0
Coreefdiver

Argus ban discussion (Was Argus Ban List)

Recommended Posts

Quote

Kirk Smith released his report well before that, you moderators were issued that report asked to post it so it came from a neutral source and failed to post it.

People talk (that's why I know about it).

Kirks report is mentioned and linked in this latest report. But why was kirk smiths report not posted when you were in possession of it for the last few days?

Did you not like his conclusions?

You have warned me about my tone in my posts, but there is no vicious tone here, just a question.

An important one.



Do you mean the report he did on the San Marcos incident specifically? It's been up on the PIA website for about a month:
http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/IncidentReports/Texas/SanMarcosPreliminary.pdf

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just a client, I payed all those people to make this work. I don't care about there politics. I don't know what is wrong with cutters or rigs, I don't have to, I pay those people for it. My conclusion is that they don't deliver what they promised me, and that involves aviacom and in my case UPT. They all told me this combination would work. And by now there is a problem and no one takes there responsibility. IMO this is to blame theme all.
And please don't tell me it's all to blame at my "el cheapo" AAD specially not if you have a sponsorship with a different brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UPT never signed off on anything. They gave an implied approval since it was not explicitly prohibited but they never have came out and specifically said "Yes" to each AAD.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Kirk smith relesed his report well before that, you moderators were issued that report aksed to post it so it came from a neutral source and failed to post it.

People talk (thats why I know about it).

Kirks report is mentioned and linked in this latest report. But why was kirk smiths report not posted when you were in posession of it for the last few days?

Did you not like his conclusons?

You have warned me about my tone in my posts, but there is no vicious tone here, just a question.

An important one.



Kirk's report was on here. I read it, and this is the only place I've been reading. I don't know what thread it was in, and it may have been "downstream deleted" in all the pointless bickering that has been going on.

But it either is or was on here a couple weeks ago.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

UPT never signed off on anything. They gave an implied approval since it was not explicitly prohibited but they never have came out and specifically said "Yes" to each AAD.



But they did approve the use of Argus in their rigs.

Sparky

I am not sure the link works. Here it is in text.


RELATIVE WORKSHOP inc
ENGINEERING
1645 Lexington Avenue .. DeLand FL 32724-2106 USA .. www.relativeworkshop.com
Telephone +1 386 736 7589 .. Fax +1 386 734 7537 .. mike@relativeworkshop.com

April 12, 2006

Argus

Karel Goorts
Leemveldstraat 42
3090 Overijse, Belglum

This letter is to certify that the Argus AAD is compatable with the Relitve Workshop Vector sport and tandem series containers.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.

Best regards,
Mike Forsythe
Enginering Manager
the uninsured
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The person that brought it to my attention was directed to post it here in this unlocked thread several days ago but never did so. Contact them and ask why they did not post it here. It was not posted in the locked "ARGUS ban list" thread because that thread was created to serve as a sole source where people could find information on which H/C manufacturers, and or governing bodies are currently banning the ARGUS. Which is what I explained to the person who brought it to my attention.



So you beleive kirks observations and his investigation serves no purpose in the issue of the manufacturer bullitens?

Did you request that the PIA post their article themselves also, or is their opinion worth more than kirks that you felt compelled to post theirs there and not kirks??

How do you feel about the possibilty of the flap grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke?

Do you feel that is a discussion and a point worth considering in all this?

He (kirk) in turn discovered a possibility that nobody else has come up with, it is a valid concern and something we should all get our heads around.

The reason I ask all this is that Kirk was asked specifically by Aviacom to carry out that investigation and that is part of what everybody has been waiting for. And has added more to ponder and more tesing to be conclusive of anything.

They will have to make a statement themselves obviously, that is the statement we are all waiting for in anticipation, lets see..

Ignoring Kirks report does not give us all a balanced view on the situation.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The reason I ask all this is that Kirk was asked specifically by Aviacom to carry out that investigation and that is part of what everybody has been waiting for. And has added more to ponder and more tesing to be conclusive of anything.



Most riggers I know have already read through Kirk’s report. I have been out just about a month. Actually there are to reports out by Mr. Smith. One it the preliminary report on the San Marcos incident and the other is a white paper he did on theories he had developed.

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/IncidentReports/Texas/SanMarcosPreliminary.pdf

http://www.para-concepts.com/AADs/Issues.pdf

While both reports are in my opinion good work and well done. But without some statement from Aviacom they are left sort of hanging by themselves. Remember that the problem in San Marcos is just one of four incidents. There are still the problems in Poland, Portugal and Italy that have yet to be addressed by Aviacom. Mr. Smith’s reports failed to make any definitive conclusions but did raise some interesting questions that bear more study. Aviacom has dug themselves a pretty deep hole and by not publicly responding to an investigation report they commissioned doesn’t help their position much now does it? They are the only ones that can make this go away.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

But without some statement from Aviacom they are left sort of hanging by themselves. Remember that the problem in San Marcos is just one of four incidents. There are still the problems in Poland, Portugal and Italy that have yet to be addressed by Aviacom. Mr. Smith’s reports failed to make any definitive conclusions but did raise some interesting questions that bear more study. Aviacom has dug themselves a pretty deep hole and by not publicly responding to an investigation report they commissioned doesn’t help their position much now does it? They are the only ones that can make this go away.
Sparky



Actually, there is more public information available than has been posted or discussed here, including at least one letter from Kirk Smith regarding the other incidents, and detailed reports by Aviacom. I've read some of them, and found them very enlightening. Those officially involved in the San Marcos investigation have read them, but most others do not seem to have. They are a better source of information than some of the opinions/speculation posted here.

Sorry I don't have time to look up and post links this morning. Maybe later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The person that brought it to my attention was directed to post it here in this unlocked thread several days ago but never did so. Contact them and ask why they did not post it here. It was not posted in the locked "ARGUS ban list" thread because that thread was created to serve as a sole source where people could find information on which H/C manufacturers, and or governing bodies are currently banning the ARGUS. Which is what I explained to the person who brought it to my attention.



So you beleive kirks observations and his investigation serves no purpose in the issue of the manufacturer bullitens?

Did you request that the PIA post their article themselves also, or is their opinion worth more than kirks that you felt compelled to post theirs there and not kirks??

How do you feel about the possibilty of the flap grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke?

Do you feel that is a discussion and a point worth considering in all this?

He (kirk) in turn discovered a possibility that nobody else has come up with, it is a valid concern and something we should all get our heads around.

The reason I ask all this is that Kirk was asked specifically by Aviacom to carry out that investigation and that is part of what everybody has been waiting for. And has added more to ponder and more tesing to be conclusive of anything.

They will have to make a statement themselves obviously, that is the statement we are all waiting for in anticipation, lets see..

Ignoring Kirks report does not give us all a balanced view on the situation.




Once again, you are reading way more into it than there is here. The latest PIA announcement was at the behest of several H/C manufacturers, which as I stated earlier, is what the "Argus ban list" thread is for. I know Kirk and respect the work he has done on this however, as it has been pointed out, Kirk is not Avicom, he is a service rep and an independent rigging company. His latest report is open to the public on his website and the paper lists his business, not Avicom's on the front of the document. It is an information paper based on his research on the issue and as such belongs here in this thread. As I explained to the person who brought it to my attention, placing it in the locked thread would not allow people to discuss the findings of Kirk's report, another reason why it belongs in this thread, so people can read AND discuss the issues.

If you or anyone else has any information and or links that pertain to this topic that don't fall into the description and intent of the "Argus ban thread", you are free to post them here and discuss without having to contact any of the moderators, that is as unbiased and open as you can get. If every rigger out there decides to write his/her own white paper on the topic and you feel it is relevant to the issue, by all means, post a link to it and discuss.

Unfortunately, for the number of posts in this thread there is very little discussion about actual/suspected causes and or reasons and more noise being created that serves no fruitful purpose other than to create drama where there is none. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion but I also ask that people focus on the mechanical issues here and less on the drama/politics so there is a better signal (information) to noise ratio than we currently have.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sorry I don't have time to look up and post links this morning. Maybe later.



Thanks for the thought but I think I already have most of them. I have a folder with some 20 odd documents in it.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Unfortunately, for the number of posts in this thread there is very little discussion about actual/suspected causes and or reasons and more noise being created that serves no fruitful purpose other than to create drama where there is none. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion but I also ask that people focus on the mechanical issues here and less on the drama/politics so there is a better signal (information) to noise ratio than we currently have.



Considering you are the one that is moderating and deleting what you feel is inappropriate and posting what you feel is appropriate...

You are contributing to this 'Noise' by writng a reply that does not address the subject rsther the 'noise' you speak of and ignoring a question pertinant to the subject and the possible result.

I asked you what you thought of the hypothesis of the grommets interfereing with the cutters stroke for the exact reason to discuss the subject, that may or may not be a factor in this, but it seems quite plausable.

I am a PT which is similar to a senior rigger but not quite the same, I have closed a number of reserves and I can see how the grommets could be forced into the cavity of the cutter and obstruct the stroke.

You make it out as though kirks reports is irrelevant and simply some random rigger that came up with a random theory.

HE WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY BY AVIACOM, to do so, he mentioned that, and you ignored it and brushed it off as irrelevant. Why do you no wish to discuss that.

kirks report will likely play a role in determining the outcome of Aviacoms reply to the industry.

Sparky also, if you have the documents and have read them,, why are you reluctant to discuss the possibility of the grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke and function?

it is importsnt for all AAD manufacturers to understand this concept, and all AAD users (especially riggers) to understand it also.

As kirk mentioned, with access to a multitude of cutters to experiement with, this failure could be reproduced.

If it was reproduced, it could be addressed with a sleeve or similar over the cutter.

I beleive the damage to either side of the cutter resembles tha damage I would imagine if two grommets were forced into the cavity while the cutter was fired.

Just sayin.

Why is that point not being addressed, if everybody is well aware of it?
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I beleive the damage to either side of the cutter resembles tha damage I would imagine if two grommets were forced into the cavity while the cutter was fired.

Just sayin.

Why is that point not being addressed, if everybody is well aware of it?



So you believe that the grommets themselves were what damaged the cutter blade?

Perhaps I need to pop open my container and look, but I don't think its possible that the grommets could come in contact with the actual blade, as they're too flat (the curve isn't extreme and is very wide), especially on the grommet side. The washer side, MAYBE, just MAYBE it could dig in deep enough, but again, I don't see how that's even possible with a fingertrapped cypres loop in the cutter... I'd LOVE to have you show us how its possible to jam a grommet installed on a flap, into the cutter with a cypres loop installed.

I believe the report you were talking about that said they could replicate the problem was not a problem of the loop not fully cutting, but rather tension holding the loop against a grommet and preventing it from sliding thru the other grommets and allowing the PC to launch. While this is possible, it is not the same as the loop possibly being jammed in the cutter and making reserve extraction potentially impossible by pulling the ripcord. If the loop is 'wedged' between the grommets, then pulling the ripcord could alleviate tension and allow the wedged portion of the loop to slide out.

I am a Senior Rigger (back and seat) with something like 35-40 I&R's on sport gear with AAD's; and I cannot see how you think that a grommet would be able to get wedged into the cutter. Locking the loop because it was too long, maybe, but that's irrelevant of the cutter, provided it fully and cleanly cut the loop.
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you believe that the grommets themselves were what damaged the cutter blade?

Perhaps I need to pop open my container and look, but I don't think its possible that the grommets could come in contact with the actual blade, as they're too flat (the curve isn't extreme and is very wide), especially on the grommet side. The washer side, MAYBE, just MAYBE it could dig in deep enough, but again, I don't see how that's even possible with a fingertrapped cypres loop in the cutter... I'd LOVE to have you show us how its possible to jam a grommet installed on a flap, into the cutter with a cypres loop installed.



So you did not read kirks reports then....

Quote

I am a Senior Rigger (back and seat) with something like 35-40 I&R's on sport gear with AAD's; and I cannot see how you think that a grommet would be able to get wedged into the cutter. Locking the loop because it was too long, maybe, but that's irrelevant of the cutter, provided it fully and cleanly cut the loop.



When I close a reserve there is much tention on the loop and the grommets are forced into place. The position of the grommets along with he closing loop "COULD" interfere with the cutters action depending on it's placement. The placement of the cutter is designated by the manufacturers I beleive?

When you pull the loop through with a closing tool, it is difficult to see the forces placed on the cutter as it is then obscured by the flaps. There are Photos and explanations in Kirks report, I suggest you read it and ingest it.

http://www.para-concepts.com/AADs/Issues.pdf

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

HE WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY BY AVIACOM, to do so, he mentioned that, and you ignored it and brushed it off as irrelevant. Why do you no wish to discuss that.



Mr. Smith was asked to assist in the investigation of the San Marcos incident. This he did along with Jesus M Cavazos from the FAA, Eric Butts, Senior Parachute Rigger, Paula Hunt, Senior Parachute Rigger, Marcus Reed, Senior Parachute Rigger and Karel Goortz, Owner of Aviacom, by telephone for the first portion of the meeting. His report on this meeting revealed little useful information that was not already known. Aviacom has yet to comment on this report or do any follow up on what was discussed. In fact Mr. Goortz remains silent on a four of the incidents involving his AAD.

Quote

Sparky also, if you have the documents and have read them,, why are you reluctant to discuss the possibility of the grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke and function?



I am not reluctant at all. I played around with an old cutter and a rig with the same grommets in question. I feel that the grommets had nothing to do with neither the San Marcos incident nor the ones in Poland, Portugal or Italy. It’s an interesting theory but just one of several Mr. Smith mentioned in his second white paper on the issue. Don’t get caught up in theories and possibility as fact. They are a long way from being proven.

Quote


As kirk mentioned, with access to a multitude of cutters to experiement with, this failure could be reproduced.



This is what he actually said. It seems you only see what you want to see which is dangerous when doing any investigation.
Quote

I wish to state that these tests should not be considered statistically rigorous. I only had a small number of cutters available for testing, and more extensive tests should be conducted by Aviacom or independent testers. This falls short of a proof, but could be a very good working theory.



Quote

Why is that point not being addressed, if everybody is well aware of it?



Just because it is not being talked about on dz.com does not mean it is not being addressed. Aviacom is the one who needs to address several issues and has failed to do so to date. Quit looking for the boogey man under your mattress. It is Aviacom’s move and everyone is waiting on them.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Sorry I don't have time to look up and post links this morning. Maybe later.



Thanks for the thought but I think I already have most of them. I have a folder with some 20 odd documents in it.

Sparky



That wasn't aimed at you, Sparky. I'd prefer to stay out of this debate, but hate to see it occurring in a vacuum. There's more information available to anyone who really cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just because it is not being talked about on dz.com does not mean it is not being addressed.



Ignoring something and brushing it off is the same as not addressing it.

This is supposed to be an information database, but everyone is reluctant to say anything anymore.

Quote

It is Aviacom’s move and everyone is waiting on them.



agreed.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is supposed to be an information database, but everyone is reluctant to say anything anymore.



Say anything you want. All of the warnings you got previously were for being too far off topic for a certain thread. I gave your solution then, and I'll remind you of it now, start a new thread.

The only things the mods do is keep things on track, and enforce the rules. They don't filter information, or choose what does or does not see the light of day. If you want some daylight on something, start a thread to that effect, and shine all the light on it you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Remember that the problem in San Marcos is just one of four incidents. There are still the problems in Poland, Portugal and Italy that have yet to be addressed by Aviacom.



Doing a little reseach I easily came up with this;

PRELIMINARY ACCIDENT REPORT # 4 (Poland)

Though that says it is preliminary, it also says it is confidential.

It clearly shows a severed closing loop, and a quite evident rigging error with the reserve bridle, rather grousomely with the victim still in the harness...


or portugal.


INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (portugal)


Though not conclusive, to say these have not been addressed is not exactly correct.

The Italian incident is quite concerning, I was unaware of that one. A disection of that cutter would be interesting. Has that unit been investigated by anyone?
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the Poland incident the closing loop is not cleanly cut like Argus says it should be and it is frayed on the end. The reserve bridle is not thought to be a rigging error but instead occurred on impact when the canopy and freebag was ejected from the container when the loop broke. The freebag was cleanly pulled off and the canopy does not show any signs of being exposed to a moving airstream. The bridle is also not under tension which would have occurred if the PC was in the airstream.

Read the reports on Italy, the DZ said they sent the unit to Argus and Argus says they never received it.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In the Poland incident the closing loop is not cleanly cut like Argus says it should be and it is frayed on the end. The reserve bridle is not thought to be a rigging error but instead occurred on impact when the canopy and freebag was ejected from the container when the loop broke.



By looking at those pictures it looks to me as though the loop was in fact severed, the bridle was indeed under tention and I cannot see how the bridle and freebag could possibly be configured that way from popping open upon impact. Can you ellaborate on your position there?



Quote

Read the reports on Italy, the DZ said they sent the unit to Argus and Argus says they never received it.


What reports, can you provide me a url?
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for posting those. Those docs (or a version of them), and some others, are also available at Aviacom's Argus website:
http://www.argus-aad.com

Note that Kirk Smith's letter to Aviacom regarding his conclusions from the Polish investigation and subsequent testing are included at the end of the Polish report.

Regarding questions about the Italian incident: I can't find the source right now, but I've seen it mentioned that the Italian Argus was supposedly mailed to Aviacom, but never received. The sender could offer no evidence that he sent it. Does anyone here know more than that? If that's all we have to go on, come to your own conclusions.

I'll share this for the benefit of those who are hanging on to their Argus: From recent personal conversations with people who are close to the San Marcos investigation, and the current negotiations between Aviacom, US H/C manufacturers, and the FAA, the consensus is that the Argus bans will be lifted, at least for sport rigs. How soon is the big question. A week or two seems to be the best case scenario, but there are legal issues that might draw it out longer.

Since you don't know me, or my sources, do what you can to confirm what I shared. A good start would be a call to your container manufacturer. (I only contacted people I know at two of them.)

BTW, I haven't spoken with anyone at Aviacom. If you know how to reach them, go for it.

I've been given a pretty good picture of motives, legal issues, etc., but will keep that to myself, in the interest of keeping things here civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


By looking at those pictures it looks to me as though the loop was in fact severed, the bridle was indeed under tention and I cannot see how the bridle and freebag could possibly be configured that way from popping open upon impact. Can you ellaborate on your position there?



Severed, yes... cleanly cut as a result from an AAD fire, no.

The folds in the reserve were still neat, indicating that it had not been subjected to the air flow of freefall.
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0