Argus ban discussion (Was Argus Ban List)

[Sabre1Lucke 0]

I'm not going to open my reserve to take a picture of the cutter

Is this better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmNhTEnp0LQ
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIiDp7bVOYE&feature=related

[Thedivingdog 0]

Can anyone with more experience than I make an educated guess as to what might happen regarding the argus ban? Is this enough to reverse the ban? Was the ban issued prematurely? If the ban is reversed, are we talking weeks, months, years?

[likestojump 3]

better pics

[Skybear 0]

Thank you Paul. This picture clearly shows a design flaw of the cutter which can easily be changed. As I suspected the loop hole is open towards the inside of the cutter. Small objects can easily enter the cutter and be in the way of the piston.

Another point about the cutter investigation report from April 7th 2011. This is ot the cutter from the San Marcos incident. The pictures clearly show the same serial number that was already in the Service Bulletin of September 5th 2011, following the Portugal incident. When Argus was banned they were still complaining that they did not receive the cutter from San Marcos.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

better pics

Would it be possible for you to post similar pics of a CYPRES & Vigil?

Thanks

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Skybear 0]

I must admit that I made a mistake on the serial number, or better said a misunderstanding. Pauls pictures show the same serial number than in in all the reports. So maybe it is a part number, as somebody else suggested. The last report from Mr. Camffermann states that it is a serial number. But in my understanding a serial number is unique with each unit, isn't it? Does somebody know a little more about it?

[jurgencamps 0]

Quote

Another point about the cutter investigation report from April 7th 2011. This is ot the cutter from the San Marcos incident. The pictures clearly show the same serial number that was already in the Service Bulletin of September 5th 2011, following the Portugal incident. When Argus was banned they were still complaining that they did not receive the cutter from San Marcos.

Strange. Can you show us that picture?

[likestojump 3]

Cypres2 cutter

[likestojump 3]

Quote

Quote

better pics

Would it be possible for you to post similar pics of a CYPRES & Vigil?

Thanks

.

I don't have any Vigils in stock, so these are archive pics

also this is a good reference : http://www.vigil.aero/files/images/Information_Bulletin_-_Vigil_Cutters.pdf

[Skybear 0]

Yes I can
Just look into this document:

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OrganizationBulletins/05.09.2010%20SERVICE%20BULLETIN%20Revised.pdf

[likestojump 3]

Quote

I must admit that I made a mistake on the serial number, or better said a misunderstanding. Pauls pictures show the same serial number than in in all the reports. So maybe it is a part number, as somebody else suggested. The last report from Mr. Camffermann states that it is a serial number. But in my understanding a serial number is unique with each unit, isn't it? Does somebody know a little more about it?

I have another cutter here, and it's stamped :

092666
118A/08
MAR 2008

so my guess is that 092666 is a PART NUMBER, and not a SN

[RiggerLee 61]

In regards to to videos posted. That all looks very nice. So, What's the real story on min loop tention? I've always heard that it required a min of x number of pounds, etc. And as I recall that was the excuse you used in one of the events, the student that rode down leaning against the bulkhead. So was that just a defective cutter? Are they inconsistant? Is this a QC issue? You show examples of successfull fireings but how many failed? It would be nice if you published a comprehensive report of the statistics of your study rather then just the wins. Or if you had no failures, great! Congrats! Then please explain to of the student incedent.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[Sabre1Lucke 0]

Video's are on youtube
Not from myself.

I only have an Argus in my rig

My previous AAD was a Vigil2. Also with this AAD the cutter had to be replaced by the one with plastic housing due to a service bulletin (read problems with the productionprocess of the cutter)

[mark 102]

What is the cylindrical object in the photo of the steel ball? What is the (estimated) diameter of the steel ball?

Mark

[GobbleGobble 0]

It looks to be the cutter. The actual piston that shoots down the metal tube to cut the loop.

[mark 102]

Quote

It looks to be the cutter. The actual piston that shoots down the metal tube to cut the loop.

Can we use the cutter size to estimate the ball size? Is there optical distortion that would cause the ball to appear larger or smaller than it actually is in proportion to the cutter?

Mark

[MakeItHappen 15]

Thanks for the photos.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[GobbleGobble 0]

Without a known reference object I don't know that you could. I don't know that you couldn't either. Anyone have the diameter of the whole assembly in mm? As a guess I'd say the pellet is 2-3mm. That is a total WAG though.

[johnmatrix 21]

Not sure if this has been posted already but it has another pic of the 'shot ball'.

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

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

FOD
http://tools.emailgarage.com/Pub/Asset.ashx?Id=23c77610-0dde-4a9f-98bc-64da7820cdf0&MessageId=509493423

There should have been some detail pic/close up of the steel shot ball

I am curious. Is testing carried out by an independent third party or the manufacturer? I am not suggesting that Argus aren't telling the truth - just that 3rd party testing and investigation tends to have more credibility and it is something that they desperately need if they are going to survive.

The inquisitive side of me would also like to see close ups of the ball to see if it was damaged by the cutter.

It takes balls to jump an Argus

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

I must admit that I made a mistake on the serial number, or better said a misunderstanding. Pauls pictures show the same serial number than in in all the reports. So maybe it is a part number, as somebody else suggested. The last report from Mr. Camffermann states that it is a serial number. But in my understanding a serial number is unique with each unit, isn't it? Does somebody know a little more about it?

I have another cutter here, and it's stamped :

092666
118A/08
MAR 2008

so my guess is that 092666 is a PART NUMBER, and not a SN

+1 Mine has the same part number on it.

"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

[jb88ci 0]

Quote

Thank you Paul. This picture clearly shows a design flaw of the cutter which can easily be changed. As I suspected the loop hole is open towards the inside of the cutter. Small objects can easily enter the cutter and be in the way of the piston.

I work in the aviation industry. We don't consider jet engine intakes design flaws because FOD can enter them, or props flawed in design because they can stir up gravel which will FOD them or access areas to control cables faulty because a mechanic can leave FOD in them to jam controls.

We consider our practices and poor housekeeping faulty. We use double checks, tool control etc to prevent FOD, not wrap airplanes in plastic to prevent it.

I'd say, if this was indeed a shot ball from a weight bag, this is poor housekeeping and poor FOD control if its possible for shot to come out of the bag. I'd say this is akin to leaving a temporary pin inside the pack job.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I work in the aviation industry. We don't consider jet engine intakes design flaws because FOD can enter them, or props flawed in design because they can stir up gravel which will FOD them or access areas to control cables faulty because a mechanic can leave FOD in them to jam controls.

Intakes and props, for obvious reasons, need to be exposed to the outside atmospere. Access panels need to provide access for service and inspection.

The inner workings of a cutter require neither access to the outside atmospere nor be available for inspection and/or service after leaving the factory.

While I am not convinced that the shot ball could not have fouled the cutter even if a plastic insert was used, I am convinced that your comparison is flawed, and does not apply to this situation.

[pchapman 261]

Hang on -

Does the Argus have a plastic sleeve insert inside the cutter or not?


It sort of looks like it doesn't?
Cypres and Vigil have sleeves. For the Vigil that uses a circular cutter too, the sleeve reduces the chance that an object would nestle inside the cup, somewhat trapped by the loop and at least somewhat out of sight. An object could still jam in the cutter, but it becomes less likely.

So one could call it a "flaw" if the Argus does not have the plastic, although it might be better to say it is just a less refined design given that the apparent FOD issue is so extremely rare.

One finds carpet fluff and bits of grass in reserve containers, but I haven't ever had to shake out shot from other's packing aids.

[Skybear 0]

Quote

I work in the aviation industry. We don't consider jet engine intakes design flaws because FOD can enter them, or props flawed in design because they can stir up gravel which will FOD them or access areas to control cables faulty because a mechanic can leave FOD in them to jam controls.

We consider our practices and poor housekeeping faulty. We use double checks, tool control etc to prevent FOD, not wrap airplanes in plastic to prevent it.

I'd say, if this was indeed a shot ball from a weight bag, this is poor housekeeping and poor FOD control if its possible for shot to come out of the bag. I'd say this is akin to leaving a temporary pin inside the pack job.

I work in the aviation industry as well. I am an air traffic controller, air traffic control instructor and human factors expert. From a long lasting experience and studies I know, that every procedure will work in a perfect world, no matter how bad it is designed. But as soon as you put the human in the system, it will fail at some point. That 's natural because of human behaviour. Good engineering takes this into account. Why let the cutter open, so that FODs can nestle inside the tubular part of the cutter, when you can also close it with a plastic sleeve?

Humans are packing our reserves, and they may overlook a small metal ball falling into the cutter. If it falls in the loop hole most propably it will fall through. Or it will be stuck between the loop and the plastic sleeve of a Cypres/Vigil cutter and can be found when inspected again. But if it already rolled inside the Argus cutter it is most propably out of sight.

If FODs turn out to be the problem in all the Argus cutter incidents then we know why. If there are more problems with the cutters we need to fnid more solutions.