0
PhreeZone

Argus failure - Gold Goast MS - USA

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

maybe you should become the PR-manager for aviacom! :P

Argus, the AAD which doesn't tear you a new asshole when it fires* :)





in very tiny lettering underneath:

*it may render your reserve useless tough! :P
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


wow..



The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on:

1. The cutter was an "old" one.

2. There was a fatality @ Crosskeys that involved a Javelin and Cypress which failed to save the guy.

3. There was a fatality with an "undisclosed" AAD in Montana.


MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***

The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on:

1. The cutter was an "old" one.

2. There was a fatality @ Crosskeys that involved a Javelin and Cypress which failed to save the guy.

3. There was a fatality with an "undisclosed" AAD in Montana.


MEL



That's true, MEL - in black and white. I believe Aviacom (Karel Goorts) is doing a disservice to his customers and giving his company a black eye by ignoring the Argus' problem (cutter design, IMO) and re-directing criticisms against his product by criticising his competitors.

That's all very childlike and obstructive.

I don't have a personal interest or stake in the AAD Saga but I do have an opinion on how Aviacom is handling their situation (shitty!).

In the CK fatality the CYPRES fired. RPC hesitation or perhaps a tight reserve container prevented the reserve from fully deploying. The AAD worked as intended. I don't think that's a CYPRES problem, but Karel G. wants us to think it is.

That's an erroneous point and a diversion which IMO is an Aviacom FAIL.

In the LP fatality the AAD was not turned on and the jumper needed it. That's Black Death but Karel G. wants us to think it is an AAD issue and malfunction.

That's an erroneous point and a diversion which IMO is an Aviacom FAIL.


So while thinly predicated in fact, Aviacom's (KG's) position ignores the totality of facts and in so doing indicates he thinks skydivers are a lot of ignorant morons who will eat whatever swill is put before us as long as it comes in a pretty bowl.

I think otherwise and if the Argus market dries up and Aviacom loses the sport skydiving market I sure won't miss them.

.02
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like someone is placing private emails on the PIA website.

(As far as I know Jo and Karel hate each other guts... )

Edit: Apparently the email was posted with Karel his consent.
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


That's true, MEL - in black and white. I believe Aviacom (Karel Goorts) is doing a disservice to his customers and giving his company a black eye by ignoring the Argus' problem (cutter design, IMO) and re-directing criticisms against his product by criticising his competitors.



I too agree that Aviacom should have handled things differently.

The problem that I have in this whole AAD thing is the fact that "other" AAD manufacturers have had incidents that were either ignored or simply made light of.

In fact, right on the PIA website you only have the Argus incident thread there. There is no other manufacturer listed as having problems that I am aware of.

And without doubt, there have been issues with the other AAD manufcturers products. So, it points to be a one sided argument on the PIA website.

Quote


In the CK fatality the CYPRES fired. RPC hesitation or perhaps a tight reserve container prevented the reserve from fully deploying. The AAD worked as intended. I don't think that's a CYPRES problem, but Karel G. wants us to think it is.



Well, the AAD's intended design is as a life saving device and it did not do that.

That's the intent anyway.

I can assure you that when you (if you jump one..) turn the unit on, in your mind you giving yourself an relaxed,safe feeling of security.
It would not be a feeling of " oh, I just turned my loop cutter on".

Another question is when did it fire?...and did it work as intended.
This is the part where it really gets interesting. The AAD manufacturer nor the H/C manufacturer want to talk about it.......

I am positive answers will be flowing in the near future though.

BS,
MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on.

What?

If you were investigating a fatality involving (say) a Talon harness failure, and you wrote to Sandy with your concerns, and he sent you a letter with no information other than "well it's an older Talon" and then listed three fatalities that occurred with a Javelin - would you consider that a rock-solid, spot-on reply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on.

What?

If you were investigating a fatality involving (say) a Talon harness failure, and you wrote to Sandy with your concerns, and he sent you a letter with no information other than "well it's an older Talon" and then listed three fatalities that occurred with a Javelin - would you consider that a rock-solid, spot-on reply?



i would not! :|
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on.

What?

If you were investigating a fatality involving (say) a Talon harness failure, and you wrote to Sandy with your concerns, and he sent you a letter with no information other than "well it's an older Talon" and then listed three fatalities that occurred with a Javelin - would you consider that a rock-solid, spot-on reply?



And what if he'd told you that it was an older Talon that had been recalled for a harness problem?

Look, I am as unhappy as anyone with the way Aviacom has botched things.

But the letter in question DID say that the cutter was the recalled model. That's an important point.

Again, Aviacom has botched things at every opportunity. And the whole status of the recalled cutter is a bit hazy. Sometimes Aviacom says they must be replaced, and sometimes they say they don't need to be replaced.

But when I hear of new incident where the old cutter is involved, well, that's not too surprising to me.

Now, I'm having a tough time keeping all the facts straight.

Other than San Marcos, do we have any incidents involving the newer cutters?

Thanks!

-paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you were investigating a fatality involving (say) a Talon harness failure, and you wrote to Sandy with your concerns, and he sent you a letter with no information other than "well it's an older Talon" and then listed three fatalities that occurred with a Javelin - would you consider that a rock-solid, spot-on reply?



Karel may be an ass, but the instant I saw this was an pre-SB cutter, that was the end of the story for me.

And ending the investigation at that point seems reasonable.

_Am
__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on.

What?

If you were investigating a fatality involving (say) a Talon harness failure, and you wrote to Sandy with your concerns, and he sent you a letter with no information other than "well it's an older Talon" and then listed three fatalities that occurred with a Javelin - would you consider that a rock-solid, spot-on reply?



And what if he'd told you that it was an older Talon that had been recalled for a harness problem?

Look, I am as unhappy as anyone with the way Aviacom has botched things.

But the letter in question DID say that the cutter was the recalled model. That's an important point.

Again, Aviacom has botched things at every opportunity. And the whole status of the recalled cutter is a bit hazy. Sometimes Aviacom says they must be replaced, and sometimes they say they don't need to be replaced.

But when I hear of new incident where the old cutter is involved, well, that's not too surprising to me.

Now, I'm having a tough time keeping all the facts straight.

Other than San Marcos, do we have any incidents involving the newer cutters?

Thanks!

-paul



say, if you've had the chance, would you like to be the person finding out!?
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

>The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on.

What?

If you were investigating a fatality involving (say) a Talon harness failure, and you wrote to Sandy with your concerns, and he sent you a letter with no information other than "well it's an older Talon" and then listed three fatalities that occurred with a Javelin - would you consider that a rock-solid, spot-on reply?



And what if he'd told you that it was an older Talon that had been recalled for a harness problem?

Look, I am as unhappy as anyone with the way Aviacom has botched things.

But the letter in question DID say that the cutter was the recalled model. That's an important point.

Again, Aviacom has botched things at every opportunity. And the whole status of the recalled cutter is a bit hazy. Sometimes Aviacom says they must be replaced, and sometimes they say they don't need to be replaced.

But when I hear of new incident where the old cutter is involved, well, that's not too surprising to me.

Now, I'm having a tough time keeping all the facts straight.

Other than San Marcos, do we have any incidents involving the newer cutters?

Thanks!

-paul



say, if you've had the chance, would you like to be the person finding out!?



Every one of us is in the position to be the one to sadly find out about some piece of gear we use.

Do you really want to use that sort of argument?

If we stopped using any particular piece of our equipment because it had had a problem in some earlier version, we wouldn't be skydiving anymore.

So, back to my question -

Besides San Marcos, are there any incidents involving the newer cutters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the GIRL from Poland, which started the recall (and the discovery of "soft" knives)?

And have you even read the San Marcos report?
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
>And what if he'd told you that it was an older Talon that had been recalled for a
>harness problem? . . . But the letter in question DID say that the cutter was the
>recalled model. That's an important point.

Agreed. It IS an important point. But is it far from a spot-on answer.

Now, had they replied "the rig was recalled for a harness problem. Four harnesses failed due to X; this was evident upon inspection by noting Y. The underlying cause was use of thread Z with the incorrect thread tension. If you observed failure in the A, then this is likely related" that would have been a lot more spot-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

personally, i think one is enough.

how about the guy from poland, not sure in his case..



One what?

Every parachute, h/c or AAD that you may own has killed "one".

If "one is enough", how do you still use any of your gear?

In a more general question, open to the whole audience, what is the story behind all the hatred for Aviacom?

I am unhappy with Aviacom. I am VERY unhappy with Aviacom. Just ask Karel to tell you about the emails he has gotten from me. Aviacom has been doing a terrible job of responding to this whole thing about their cutters.

But some people here seem to hate them with a passion that I just don't understand.

Are they the anti-christ? The devil incarnate?

Why does it go so much further than simply being unhappy (sure, in the extreme) with them, and deciding not to do business with them?

Every major manufacturer of our gear has people who are horribly unhappy with them, and I have pretty much never witnessed this sort of widespread hatred.

Okay, there's the Rhys thing about Airtec, but that is not the sort of groundswell that we've seen here about Aviacom.

The Aviacom phenomenon we are seeing here is way more than that. And I don't think it is only people who are directly affected either.

What is it that is making people so passionate about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>And what if he'd told you that it was an older Talon that had been recalled for a
>harness problem? . . . But the letter in question DID say that the cutter was the
>recalled model. That's an important point.

Agreed. It IS an important point. But is it far from a spot-on answer.

Now, had they replied "the rig was recalled for a harness problem. Four harnesses failed due to X; this was evident upon inspection by noting Y. The underlying cause was use of thread Z with the incorrect thread tension. If you observed failure in the A, then this is likely related" that would have been a lot more spot-on.



Fair enough - as has always been the case, Aviacom has failed to hit the mark when responding to input.

But, standing back from the emotional content of it, what MEL said is essentially true. It was a recalled cutter, and that's said in the letter.

Me? I've stopped being surprised at the whimpy responses from Aviacom.

But for so many here, it seems that each one is like opening old wounds and starting the whole brouhaha over again.

As I said in the other post, where I ask what makes this so special, I just don't get the level of passion that keeps coming up.

-paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right that Argus is not the only AAD that has had problems but I think the concensus is that they are the only AAD mfgr that hasn't come right out (let's use that term loosely for the sake of . . .) and addressed the issue.

"Don't rely on your AAD!" is something I've heard from my FJC back in 1985 right through to today.

That's pretty straight forward and easily understood.

But it's bad marketing!

Cheers!

Nova

PS I hope you're right, that answers to recent AAD incidents will soon be flowing.
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, standing back from the emotional content of it, what MEL said is essentially true. It was a recalled cutter, and that's said in the letter.

Quote


The cutter was scheduled to be replaced in August 2011 as per PSB SB AMMO050910/3
revision 2. I had requested replacement cutters for a number of Argus units back in
September 2010 when the initial SB was issued. Due to the lack of cutters in the U.S.
and Revision 2 SB we were holding off.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...
I am unhappy with Aviacom. I am VERY unhappy with Aviacom. Just ask Karel to tell you about the emails he has gotten from me. Aviacom has been doing a terrible job of responding to this whole thing about their cutters
....



yup, and that's EXACTLY the reason why, IMHO, aviacom can burn in hell. i couldnt care less!
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But, standing back from the emotional content of it, what MEL said is essentially true. It was a recalled cutter, and that's said in the letter.

Quote


The cutter was scheduled to be replaced in August 2011 as per PSB SB AMMO050910/3
revision 2. I had requested replacement cutters for a number of Argus units back in
September 2010 when the initial SB was issued. Due to the lack of cutters in the U.S.
and Revision 2 SB we were holding off.



paul, no shit here, my pre-poster pretty much sums it up. cutter needs to be replaced, no cutters available, rig is jumped anyway, sadly, jumper in question DIES because of lack - of what!? MANUFACTURERS response, MANUFACTURERS determination, whatever.. :S

FUCK AVIACOM!!!

all their so-called "responses" have been in the LOWEST shelf of possible replies.. just - WOW!!!

B|B|B|
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

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