Unstable

Yes, you are right. I have two of these canopies, Navy Conicals from the Mid to late 80's. I have a white and a 4 color. They also have no vents for steering. I bought these for $50 thinking they were C-9s and I inteded to jump them, but then I realized that I'd land hard and land oscillating... =========Shaun ==========

That's Kinda a big deal....., =========Shaun ==========

Humor me for a second ~ I like the Stunts Tandem rigs, seem simple enough. I've never repacked a Stunts Eclipse, but they seem like pretty well designed rigs. What was the reason they stopped manufacturing them? =========Shaun ==========

We didn't actually do a pull test then. We tried to clean a small area, and when we realized the mold was in all the layers of the fabric, we grounded it. I actually have that reserve in my closet still. It worked out well ~ our DZ has just bought new student reserves, so we sold this jumper a reserve (Sharpchuter 245) for $200, washed his container, and replaced a lot of parts after a VERY thorough inspection. =========Shaun ==========

I've never found anything left in there by mistake, but I have seen one Truly unique thing.... A jumper at our DZ has an old Vector 2, made of Parapack, rather than cordura. His basement flooded, but because of the 'slick' feel to Parapack, he didn't know his rig was soaked. He continued to jump it, and naturally the main was aired out and he never even knew it was wet. He gave me the rig to repack 1/2 way through a boogie, and when I opened it, the Reserve parachute was COVERED in green, black, brown, and yellow-ish mold ~ I figured that the material itself wasn't molding (synthetic), but what we say was mold on organic compounds that came in with the water... =========Shaun ==========

I vote GQ Security Sport system, I've seen one almoooost exactly like that one... =========Shaun ==========

As a rigger and Argus's (Argii, Arguses, ???) owner, I have really been diving into all the research I can into this. I'm not convinced that there is a conspiracy, but I do believe that there is a true principal that one is usually harder on the competition than one is with themselves. =========Shaun ==========

I'm really cheering for Aviacom to get this sorted out without going under ~ =========Shaun ==========

I'm going to jump my Argus in my rig for a long time. It's a good AAD. =========Shaun ==========

*Or simply increase the charge on the cutter by what, 10% should do the trick. To me, this seems like an easy solution. =========Shaun ==========

I'd bet this logic will work up til an Argus is due for a 4-year. I sent one in to Chutingstar for calibration, and it was a very quick and easy process. Once the Calibration centers cease to exist, then what? I figure I will continue to use mine (I have a Jumpshack rig) but the calibration is due here next repack ~ I fear I will have a doorstop then. =========Shaun ==========

mmmmm YEeeees. I imagine now PIA as an evil lair and hideout for conspiracy mastermind Helmut Cloth. Muaaaahhahahahahahahaha =========Shaun ==========

******************8 The Next Step It seems to me that any cutter, which has the potential to close a door and trap, the all-important retaining loop would fail to meet the requirement of “Must not interfere with the normal operation of”. When CYPRES first was being introduced Helmut Cloth came to me and requested I redesign the reserve closing loop to his specification, which was to allow it to float in a channel over the pilot chute. I refused because of a near tragic occurrence on a misrigged system. His reasoning was because of a known failure rate of the cutter. I felt that was his problem and was not going to compromise my design not realizing that the failure mode to which he was referring might “interfere with the normal operation of”. I changed the loop material to his requested specification because he told me the Kevlar I was using would shred and not cut cleanly. He assured me that his material would always cut cleanly. Well now it allegedly has not and I wonder if we (the industry), haven’t made a mistake in approving any guillotine cutter which does not fully open again after firing. This would be a simple matter to accomplish with of a small reactive charge in the end cap to drive the cutter piston back into the cylinder, when struck, at the end of the cut cycle, leaving an open hole and never trapping the loop. Failing the deployment into the field of a “Fail-Safe” cutter I don’t see how any of us can continue to believe that the current AAD cutter design does not potentially “interfere with the normal operation of”. My recommended course of action is to require all the AAD manufacturers to design and develop a “Fail-Safe” cutter, which would be open at the completion of the cycle. This could be coordinated through The PIA Technical Committee. The Committee should poll the AAD manufacturers (whether they are members or not, local or foreign) for estimates of development and delivery time. In consultation with the AAD and Harness & Container manufacturers, establish a date for the beginning of transition, and the completion of transition, after which the old cutters may not be used. The “beginning of transition” means all new sales would be so equipped and field replacement begins. This course would continue to allow the use of the current design, as the potential for failure is statistically low, and less injurious than the grounding of all AAD’s. I understand that the cutter industry, which supplies all of the AAD makers, already has designs for “Returnable Pistons”. Somebody is going to make a lot of money selling replacements. John =========Shaun ==========

Okay, I'm not buying the conspiracy theory either, but can I play devil's advocate? Why then, isn't Aviocom a Member of PIA? =========Shaun ==========

I agree 100%. I always DIP the loop in the goo entirely, then just use the little cloth thing to wipe up. =========Shaun ==========

I wouldn't necessarily agree with you 100% on that observation. I think the tone is more along the line of "We do not have the resources to address this problem." I agree that this is the wrong tone to take, and frankly I would be happiest to see them recall the cutters again, sell more Argii (I've always wanted to say that) and we can move on with our happy lives. =========Shaun ==========

Sorry Friend, I'm not 100% following your post. Yes, I am assuming that the test firing is done with a closing loop through the cutter, they all were ~ and variable tension (0-22+++ Pounds) on the loop. My thought process is simply that if 2 incidents in the field show that the cutters have a problem severing the loop completely, then it is highly unlikely that they never witness this happen during laboratory acceptance or qualification testing. Edited: See, if the problem were of this magnitude, ANY reasonable quality, acceptance, or qualification program would have had a few red flags pop up. That is my point. =========Shaun ==========

I appreciate your candor, but I find your tone rather inappropirate. This was a hypothetical thread, just wondering about the progressions and though processes in regaards to this particular set up. =========Shaun ==========

I've been pouring over the PIA tech papers, incident reports, SBs et cetera for the last 2 hours trying to sort this all out in my mind. I am a Quality Engineer ~ this is what I love. There is ONE THING That REALLY bothers me, however. ******* Argus claims that between 2%-5% of their cutters are tested (fired) as a batch acceptance sampling plan. Very logical ~ I wonder if Cypres or Vigil fire as many of their cutters off. SO! Think about this ~ Argus tested (fired) 5% of all units, plus the countless fired during initial acceptance testing, et cetera. I have a very hard time believing a problem that came out before did not once manifest itslef in the lab ~ they tested them with no tenstion, all they way up beyond where any rigger could close a container. Did they really not have one incomplete cut in the lab? =========Shaun ==========

Cypres Stuff here too. HOWEVER, I'm really getting tired of their little bottles they give you with the white screw-on lids. Tight or loose, they always leak cypres goo over my rigging tools. Seriously. Doesn't anyone else have this problem? =========Shaun ==========

Me Too. I would agree with this point. =========Shaun ==========

Do you know those pillow/stuffed animal things you see for sale in Wal-Mart? They seem pretty popular now. Give her something familiar to cuddle with. =========Shaun ==========

That's A Bingo! I think this is pretty simple ~ Cylindrical design, loop cuts unevenly across the Cylinder, and that is a stuck loop. A wedge, spear, or pointy thing on the end would solve the problem. Another point: I do not believe the folks that made and tested are Argus are stupid. I've seen varying reports of acceptance testing between 2%-5% of all cutters, with tension between 0 pounds, all they way up beyond any rigger would close a rig. I have a hard time believing in all of those acceptance reports and all those batch tests, not ONE exhibited an incomplete cut. To see this level of quality conrol not identify a problem that is common knowledge already.... unlikely. =========Shaun ==========

YES! I have talked to Nancy and Suzie at Jumpshack ~ I number them amoung my friends. The said that they are going to council with Mr. Goortz, and at this time, they have no plans of making any actions. =========Shaun ==========

Good Point ~ I didn't think about that. Still, do we see this on any DZ's here in the states, other than US Air Force Academy? =========Shaun ==========