0
hcsvader

Is an AAD misfire interfering with normal operations of a rig

Recommended Posts

As you frame the question, it's mainly a semantic difference. The main relevance I see would be from a regulatory and/or legal POV. But from a skydiving POV, the mechanics are what they are, regardless of the choice of definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.


Hey, does anybody know what happened to rhys? He has been strangely quiet on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Post: As you frame the question, it's mainly a semantic difference. The main relevance I see would be from a regulatory and/or legal POV. But from a skydiving POV, the mechanics are what they are, regardless of the choice of definition.



Bullshit, a complete intact reserve closing loop is required to make a (legal) parachute descent.

It does not matter if you put some dodgy lawyer spin on it.

I bet there is nobody here (in thier right mind) that would jump from a plane (knowingly) with a severed reserve closing loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Question has been asked and not answered many times. I am sorry if you don’t like or won’t accept that nobody seems to be able to answer.

Sparky



Semantics and beating around the bush are not answers.

Just answer the question or talk about the subject, there is too much Ad hominem in this forum and the moderators do nothing about it.

Keep to the subject not the person asking the question please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hm. Nice attempt at provoking a butt-hurt response, but you're being argumentative for the sake of being so, and missing my point, to boot. I'm not interested.

If I get a responsive post from someone whose opinion I respect - of whom there are many on this board - telling me I'm off-base, I'll deal with it accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I bet there is nobody here (in thier right mind) that would jump from a plane
>(knowingly) with a severed reserve closing loop.

Probably true. Of course, nowadays, the Argus lets you jump with a partially severed closing loop WITHOUT knowing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hm. Nice attempt at provoking a butt-hurt response, but you're being argumentative for the sake of being so, and missing my point, to boot. I'm not interested.

If I get a responsive post from someone whose opinion I respect - of whom there are many on this board - telling me I'm off-base, I'll deal with it accordingly.



Pure Ad Hominem and a megre attempt to defend an incorrect opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I bet there is nobody here (in thier right mind) that would jump from a plane
>(knowingly) with a severed reserve closing loop.

Probably true. Of course, nowadays, the Argus lets you jump with a partially severed closing loop WITHOUT knowing it.



No wonder there is so much Anti Argus and Pro Cypres delusional individuals here.

When the moderation team takes a side, then it is open slather on the opposition.

Once you find yourself in the middle of a lawsuit, then you may change your tune...?

(ever see the childish bully stand to attention and talk all adult like when the teacher shows up :D )

Aviacom as far as I can see have not allowed anyone to jump anything other than what they consider to be a safe unit and those units have passed safety tests that satisfied the harness and container manufacturers (until recently).

On the other hand Airtec have blatantly lied to us in a safety bulletin to protect their own financial interests, failed to give us pertinent information and this is all quite clear to all of us now with the fact arising that the APF do not even have an incident report on the incident.

Airtec publicly stated in an 'official' safety bulletin that no parties were injured... that is a false claim and it pinpoints the inadequacy of their investigation.

How would the FAA feel about that in these uncertain times?

I think know who will be gulping their Adams apple right now.

As a moderator (for your own good) I suggest you refrain from statements of defamation, especially when there is likely a lawsuit involved.

And to conclude I will ask you a question, are Airtec allowed to knowingly lie in an official safety bulletin to protect their own financial interests, in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

nowadays, the Argus lets you jump with a partially severed closing loop WITHOUT knowing it.



Not true Argus specically tells you to check the display before every jump. Always has, always will. The display would indicate a fire. Or ate there now also people imaging Argus to fail displaying an activation?
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
First of all don’t change my posts to fit your view of things.

As I posted, your questions have been answered. It seems because they don’t fit your agenda of continued bashing of AirTec you ignore the answers. Because of yourself admitted lack of research into the documented facts of this incident your ongoing rants have lost any credibility.

You started your tirade thinking there was a “report” that would back up your attack on Airtec.

Quote

Ever read an incident report? Looks like Airtec can't…..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 did not need to read an incident report as I got first hand information



As it turns out a “report” was not filled out on this incident and you try to find a way to blame that on AirTec.

Quote

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



Then you carry on about how AirTec lied about things.

Quote

Airtec lied in an official bulletin…… That is an outright lie…….. And lied through their teeth to protect their financial interests...



You made up statements and attributed them to AirTec.

Quote

"Nobody told us" they said,……. Nobody was hurt >>>> to>>>> Nobody told us anybody was hurt



This is what they actually said. “A short email was sent to our dealer describing the incident by the DZO. It was reported that no one was injured.”

It is quite clear that you have a personal axe to grind and that you are trying to do it without benefit of any knowledge of what happened. Do some research or just take the time to read the information that has been provided for you. To continue with your uninformed dribble is making you appear foolish.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“A short email was sent to our dealer describing the incident by the DZO. It was reported that no one was injured.”



From what we see here, the fact remains that there were injuries and the DZO did not ensure an incident report was filled out.

If anything this highlights that we cannot believe everything we are told no matter how official somebody may sound.

I would have thought the incident report is the most official statement rather than a short understated comment. Talking to the person that experienced the incident rather than the owner of the company that may skew information to downplay something that they may wish to hide.

Surely the repercussions of the unit failing should take at least some precedence in how the situation is dealt with. What contributing factors may have been involved that could be avoided in the future.

The DZO did not even ensure a report was filled out even though they had correspondence with airtec about it. That sounds quite unprofessional, I would be pissed off too if I was injured and that was the result.

Wouldn't you?
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The DZO did not even ensure a report was filled out even though they had correspondence with airtec about it. That sounds quite unprofessional, I would be pissed off too if I was injured and that was the result.

Wouldn't you?



The DZO did not make contact with AirTec at all. He contacted a gear dealer that handles Cypres AAD’s. And he did that with a short email that did not mention any injury.

Yes I would be pissed off. But I would also take it upon myself to contact AirTec and follow up with a written report, pictures of injuries and statements for the hospital. Surely from the description of the injuries he suffered he went to the hospital or at the least saw his own Dr.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The display would indicate a fire.

Yes, and that's true on all AAD's. However, as we have seen, jumpers don't always do that, and at least one has gotten a surprise reserve deployment when they didn't expect it. (Note that this has NOT happened in the door yet, fortunately.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The DZO did not make contact with AirTec at all. He contacted a gear dealer that handles Cypres AAD’s. And he did that with a short email that did not mention any injury.



Even if the DZo flew to Airtec HQ with the unit in-hand, that doesn't mean that Airtec was responsible for the accident or will have any answers as to who was.

As I mentioned in post #8 of this thread, not every incident in this sport will have a clear root casue. The nature of an accident is that things don't go according to plan, and as such, you won't always be able to figure out what actually happened in the afternath. Why do you think the NTSB takes a year or better to release a 'final' accident report? The reason is that it takes that long to come up with the best answer they can, and sometimes that answer is 'pilot error' or 'unexplained mechanical failure'.

You cannot look at a single incident as proof that there is a 'problem' with a piece of gear or system. There will be incidents with all types of gear on all types of jumps that will be unrelated to the gear being used. Even if the manufacturer cannot provide a satisfactory explanation, that doesn't mean their product was to blame. It's when a string of incidents occur, with the common factor being that one peice of gear that the onus shifts to the manufacturer to come up with some answers. No answers = no more jumping with that gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, as we have seen, jumpers don't always do that, and at least one has gotten a surprise reserve deployment when they didn't expect it. (Note that this has NOT happened in the door yet, fortunately.)



Please correct me if I am wrong but unless I missed something this hasn't even happened anywhere near an airplane. Atleast with an aargus ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this case they did determine the cause. It turned out to be the pressure sensor module. As a result AirTec recalled 878 units. After a month only 468 of those had been returned. Typical of skydivers. After the sensors were replaced the units were returned with a $70 check to cover the cost of a repack.

Does anyone notice the difference in the way AirTec handled this problem and the way Aviacom has handled theirs? All of this information is available to anyone willing to take the time to find it.

When people come on the net and rant and rave about something it would be nice if they knew what the fuck they were talking about.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Even if the DZo flew to Airtec HQ with the unit in-hand, that doesn't mean that Airtec was responsible for the accident or will have any answers as to who was.



For the life of me I don't see why the AAD manufacturer needs to know ANY details of injuries.


From Sparky...
Quote

When people come on the net and rant and rave about something it would be nice if they what the fuck they were talking about.


Yeah, I agree and I love your subtlety.
:D:D;)


DOI...you've blown your credibility all to hell and back.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When people come on the net and rant and rave about something it would be nice if they knew what the fuck they were talking about.




Classic. Words of wisdom that would make an excellent sig line. Everyone, take note and adjust as needed.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again sparky, I dont know what the fuck I am talking about. Thats why I asked a question.

Yes I agree that Argus response to this issue has been useless and counter productive.

From what I can see there are 2 undesirable "malfunctions" in AAD that could kill me.

Apparently one of them has been addressed and the other has been pushed aside as an acceptable risk.

I am no longer allowed to jump an Argus in Australia, The APF (australia parachute federation) has banned them. So I am safe from the stuck closing loop issue that has killed one person that failed to deploy either any parachute on their own.

And yet it is still accepted that sometimes AAD's misfire and sometimes they kill people when that happens.

The major difference i see here is that in the first situation, the AAD failed to save me. (if Im deploying my reserve below 700ft at terminal im pretty damnnear dead)

Whereas in he second Ive done nothing wrong and my AAD killed me...
Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Whereas in he second Ive done nothing wrong and my AAD killed me...



Every piece of gear you wear can kill you. The best you can do is learn everything possible about your gear, how it works and how it doesn't work.

But even then you can to every right and still die. It’s the nature of the sport and it seems some jumpers are unable or unwilling to accept that fact.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

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