0
J0nathan

is argus AAD safe ?

Recommended Posts

You are right to question my judgement as I continue to evaluate whether I am better off jumping without an AAD or continuing to use the Argus. I can jump an entire season for the amount it would cost to replace the Argus, and I am not firmly convinced that expenditure significantly reduces my risk. The Argus is better than nothing.

Do you still stand by your statement,"The manufacturer of the cutter has stated that it's not fit for its intended use."? There is nothing in the Sunpath letter that approaches that statement.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from the quote:
Quote

Chemring Energetics UK refuses to modify any internal processes for this cutter as this
cutter is designed and intended for alternate purposes other than parachute automatic activation device



Intended for purposes other than AADs. Refused to test to the necessary standard.

Yeah, it's a cluster fuck. No doubt about it. It's too bad that customers got burned, and if I were such a customer I'd be pissed at myself for buying an unproven product, and I'd be pissed at my retailer if they weren't standing behind it. Ultimately, I'd be pissed at Aviacom for bringing a half-baked product to market.

But blindly insisting that nothing is wrong? Seems foolish to me.

_Am
__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>though the whole PIA thing seems like a shroud of silence has been placed over
>the situation.

Uh, isn't that because they weren't in PIA? Why would you expect PIA to go out of their way to foster communication with a company that doesn't want to be part of them?

But in any case I don't think a "shroud of silence" was placed over Aviacom. There's been a lot of discussion between PIA members concerning Aviacom, which led to some de-approvals of the device (and even a few re-approvals.)

>Fact is, each AAD manufacturer had incidents when they were starting out and
>the results were very different.

Yes - mainly because their reactions had been very different. Had Airtec reacted to the first misfires the way Aviacom did, with a combination of denials and accusations of sabotage, they would not today be the #1 AAD manufacturer out there.

That being said I think that the Argus is a decent AAD, and I hope they fix their cutter problem and return it to the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



The manufacturer of the cutter has stated that it's not fit for its intended use. That really should be the end of the discussion right there.



The manufacturer of my rig has stated publicly that my main lift web is not fit for use in conjunction with a seat belt. I still use it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



The manufacturer of the cutter has stated that it's not fit for its intended use. That really should be the end of the discussion right there.



Not pointed at you, but while were on the subject of "not intended use" wasn't one of the aads (cypres1?) using pressure sensors or something in thier units that were marked not for life saving devices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mike,

Quote

I consider you to be a trustworthy and knowledgable contributor on DZ.com.



Thank you. I have said before on this forum and will continue to say it: I am not always right/correct/ etc. I only hope that when I am incorrect, that I will step up and admit it.

I was going from memory of some of the various reports that I have read regarding the ARGUS AAD's.

As AndyMan posted:

Aviacom has been purchasing a modified commercial off the shelf, pyrotechnic reefing cable cutter from Chemring Energetics UK as a sub component for use with the ARGUS AAD assembly. Since these failures to cut in this life saving application have become public, Chemring Energetics UK has stopped sale of these cutters to Aviacom. As a result, Aviacom reports that they have approximately 200 post 2007 cutters available for both testing/verification and for fielded customer units. Further, Aviacom has no ability to institute higher or acceptable quality control practices as they do not anufacture the cutter and Chemring Energetics UK refuses to modify any internal processes for this cutter as this cutter is designed and intended for alternate purposes other than parachute automatic activation device

While it may have came from a source other than the cutter mfr, that is good enough for me.

If you do not agree, I respect your right to do.

As someone who manufactures things, I hope that I can have some control on just how they are used out there in the world.

Does that explain my thoughts sufficiently?

Best regards,

JerryBaumchen

PS) And it might be that Chemring Energetics UK saying that they knew/know nothing about their cutter being used in a skydiving AAD is akin to the piano player in the brothel saying, "I have no idea what goes on upstairs.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your opinion is based on the lack of agreement with "MY" opinion and I respect that, but don't just tell me I'm wrong because you disagree. Fact is, there were shady circumstances surround EVERY SINGLE Argus failure/incident.




There have been 5 major incidents in 4 different countries that where well documented. If you can if you can read all the data on problems Argus has had since 2006 and still defend them then you are living in la, la land.

Sparky

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083611#4083611

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4145928#4145928
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

i saw that argus aad s are quite cheap, are they safe to use ?



I know you didn't intend it, but:

"you fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

The third is asking if an one brand of AAD is safer than another. Its like asking 'is Ford better than Chevy'.

Truth be told most AAD's are close enough to the same to not really matter which one you buy. They are all back up devices and if they fire you were most likely dead by your own actions/lack of action already. So they are a last second hail mary pass.

That being said, of the three major brands argued about one is no longer being made.

So while all three have had issues in the past, to me the fact that one is no longer in business is enough to remove it from consideration for me. Add in that some places and manufacturers will not allow them and it puts the nail in them for me.

My old CYPRES timed out and I wanted another AAD. I did some research and asked around.... I bought a CYPRES 2. The additional cost was not important, and when they were all stacked together I thought the C2 had a slight edge.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***
Truth be told most AAD's are close enough to the same to not really matter which one you buy. They are all back up devices and if they fire you were most likely dead by your own actions/lack of action already. So they are a last second hail mary pass.



Amen. As long as the customer realizes there may be future issues with riggers/container mfgs/dzo's/parts availability - servicing then I say go for it. I'm considering one for my Racer, as my Cypres I timed out 3-4 years ago and I'm more actively jumping once again.

Buyer beware...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Amen. As long as the customer realizes there may be future issues with riggers/container mfgs/dzo's/parts availability - servicing then I say go for it. I'm considering one for my Racer, as my Cypres I timed out 3-4 years ago and I'm more actively jumping once again.



+1, well said friend. I jump an argus in my 2K3 with 2011 cutters, and I am doing so until I have $ to invest in something else. My logic is based on a choise between jumping the argus or jumping no aad at all, in which case I believe jumping the argus is safer. This thought process is based on a simple comparison of lives saved versus alleged malfunctions (I tend to think that some of the circumstances around the failure reports are fishy, but that is neither here nor there).
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argus is pretty safe, some drop zones banned them because of misfires. However there was an instance where vigil failed to put cutters in 1000 devices. It appears to have been a case of: Argus fucked something up, it's competitors jumped up to demonize them and run them out of business, despite them having issues as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's one way of looking at it, perhaps more the way Aarhus pitched it but there unwillingness to address issues meant container manufacturers removed approval for the devices in their products. Argus then decided it was easier to simply shut down than address genuine issues. Vigil and Airtec have had issues but have addressed then and therefore continue to do business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argus is not considered safe by many and the real reasons why are available online. Read the history.

Aside from documented failures and dodgy excuses there is one massive underlying problem with original Argus AADs that highlights the problem with their approach to engineering, here it is:

They took an off the shelf cutter intended for cargo parachute reefing lines and used it in a human life saving device. This sounds slightly troubling but it gets worse, the cutter they took was only supposed to be used in tandem with another cuter on the same reefing ring to reduce the chance of a catastrophic failure. So it wasn't even to be trusted for cargo deployment without a redundant backup. The cutter maker issued a prohibition when they found out how Argus was using it.

After various failures and crises Argus put together a plan to address the issues and presented it to PIA, it did not alter their fate because it did not apparently contain the kind of rigorous engineering analysis and testing plan they thought could produce a suitable man rated system. In my opinion they were a bunch of enthusiastic folks who decided to make an AAD without fully grasping the gravity and level of engineering rigor involved in producing man rated life saving equipment as evidenced by the cargo cutter debacle.

If you want to trust your life to this device despite its documented history of failures on the basis of whatever remedial work might have been performed go ahead.

Whatever improvements they introduced before they went under I would not trust my life to the engineering practices of guys who put an unreliable cargo reefing line cutter in a life saving AAD.

Personally I think it is fucking ridiculous that someone would recommend this. The only thing that can be said for it is it's better than nothing, unless the cutter traps your closing loop, then it's a lot worse than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0