michalm21 2 #51 April 6, 2011 very "nice" blackmail letter... classy /getting popcorn/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airgord 1 #52 April 6, 2011 Maybe all the Argus owners and users should get together........just sayin'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #53 April 6, 2011 QuoteMaybe all the Argus owners and users should get together........just sayin'. And do what?"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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ridestrong 1 #54 April 7, 2011 If not already mentioned... Argus banned in Dubai as well.*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.* ----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #55 April 7, 2011 Quotevery "nice" blackmail letter... classy /getting popcorn/ Lawsuits aren't good for any of us. Spurious or not, they cost everyone money and time. I'm still waiting to see what VSE come up with. I think Basik has the right approach and also make a great point. Our reserves and containers are certified but separately, the AAD is not but can break the certification. That just seems wrong to my non-rigger-relatively-newby-jumper eyes. Not to mention the whole "hey that reserve will totally open in 3 seconds or 300ft, but we can't be sure in your rig... enjoy!"... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #56 April 7, 2011 More info: Airtec's response to the letter from Aviacom to PIA: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/PIATechcomDocs/Accusements_Argus_6411_toPIA.pdf Bulletin received from IPC/FAI: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OrganizationBulletins/IN38250311.pdf Emails from Aviacom: (already published in this forum in other formats) http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/AviacomTechData/Argus%20Service%20Bulletins.pdfYesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #57 April 8, 2011 Also banned throught the UK now.Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #58 April 8, 2011 Paratec (manufacturer of the NeXT) took the same position as BASIK. They also think that it is not up to rig manufacturers to approve or not.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DoZ3r 0 #59 April 11, 2011 not sure if anyone mentioned it, but it has been ground in Denmark for a while aswell.. http://dfu.dk/~/media/Baseline_site/Regler/MTM/MTM2011nr17.ashxIf everything seems under control.. You're just not going fast enough..! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RiggerLee 61 #60 April 11, 2011 I tried to respond to this before but my internet took a shit. I really don't like eather of these positions. I know it's what you would like to hear but they imply a lack of responcability of the part of the rig manufactorer. There was a lot of descusion about this at PIA. There was even talk about testing programs and standards. But what really struck me was how closely the companies were haveing to work with the AAD makers to resolve these issues. Even small design changes were haveing large effects on the delays. I really don't think a rig manufacterer can just wash it's hands of this and expect an AAD to work. If that is the depth of their involvement then I would not put an AAD of any type in their rig. I guess they play hot potato even in Europe. LeeLee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BKR 0 #61 April 12, 2011 Quote I tried to respond to this before but my internet took a shit. I really don't like eather of these positions. I know it's what you would like to hear but they imply a lack of responcability of the part of the rig manufactorer. There was a lot of descusion about this at PIA. There was even talk about testing programs and standards. But what really struck me was how closely the companies were haveing to work with the AAD makers to resolve these issues. Even small design changes were haveing large effects on the delays. I really don't think a rig manufacterer can just wash it's hands of this and expect an AAD to work. If that is the depth of their involvement then I would not put an AAD of any type in their rig. I guess they play hot potato even in Europe. Lee It is not a lack of responsability. We try to open the eyes of everybody because this situation cannot still the way it is since years. You must understand that we cannot be found responsible if the AAD is not working properly as it should.Jérôme Bunker Basik Air Concept www.basik.fr http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #62 April 13, 2011 I think the 10 days is up... Is Aviacom going to go through with this lawsuit?=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tazsz 0 #63 April 13, 2011 Quote I think the 10 days is up... Is Aviacom going to go through with this lawsuit? It's about time aviacom shows a little respect for there customers and communicate what they will do for them or how to solve the problem other then these announcements on there website Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMFin 0 #64 April 13, 2011 Quote It's about time aviacom shows a little respect for there customers and communicate what they will do for them or how to solve the problem other then these announcements on there website 1.May I ask you what else would you expect them to do than file a lawsuit ? They dont seem to have any other choise do they ? 2.What is the question you would like them to answer to you by email? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tazsz 0 #65 April 13, 2011 communicate what they will do for the customers and how to solve there(customers) problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #66 April 13, 2011 Quote1.May I ask you what else would you expect them to do than file a lawsuit ? They dont seem to have any other choise do they ? 2.What is the question you would like them to answer to you by email? +1 on just communicating. Our dropzone has quite a few younger jumpers with their Argii units taken out and sitting in their dresser drawers in little plastic baggies.=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #67 April 14, 2011 >May I ask you what else would you expect them to do than file a lawsuit ? Oh, I don't know. Maybe fix their AAD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #68 April 14, 2011 QuoteDear Sir, Re: PIA Recommendation resulting in Argus AAD ban Your association and some of its members are responsible for banning the Argus AAD worldwide, based on entirely false arguments. The Polish authorities now authorized the Argus again, while you use the Polish incident (07/2009) as an excuse. Argus firmly declines any responsibility in that unfortunate incident. We contest formally that our equipment is at fault. See ‘Chrcyno’ report. On request of Mr Dave Singer, PIA Technical Committee Chair, we immediately submitted hundreds of pages of testing results. All questions were immediately answered with appropriate testing data. The incident in Texas (21 Feb 2011) had not been investigated at the time when the different Service Bulletins were issued, because no un-biased investigator had yet seen the equipment. We had to involve the FAA in order to get access to the associated parachute equipment for investigation. The ‘incident’ in Portugal (3 Sep 2010) was the result of poor rigging and poor understanding of the functioning of an AAD. This was dully documented in our ‘Evora’ report. You have been jumping to conclusions and damaging the Argus reputation, simply to create a commercial advantage for your affiliated AAD manufacturers. You are now bullying the other Harness/Container manufacturers into submission with your directives, under cover of product liability. You are taking our mutual customers in hostage, disregarding skydivers’ safety. You use a manufactured smokescreen to divert the attention from the numerous fatal accidents that occurred with your ‘member’ AAD manufacturers which claim a 100% safety record. Such statements are unarguably unethical, unprofessional, and certainly unacceptable. (see Ms. Jude Lipps versus Airtec: product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty). This type of ‘safety devise’ systematically fires too low. (See Fatality Carter Scott Shields, Cross-Keys, 25 March 2011) On-going misfires on the ground, in the plane, in free-fall and under canopy are covered up, even when a plane crash is involved (see NTSB report DEN08FA078). The use of illegal and defective sensors has never been mentioned by you. Misinformation and denial of ‘pond-swooping‘ activations under open main canopies also resulted in fatalities. (See Adrian Nicholas , 17 Sep 2005) Yet, you chose not to take action in these fatal incidents, involving our two competitors. The PIA and some of its members are guilty of conflict of interests and abuse of dominant market position. The ‘recommendation’ to ban the Argus has only commercial motivation and totally lacks technical or safety motivation. Your Service Bulletins are all ‘cut and paste’ and proves that this action was pre-meditated and coordinated with the only aim to get our company out of business. You cannot argue that jumping with an Argus is more dangerous than jumping without one. If one of our customers now has an accident while his Argus is removed, you are responsible for that. We hereby request that you and your members recall the ‘ban’ or ‘authorization withdrawal’ within 7 days. If you do not comply with this request, we have no other choice then to direct our attorney to sue you for all damages occurred, provisionally estimated at TEN MILLION US DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) Sincerely yours, Karel Goorts Managing Director Aviacom SA Good on you Karel. There is alot of anti competative behaviour these days and we grow accustom to it, but these allegations are quite serious and I have witnessed first hand the type of cover up you are talking about with the 'other manufacturers'. I have a jumper at my DZ that has an Argus that has been removed, he is gutted, along with you and every other argus owner. I suspect you and all the argus owners are owed a sincere, not a half assed apology. Those that witheld the effected unit from your company for immediate inspection if affiliated with your competitors should be investigated and held accountable for your losses if it is found there was no valid reasong to withhold that from you, The reinstatement of argus units should happen as quick as they were removed... like instantly."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jverley 1 #69 April 19, 2011 Skydive Arizona has banned Argus from their airplanes. Even if the Rig Manufacturer has not banned them, SDAZ posted a notice that they feel the risk too great to allow the Argus AAD in any SDAZ aircraft.John Arizona Hiking Trails Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #70 April 22, 2011 Some new files have been added recently: Wings message to dealers: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/201102TMWingsArgus.pdf Airtec Statement on loops: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OtherDocuments/Rigging-notice_20110421_eng.pdf Airtec Cutter info: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OtherDocuments/CYPRES_cutter_loop-032011.pdf Vigil Cutter specs: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OtherDocuments/CutterSpecsVigil.pdf Avicom - Understanding cutters http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/AviacomTechData/UnderstandingCUTTERS.PDF Avicom - Tech drawing http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/AviacomTechData/body%20deburr.jpgYesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #71 April 22, 2011 QuoteSome new files have been added recently: Wings message to dealers: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/201102TMWingsArgus.pdf Airtec Statement on loops: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OtherDocuments/Rigging-notice_20110421_eng.pdf Airtec Cutter info: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OtherDocuments/CYPRES_cutter_loop-032011.pdf Vigil Cutter specs: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/OtherDocuments/CutterSpecsVigil.pdf Avicom - Understanding cutters http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/AviacomTechData/UnderstandingCUTTERS.PDF Avicom - Tech drawing http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/AviacomTechData/body%20deburr.jpg Whoa. Does anyone know if all the documents listed as attributable to a specific mfg were actually released by the mfg or do we have sort of 'wikileaks' going on and PIA is posting anything & everything it receives (not that, that is necessarily a bad thing)? An interesting feature of the Vigil released document states that there is a mechanism (retaining dot stamps) that ensures that a minimum pressure is developed within the chamber before the cutter starts to move. Does anyone know what the equivalent mechanism is on a CYPRES or Argus? and what the blowby would be? Or if either of those AADs have such a mechanism? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #72 April 22, 2011 QuoteDear Wings dealers, Our present position here at Sunrise, is that we don’t have an issue with people using an Argus AAD on our Wings rigs. It is an AAD problem, and I’m sure it will be addressed by the manufacturer. I of course have heard the stories about the cutter not completely cutting the loop in several instances. If this happens on our container, you will still be able to pull the reserve handle and open the reserve. It will operate just as it does if there were no AAD installed. This may not be the case with other systems. If there is a problem with the Argus AAD (or any other type of AAD), the manufacturer will let us know if or what the problem is after he’s had a chance to look at the unit and do a proper investigation. We don’t feel it’s our place to ground someone’s product based on what someone outside that company is saying about someone else’s product. They don’t know nearly as much about it as he does. So the bottom line is that we don’t want to make a snap decision based on rumors or hearsay by outside parties, but prefer to review the evaluation from the manufacturer of the unit(s) in question. I also received an e-mail from Karel at Aviacom. I’m sending it along as well, and it kind of confirms our stance on the issue. Thank you, Sunrise Manufacturing Intl. Inc. Thank you Sunrise!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 279 #73 April 22, 2011 Quote An interesting feature of the Vigil released document states that there is a mechanism (retaining dot stamps) that ensures that a minimum pressure is developed within the chamber before the cutter starts to move. Does anyone know what the equivalent mechanism is on a CYPRES or Argus? and what the blowby would be? Or if either of those AADs have such a mechanism? To all: There are a few other interesting Argus AAD related documents on the PIA site too, in http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/AviacomTechData/AviacomTechnicalData.htm. So one can see tech drawings both for the Argus cutter housing (in the previous URL list) and the cutter blade. For example, while the Cypres cutter blade is 5 mm dia (my micrometer measurement), the Argus cutter blade is about 6 mm. The barrel specs are 6.00-6.02mm, and the blade specs are 5.98-5.99 mm. That gives a maximum of 1.5 thou (in inches) clearance. And both the Cypres and Argus use a double O-ring on their cutter blade unit to seal against gas blow by during firing. To MakeItHappen: It seems as if Vigil does things differently with that 'holdback' mechanism with the dot stamps. I don't see anything like that on the Argus technical drawings. Nor do I see it in my cut open, fired Cypres cutter. The bore inside the cutter housing appears smooth over the area where the cutter blade would go. But I don't know for sure how they do things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JayR 0 #74 April 26, 2011 heres the response on the argus issue in reflex rigs. Subject: Argus and the Reflex Harness / Container First let me say that I think what the PIA and its Mfg. members are doing is just wrong. They do not have the authority to ground the Argus or any other AAD. Only the FAA can do this via an Emergency AD Notice. Regarding the Reflex, we purchased Fliteline and its assets which included the Reflex. But we do not manufacture the Reflex. We only supply replacement parts, to help keep Reflexes alive. Regarding the installation of the Argus or any other AAD, it is the responsibility of the rigger to do the installation. The Reflex manual only refers to the CYPRES, simply because at the time, it was the only AAD available. If a Rigger determines that another AAD is compatible, then they can do the installation. Here, at Action Air Parachutes, we will continue to pack Reflex containers with an Argus unless the Argus manufacturer grounds the Argus or the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive regarding the unit. Until one of those two things happen, it is ultimately the owner / user’s responsibility to decide if he/she is going to use it. Unfortunately many current (PIA influenced) riggers are not willing to do the job that their certificate gives them the privilege to do, like inspect and pack a reserve over 20 years old. It is a riggers responsibility to inspect, determine airworthiness, repack and recertify a reserve parachute. IMHO, if a rigger is not willing to do this, regardless of the age of the parachute, that person should surrender their rigger’s certificate. The FAA addresses the use of AAD’s in AC 105-2C. This says that the installation can be approved by the Manufacturer or the FAA. And it says that you “should” follow manufacturer’s instructions. It does not say that you “must”. If you want to stir the pot, ask why rig manufacturers have approved the installation of any AAD that could affect the normal deployment of a reserve. The fact is that all three AAD manufacturers have had their own Cutter problems and recalls. So why crucify just the newest kid on the block? The manufacturers of Parachutes and their components are taking control for rigging decisions that they have no legal authority over; like establishing life limits on equipment. There were and are no life limits in the current TSO certification process. The manufacturers are only getting away with this because no one has challenged it - yet. The USPA should lead this charge along with AOPA, EAA and the soaring society. This is how I see it, as a Master Parachute Rigger and FAA DPRE with some 30 plus years of experience. Ray Ferrell Action Air Parachutes, Inc 24390 Aviation Ave Davis, CA 95616-9408 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 107 #75 April 26, 2011 QuoteFirst let me say that I think what the PIA and its Mfg. members are doing is just wrong. They do not have the authority to ground the Argus or any other AAD. Only the FAA can do this via an Emergency AD Notice. The PIA has not grounded any AADs. Some of its members have chosen to withdraw approval for Argus AADs in their rigs. Some have not. As you know, the FAA's position is that they cannot legally issue an AD because our sport parachute systems are not "aircraft appliances." Even if an AD is not warranted in this instance, how would you propose to proceed if there were a case where there is no doubt there is a serious problem? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
