Feedback wanted, application for new cutter, Argus?

[df8m1 19]

As I mentioned in a different thread, we are in the process of designing and testing a new loop cutter, specifically designed to work with reserve parachute configurations. After we conclude our testing, we intend to seek approval from the container manufacturers for the use of this cutter in their containers.

The primary application for these new cutters will be our military AADs, however, I have received several inquires as to the possibility of this new cutter being used with the Argus AADs, so much so that I thought I would start a new thread about the possibility.

It is my understanding that it was the cutter that caused a couple of manufacturers to be cautious and ban the use of the Agrus in their containers until the cutter issue was resolved. This is a chance for Argus owners to voice their thoughts about the possibility of a new cutter for their unit.

Getting the cutters approved by the manufacturers will be a costly endeavor, so I am attempting to get an idea of the market interest, to see if this will be worth while.

All feedback is welcome.

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

Getting the cutters approved by the manufacturers will be a costly endeavor almost impossible

There fixed it for ya.... My understanding is that the main reason we still don't see the M2 sold in North America is the reluctance of most of the rig manufacturers to even schedule time to look at it.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Dave,

Quote

Getting the cutters approved by the manufacturers will be a costly endeavor, so I am attempting to get an idea of the market interest, to see if this will be worth while.

My thought is that you have it backwards.

I would suggest that you work with the Argus folks and have them do the testing to determine if they feel that the cutter meets their req'ments.

Then it is on to the mfrs for their input.

JerryBaumchen

[gowlerk 1,912]

It would seem to me that the Argus was once approved, but that some approvals were withdrawn due to the cutter issue. As I remember it ended with the cutter manufacturer deciding to discontinue supplying them. This made it no longer possible to sell the Argus, approved or not.

If you have a suitable cutter, and Aviacom have a unit already designed, tested and proven but with no cutter supplier it would seem obvious that there is a potential for a business arrangement here.

Ken

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[df8m1 19]

Quote

Hi Dave,

Quote

Getting the cutters approved by the manufacturers will be a costly endeavor, so I am attempting to get an idea of the market interest, to see if this will be worth while.

My thought is that you have it backwards.

I would suggest that you work with the Argus folks and have them do the testing to determine if they feel that the cutter meets their req'ments.

Then it is on to the mfrs for their input.

JerryBaumchen

Aviacom was actually the first to contact me about the new cutters.

My thinking is to have a cutter that has been approved by as many manufacturers as possible, regardless it there is a sport AAD to attach them to or not. My reasoning is, (and feel free to tell me I have drank too much bath water), many of the manufacturers produce military versions of sport containers, and having their blessing to use my cutter in their container could be a marketing plus for my military AADs, second, with an approved “free agent” cutter ready to go, should there be any AADs with cutter issues in the future, I think there may be an advantage in having a good cutter that could be used in place of the problem one very quickly. This is just thinking out loud of course.

The design area is in regards to the cutting portion of the cutter, the power side is very well established, and we will be using a US supplier that makes the power units by hand, and has a very stringent QC program. We will use X-ray final inspection just as Airtec and my military cutter manufacturer does.

We are in the process of getting an explosives handling and storage license which is required to possess the power cartridges in raw form. This alone is will take 90 days or so.

I do not think the container manufacturers will be too reluctant to test the cutters, after all they manufacture a product that a growing number of people who buy their product put an AAD in them, and the more AAD choices the customer has, the more attractive the product is to the customer. It may be a PIA, but it is part of the business they are in, it is a PIA for me as well.. lol. I won’t even think of bothering them until I am confident that the problems are solved. The pinched loop failure can be reproduced, so we will be able recreate the conditions where the other cutter(s) trap loop and see how my design does.

Once the cutting portion is finished, then it is a matter of matching the power side to the AAD, and getting the proper connectors and AAD manufacturers approval.

I have also been contacted by some Argus owners wanting to know if they could use my cutter with their Argus. It is this interest that prompted me to start this thread to see if there is much of a cutter market in regards to Argus AADs in the USA.

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

If it's helpful, I've got 2 Argus AAD's and would love to see them come back to the market. I'm an intrigued customer...

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[gowlerk 1,912]

It could be interesting getting testing done for a cutter alone outside the context of a complete system. I'm having a hard time imagining an system that grants approval on a device depending on the particular cutter used. Getting complicated here. Or a DZ like Skydive AZ which refuses to allow an Argus to be used in any container, approved or not. Are they supposed to somehow determine the cutter model?

Of course none of these obstacles are impossible to overcome. I'd love to see more choice in AADs. Having just one main one, or even two leaves us too dependent on the health of the company. And it's ability to serve the market. Witness the current problem with the large percentage of the devices out there under the cloud of an SB with no apparent ability to do clear it up in less than 4 years. No to mention the shortage caused by the production disruption. More options would lessen this risk.

The size of the potential market for replacement Argus cutters is likely a sizable portion of the total of them produced. Most people who own them would jump at the chance to use them again. Probably to the tune of up tp $200 per unit. I don't own one myself, but if I did I would consider that a bargain.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[df8m1 19]

Quote

It could be interesting getting testing done for a cutter alone outside the context of a complete system. I'm having a hard time imagining an system that grants approval on a device depending on the particular cutter used. Getting complicated here. Or a DZ like Skydive AZ which refuses to allow an Argus to be used in any container, approved or not. Are they supposed to somehow determine the cutter model?

Of course none of these obstacles are impossible to overcome. I'd love to see more choice in AADs. Having just one main one, or even two leaves us too dependent on the health of the company. And it's ability to serve the market. Witness the current problem with the large percentage of the devices out there under the cloud of an SB with no apparent ability to do clear it up in less than 4 years. No to mention the shortage caused by the production disruption. More options would lessen this risk.

The size of the potential market for replacement Argus cutters is likely a sizable portion of the total of them produced. Most people who own them would jump at the chance to use them again. Probably to the tune of up tp $200 per unit. I don't own one myself, but if I did I would consider that a bargain.

You bring up some good points, they say nothing worth while is easy... lol.

Let me take a stab at the SDA ban... just thinking out loud again.. First a DZ is a privately owned business, and as far as I am aware they have the right to say only X container can be jumped there, and everyone else is ban, if people don't like that, there are other places in AZ to jump. I am OK with that, as it is part of their business model and I am sure they would have a reason of some sort.

Now in the case of the Argus, "how would they know which cutter it has?", how do they know the Cypres in a rig has had its 4 year and is airworthy?, that is a rigger’s responsibility, to verify that anything that is packed up in the reserve container is airworthy by manufacturer standards, and visual inspection. If the Argus was approved for flight with the new cutter and a rigger penciled the cutter change, and it was discovered that the cutter was not changed, then the rigger is in deep poop.

Now, even with a clean bill of health, SDA may continue to never allow an Argus onto its planes, and that is their call to make, and possibly fallout from a situation that could have been handled better on a lot of levels, (but that is easy to say from where I am)

I think I can safely say that Aviacom is permanently out of the AAD business, with the exception of it's service centers that conduct the 4 year checks supporting the units in the field. Even with available cutters, they will not be producing Argus AADs again.

To that point; I have been approached to take the Argus, and with my cutter, reintroduce it to the sport market, possibly with a new name if I thought that would help overcome some of the political fallout associated with the Argus name. However given our current developmental commitments on my plate, I would basically have to take them to the cleaners or rob them blind to make it even an option worth considering, and that doesn’t sit right with me in the least.

The only thing that has me actually thinking about it is that there are still a good number of Agrus AADs in the air, and I bet a good portion of the latest generation of jumpers have never heard the name before, or they think it is an audible of some kind, and I am pretty sure if there was any problems with the ones being jumped we all would have heard about it in a thread dedicated to it.

This thread suddenly took a turn, but after reading some messages when I logged on, I am thinking about the idea again, that is an emotional response, and emotion has no place in a business decision.

However…. I have no doubt that there is at least one person out there that will have an apposing viewpoint and will rip me a new one, bringing me be back into balance… lol

In other words, apposing viewpoints welcome….

[Divalent 89]

I've only been around for 2 years in the sport, but my recollection is that Argus is a tarnished brand only because of it's cutter reputation. If you were in fact taking the existing Argus control unit, and added a new cutter, I don't think there is any downside to keeping the Argus name. If the cutter can be easily exchanged with the older cutter on a unit that is still in service, it seems to me you would benefit from keeping that brand name. (And have decent market right out of the gate: right now many of the units are worthless, so folks would probably pay a premium to get a worthless item functional again.) And so you'd have immediate existing market presence, and there wouldn't be any awkward naming issues when refering to upgraded units (i.e., "I got an Argus control with the DF8M1 cutter"). (Designate a new model number, perhaps, to indicate the new cutter, which would apply to new units produced and upgraded existing units.) IOW, I think there is still good value to the Argus name, particularly if the new cutter can easily be swapped in for the old one.

I don't have an Argus, but if they had a cutter like the Cypres (reliable, and single blade), I would not hesitate to consider it when next purchasing an AAD. I would probably go for a Cypres if the cost was the same, so you'd have to undercut Cypres to get my business (but off hand I can't say how much that would have to be). I suspect a lot of sports skydivers would view it the same. In any event, I'll note that Cypres's recent issue has given you a window of opportunity that didn't exist a month ago when you first floated this possibility.

As for approval, it might make sense to call a couple of mfgs and outline what you are thinking of doing, as ask them exactly what they would require to get this new Argus cutter approved. Contact at least one that still approves use of the existing Argus, and one that has withdrawn approval (if there are any). It might be relatively simple ("just show us evidence that the cutter is unlikely to lock the container or misfire and partially cut the loop only to deploy at some later time") or it might be more complicated and time consuming. And I'd call SD AZ and speak with whoever decides their local rule, and similarly ask them what they would require to get their ban lifted. (It might be that you have to get all container mfgs who have banned the device to approve it with the new cutter.)

Good luck!

[bucketlistpilot 1]

Yes! Please fix my bedside paperweight.

Ian Purvis
http://www.loadupsoftware.com
LoadUp DZ Management App
[email protected]

[holie 0]

Quote

...
Getting the cutters approved by the manufacturers will be a costly endeavor, so I am attempting to get an idea of the market interest, to see if this will be worth while.
..

If it would be an replacement cutter for the existing Argus approved by the manufacturers - You'll have my order!

[PhreeZone 15]

One issue as I understand it with a "universal cutter" is each cutter on the market today uses a slightly unique plug and has slightly different voltage requirements to fire the charge. This is basically meaning you need to produce a uniquely wired cutter for each AAD and then that will make the costs much higher.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[df8m1 19]

Quote

One issue as I understand it with a "universal cutter" is each cutter on the market today uses a slightly unique plug and has slightly different voltage requirements to fire the charge. This is basically meaning you need to produce a uniquely wired cutter for each AAD and then that will make the costs much higher.

I say Universal Cutter or Free Agent Cutter meaning a cutter has been approved for use in certain containers, and could be built to meat a particular AAD manufacturers requirements, (interface and no/all fire power). This would only be done with the cooperation of the AAD manufacturer.

I think this model would fit well with the Argus, and the cost of the cutters may not be much more than the other AADs, certainly cheaper than buying a new AAD. But there are some hurtles that need to be cleared with Avaicom and the container manufacturers.

I have two different cutter design concepts; one I would say is based on a conventional cutter, and the other is more complicated where after the cutter fired, should the loop not have been cut, it would be free to be extracted as if the cutter never fired. It is hard to explain and is a reach in design to say the least, so I am going to make the conventional one first. It will be a single blade concept, but not like the Cypres V and Wedge.

Any cutter would require the approval of the AAD manufacturer and the container Manufacturer before it could be installed for use.

[df8m1 19]

Well the Symposium was fun, but I am gland to be home. We received a lot of positive response from Argus owners about the possibility of a new, manufacturer approved, cutter that they could buy, so they could use their Argus AADs again.

We talked with people from several countries and everyone supported the idea.... until....

The manufacturers that were approached with the concept supported the idea, stating that if the new cutter passed their compatibility tests, they couldn’t see a reason why not to reinstate the Argus AAD.

My concern stems from political mumblings relating to a legal battle between PIA and Aviacom. I have spoken to Vigil, (also involved in litigation with Aviacom) about the idea of marketing a cutter for the Argus AADs already in the field, and I was very pleased with their response, (now I am using my words, and am not in any way quoting, or implying a quote of any kind, or even paraphrasing anything said for that matter). The jist of it was that the issue is with Aviacom, not their customers, and the goal is to save lives. If a new cutter was to be made available to the customers who already have an Argus AAD, then that would support the effort to save lives.

I have not spoken with PIA yet, and will set tight until I get an idea where they stand. I have no interest in getting pulled into that mess, this is about jumpers, and if there is an opportunity to provide a product that is in need to them, then we all win, unless we get pulled into a legal battle.

I have confidence that PIA will see the big picture here, but... this is business, and doing a proper due diligence is a must.

If anyone has any thoughts on the political side and risks of marketing a cutter for the Argus, I would be very interested in hearing them.

The Argus cutter market is fixed and small, plus, we are going to have to spend several thousand dollars (of our own money) on cutters in order to conduct each manufacturers tests. This is not a get rich market, but I think there is enough to justify the hurdles, but not any legal action against us.

I am interested in any thoughts.

[mark 102]

Quote

I have not spoken with PIA yet, and will set tight until I get an idea where they stand. I have no interest in getting pulled into that mess, this is about jumpers, and if there is an opportunity to provide a product that is in need to them, then we all win, unless we get pulled into a legal battle.

I have confidence that PIA will see the big picture here, but... this is business, and doing a proper due diligence is a must.

I think you misunderstand how PIA works. There is no "big picture" to see.

PIA is not a regulatory body. It does not approve or disapprove designs or products. In particular, PIA never banned Argus AADs.

Some PIA-member manufacturers choose not to allow Argus AADs in their rigs. Other PIA-member manufacturers are okay with Argus AADs, or take an agnostic position with respect to AADs in general.

If you want to sell an after-market cutter, you need to convince individual AAD manufacturers (Airtec, AAD, FXC, MarS, and/or Aviacom, etc.) and individual harness/container manufacturers (UPT, Sunpath, Mirage, Aerodyne, etc.). You don't need to involve PIA.

Mark

[df8m1 19]

Quote

Quote

I have not spoken with PIA yet, and will set tight until I get an idea where they stand. I have no interest in getting pulled into that mess, this is about jumpers, and if there is an opportunity to provide a product that is in need to them, then we all win, unless we get pulled into a legal battle.

I have confidence that PIA will see the big picture here, but... this is business, and doing a proper due diligence is a must.

I think you misunderstand how PIA works. There is no "big picture" to see.

PIA is not a regulatory body. It does not approve or disapprove designs or products. In particular, PIA never banned Argus AADs.

Some PIA-member manufacturers choose not to allow Argus AADs in their rigs. Other PIA-member manufacturers are okay with Argus AADs, or take an agnostic position with respect to AADs in general.

If you want to sell an after-market cutter, you need to convince individual AAD manufacturers (Airtec, AAD, FXC, MarS, and/or Aviacom, etc.) and individual harness/container manufacturers (UPT, Sunpath, Mirage, Aerodyne, etc.). You don't need to involve PIA.

Mark

Thank you for your response Mark,

I totally agree that PIA has no power in reality. However PIA has a law suit against it by Aviacom, and it was presented to me in the words "this could be the end of PIA". I am very grateful for the incite, and did not take anything said as a threat, but when you have a political body, who’s very existence is in jeopardy, then things can get exciting.

The only concern I have about PIA is a nuisance law suit from PIA based on the thinking that I am partnering with Aviacom, or some such nonsense, and that putting the Arguses that are already in the field back in the air would some how add funds to the Aviacom legal fund, and as such, dragging me into the BS would be an effective way to stop that. I have had that happen before, nuisance law suits are a quick and dirty way to buy time and possibly collapse a company.

The manufacturers IMOP reacted properly to the original cutter issue, and given there wasn't any solution offered to the cutter problem, then really what else could they have done. Every manufacturer we have spoken to about making a cutter for the Argus units that are already in the field, responded very positively to the idea.

The big picture I was referring to is that I am not, in any way shape or form, partnered or associated with Aviacom. I started the process of designing a new cutter for my military AADs long before Aviacom contacted me about making a replacement cutter for the Argus, so that jumpers who do not have the funds to buy another AAD can use the one they bought and presently can not because of reasons beyond their control. I will have to spend my own money to pay for the cutters that the manufacturer will use for their tests, and there are only so many Argus units out there, so I will not get rich in the process, but I feel at this point that there is enough to justify my investment and it would be a good thing to do for other jumpers.

There is a lot of emotion on all sides of that law suit, clarity is very important, I just wanted to be sure that I am not walking into a mine field.

I am interested in your, or anyone’s thoughts.

[df8m1 19]

I wanted to up date the information as to not leave an open ended hole...

I have been in extensive talks with the power cartridge manufacturer that we are using for our military AADs. The subject of the conversations has been how to guarantee that their product will not be used in non-military applications if we are supplying a sport market cutter.

Based on the significant capitol investment that would be required to get all the container manufacturers approval, and the very limited remaining Argus market, I had decided not to peruse the effort of producing a replacement cutter for the Argus AAD earlier this summer. And to further solidify my position, our supplier said strait out that they were not interested in exposing themselves to any liability, directly or indirectly, from any non-military product that we, or a subsidiary, may market. In other words if we offered a sport cutter, they would not supply us with power cartridges for our military cutters.

So unfortunately we will not be offering a sport version of our cutter, for any sport application.

[JohnSherman 1]

David,

I have a cartridge manufacturer who will manufacturer catridges for Skydiving.

They manufactured the cartridge for this test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyP7m-HkXQY

Oh! that's not a cutter is it?

Looks like a Racer ripcord.
It will plug into an Argus with an adaptor.
What kind of plug are you using on your opener?
It will plug directly into a Vigil.
It has a 3.5MM stereo phone jack.

JS

[df8m1 19]

JohnSherman

David,

I have a cartridge manufacturer who will manufacturer catridges for Skydiving.

They manufactured the cartridge for this test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyP7m-HkXQY

Oh! that's not a cutter is it?

Looks like a Racer ripcord.
It will plug into an Argus with an adaptor.
What kind of plug are you using on your opener?
It will plug directly into a Vigil.
It has a 3.5MM stereo phone jack.

JS

I am using a 6 pin M-8 connector for mine...

I will not be offering any non military /gov AADs or cutters..

If you are interested.. I would encourage you to talk to Aviacom about their situation...If you haven’t already..

My power cartridge supplier will not have anything to do with a company that supplies civilian AAD cutters, and I am not excited about the lawsuit nature of the sport market...

Looks like you have made some progress with you pin puller... Are you planning on building an AAD to go with it?

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

I have been in extensive talks with the power cartridge manufacturer that we are using for our military AADs. The subject of the conversations has been how to guarantee that their product will not be used in non-military applications if we are supplying a sport market cutter.

Based on the significant capitol investment that would be required to get all the container manufacturers approval, and the very limited remaining Argus market, I had decided not to peruse the effort of producing a replacement cutter for the Argus AAD earlier this summer. And to further solidify my position, our supplier said strait out that they were not interested in exposing themselves to any liability, directly or indirectly, from any non-military product that we, or a subsidiary, may market. In other words if we offered a sport cutter, they would not supply us with power cartridges for our military cutters.

So unfortunately we will not be offering a sport version of our cutter, for any sport application.

You are over thinking the solution:
Simply use the same cutter that is used on the Cypres!
There are tons of them out there on the "expired" cypres' and you can get an approval from the FAA, not the manufacturers,

....Better yet you could become an FAA approved repair station and recertify the expired Cypres' and also the Argus'.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[df8m1 19]

masterrigger1

You are over thinking the solution:
Simply use the same cutter that is used on the Cypres!
There are tons of them out there on the "expired" cypres' and you can get an approval from the FAA, not the manufacturers,

....Better yet you could become an FAA approved repair station and recertify the expired Cypres' and also the Argus'.

MEL

Personally I do not like the Cypres cutter because the long plastic tail is easy to brake. Granted there are thousands of them in use, it is just something that I don't care for.

Also I do not think that a rigger can install an AAD with parts not approved by the AAD manufacturer, but I may be wrong about that.. ( an Argus with a Cypres cutter for example)..

The Cypres cutters have an expiration date as well, so if the manufacturer says that they are not airworthy, how would one convince the Feds to allow them to be used past that date?...

Plus I bet that Airtec would likely per sew legal action to stop their cutters from being used with other AADs, not sure if they have a legal standing, but that would not stop them from being an expensive pain... If I were them, my concern would not be a computation one, but rather a reputation concern, as lets say a jumper goes in with a non Airtec AAD adapted with an Airtec cutter... The AAD manufacturer would say the cutter failed, the cutter manufacturer (Airtec) would then have to deal with that, even though they did not have anything to do with it at all...

Then again, I could be wrong..lol

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Also I do not think that a rigger can install an AAD with parts not approved by the AAD manufacturer, but I may be wrong about that.. ( an Argus with a Cypres cutter for example)..

The AAD manufacturer is not FAA approved nor is the installation of the AAD FAA approved.

Also, the container manufacturers (all of them) have never supplied the FAA any specific documents relating to "approved" AADs to their ACO.... I checked.

So, pretty much you could do it.

Quote

The Cypres cutters have an expiration date as well, so if the manufacturer says that they are not airworthy, how would one convince the Feds to allow them to be used past that date?...

Again, the AAD manufacturers are not recognized by the FAA, but if you came up with a manual that it is good to go based on "X" testing and other documentation, and the FAA approves that manual, then actually you would have a more legal device than the original.

Quote

Plus I bet that Airtec would likely per sew legal action to stop their cutters from being used with other AADs, not sure if they have a legal standing, but that would not stop them from being an expensive pain...

Counter sue would be the answer here....
Also they buy the cutters from another manufacturer anyway.

Quote

as lets say a jumper goes in with a non Airtec AAD adapted with an Airtec cutter... The AAD manufacturer would say the cutter failed, the cutter manufacturer (Airtec) would then have to deal with that, even though they did not have anything to do with it at all...

Put your name on the cutter, problem solved.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[df8m1 19]

masterrigger1

The AAD manufacturer is not FAA approved nor is the installation of the AAD FAA approved.

Also, the container manufacturers (all of them) have never supplied the FAA any specific documents relating to "approved" AADs to their ACO.... I checked.

So, pretty much you could do it.

Thems fighten words lol... Many arguments have been started over the interpretation of the language regarding AADs, TSOs, and the container manufacturers... I for one am staying out of it! LOL

Quote

Again, the AAD manufacturers are not recognized by the FAA, but if you came up with a manual that it is good to go based on "X" testing and other documentation, and the FAA approves that manual, then actually you would have a more legal device than the original.

Personally I would not want to take on the liability of a product that was manufactured by another company, (and identified as not airworthy by that company), by claming that X tests, supersede the OM's expiration date.. But that's just me

masterrigger1

Counter sue would be the answer here....
Also they buy the cutters from another manufacturer anyway.

Sounds like an expensive international exercise for such a little market to generate revenue from... kinda supports what I said about being an expensive pain lol..

masterrigger1

Put your name on the cutter, problem solved.
MEL

YAAAHH... NOOO... LOL
But feel free to run with that idea

[westcoastSD 0]

Quote

Personally I do not like the Cypres cutter because the long plastic tail is easy to brake. Granted there are thousands of them in use, it is just something that I don't care for.

Like the one in the attached photo!

I Liked the Argus for many reasons. With a cutter that is undoubtedly going to work these would be the most versatile on the market hands down.

Do it!!!

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

masterrigger1 wrote:

The AAD manufacturer is not FAA approved nor is the installation of the AAD FAA approved.

Also, the container manufacturers (all of them) have never supplied the FAA any specific documents relating to "approved" AADs to their ACO.... I checked.

So, pretty much you could do it.

Thems fighten words lol... Many arguments have been started over the interpretation of the language regarding AADs, TSOs, and the container manufacturers... I for one am staying out of it! LOL

Nahh!... not fighting words, just firsthand knowledge on the subject matter.

Quote

Personally I would not want to take on the liability of a product that was manufactured by another company, (and identified as not airworthy by that company), by claming that X tests, supersede the OM's expiration date.. But that's just meTongue

...But you want to take over a product that has been a point of controversy and speculation. Not to mention that it has also been objected to being installed in several different makes of harness/containers !!!!???

I fail to see the difference between my scenario and yours.

Quote

masterrigger1 wrote:
Counter sue would be the answer here....
Also they buy the cutters from another manufacturer anyway.

Sounds like an expensive international exercise for such a little market to generate revenue from... kinda supports what I said about being an expensive pain lol..

Have you ever heard of Pro Bono?

Quote

masterrigger1 wrote:
Put your name on the cutter, problem solved.
MEL

YAAAHH... NOOO... LOL
But feel free to run with that idea Smile

I just might!

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com