Argus Ban List

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Quote

The PIA has no authority to ground anything, where people get the idea that they do is beyond me. It is another example of how some people do not understand how things work, be it their AAD, the USPA(or your governing body) ,the PIA or their personal gear in general. The PIA has served as the focal point of these announcements. In other words, people have been killing the messenger.If anyone has a beef, they should take it up with the Harness Container manufacturer(s) directly as they are the ones who have decided to not approve the use of the Argus in their product.

Go back and look at the dates of the PIA letter to its members and the dates of the bans..

The PIA letter came first. Now considering the H/C manufacturers are intergral components of the PIA, and the bannings frpom those that are PIA members came after the PIA letter, decide for yourself if this is just a touch...ahem.. dodgy!

Oh wait, you published that letter and made it a sticky yourself...Why do I bother.

Probably because I give a shit and many people support me via PM and email and I am willing to talk about the elephant in the room that many will will not.

How fucking stupid do you think people are?

WOOOSH!!

That's the sound of you clearly missing the point.


Let me see if I can explain this again and hopefully you will put your tin foil hat and conspiracy theories to the side for a moment.


FAA: US Government agency, has authority(law) over what we "do" in the USA with regards to aviation and parachuting.

PIA: A voluntary association of manufacturers of parachuting equipment and materials related to the industry of parachuting, and I quote " Where members can get together and resolve industry issues with all the players at the same table. Suppliers, manufacturers, government agencies and businesses, riggers, DZ operators-all have input in determining where our organization, and therefore our industry, will go in the future." end quote. Has absolutely no authority(law) to ground anything, it's AN ASSOCIATION


Where it appears this is causing you issue is that some of the members of that association (PIA) also happen to be the manufacturers of parachute H/C's that have banned the Argus. Is it so hard to believe that the concerned parties all met together to discuss this issue, came to their own conclusions and decided what their individual businesses would do in this instance and then issued their own letters from their prospective businesses after the meeting?


You also seem to conveniently forget that some H/C manufacturers, who are also PIA members, have chosen not to ban the Argus in their product. You and all your PM and e-mail supporters should be upset with those specific H/C manufacturers for the choices that they have made and it's effect on you.

I have to ask though. If this is a conspiracy as you seem to think it is, please explain to all of us what do each of the H/C manufacturers stand to gain by banning the Argus from their product? Clearly it makes the customer base angry and could possibly(not probable though) effect future sales and customer loyalty. Where is the benefit in that?

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[rhys 0]

Quote

WOOOSH!!

That's the sound of you clearly missing the point.


Let me see if I can explain this again and hopefully you will put your tin foil hat and conspiracy theories to the side for a moment.

Oi, you can STFU with your personal attack buddy, I could care less about you being a greenie, calling me a radiophobe is a personal attack and you should know better, now you will prompt all sorts of other stabs as you have basically gven the green light for others to do so themselves, this will take the focus from the subject onto me which is a scenario we have been though before.

You used to have my respect, as you seemd to be neutral, now if you can make personal attacks as a moderator then you are setting a precedent and lowering the function of this forum, pull your head in please.

READ WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING. not just me but manufacturers, riggers, customers and many of the skydiving community.

LOOK AT THE DATE OF THE PIA LETTER, AND LOOK AT THE DATES OF THE BULLITENS!!!

Quote

The PIA has no authority to ground anything, where people get the idea that they do is beyond me. It is another example of how some people do not understand how things work, be it their AAD, the USPA(or your governing body) ,the PIA or their personal gear in general. The PIA has served as the focal point of these announcements. In other words, people have been killing the messenger. If anyone has a beef, they should take it up with the Harness Container manufacturer(s) directly as they are the ones who have decided to not approve the use of the Argus in their product.

Quote

Where it appears this is causing you issue is that some of the members of that association (PIA) also happen to be the manufacturers of parachute H/C's that have banned the Argus. Is it so hard to believe that the concerned parties all met together to discuss this issue, came to their own conclusions and decided what their individual businesses would do in this instance and then issued their own letters from their prospective businesses after the meeting?

Do you not see the backflip in those comments, who is missing the point...

So thier little meeting is where the decisions of the manufacturers were made, but the PIA had no influence on grounding the argus, none whatsoever...

Give me a break...

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

If it were collusion, it would be pretty bumbling, issuing the PIA press release first...

That could be the case and the worst case scenario, but I am more inclined to beleive it was a bandwagon and a fear of litigation.

But at the end of the day the decision to make people remove argus was premature and not good enough!

It was based on an unknown quantity and that is the dangerous precedent I am fearful of...

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

[billvon 2,989]

>But at the end of the day the decision to make people remove argus
>was premature and not good enough!
>It was based on an unknown quantity . . . .

And that, in my opinion, is why the Argus was disapproved on many rigs. Rig manufacturers want known quantities that are proven to work, not unknown quantities with unexplained problems.

[rhys 0]

The ball bearing is an explanation, though not 100% ratified, it is an explanation as to why it did not work.

That fact is something you and the PIA members seem to be ignoring.

If I put brake flid all over your brake pads and you fail to stop and drive over a cliff, is that the fault of the brakes, should you brand of car be recalled?

Same fucking thing!

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

[mark 107]

Quote

So their little meeting is where the decisions of the manufacturers were made, but the PIA had no influence on grounding the Argus, none whatsoever..

What course of action would you propose for the PIA when they are next made aware of a potentially serious problem?

The actual sequence of events:
. . .PIA business meeting: 11-13 Feb 2011
. . .San Marcos incident: 21 Feb 2011

The San Marcos initial report was sent to USPA. USPA in turn forwarded the report to PIA. asking essentially, "What are you going to do about it?"

PIA's response after the San Marcos incident was (1) publication of a letter from the Chairman of the Technical Committee Dave Singer to harness/container manufacturers, and (2) the setting up of a web page to collect in one place all available information, including information from Aviacom. Everything Aviacom has made public has been published. All of it.

As Mr. Singer noted in his letter, PIA is not a regulatory body (unlike, I gather, NZPIA, so I can understand your confusion). And in fact, some manufacturers have chosen to continue their approval of Argus AADs in their rigs.

It has now been three weeks since Aviacom issued its own initial report on the San Marcos incident. They would greatly advance their case if they would complete their investigation, including showing:
-- close-up photos of the steel ball, showing scarring, scuffing, or deformation caused by interaction with the cutter, and
-- photos of the cutters involved in the other three incidents, and
-- photos of cutters after normal firing in use.

Mark

[billvon 2,989]

>That fact is something you and the PIA members seem to be ignoring.

?? Are you saying a ball bearing was discovered in the Poland unit? I didn't see that. Do you have a reference?

>If I put brake flid all over your brake pads and you fail to stop and drive
>over a cliff, is that the fault of the brakes, should you brand of car be
>recalled?

If three cars did the same thing, and you only sabotaged one, then it would probably be worth investigating. And if the investigation pointed to identical brake pad failures, and the brake pad manufacturer kept saying "there's NOTHING WRONG with our brake pads!" despite the problems, the manufacturer might start specifying a different one.

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

>That fact is something you and the PIA members seem to be ignoring.

?? Are you saying a ball bearing was discovered in the Poland unit? I didn't see that. Do you have a reference?

>If I put brake flid all over your brake pads and you fail to stop and drive
>over a cliff, is that the fault of the brakes, should you brand of car be
>recalled?

If three cars did the same thing, and you only sabotaged one, then it would probably be worth investigating. And if the investigation pointed to identical brake pad failures, and the brake pad manufacturer kept saying "there's NOTHING WRONG with our brake pads!" despite the problems, the manufacturer might start specifying a different one.

Not to mention statements like: If your car is such and such model, then you need to upgrade your brake pads, but if its this other type model, those pads are fine!

"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

[JohB 0]

Hi everybody
Not to get involved with the big debate that hasn't solved anything yet, just a question.
Since the cutter on the Argus seems to be the root cause of all the drama, what if Argus just change their cutter to something similar to what we see in the Cypress? Shouldn't that be a fix for the problem that is keeping so many of us on the ground?

[rhys 0]

Quote

What course of action would you propose for the PIA when they are next made aware of a potentially serious problem?

The actual sequence of events:
. . .PIA business meeting: 11-13 Feb 2011
. . .San Marcos incident: 21 Feb 2011

The San Marcos initial report was sent to USPA. USPA in turn forwarded the report to PIA. asking essentially, "What are you going to do about it?"

PIA's response after the San Marcos incident was (1) publication of a letter from the Chairman of the Technical Committee Dave Singer to harness/container manufacturers, and (2) the setting up of a web page to collect in one place all available information, including information from Aviacom. Everything Aviacom has made public has been published. All of it.

Well for a start they could investugate the unit that was faulty somehow and work out if it was;

A, a problem with that particular unit
B, A problem with the design

OR

C, An anomoly.

It I quite obvious that this did not happen as there is nobody that can verify whether or not that steel ball was there other than Arnold Camfferman the FAA Senior Rigger that discovered it. He discovered this after the swift bannings took place.

i can see how this is embarressing for those that participated bt the hard truth is that they made a decision without the relevant information. The assumed and many are out of pocket, bar airtec and AAD.

Some are questioning Arnold Camfferman's judgment, but how are they so quick to forget the judgment of those that banned the use of these units before such an investigation had taken place.

The banns were implemented based on hearsay, guesswork, assumtion and fear.

They were not based on facts or examination and therefore they were simply knee jerk reactions...

In short they should get their fucking facts straight before grounding hundreds (thousands?) of skydivers and essentially ruining a company (competition to PIA memebers).

They fucked up and they fucked up good, was it purposful? I am not sure but there is a serious problem with how this was dealt with and how it is currently being dealt with .

There are photos of the ball and it seems the investigator was having issues getting a good focus on all of the photos. I am sure aviacom are compling a comprehensive investigation reiterating what we already know.

In the meantime (most of) the banns remain in place and the skydiving community loses.

Here is the investigation again;

http://tools.emailgarage.com/Pub/Asset.ashx?Id=23c77610-0dde-4a9f-98bc-64da7820cdf0&MessageId=509493423

Read and Ingest it.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

WOOOSH!!

That's the sound of you clearly missing the point.


Let me see if I can explain this again and hopefully you will put your tin foil hat and conspiracy theories to the side for a moment.

This is a repost as you deleted the last reply, calling me a radiophobe is a personal attack, and that is not expected of a moderator, you may well be humoured by that but it shows you true colours. Grow up and act like a moderator if you are going to be one.

Quote

The PIA has no authority to ground anything, where people get the idea that they do is beyond me. It is another example of how some people do not understand how things work, be it their AAD, the USPA(or your governing body) ,the PIA or their personal gear in general. The PIA has served as the focal point of these announcements. In other words, people have been killing the messenger. If anyone has a beef, they should take it up with the Harness Container manufacturer(s) directly as they are the ones who have decided to not approve the use of the Argus in their product.

Quote

PIA: A voluntary association of manufacturers of parachuting equipment and materials related to the industry of parachuting, and I quote " Where members can get together and resolve industry issues with all the players at the same table. Suppliers, manufacturers, government agencies and businesses, riggers, DZ operators-all have input in determining where our organization, and therefore our industry, will go in the future." end quote. Has absolutely no authority(law) to ground anything, it's AN ASSOCIATION

These are both pretty well laid out opinions of yours, You posted the very letter from the PIA and within a few days many manufacturers and associations had banned the argus.

If you can honestly tell us that you find it hard to see how anybody can blame the PIA for these bannings then you need your comrehention tested.

It is pretty fucking obvious (to many) that the strongest influence on this situation has been the PIA letter..

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

[Wolle 0]

This whole discussion is completely useless, as Aviacom is obviously not interested in getting back to business. I have a Argus in my rig and I want to get it back in the air. I tried to contact Mr. Goorts, Mr. vanHeerden and Mr. Camfferman by email and through PMs in this forum, but I had no luck. Not even one line of replies This tells me that they give f...ing shit on their customers. Absolutely no inormation at all. Though I believe that Mr. Camfferman does not lie in his report, they neither said the design is good to be used, nor did they tell us that they will change it or develop something new.

When Airtec had problems in the past they fixed it for free. When Vigil had poblems with the Vigil 1, they made the first cutter changes for free. Then you had to pay for the second cutter change, or it was the other way around, I don't remember exactly. When they still had problems they offered the Vigil 2 and you could spend lots of money again. But at least they didn't leave you behind. I was pissed off by their lousy service and hoped that the new company was doing so much better. But now I can only say: SHAME ON YOU!!!

[roq 0]

The problems with Cypres and Vigil never resulted in expulsion or banishment of the market.
They always had protection and the second, third, fourth, fifth... opportunity
If the Argus was alone in the market, Argus would never banned
So was easy to destroy the weaker party. Hypocrisy
The actual situation of the Aviacom is can solved only in justice by court
In my opinion, In moment the Aviacom have no other alternative and all possible palliative for try to remedy the problem and their customers can not have definitive effect
I understand the Aviacom, when they were put against the wall, they can only give a response to customers after court decision

roq

[mark 107]

Quote

Well for a start they could investigate the unit that was faulty somehow and work out if it was;

A, a problem with that particular unit
B, A problem with the design

OR

C, An anomoly.

Who is the "they" in PIA who could have investigated?

Mark

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

Hi everybody
Not to get involved with the big debate that hasn't solved anything yet, just a question.
Since the cutter on the Argus seems to be the root cause of all the drama, what if Argus just change their cutter to something similar to what we see in the Cypress? Shouldn't that be a fix for the problem that is keeping so many of us on the ground?

A re-designed cutter isn't something that just as simple as saying, 'lets do this now', it takes R&D.

As far as it being the fix, it would probably get the Argus back in the air.

"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

[jojo0815 0]

Quote

Absolutely no inormation at all. Though I believe that Mr. Camfferman does not lie in his report, they neither said the design is good to be used, nor did they tell us that they will change it or develop something new.

Aviacom issued a new service bulletin after the investigation by Mr. Camfferman. There is no reason at this point for Aviacom to believe the current cutter design doesn't work. If you have a Wings or Infinity you can still jump your Argus. It is not time for Aviacom to take action but for the parachute industry to acknowledge their mistake and retract the bans.

[mark 107]

Quote

There is no reason at this point for Aviacom to believe the current cutter design doesn't work. It is not time for Aviacom to take action but for the parachute industry to acknowledge their mistake and retract the bans.

Before we can make such statements with confidence, we should allow Aviacom to complete their investigation.

Mark

[billvon 2,989]

>Since the cutter on the Argus seems to be the root cause of all the drama,
>what if Argus just change their cutter to something similar to what we see
>in the Cypress?

Might be a good fix. It would have to be tested, of course.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Who is the "they" in PIA who could have investigated?

Mark

That is up to them to decide, they have plenty of riggers at hand.

If they had waited a few more days they would have had the relevant information, but it seems they were too keen to eliminate the opposition to 2 of their memebrs!


Are you suggesting that it is reasonable to ban something based on assumtion without any attempt to recognise the actual problem?

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

[mark 107]

Quote

Quote

Who is the "they" in PIA who could have investigated?

Mark

That is up to them to decide, they have plenty of riggers at hand.

If they had waited a few more days they would have had the relevant information, but it seems they were too keen to eliminate the opposition to 2 of their members!

Are you suggesting that it is reasonable to ban something based on assumption without any attempt to recognize the actual problem?

You would want PIA to select the investigating rigger? Really? The same PIA that was -- your words -- "keen to eliminate the opposition to 2 of their members"?

Until Aviacom has completed its investigation, we do not know what the actual problem is. Until they have conclusively identified the problem, then yes, it is reasonable for manufacturers to withdraw their approvals.

Mark

[rhys 0]

Quote

You would want PIA to select the investigating rigger? Really? The same PIA that was -- your words -- "keen to eliminate the opposition to 2 of their members"?

Look mate, you are twisting my words, it was not me that issued a letter to the manufacturers saying these units were unsafe.

All I am saying is that the PIA need to be adequately informed when making such decisions, in this case they were not, I bet they are regretting their action now (aside from AAD and Airtec).

Somebody needed to investigate the unit, when that bans were put in place it was not known what the fault of the cutter was.

The acted prematurely and they have made a huge hassle for many people.

The unit should have been sent immediately to the manufacturer for analysis, tht did not happen even after request, the FAA had to be involved before they were allowed to anylise the unit.

And if the bans were not immediately put in place and the correct measures were taken, the bans most likely would not have happened, as the foreign object would have been discovered, now the bans are in place the manufacturers have to admit fault to revoke the ban and we all know how human beings feel about admitting fault.

Now aviacom have to go one step further and resotre the communities faith in them, and that will probably come in the form of a multi million dollar law suit against the PIA.

The PIA should be shitting bricks because as you and many others have mentioned, they are not an authority, though they used their influence as so.

Now answer my question;

Do you think it is resonable for the manufacturers to ban these units in thier equipment based on assumtion and fear?

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

[mark 107]

Quote

Now answer my question:

Do you think it is reasonable for the manufacturers to ban these units in their equipment based on assumption and fear?

Until Aviacom has completed its investigation, we do not know what the actual problem is. Until Aviacom has conclusively identified the problem, then yes, it is reasonable for manufacturers to withdraw their approvals.

Mark

[mark 107]

Quote

Quote

You would want PIA to select the investigating rigger? Really? The same PIA that was -- your words -- "keen to eliminate the opposition to 2 of their members"?

Look mate, you are twisting my words,

Um. No, I am just quoting your words.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Now answer my question:

Do you think it is reasonable for the manufacturers to ban these units in their equipment based on assumption and fear?

Until Aviacom has completed its investigation, we do not know what the actual problem is. Until Aviacom has conclusively identified the problem, then yes, it is reasonable for manufacturers to withdraw their approvals.

Mark

Do we actually know that Aviacom is continuing to investigate?

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

I'm not sure how that clause follows. In any case, Mr. Singer's letter (available on the PIA web site) does not say the units were unsafe. All it recommends is that manufacturers ensure AADs don't interfere with TSO'd components.

That is an eloquent way to put it...

Quote

PIA is not a regulatory body, and this information is being distributed as "information only," You will need to make your own decisions as to continued installation approvals, however in the interests of safety, the PIA Technical Committee believes that it is prudent that each harness and container manufacturer company review their company’s documentation and approvals for any and all AAD installations into your TSO’d systems. After reviewing your documentation and the information enclosed in this email, please consider the original basis for approving each installation, and ensure that you are confident that each of the units you have approved for installation will not interfere with normal operation of the TSO’d components. If your confidence level is not acceptable, action may be required by your company to amend or rescind such approvals and to inform your customer base of any changes to the status of the installation approvals. At least one manufacturer has elected to no longer approve any procedures to install the Argus AAD in any of their products. Since they have also rescinded any prior approved procedures to do so, it could be a violation of 14 CFR Part 65.129(e), if a certificated parachute rigger were to pack any of their harness and container systems with an Argus AAD installed. Further, it could be a violation of 14 CFR Part 65.129(b) if, because of the installation of the Argus AAD, a parachute were to be deemed by the FAA to not be safe for emergency use.

That is their words;

They could be read as;

We believe these units have dodgy cutters based on 2 incidents and ignoring many saves, though we have not botherd to investigate this particular incident we assume the cutters are dodgy and are prone to locking you containers closed when they fire so we reccomend you ban them as soon as possible in the interest of safety, otherwise you will be in trouble and people will die.

Nowhere did it mention that the unit had been investigated or will be, the unit could have been an individually faulty unit, damaged or a bad batch, as has happned before in other brand units, this was not mentioned.

Vigils and Cypreses that had problems and failed to work correctly, these were bad batches faulty units, they were not banned.

it could have been in sea water or exposed to some chemical or a vast array of possibilities.

Assumtion is simply not good enough.

This was a scare letter it was not balanced it was obviously pressure on the industry to knee jerk; and it did.

Then we found out about the foreign object a few days later and everybody goes quiet.

You read it as you will, I will read it as I will and you will find that there are many that will agree with my point of view and some that will agree with yours.

The fact remains that this particular incident was 'most likely' caused by and anomaly and not a faulty cutter.

Some question the truth of the ball bearings existance in the cutter and the only reason they do so is because if the ball bearing was there, then it is perfectly understandable that it failed to work and the bannings were unjustified.

We will see an investigation from aviacom, you bet your bottom dollar we will. If you owned a company with millions of dollars of product out there and the ability to turn around many millions more over the coming years would you just pack up and leave in this situation?

I bet not!

Aviacom has a much more difficyult task of selling units now than any other company has had to face, if they play thier cards right.

There will probably be the threatened lawsuit, winnong that and using the 10 million on sorting out ther customers would goo a long way.

I hope everybody that is out of pocket be it for a repack, an new unit or is forcet to jumo without an aad when they would prefer to complains and writes the manufacturer of their container. Ask them what thier thoughts are now it is known there was a steel ball in there, and what they plan to do, they should CC in Aviacom and then there will be plenty of evidence that this has taken place.

This will pressure the manufacturers to take a long hard think about the message they want to give their customers and may go a long way in resolving this issue.

This will assist the argus end user getting the correct treatment.

You like many others seem to hope that argus' are dodgy so you can be correct in your assumtions.

So you ignore the conclusion and evidence from the investigation that has taken place, (my guess is) Aviacoms investigation will have the same conclusion though it will go into more detail and you will see more concise evidence.

We will probably also see plastic inserts going into the cutters to avoid it happening again.

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