emfbowne

I’ve grown tired of people on this forum trying to defend manufacturers whos equipment clearly fails to meet the TSO requirement. Those of you that argue the firing height of the AADs needs to be raised clearly do not understand the issue. Folks, IF your pilotchute fails to create enough drag to extract your reserve from your container, it isn’t going to matter if your AAD fires at 750 feet or it fires at 5,000 ft - you are going in! The solution is NOT to raise the firing height of the AAD, the solution is to mandate the manufacturers to meet the TSO that their equipment is already supposed to comply with or get the containers off the market until it is made to comply. This is pervasive within the industry, why can’t these manufacturers publish the extraction forces of their pilot chutes to prove the reserves will deploy when the AAD fires? Maybe, because the manufacturers don’t have a clue as to how to go about measuring that ??? So, while some manufacturers have been out spending money making gadgets that serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to be one more p.o s. that can get in the way to actually cause more malfunctions – or - manufacturers who are more concerned about making containers that look “way cool” (because as skydivers that’s where our priorities should be – it’s ALL about looking good when you bounce – really????) there have to be some manufacturers that worried about making containers that actually does meet the TSO requirement. Who are they? Don’t we as the consumers have the right to know? Let me remind you all TS135 requires a video record of the qualification test. Why not just make those videos public so we all know whos gear’s worth buying and whos isn’t? Why can’t we hold the manufacturers accountable if they lied about their TSO results? I would think the last two deaths this weekend - on the eve of PIA’s symposium would finally force PIA to do it’s job. PIA you are the authority in this industry. It’s time to start looking at the facts and it’s time to hold container manufacturers accountable for designing safer equipment that meets the TSO requirement. The problem is not the firing height of the AADs – changing that will not save lives and people are going to continue to die. The issue is with the container. PIA, do you care more about doing what’s right or do you care more about your bank account? Do you have the chutzpa to tell manufacturers “we’ve had enough fatalities, comply with the TSO or get it off the market till it does!”? Maybe it’s time for an independent, unbiased research facility, run by people who care about the skydivers and the industry instead of one that’s run by the manufacturers who pay money while others who should know better look the other way and stick their head in the sand. Wake up people, someone knows the truth here - PIA do your job!

Correct me if I’m wrong – despite all the negative publicity that ARGUS has received – (some of it because of misinformation here) the recent fatalities were NOT the result of failure on the part of the AAD to “fire”. The fatalities were the direct result of the failure of the container to get the reserve out and deployed in time. Did you hear that? Even if your AAD were to fire at 2,000 ft - if the container doesn’t meet the TSO - your reserve may not open in time. All that extra 1250 ft and maybe 7 - 8 seconds will give you is more time to soil yourself when you realize you’re SOL – but hey, at least your AAD fired for whatever that’s worth. NO – the altitude shouldn’t be raised – the manufacturers should be REQUIRED to fix their problems & meet the requirements of the TSO, otherwise I believe the word would be “liable!” Remember, when manufacturers have the control of the information it can be bent however they want … where’s an independent testing lab when you need it?