rhys

Quote

There is no way that freebag was out and exposed to 120mph air with the folds near the slider still perfectly arranged and undisturbed.

If it was locked closed by the bridle the fabric would not be exposed now, would it. if the reserve was in fact rigged with the bridle around the lines, then the lines would have met much resistance from the bridle but the figure 8's could still slide out and the locking stows could still slide out leaving the freebag compleltly locked closed by the bridle, the slider grommets would be the first object that would not slide through the loop of the bridle.

we all know how little time there is from 750 feet to impact.

With the bag locked closed the fabric would not be exposed to the relative wind.

How else do you suspect the opening sequence would go if the bridle was wrapped around the lines like that?



There is no way the bridle can dance around the lines and end up like that due to a broken loop on impact...

Truth is neither of us know for sure, you tend to beleive one thing and I tend to beleive another.

Quote

It's happened before. It's pretty clear that that perfectly packed reserve never saw any airflow across it.

It is also pretty clear that the pack has never completely left the freebag as it is still partially inside the freebag after impact.

I stand by my observation that it is most likely that the bridle held the freebag closed until the point of impact, this would meant the loop was cut and the pilot chute launched.

That is speculation, as is any other conclusion it seems. but it is the best assumtion I can come up with. It is also backed by the evidence.

The routing of the bridle is best explined with this scenario.

Quote

2) Both have had problems, but when Vigil was confronted on them, they responded and fixed the problem.

Ahem, apparently fixed the problem, if the prob;em was fixed there would not have been a vigil fire on the ground.

Had that have been on climb out, the whole load could have gone in.

Just because they tweaked some knobs, does not mean they fixed anything.

if they fixed something, they dod not fix everythong as we would not be having this conversation if they did.

Oh so if you are at an otter dropzone there is no chance of a premature fire in a freefly jump with someone above you? or a myrad of other scenarios.

yes this was a tandem vigil, but wht is to say t cannot occur in all units?

Quote

Well, no, that's not the big problem with Argus. If that's all it was there wouldn't be this stink. The problem is sometimes it tries to cut the loop, fails, and results in a reserve total malfunction.

That is the conclusion some have come to. aparentlt with biased points of view, incomplete analysis and incorrect assumtions.

it may well be the case, but not so definitive as you make it out to be.

Vigils for sure fire when they shouldn't, they have done so before on various occasions, it is time to bann them immediately, based on the rationale given to the argus.

Quote

Given what Sparky has posted about the rebound energy, the opening sequence would not be what you expect.

I never said that is what t expect, but knowing the opening sequence helps understand what might happen, or in this case, what might not happen in the event of loop snapping on impact.

Quote

If there was rebound energy moving up through the jumper and pushing the freebag upwards and out of the reserve ...

...Do we know for sure? No. But the options are that it happened on it's own, was misrigged, or was 'staged' to alter the results of the investigation. With no reason to suggest such a grave rigging error, no reason to suggest foul play that would motivate someone to doctor the equipment at the scene, and a mechanism (as explained above) to explain the configuration in which the equipment was found, we go with the explanation that it happen upon impact.

You missed the possibility that the reserve hesitated.

and we do indeed have reason to believe it was miss rigged as there is a bridle wrapped around a freebag... whether that is conclusive or not is a different story, but there is certainly reason to beleive...

and there are possibly several other scenarios that may or may not be considered or known.

Quote

That is not “pure assumption” on Eric’s part but it is assumption on your part. Having been involved in more fatality investigations then I care to think about I assure you that what you see in the pictures not unusual. The forces generated when a 200+ lb body hits the ground at around 120 mph is somewhere around 49 tons. Since 60% of the human body is water the rebound energy is more than enough to break the loop and pitch the bag from the container.

So you beleive that upon impact the loop can snap, and the freebag can have perfect linestrech while the bridle neatly wraps itself around the lines....

I know there is alot of force upon impact of a 70-80kh weight hittning the ground at or near terminal. That does not explain how the bridle came to be configured as such. Do you sugest the freebag was thrown forward while the spring neatly danced around the lines, then continued the same trajectory?

Quote

You have no idea how this rig was packed. From your response I would say your knowledge of proper rigging is limited. You need to quit looking for something that is not there.

Sparky

I know that the bridle should not be around the lines and I know the closing and opening sequence, that is all I need to know to make a valid observation of that photo, your buddies assertion, is only that. It has merit and I am not saying that it is definately not true, though it seems really unlikely that the equipment could be configured like that from the loop breaking on impact.

Good question.

Note that vigil are not the only units to fire fire for no reason, It seems argus has the best track record in this respect.

Quote

The freebag is flap up, so it is flipped atleast 180* from its proper orientation.

http://www.dropzone.com/...post=3819176#3819176

See that post, he purposefully recreated the picture, then pulled on it... wanna guess what happened when he pulled with a heavy hand (which was probably not even close to what the PC would've done)?

Pulling on the bridle after recreating the configuration that resulted after impact, is nowhere close to simulating the configuration the system was in when the person was still in freefall.

That is a seriously flawed excercise as you have not worked backwards through the sequence.

link please...

Quote

With the bridle under true tension there would not be the 2-4 feet of bridle between the freebag and where it went around the lines. Try it yourself, I did during a repack to see if I could get it to match up and with more than minimal tension on the pilot chute it will not line up that way and the material is messed up if it occurs with any airflow at all around it.

So what are you saying about these photos then?

Do you assume the evidence was tampered with, or that the bridle being wrapped around the lines would not inhibit an opening from less than 1000ft?

if you read the words of the article you posted;

Quote

Some have called this the controversial photo but I don’t see any controversy here. If any of this was out before impact, this would be a tangled mess. This is clearly not the case here.
An impact at terminal is very violent and traumatic; it can produce many of such occurrences. Things can and do explosively fly many directions, in many ways. I would rather not give detail from my experience.

That is pure assumtion, It is difficult to beleive that the freebag could have been launched off the back of the jumper upon impact and the bridle ending up configured as such.

Can you be more clear as to how you interpret that report.

It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

How anyone can pack a reserve like that is beyond me, but we have all seen nd heard horror stories with packing.

The fibers in the cutter are a concern. but the routing of the bridle just does not make sense.

Quote

In the Poland incident the closing loop is not cleanly cut like Argus says it should be and it is frayed on the end. The reserve bridle is not thought to be a rigging error but instead occurred on impact when the canopy and freebag was ejected from the container when the loop broke.

By looking at those pictures it looks to me as though the loop was in fact severed, the bridle was indeed under tention and I cannot see how the bridle and freebag could possibly be configured that way from popping open upon impact. Can you ellaborate on your position there?

Quote

Read the reports on Italy, the DZ said they sent the unit to Argus and Argus says they never received it.

What reports, can you provide me a url?

Quote

Remember that the problem in San Marcos is just one of four incidents. There are still the problems in Poland, Portugal and Italy that have yet to be addressed by Aviacom.

Doing a little reseach I easily came up with this;

PRELIMINARY ACCIDENT REPORT # 4 (Poland)

Though that says it is preliminary, it also says it is confidential.

It clearly shows a severed closing loop, and a quite evident rigging error with the reserve bridle, rather grousomely with the victim still in the harness...


or portugal.


INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (portugal)

Though not conclusive, to say these have not been addressed is not exactly correct.

The Italian incident is quite concerning, I was unaware of that one. A disection of that cutter would be interesting. Has that unit been investigated by anyone?

Quote

Just because it is not being talked about on dz.com does not mean it is not being addressed.

Ignoring something and brushing it off is the same as not addressing it.

This is supposed to be an information database, but everyone is reluctant to say anything anymore.

Quote

It is Aviacom’s move and everyone is waiting on them.

agreed.

Quote

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist

Are you suggesting the mass murderers of the US and coalittion forces should be killed then, the war crmes that are committed every day constitute terrorism, or is it just muslim extremists that are terrorists in your mind??

Bin ladens death and the celebrations that come with it are prime example of how stupid people have become.

he had a gun, then he didn't, he was hinding behind a woman, then he was not, he was dumped into the ocean less than 24 hour later, yet they managed to confirm his DNA in that time.

http://boomerspeaks.com/HowLongDoesDNATestingTake.htm

What a joke, If anybody thinks that spending a trillon dollars, a decade, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and destroying the largest economy on the planet in order to get one sick old dude is a victory, then they are an idiot.

Only an idiot would overlook the stupidity of that whole sutuation, and the blatant lies that have been told.

Dissonance and fear created that stupidity, once you are committed to a side, there is no changing... is there?

Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves for contributing to the deaths and destruction of many innocents through simple ignorance.

but hey, I am just a moronic radiphobe that has no clue...




what ever happened to patriotism? wave a flag and smile people.

Quote

So you believe that the grommets themselves were what damaged the cutter blade?

Perhaps I need to pop open my container and look, but I don't think its possible that the grommets could come in contact with the actual blade, as they're too flat (the curve isn't extreme and is very wide), especially on the grommet side. The washer side, MAYBE, just MAYBE it could dig in deep enough, but again, I don't see how that's even possible with a fingertrapped cypres loop in the cutter... I'd LOVE to have you show us how its possible to jam a grommet installed on a flap, into the cutter with a cypres loop installed.

So you did not read kirks reports then....

Quote

I am a Senior Rigger (back and seat) with something like 35-40 I&R's on sport gear with AAD's; and I cannot see how you think that a grommet would be able to get wedged into the cutter. Locking the loop because it was too long, maybe, but that's irrelevant of the cutter, provided it fully and cleanly cut the loop.

When I close a reserve there is much tention on the loop and the grommets are forced into place. The position of the grommets along with he closing loop "COULD" interfere with the cutters action depending on it's placement. The placement of the cutter is designated by the manufacturers I beleive?

When you pull the loop through with a closing tool, it is difficult to see the forces placed on the cutter as it is then obscured by the flaps. There are Photos and explanations in Kirks report, I suggest you read it and ingest it.

http://www.para-concepts.com/AADs/Issues.pdf

Quote

Unfortunately, for the number of posts in this thread there is very little discussion about actual/suspected causes and or reasons and more noise being created that serves no fruitful purpose other than to create drama where there is none. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion but I also ask that people focus on the mechanical issues here and less on the drama/politics so there is a better signal (information) to noise ratio than we currently have.

Considering you are the one that is moderating and deleting what you feel is inappropriate and posting what you feel is appropriate...

You are contributing to this 'Noise' by writng a reply that does not address the subject rsther the 'noise' you speak of and ignoring a question pertinant to the subject and the possible result.

I asked you what you thought of the hypothesis of the grommets interfereing with the cutters stroke for the exact reason to discuss the subject, that may or may not be a factor in this, but it seems quite plausable.

I am a PT which is similar to a senior rigger but not quite the same, I have closed a number of reserves and I can see how the grommets could be forced into the cavity of the cutter and obstruct the stroke.

You make it out as though kirks reports is irrelevant and simply some random rigger that came up with a random theory.

HE WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY BY AVIACOM, to do so, he mentioned that, and you ignored it and brushed it off as irrelevant. Why do you no wish to discuss that.

kirks report will likely play a role in determining the outcome of Aviacoms reply to the industry.

Sparky also, if you have the documents and have read them,, why are you reluctant to discuss the possibility of the grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke and function?

it is importsnt for all AAD manufacturers to understand this concept, and all AAD users (especially riggers) to understand it also.

As kirk mentioned, with access to a multitude of cutters to experiement with, this failure could be reproduced.

If it was reproduced, it could be addressed with a sleeve or similar over the cutter.

I beleive the damage to either side of the cutter resembles tha damage I would imagine if two grommets were forced into the cavity while the cutter was fired.

Just sayin.

Why is that point not being addressed, if everybody is well aware of it?

Quote

The person that brought it to my attention was directed to post it here in this unlocked thread several days ago but never did so. Contact them and ask why they did not post it here. It was not posted in the locked "ARGUS ban list" thread because that thread was created to serve as a sole source where people could find information on which H/C manufacturers, and or governing bodies are currently banning the ARGUS. Which is what I explained to the person who brought it to my attention.

So you beleive kirks observations and his investigation serves no purpose in the issue of the manufacturer bullitens?

Did you request that the PIA post their article themselves also, or is their opinion worth more than kirks that you felt compelled to post theirs there and not kirks??

How do you feel about the possibilty of the flap grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke?

Do you feel that is a discussion and a point worth considering in all this?

He (kirk) in turn discovered a possibility that nobody else has come up with, it is a valid concern and something we should all get our heads around.

The reason I ask all this is that Kirk was asked specifically by Aviacom to carry out that investigation and that is part of what everybody has been waiting for. And has added more to ponder and more tesing to be conclusive of anything.

They will have to make a statement themselves obviously, that is the statement we are all waiting for in anticipation, lets see..

Ignoring Kirks report does not give us all a balanced view on the situation.

Kirk smith relesed his report well before that, you moderators were issued that report aksed to post it so it came from a neutral source and failed to post it.

People talk (thats why I know about it).

Kirks report is mentioned and linked in this latest report. But why was kirk smiths report not posted when you were in posession of it for the last few days?

Did you not like his conclusons?

You have warned me about my tone in my posts, but there is no vicious tone here, just a question.

An important one.

Quote

The NZPIA is the only 149 organisation that carries comprehensive public liability insurance - and my high altitude endorsement was done online / instantly and cost $20.

Our dropzone has its own comprehensive liability insurance that covers all jumpers that jump here, it costs us less than $2k and saves us more than $6k of fees annually from PIA.

As far as the high altitude test is concerned I had a jumper come to our DZ a few weeks ago for a fun jump, he was charged $170 for high altitude test, and his tandem rating issued at NZONE was issued for use at NZONE only. This is against the CAA part 149 regulations, and the requests of the CAA for each part 149 to accomodate the use of licenses and ratings of each subsequent 149 organisation.

I said you 'may' be charged that amount as I know of one instace where that is the case or at least I was informed of it that way.

It is free at NZSA.

What temperature are you talking?

If you are freezing and numb from a static line jump then your DZ is probably really cold. I can jump no gloves down to about -15C at altitude without numbness, so ask how cold it gets at your DZ at altitude as you will be up there real soon!

Batting gloves or similar are good up until about -15-20C

Anything colder and windstopper gloves are best, but you pay much more for those.

I have some Roeckl windstopper mountain biking gloves for really cold loads. It was -28C the other day at altitude and my dribble (from blow switch) was literally frozen on my face but my fingers were toasty.

I noticed that you removed much of the conversation as well, including the two opposing statements from yourself that when asked (by Me) why you can have such opposing thoughts, you (also) simply deleted my questions rther than answer.

I would suggest that yourself along with other moderators refrain from continuing to delete matter you find personally or financially opposed to as it does nothing for the credibility of this website. many people read what was written and are/were watching eagerly for a result, don;t beging to beleive that only those that contribute are the only ones reading, taking screeen shots and documenting everything that is going on, not for one minute...

Can you explain why you deleted these comments...

What point was there to removing a core part of the discussion so far other than covering your own tracks...?

Quote

I'm not being smug, you're cluttering my thread which is just here as a single point of reference with your massive conspiracy theories and arguments.

It is actually quite simple and there is no massive conspiracy theories, there is one.

Riggers, manufacturers and consumers have all concluded the same as me but the finger pointing ignoramus' continue to ignore them, the evidence at hand and the imminent truth.

So I continue to repeat myself.

If you argue against my point, I have all the right to reply, If you do not wish to read my thoughts.... then don't reply.

I hope your argus is airworthy sooner than later.

Some are not as fortunate as you and do not have another brand AAD to use and are not allowed to jump without one...

Spare a thought for them, the DZ's they jump at...

How about the tandem operations that invested in argus, the customers that wanted to jump there and the staff that were relying on those units airworthyness...

Quote

It's been a few WEEKS and we still don't have the relevant information.

You have it Bill, you are just ignoring it.

How can you ignore such pertinent evidence....

You have it, and it will be compled more concisely, and there are some sweating it right now.

How can Lou be allowed to continue to delete posts that are not against the rules but put into question his comments....

Oops I'm bitching about moderation again, I might get banned for having an opinion, again...

Quote

If you MUST continue with the conspiracy theory, could you please do it in another thread? I created this thread so we can track who has and who has not banned them, not for some angry debates about how PIA is trying to take out Avicom.

No, how does that sound!

I am discussing the subject, The ban was put into place when it shouldn't have been, The PIA pressured everybody into it and it is quite evedent that many understand this while others disagree, that is a text book example of a subject for debate.

I have had some intersting personal messages that confirm my standpoint that there are many people watching this thread that are of the same standpoint as me and I have had comments such as;

Quote

During the past couple of days, I've had conversations with a container manufacturer manager, and an FAA rigger examiner, and found out more of what is going on behind the scenes. Sounds as if the container manufacturer (and others) regret the quick decision to ban the Argus, and are looking for a way to safely reverse the ban (in sport rigs), without losing face or a lawsuit.

Quote

Thanks for defending Argus in the discussions. You're on the right side of the argument, but it takes courage. You'll be vindicated when more is known publicly, so don't give up.

Quote

BTW You and I have the same opinion of the whole incident.

I have had emails and messages as well as conversations about this, many are too afraid to post thier thoughts as people like you and the moderators obviously do not want a balanced discussion, One moderator simply deleted posts that he was unable to answer without looking silly.


So I wouldn't be so smug if I were you and you can bet this is the calm before the storm.

The list you posted and the topic itself has created a very unharmonious dissonance that will only be rectified with more information, In the meantime you can argue that argus' are crap and I can argue that this decision was rash, and we both could be correct or not.

I am more concerned about how this has been dealt with, than the result of the investigation. That investigation has been held back by all this, when it should have been fast tracked to get the result for the sake of safety and the end user.

I hope for the sake of the container manufacturers that they either reverse this ban or do something responasible before aviacom come out with guns blazing...

I suggest all those with the popcorn reading this, that are also argus users to write to their container manufacturers IMMEDIATELY and copy in aviacom to the message.

This may get you back in the air sooner than you think.

Without the batton passes, balloon suits, front mounted reserves and all the old school carry on, we would not have head down, blind carving, swooping...

You guys were as improtant to modern skydiving as Kraftwerk were to Electronica.

They are some awesome pioneering photos...