Author Topic: Argus  (Read 16597 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jordan

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Kinda chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 63
Re: Argus
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2011, 12:57:12 am »

Here's the way I see it on that point Pete. As a sport jumper your AAD fires around 750ft. In the unlikely event that the aad did bind it took away maybe 2 seconds of opportunity to save your own life MAYBE!!!. Now I believe (personal opinion not proven) that this is caused more by rigger error - i.e slack closing loop, than aad failure. There has apparently been an independent study done on all cutters that showed a cypres cutter could do the same thing. The problem comes down to the fact that if the cutter is placed above the pack job it can bind and cause a container lock, if it were at the bottom of the tray it could not do this, worst case scenario is the aad does not do it's job rather than being in a position to lock the container if it fails. In short I believe having a good rigger and an AAD is a better way to go than ripping it out. The chances of an AAD saving you are far far higher (as has been proven at our DZ) than the chance of any of the models causing you a problem.

DISCLAIMER: The above is personal opinion based on gathered information and should not be taken as factual information.

I have similar feelings to this. That being the case, an unknown AAD fire that doesn't result in an immediate reserve deployment but gives way at a later time is still of concern. Me personally, if I'm not in the saddle until under 1000 feet, I'm chacking my AAD as soon as I'm safely back on the ground. Beyond that, I would much rather have an AAD that works 99% of the time rather than none at all.

Offline Galvar

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Soapbox in back pocket
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Gender: Male
  • Gigity
Re: Argus
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2011, 07:38:14 am »
I am quitting Skydiving and going back to golf,  Take care all
I wish Franz and Paul R would stop fighting over me. I mean thier both Fugly!

Offline Jordan

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Kinda chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 63
Re: Argus
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2011, 08:11:57 am »
I am quitting Skydiving and going back to golf,  Take care all

That's ok. You spent most of last season at the DZ just watching everyone else jump anyway.

Offline Evan

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Has more than 2 cents
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Gender: Male
Re: Argus
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2011, 02:00:16 pm »
For anyone looking for official information about the Argus, Vigil, or Cypres, I have compiled everything I could find as far as official statements, service bulletins, press releases, test results, etc. from both the AAD manufacturers themselves and from third parties such as harness/container manufacturers and skydiving organizations.  I figured I would post it here in case it saves people time tracking this stuff down.

The statements from various container vendors retracting their support for the Argus are included along with reports from the 3 Argus incidents.

-Click here to download-  (28 MB)

Here's a brief summary of the 3 Argus incidents according to Aviacom (summarized in my own words):

Poland (7/25/2009) - This was a post-AFF student on jump #18.  This was a no pull and resulted in a fatality.  The Argus worked correctly and completely severed the closing loop, however some other unknown issue prevented the reserve from deploying.

Portugal (9/4/2010) - An instructor noticed during a jump run pin check that the display on his AFF student's Argus was blank so they rode the plane down.  They thought the Argus was off, but later found out that it was on and there was a loose connection to the display causing it to be blank. The pilot descended the plane at a vertical velocity of 61 mph through the activation altitude causing the Argus to fire and only partially sever the closing loop.  Aviacom claims that the reserve closing loop was too long and coupled with the fact that the student was leaning against the side of the plane, this caused the reserve pilot chute to compress which caused the loop to go slack (ie. no tension).  The owner's manual indicates that a minimum of 10 lbs of tension is required on the closing loop to guarantee a clean cut.

Texas (2/21/2011) - An experienced jumper on a wingsuit jump pulled low, landed normally, and found out during the subsequent main repack that the Argus had fired and partially severed the reserve closing loop which completely broke while closing up the main.  The jumper/dropzone has refused to turn over the rig for inspection.  This may be due to a missing/forged reserve card and/or other rigging issues.

If anyone finds any reliable information that adds to or contradicts anything above, please pass it along.

I will also comment that Aviacom is doing a pretty horrible job with PR and seems to be claiming that some sort of conspiracy is taking place to steal their market share, although personally I'm more concerned with the reliability of the AAD's themselves rather than company politics, paranoia, or public image.  At this point in time, my opinion is that most jumpers would be better off jumping an Argus than not having an AAD at all, providing that they check the AAD display before every jump on the off chance that it fired during the previous jump and only partially severed the closing loop.

Offline Max

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Has more than 2 cents
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
  • Gender: Male
Re: Argus
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2011, 11:02:04 pm »
It sounds like potential rigger error hasn't been conclusively ruled out of any of the incidents... and I think it's probably pretty obvious to everyone that riggers are pretty important to proper reserve functionality.

Offline Flyerer

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Has more than 2 cents
  • ****
  • Posts: 169
  • Gender: Male
Re: Argus
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2011, 01:08:56 pm »
I understand that Aerodyne has officially banned the Argus from their gear as of this past Friday? Can anyone confirm that I have accurate information?

Lou
"Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant" Justice Louis Brandeis

Offline Evan

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Has more than 2 cents
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Gender: Male
Re: Argus
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2011, 02:34:12 pm »
I understand that Aerodyne has officially banned the Argus from their gear as of this past Friday? Can anyone confirm that I have accurate information?

Lou

Yep, here's the service bulletin:
http://www.flyaerodyne.com/download/SB250311.pdf

Offline Franz

  • DZO
  • Soapbox in back pocket
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.stuntphoto.com
Re: Argus
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2011, 09:25:39 am »

Here's the way I see it on that point Pete. As a sport jumper your AAD fires around 750ft. In the unlikely event that the aad did bind it took away maybe 2 seconds of opportunity to save your own life MAYBE!!!. Now I believe (personal opinion not proven) that this is caused more by rigger error - i.e slack closing loop, than aad failure. There has apparently been an independent study done on all cutters that showed a cypres cutter could do the same thing. The problem comes down to the fact that if the cutter is placed above the pack job it can bind and cause a container lock, if it were at the bottom of the tray it could not do this, worst case scenario is the aad does not do it's job rather than being in a position to lock the container if it fails. In short I believe having a good rigger and an AAD is a better way to go than ripping it out. The chances of an AAD saving you are far far higher (as has been proven at our DZ) than the chance of any of the models causing you a problem.

DISCLAIMER: The above is personal opinion based on gathered information and should not be taken as factual information.



I have similar feelings to this. That being the case, an unknown AAD fire that doesn't result in an immediate reserve deployment but gives way at a later time is still of concern. Me personally, if I'm not in the saddle until under 1000 feet, I'm chacking my AAD as soon as I'm safely back on the ground. Beyond that, I would much rather have an AAD that works 99% of the time rather than none at all.

You are definitely correct about checking your AAD. I put it to UPT that a mandatory inspection by a rigger should take place after any low pull.

Offline Jordan

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Kinda chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 63
Re: Argus
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2011, 10:31:29 am »
Good news if you have a Wings container. They are not banning the Argus AAD in their rigs.

Offline C.H.Risk

  • Has more than 2 cents
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
  • Gender: Male
    • Third Estate Design
Re: Argus
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2011, 05:14:27 pm »
Everyone needs to see this:  http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/News/ArgusBulletin.pdf

From the USPA News Update Email I received today:

"Aviacom finally received the AAD that experienced the cutter problem and was able to determine what actually occurred with the cutter. The unit was taken to Sky Supplies in Europe for the inspection, and upon disassembly of the cutter, investigators found that a small steel ball had lodged between the closing loop and the cutter, damaging the cutter and preventing the loop from being completely severed. Sky Supplies determined that this had to be a foreign object, because there are no steel balls in the manufacturing of the AAD."

Offline Jordan

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Kinda chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 63
Re: Argus
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2011, 08:20:39 am »
Hopefully this will now come to a quick resolution. If manufacturers continue to ban the Argus, then I think the original claims by Argus of a "conspiracy" may have some merit.

Offline Galvar

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Soapbox in back pocket
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Gender: Male
  • Gigity
Re: Argus
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2011, 10:41:53 am »
Its always about the money!    Skydiving is not exempt from greed!
I wish Franz and Paul R would stop fighting over me. I mean thier both Fugly!

Offline BRIAN-H

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Argus
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2011, 10:58:44 pm »
Everyone needs to see this:  http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/News/ArgusBulletin.pdf

From the USPA News Update Email I received today:

"Aviacom finally received the AAD that experienced the cutter problem and was able to determine what actually occurred with the cutter. The unit was taken to Sky Supplies in Europe for the inspection, and upon disassembly of the cutter, investigators found that a small steel ball had lodged between the closing loop and the cutter, damaging the cutter and preventing the loop from being completely severed. Sky Supplies determined that this had to be a foreign object, because there are no steel balls in the manufacturing of the AAD."

Offline BRIAN-H

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Argus
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2011, 11:12:24 pm »
sent an e-mail to sun path to see if they will be lifting the ban on the Argus any time soon.
this is the e-mail I got back .......

Unfortunately, this report on one of the 4 reported incidents of interference with TSO’ed components is not sufficient and does not relieve any concern nor restore confidence in the AAD.  I suggest considering another AAD as the Argus will most likely never be re authorized for installation in the Sun Path products harness-container systems.
--
Dave Singer
Director of Engineering/R&D Program Management
Sun Path Products, Inc.
910-875-9002  PH
910-875-9272  FX
813-469-9355  M
Dave@sunpath.com



Offline Rhanold

  • Regulars & Staff
  • Soapbox in back pocket
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
  • Will someone PLEASE tell me what is going on?!?!
Re: Argus
« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2011, 11:58:21 pm »
Is this a direct quote? I am just surprised at the apparent bias this person exhibits against the AAD. With 4 incidents driving a decision and one is admittedly caused by interference of components to say that this does not relieve any concern is quite a bold statement. One or more of the remaining incidents must quite definitively exhibit the AAD as a harmfully defective device. This is further evident in the next statement that the AAD will most likely never be re authorized for instillation. This gentleman must be privy to exceptionally more conclusive evidence than the affected individuals.

For full disclosure I jump a Cypres 2 in a Wings so I do not have a dog in this fight as they say, I am speaking on his statement as a professional engineer.



sent an e-mail to sun path to see if they will be lifting the ban on the Argus any time soon.
this is the e-mail I got back .......

Unfortunately, this report on one of the 4 reported incidents of interference with TSO’ed components is not sufficient and does not relieve any concern nor restore confidence in the AAD.  I suggest considering another AAD as the Argus will most likely never be re authorized for installation in the Sun Path products harness-container systems.
--
Dave Singer
Director of Engineering/R&D Program Management
Sun Path Products, Inc.
910-875-9002  PH
910-875-9272  FX
813-469-9355  M
Dave@sunpath.com