NNault 0 #1 June 11, 2011 I am in the market for an AAD and had in intresting conversation with a friend/rigger. Among others, the maker of todays Vector, UPT Vector, has pulled the use of the Argus AAD from any of their rigs. I jump and older Vector II made by the Uninsured Relative Workshop---now UPT Vector. seeing as this is a "different company" and the maker of the Vector II is "no longer in business", the Argus has not been pulled from their containers. Would you think it would be ok to put an Argus in my rig? What do others think about this "grey area"?Dude..what the hell is on your head? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #2 June 11, 2011 You can rationalize it all you want but the answer is no, the manufacturer has said it is not authorized."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #3 June 11, 2011 Quote You can rationalize it all you want but the answer is no, the manufacturer has said it is not authorized. He can go though a field approval process and make it a legal install if the FSDO approves the application. Cheers, MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #4 June 11, 2011 Meh... What's that Booth guy know anyway, right? Every major manufacturer has banned the Argus from their rigs. Why would you even consider this? Is saving $400-$500 really worth your life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NNault 0 #5 June 11, 2011 I have NO intention on actually buying one. Seeing as just about every manufacturer has banned them that should go without saying..HOWEVER..With that said i found the conversation very interesting.Dude..what the hell is on your head? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #6 June 11, 2011 Hi N, Quoteseeing as this is a "different company" Why do you think it is a different company? A name change is merely an administrative procedure and does not effect the TSO-authorizations at all; other than you have to use the new name in the marking. The equipment now being produced by UPT is being produced under the TSO-authorizations that were issued to RWS back in '84; other than their tandem rigs. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NNault 0 #7 June 12, 2011 With that being said I could of posed that question better.. TSO"s are the same? QuoteHi N, Quoteseeing as this is a "different company" Why do you think it is a different company? A name change is merely an administrative procedure and does not effect the TSO-authorizations at all; other than you have to use the new name in the marking. The equipment now being produced by UPT is being produced under the TSO-authorizations that were issued to RWS back in '84; other than their tandem rigs. JerryBaumchenDude..what the hell is on your head? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #8 June 12, 2011 QuoteWith that being said I could of posed that question better.. TSO's are the same? Yes, my 81 Wonderhog uses the same TSO as my 2010 V3-M. The V3's data panel even says Wonderhog on it."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #9 June 12, 2011 Hi N, Quote The equipment now being produced by UPT is being produced under the TSO-authorizations that were issued to RWS back in '84; My error; should say '74. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #10 June 12, 2011 I was going to say, I'm pretty sure the 81 'hog I have sitting in my other room has the same TSO as my 2010 V3-M. "I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #11 June 12, 2011 QuoteMeh... What's that Booth guy know anyway, right? Every major manufacturer has banned the Argus from their rigs. Why would you even consider this? Is saving $400-$500 really worth your life? Sunrise Manufacturing (wings) hasn't.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #12 June 13, 2011 I stand corrected. Almost every major manufacturer has banned the Argus from their containers. Moot point IMO, but there it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #13 June 13, 2011 Quote A name change is merely an administrative procedure and does not effect the TSO-authorizations at all; other than you have to use the new name in the marking. Jerry, I think you are both correct and incorrect. They are using the same TSO, but with the name change, so did ownership of the TSO. The TSO can only be owned by one responsible entity that reports to MIDO (FAA). History has shown us that different ownerships of TSOs show the the new owner is not responsible for the previous owners problems, Service Bulletins, or AD's. Case and point,.. Sky Supplies, Inc, that built the original Mirage, later sold to National, and now Mirage Systems. Do you think Mirage Systems has control over the older rigs? No, they do not for a couple of reasons. One is to seperate themselves from liabilty. The other is they do not want to support the older systems with parts and service. BTW, the Vector I and II parts are starting to be harder to come by these days. Cheers, MEL PS- Thanks for the item you mailed! Means alot!Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #14 June 13, 2011 QuoteI think you are both correct and incorrect. They are using the same TSO, but with the name change, so did ownership of the TSO. So, even though it's the same company (just a name change) they're not really responsible for the older Vectors, and cannot really issue SB's for them? Just trying to learn the ropes, this doesn't come up much."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #15 June 13, 2011 Quote So, even though it's the same company (just a name change) they're not really responsible for the older Vectors, and cannot really issue SB's for them? Just trying to learn the ropes, this doesn't come up much. According to the FAA (which will be here tomorrow regarding these issues, BTW), the "old" company is no more. The TSO is a one entity ownership that has one QA program, etc. The FAA takes oversight of the "old" issues just like a aircraft repair station that no longer is in exsistance. If a problem arises with, let's say a propeller that that repair shop repaired or made; the FAA issues SB's for that issue. BS, MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #16 June 13, 2011 Interesting. Never would've thought that it would be an easy thing to do. So they essentially changed their names, then they became the new owners of the Wonderhog TSO, and since then, have held no liability for the older systems out there, and can't even tell us what to do with them if they tried?"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #17 June 13, 2011 Quote History has shown us that different ownerships of TSOs show the the new owner is not responsible for the previous owners problems, Service Bulletins, or AD's. Case and point,.. Sky Supplies, Inc, that built the original Mirage, later sold to National, and now Mirage Systems. Do you think Mirage Systems has control over the older rigs? But I'm wondering if that's more a PRACTICAL issue than a LEGAL one. The new company may or may not feel they are responsible, or care about outmoded rigs that almost nobody jumps. Would the responsibility still not legally stay with the TSO holder, rather than disappear if there was a change of company? I would guess that the company's word still holds, for rigs old and new, so then it just matters how things are worded. If Mirage Systems says you can't use an Argus in any Mirage, that probably applies to any Mirage under the TSO, 1 pin or 2 pin. If they were to put it only into the Manual for the 1 pin Mirage, then it would only apply to the 1 pin Mirage. That's a bit different issue than TSO production authorization as you addressed in a post after the one quoted above. Interesting topic of discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #18 June 13, 2011 Quote But I'm wondering if that's more a PRACTICAL issue than a LEGAL one. The new company may or may not feel they are responsible, or care about outmoded rigs that almost nobody jumps. Would the responsibility still not legally stay with the TSO holder, rather than disappear if there was a change of company? No, The responsibilty would not follow. I have been looking into buying a TSO and have looked at all legal issues. As far as the FAA is concerned, the new Company has absolutely no responsibilty to the old TSO holder or equipment or parts manufactured by that entity. As far as the court systems, there have been attempts to include the new TSO or Certificate holder/owner into lawsuits involving the old TSO Holders problems. Most have failed to attach the new TSO holder because of the FAA 's stance. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #19 June 13, 2011 Quote That's a bit different issue than TSO production authorization as you addressed in a post after the one quoted above. How did you come to that conclusion? The repair station is no different than a TSO holder. They both have certificates to do what they do, they also have QA programs in place, they both can (in most cases)manufacture parts for certificated use. The list goes on.... MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #20 June 13, 2011 What I meant about the TSO production thing is that at first look is that there are two somewhat separate issues. A company might be the legal owners of a TSO but not have an authorized production system to produce that TSO'd part. If a company has an approved production system, does it apply to all products under the TSO? I would guess not, but don't know. For example, UPT will have a decent system in place for Vector IIIs. But does their production approval apply to original Wonderhogs too? They shouldn't, if they don't have all the original hog templates readily at hand and properly labelled, with production instructions, or whatever would satisfy the FAA for production authorization. Your points are interesting about how "the new Company has absolutely no responsibilty to the old TSO holder or equipment or parts manufactured by that entity." If the company has no responsibility, is that just about liability for products produced by the old company (a big concern if you have looked into buying a TSO!), or does it involve "manufacturer's instructions" in any way? For example, I can see that it might be difficult to sue Mirage Systems for a failure in a 2 pin Mirage built by The Annex or National Parachutes or Sky Supplies or whomever did so. The company is a different legal entity. But, if it is all on the same TSO, can't Mirage Systems make rulings on 2 pin Mirages? We know the whole bit about riggers following manufacturers' instructions according to the FAA. If Mirage System disallows (or allows) the Argus in their rigs, is that for all rigs under the TSO, or only the ones that particular company made? Is Mirage Systems allowed to amend the packing instructions for the 2 pin Mirage? Or can UPT do the same for the original Wonderhog? And is the situation different if one company acknowledges the old gear, and another doesn't? You can find the hand written Wonderhog instructions on the UPT site. While I haven't checked, I bet you can't find any 2 pin Mirage packing manuals on the Mirage Systems website. You've provided useful information about the legal situation but I'm still trying to understand who may or may not provide "manufacturer's instructions" on older rigs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #21 June 13, 2011 Quote But, if it is all on the same TSO, can't Mirage Systems make rulings on 2 pin Mirages? Negative. A different entity built that container under a different QA program. In fact, to install an AAD (loop cutter type)in that rig absolutely requires a field approval. Getting to the field approval issue..... It may come to this on all rigs as it stands now. BS, MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #22 June 13, 2011 QuoteGetting to the field approval issue..... It may come to this on all rigs as it stands now. Can you say a little more about this? It seems like if all rigs will need some sort of approval, the simplest place to do that is with the rig manufacturers -- but then we wouldn't need field approvals, would we? Or, since this is an Argus thread, are you suggesting that field approvals would be a way to get around the manufacturers' disapprovals? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #23 June 13, 2011 QuoteI stand corrected. Almost every major manufacturer has banned the Argus from their containers. Moot point IMO, but there it is. http://www.argus-aad.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189&Itemid=45 Might want to check that out too. Its not just sunrise, just the only one I could pull off the top of my head.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #24 June 13, 2011 Quotehttp://www.argus-aad.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189&Itemid=45 Might want to check that out too. Its not just sunrise, just the only one I could pull off the top of my head. Most of the manufacturers in that list have revoked their certiciations. It's really unethical for Argus to leave them up. For example, here's Sunpath revoking their certification: http://sunpath.com/docs/SPSB006-3.22.11_0.pdf__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #25 June 13, 2011 QuoteQuotehttp://www.argus-aad.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189&Itemid=45 Might want to check that out too. Its not just sunrise, just the only one I could pull off the top of my head. Most of the manufacturers in that list have revoked their certiciations. It's really unethical for Argus to leave them up. For example, here's Sunpath revoking their certification: http://sunpath.com/docs/SPSB006-3.22.11_0.pdfThat's what I get for not looking at the year :) You'd think they'd update that.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
