0
nigel99

Cutting the loop or pulling the pin?

Recommended Posts

skytribe

Just playing devils advocate here and asking the question.

"So why did Argus shut up shop rather than just source another cutter ?" If it was a case of just sourcing another from an existing manufacturer. My impression was that it was not so simple and the was considerable costs involved.



I have spoken with Karel several times during the period that I was considering making a cutter for, and then possibly taking on the Argus, and I we have a NDA in place which I have to be mindful of when speaking of the Argus...

I like Karel, he is a very passionate person, and that passion that has, at times, not been great marketing or PR lol...

He and I talked about how the problem was handled, and agreed that it could have been done better, but that is water under the bridge...

At the same time period, Aviacom and PIA were at odds and I think Karels interest in pursuing a third generation cutter was lost... Personally from what I have seen, I think the Argus controller is as solid as the others on the market, and given the fact that there are still Argus units in the air, and we have not heard anything negative about them, tells me that with a proper cutter or actuation device attached to it, that the Argus AAD could make a comeback. We received a lot of support from people and manufacturers at Daytona when we were considering the Argus.. I think John would be served well if he decided to go that route..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It did appear the cutter was the issue and not the "Brains".

There are others players entering the sport market Mars being one, and I seem to recall at PIA symposium there was a Russian AAD there. All seem to have followed the cypres "Cutter" approach.

I'm glad another alternative is being explored and I think its got merits but to try and get people to change you have to do one of the following.

1/ Show its better by a wide margin
2/ Offer it at a significantly cheaper price.

Otherwise people will stick with what they know.

Try and do something with half a solution. ie. the puller then you are doomed to failure.

You can look at markets outside of skydiving - say Mobile Phone and see how hard it is to increase market share with something that is marginally better or around the same price as something already popular on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
df8m1

Personally from what I have seen, I think the Argus controller is as solid as the others on the market,



Fair enough. But given that you've talked with Karel, is the rule about changing the battery at every repack total B.S.? Or is is the electronics design so crappy that its going to drain the battery in 180 days and fail to power up or fire?

That rule was added in near the end of the time where the AAD was fully supported, and it wasn't clear to me whether it really was a problem with the Argus, or it was something that Karel did while flailing around trying to save the situation after all the bad press about cutters.

After all, the rule is worded so that even if a jumper has a cutaway the day after a repack, he has to have new batteries again put in the Argus. Sounds like a rule made by a man who wasn't thinking.

It really leaves open only 2 possible answers: a) the electronics are terrible for this day and age, or b) it is a useless rule imposed on users by a desperate company, a rule that continues to cost jumpers using the Argus AAD.

I do wonder whether that rule is really needed or not. But with that rule being there, I do follow it for my rigging customers.

P.M. me if you'd like me to start a new thread to address that issue, if there's a lot you can say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman

Is the rule about changing the battery at every repack total B.S.? Or is is the electronics design so crappy that its going to drain the battery in 180 days and fail to power up or fire?



[adding to, not replying to, pchapman] IIRC, the original requirement was to change the batteries annually. Later, the requirement was to change the batteries at every repack. Given that the repack cycle in some countries is up to one year, if the batteries would have been okay for one year for them, why would it have been different for those of us with shorter cycles?

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman

*** Personally from what I have seen, I think the Argus controller is as solid as the others on the market,



Fair enough. But given that you've talked with Karel, is the rule about changing the battery at every repack total B.S.? Or is is the electronics design so crappy that its going to drain the battery in 180 days and fail to power up or fire?

That rule was added in near the end of the time where the AAD was fully supported, and it wasn't clear to me whether it really was a problem with the Argus, or it was something that Karel did while flailing around trying to save the situation after all the bad press about cutters.

After all, the rule is worded so that even if a jumper has a cutaway the day after a repack, he has to have new batteries again put in the Argus. Sounds like a rule made by a man who wasn't thinking.

It really leaves open only 2 possible answers: a) the electronics are terrible for this day and age, or b) it is a useless rule imposed on users by a desperate company, a rule that continues to cost jumpers using the Argus AAD.

I do wonder whether that rule is really needed or not. But with that rule being there, I do follow it for my rigging customers.

P.M. me if you'd like me to start a new thread to address that issue, if there's a lot you can say about it.

I intentionally did not ask for or about any specific operational specks, (because I did not want to risk any problems given I am designing my own units), other than the firing circuit as I was considering making a cutter that was compatible with it, so as to your question regarding the possible relationship between the battery change intervals and the power efficiency of the design, I do not have any knowledge on that, even if I could talk about it.

Speaking from the perspective of an AAD manufacture, I could imagine that given the batteries were "off the shelf" there is no way to control the quality of the batteries used or their age. The overall capacity of the 1/3 A batteries that are used is not nearly as large as the Cypres for example, so that might be a reason for the preventive measure, (smaller capacity and uncontrollable quality)?...

The Argus has a low battery warning feature that will indicate that the batteries are at a low capacity level…so as to why the change in the battery replacement schedule, I do not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if there are not enough twists and turns with this already... a thought accrued to me and I debated if I should share it or not... it is based on a physiological analysis of the situation as a hole, not a technical argument… Keep this in mind…

Let me start by saying that John is very intelligent… and seems to have a flair for the dramatic lol… Any way… My point is he is not in any way lacking the gray matter to putt all the pieces of the puzzle together regarding what it would take to make his rip cord a truly viable option, that history alone would determine if it was the revolutionary contribution that I am sure he wants it to be.

So what if he never had any real intention of this being furthered to a state where it could actually compete with the other options that he so admittedly lobbies against, and potentially be rejected, or, go to the wayside like all the other pin pullers that have come an gone during the evolution of gear?

What if he is just board sitting at home in his bathrobe, and this gives him an opportunity to get out of the house, remind himself of a time that once was, and stir up the pot, all the while carefully positioning himself at a point where it will take action from others to further the process?? (Action that is very unlikely and he knows that, remember he is not dumb)… This would allow him to say that he has the solution, and he has done all he can do to save the sport from the evil cutters, but, because of the lack of understanding of the industry, everyone with a cutter will still be at risk and illegal...

If the rip cord is never put into the field, where any short comings will show up over time, as they have with the different cutter designs, then it will forever remain pure and untarnished legacy ….

Again… This is just a scenario that has played out in my head as I try to follow the logic of presenting half of a device… All in jest, but is it possiable?? :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think anyone thinks John is a fool. Years of experience in the industry is testament to that. And I think your probably thinking too much into this.

I think the people that are commenting here are a tough crowd and John has a position on certain things and the comments being made are ones which he would almost certainly be hearing from others about said position.

I admire the fact that he's looking at the pin puller/pusher design and seeing if its workable in both his container and others but feel that its gonna be an uphill struggle without a complete solution.

As to whether he would want to go that route or whether he wants to try the 3rd party component route is down to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skytribe

I don't think anyone thinks John is a fool. Years of experience in the industry is testament to that. And I think your probably thinking too much into this.

I think the people that are commenting here are a tough crowd and John has a position on certain things and the comments being made are ones which he would almost certainly be hearing from others about said position.

I admire the fact that he's looking at the pin puller/pusher design and seeing if its workable in both his container and others but feel that its gonna be an uphill struggle without a complete solution.

As to whether he would want to go that route or whether he wants to try the 3rd party component route is down to him.



I first met John at the world meet in 1981. And you are right, he is no fool. Over the years I am sure he has developed one than one thought into a working example without ever planning on taking it to production. That’s just the way some minds work. I am pretty sure he is learning more from this thread than any of us reading it.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the idea of a pinpuller but not as my only AAD-solution.

There is as we know two ways to deploy the reserve, cut or pull.

I already have a "pinpuller", and it's my left hand.
If my left hand fails (can't find the handle, forget to pull, hard pull, etc.) I want the AAD to activate the reserve.

But I don't have a way to manually cut the loop.
If I use a pinpuller instead of a cutter I remove "one option" of deploying the reserve.


What is the best way to activate the reserve?
In some cases it can be to pull the pin and in some cut the loop depending on if there is a lead ball in the cutter or the pin is bent.
So using a double AAD with one cutter and one puller is probably the best way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would question having both methods on a single AAD.

The interaction of both activation methods can create a whole new set of problems. As well as increase costs.

How bad is the problem ? Is the problem the activation itself or the brains triggering the activation. (Will raising activation help) Is the problem compounded by stuffing big canopies in small containers (would more sensible sizing help).

The AAD cutter is part of a system. At first level an AAD, next a reserve container system and ultimately a jumper wearing system.

Why not simple have 2 cutters to reduce the risk and likelihood of failure is reduced that both would fail. Either one would cause an activation. Do we think the risk at the moment is great enough that we need to start building redundant activation systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hellis

I like the idea of a pinpuller but not as my only AAD-solution.

There is as we know two ways to deploy the reserve, cut or pull.

I already have a "pinpuller", and it's my left hand.
If my left hand fails (can't find the handle, forget to pull, hard pull, etc.) I want the AAD to activate the reserve.

But I don't have a way to manually cut the loop.
If I use a pinpuller instead of a cutter I remove "one option" of deploying the reserve.


What is the best way to activate the reserve?
In some cases it can be to pull the pin and in some cut the loop depending on if there is a lead ball in the cutter or the pin is bent.
So using a double AAD with one cutter and one puller is probably the best way?



You might what to re-think your thesis. The more layers of complexity you add to a system the greater the chance of something going wrong.
We have too many jumpers now that do not understand how their gear works.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So using a double AAD with one cutter and one puller is probably the best way?



Maybe. Unless the puller working quicker causes the loop to go slack which in turn causes the cutter to not cut properly and trap the loop. Oops, another way to die has just been discovered! There are so many already, we don't need new ones.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skytribe

I would question having both methods on a single AAD.

The interaction of both activation methods can create a whole new set of problems. As well as increase costs.

How bad is the problem ? Is the problem the activation itself or the brains triggering the activation. (Will raising activation help) Is the problem compounded by stuffing big canopies in small containers (would more sensible sizing help).

The AAD cutter is part of a system. At first level an AAD, next a reserve container system and ultimately a jumper wearing system.

Why not simple have 2 cutters to reduce the risk and likelihood of failure is reduced that both would fail. Either one would cause an activation. Do we think the risk at the moment is great enough that we need to start building redundant activation systems.



I agree with you that there are more layers to the problems than only the cutter/reserve activation.

The AAD itself (the electronics) is one. But out of all the incident reports I have read very few have been caused by "delayed" electronics.
On the other hand overstuffing, lead balls and not completly cut loops is on the "other side".

But mybe I just missed the delayed electronics incidents?
(I mean it, I'm not trying to be sarcastic)


Two cutters won't make it redundant.
Because I don't know all rig systems, I will in this example use one that I know "well".
On a rig with the reserve closing loop attached on the bottom with the cutter above, and above freebag and PC. (for example Javelin)
If they both fire at the same time and the lower cutter cuts the loop but the one above does not (pinches) it, the two cutter system is not redundant.

However having one at the bottom and one at the top means if one of them fires it will work.
But if the bottom one doesn't work and the top one only pinches the loop your reservehandle is useless.

But do we need redundant activation methods you ask.
Maybe not. The risk is very low of it happening.
My post was not in any way backed up by any data of saying that on cutter and one puller is perfect. It has to be tested very thoroughly.

I just see a trend of people going in with a half deployed reserves, is that because of the overstuffing, delayed electronics, etc. or because the delay that becomes of the loop having to pass trough all the grommets?
I don't know.
But if this could help, maybe it's worth a thought?

Sparky: Please explain how my post shows you how I don't know how the gear works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Quote

So using a double AAD with one cutter and one puller is probably the best way?



Maybe. Unless the puller working quicker causes the loop to go slack which in turn causes the cutter to not cut properly and trap the loop. Oops, another way to die has just been discovered! There are so many already, we don't need new ones.


But if the puller pulls the pin, the loop is free, and the reserve PC will launch?
If the cutter works or does not work won't make a difference.

[EDIT: You are thinking of a top mounted cutter.
I see the problem.
Just move the cutter ;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sparky: Please explain how my post shows you how I don't know how the gear works.



I didn’t say that you don’t know how your gear works. I don’t know you so I can’t very well make that judgment. But there are far too many jumpers that do fit that profile.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why not simple have 2 cutters to reduce the risk and likelihood of failure is reduced that both would fail. Either one would cause an activation. Do we think the risk at the moment is great enough that we need to start building redundant activation systems.




We used cutters in several configurations during testing. And we would always use 2 for the redundant factor. In the 20 years I was involved in testing I can't remember seeing one fail.

They were similar to the ones used on AAD’s but were initiated by a timer instead of electrical pulse.

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Testing/Cutters.jpg

As for putting 2 cutters on an AAD….that is an interesting proposition. But it sure would open a can of worms.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjosparky

Quote

Why not simple have 2 cutters to reduce the risk and likelihood of failure is reduced that both would fail. Either one would cause an activation. Do we think the risk at the moment is great enough that we need to start building redundant activation systems.




We used cutters in several configurations during testing. And we would always use 2 for the redundant factor. In the 20 years I was involved in testing I can't remember seeing one fail.

They were similar to the ones used on AAD’s but were initiated by a timer instead of electrical pulse.

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Testing/Cutters.jpg

As for putting 2 cutters on an AAD….that is an interesting proposition. But it sure would open a can of worms.

Sparky


....................................................................................

How about taking a two-pin Cypres or Vigil (out of a Strong or Racer Tandem), then installing one cutter in the pack tray (of a single-pin reserve container) and the second cutter on top of the pilot-chute?
... or is that starting to sound paranoid????
Hah!
Har!
Har!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. It's actually very easy for this to happen on a racer. Much easier then on a one pin rig. You see if one loop cuts and the other is not completely severed then the PC just flips up on one end. The cap just hinges up on one end and the base of the spring pops out.It just flaps their with no force on the remaining loop. Any type of pinch on one loop or a bit of fabric caught in the look inside the D-bag and this can happen leaving the pilot chute just flapping on your back. I know a guy this happened to. A one pin has the loop passing through the center of the spring. If the loop is "pinched" at least the spring continues to pull on it. The spring can not just escape like on a racer when one loop for what ever reason hesitates to let go.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meresa

Has a CYPRES cutter ever failed to sever a loop?

not to my knowledge (provided the loop was routed THROUGH the cutter)

There has been at least a case where the loop wasn't cut by the Cypres cutter (which had fired). The loop had not been routed through the cutter.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meresa

Has a CYPRES cutter ever failed to sever a loop?



As far as I know, no, and they rightfully advertise this as a fact. This has never happened when the loop was routed through the cutter. There was one incident where a Vigil cutter was assembled in the cutter factory with no knife installed. This resulted in a failure to cut a loop, and a recall and SB of certain lots of cutters. That problem has been solved. There have been Argus cutters that failed to completely sever loops. The reasons for this are in dispute, but the problem eventually resulted in the Argus being discontinued.

Most readers of this forum already are aware of all this. I only mention these facts to clear up any misunderstandings resulting from this thread.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

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