Australia Bans Argus AAD

[wildcard451 0]

http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/Default.aspx

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/Default.aspx

And the BPA too... as mentioned in this post with a link to the BPA notice.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3996527#3996527

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[petejones45 0]

are all dropzones apf affiliated? because this bulletin would only apply to those ones that are

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[LavaLady 0]

All civilian operations (bar one) are APF affiliated in Australia.

[rhys 0]

anyone know the nitty gritties on this?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[LavaLady 0]

http://www.apf.asn.au/Docs-Forms/Technical-Directives/default.aspx

Two docs here. The TD04/2010 and an explanatory event history.

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

http://www.apf.asn.au/Docs-Forms/Technical-Directives/default.aspx

Two docs here. The TD04/2010 and an explanatory event history.

And THIS:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3825061

[rhys 0]

Quote

And THIS:

http://www.dropzone.com/...rum.cgi?post=3825061

forgot about that one.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

Quote

And THIS:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3825061

forgot about that one.

Yes. A fatality in Poland where the jumper wore Argus. The above link directs you to photos from Polish government report and the unofficial translation of key findings.

[hcsvader 1]

I posted this on the skysurfer.com.au/forum thread relating to the Argus grounding.

So after reading the TD again I have some questions about what is being done to reslove this issue.

~ from the argus events letter

Quote

I wrote “ARGUS Cutter Review” paper in June 2010 outlining my theory on the Polish Fatality that was sent to PIA Technical committee and circulated to all the members by Dave Singer, Chair PIA Technical Committee, as a discussion paper on 30 Sept 2010. The report was also sent to Aviacom on 29 Sept 2010. In my attached email I requested what the course of action would be in light of the second incident that occurred in Portugal. As yet there has been no response.

The day before this was sent to Aviacom, Aviacom sent this to the APF

Quote

On 28 Sept 2010 Aviacom issued a Letter of Demand to the APF that it lifts all restrictions on the use of the Argus and cites that our Director Rigging Mr. Rory Hatchett has a vested interest in suppressing the use of the ARGUS AAD and that the APF has previously supported the sale and use of Airtec’s CYPRES AAD. Mr. Groots also states that the issue of their Service Bulletin SB AMM0050910/2 removes any excuse the APF may have to discriminate the ARGUS.

So the APF responds to this reqeust by Aviacom with their theory on what happened in the Polish Fatality and asked what the course of action would be in light of the secong incident in portugal. What exactly was Aviacom asked to do by the APF? or were they just asking what Aviacom was doing about it? Is it true that both of these cutters were affected by the Argus SB and the new replacement cutter is Aviacoms response to these incidents?

Quote

The Aviacom SB on cutter replacement has not as yet demonstrated that it is superior to the cutter involved in the Polish fatality. The APF and TAG await more detail to review its initial Technical Directive.

Quote

it is my recommendation that all ARGUS AADs be grounded until Aviacom is able to replace the cutters in the ARGUS AAD with a demonstratively superior and reliable cutter. Reliability testing to include tests in packed parachutes representative of common general pack designs to ensure that mechanical interaction between pack flap grommets and spring pilot-chutes is taken into account.
This should be a standard test requirement of all AAD manufacturers and equipment manufacturer who approve their fitting to their equipment.

Did the APF and TAG request this information from Aviacom at anytime before issuing this TD and let them know that if this information wasn't recieved the Argus would be grounded.

What is Aviacom doing to comply with the requests in the last quote and has Aviacom been advised of these requirements by the APF?

"This should be a standard test requirement of all AAD manufacturers and equipment manufacturer who approve their fitting to their equipment." Has the APF required this of any other manufactuer of AAD yet?



I've Emailed both the APF and Aviacom asking them similar questions. Should be interesting to see what, if any reply I recieve.

Aviacoms website says they will be releasing documents next week as to why the Argus has been banned in australia as well as information regarding the Polish and Portugal Incidents.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[hcsvader 1]

Argus released this statement yesterday
http://tools.emailgarage.com/Pub/KI9DGAAAAAA~/rK5I_IaErkSLi9B6lvbYnw~~/AwqDKFqmhU2jPNYueQL9Yg~~/ViewEmail.ashx

pretty useless if you ask me. They don't seem to be doing anything to solve the issue and get Argus owners back in the air.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[kellja2001 0]

On UK Skydiver, John Horne just linked a very interesting document... its about 15 posts down on this page:

http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/cms/index.php?/topic/16791-argus-grounded/page__st__20

[PhreeZone 20]

It seems that there are lots of attacks against their competition also in that email and the linked documents.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[airdvr 210]

Quote

They don't seem to be doing anything to solve the issue and get Argus owners back in the air.

I didn't realize that rigs made today don't work correctly without an AAD.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

It seems that there are lots of attacks against their competition also in that email and the linked documents.

On the other hand, it is also possible to interpret the Aviacom paper as a cry for a level playing field.

If a circular-knife cutter is a problem, maybe all circular-knife cutters should be banned? If not, why not?

The APF "Argus Event History" cites US FAA AC-105-2C as stating that “assembled components must function properly and may not interfere with the operation of other components”.

Taking that to the logical conclusion says to me that any rig with a cutter that could lock a pilot chute should be grounded, since we can never know for sure that any cutter will work properly until it actually fires.

There are now several rigs with the AAD cutter positioned such that a failed cutter could prevent extracting the pin from beginning the deployment. Should rigs like that be banned as well? If not, why not?

[Unstable 9]

Quote

The APF "Argus Event History" cites US FAA AC-105-2C as stating that “assembled components must function properly and may not interfere with the operation of other components”.

Taking that to the logical conclusion says to me that any rig with a cutter that could lock a pilot chute should be grounded, since we can never know for sure that any cutter will work properly until it actually fires.

There are now several rigs with the AAD cutter positioned such that a failed cutter could prevent extracting the pin from beginning the deployment. Should rigs like that be banned as well? If not, why not?

I agree with your devils-advocate comments here ~ it does seem that when a Cypres Fails, not much happens.

=========Shaun ==========

[skydivepete 0]

Quote

They don't seem to be doing anything to solve the issue and get Argus owners back in the air.

It seems they do:

Quote

Following their meetings of the 25th November 2010, the Riggers’ Sub-Committee and the
STC have now decided that rigs fitted with Argus AADs may now be put back into service
provided the Argus AAD is fitted with a cutter manufactured after the beginning of
September 2007 and may only be fitted to equipment authorised by both the AAD
manufacturer and container manufacturer and fitted in a manner acceptable to them.

[hcsvader 1]

I was just going to post that link. Yes the BPA has decided that the argus will not be grounded there.

The APF (Australia) still has the Argus grounded.

The APF didn't even notify Argus that they were having a meeting to discuss grounding the Argus.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[hcsvader 1]

Quote

Quote

They don't seem to be doing anything to solve the issue and get Argus owners back in the air.

I didn't realize that rigs made today don't work correctly without an AAD.

Not if you jump at a DZ with mandatory AAD's

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[CrazyAl 0]

It is obvious that Argus was outlawed by the APF with a very weak investigation. If this is how they continue to deal with this matter, I think they're showing a lack of respect to all their APF members, DZOs, and jumpers.

Also I have read peoples post with issues towards the circular cutters. I'm nearly positive that both the Vigil and Argus have these? Not 1000% sure but I do recall this during the product testing we did between all the current AAD manufactures in 09. All the cutters we tested cut the loops with ease.

Further more all Argus skydivers need to speak out to the APF. Petition your Association demanding Argus be put back into service following the same guidelines as the BPA.. Or demand them to meet with Karel Groots, I'd say Argus deserves a FAIR TRIAL

[Bolas 5]

Quote

There are now several rigs with the AAD cutter positioned such that a failed cutter could prevent extracting the pin from beginning the deployment. Should rigs like that be banned as well? If not, why not?

If there were/are such rigs that an AAD failure would prevent the reserve ripcord from being pulled by the jumper or prevent the reserve from opening, the rig needs to be grounded, not the AAD.

[firemedic 7]

If there were/are such rigs that an AAD failure would prevent the reserve ripcord from being pulled by the jumper or prevent the reserve from opening, the rig needs to be grounded, not the AAD.

[JerryBaumchen 1,364]

Hi medic,

Quote

There are rigs out there that would "lock" the pilot chute in the contaner if the cutter jams on the loop.

I have thought a lot about this; and I willing admit that it is a big IF.

Any rig in which the cutter is above the pilot chute or above the bag has this potential. As does the Racer & the Reflex.

The probability is almost zero but not completely at zero.

Just my thoughts . . .

JerryBaumchen

PS) I would hate to be on the committee trying to write a standard for TSO-authorization of an AAD. I suggest not going 'there.'

[firemedic 7]

The probability is almost zero but not completely at zero.

Just my thoughts . . .

JerryBaumchen

PS) I would hate to be on the committee trying to write a standard for TSO-authorization of an AAD. I suggest not going 'there.'

I have no intention of opening up that "can of worms." As far as the very big "if" a cutter could jam on a loop. JMO, the "if" is big enough that I won't jump a rig with a cutter mounted above the freebag or could lock the through loop, in the case of the Racer.

[billvon 2,995]

>It is obvious that Argus was outlawed by the APF with a very weak investigation.

Agreed. However, it is not their role to prove that the Argus is safe. It is their role to determine that it MIGHT kill skydivers. They have done so.

It is now in Argus's responsibility to provide a thorough investigation to both determine the cause and ensure it will not happen again.

Take the case of a commercial airliner whose rudder often falls off. It is not the job of the FAA (or other national authority) to determine why the rudder falls off and/or to fix the problem. It is merely to determine that yes, the rudder often falls off, and must be fixed.