0
PhreeZone

Final Argus test results from Polish incidents

Recommended Posts

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OrganizationBulletins/2009_562FINALREPORT.pdf

This report is long but WELL worth a read. They have video that they were able to get partial loop cuts multiple times from the photos in the report.

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OrganizationBulletins/2009_620_RK_English.pdf

Investigation of a separate non-injury in Poland of a partial loop cut.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks very interesting and a very good report.

It would appear that lack of currency and perhaps she lost altitude awareness was the root cause.

Interesting that the Argus issue is QA control on the metal hardness and that the commission were able to replicate the failures quite easily (by this I mean, it doesn't sound like they had to try hundreds of times for a single failure).
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


[url]http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OrganizationBulletins/2009_620_RK_English.pdf


Investigation of a separate non-injury in Poland of a partial loop cut.



That report is over 2 years old, but I don't remember that incident being part of the Argus discussion, is that correct?

That excuse that it needs tension is so weak. It means that pulling the ripcord just before the AAD fires can result in a lock, because the loop will be unloaded for a short while.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few notable points from the report on the Polish fatality:

-- They agreed of course that the reserve was ejected on impact, including the bag coming off and bridle twist during the whole sequence, as the bag and PC were flung out in different directions. (A few on dz had argued that the reserve had been out in freefall.)


-- They were able to duplicate failures to fully cut the loop multiple times. This was for loops loaded with at least the minimum of 5 kg force.

However, all this was only for the "old cutters", the pre-Sept 2007 ones, as used by the accident victim.

A couple demonstrations by the manufacturer, in the presence of one of the investigators, showed clean cuts by the newer cutters, even with low or zero tension.

Hardness tests of the cutters showed the newer cutters do have a somewhat increased hardness and a different metal grain structure. (I.e., Aviacom and their supplier have made substantial improvements as claimed).

My conclusion:
It does look like the newer style cutter is better. While I might not trust it as much as other cutters, there's no evidence in this report that it can't cut cleanly.

(However, note that the San Marcos incident involved the newer style cutter. As far as demonstrating a "cutter failure", one can give the cutter the benefit of the doubt, due to the presence of the steel ball -- although the issue should have been investigated in more detail.)


-- Despite multiple attempts to get information from Aviacom about interpreting the accident AAD's data from the fatal jump, Aviacom never responded. The data presented in the report is a little messy and I'll let someone else interpret it.


-- Hardness of the cutter knife:
(in the Rockwell scale)

Argus old cutter 47-50
Argus new cutter 55
"another similar cutter" 59 (must be Vigil)
"a wedge shaped cutter" 64 (must be Cypres)

(I wouldn't take the numbers as conclusive due single tests on the competing brands, but it shows Argus has been a little on the low side.)


-- The commission was sensible in the end, in my opinion, in that it viewed an AAD as a backup device only, and that skydivers are responsible for activating their main or reserve parachutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.pia.com/...9_620_RK_English.pdf

Investigation of a separate non-injury in Poland of a partial loop cut.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That report is over 2 years old, but I don't remember that incident being part of the Argus discussion, is that correct?

That excuse that it needs tension is so weak. It means that pulling the ripcord just before the AAD fires can result in a lock, because the loop will be unloaded for a short while.


And if the cutter fired after the reserve was activated, then why do they refuse to give investagators the data from the unit????:S
HAVE FUN...
...JUST DONT DIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We're talking micro-seconds?



Sure would suck if you died then. I would much rather prefer to be that lucky when playing the lotto.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We're talking micro-seconds?



I would think it might be on the order of up to 1/4 of a second, maybe even more. That would be 250 milliseconds, or 250,000 microseconds.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

We're talking micro-seconds?



I would think it might be on the order of up to 1/4 of a second, maybe even more. That would be 250 milliseconds, or 250,000 microseconds.



1/4 of a second is a very long time isn't it? I am more used to timescales measured in nano and micro seconds in electronics. Is a spring really that slow?

Not that it matters much.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

We're talking micro-seconds?



I would think it might be on the order of up to 1/4 of a second, maybe even more. That would be 250 milliseconds, or 250,000 microseconds.



1/4 of a second is a very long time isn't it? I am more used to timescales measured in nano and micro seconds in electronics. Is a spring really that slow?

Not that it matters much.



It might not be just the spring.

If the cutter is below the pilot chute (and spring), but above the freebag, there's plenty of time between the pilot chute launching and the cutter clearing the closing loop. The pilot chute would have to go to full bridle extension and lift the bag.

If the cutter is above the pilot chute, sure, the closing loop might clear the cutter in a very small amount of time.

But the duration of the "window of opportunity" depends on cutter placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We're talking micro-seconds?



I would think it might be on the order of up to 1/4 of a second, maybe even more. That would be 250 milliseconds, or 250,000 microseconds.



1/4 of a second is a very long time isn't it? I am more used to timescales measured in nano and micro seconds in electronics. Is a spring really that slow?

Not that it matters much.



It might not be just the spring.

If the cutter is below the pilot chute (and spring), but above the freebag, there's plenty of time between the pilot chute launching and the cutter clearing the closing loop. The pilot chute would have to go to full bridle extension and lift the bag.

If the cutter is above the pilot chute, sure, the closing loop might clear the cutter in a very small amount of time.

But the duration of the "window of opportunity" depends on cutter placement.



Thanks, I can see how that could take a fairly long time to happen.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading these 2 reports is there anyone that still feels Aviacom was being picked on. They couldn’t have done more to set themselves up for a ban if they had planned it.
Even with the recalls and all the SB they still produce an inferior product. IMHO

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

After reading these 2 reports is there anyone that still feels Aviacom was being picked on. They couldn’t have done more to set themselves up for a ban if they had planned it.
Even with the recalls and all the SB they still produce an inferior product. IMHO

Sparky



I haven't offered any opinions on the Argus issue because I wanted to see what a credible investigation would reveal. Seems there is conclusive evidence of a hardness problem with the cutter blades produced in 2007. I certainly do not feel they have been picked on. If they had focused their efforts on investigating and resolving the issue, they could have restored our confidence in their product by now.
I can't agree their whole system is inferior because the investigation only found a problem with cutters in a specific date range. I'd like to add that I don't use an Argus and I don't have any vested interest in Argus. I do a fair amount of repacks and most of the rigs I work on are not affected by the ban. Some are equipped with an Argus. I make it a point to keep my customers, many of whom are friends, up to date on the issues with that system. I know it may sound simpleminded but I just wish Aviacom would get off it's ASSets and deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can't agree their whole system is inferior because the investigation only found a problem with cutters in a specific date range.



Did you read the whole report? There are several issues that were brought out. To me one of the biggest problems with Aviacom is their arrogance and trying to blame others for their shortcomings.
Aviacom is the source of the 2 documents below. Any business that would post something like that should be banned on that alone.

Sparky

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

https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/c6UCg
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read the whole report? There are several issues that were brought out. To me one of the biggest problems with Aviacom is their arrogance and trying to blame others for their shortcomings.
Aviacom is the source of the 2 documents below. Any business that would post something like that should be banned on that alone.

Sparky

No, I was only commenting on the issue with the equipment defect. I read those documents when they came out. Very sad. Perhaps they should just go away. On the other hand I would like to see the issue corrected for the sake of all those who invested in an Argus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But the duration of the "window of opportunity" depends on cutter placement.



Which is also in direct correlation as to the effect of whether the cutter actually (cleanly) cut(s) the loop, versus traps it, would have a material affect (via "locking" the reserve container closed if instead the latter) or not as well - right?

EDITED TO ADD: That's why this is so critical. It is not just a (for lack of better word) "simple" failure event in this case - that would/could be overcome by a jumper simply pulling for themselves, the reserve handle. It is a failure mode in which when it occurs - in SOME rigs/configurations, actually INTERFERES with the operation of the reserve system (and an even manual operation/launch of the reserve) in toto. If I am understanding all this correctly of course too, that is.
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

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