Gravit8

Weird. I've had 2 come out of the silver suitcase dead this year and one that would deactivate actually during use which was just past waranty. All were promptly replaced but I'm thinking the QC from the factory is questionable. Great, are Vigils going to get banned too?

And this leads to the point I'm trying to make. If this ban is about safety as the manufacturers state, apply the same rules to Airtec. Given this situation, I think RI,UPT, Strong, and hte others with active SBs owe us answers. Did they investigate situation enough? If these situations regarding the Cypres are true, make the safety call and issue an SB on them until Airtec answers to these alogations like they're expecting Aviacom to. Manufacturers - if it's about safety, issue a SB and investigate this. So let's call one out based on previous comments in this thread - Can someone get Sandy at RI onto this forum to give an official answer?

It's clearly a complicated and emotionally-charged discussion and I respect your well-stated stance. There are numerous perspectives. I've only been skydiving 6 years and appreciate the perspective for those who were present through the early days of the modern AAD designs. So one last question - from a risk-management perspective, did RI just set a precedent with its response? Regardless of the Argus/Vigil "It worked the way it was supposed to" answer, there are still deaths that could probably be avoided by setting the unit to activate higher. Given the serious response RI made in the afore-mentioned SB, are they now obligated to make similar reactions in future risk scenarios? In reference to the Toyota discussion made earlier, there is a risk in overreacting. Once you set a precedent then do not follow your own example, you place yourself into another dangerous legal situation. Let's say that tomorrow a jumper in an RI rig burns in with an activated Vigil and there is no response. If it happens again the following week, is RI guilty of willful negligence due to its failure to follow its own precedent of issuing a SB on an AAD that results in an unsafe situation (death under a perfectly-functioning unit)? For other manufacturers that take the "the AAD's function is not the responsibility of the Container manufacturer" position, is their consistent application of a policy to their benefit? Admittedly, I haven't been around skydiving for a long time but I know quite a bit about business risk. Has anything like this happened in the past with gear and how did it shake out?

That's a totally fair point. That RI statement came out March 21 and neither side has moved since. Sure, Aviacom needs to step up and address this. No argument there - You're right. Do you feel that the other AAD manufacturers are getting the same standard of treatment?

Really, when I started this thread, I chose my words poorly not really considering the lawsuit angle so shame on me. I tried to remain above the namecalling and insulting situation in my responses and attempted to set things straight in my mistake but there was really no intelligent conversation so I just chalked it up to a poor presentation on my part and decided to never post again with the "you're a troll" culture here. I had not looked at anything until I logged on today and received several private messages from logical and intelligent people who didn't want to post in the forum and subject themselves to the attacks. When I saw the post about the CFR not existing, I just sighed and shook my head. So let me say this - I apologize for the way my initial post was phrased. Sincerely! It diverted a conversation that should have happened differently. To those of you who PM'd me, thanks for caring and it's unfortunate that you can't speak here without the "you're dumb, now die" attitudes that you would have to tolerate. Also, I appreciate the time you took to share smart information. Cheers! To those of you who have brought some valuable discussion in the forum, your skin is thick and thanks for putting it out there. You made me glad I hopped back here to look. I'm not Cypres-bashing. I'm pointing out how container manufacturers seem to react differently in situations. When Argus has a situation (shrouded in controversy) that results in a scary situation that COULD happen, they get banned - primarily because the container manufacturers don't like the Aviacom response. Cypres advertisements state that "Every cutter has cleanly cut the loop when commanded by a Cypres". Well, there are dead skydivers who burned in under a few of those rigs and nobody seems to be looking at the "as commanded" part of that statement. Essentially, they say that their equipment works exactly as it is supposed to but they don't get service bulletins regardless of fatalities. Does this seem like container manufacturers are consistent with their actions? Couple that with a potential for conflict of interest due to a manufacturer's stake in a competing AAD manufacturer and companies have put themselves into a position where they probably owe more discussion to the skydiving community to dispel the conjecture. I am not accusing anyone of anything here - period. I have read the Aviacom letter that covered their web page until recently and have read numerous forum postings which imply that a specific container manufacturer may have manufactured this situation in order to drive revenue. My assumption is that this is false. Especially given that you can't buy a Vigil II anywhere due to manufacturing shortages that have existed since the Japan earthquake. My point is that the container manufacturers have generally taken the position that they're unhappy with the Aviacom response. I am too. I'm also unhappy with container manufacturers who establish a ban on gear outside of the TSO approval without any scientific research or reasoning. That would be like saying "Yeah, Bob is dead but Airtec said his Cypres fired when it was supposed to, so cased closed". -Different standards for different AADs. I VERY MUCH respect the manufacturers who issued SBs instantly when a major situation occurred out of concern for the safety of their customers, investigated the situation, and made the call that there wasn't enough evidence to support the SB. To me, that demonstrates a lot more professional responsibility and academic maturity. Not saying that those still banning the Argus aren't doing their homework - nobody knows because they aren't saying anything short of "We don't like the Aviacom answer". That isn't a good enough answer either. my opinions- o It's smart for a container manufacturer to address potential safety problems. o It's precarious for a container manufacturer to issue a SB that drives revenue on an AAD in which they have a financial interest. o It's irresponsible for a container manufacturer to appear to apply a standard differently across different AAD vendors. I hope that organizations that have issued SBs have done so in a responsible manner but in the same manner in which they have blamed Aviacom for not "saying enough", they should account for their stance on dead bodies that burned in under their gear under with an activated Cypres, Argus, Vigil, or any other brand. If this is about safety, make it about safety. Of course that won't happen. Grounding all (or most) AADs means grounding all (or most) tandem and student rigs. That would make enough of a financial impact in the community (and mostly kill the sport) that DZOs would react harshly. So here's my concern - If container manufacturers don't apply the rules uniformly and consistently, I believe that one of two things could happen- 1. They will be sued by the AAD manufacturer that gets the short straw. They will have no scientific argument and it will be shown that they did not issues a SB on Vigil or Cypres AADs after fatalities and will lose. Frankly, I feel Aviacom has good chances of recovering their losses now, pocketing some money, and walking away. 2. The FAA will realize that a container manufacturer can issue a SB in order to receive monetary gain and impose greater regulatory controls and consistency in reactions to adverse events (like grounding all Cypres AADs after a fatality with their AAD in the rig) and THEY will create the impact on commercial DZs. Sorry for the long-winded rant. Also, again, I am sorry for the initial posting mukcking this up.

The last time I discussed something on a forum that someone didn't like, I was called for 2 weeks at home and work by people like those who have already commented on this thread. Not gonna fill in the profile info after the previous thread comments - I haven't been inflamatory, folks - does it matter who I am? All I want to do is encourage discussion and disclosure of information. That's all the proof of authenticity I believe I need for the purpose of this discussion. FTC protects commerce. If a manufacturer misuses federal regulations (like 14CFR165) to drive millions of dollars in revenue from a competitor (I'm not saying this is the case but it has been speculated), the FTC would likely be interested. This is why I think it's important for the manufacturers issuing service bulletins to show the tests and scientific backing for their decisions and act consistently across incidents from all AAD builders. If it's about safety, why are people dying under low-opening Cypres-equipped rigs that the manufacturer states are working as designed? Why aren't there SBs for those? If the reserve doesn't have time to deploy - should they fire higher? They're only mandatory for students and tandems so what's the harm in making them safer? Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the situation with a cutter locking over a reserve pilot and causing a total mal after a pull. It's scary - I get it. I also understand that there are many dead bodies that impacted under perfectly functioning cypres AADs (I use this brand by name as the established 'standard' realizing that there are others on the market and others coming on the market). Why are there different standards? Especially with Cypres-activated reserves removed from dead bodies? I'd like to see the banning container manufacturers address THESE issues. We all read our monthly USPA magazines and we've all read articles or watched Youtube videos of jumpers who could not find handles and waited for the AAD to fire. Of course this is wrong but IT DOES HAPPEN and is documented. I propose that due to these incidents and the incidents of deaths under properly functioning AADs due to reserves not opening, they pose as much risk as the Argus risk - probably more given the market penetration of Cypres and number of incidents.

Nobody said anything about a lawsuit and I'm not a lawyer. Frankly, I hear a lot of people discussing the potential for a conflict of interest and the AAD manufacturer implies this is a motivating factor leading to vendor service bulletins. I'm just trying to find out how real this is. As for hurting the sport - how do you think it's going to go over if the FAA or FTC decides to implement tighter restrictions if it's learned this situation was indeed caused (or contributed to) by profit motives. If manufacturers aren't reacting consistently to problems with AAD vendors (like when a Cypres fires as designed but the skydiver dies as the result of a low opening). So what are your suggestions? Include AADs in the TSO? Ground any AAD model when an issue or fatality occurs? Maybe container manufacturers should ban high wingloads since many deaths occur under high wingloads. If this is all about safety, there's a lot that the container manufacturers can do and its their consistency across the field of problems that WILL keep them from ultimately getting sued... If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to see some intelligent conversation.

I'm looking for anyone financially impacted by the Argus ban. I would very much like to find businesses (dropzones, tandem operators, and dz shops) that have realized demonstrable financial loss as a result of manufacturer issued service bulletins and dropzone bans. Also, please let me know if you have been forced to replace a serviceable Argus AAD with a competing brand due to a manufacturer service bulletin (I only want legitimate situations where you paid money to replace your AAD as a result of a SB or ban). For example, if your DZ banned the AAD and you were forced to replace it to continue jumping, please let me know. If you have a tandem program or student program where FAA law requires an AAD in the rig and you were forced to replace them and paid to do so, PLEASE let me know. If these manufacturer service bulletins have caused you to spend money in order to maintain your ability to keep a business open, please let me know immediately.