Is an AAD misfire interfering with normal operations of a rig

[hcsvader 1]

One of the reasons for the rigs banning the use of Argus is because it could possibly interfere with normal reserve operations.

Would you consider a misfire to be interfering with normal operations?

I want my reserve to stay closed until I deploy it or my AAD deploys it at the appropriate altitude and decent rate.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[doi 0]

Quote

Would you consider a misfire to be interfering with normal operations?

Yes.

Plain and simple, not many here can quite grasp that suggestion though it seems eh...

[hcsvader 1]

Quote

Quote

Would you consider a misfire to be interfering with normal operations?

Yes.

Plain and simple, not many here can quite grasp that suggestion though it seems eh...

So do you think that AAD's that have a history of misfiring should be grounded because they interfer with normal operations?

I want to specify that by misfire I mean firing at an altitude other than the pre determined altitude.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[doi 0]

Quote

So do you think that AAD's that have a history of misfiring should be grounded because they interfer with normal operations?

No I believe all AAD companies should be treated evenly.

So if one AAD company is grounded based on the unit not acting as it should (say 3-4 times) and compromising the airworthiness of the system, then all AAD companies should be treated the same.

Or none of them should be grounded and we can make our own decisions for ourselves... how does that sound?

If an AAD company lies in a safety bulletin, then they should also be held accountable for that... though they are separate issues.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

So do you think that AAD's that have a history of misfiring should be grounded because they interfer with normal operations?

That would be all AAD's currently on the market, wouldn't it?

[captain_stan 0]

Quote

Quote

So do you think that AAD's that have a history of misfiring should be grounded because they interfer with normal operations?

That would be all AAD's currently on the market, wouldn't it?

Yes, but Argus has distinguised itself by creating the probability of locking the reserve flaps closed with a cutter that has become siezed onto the loop. Does anyone not see this as being an even bigger problem than a premature activation?

(edit for DZ.com software glitch)

[mjosparky 3]

doi and hcsvader

Why don't you two get a room. At least until you know what you are talking about.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Would you consider a misfire to be interfering with normal operations?

I want my reserve to stay closed until I deploy it or my AAD deploys it at the appropriate altitude and decent rate.

We all want that.

A misfire interferes with your operation of the rig, not the operation of the rig. The rig itself is still able to operate and achieve it's function of deploying a canopy.

A rig that has the reserve container locked shut interferes with both your ability to operate the rig, and rigs ability to operate at all.

There's a huge difference between the two. The one unwanted action, the misfire, results in a reserve deployment. Now it might not happen when you want it to, but it will happen.

The other unwated action, locking the reserve shut, results in you going in. If my choices are a 'surprise' reserve deployment or just going in, I'll take my chances with the surprise reserve deployment.

Another thing to remember, when making the comparison between the Argus ban, and the treatment of other AAD manufacturers, is that the other manufacturers have historicaly taken responsibility for confirmed 'problems' with the product.

Vigil responded to it's misfires by saying that the AADs worked as designed. If you don't like it, don't jump a Vigil, but at least you know the deal beforehand.

I referenced this before, when Cypres had the misfire problems due to radio waves, they investigated, issued a fix, and updated the design to eliminate the problem in future units.

In both cases, the manufacturers response was timely, and good enough to satisfy the community at large. If Aviacom could have met that standard after the second or thrid incident, this ban might have never happened,

In reference to the one incident that everyone seems to be hanging their 'I hate Airtec' hat on, the tandem incident from NZ, every peice of gear under the sun has killed or injured people. None are perfect, and none will ever be. You cannot look to single occurance events in order to establish grounds for a ban. There are too many factors present to pinpoint one casue, and then use that one incident as a reason to ban anything. When there are a string of incidents that all have the same type of failure in common with the same component, then that component becomes suspect.

[doi 0]

Quote

Yes, but Argus has distinguised itself by creating the probability of locking the reserve flaps closed with a cutter that has become siezed onto the loop. Does anyone not see this as being an even bigger problem than a premature activation?

Locking the container closed endangers one person’s life... the person that chose to jump with that unit...

Free choice!

Premature opening can endanger multiple peoples lives including a whole planeload.. So you could be endangered even if you do not have an AAD.

There are a few scenarios where a premature AAD firing could kill people other than the person that is using the unit.

So they are BOTH a problem and both need to be addressed.

[doi 0]

Quote

There's a huge difference between the two. The one unwanted action, the misfire, results in a reserve deployment. Now it might not happen when you want it to, but it will happen.

You missed the climb out scenario, you know when there is the greatest pressure difference and greatest danger to others...

This could kill a whole plane load.

Quote

Another thing to remember, when making the comparison between the Argus ban, and the treatment of other AAD manufacturers, is that the other manufacturers have historically taken responsibility for confirmed 'problems' with the product.

And lied through their teeth to protect their financial interests...

Ever read an incident report? Looks like Airtec can't.

[doi 0]

Quote

doi and hcsvader

Why don't you two get a room. At least until you know what you are talking about.

Why don't you try addressing the subject?

Kill the message not the messenger.

I have witnessed Airtec lying to protect their own interests, others have as well.

So why don’t you contact the APF, get the incident report, re read the bulletins by Airtec and see for yourself who is telling the truth...

They could have said, mild injuries or something similar but no, they wanted to go the whole hog and blatantly lie.

"Nobody told us" they said, but yet we are to believe that they investigated the situation to its fullest extent.

If they did, they know it activated under parachute from the data, and they should be concerned to know if everything was OK with the parties concerned...
They continue to ignore and the only effort they have made to address the situation is put out another bulletin changing the statement from.

Nobody was hurt >>>> to>>>> Nobody told us anybody was hurt.

They might as well just flip us the bird. What sort of investigation ignores the incident report?

Say all you like, but you come back when you know what you are talking about, I am a witness....

[captain_stan 0]

***So they are BOTH a problem and both need to be addressed.

[doi 0]

Quote

Addressed by exactly whom? In the US, mfrs are responsible for their own FAA approved equipment. Since AADs aren't FAA approved, who are you implying is negligent here?

Airtec - For lying in an official safety bulletin.

The PIA - for publishing a letter strongly recommending the re evaluation of all manufacturers approval of the Argus AAD before the investigation had taken place.

Also for not addressing the fact that Airtec lied in an official bulletin, misleading the industry to its own advantage. They even went to the effort to publish another document to change the statement from “Nobody was hurt” to “Nobody told us anyone was hurt” (or similar).

That is an outright lie.

Oh that’s right; Airtec is a PIA member... Aviacom is not...

Consistency is all we ask for.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

I have witnessed Airtec lying to protect their own interests, others have as well.

You say you have “witnessed” Airtec lying. How about sharing with us what you “witnessed”.

Quote

So why don’t you contact the APF, get the incident report, re read the bulletins by Airtec and see for yourself who is telling the truth...

I asked you in another thread if you had read the report turned in by the DZO and you ignored the question. I suspect you haven't.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4146920#4146920

I have contacted APF and they have no record of a report being submitted on this incident. That is where the difference lies. No one can produce a report on this incident and it seems to injuries get worse with each telling of the story.

The ban on Argus was the result of 4 well documented incidents in a period of a few months. Each related to the same thing.

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/IncidentReports/Italy/Italy%20-English.pdf

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/IncidentReports/Poland%20Report.pdf

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/IncidentReports/Portugal%20Data.pdf

http://www.pia.com/piapubs/ServiceBulletins/TEXASUSA211.pdf

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

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OtherDocuments/ArgusIncidentAnalysisRev1.pdf

Quote

Why don't you try addressing the subject?

Kill the message not the messenger.

Is that enough “addressing the subject” for you? As for killing the messenger, the messenger doesn’t have a message.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[doi 0]

Quote

I have contacted APF and they have no record of a report being submitted on this incident. That is where the difference lies. No one can produce a report on this incident and it seems to injuries get worse with each telling of the story.

OK so...

The DZSO is neglegent as they did not fill out a report.

The incident was well known, it happened, the APF should have known about it.

Maybe they didn't.

This opens a huge can of worms.

We all know the incident happened, many people witnessed the impact of the incident, yet there is no paper trail to document it's existance.

I did not need to read an incident report as I got first hand information and 'assumed' one was filled out.

Airtec's investigation into the incident should have highlighted the fact that there was not one filled out.

So the APF not having a report shows us that the Airtec investigation was minimal at best and that the DZSO did not do their job.

Airtec claimed nobody as hurt because they were told that by who? Yet no report was filled out on the incident so that tells us about the integrety of the company (which has changed hands now by the way) where the incident took place.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So do you think that AAD's that have a history of misfiring should be grounded because they interfer with normal operations?

That would be all AAD's currently on the market, wouldn't it?

Yes, but Argus has distinguised itself by creating the probability of locking the reserve flaps closed with a cutter that has become siezed onto the loop. Does anyone not see this as being an even bigger problem than a premature activation?

(edit for DZ.com software glitch)

Viewed another way any container manufacturer that has place the cutter higher than the reserve pilot chute or reserve free bag has created the problem of a "locked reserve container".

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[mjosparky 3]

Should of, could of, would of.

I think you are starting to see the point I am trying to make.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[pchapman 262]

Re: doi acknowledging how poorly the Australian two out incident was reported


OK, now we're getting somewhere.
The situation shows how imperfect communications can be.

One can be frustrated by not seeing an injury acknowledged. Or be frustrated by Airtec not digging deeper into the situation.

(Presumably what mattered to them was the data readouts from the Cypres when they got it back -- they had a serious issue to deal with and weren't as concerned with standard incident report details.)

But the latest evidence we have here points away from "Airtec are a bunch of lying bastards who deliberately concealed an injury", which basically kept on being the claim made.

Given that it sounds like the APF didn't officially know either, it would be the same as saying the whole association are a bunch of lying bastards.

So I hope we can see that in this case Airtec probably really didn't know about the injury, for very commonplace and ordinary reasons. One should have anticipated that these things happen, and not automatically assume that it was some deliberate deception campaign.

If one wants to critique Airtec and Cypres', there are probably better things out there to argue about...

[captain_stan 0]

Quote

Viewed another way any container manufacturer that has place the cutter higher than the reserve pilot chute or reserve free bag has created the problem of a "locked reserve container".

That's why I'm glad to jump a Javelin. While it's prudent to design one product to offset the possible defect of another product, I can't agree that this issue is created by the H/C mfr--the failure of an AAD to cut the loop is still a failure of that AAD. It really doesn't matter if we agree or not.

[doi 0]

Quote

But the latest evidence we have here points away from "Airtec are a bunch of lying bastards who deliberately concealed an injury", which basically kept on being the claim made.

No, it has always been a situation of;

Airtec did not perform and adequate investigation and inadvertently lied in their bulletin.

If one is going to claim that no injuries were sustained, then it would be expected that they actually find out.

Those words were put there exclusively for damage control and they were false.

That is highlighted by the fact the APF does not have an incident report.

Had the specifics been requested from Airtec at the time, then the report or lack thereof would have been highlighted and the APF would have had knowledge of the incident.

If Airtec are only concerned with the function of their unit and 'not' how it impacts the function of the whole system then how are these guys acting in the interest of the sport and not their own pocket?

Remember they were contacted by the injured (twice) and failed to reply to the correspondence..

[doi 0]

Quote

But the latest evidence we have here points away from "Airtec are a bunch of lying bastards who deliberately concealed an injury", which basically kept on being the claim made.

Given that it sounds like the APF didn't officially know either, it would be the same as saying the whole association are a bunch of lying bastards.

No, it has always been a situation of;

Airtec did not perform and adequate investigation and inadvertently lied in their bulletin.

If one is going to claim that no injuries were sustained, then it would be expected that they actually find out.

Those words were put there exclusively for damage control and they were false. They did not even need to be there, though they suggest a full investigation actually occurred. It is not even mentioned that the incident happened more than a minute after parachute activation.


That is highlighted by the fact the APF does not have an incident report, so therefore nobody but those directly concerned learned anything from the incident.

That is the problem here.

Had the specifics been requested from Airtec at the time, then the report or lack thereof would have been highlighted and the APF would have had knowledge of the incident and procedure would ensure that we learned from the incident with knowledge of it.

None of this occurred evidently.

[koppel 3]

Quote

That is highlighted by the fact the APF does not have an incident report, so therefore nobody but those directly concerned learned anything from the incident.

That is the problem here.

I believe that it is well documented that the APF system of no punishment for incident reporting has delivered one of if not the best reporting system in Skydiving worldwide.

This does mean operators or Dropzone Safety Officers will always fill them out. It is still a fact sadly that some operators or DZSO's will not complete and return incident reports for whatever reasons they deem valid.

The APF asks on renewal forms how many skydives a member has made in the last twelve months and also how many malfunctions they have had. This is a great help towards statistical analysis.

An interesting point that was brought to my attention by one of the office members there that deals with these matters is that every year more malfunctions are reported on the renewal forms by a considerable amount than are reported via the incident reporting system.

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[doi 0]

Quote

I believe that it is well documented that the APF system of no punishment for incident reporting has delivered one of if not the best reporting system in Skydiving worldwide.

This does mean operators or Dropzone Safety Officers will always fill them out. It is still a fact sadly that some operators or DZSO's will not complete and return incident reports for whatever reasons they deem valid.

I agree, the APF have the systems in place, but that relies on the fact that the DZSO's do their job.

The APF cannot react to what they do not know about; they are not on the chopping block here.

It s the DZSO in question and Airtec for insinuating they knew the extent of the situation when they quite clearly did not.

[hcsvader 1]

Quote

doi and hcsvader

Why don't you two get a room. At least until you know what you are talking about.

Sparky

Hey Sparky,
You know what, I dont know what I am talking about. That is why I asked a question. I don't care if you don't like my question, you dont have to answer.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

doi and hcsvader

Why don't you two get a room. At least until you know what you are talking about.

Sparky

Hey Sparky,
You know what, I dont know what I am talking about. That is why I asked a question. I don't care if you don't like my question, you dont have to answer.

Question has been asked and answered many times. I am sorry if you don’t like or won’t accept the answer.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals