken against Argus and their users is beginning to look less and less justified. Just to be clear, I do not have a horse in this race. I don't own or sell any AADs, but this whole banning business is starting to look like an over reaction. I don't think it was done for anti-competitive reasons at all. But that also is just my opinion. Ken GowlerAlways remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #82 April 27, 2011 Quoteas par as the manufacturers and the PIA...many of them are the same people... Feel free to rant all you want, however you really should contact the H/C manufacturers as to why they feel it is in their best interest to not allow the Argus in their product. Perhaps they can also shed some light on why these incidents caused such a large reaction within the industry and around the world and how it influenced their decision(s). I would also like to point out that many of the companies that have not banned the Argus are ALSO members of PIA, food for thought and hopefully enlightenment."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #83 April 27, 2011 >The PIA are (partially) made up of (a good proportion)the very companies > that have grounded the Argus. And the "independent investigator" who discovered the steel ball works for Argus. Yet you believe him without question. Odd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sabre1Lucke 0 #84 April 27, 2011 I have seen in the last 10 years several things that happend with AAD's. My own Vigil was suddenly on OFF mode. Never had an explanation for that. Also Cypress had problems. What's happening now it in my humble opinion... bullshit. If this happens in the private industry... sorry, it doesn't work like that in that world. There is no proof only suspision and what's happening now is that you are trying to kill a AAD manufacturer and a lot of skydivers are grounded. If it was possible to submit a complain I would do it! Vigil had problems with cutters, cypress had problems with cutters... they ALL could have had a deadly result.. none of them have been grounded!!! - Two canopies out can kill somebody - pre-activation of an AAD (like happend in more than one plane) can kill somebody and even more then one person - activation of an AAD during a high performance landing can kill somebody - and a lot more... NEVER one of the two other brands have been baned! No opinion about a specific brand here... just making conclusions like professionals in the industry do. What's happening here is UNPROFESSIONAL! There, after several weeks, I said it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #85 April 27, 2011 >Vigil had problems with cutters, cypress had problems with cutters... they >ALL could have had a deadly result.. none of them have been grounded!!! Vigil very nearly was. But at the last minute, when rig manufacturers were threatening to rescind their approval - they figured out what the problem was and fixed it. Once Argus does something similar hopefully rig manufacturers will be more comfortable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #86 April 27, 2011 QuoteI'm also wondering if you are speaking as a moderator for the group, or expressing your personal opinion. If you are expressing your opinion, then I completely respect that. If on the other hand you are speaking as a moderator, I must say that I'm not finding that this post sounds unbiased. Rather that it sounds like a defense of the current action being taken against the use of the Argus product. Ken, I am actually neutral on this, so be it speaking as myself or as a moderator, it is from a neutral standpoint. I see a lot of misinformation, half truths and misguided blame being thrown around and I think some people can't see the forrest for the trees. Clearly some people are upset by this and they want answers, which is justified. However, the only ones that can answer any of the questions that have been posed are the manufacturers themselves and I'm sure that answer may differ slightly from one manufacturer to another. Likewise, people should be just as upset with and asking for explanations from the manufacturer of the Argus AAD on the incidents that brought all of this about. My guess is had they been addressed and logically explained, we would not be here discussing this and the H/C manufacturers wouldn't have rescinded their approval. Claiming that its a conspiracy by the PIA and blaming the PIA is like blaming the Salvation Army for homeless people, it just doesn't make any sense. At the end of the day, given all of their years of experience in the sport, the H/C manufacturers have made a decision that only they can explain to their customers and that ultimately affects their business in the future. I don't know(other than what is mentioned in the SB) why each company made their decision so I cannot claim to support or defend their choice."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #87 April 28, 2011 Quote The ability to reliably cut a loop with no tension should be expected, as there are instances where that will be required, such as when the ripcord has already been pulled, but the bag has not yet lifted off the container. For a short time there will be no tension on the loop, and a cutter mounted above the bag will have the ability to lock. Such a scenario presumes a certain cutter placement and timing, but still shows that cutters should be expected to cut regardless of tension. How about a knot forced into the cutter, i do beleive there was a knot forced into the cutter on that experiment, what was such a bogus experiment undertaken for, what was the purpose... QuoteEven after all this time, still no close up examination of the ball, not even a description of damage to the ball was present in the not-so-independent "report". Why is that? I imagine we will get a comprhensive report from argus/aviacom, there will be lawyers and all sorts of other ancilary things making it take longer, if they had simply been sent the unit and investigated it from the start under supervision from the FAA then it is likley none of us would be waiting right now. instead they were immediately banned before they even got the unit to look at... QuoteIf one were inclined to believe in conspiracies Laugh , one might think they were covering something up. Think about that for a minute, I am not going into federal politics here, but I know what you are talking about, whatever you beleive about that day, and for whatever reason;you believe in a conspiracy. You need to understand the meaning of the word if you are going to throw it around willy nilly. I suspect you actually know this but are acting upon you desire for social accptance, much as many people are when they decide not to comment on this argus banning, many of those type of people have PM'ed me agreeing with my comments (on both subjects) but are reluctant to post their comments here to avoid ridicule from individuals such as yourself. I could care less about argus, what I care about is our industry and how this new precedent has shaped the future."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #88 April 28, 2011 Quote I would also like to point out that many of the companies that have not banned the Argus are ALSO members of PIA, food for thought and hopefully enlightenment. View the letter from the owners of the reflex TSO (i suspect you already have), you speak as if I am the only one with this standpoint and it is quite clear that there are many or a majority, yes some are industry members too, but who are the major players... who holds the aces so to speak..."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #89 April 28, 2011 (Not directed at Rhys, just a general reply) Aviacom / Argus has a bit of a problem now that it has reminded people that one must always follow the instructions in the manual to lubricate the closing loop, and that lubricating the loop is part of what is required to cut the loop properly. (This isn't directly on the 'ban list' topic, but this thread has become the one active Argus thread instead of half a dozen of them earlier.) The latest version of their cutter bulletin, SB AMMO050910/4 states that "[...] SILICONIZING [...] IS IMPORTANT TO ASSURE A CLEAN CUT". The manual says that the silicon is to be applied on the part of the loop that passes through flap grommets. Riggers have long known that lubricating the loop is good, but Airtec for example has long maintained that it is not necessary to improve the cut of the loop. It is only there to reduce wear on the loop and let the loop slide more freely between grommets when the loop is cut. Aviacom's insistence that silicon is mandatory to help get a good cut, suggests that their AAD shouldn't be used in rigs like the Racer, Reflex, or Teardrop, which don't lubricate their adjustable loops. And unless one lubricates a loop right down by the washer (and not just up by the flap grommets as the manual indicates), then the loop will not be lubricated around the pack tray mounted cutter such as on a Javelin or Wings. Common practice is not to lubricate loops near the washer, although I don't know whether that could actually wick into the knot and promote slippage. Aviacom has never banned their AAD from these rigs. So Aviacom has a contradiction in their instructions, basically admitting their cutter isn't any good on certain types of rigs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #90 April 28, 2011 Quote>The PIA are (partially) made up of (a good proportion)the very companies > that have grounded the Argus. And the "independent investigator" who discovered the steel ball works for Argus. Yet you believe him without question. Odd. Why is that 'Odd'? SSK or Airtec investigate all the CYPRES firings that are called into question. Vigil investigates all their firings that are called into question. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
michalm21 0 #91 April 28, 2011 I think it's odd to him because since they investigate their equipment they could have been like... hmm it's all good! but since we can't say that let's see... ahh this steel ball got in the way (magically?) and that's what caused it! brilliant! we will just call it bad luck and move on. /not that it's my option, just saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SethInMI 145 #92 April 28, 2011 I think Bill is saying to rhys: "Rhys, you don't trust the PIA, you see a conspiracy and collusion. If you refuse to trust them, why do you trust Aviacom's "inhouse" anaylsis?"It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #93 April 28, 2011 >SSK or Airtec investigate all the CYPRES firings that are called into question. Agreed; that's pretty common in the industry. It is odd, though, that Rhys distrusts PIA because they are made up of industry members who have conflicts of interest, but trusts an investigator that has a similar conflict of interest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #94 April 28, 2011 Quote I think Bill is saying to rhys: "Rhys, you don't trust the PIA, you see a conspiracy and collusion. If you refuse to trust them, why do you trust Aviacom's "inhouse" anaylsis?" The PIA COULD and SHOULD bring clarity to the situation, what is the PIA's role... to increase prifits or to increase the industries potential? We have riggers saying they beleive the bulliten is not mandatory, we have container manufacturers saying that the container manufacturers do not have the authority to ban such a device (especially without complete or correct details). Publishing conflicting statements only briong ambeguity to the situation. Where is the clarification of where this precedent is set, where is the rule that allows this to happen, why did it all get banned so quickly and where are the comments from the manufacturers that were so prompt to ban the units, now it was discovered that there was a foreign object in there... Some say; "it was Aviacom that found the ball bearing, how do we know they are not lying?" Well how do we know anybody is telling the truth, I have pointed out where Airtec have been blatantly lying to all of us about an incident with one of their units... Why is aviacom the only one to be suspected. At the end of the day all of these companies are in BUSINESS to make money, this whole excersise appears to be anti competative behaviour, Airtec's comments on the situation were very shallow and obviously designed to drive the nails in Aviacoms coffin, if this type of bullshit anti competative behaviour continues then our industry is going down a very dark road where monopilisation and deciet are key factors in what is said to us. I stil belive cypres' are great units but the managment of that company are not being completely honest, they say they drive for excellence though they themselves have had problems just as much as most other products that have been introduced to the market. They have had problems that were potentially fatal that argus has not had, how can they come out and say they are so excellent when they can also lie... Shame on you Airtec, and shame on you PIA for not being clear to all of us as to who has the authority on the issue. There are conflicting stories and now we are left to decide for ourselves whgat the actual reaity of the siutuation is. there is a possibility that argus cutters are complete shit and should be grounded, there is also a possibility that they are not and this is all a storm in a teacup but nobody with any authority is being completely open an honest. The PIA are not a regulating body they are there to help each other make more money, that is all! If this was about safety then there would be more clarity and less ambiguity. I am pissed off with the situation because it is setting a precedent for the future and those that lose are us consumers..."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #95 April 28, 2011 QuoteAgreed; that's pretty common in the industry. It is odd, though, that Rhys distrusts PIA because they are made up of industry members who have conflicts of interest, but trusts an investigator that has a similar conflict of interest. I distrus the PIA because they are not bringing any clarity to the situation, the PIA is made up of very experienced and influaential entities, if anybody knows what the rules are iot should be the PIA members... why are we all so unsure... What is the PIA's role in all this... Business or Safety?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #96 April 28, 2011 >I distrus the PIA because they are not bringing any clarity to the situation There's not much clarity on either side. In the Poland incident, Argus never addressed why the official investigation showed fibers trapped in the cutter, why the cutter blade did not travel the full length of the cutter tube, why there was shearing damage to the blade, or why some fibers of the closing loop were cut and some were melted. They may not know why all those things happened. If so, nothing wrong with saying that. But ignoring them and insisting everything worked fine is worrisome, and makes it look like they are trying to cover something up. >What is the PIA's role in all this... Business or Safety? Both - just as Aviacom's is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #97 April 29, 2011 Quotehere's not much clarity on either side. In the Poland incident, Argus never addressed why the official investigation showed fibers trapped in the cutter, why the cutter blade did not travel the full length of the cutter tube, why there was shearing damage to the blade, or why some fibers of the closing loop were cut and some were melted. They may not know why all those things happened. If so, nothing wrong with saying that. But ignoring them and insisting everything worked fine is worrisome, and makes it look like they are trying to cover something up. Polish authorities banned the Argus due to that incident you speak of, then they revoked the ban some time later... why?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #98 April 29, 2011 QuoteThe PIA has no authority to ground anything, where people get the idea that they do is beyond me. It is another example of how some people do not understand how things work, be it their AAD, the USPA(or your governing body) ,the PIA or their personal gear in general. The PIA has served as the focal point of these announcements. In other words, people have been killing the messenger.If anyone has a beef, they should take it up with the Harness Container manufacturer(s) directly as they are the ones who have decided to not approve the use of the Argus in their product. Go back and look at the dates of the PIA letter to its members and the dates of the bans.. The PIA letter came first. Now considering the H/C manufacturers are intergral components of the PIA, and the bannings frpom those that are PIA members came after the PIA letter, decide for yourself if this is just a touch...ahem.. dodgy! Oh wait, you published that letter and made it a sticky yourself...Why do I bother. Probably because I give a shit and many people support me via PM and email and I am willing to talk about the elephant in the room that many will will not. How fucking stupid do you think people are?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #99 April 29, 2011 QuoteHow fucking stupid do you think people are? ! Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #100 April 29, 2011 Quote Go back and look at the dates of the PIA letter to its members and the dates of the bans.. By which he means the following -- these are the bulletin dates I read: PIA Technical Committee March 21 Rigging Innovations March 21 UPT March 22 Parachutes Australia March 22 Sunpath March 22 Parachute Systems March 23 Altico March 24 Mirage March 24 Aerodyne March 25 Strong March 29 People might interpret that as a) collusion, or b) jumping on the bandwagon as a legal move after an industry body highlighted Argus dangers (even though the PIA letter clearly stated that each company should make its own mind up). If it were collusion, it would be pretty bumbling, issuing the PIA press release first... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
