Argus partially cut loop - 30-8-2010 - Italy

[PhreeZone 20]

Another partially cut loop report has surfaced. This one occurred in August of 2010 in Italy. There are photos in the report showing a lot of partially cut fibers sticking out of the cutter.

http://www.pia.com/piapubs/ServiceBulletins/ARGUSItalyCombo.pdf


Edited to reflect that I read the report incorrectly and it does not mention the DOM of the unit but there appears to be a "Nov 06" or "Nov 08"sticker on the cable in the photos.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Unstable 9]

Look like DOM for the Cutter was 2005 (did I read that correctly?) Why was this cutter not replaced with Service bulletin AMMO-XXX would be the first question I would ask.

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

[skydiverek 63]

Looks like 'Nov 06' to me.

[koppel 4]

Looks like Nov 06 to me too.

Which means that in light of the fact that the cutter should have been removed from service 4 years ago and whoever has been packing it since should be counseled by their local Federation for poor rigging practices.

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Looks like Nov 06 to me too.

Which means that in light of the fact that the cutter should have been removed from service 4 years ago and whoever has been packing it since should be counseled by their local Federation for poor rigging practices.

While the cutter was included in the recall, the recall was not 4 years ago.

Since cutters have been very hard to come by, the SB has been altered to allow continued use of the older cutters.

Now, I don't know what Italian law says about this, but in the USA, this cutter may have still been legal.

(Please note - I am not saying that it is okay the way cutter replacement has played out. I am not saying that the old cutters are acceptable. I am only commenting on the statements that the cutter was required to be replaced 4 years ago, and the rigging practices of the rigger(s) involved.)

[Unstable 9]

Quote

Since cutters have been very hard to come by, the SB has been altered to allow continued use of the older cutters.

Now, I don't know what Italian law says about this, but in the USA, this cutter may have still been legal.

I don't know man ~ I see your logic, but regardless, using a cutter that long after a recall was issued is sketchy business. Personally, I wouldn't have packed that.

Cutters are hard to come by, you are right.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Since cutters have been very hard to come by, the SB has been altered to allow continued use of the older cutters.

Now, I don't know what Italian law says about this, but in the USA, this cutter may have still been legal.

I don't know man ~ I see your logic, but regardless, using a cutter that long after a recall was issued is sketchy business. Personally, I wouldn't have packed that.

Cutters are hard to come by, you are right.

At some point, we must put some trust in the manufacturer to give us proper information to work with.

In retrospect, we are seeing that maybe that obligation has not been met with respect to the Argus cutter recall.

But at the time that a rigger last worked on that rig, maybe it was not yet so clear as it is now.

I am just saying that damning the rigger without a complete picture of everything involved is perhaps overly harsh.

But, I certainly agree that knowing what we know now, many or most of us would never have packed that rig.

[pchapman 279]

OK, I looked through the various Aviacom bulletins. (My downloads or Aussie APF site)

Nov '06 cutters were the first new batch that were OK relative to the 2006 bulletin about replacing ones with the plastic insert that could fray a loop.

Then the bulletins AMMO050910/2, or its /1 predecessor, both dated 5 Sept 1010 were AFTER this "newly discovered" incident if it indeed took place in August 2006. Those were the first of the 2010 bad cutter bulletins.

So unless I also missed something, the jumper was using a perfectly legal cutter at the time, and it would have been so even under FAA rules.

Perhaps Aviacom was given that Italian report. After all, it was dated Aug 30 and the cutter bulletin came out about a week later on Sept 5, 2010. It's just that the English speaking community on dz.com didn't know about it until now.

[koppel 4]

thank you . I stand corrected, it appears my memory did not serve me well on on this occasion.

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[Skybear 0]

Can somebody explain the meaning of the other numbers on the tag? I am asking, because the cutter is tagged exactly like the one shown in the SB from Sep. 5th 2010. If that means it is exactly the same cutter (maybe 092666 is a serial number), it means that Aviacom was well aware not only of the incidents in Poland and Portugal, but also Italy. The photos prove that it was a more than serious problem, and replacement of the cutters should have been mandatory prior the next jump.

If my assumption is correct, it would mean that Aviacom had plenty of time to fix the problem. It would mean that the decision to ground Argus on almost any rig was not taken well in advance, as it is alleged in Aviacoms letter, but after a long period without satisfactory response.

I wonder where TrojanHorse is, and what he has to say to the customers who trusted the Argus.

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

(maybe 092666 is a serial number)

I think its a part number.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[tazsz 0]

Quote

I wonder where TrojanHorse is, and what he has to say to the customers who trusted the Argus.

It looks like Argus is more interested in placing movies that proof nothing on there website.
This is by far easier than to worry about the peoples who once trusted them