0
markodarko

Argus AAD

Recommended Posts

markodarko

New jumper looking at gear from known source. It's a Mirage container with an 2010 Argus. I would appreciate some current and hopefully educated opinions on this cutter. Thanks.




It is orphaned equipment. No longer made for civilian use. Stay away from them.
Jmo

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A number of locals jump them and I have no problem servicing their rigs.

Cheap because so many dislike them.
Only allowed on a few brands of rigs.
I don't recall any issues with the most recent type of cutters on them, although Argus' history is long and complex so I could be wrong. Earlier cutters had occasional issues.
They are not supported by the company but are supported by dealers (eg Chuting Star) who can do the 4 year checks.
Not sure about the supply of cutters.
Cost more at every repack as the latest rules were to replace batteries (a type of camera battery) every repack.

That's what I recall off the top of my head anyway.

Probably best to not recommend an Argus to anyone who isn't already familiar with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't recommend them either. But I will say that if you are considering purchasing one with the rig the market value of it is $200-$300. Don't overpay.
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
1 of my 2 Argus are in for service at Chutingstar right now. Through my discussion with them, they indicated that Aviacom is still reviewing the test results and providing the certificate. They're simply not selling new units or making new cutters. As for cutters, between the 2 places I talked to, they said there is still lots of supply. The batteries are cheap. I buy them off of eBay for $20 for a 10 pack of current Duracell batteries.

I jump mine in a Mirage and Wings. It is a proven design, it works and I'm completely comfortable jumping them.

If you read all the incidents involving Argus cutters, each one has an "odd" circumstance surrounding them (ie: ball bearing inside the cutter from a rigger's packing weight. Translation, in my opinion, 100% of the Argus incidents could have occurred on ANY other cutter.

Depending on age, they're worth in the neighbourhood of $200-$400. That being said, I traded a 2010 Argus fresh off of service for a Cypres 1 with 1 year left. The other one, I think I paid $200 and it was from 2009 with a 1 year old service if I recall.
"When once you have tasted flight..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not here to debate, I stated my interpretation and that's all.

Even if it was a complete failure, what about those cypress units in zhills that resulted in a double fatality?

Point is, none of these units are perfect. They are designed as a failsafe and every mechanical device has potential for failure. There's nothing "more"wrong with an Argus than a cypres, out a vigil out an m2. Each company s marketing material will claim otherwise but that's why it's marketing.
"When once you have tasted flight..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa

I'm not here to debate, I stated my interpretation and that's all.



Looks like debating is what we're doing here. ;)

Quote

There's nothing "more" wrong with an Argus than a Cypres, or a Vigil or an m2.



Do you have a statistical basis for this claim, or is it "common sense" or something? Are you saying they are equally reliable?

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too bad your not forming an opinion from a position of knowledge. The "fixed" cutter has exactly the same geometry and tolerances of the original. Have drawings. No other cutter has a history of capturing loops. Reserves failing to open before impact is not related to the aad or the issue with the Argus cutter.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should also mention that as far as I know they are still banned from Skydive Arizona. They will not allow them on their airplanes at all.
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
councilman24

Too bad your not forming an opinion from a position of knowledge. The "fixed" cutter has exactly the same geometry and tolerances of the original. Have drawings.



That's interesting.
Were they the drawings from the PIA site?

Still, isn't the HARDNESS different?
That's what Aviacom wrote.

SB AMMO050811
Quote

Cutters manufactured in September ’07 and after are hardened following a different process resulting in a increased hardness of the blade and a cleaner cut by loops with lesser tension



I'll defer to you as at the moment I'm not going to re-read the myriad of Argus related bulletins, reports, and documents on my computer to figure it all out again!


Still, a quick recap for myself and anyone:

Feb 2011 San Marcos Texas -- Cutter failed to cut fully. The mystery steel bearing fell out of the cutter when it was opened for examination. Damage found to the cutter edge. No proof of anything, but it suggested the foreign object damaged the cutter. It was a new style cutter (2008) but apparently didn't fail 'on its own'.

Sept 2010 Evora, Portugal -- Popped in the airplane due to too fast descent, didn't fully cut, they say because leaning back on the rig took tension off the too long & unsiliconed reserve loop. For some this may be an acceptable explanation, for others that's just excuses for a poor cutter. Edit: I believe it was one of the older cutters. Not quite clear to me yet but a bunch of cutter tests during the investigation on similar cutters were on the older style cutter.

July 2009 Poland -- Student fatality, no pull. A report said cutter cut at the right altitude, and cut properly (I wonder), but the reserve didn't come out of the container until impact. Jan 2007 cutter (old style). After that we got the bulletins on getting the newer cutter.


Also, the cutters USUALLY cut ok. Guess your viewpoint an Arguses will differ whether you want to
a) just wear an AAD because someone says you have to
b) wear an AAD to give you a 99%(?) chance of cutting the loop (which is way, way better than no AAD)
c) wear an AAD to give you a near 100% chance of cutting the loop.
:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hardness may have changed (as claimed) but didn't fix the loose tolerances. Drawings from APF. May be the same as on PIA. Haven't checked. Still a crappy design never intended for life safety. Manufacturer withdrew from supplying them when found out what they were used for.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of the speculation in support or against Argus AAD's, the point is this.

Anyone who relies on an AAD to save their life probably shouldn't be skydiving. In my opinion, the only reason an AAD should fire and you should require it's use would be if someone was unconscious. Anything else is 100% user error.

1) Why didn't you activate your own reserve?
2) Why did you get to the basement of your skydive without getting something out?
3) Why didn't you cutaway sooner? / Why did you cutaway so low?
4) Why don't you use a dytter? Why weren't you checking your altimeter?

The defective device is the jumper using it because they failed to operate a parachute correctly. Yes, I realize that there are exceptions and once in a lifetime chances, but in reality the reason for AAD activations in MOST cases...is human error. If they didn't put themselves into that position, they wouldn't have required it, regardless of how well it works.

Out of all the AAD activations I've read (including all brands), very, very few of them are actual "saves". 95% of them are users who lost altitude awareness, or were too dumb to save their own lives.


Much the same, everyone thinks that airbags are the end all be all of road safety. Nope, many people actually die DUE TO AIRBAG DEPLOYMENTS. Does that mean that cars shouldn't have them? Nope, it was a "chance" to prevent death but no one is freaking out about airbags are we now. Everyone seems to have a personal vendetta against Aviacom even though all their information is 6th hand and lost in translation. But I'm glad that we've certainly got some experts on here that "know" that they are defective (all of them I might add). Some of them might even have known that lady, who has a friend, that told his Uncle, that a guy from over there told a story about a guy that had a mal one day, who had a friend that knew a guy that wingsuits and had an incident in Empuriabrava. I'd trust that guy's internet forum posts anyday over the official police reports....

Jump whatever makes you feel comfortable, if not, it's probably best you stay on the ground....or risk being another Gerardo Florez...or whatever that guy's name was for suing a dropzone because his canopy opened...
"When once you have tasted flight..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24

Hardness may have changed (as claimed) but didn't fix the loose tolerances.



I don't remember hearing anything about problems with loose tolerances, only about problems with soft metal. Do you have any more info about this?

mark

Also one in Empuriabrava last year.



The only info I've seen about that is this thread. It contains one post reporting a rumour that there was an Argus and that it didn't fully cut the loop, and one post (from the Argus manufacturer) saying that there was no Argus involved at all, so it's unclear to me if this is, in fact, another Argus failure-to-cut incident or not.
"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa

Everyone seems to have a personal vendetta against Aviacom even though all their information is 6th hand and lost in translation.



I don't know anyone who has a personal vendetta against Aviacom. Quite the contrary: I think all of us, Aviacom included, are committed to the safety of our sport.

I've read the technical reports and talked with investigators and others with first-hand knowledge. Some of the others posting in this thread have similar experience.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to start an argument, either. I just want to jog my memory on this. Didn't USPA & the PIA both repeatedly ask the Argus manufacturer to come to meetings & address the safety concerns? Didn't the manufacturer stick its head in the sand until the Argus was finally banned almost universally in this country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, few comments on the below posts:

Chris-Ottawa
If you read all the incidents involving Argus cutters, each one has an "odd" circumstance surrounding them (ie: ball bearing inside the cutter from a rigger's packing weight. Translation, in my opinion, 100% of the Argus incidents could have occurred on ANY other cutter.

Chris-Ottawa
There's nothing "more"wrong with an Argus than a cypres, out a vigil out an m2.

Pchapman
July 2009 Poland -- Student fatality, no pull. A report said cutter cut at the right altitude, and cut properly (I wonder), but the reserve didn't come out of the container until impact. Jan 2007 cutter (old style). After that we got the bulletins on getting the newer cutter.


Please read THIS:

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OrganizationBulletins/2009_562FINALREPORT.pdf

and this:

http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OrganizationBulletins/2009_620_RK_English.pdf


B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, both of those apply to the old style cutters.

Thanks for the refresher, forcing me to dig some more.

Re:
2009_562FINALREPORT.pdf

This is the well known Polish student fatality. There were extensive tests with cutters and investigation into cutter hardness. The loop in the accident was partially cut and then torn the rest of the way (perhaps by impact); although in most tests the cutters worked fine, they were able to replicate the problem on the ground at least once; cutter edges could be seen to have been damaged when they cut into the closing loop.

Tests did show that the newer style cutters have a greater hardness (eg ~560 HB) than old ones (eg ~475 HB)
... but still less than two other brands of AAD's (eg, another circular cutter, which is likely the Vigil at ~634HB, and a straight blade cutter that must by the Cypres at ~722HB)


Re:
2009_620_RK_English.pdf

So that was a no injury case where the Argus wasn't involved with the actual situation. But it fired after a low reserve pull, and apparently with no tension on the loop, it failed to cut the loop fully. (Cutter at backpad so loop is always through it.)

However, the accident board got no AAD data from Aviacom. With the apparently quite low reserve opening, they were left to speculate whether the student pulled first or the AAD fired first. If the latter were true, it would mean it failed to cut even with tension on the loop. They write that based on the research after the other Polish incident, it is possible for an Argus to fail to cut even with sufficient tension on the loop.

It was a 2006 Argus, and while it didn't say specifically, probably thus probably had the pre 2007 cutter.

(That incident didn't get too much press, but I found the doc on my hard drive so I must have seen it before.)


So overall the conclusion remains for me:

- There has never been a new style cutter that has failed that we know of (excluding foreign object damage by a steel bearing)
- That doesn't mean the new cutters can't fail, but they haven't yet.
- The new cutters are better: they are hardened more than the old ones which were responsible for all the incidents
- But they are still softer than other companies' cutters

Some people may conclude (a) you shouldn't ban something if there's no proof that it won't work, or (b) you can ban something if you think it is worse than other similar devices, given a prior poor track record.


Edit:
To be clear, my earlier post gives the wrong implication about the Polish fatality. Initially there was some question about the cutter's performance, but in the end it was clear that the loop had only been partially cut and probably didn't free itself from the cutter until impact, holding the reserve container closed until then.

The PIA site also includes one more incident that was less talked about due to lack of information:

-- Italy Jan 2008 -- (Note the report is 2010, but the incident seems to be no later than Jan 2008) Reserve popped on the ground. Looks like the Argus had activated and partially cut some time earlier, and then perhaps the final fibres of the loop broke while the rig was sitting on the ground. No additional info. Not clear what the AAD or cutter date was, but since the rig was from 2005, and it happened only a few months after the new style cutters went into production, it was likely an old style cutter.


Excuse me if I'm rushing through all of this a bit, but I have limited time to devote to summarizing all this Argus stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Banned in New Zealand.



Skydiving is basically banned in New Zealand is it not?

You cannot even fart without having to write a thesis about it.

I will never work there again.

I thought that NZPO did not have any rules pertaining to Argus other than accepting them as an approved device?

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