skydiverek 63 #26 April 4, 2011 QuoteWouldn't Reflex & Eclipse be on the list, since they have not banned it ? There is no one to ban those, since the companies do not operate anymore (Eclipse for sure), apart from selling replacement parts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
salomon767 0 #27 April 4, 2011 Any word on velocity rigs? I havent seen anything from them about removing the argus from their rigs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adventurechick 0 #28 April 4, 2011 It's still up for discussion at VSE. Will let you know when a final decision has been made. Thank you! PMS #449 TPM #80 Muff Brother #3860 SCR #14705 Dirty Sanchez #233 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BKR 0 #29 April 5, 2011 Here is Basik Air Concept statement. http://www.basik.fr/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20Jérôme 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
rhys 0 #30 April 5, 2011 What a great approach to the problem. "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
piisfish 140 #31 April 5, 2011 Quote What a great approach to the problem. I just wonder why no-one came with that answer before. Jerome, you have got the BEST solution. CLICKY for the safety announcementscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BKR 0 #32 April 5, 2011 For my company yes, and as you say I cannot understand why other manufacturers do not go this way too.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
piisfish 140 #33 April 5, 2011 but after a quick reflection, on the Advance IN (edited because of mistake between In & OUT) , don't you think there could be a problem if the cutter jammed the loop ?? As the cutter is under the reserve PC, but on top of the freebag, it could jam the freebag couldn't it ?scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BKR 0 #34 April 5, 2011 Quotebut after a quick reflection, on the Advance OUT, don't you think there could be a problem if the cutter jammed the loop ?? As the cutter is under the reserve PC, but on top of the freebag, it could jam the freebag couldn't it ? Not the Out, the IN has such configuration with a flap on which the cutter is installed. We have performed some testing and even with a jamed loop the pilot chute force is strong enough to pull the whole thing and break the remain loop. On the 10 tests we have made all were successfull.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
theonlyski 8 #35 April 5, 2011 QuoteNot the Out, the IN has such configuration with a flap on which the cutter is installed. We have performed some testing and even with a jamed loop the pilot chute force is strong enough to pull the whole thing and break the remain loop. On the 10 tests we have made all were successfull. How were you guys 'jamming' the loop? Reason I ask, I can't imagine the force required by the PC to break a cypres loop."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
BKR 0 #36 April 5, 2011 In the grommet where the cutter is located. Do not forget the loop is almost cut and the forces we found to break it were between 2 and 8 kg on the whole tests.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
theonlyski 8 #37 April 5, 2011 QuoteIn the grommet where the cutter is located. Do not forget the loop is almost cut and the forces we found to break it were between 2 and 8 kg on the whole tests. So did you actually fire an Argus, have it jam the closing loop, locking the freebag, then measure the pull force required to break the loop free? I'm trying to understand your procedures for this test."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
Unstable 9 #38 April 5, 2011 So, does anybody have any new news from Aviacom? Are they trying to resolve this issue with their cutters and with manufacturers, or are they just going to lay bely up?=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BKR 0 #39 April 5, 2011 Yes, we have some old cutters from different brands and we have transformed them to a defective statu. to do our testings.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
theonlyski 8 #40 April 5, 2011 QuoteYes, we have some old cutters from different brands and we have transformed them to a defective statu. to do our testings. Do you have any videos of the testing?"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
pchapman 279 #41 April 5, 2011 Quote Quote What a great approach to the problem. I just wonder why no-one came with that answer before. Jerome, you have got the BEST solution. +1 Because US company owners are wusses who like to jump on the band wagon? (Well, they're probably scared by the FAA rules. And Jerome's rigs use cutters under the bag or under the PC, which causes less of an issue if there's an AAD problem.) Jerome points out that any AAD installation can be said to "interfere" with the reserve system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BKR 0 #42 April 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes, we have some old cutters from different brands and we have transformed them to a defective statu. to do our testings. Do you have any videos of the testing? No no nead for us, sorryJérôme 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
billvon 2,989 #43 April 5, 2011 >and as you say I cannot understand why other manufacturers do not go this way too. I think because it can cause a reserve total on other manufacturer's containers, and container manufacturers do not want to be involved in fatalities where the gear is at fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #44 April 5, 2011 but it is not the container manufacturer to judge teh work and take responsability for an AAD manufacturer. Jerome says, as I understand, "if you want to install an AAD, do it the way I say or don't do it, and you are inserting something which has no certification of any kind in my certified system, so YOU take the responsability" This is MY interpretation, which can be wrong, but I like itscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #45 April 5, 2011 >but it is not the container manufacturer to judge teh work and take responsability > for an AAD manufacturer. Right, and I did not claim they were taking responsibility. They just don't want their gear to be involved in a fatality where the gear is at fault. It's like teaching. I tell all my students flat out that I will not be able to help them in certain situations; they can die, and if they do, it will be their fault. But I'm still not going to jump with someone if I don't think they will do well, because I don't want one of my students to die. Even if it's their responsibility in the end. So I can understand where they are coming from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMFin 0 #46 April 5, 2011 Quote What a great approach to the problem. I think the answer is obvious. European manufacturers wont try to ban people using some gear, since they dont have the authority to do it in the first place. Sure they may give recommendations about how to use their gear, and what accessories should be used with their gear, but they cannot ban someone from using a piece of gear what ever that means. In the US, the situation seems a bit different since the manufacturers are given the power to "ban" riggers from packing gear in a manner that deviates from procedures approved by the manufacturer. (14 CFR Part 65.129 for example) In europe manufacturers are not the ones that may decide these things. It is the aviation authority.(IMO this is how it should be) BTW. I think the Dutch "ban" by the authorities, might be against EU-competition law, since it is being sold legally in other EU-countries and therefore be against atricle 28 EC. On the other hand it might be justified by the atricle 30 EC ?? Interesting question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #47 April 5, 2011 Quote Quote What a great approach to the problem. I think the answer is obvious. European manufacturers wont try to ban people using some gear, since they dont have the authority to do it in the first place. Sure they may give recommendations about how to use their gear, and what accessories should be used with their gear, but they cannot ban someone from using a piece of gear what ever that means. In the US, the situation seems a bit different since the manufacturers are given the power to "ban" riggers from packing gear in a manner that deviates from procedures approved by the manufacturer. (14 CFR Part 65.129 for example) In europe manufacturers are not the ones that may decide these things. It is the aviation authority.(IMO this is how it should be) BTW. I think the Dutch "ban" by the authorities, might be against EU-competition law, since it is being sold legally in other EU-countries and therefore be against atricle 28 EC. On the other hand it might be justified by the atricle 30 EC ?? Interesting question. Complicating matter is the fact that the US FAA, our aviation authority, has conspicuously stayed out of the whole issue of AADs. If the FAA was saying something about it, the manufacturers might not need to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMFin 0 #48 April 5, 2011 Quote Complicating matter is the fact that the US FAA, our aviation authority, has conspicuously stayed out of the whole issue of AADs. If the FAA was saying something about it, the manufacturers might not need to. Yeah, it seems the FAA has delegated the authority to regulate these gear issues to the manufacturers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #49 April 6, 2011 Here is the latest from Aviacom and PIA as of March 31st: http://www.pia.com/TechnicalArgusDocuments/PIATechcomDocs/Parachute%20Industry%20Association31Mar11.pdf Basically Argus is threatening to sue PIA for $10 Million unless PIA tells all its members to lift their bans in the next 7 days.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #50 April 6, 2011 Quote Here is the latest from Aviacom and PIA as of March 31st: http://www.pia.com/...sociation31Mar11.pdf Basically Argus is threatening to sue PIA for $10 Million unless PIA tells all its members to lift their bans in the next 7 days =========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
