Gravit8 0 #51 July 7, 2011 It's clearly a complicated and emotionally-charged discussion and I respect your well-stated stance. There are numerous perspectives. I've only been skydiving 6 years and appreciate the perspective for those who were present through the early days of the modern AAD designs. So one last question - from a risk-management perspective, did RI just set a precedent with its response? Regardless of the Argus/Vigil "It worked the way it was supposed to" answer, there are still deaths that could probably be avoided by setting the unit to activate higher. Given the serious response RI made in the afore-mentioned SB, are they now obligated to make similar reactions in future risk scenarios? In reference to the Toyota discussion made earlier, there is a risk in overreacting. Once you set a precedent then do not follow your own example, you place yourself into another dangerous legal situation. Let's say that tomorrow a jumper in an RI rig burns in with an activated Vigil and there is no response. If it happens again the following week, is RI guilty of willful negligence due to its failure to follow its own precedent of issuing a SB on an AAD that results in an unsafe situation (death under a perfectly-functioning unit)? For other manufacturers that take the "the AAD's function is not the responsibility of the Container manufacturer" position, is their consistent application of a policy to their benefit? Admittedly, I haven't been around skydiving for a long time but I know quite a bit about business risk. Has anything like this happened in the past with gear and how did it shake out? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doi 0 #52 July 7, 2011 QuoteSome manufacturers withdrew their approval and have kept that position (for example, UPT, Sunpath, RI), some withdrew their approval and then decided Argus AADs would actually be okay (for example, Altico and Mirage), still others never withdrew their approval (for example, Wings). Some national organizations withdrew their approval (for example, Australia and New Zealand), other national organizations did not (for example, USPA). What exactly do you think PIA (or Airtec or AAD/Vigil or the Bilderbergers) threatened to do to manufacturers? Why did that pressure work with some organizations but not with others? Mark The PIA published a letter suggesting all manufacturers reconsider the approval of the units; this was before any investigation had been carried out. Once the investigation had been carried out it became evident that there was a foreign object in the cutter. The PIA put pressure on the industry before all information was known, that is pure incompetence and it left large gap in the market. Meanwhile Airtec lie in a safety bulletin, suggesting no injuries were sustained when their unit failed, there were multiple injuries and one tandem pair was lucky not to have been killed and that is perfectly OK? As long as they ignore the multiple emails from the injured then I suppose they were not injured at all? You can attack my standpoint all you like, but your outspoken opinion on the subject tells us you have some sort of interests to protect. I could care less about any of the AAD companies; maybe the Argus should be banned, maybe not. What is clear is that the industry has not used the correct procedure and retracting the ban is now essentially admitting fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #53 July 7, 2011 Quote Meanwhile Airtec lie in a safety bulletin, suggesting no injuries were sustained when their unit failed, there were multiple injuries and one tandem pair was lucky not to have been killed and that is perfectly OK? As long as they ignore the multiple emails from the injured then I suppose they were not injured at all? Do you really believe that? Airtec have stated that they were told nothing about any injuries when the incident was reported, and that no other info filtered its way up to them until it started being talked about this year. They do play their cards close to their chest. While I can't prove anything either way, I just don't see them lying in the bulletin about injuries when anyone could have blown the story in some online forum. QuoteThe PIA put pressure on the industry before all information was known That brings up one of the fundamental problems with managing safety. Do you speak up when something is suspected (but there's no guilty verdict yet), or do nothing while incidents happen and wait until there's clear proof? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #54 July 7, 2011 QuoteThe PIA put pressure on the industry before all information was known, that is pure incompetence and it left large gap in the market. What information was there to know? PIA made it's move after the 3rd or 4th instance of a problem with an Argus cutter. Did Aviacom explain the problem after the first, second or thrid occurance? No, they pointed the finger at other factors, none of which were conclusive, but people gave them the benefit of the doubt, and continued to use the AADs. How many instances of unexplained partially cut loops and locked containers do you need before you just put on the brakes and take another look at the problem? I give this advice to new jumpers when they get their own rig - if something goes wrong once, like a brake fire, shit happens. Inspect your toggles and brake setting, and double check them when you pack. If it happens again, it's a problem with the rig. Consult a rigger before jumping it again. If you apply that same thinking to the AAD situation, they're past the point of standing down to consult a rigger. They're on the 4th unexplained partially cut loop, and that means it's really time to stand down and figure out the problem before it happens again. At least one of the occurances (Poland, right?) involved a fatality, add that to the three others, and you have the PIA making the right move, and stopping the ride until we figure out what's wrong. Riggers, rig manufacturers and a good number of skydivers are smart, scientific people. All Aviacom has to do is present credible and convincing evidence as to the nature of the problem, the involvment of the AAD, and how to prevent it from happening again. If the AAD is not to blame, just point out what it. If the AAD is to blame, just solve that problem. Either course of action would satisfy the manufacturers and PIA. Meanwhile, Aviacom has done neither. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #55 July 7, 2011 Quote[Y]our outspoken opinion on the subject tells us you have some sort of interests to protect. I didn't realize that mocking conspiracy theorists constituted having outspoken opinions. Mea culpa. Although I actually do have interests to protect. I am a rigger. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #56 July 7, 2011 QuoteWhen I saw the post about the CFR not existing, I just sighed and shook my head. Would you happen to have a link to 14CFR165? When I quire the CFR data base ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/) I get the following. Sparky This is the search report for the search you ran on Jul 6 23:36:56 2011. It is a temporary file, and will expire about an hour after the search. ------------------------------------------- Searching /wais/indexes/cfr... Your query was: (14CFR165) The database contains 185,327,663 words in 258,377 documents. There are no fields in this database. 14cfr165 does not occur in the database. The search found 0 documents. It took less than a second. --------------------------------------------- The search was performed by a WAIS Inc server: WAIS Server 2.1.6. For more information on this product contact the database administrator.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #57 July 7, 2011 QuoteSo, a few modification to cutter design or installation (i.e. a modification to the housing to allow it to be tacked down to avoid rotation and shifting) would probably fix this. It's entirely possible. A new cutter would also solve the problem. Truth is, every instance where there has been a cutter problem has involved the AAD rightfully firing at (I assume) the correct altitude. Along those same lines, I don't recall the Argus has having a problem with mis-firing at all. So a revised cutter install to keep it properly alaigned, or even a new cutter, one of the two might just solve the whole thing. So wheres Aviacom with the info? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #58 July 7, 2011 One of the reasons ryms go banned is because he would not refrain from posting his position on AirTec on every thread, most of which were not about Airtec. Like this tread was started to discuss possible monetary loss due to the banning of Argus not your opinion of Cypres. If you have concerns about Cypres start a thread on it. Sparky Opps. Too late. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doi 0 #59 July 7, 2011 Quote: Quote Meanwhile Airtec lie in a safety bulletin, suggesting no injuries were sustained when their unit failed, there were multiple injuries and one tandem pair was lucky not to have been killed and that is perfectly OK? As long as they ignore the multiple emails from the injured then I suppose they were not injured at all? Do you really believe that? Airtec have stated that they were told nothing about any injuries when the incident was reported, and that no other info filtered its way up to them until it started being talked about this year. They do play their cards close to their chest. While I can't prove anything either way, I just don't see them lying in the bulletin about injuries when anyone could have blown the story in some online forum. I what I know for sure; There were injuries. I witnessed the bruising, massive bruising around the pelvic region and he also had a split anus. He had a 2 out from an unwarranted Cypres fire when he was already under a Tandem canopy somewhere between 1000 and 2000 feet. His canopy was open at normal altitude around 5000 feet. It wanted to down plane at the last minute. Where was any of that in the report? Mark 9and others) wants Aviacom to get the microscope out and repeat the malfunction before he is sure, though Airtec are allowed to assume and manipulate the report to their advantage. While I was not present, I know for sure it happened like that as I know the injured, many people witnessed it and it was widely discussed in Australia (Queensland). The incident report would have been published by the APF in the ASM magazine as is every major incident. And Airtec published in a global bulletin about the (2 separate) misfired Cypres2 unit incidents (in Australia around that point in time) falsely indicating that nobody was hurt. Andre had contacted them by email on more than one occasion and received no response from them. So they obviously did not do the right homework and in doing so lied to each and every one of us and also showed us they are incapable of being comprehensive in their approach to the situation, though this is expected from Aviacom to stay in business. If anyone wants to refute this, contact the APF and see what the incident report says. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravit8 0 #60 July 7, 2011 And this leads to the point I'm trying to make. If this ban is about safety as the manufacturers state, apply the same rules to Airtec. Given this situation, I think RI,UPT, Strong, and hte others with active SBs owe us answers. Did they investigate situation enough? If these situations regarding the Cypres are true, make the safety call and issue an SB on them until Airtec answers to these alogations like they're expecting Aviacom to. Manufacturers - if it's about safety, issue a SB and investigate this. So let's call one out based on previous comments in this thread - Can someone get Sandy at RI onto this forum to give an official answer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hcsvader 1 #61 July 7, 2011 Do you jump with an AAD? If so, What brand and why?Have you seen my pants? it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream >:) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #62 July 7, 2011 QuoteI think RI,UPT, Strong, and hte others with active SBs owe us answers. Where do you get the idea they owe you anything? Airtec did issue a SB in regards to the incident you refer to. They also followed up with an explanation of what prompted the SB and the actions they took. http://www.cypres-usa.com/CYPRES_Service_Bulletin_April_2008%20e1.pdf http://www.cypres-usa.com/April_2008_SB_letter_2011_03.pdf QuoteCan someone get Sandy at RI onto this forum to give an official answer? Sandy Reed already gave his "official answer. http://www.pia.com/piapubs/ServiceBulletins/SB-1548.pdf So let's call one out based on previous comments in this thread Quote Who would you like to “call out”? All the information you are looking for is available all you have to do is look it up. It is evident that you have not done your homework on this issue and throwing a bitch on the net without knowing the facts is a waste of time. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doi 0 #63 July 7, 2011 Quote http://www.cypres-usa.com/...B_letter_2011_03.pdf Quote"it was reported to us that no one was injured" Did they bother to read the incdent report, you know the piece of paper the DZSO must fill out after all incidents. No mention of the 2 out, or the fact that the pair was under canopy when the unit fired. Did I mention the incident report...? All sounds like half baked damage control to me. Where are the facts.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #64 July 7, 2011 Quote Quote http://www.cypres-usa.com/...B_letter_2011_03.pdf Quote "it was reported to us that no one was injured" Did they bother to read the incdent report, you know the piece of paper the DZSO must fill out after all incidents. No mention of the 2 out, or the fact that the pair was under canopy when the unit fired. Did I mention the incident report...? All sounds like half baked damage control to me. Where are the facts.... Rhys, get out of that body scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #65 July 7, 2011 Quote Did they bother to read the incdent report, you know the piece of paper the DZSO must fill out after all incidents. How would an Australian incident report ever end up on the desk of Helmut Cloth? If you can find any posts about the incident at the time on the APF forum, I'm honestly interested in seeing it. (Couldn't find any myself.) Or if you can find a copy of anything printed in the APF magazine, that would be great for some official confirmation. (I'm not disputing that the injury happened.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 1 #66 July 7, 2011 I don't recall seeing this before, so I'll mention it here. It seems the solution to the AAD cutter problem is to ban cylindrical cutters. Presumably this directive would come from H/C mfgrs who would (and could) allow only guillotine-style cutters to be installed in their rigs. I'd write further but I spilled coffee on my keyboard and I have to use ALT characters to type - too damned difficult to go on for now."Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #67 July 7, 2011 QuoteIt seems the solution to the AAD cutter problem is to ban cylindrical cutters. Except that Vigils have been using cylindrical cutters without the problems alledgedly associated with Argus cutters. Also, the MarS M2 has a cylindrical cutter. It doesn't seem fair to make them (or their current and future customers) pay for another manufacturer's problems. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #68 July 7, 2011 QuoteDid they bother to read the incdent report, you know the piece of paper the DZSO must fill out after all incidents. Have you read the incident report that was filled out by the DZO? Do you know for a fact it was sent to Airtec? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #69 July 7, 2011 We are still waiting for you to explain what 14CFR165 is. You do know don’t you? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doi 0 #70 July 7, 2011 QuoteHow would an Australian incident report ever end up on the desk of Helmut Cloth? QuoteHave you read the incident report that was filled out by the DZO? Do you know for a fact it was sent to Airtec? Sparky If Airtec investigated the incident, they would have (should have) requested the incident report. this has to be signed by the person that was involved in the incident (if possible), it then is processed and published so EVERYBODY can learn about it. getting your information from the company management has provrn to be unreliable, try answering the email (s) of the injured party instead Helmut!!! At the very minimum they should have mentioned the fact there was a 2 out that was unexpected, and they should have also not lied about there not being injuries... If they want to make such claims they need to do some research. Just like Aviacom are expected to do. I don't have to track down the report to know this; I am a friend of the person that was injured and witnessed the injuries with my own eyes. That is why I am pissed with Airtec... others are also aware but do not want to post here because outspoken people that pretend to know everything will discredit them… they are correct. Some of them simply do not read these forums because of the type of conduct from the most outspoken members (dorkzone.com etc etc.) It is you lot that try to discredit my (our) knowledge to protect Airtec that need to do the research. I have given you the information. So use it. I will no longer post in this thread about the Cypres activation as there is a more appropriate thread now. But you can bet you bottom dollar that Airtec was (positively) financially impacted by the Argus ban. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #71 July 8, 2011 QuoteIt is you lot that try to discredit my (our) knowledge to protect Airtec that need to do the research. I have given you the information. So use it. As I have said before, I don’t have a stake in this. I don’t own an AAD or have any financial interest in any of them. It is not up to me to try and discredit your knowledge on this issue; you have done a fine job of that on your own. An internet rank is not considered information. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #72 July 8, 2011 QuoteBut you can bet you bottom dollar that Airtec was (positively) financially impacted by the Argus ban.my bet is AAD (Vigil) wa "more positively" impacted than Airtecscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
