Avaicom stops production of Argus for sport market

[Sadist 0]

Quote

Skydive AZ currently bans the Argus whether or not the rig maker OKs it for the simple reason that if the loop has been partially cut, it could open any time, including during the climb-out. That could take down an entire Otter. We view it as no different than having a main closing loop that is too long or worn. The rig might be TSO'd and in date, but it's not safe and it is not right to expose everyone on the plane to an unfortunate purchase decision by an individual skydiver.

Skydive AZ and USPA are going to be considering the implications of SDAZ's ban on the Argus as it affects competitors at the National Championships a few weeks from now. I'll try to keep the community informed.

Bryan Burke
S&TA/Meet Director, SDAZ

OK so I'll try again:
With this in mind can you please tell me what your DZ policy will be on Vigil's with regards to the numerous random firings considering that these events pose the same risk to both planes and skydivers?

Can someone please also explain why my previous post posing this question was deleted?

I will be taking a screen shot of this reply.

[LouDiamond 1]

Sadist, please review the forum rules. This thread is about an Argus issue. Your question is valid, just not in this thread. Since your question has nothing to do with Argus I suggest you start a new thread and ask your question there. Bryan very seldom checks the forums so don't be surprised if he doesn't answer your question in a timely manner.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Sadist 0]

I appreciate the reply LouDiamond.
While I may not agree that the question has nothing to do with Argus a new thread may be started.

[chutingstar 1]

Quote

From what I can gather, the cutter manufacturer designed their device for severing reefing lines on cargo parachutes. These would likely be different materials, under different loads and geometries, than a reserve closing loop. Argus bought the cutters as stock items. Why? One reason could be that CYPRES would have patents on all of their proprietary technology, so to avoid a patent infringement Argus probably had to use a different cutter design. They couldn't afford to develop their own cutter and just picked out something they thought would work. The fact that the cutter manufacturer will no longer have anything to do with Argus suggests they have decided that their stock cutter is not appropriate for the Argus application.

The above paragraph from Bryan Burke is not true. Aviacom's cutter was specifically made for skydiving and to fit in skydiving rigs. The company that did make the cutter for the Argus is a company that makes cutters for other applications, and the Argus cutter was specifically made for the skydiving application. It is no secret that Aviacom is still trying to develop another cutter because the current cutter manufacturer does not want to be in the skydiving market anymore due to liability reasons in relation the low-volume of business and high risk compared to everything else that cutter manufacturer sells. This information is straight from the owner of Aviacom, Karel Goorts.

Quote

Skydive AZ currently bans the Argus whether or not the rig maker OKs it for the simple reason that if the loop has been partially cut, it could open any time, including during the climb-out. That could take down an entire Otter. We view it as no different than having a main closing loop that is too long or worn. The rig might be TSO'd and in date, but it's not safe and it is not right to expose everyone on the plane to an unfortunate purchase decision by an individual skydiver.

The reason/argument for banning the Argus due to the possibility of a partially cut loop letting go at climb out is a bit far-fetched, especially with all the other reasons that this can happen which are near impossible to monitor or control. At least with an Argus, if the unit truly had a partially cut loop sitting in the reserve tray following a jump, someone could look/see Replc Cutter on the display before the next jump and know the cutter had fired.

But this scenario is no more plausible than a misfire by any of the three major AADs on climb out.

If making this argument for banning the Argus, it seems you would need further rules/precautions if this "canopy over the tail" were the true scare. It's more likely for a main pilot chute to get loose on climb out, or a damaged reserve or main loop to give way, or an accidental pull of the reserve handle on exit or a reserve pin to get dislodged...or any other AAD issue. Grounding a skydiver with an Argus because of this long-shot occurrence should theoretically ground everyone since it is easier to monitor this possible scenario than most of the others.

I personally own/jump all 3 AADs, and a rig without, and feel no more/less secure with any of them. The electronics and mechanics of any of these can fail or misfire at any time...none of them are perfect.

Mike

ChutingStar.com

[spootch 0]

Agreed ! well said Mike

[adisky 0]

I am asking a question wich involves liability and manufacturers of containers.
If having an AAD in a container is such a risky business (knowing that almost who banned Argus have the cutter placed one the flaps) - why not consider removing cutter position BELOW pilot chute with minor alterations to the container?
This way, even if it cuts or it doesn't cut, the AAD will not interfere with skydiver's decision to open the reserve manually. And even if it cuts accidentally and not the entire the loop, you could still have a jumpable rig.

Just asking.

Skydiving should be a merged efforts for all gear manufacturers to make a better sport, not cornering everyone with suspicions.

[Unstable 8]

++++++1 Well said, Mike. (Coincidently, I sent my Argus your direction for a checkup just last week, thank you for continuing to service them).

The only thing I'd like to add is that I'm not convinced that Chemring Energetics is leaving this market is entirely for liability. Chemring Energetics is a member of the Hi-Shear group, which is a MAJOR player in Aerospace and Defense when it comes to missile stage seperation devices ~ They probably just never saw Aviacom as a growth Partner.

Mike, you also said that it is no secret that Avicaom is trying to develop another cutter ~ are they still trying to get themselves back on their feet?

=========Shaun ==========

[peter.draper 0]

and we have a winner! If you produce a rig that is inoperable if a common aftermarket part malfunctions, your design is faulty. Every AAD can, has and will malfunction and if the rig that you produce cannot handle that - FIX IT!!!!!!!!