What the hell is going on with AAD's ??

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Sigh, I have a live which actually happens offline you know. At least one activation in a Swoop competition Empuria Brava in the same year Adrian died, don't know if their are links about it.

Maybe I should extend my signature:
"Dropzone, the place in which reality is defined by links on the internet"

Reality is where something is fact and not second hand information that has been repeated over and over again. Is this activation Emporia Brava something you have firsthand knowledge of or just something you heard about?
If misfires, activations or incidents with any AAD by any manufacture are not reported it didn’t happen. Every time there is an incident it should be documented by the DZO or the S&TA and a copy of a completed report sent to the countries Federation/Association and the manufacture. That is the only way to come up with data that tells us something. Posting it on dz.com or other web forums is great for stirring up the shit but doesn’t help come to any useful conclusions.

http://www.vigil.aero/live-saving-report

http://www.cypres-usa.com/activ_re.pdf

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[piisfish 135]

as a Cypres fan and Cypres saved, I must say that not all what is reported is on the list... For example my save. Very well documented, with video etc etc...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Not directed at you personally Dave, I just thought this was a good piece of information, something I haven't been aware of until it popped up on another thread "Vigil fire"

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dcWbbA

How can ANYONE say that a partially trapped loop is "more serious" than these "incidents" and take action angainst one and not the other?

edit: to fix my non working clicky thingy

Hey Jerry,

I have read Troy’s write up and Airtec’s response. And I agree with you on their unwillingness to release information until they are forced into a corner. But I think all the AAD manufactures are like that. And skydivers that can’t find their ass with both hands and a flashlight make it worse.
That was why I was trying to back the guy up in that post you referred to. The majority of them wouldn’t know a misfire from a fart if it bit them in the ass. But they will get on line and swear what they heard in the bar is fact. That’s what I was trying to get through to that



I think if you check you will find that the same person wrote this article. In my opinion neither is based on fact and is the ravings of a nut.

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/c6UCg

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 2,396]

>From another thread, this is the link to the letter that was in Skydiving Magazine

That's not the one I was thinking of - it was a letter from Airtec discussing the risks of an inadvertent operation due to high performance landings. It was a long time ago; I can't find it now. It was discussed here previously tho,

[skydiverek 54]

Quote

That's not the one I was thinking of - it was a letter from Airtec discussing the risks of an inadvertent operation due to high performance landings. It was a long time ago; I can't find it now. It was discussed here previously tho,

Is this the one?:

Original test jumps:
http://swoop.skydiveworld.com/c_article/by_the_numbers_1.htm

Airtec response in Skydiving Magazine:
http://www.cypres-usa.com/october_2003_skydiving_letter.pdf

Never published response by the initial test jumper:
http://swoop.skydiveworld.com/c_article/response_to_airtec.htm

[billvon 2,396]

No, those aren't it. That's in response to a specific test; the Skydiving article was more general comments from Airtec on the possibility of a firing under a HP canopy. I'll try to look for the article this weekend.

[ORGASMO 0]

and ANOTHER good reason not to mandate use of AAD's, that also underlines the un-level playing field and sketchiness in the AAD market. How many "incidents" are needed before common sense prevails. Argus' problems are starting to pale in comparison to Vigil's. That makes 3 "mis-fires" (quick count) this month alone! Wondering if I should hold my breath waiting for a response/reaction from the PIA, or if Vigil's "auto response" of "unit worked as designed, nothing wrong here" will satisfy everyone AGAIN. Can't wait to read all the responses of people trying to defend them now!

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4121579;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

and ANOTHER good reason not to mandate use of AAD's, that also underlines the un-level playing field and sketchiness in the AAD market. How many "incidents" are needed before common sense prevails. Argus' problems are starting to pale in comparison to Vigil's. That makes 3 "mis-fires" (quick count) this month alone! Wondering if I should hold my breath waiting for a response/reaction from the PIA, or if Vigil's "auto response" of "unit worked as designed, nothing wrong here" will satisfy everyone AGAIN. Can't wait to read all the responses of people trying to defend them now!

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4121579;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Quote

I don't know the exact date, but about a week ago there was a Vigil misfire in Breitscheid, Germany. What the jumper says:

The thread starts out with this. That a little thin to call it conclusive. It seems you are just trying to stir shit up. Do you have anything that is documented?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Farther up thread you posted this a proof that Vigil was out of control.

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dcWbbA

I posted this and told you they were written by the same person.

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/c6UCg

That person was Karel Goorts, Managing Director of Aviacom SA. Any response?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ORGASMO 0]

"Farther up thread you posted this a proof that Vigil was out of control"

I did? I see the post you are referring to, however I see no such wording. My entire post follows:

"Not directed at you personally Dave, I just thought this was a good piece of information, something I haven't been aware of until it popped up on another thread "Vigil fire"

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dcWbbA

How can ANYONE say that a partially trapped loop is "more serious" than these "incidents" and take action angainst one and not the other?

edit: to fix my non working clicky thingy"

I still don't see where I said anything about proof or out of control. Constructive discussion should exclude exaggeration and mis quoting. Witnessing your recall skills/comprehension skills I now understand your refusal to believe anything you do not have first hand knowledge of or that someone else may have seen.

"
Farther up thread you posted this a proof that Vigil was out of control.

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dcWbbA

I posted this and told you they were written by the same person.

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/c6UCg

That person was Karel Goorts, Managing Director of Aviacom SA. Any response?"

So are you saying that the link I posted is showing a bogus plane crash due to a Vigil mis fire that never happened and was made up by Karl Goortz? Interesting...



"The thread starts out with this. That a little thin to call it conclusive. It seems you are just trying to stir shit up. Do you have anything that is documented?"


The rest of the opening post of the latest "suspected?" Vigil "mis-fire"

"I was starting my setup for a 270 frontriserturn at around 500 feet... When I was in the frontrisers my Vigil fired and the Reserve came out!!! The Main collapsed and when it opened again the main twisted around the reserve.... That was in around 350 feet!!!somehow it worked out that it came to an Biplane, with my reserve in the back and a twisted Main in the front, which always wanted to make it to an Downplane!!!

The unit was shipped in for inspection. No results yet."


Are you also trying to imply that the OP of the latest Vigil "mis-fire" thread is Karel Goortz? or was put up to making a bogus claim of a Vigil mis-fire by Karel Goortz? Or that the OP or the person who relayed this information as first hand knowledge is making the whole thing up? Just to try and take some heat off Aviacom?
Do you have any first hand knowledge of this? or maybe a link I can click on to see it in writing?

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Witnessing your recall skills/comprehension skills

I assure you there is nothing wrong with either my recall or my comprehension, and I resent the PA. But I do think you are having a problem understanding the difference between fact and fiction.

Quote

Please re-read my post, I never said they were "secret",.......But we are talking only about "incidents" not SB's, not all "incidents" are folowed by a SB........did? I see the post you are referring to, however I see no such wording.

Playing word games does not change the fact that you are huffing and puffing and don’t have any facts. But you haven’t let that get in your way.

Quote

So are you saying that the link I posted is showing a bogus plane crash due to a Vigil mis fire that never happened and was made up by Karl Goortz? Interesting...

Did you even read the report you are referring to? If you did than your reading comprehension should be in question. Let me say this real slow so that you will understand. Nowhere in that report (FAA report) is there any mention of an AAD misfiring. All you will see is portions of the report highlighted by Mr. Goortz that are misleading and do nothing to support his contention that a Vigil brought down that plane. The rest of his report is full of innuendo and outright lies.
If you take the time to read his paper on AirTec you will find more of the same. He claims that Cypres is responsible for 34 fatalities, 8 or which were proven suicides’.

Quote

I now understand your refusal to believe anything you do not have first hand knowledge of or that someone else may have seen.

I seriously doubt you understand anything. As a rigger dealing with gear problems I tend to give little credence to accounts that are hear say, my buddy told me, this happened at my second cousins dz about a year ago. Reports that are documented by a knowledgeable, disinterested third party who has no emotional or financial connection to the incident carry a lot more weight.
So far you have lead me to believe you are just another uninformed jumper who basis his opinion on a quick Google search of the topic. You have to understand what you read before making conclusions.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Nelyubin 0]

Guys, I share opinion ORGASMO.
Why I have the right to possession of the weapon but I have no right to jump without AAD?

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Why I have the right to possession of the weapon but I have no right to jump without AAD?

local rules... here I have the right to have a weapon, but also the right to jump with or without an AAD.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Had Argus responded to these incidents with a cutter that would not malfunction in the same way, I have a strong feeling this whole issue could have been avoided. Hopefully they will take such action.

Bill, you & I agree on that front. Not sure how many Argus units are out there, but if they had simply responded to the latest issue with "We don't believe our unit to be defective, but in the interest of improvement, we're taking steps to engineer a new cutter. Look for it in X amount of time," at least the damage would have been minimized. I originally thought that AAD had the worst public relations advisors on the planet, but I was mistaken.

That being said, it still seems a little fishy the way the whole thing went down. The Argus had been banned before they were given it to inspect. I also keep hearing that the rig had been pencil-packed, which suggests a conflict of interest on the rigger's part in the investigation of the matter. (Hearsay, admittedly, but deserves an investigation to be sure). And when Aviacom did receive it, they discovered the issue resulted not from an ineffective cutter, but from a foreign object in the cutter, which led to the malfunction.

Now, I'd argue that Argus should at least find some way to close up their cutter to prevent any sort of object from getting into it. And hell, for the sake of PR, they should just find another type of cutter to work with. But banning before any of this information was released to the public OR Argus seems suspect, particularly in light of the allegations that mis-rigging may have played a part.


Personally, I won't go back to Argus even if they fix it, given the way they've addressed this matter.

I won't go with Vigil because of the way they've handled all issues (by saying "the unit functioned as designed, within firing parameters"), which convinces me that their firing parameters are unsafe. I'm more concerned with an AAD working when I don't want it to than I am with an AAD not working when I want it to.

And I'm reluctant to go with Cypres, because in this day and age, I'm still not convinced that even the Speed Cypres' firing parameters can't be met, given the right conditions. Jumping at 5300' field elevation on a hot day, parachutes can get pretty darn fast. And while I don't jump a pocket rocket at this point in time, I'd hate to be the one that disproves their assertion sometime over the next 12 years. We all know what happened to the last person who did that.

Signatures are the new black.

[mark 102]

Quote

The decision by some manufacturers to disallow Argus AADs in their rigs came after the San Marcos incident, but that incident was just the most recent in a series of similar incidents. Jeff Johnston's analysis (http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OtherDocuments/ArgusIncidentAnalysisRev1.pdf) is, I think, representative of how those manufacturers regard Aviacom's explanations of those previous incidents -- as essentially implausible. Their decision was not based on a single incident, but on the series of incidents and Aviacom's response to them.

We can argue about whether their actions should have waited for a more complete investigation of the San Marcos unit by Aviacom, but the fact is that to date Aviacom has not published any further findings since that initial one where they showed the steel ball. We still have not seen any close-up photos of the ball, and the photos we do have do not show the sort of scarring or deformation one would expect if it had interfered with the cutter action. Nor has Aviacom shown their ability to reproduce a steel ball-induced malfunction. The longer Aviacom delays, the more it appears that the steel ball is just a side issue, and the more it appears that there really is a problem with the cutter.

The issue of pencil packing has been covered in Kirk Smith's investigation (http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/IncidentReports/Texas/SanMarcosPreliminary.pdf). Mr. Smith found evidence of sloppy record keeping, but the best evidence was that the rig was in date. Also in Mr. Smith's investigation, there is no evidence of mis-rigging.

Mark

• Quote

[mjosparky 3]

You are very good at taking things out of context and adding a snide remark that is meant to belittle the poster you respond to. Some of your responses read like a snotty kid in high school.

Quote

another personal choice I am able to make all on my own)

we should be allowed to make our own informed decision about which way we wanna roll the dice.

I should be able to make the decision, wheather you or anyone else disagrees with that decision.

It should be a personal choice to AAD or not to AAD!!

and ANOTHER good reason not to mandate use of AAD's,

It appears that the main thrust of your rants is to draw attention to what you perceive should be your right to make a personal choice. I can only speak for how it goes in the US because I am not familiar with rules/laws in other parts of the world.
First of all you have no inherent right to skydive. Through the efforts and financial investment of others you are given the opportunity to jump. The DZO’s alone have the right to decide how they will deal with risk management. The same holds true of the equipment manufactures. It is their right to determine what if anything is compatible with their rigs. As a jumper the only thing you bring to the table is the potential for added liability. When you walk on to a DZ the only rights you have are the ones the DZO is willing to grant you. You can stomp your feet and hold your breath but you will find you can’t always have what you want.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Frankyspanky 0]

Quote

Personally, I won't go back to Argus even if they fix it, given the way they've addressed this matter.

Personally, I won't go back to Argus even if they fix it, given the way they've addressed this matter.


And I'm reluctant to go with Cypres, because in this day and age, I'm still not convinced that even the Speed Cypres' firing parameters can't be met, given the right conditions.

How has everybody forgotten already that a Cypres fired when it shouldn't have? The unit failed to record the data and Airtec have no explanation for this.

This has happened since the Argus issue. Why has everybody simply ignored this horrifying reality?

Reluctance to accept that they are jumping with a potentially faulty unit? It is all good to criticise when it is a unit that you are not using (eg. Argus)

Argus is banned, should it be? Who knows? For now they are (for the most part) banned and we simply have to wait to see what happens with them. In the meantime both AAD and Airtec have very serious issues that are not being addressed. The letter from the PIA to the manufacturers should include the scope of these more recent incidents and the manufacturers should assess the airworthiness of all AAD's as cutting a loop when it is not wanted poses much more risk to the skydiving community than locking a rig closed only a couple of seconds before impact.


I seriously hope we do not see multiple fatalities from a Vigil or Cypres, it may be a case of when, not if; if the current attitude is upheld.

Let’s hope the new Mars units don't have these issues.

Maybe the testing programs of these units should be transparent and published to allow us to make more informed decisions, especially if we are forced to use an AAD if we decide to skydive.

Vigils are firing off like party poppers on new years eve, and Airtec have a unit that failed to work within it's parameters, failed to record any data (or so they tell us) and everybody is cool with the function of Cypres?

I agree, what the hell is going on with AAD’s, it seems it is more about money than safety these days.

Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces.
Ron Paul

[ORGASMO 0]

"As a jumper the only thing you bring to the table is the potential for added liability"

No sir, that is not true.I (jumpers collectively) bring the $$$ needed to keep the plane flying and put some money in the DZO's pocket, if there are no jumpers there are no drop zones, business 101 tells you that a business is responsible to their customers, NOT the other way around. Although I have met a few DZO's who wish to see it from your point of view. At the end of the day a DZ only exists because of jumpers. So if we ALL stomp our feet and hold our breath collectively (which will never happen) our wishes would be heard! Or we could all just carry on being sheep and have others make decisions for us that we may not like.
I will not be a sheep and tow the "politically correct" line if I feel it is not in my best interest.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[Trae 1]

in reply to "Why I have the right to possession of the weapon but I have no right to jump without AAD?"
..........................


By implementing mandatory AAD use THEY are trying to cover up for their poor training and operational methods .
Its all $$$$$ to them.

They want the money from lots of jumpers but don't understand how to keep our sport safer with good training and ongoing education.

Instead they just ban and mandate and try to speed up the money gathering.

Brilliant idea!, Quick fix ..make them wear AAD's , that's an extra $1500-$2000 per sucker.....oh and keep the little kiddies all feared up about going unconscious in freefall.

That's why you got no right. Its as if everyone has been brainwashed into AAD use.

Thankfully some places still give us the choice.
At the other places AAD instant skydivers are dominating the sky, they're dangerous and they don't know it.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

if there are no jumpers there are no drop zones, business 101 tells you that a business is responsible to their customers

And business 101 also teaches which customers to cater to. Tandems make them money you are only good to fill slots between tandems.

And if you aren't a sheep how come you continue to jump in a situation you find intolerable? Baaaaa Baaaaa

Naïve: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ORGASMO 0]

"And if you aren't a sheep how come you continue to jump in a situation you find intolerable? Baaaaa Baaaa"

This as at least the third time in this thread you have either grossly misquoted me or attributed statements to me that are not mine. Can you please show me where I said "I am jumping in a situation I find intolerable"?

Your posts/opinion may carry more weight or be viewed with a greater regard if you did not resort to misquoting or trying to put words in other peoples' mouth to try and make your point. You seem to have tons of experience and knowledge and I am glad you are taking the time to share your opinions,thoughts and information with us on this topic, however misrepresenting what others are saying and refusing to believe anything your fellow skydivers post unless backed up by a "link", "report" or "written statement" only lessens your credibility.
A quote from one of your fellow riggers in response to you in the "Cypres2 fire on ground" thread is very well put, Koppel writes to you:
"Sparky, you have often asked people to provide information on events that are purported to have occurred. You ask in this case for the report from the manufacturer."...........
While I recognise that you are trying to prevent hearsay and rumour from being spread as fact you also need to acknowledge that not every event that occurs ends up with a public report that we can create a link to for all to read and say to ourselves 'see, there it is written from the factory so it must be true'

Whilst my own personal experience as a rigger is many years less than your own I have seen with my own eyes enough events occur that have never made it to the general public even though it has been reported to the relevant persons/factories/federations."

You are coming across as calling your fellow skydivers at worst liars, and at best unreliable sources of pertinent information. Not a very useful tool for debate.

I for one will no longer waste my time replying to someone who has so little regard for their peers. As you have stated before the only opinions that matter are those of the rigging community, so I will wait for the rigging community to come to "agreement" on this topic and accept it, as I am not qualified to even have an opinion.

Edit: to underline the sarcasm of my last sentence

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[billvon 2,396]

>and ANOTHER good reason not to mandate use of AAD's . . .

I think AAD's _should_ be mandated up to a certain point. Pretty much all DZ's require them for students, some require them up to a certain license. After that, I agree, you should be able to choose on your own - but I also understand why a DZO might not want to see another avoidable fatality at his DZ.

>How many "incidents" are needed before common sense prevails.

I think if you had been around before Cypreses you'd see the difference. Back then no-pulls were killing a lot of jumpers, and the AAD's were so unreliable that people couldn't wait to get off student status so they could disconnect them.

Nowadays they are many orders of magnitude more reliable. Since so many people use them, even a tiny percentage of failure results in a seemingly large number of misfires. However, they save FAR more people than they put at risk.

If AAD's really bother you, jump at a place that does not require them. Or get one and don't turn it on. Or get your rigger's ticket and do whatever you please. Your choice.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

as a Cypres fan and Cypres saved, I must say that not all what is reported is on the list... For example my save. Very well documented, with video etc etc...

..................................................................

Why not?

Your simplest response would be to post your Accident, Incident or Malfunction report on-line.

There, I just challenged you to publish your "documentation!"

[ORGASMO 0]

"I think AAD's _should_ be mandated up to a certain point. Pretty much all DZ's require them for students, some require them up to a certain license. After that, I agree, you should be able to choose on your own - but I also understand why a DZO might not want to see another avoidable fatality at his DZ."

Yes, just in case you missed it, I did state that I do agree with mandated use for tandems and students.We are on the same page.

"If AAD's really bother you, jump at a place that does not require them. Or get one and don't turn it on. Or get your rigger's ticket and do whatever you please. Your choice."

Good advice. I do/will be doing the first two suggestions you made, but have no interest in obtaining a rigger's ticket (yet). Are riggers exempt from mandated AAD use at DZ's or countries where AAD use is mandated?
Thank you for your constructive input.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Are riggers exempt from mandated AAD use at DZ's or countries where AAD use is mandated?

No, but a rigger can put in an expired unit (cheap) if they are so inclined. If nobody at a DZ actually tries to operate it, or confirm it is actually on, they could just put in the control pad with a bit of the cable still attached. If nobody at a DZ visually confirms it is there, you could just say it is there on the packing card.

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