USPA Newsletter report of Texas Argus event

[PhreeZone 20]

To me it looks like the loop came inverted and is no longer a loop but now a straight piece of closing loop that is all frayed. It seems like the outer layer of the loop was cut but the inner layer remained trapped so it peeled off on the ground and eventually broke. I might be wrong since the photos are not clear.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[TitaniumLegs 8]

Quote

Do no harm, unless the cutter is located above the freebag or PC and clamps onto the loop with sufficient force to prevent the reserve from being deployed even if the ripcord is pulled.

The odds of that happening are probably small - the window between AAD firing and "too low to matter anyway" is not very long - but that doesn't mean that it won't happen, just that it won't be a frequent occurrence.

Another risk here is that the jumper may make further jumps on the rig that day without checking the AAD. If he later needs that reserve, the cutter is still locking the reserve closed.

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.

[koppel 4]

any jumper who doesn't check their pins and AAD etc on every jump should have their head examined...

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[billvon 2,991]

>any jumper who doesn't check their pins and AAD etc on every jump should have their
>head examined...

Well, you could say that any jumper who gets to 700 feet without deploying a canopy should have their head examined, too. But we still use AAD's. You could also say that any jumper who cuts away and doesn't open their reserve is an idiot. But we still use RSL's.

[koppel 4]

Quote

>any jumper who doesn't check their pins and AAD etc on every jump should have their
>head examined...

Well, you could say that any jumper who gets to 700 feet without deploying a canopy should have their head examined, too. But we still use AAD's. You could also say that any jumper who cuts away and doesn't open their reserve is an idiot. But we still use RSL's.

I would point out in contrast that those things I mentioned can all be done on the ground with no pressure or raised stress levels in less than a minute while those points you raised are situations where stress is involved and sensory overload can take over.

Of course you should deploy a parachute... perhaps you are not able to, Tom P.

Of course you should activate your reserve after a cut-away... perhaps you are not able to, Rick H.

just thoughts

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[billvon 2,991]

>I would point out in contrast that those things I mentioned can all be done on the
>ground with no pressure or raised stress levels in less than a minute while those
>points you raised are situations where stress is involved and sensory overload
>can take over.

Yep. But the point is that we design gear, and design training programs, that keep people alive even when they screw up, on the ground OR in the air - since they do that regularly.

Should they screw up? Definitely not! But they do, and gear that keeps them alive even when they do that is, in general, a good thing.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Yep. But the point is that we design gear, and design training programs, that keep people alive even when they screw up, on the ground OR in the air - since they do that regularly.

Should they screw up? Definitely not! But they do, and gear that keeps them alive even when they do that is, in general, a good thing.

It can also be a bad thing, if you know you have an AAD will you be more complacent about going low, will people be put in more or unecessary danger by having one, and if someone is saved rather than killed when they go low, will that not teach them and others that they can get away with being stupid?

I know 'of' plenty of people that have had a 2 out by their own fault, if AAD's were not around would they be less or more likely to put themselves in that situation?

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

[billvon 2,991]

>t can also be a bad thing, if you know you have an AAD will you be more
>complacent about going low . . .

In my experience AAD's have had the opposite effect. I know of at least three (former) dirty low pullers who have upped their deployment altitudes because they either had or were afraid of a CYPRES fire during a low deployment.

However, I do agree that AAD's can foster an attitude of "if I don't pull my AAD will save me." You can see this at boogies where people talk about getting on a somewhat sketchy dive, and rather than backing off they say "well, that's why I have an AAD."

[Nigel 0]

I've just read the Aviacom commissioned report on the "Argus Cutter investigation - Incident San Marcos TX" and it raises morer questions than it answers.

1) What metallurgic analysis has been/will be conducted on the 'ball bearing foreign-object' (BBFO)? If from a 'shot-bag' (and it looks very small), it should be predominantly lead. If from a bearing housing, it'll be very different (? high copper content) composition.

2) It needs to be excluded that the composition of 'BBFO' cannot be associated with any other product or machinery used in Aviacom or Chemring UK (CEUK) manufacturing or logistics processes.

(Judging from the diversity of products CEUK offers, how did Skysupplies conclude this (type of) product contamination was excluded?)

I emailed the author at the address on the report, bounced back unknown.

I then googled the author (a 15000 jump tandem master). He turns up on Linkedin.com, primarily describing himself as 'manager tabelgames - Holland Casino'. Not casting aspersions on 'tabelgames managers' but...it's not obvious the author has the engineering capabilities that Aviacom and Chemring Engineering UK would/should (and if I were either company, I'd be embarassed at this half-cocked investigation, that fails to eliminate their production processes as the root cause) have expected for a credible investigation.

Of course, maybe the Linkedin.com profile is unduly modest...

I'm with Mirage, Sunpath and Strong responses on this. I'm disappointed at the weak analysis by Aerodyne...

Quote

• Quote

[sundevil777 102]

...weak analysis by Aviacom (not Aerodyne).

Their report is quite weak. It reminds me of when I worked for an engineering consulting firm (now called Exponent, previously Failure Analysis Associates). We would encounter engineering reports from plaintiff experts that often looked as cheapo/garage engineer expert looking as that served to us by Aviacom. It does not inspire confidence in a company very much in need of an infusion of professionalism.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[pchapman 279]

Quote

I then googled the author (a 15000 jump tandem master).

I hate to cast suspicions but there are a lot these days with AADs.

Perhaps a Dutch jumper can vouch for Mr. Camfferman.

I checked the FAA's Civil Aviation registry, and there is an entry for him, but the record is blank. No rating, no address. Not sure what that means.

I did do a check of an FAA rigger I know outside the US, and it correctly reported his address, rigger rating level, and seal press symbol. On the other hand, FAA records are known to be very messy with lack of updates. But still, why is there nothing on him? A rigger rating will be on the database even after you are dead. Eg, Mr Lowell Bachman (ParaGear founder) is listed.


The whole San Marcos thing could have been just very bad luck for Argus. But it would be nice to have a lot more information than just a fuzzy photo of a small round object.

[riggerrob 643]

I doubt if a fancy metalurgical analysis will answer your question, because packing weights tend to be made of whatever scrap metal is laying around.

I have made packing weights from lead shot, steel shot, tungsten shots and old tire balance weights. Tire balance weights are the least expensive because I pick them up off the street when wandering around on my bicycle.
Hah!
Hah!

[dragon2 2]

Quote

Perhaps a Dutch jumper can vouch for Mr. Camfferman.

Nol Camfferman is a rigger (AFAIK both Dutch and FAA), and he's also a TM/AFFI.
He has packed my reserve at least once and I've jumped with him a few times.
Not sure what other vouching you want/I can give you

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Skybear 0]

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.

[dragon2 2]

Quote

he was listed as test jumper and staff member on Aviacoms website

AFAIK, he still is a staff member of Aviacom.

ciel bleu,
Saskia