Skybear

I think you gonna find them all on www.dirtylittlebastardsgangingupagainstnonmemberswhichproducethefuckingbestqualitystuffever.com

Maybe you can tell us in what way he is linked to Aviacom. I neither decline his professionalism as a rigger nor his credibility, but I doubt his indepency as he was listed as test jumper and staff member on Aviacoms website. Aviacom stated that they wanted the cutter back for an independent analysis, and that is what we should at least expected from them to prove their point.

I work in the aviation industry as well. I am an air traffic controller, air traffic control instructor and human factors expert. From a long lasting experience and studies I know, that every procedure will work in a perfect world, no matter how bad it is designed. But as soon as you put the human in the system, it will fail at some point. That 's natural because of human behaviour. Good engineering takes this into account. Why let the cutter open, so that FODs can nestle inside the tubular part of the cutter, when you can also close it with a plastic sleeve? Humans are packing our reserves, and they may overlook a small metal ball falling into the cutter. If it falls in the loop hole most propably it will fall through. Or it will be stuck between the loop and the plastic sleeve of a Cypres/Vigil cutter and can be found when inspected again. But if it already rolled inside the Argus cutter it is most propably out of sight. If FODs turn out to be the problem in all the Argus cutter incidents then we know why. If there are more problems with the cutters we need to fnid more solutions.

Yes I can

I must admit that I made a mistake on the serial number, or better said a misunderstanding. Pauls pictures show the same serial number than in in all the reports. So maybe it is a part number, as somebody else suggested. The last report from Mr. Camffermann states that it is a serial number. But in my understanding a serial number is unique with each unit, isn't it? Does somebody know a little more about it?

Thank you Paul. This picture clearly shows a design flaw of the cutter which can easily be changed. As I suspected the loop hole is open towards the inside of the cutter. Small objects can easily enter the cutter and be in the way of the piston. Another point about the cutter investigation report from April 7th 2011. This is ot the cutter from the San Marcos incident. The pictures clearly show the same serial number that was already in the Service Bulletin of September 5th 2011, following the Portugal incident. When Argus was banned they were still complaining that they did not receive the cutter from San Marcos.

I know how the cutter looks like. This picture is of bad quality and it is taken from an angle that does not show what I was asking for. Is there a plastic sleeve inside the loop hole, which prevents objects from going into the cutter tube (or how you would call it in the english language)? If you have a better picture I would appreciate to see it. Another thing that is worth mentioning is, that Skysupplieseurope and Mr. Camfferman is closely related to Argus. In my opinion to close for an independent investigation.

How can an object like this enter the cutter? On a Cypres cutter there is a plastic insert that prevents anything from getting into the cutter. Is it the same on the Argus cutter? I suppose it is the same, because both are waterproof and therefore the cutter must be closed at the loop hole. And I can hardly imagine that a shot ball gets and stays in the loop hole just by coincidence. Did it maybe happen during the production and the shot ball was inside the cutter all the time? This report raises more questions than it answers.

In the good old times, which most of us in this forum including me never experienced, loops were made out of normal lines. During the Cypres development Helmu Cloth saw, that many delayed reserve container openings were caused by friction between the loop and the grommets. In his effort to create an AAD, that is as close to 100% as it can be, he developed the Cypres loop. The requirements were a minimal diameter, great strength and minimal friction. By the way, that is why we siliconize loops. To reduce friction, not to get a cleaner cut. But even with minimal friction there is still some potential for the loop to delay the container opening, when the flaps are pushed sideways by the launching PC. That is absolutely no porblem with top mounted cutters, because the length of the rest of the loop is too short to cause a problem. If the loop goes through to the bottom of the reserve container it is a totally different situation. Here the loop has to slide through all the grommets in full length. Depending on the flap design and the reserve size in the container this can lead to some delay. We are living in free countries and can make our own choices. But why use an AAD, that needs the cutter mounted on the bottom of the reserve container when you can have something better? Whenever you are in the situation that your AAD, or that of a friend, fires, take these 1,5 seconds until the reeserve is open to think about it. If it takes longer, you might have done a bad choice.

Good thoughts on the pillow and a beautiful rig. Enjoy!

Can somebody explain the meaning of the other numbers on the tag? I am asking, because the cutter is tagged exactly like the one shown in the SB from Sep. 5th 2010. If that means it is exactly the same cutter (maybe 092666 is a serial number), it means that Aviacom was well aware not only of the incidents in Poland and Portugal, but also Italy. The photos prove that it was a more than serious problem, and replacement of the cutters should have been mandatory prior the next jump. If my assumption is correct, it would mean that Aviacom had plenty of time to fix the problem. It would mean that the decision to ground Argus on almost any rig was not taken well in advance, as it is alleged in Aviacoms letter, but after a long period without satisfactory response. I wonder where TrojanHorse is, and what he has to say to the customers who trusted the Argus.

Sorry to say, but this idea is complete bullshit. The cutting blade does not only hit the anvil, but also intrudes 1 to 2mm into it. This is due to the big forces which are needed, to make sure that the blade completely severes the loop. A reactive charge which is big enough to push the piston back will severely damage your rig. The reason is simple. The charge that drives the piston forward can go no other way than this, pushing the puston inside a closed containment. A reactive charge from the other side will loose most of its force through the open loop hole. Even if it is a cylindrical cutter it is not tight enough at the containment to keep the pressure. The only way out is taking a bigger charge, which will make you carrying a little bomb on your back. I prefer the knife and anvil type cutter, which simply cuts the loop into two pieces. English is not my native language, so I apologize if I am using strange words t some points.

Get a Dragster FFsuit from Rainbowsuits in Germany. Excelllent quality, fair prices and delivery times of 6-8weeks.

Hehe, love that one. Yeah, it is meant for the normal skydiving public, not for you because you are the greatest superhero of all, the instructor of Batman and Superman! Just kidding, not offending. Get real, the 200 minimum is there for a good reason. One may be well known as talented or skilled, but you never know how he will behave after exiting the plane with a WS ending up in a flat spin. A couple of extra jumps don't make you a far better skydiver, but they give you experience and routine. Both are important live-saving ressources when things don't go as planned. Of course this will never happen to any of these 100-jump-wonders, whatever they do, may it be wingsuiting or swooping. If they die, then all other 100-jump-wonders will declare them as stupid, ignorant persons, and they will do it with a damn arrogant smile. Once more, I am not offending somebody in person, I am just criticizing the attitude. When I give FFCs, I always check the jumpers out on a check-dive. It can be RW or tracking, or FF but then my wife has to do the checkdive. Everyone who shows a good attention to height and safety procedures is welcome, when he has at least 200 jumps. Those who are lacking those skills get a training plan, even when they have 10000 jumps. Or they go to another instructor, or just give it a try on their own. But I never want to be responsible for letting someone jump who does not fit the basic requirements.

+1

Yes it is. Simply because you don 't have a vertical speed indicator and 13m/sec is not a big rate of descent under a anything smaller than a typical student canopy (230 and above, depending on students weight). And imagine just one of hundreds of possible scenarios like this: You are gently turning onto final approach in 1000 feet, while another jumper does not watch you and is turning in front of you. He is turning so close that only a radical turn can prevent you from hitting him. That would for sure result in a two-out. Do you understand what I mean? Always expect the unexpected, and have equipment that does not hurt or kill you in those situations. That does not only mean a big enough canopy.

www.rainbowsuits.com - super strong and durable, excellent customer service and perfect fit on custom made suits. Not cheap, but some friends of mine are jumping their RW-suits now for more than 1000 jumps and they still look very good. The only difficulty could be finding a dealer in the US.

The best idea is: Ship it to Airtec and ask them to change it to Expert-Mode. They change the modes free of charge, you just have to pay one-way shipping. Please do it for your and others safety.

KAP-3, Sentinel and FXC 12000 are for sure the most popular early AADs. Hard to believe in times of modern electronic AADs, but the FXC 12000 is still in production and used at many dropzones. I saw them last at a spanish dropzone which is run by the brits. All of the early AADs had their specifics which could easily trap the skydivers. They needed adjustment before every jump. some had saftey pins which had to be pulled out before the exit and they were at least partially mounted outside on the rig. Sometimes saftey pins were accidentally pulled when entering the aircraft, and the ticking sound raised the question: Whose reserve is gonne open in a few seconds? If you forgot to pull the pin the AAD was not able to work at all. The design of the Sentinel often trapped people in pulling on a cable which was mounted on the reserve container, instead of pulling the reserve handle. Maintenance was scheduled every 6 months and you never knew what it would cost. Sometimes it would have cheaper to replace the AAD by a new one than doing the maintenance. That 's only a short summary of my incomplete knowledge about that era. Anybody here who can tell us first-hand storys? One more thing to be said: Thank you, Helmut Cloth, for giving us the first modern AAD in 1991!

Thanks for letting the community know. Especially the point that the altitude correction stays in the unit after switching it off is interesting. It is a difference to other AADs and underlines the necessity to read the manual and be familiar with such specifics.

No. I have to apologize. The now released report of Aviacom regarding the incident in Evora on September the 4th, clearly shows why nobody at Aviacom could have been aware of a SB on August 28th. It would have been way easier to understand all that stuff if the facts would have been known by then.

Here are three pictures of another Cypres cutter which has fired. The first picture shows the typical look of a cutter with the destroyed rest of the plastic sleeve. The second picture demonstrates how to remove the plastic and the third picture shows the cutter knife like on the cutter which was posted by koppel.

This image shows two cutters which have fired. On the left cutter the plastic cover was removed from the loop hole, so that the cutting blade can be clearly seen. On the right side there is another Cypres cutter with the plastic still on, but destroyed from the blade. It might give somebody the impression of something being jammed in the cutter but it is not. The inside plastic cover in the loop hole keeps the loop so far in the middle of the hole that it will be fully cut and it makes the cutter waterproof. I have several of those cutters here for demonstration purposes, some prepared like the left one and some still original like the right one. Without the story being told it 's just that: Two cutters did their job and fired.

I got two of them in my shop two weeks ago. No skydives yet due to bad weather, but from my first impressions I can only recommend it. Great big visor, super-secure locking mechanism and the ventilation should work with front and back vents. That sounds like I am advertising, but I am a german dealer and will never sell in the US so take that statement as a honest advice. I will sell my Z1 and jump a G2 as soon as I get one in XL.

STOP!!!!!! Don't use this stuff!!! The can says "Imprägnierung" which means it will make your rig waterproff or water-repellent but not clean.