0
Gravit8

Were you financially impacted by the Argus Ban?

Recommended Posts

I agree with you that everyone was quicker to react that Aviacom, but I'm certain there was reasoning behind that. They had to determine if it really was related to their unit, that there was nothing else in play, they had to recieve the unit etc. Plus, I think we all have reason to believe that there was a witch hunt as Argus indicated. People who don't believe this should chat with members of PIA... Also, each incident involving the Argus had some "weird" circumstances surrounding it, including a ball bearing inside the cutter. Regardless whether that caused the failure, or attributed to it, or had no impact, it was still not operating "normally". If you review each of the incidents, you'll see that each one had a easily identifiable oddity surrounding the activation.

Let's change the example from Aviacom to Toyota (who recently went through a recall). A whole bunch of people dies because of Toyota's that were having brake failures (also known as life saving devices). Toyota had to take time to verify that there was actually a problem with their equipment and that it wasn't garages that installed them incorrectly. This sounds AWFULLY identical to how Aviacom handled the situation with their "terrible" customer service. Aviacom had done many tests and had not found a way to replicate these incidents, but chose to complete a "recall" anyways, until further information could be gathered.

You'd never see a car company recall a car after one person dies. They want cold, hard, proof that their hardware caused that death. Toyota took something like 2 years to recognize it as a hardware problem (I don't recall specifically the time, but it wasn't as quick as we were privy to with Aviacom).


Seeing it from another angle (aside from your pocketbook) sheds a little positivity to the situation, no?


Here's some interesting info:

On February 8, 2011, the NHTSA, in collaboration with NASA, released its findings into the investigation on the Toyota drive-by-wire throttle system. After a 10 month search, NASA and NHTSA scientists found no electronic defect in Toyota vehicles.[28] Driver error or pedal misapplication was found responsible for most of the incidents.[29] The report ended stating, "Our conclusion is Toyota's problems were mechanical, not electrical." This included sticking accelerator pedals, and pedals caught under floor mats.

This is exactly why companies are hesitant to do a recall that will cost them millions of dollars....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehicle_recalls
"When once you have tasted flight..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The email I got from Karel from argus a couple days after they were banned in australia was anything but helpful.
He immediatly stated that there was nothing wrong with the unit and that it was all politics blah, blah blah...

A more appropriate response would have been something like, "we are away of a reported incident and are awaiting further information"

there have been independent tests done where the incident has been recreated.

I stand by my statement that their customer service, or the way they handled this situation was shit!

While everyone was trying to find real technical information about the possible issues with the unit all argus did was place blame on others.
Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer: Damage control

If you can provide evidence of any company that has ever admitted that their product was at fault before concrete evidence indicated that...it would be a miracle.

Fact is, they can't admit it was at fault because that could open them up to lawsuits. They had every reason to believe (based on their testing) that their product was flawless.

I recommend re-reading the part above about Toyota. 2 years ago people believed it was Toyota's fault, Toyota denies it (see: Damage control), Toyota decides that it may be their vehicles, then after no problems are found by Toyota and NASA, it's deemed user error. Can you state to me that without a doubt, each of these 4 incidents involving the Argus were CAUSED by the Argus? You can't, because even at this point, I suspect that Aviacom can't confirm 100% that the incidents were caused by their device. As far as blaming it on politics...do you know for certain that it wasn't politics?

Yeah, it sucks you lost money, but that's a very narrow minded view. Put yourself in Aviacom's shoes. Here are you choices to choose from as head CEO:

1) Admit fault without knowing for sure it was and as a result, go bankrupt & be open to lawsuits.

2) Don't admit fault unless/until it can be proven that the device "caused" the incidents/fatality.

Good luck...
"When once you have tasted flight..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

there have been independent tests done where the incident has been recreated.



Someone actually got a cutter to fail in a test? I must have missed that - do you have a link?
"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Plus, I think we all have reason to believe that there was a witch hunt as Argus indicated.



This discussion is not about Toyota it is about the Argus AAD.

If you can continue to defend Aviacom after reading the third party reports and the accusatory crap post by representatives of Aviacom then you are in denial. If you believe every major harness/container manufacture, the British Parachute Association, the Australian Parachute Federation, the New Zealand Parachute Industry Association, the Dutch Parachute Association and the International Parachute Association/FAI entered into a conspiracy with PIA to do evil deeds to Aviacom you are living in La La land.

Aviacom has had problems since 2006 and in each case they would point the finger at someone else. As a result they have lost all credibility in the industry.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called association, Toyota is an example that shows exactly how the "process" works. I'm associating Toyota to Aviacom to help the OP understand that it's not cut and dry and Aviacom shouldn't (note I didn't say "doesn't") give a crap how much YOU lost on your Argus or what was "said" to have happpened in the field. They need cold hard facts before they even begin to announce a recall or "ban" as we skydivers call it.

I'm not saying that the device didn't "cause" a fatality, but that's not for me to decide. All I'm trying to point out is that Aviacom couldn't recall the device globally until they had all the info. So, they brush aside some of the flak, until they can determine what the issue is. For all they knew, the device WAS working fine. Each event had some "interesting" circumstances surrounding it. Lead shot FFS? Not receiving one of the devices, student gear with a loose loop? If I had a company and knew that each incident had a fishy circumstance surrounding it, I'd want to know what the hell happened before I took action too.

I'm not at all saying this is a "conspiracy", but I sure am saying that after the APF and PIA took their stance, the manufacturers and other federations jumped ship too, I'm assuming to protect themselves from being named in lawsuits etc.

Quote

Aviacom has had problems since 2006 and in each case they would point the finger at someone else. As a result they have lost all credibility in the industry.



Please, tell me what happened to Airtec in it's beginning, and AAD in it's? As for pointing a finger at someone else, did you read about Toyota? something like 8 million cars recalled, only to find out that it WAS user error? So, do you believe Toyota is still wrong for not recalling after the first incident? I say Toyota never should have recalled anything, and I'm sure if they were 100% confident that their equipment wasn't at fault, they surely wouldn't have!


And clearly you know all the facts, and know for certain that Aviacom is completely guilty, and that they're a shady company, so, I guess nothing I say will be rationalized by you.
"When once you have tasted flight..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the Dutch Parachute Association



In the case of the KNVvL, rest assured that personal beef with Aviacom is a BIG factor. (A number of rules were invented specifically for Argus at introduction and have only been applied to Aviacom, not to any other AAD before and after).

At least from a Dutch perspective Aviacoms response, althoudh not helpfull is very natural, since they (at least in The Netherlands, and some other European countries) have been fighting "personal vendatas en politics".
The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an unsatisfactory response froma company that wants my money. This is why they arent getting it again.

quoted form an email from Aviacom.

Quote

We believe that the decision to remove the Argus from service was taken well before the PIA Symposium. It was just waiting for the 'right' timing to zoom in for the kill. We sincerely believe this is a witch hunt.

At this time Skydive San Marcos still refuses to release the affected unit. Therefore, we can not investigate this incident and we cannot defend us. We asked the FAA to help us in this matter and that process begins on Monday, March 28, 2011.

Aviacom has provided the PIA with all the cutter-testing results. But they have refused to accept our testing results.

There is not one valid reason the ground the Argus at this time, but there are three million (3,000,000.00 USD) reasons of an instant replacement market that has been created on behalf of PIA members. And we are not a member.

This is about politics and not about safety.



I'm not pissed off that I lost money or had my rig temporarily grounded while I got another AAD. I am pissed off with they way they handled the situation.


If they really had confidence that their product would work they easily could have have sent a bunch of cutter to random riggers and said here ya go. make them fail.
I know a few riggers who would have a great time doing this.
Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If they really had confidence that their product would work they easily could have have sent a bunch of cutter to random riggers and said here ya go. make them fail.



I know they offered several rigger exactly that option.
The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

dude, the manufacturers banned the use of the argus after they recieved reports that this AAD may have fired locking a reserve container closed.



They banned the units under pressure from the PIA.

The suspected unit was not inspected before the ban took place and heated discussion endured.
At least one member of DZ.com was permanently banned from these forums for discussing the subject openly.

This member was warned to not speak about the subject via PM from the moderators; he asked what rule was being broken... no answer...

He continued to discuss the subject and was warned again.

He then asked (again) what rule had been broken to avoid doing it again, again no answer from the moderators.

A further comment was made and the next day he was completely banned from any discussion from this website.

He asked why he was banned via email.... nothing.

The way this situation has been treated is absurd, and yes, heads should roll.

If a company is found by a court of law to have purposefully damaged the reputation of another for financial gain while causing the financial loss of many individuals in the sport, then they should be sued.

You break the rules, you pay.

The PIA has some serious explaining to do.

Meanwhile Cypres' and vigil's Pop'n off at will is perfectly OK?
What a rort... what causes more danger to the industry, a unit firing out of its parameters and placing an entire planeload at risk, or the off chance that a container might lock closed on someone that is already essentially dead.

Wishing to ignore the situation to avoid any damage to the industry is a feeble and weak excuse.

Only a dickhead would turn a blind eye to corruption…

And this is pure corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

. . . if it's learned this situation was indeed caused (or contributed to) by profit motives.



That may still turn out to be the case, just not in the way you think.

Mark


Profit is always the motive just not in the way most think. It is profitable to for businesses to contribute large sums to non-profit organizations because it advertises that the business cares about people. It is also profitable to have people trust in your product and hiding issues does not help people to trust your product when they find out. Its called freedom and capitalism and it really does work and make the world a better place. (and for those that don't know we do not live in a free capitalist society, thats why my dog has better healthcare than I do!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They banned the units under pressure from the PIA.



Nonsense.

Some 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?



That's why this conspiracy talk is nonsense. The number of businesses and organizations involved is significant and international. Many of them had nothing to gain from the ban, and most of the manufacturers had customers to lose if it came to light that they were involved in such a conspiracy.

Beyond that, I'm not even sure that Argus had such a market share or even potential growth that they were a threat to the rest of the industry. Even if they were, the ban itself in no way guarantees any sort of additional business for others in the industry.

Some of those effected will just not jump until the ban is resolved. Some will just jump without an AAD. Some will buy a second hand AAD to replace their Argus. None of the above does one lick of good for the AAD industry.

Even if I conceed that additional sales may have been realized, how many do you think it was? Enough to warrant a multi-national, industry wide conspiracy?

My final point, anyone who has crossed paths with the likes of Bill Booth, John Sherman, Ted Strong, or any long time industry figure-head can attest that the one thing they all have in common is that none of them are about to roll over for anyone. If you tell them to do anything, you better have a strong case with solid documentation, or you'll be shown the door in short order. These are not the types to be easily influenced in any respect, and when it comes to their rigs and their businesses, even more so.

Do we know for sure that they Argus has a problem with cutters not cutting loops and possibly locking rigs shut? Maybe not, but enough 'odd' things have happened that closely match that description, and that's just not acceptable in skydiving. Once or twice, maybe, but beyond that you have to stop looking around for outside factors take a closer look at the one thing all the incidents had in common, the Argus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

They banned the units under pressure from the PIA.



Nonsense.

Some 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



Pressure is not necessarily so overt.

When the message from PIA came out, it puts a manufacturer is a tricky position. If they do nothing, and something happens in one of their rigs, it could look quite bad for them, because someone will say, "See the PIA bulletin? They told you so! Why did you ignore them?!?".

I liken it to yelling, "fire", in a crowded place - it can start a deadly stampede, fire or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Meanwhile Cypres' and vigil's Pop'n off at will is perfectly OK?

Nope. And indeed, if they did have a spate of cutter failures, and Airtec's response was "it's all a big conspiracy to try to destroy us to sell more Arguses! Corruption! Embezzlement! Argus and Vigil are criminals, and there's nothing wrong with our product!" then PIA might (with some justification) recommend that manufacturers not use them.

>or the off chance that a container might lock closed on someone that is
>already essentially dead.

If you think that's the only issue, then you don't even know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

there have been independent tests done where the incident has been recreated.



Someone actually got a cutter to fail in a test? I must have missed that - do you have a link?



page 19

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



I had indeed missed that - thanks for the link!
"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really, when I started this thread, I chose my words poorly not really considering the lawsuit angle so shame on me. I tried to remain above the namecalling and insulting situation in my responses and attempted to set things straight in my mistake but there was really no intelligent conversation so I just chalked it up to a poor presentation on my part and decided to never post again with the "you're a troll" culture here. I had not looked at anything until I logged on today and received several private messages from logical and intelligent people who didn't want to post in the forum and subject themselves to the attacks. When I saw the post about the CFR not existing, I just sighed and shook my head.

So let me say this - I apologize for the way my initial post was phrased. Sincerely! It diverted a conversation that should have happened differently.

To those of you who PM'd me, thanks for caring and it's unfortunate that you can't speak here without the "you're dumb, now die" attitudes that you would have to tolerate. Also, I appreciate the time you took to share smart information. Cheers!

To those of you who have brought some valuable discussion in the forum, your skin is thick and thanks for putting it out there. You made me glad I hopped back here to look.

I'm not Cypres-bashing. I'm pointing out how container manufacturers seem to react differently in situations. When Argus has a situation (shrouded in controversy) that results in a scary situation that COULD happen, they get banned - primarily because the container manufacturers don't like the Aviacom response. Cypres advertisements state that "Every cutter has cleanly cut the loop when commanded by a Cypres". Well, there are dead skydivers who burned in under a few of those rigs and nobody seems to be looking at the "as commanded" part of that statement. Essentially, they say that their equipment works exactly as it is supposed to but they don't get service bulletins regardless of fatalities. Does this seem like container manufacturers are consistent with their actions? Couple that with a potential for conflict of interest due to a manufacturer's stake in a competing AAD manufacturer and companies have put themselves into a position where they probably owe more discussion to the skydiving community to dispel the conjecture.

I am not accusing anyone of anything here - period. I have read the Aviacom letter that covered their web page until recently and have read numerous forum postings which imply that a specific container manufacturer may have manufactured this situation in order to drive revenue. My assumption is that this is false. Especially given that you can't buy a Vigil II anywhere due to manufacturing shortages that have existed since the Japan earthquake.
My point is that the container manufacturers have generally taken the position that they're unhappy with the Aviacom response. I am too. I'm also unhappy with container manufacturers who establish a ban on gear outside of the TSO approval without any scientific research or reasoning. That would be like saying "Yeah, Bob is dead but Airtec said his Cypres fired when it was supposed to, so cased closed".

-Different standards for different AADs.

I VERY MUCH respect the manufacturers who issued SBs instantly when a major situation occurred out of concern for the safety of their customers, investigated the situation, and made the call that there wasn't enough evidence to support the SB. To me, that demonstrates a lot more professional responsibility and academic maturity. Not saying that those still banning the Argus aren't doing their homework - nobody knows because they aren't saying anything short of "We don't like the Aviacom answer". That isn't a good enough answer either.

my opinions-
o It's smart for a container manufacturer to address potential safety problems.
o It's precarious for a container manufacturer to issue a SB that drives revenue on an AAD in which they have a financial interest.
o It's irresponsible for a container manufacturer to appear to apply a standard differently across different AAD vendors.

I hope that organizations that have issued SBs have done so in a responsible manner but in the same manner in which they have blamed Aviacom for not "saying enough", they should account for their stance on dead bodies that burned in under their gear under with an activated Cypres, Argus, Vigil, or any other brand.

If this is about safety, make it about safety. Of course that won't happen. Grounding all (or most) AADs means grounding all (or most) tandem and student rigs. That would make enough of a financial impact in the community (and mostly kill the sport) that DZOs would react harshly.

So here's my concern - If container manufacturers don't apply the rules uniformly and consistently, I believe that one of two things could happen-

1. They will be sued by the AAD manufacturer that gets the short straw. They will have no scientific argument and it will be shown that they did not issues a SB on Vigil or Cypres AADs after fatalities and will lose. Frankly, I feel Aviacom has good chances of recovering their losses now, pocketing some money, and walking away.
2. The FAA will realize that a container manufacturer can issue a SB in order to receive monetary gain and impose greater regulatory controls and consistency in reactions to adverse events (like grounding all Cypres AADs after a fatality with their AAD in the rig) and THEY will create the impact on commercial DZs.

Sorry for the long-winded rant. Also, again, I am sorry for the initial posting mukcking this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Not saying that those still banning the Argus aren't doing their homework -
>nobody knows because they aren't saying anything short of "We don't like
>the Aviacom answer".

They are saying far more than that. Here's what Sandy Reid is saying:

"With Rigging Innovations container designs, this failure mode may interfere with or prevent manual activation of the reserve parachute system. When the AAD cutter is located ABOVE the reserve pilot chute, as it is in Rigging Innovations harness and container systems, if the cutter fails to sever the loop, pulling the reserve ripcord may not be sufficient to fully open the reserve container and may result in a fatality.

Based upon a field report stating that a pilot chute came out unexpectedly on the ground, there is a second potentially serious safety issue in that a partially cut loop could cause an unwanted reserve deployment on a later jump. If such a deployment were to occur while floating, during exit, or while others were in freefall above the jumper experiencing the unexpected deployment, the consequences could be grave and could result in more than one jumper, or a plane load of jumpers, a pilot and even persons on the ground being seriously injured or killed.

In light of the seriousness of the aforementioned potential scenarios, Rigging Innovations is hereby withdrawing approval of the installation of Argus AADs in any and all of their harness and container systems."

That is far more than "we don't like their answer." That's a list of reasons why a failure similar to ones already seen could cause a fatality or multiple fatalities with a Rigging Innovations rig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a totally fair point. That RI statement came out March 21 and neither side has moved since. Sure, Aviacom needs to step up and address this. No argument there - You're right.

Do you feel that the other AAD manufacturers are getting the same standard of treatment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you feel that the other AAD manufacturers are getting the same standard of treatment?



Other AAD manufacturers explain the problems encountered with their units. Even in the case of the Vigil misfires, the response was, 'That's how they work, and they might fire in those situations'.

While that explantation doesn't solve the problem, it does identify the problem, and let's the user choose to jump that AAD or not.

Aviacom hasn't responded to anyone's satisfaction, which is why the ban is in place. Incident after indicent was blamed on outside factors, and like I mentioned eariler, that ploy only works once or twice at best. Sooner or later the only thing connecting the various incidents is the AAD itself. So when the AAD is a prime subject of the investigation, and other incidents (with other outlying circumstances) occur with the same AAD and the same (or very similar) failure, that's enough to put the burden of proof on the AAD manufacturer. Come up with some concrete evidence in each instance (or even most of them) that clears your unit, or the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that it is the AAD, and not the other factors they keep pointing to.

Airtec (Cypres) has also had it's problems, like the radio frequency interference issue from back in the mid-90s. Airtec identified the problem, and issued sleeves for the control units to shield them from the errant radio waves. It seemed to work as the unexplained firings went away, and then Airtec began installing internal shielding on the assembly line from that point forward.

AAD manufacturers are allowed to make mistakes. In that case, they need to address them, identify the error, and either offer a solution, or at the very minimum, inform the public of the nature of the problem so they can make an informed decision. What they can't do is yell 'conspiracy' and then disappear from the face of the earth.

Look, even if there is an industry wide-conspiracy against Aviacom, that wouldn't prevent them from investigating and indentifying the problem, and possibly issuing a solution. Conspiracy or not, they could do the work and clear their name. To date they have not, and their lack of communication only leads one to believe that they have not because they cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0