gjhdiver

Just to hopefully put this nonsense to bed, here's the latest statement from Aviacom SA. Dear Skydiving Friends, On September 13th Aviacom SA became aware that a so called ‘test report’ was circulated, concerning the Argus AAD. This was composed by Mr. Jo Oosterveer, a Dutch rigger. There he states that he conducted this test on the Argus due to the multiple misfires that already have occurred on the dropzone he works for. He also claims that the Argus cutters are not able to fully cut the loop of the reserve container. Aviacom was not informed about this report before distribution. This is contrary to common business practice. Therefore Aviacom was unable to react on it until now. In the opinion of the majority of the experts, involved in AAD-, reserve- and rig testing, this singular test of our equipment is performed without any verifiable facts. This Rigger did not use a scientific way to test the Argus AAD. Normally we don’t answer publicly to the negative opinion of one individual. In this case however, we would like to reply on the report with the so called test: There have been NO INCIDENTS and NO ACCIDENTS and NO MISFIRES with the Argus in The Netherlands – or elsewhere. The president of the Royal Netherlands Aeronautical Association (RNAA), Mr A.M.J.M. Beerendonk stressed the fact that Mr Oosterveer has conducted his test based on his own beliefs and expertise… The RNAA-DP rejects all responsibility relating to the report of Mr Oosterveer. The Argus is authorized for use by experienced skydivers in the Netherlands. If you like to know more about the situation, please contact the head of the technical committee of the RNAA-DP, Mr Herman Landsman or the Head of the Parachuting Department, Mr Ronald Overdijk. We formally state that the Argus will do what it is designed for if it is correctly installed in any rig; that is: cutting the loop at a certain altitude at a certain speed. You can download a copy of our Testreport TS120 on our Website in the download section. You can also call us +32 485 868788 or mail at info@argus-aad.com for more information. Blue skies, Karel Goorts

Seriously ? I watched and thought, "fuck 'em, I could always buy more dogs". Mind you, I'm a cat person.

Utter BS I'm afraid Willy. The guy who did this test set up the Argus to fail by deliberately testing it outside it's design parameters. The Dutch Asscociation have released an official report saying that the testing was bogus, and that the Argus is OK for use in the Netherlands. IfI was a suspicious person, I'd say there is a conerted effort by interested parties to bury the Argus. AFAIK, it's perfectly fine.

Here's the official position of the Dutch Parachute Association on the Argus. I think our rigger friend may have overreached himself.

Here's a direct answer to his question from Karel Goorts of Aviacom SA, manufacturer of the Argus. As you know by now the Argus has been prohibited for use in Basik rigs. The Danish Parachute Association has been following this move. Without consulting Aviacom SA. This is totally unjustified. We, as manufacturer of the Argus AAD, like to clarify a couple of things. First: there have been NO INCIDENTS and NO ACCIDENTS and NO MISFIRES. Second: All this trouble was started by a Mr Jo Oosterveer, so called on behalf of the Dutch Rigger Association Third: Basik and the Danes have been following the advice of Mr Oosterveer Fourth: We are authorised for use in the Netherlands by the only governing body for skydiving; the Dutch Royal Aeroclub, department Parachuting. Fifth: the report of the stating the Argus problems was part fake, part unrealistic, and performed without our knowledge. So: this is the world upside down: because we were granted an authorisation of use in the Netherlands, a Dutch rigger, speaking only for him started a worldwide mudslinging campaign. We formally state that the Argus will do what it is designed for if it is correctly installed in any rig; that is: cutting the loop at a certain altitude at a certain speed. If you like to know more about the real situation, please contact the head of the technical committee of the Dutch Parachute Association, Mr Herman Landsman or the Head of the Bureau of the Dutch Parachute Association, Mr Ronald Overdijk. You can also call us +32 4858688788 or mail at info@argus-aad.com for more information. Blue skies, Karel Goorts Managing director

The Ramones - It's Alive

Er Mick, I didn't quote you at all. My post was written after reading the attachment I was sent, not any of the previous posts in the thread. Shurely shome mishtake ? If I buggered it up with some cut and paste job, I apologize.

OK, checked it. Thanks, I've looked through this and although I have yet to talk to Karel Goorts sbout it, it seems kind of iffy to me on first look. Firstly, they are using a strange swoop test with no tension on the loops to evaluate the AADs, and then declare that the Argus misfired during it. The Argus has a defined swoop mode, and the test was run in the standard mode. Also, they say that it's no excuse that the loops were not under tension. This is not correct, as that is the way the system is designed to work. It's not a real test if you place the units outside their design parameters and then fail them in tests that they were never designed to pass in the first place. Secondly, I've inspected my units, and they don't display the cutter design that the preproduction units do. They seem no different in construction from the the Cypres and Vigil cutters. Thirdly, the Argus was never tested in the Basik container in any way as far as I can see. You'd think they would actually have tested them in that container system. Lastly, they bag on the Argus, but allow the Vigil and FXC access, two systems that have a history of documented misfires at present. I'm sure that those companies are working their issues at present, but it does seem unusual that they don't seem affected in this banning. It all smells a bit fishy to me, but I'll talk to Karel and get his take on it. I have no idea why new products get so much resistance in the market place. Cypres got it when they first arrived, especially with some containers. FXC got it, and Vigil are getting it now. It seems like it's the Argus turn in the barrel now for some reason. I'm sure it will all shake out soon enough. If it doesn't, I'll be the first to take them out, but so far, I've been impressed with them.

[reply I have seen and touch the Argus and since I have been really suspicious with it (not about electronics because I know nothing about this Whilst I agree that it sucks to be sued, the above is nothing but conjecture, and ill advised conjecture at that. All the Argus units that I have seen have been manufactured to a standard as good or better than any other unit available. Also, being closely involved with the manufacture of the Wings container, we were very impressed by the efforts that Argus went to to ensure that their unit was compatible with our containers. I have no issues with either selling or using the Argus AAD therefore.

So, peforming nicely is the same as not firing when it is not supposed to? . As far as I'm concerned in my personal experience of misfires, it's Cypres 1 - Argus - 0 Much as I appreciate the support I get from Argus, I'm not about to deliberately test it's real function just to prove a point here.

Liberal hate on the second response. That's faster than I expected. Libertarian hate actually, but it works out to the same thing. Anyway, I'm glad he didn't die then. The way he eventually did was way more appropriate. Karma's a bitch.

Yep, I'm sponsored by Argus and I use them in all my rigs. However, I've been lucky enough to be able to have sponsors for gear for the last 15 years, so I'm not that desperate for free stuff that I'll jump anything. I am a beta tester in a way for the Argus unit, but in the time that I've had them, they have performed very nicely for me. I've tried to put them in as many weird situations as possible to see if they cope, and they have done just fine. Obviously, i don't intend to check out their real function unless needed ! As for the batteries, I'm pleased to see that there is a unit out there that has sane replacement costs, and that most work can be done in field by your local rigger. Also, you replace the batteries every year, or when you get a Low Battery warning from the unit. No weirdness there. I'm aware that being spsonsored gives me an agenda in some way, but I actually jump them, so I can talk about their operation and function with some knowledge. Until they get more popular, I'm one of the few with the data points here

Doing a little dance of joy

It's going to need a four year in a year, so that's around $250-300 to factor in. Also, there's competition in the market now. You can get a new Argus for under $990 some places.

Could you fill us in on how it "misfired"? Certainly. I turned it on, it booted up correctly. I put my gear on, and as I was walking to the plane, I heard a pop and my reserve deployed on the ground. There was no-one in the plane, there were no planes transmitting nearby, and the RF shield was installed on the unit. If it had happened 15 minutes later, I would have been floating on the outside of an Otter. The unit went back to Airtec in Germany for examination, but no reason could be found for the misfire. I just got it back with a new set of batteries and a new cutter. That unit never misfired again, but it did break down twice more in freefall and switch itself off. That unit has timed out now and now is in use as a paperweight. It hasn't managed to fuck that job up yet, but I'm keeping a close eye on it.

I want you to do it just because you'll find it annoying. I'm good like that.

Try "Oi Fuckwit" See if that works and get back to me.

From what I understood, the Cypres acted exactly as advertised as he exceeded the activation speed, so it's not a relevant case when you're talking about AAD misfires. That wasn't the point I was trying to make there. The point was that there is no foolproof AAD available.I doubt that there ever will be either. Adrian Nicholas was killed under a set of circumstances that nobody foresaw, by a device whose function was to save his life in an emergency. Also, the manual for his unit stated at the time that you couldn't exceed activation parameters under an open canopy as far as I remember, so he had no reason to expect it to fire. Now there are AAD's with swoop modes available. Cypres and Argus are two that I know of. They switch off after they detect an open canopy in those modes. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict what could happen there in the event of a low breakaway. AADs are a case of exhanging one set of risks for another that you presume (rightly or wrongly) are less liklely to occur. The risks don't appreciably change between manufacturers. The essential ingredient is that you hand over a large part of your decision making to a machine, in return for a perceived sense of security. Most of the time it works out OK. That's a discussion for another thread though.

Nonsense. I had a recently checked and maintained Cypres misfire on me personally. No reason could be given for it by Airtec, and I got it back with a new cutter and battery, and essentially, a "good luck". I also had two other units just quit on me during/after normal jumps. Less than a month ago, I turned a plane around for one of my AFF students whose Cypres suddenly started displaying error codes. Adrian Nicholas's Cypres fire on a low final essentially cost him his life. The point of this ? Don't kid yourself into believing that any unit is foolproof. Personally, I use the Argus now. I'm of the belief that the new kid on the block can learn from, and not have to repeat, the problems of the other units. Time will tell.

I belive that Argus have visited all the main container manufacturers to ensure that their AAD is compatible with their products. I know that they certainly did with Wings. A call to RI would be all that is needed.

Indeed, and they had them at about the same time in their development as Argus. In fact, Airtec had a little bump in the road recentlty after the fatality of the swooper, which was well discussed elsewhere in these forums. Vigil just had to issue a notice about cutter gromets. Nothing's foolproof, so it makes sense to see how issues are dealt with when they arise. I think Argus handled theirs quicky and efficiently

Simple solipsism here, and rather disengenous also. You can't prove a negative. Any first year debater knows that. That's why this type of argument isn't allowed in a court of law to my knowledge. That argument can be used to try to prove the existence of Santa.

As soon as this recall matter goes away. . I believe that the recall was limited to a batch of 40 units (might be wrong there) that needed a software revision. The company replaced them all with units with the newer software. AFAIK there's been no problem with them since then. I guess Argus can now join Cypres and Vigil in the product recall club. It happens.

I currently have two Argus AAD's in my Wings. I took out the expired Cypres units and replaced them with the Argus units. I have been very impressed with the construction and quality of them. They come with four modes, Expert, Swoop, Student and Tandem, have a jump logging and freefall speed system, and are completely field serviceable. The best part is the batterires get replaced once per year and are only $6 compared to the Cypres $100+ They are also less than $1000, so I expect you'll be seeing a lot more of them around too.

Actually, the reason was the exact opposite of what you stated just there.