Chris-Ottawa

Small regular elastics all around, including locking stows. Never double wrap. Canopy is lined with 500 HMA if you're curious, so the stows are not overly tight. Edit: I should also say that I did 2 other jumps after this, one on another set of gear, and when I felt a bit more relaxed, one more on this same set. Worked as it always had the last 200+ times. Nothing looked out of place, no broken elastics, no line burn, nothing. "When once you have tasted flight..."

Just feel like sharing because as many times as people hear it, when it happens to you, you really realize that a high speed mal leaves you with very little time and you need to be prepared for it. 2 way freefly jump, planned breakoff at 5k, deploy at 3.5. Uneventful jump, dumped at 3.5 as planned, normal feeling as the PC reached extension, lines reached extension, then....freefall. Looked over my shoulder, saw a fully extended PC and bag. Said "F*CK", then looked at my handles. Put a hand on each, looked at my cutaway, then exactly at that point, I felt opening shock. Let go of my handles, looked up, saw my canopy deploying with several linetwists. Kicked one out during the snivel, and thankfully, the rest were able to be kicked out as my Katana flew nicely. Looked at altimeter...1540ft. Landed uneventfully. So, I made a couple of decisions, which can be turned into mistakes in my eyes. Nothing hugely major, but learning mistakes: 1)I should have looked at my alti before attempting to kick out of the twists. For all I know, I could have been at 1000ft, only to find out that it starts spinning, then I chop at 800 ft... or less. 2) I read all about, was fully aware and actually practised the "squeeze" your risers versus "pull" them apart to get out of linetwists. Didn't even cross my mind when it was happening and I instinctively pulled apart. I guess I just thought it was interesting to see that in a moment of stress, you don't always react the way you expect to and that time passes MUCH quicker than you expect. A great lesson to learn from. "When once you have tasted flight..."

Hey Daniel, FWIW, I went to Start Skydiving last year for their work stinks boogie. The dropzone was phenominal, they put on an amazing event, with amazing planes and amazing facilities. The manifest system is incredible, and the fireworks show was comparable to Canada Day here in Ottawa (no shitting). The staff was absolutely awesome too. Plain and simple...nothing but impressed about this dropzone and yes, they were STUPID busy when I was there. "When once you have tasted flight..."

I'm more curious as to why you care? Are their "claimed" false jump numbers hurting you in some way? I'd say, who cares, it's not any of your business how they run their business, until it affects you personally. It's your choice where you want to jump, rather than calling them out in a public forum, just keep to yourself and don't go back. Simple. Why this? "When once you have tasted flight..."

I bet they'd be interested if it wasn't a petty amount (in the grand scheme of things). If you could convince one of these people that you just cosed a skydiving school and have ~$90,000 worth of gear and you could arrange to send $100,000 to cover any shipping or duty or something....they might open their ears a little more... Then, it's a large amount, worth pursuing.... "When once you have tasted flight..."

I say, let him send you the cheque, take a walk to your local PD and provide them the cheque with the sender's address and walk away. Could be entertaining... Either way, I think the best thing to so is to string this guy along as long as you can. I'd send him a small package (like a pen?) after receiving the cheque, then he'll think it's cleared when you provide him the tracking info. Then when he gets it, he will likely never contact you, but he might bite and demand you send the rig. Then tell him you lost the cheque, and to send another, even offer to provide him the difference if he wants to send a larger amount. Then, once you get both cheques, inform him that you have delivered his fraudulant cheques to the police, you have traced his IP address and provided it to them. The say "Have great day!" The PD likely won't do anything, but this guy (or kid) will likely shit bricks. Hell, tell him you have a friend selling a rig too, and give him my details, I'd LOVE to take this for a good run... "When once you have tasted flight..."

Bad choice of words here maybe? "Hits the ground" implies that he impacts and walks away on a regular basis. I'd have went with "touches down" or "Lands safely" Haha "When once you have tasted flight..."

It's called association, Toyota is an example that shows exactly how the "process" works. I'm associating Toyota to Aviacom to help the OP understand that it's not cut and dry and Aviacom shouldn't (note I didn't say "doesn't") give a crap how much YOU lost on your Argus or what was "said" to have happpened in the field. They need cold hard facts before they even begin to announce a recall or "ban" as we skydivers call it. I'm not saying that the device didn't "cause" a fatality, but that's not for me to decide. All I'm trying to point out is that Aviacom couldn't recall the device globally until they had all the info. So, they brush aside some of the flak, until they can determine what the issue is. For all they knew, the device WAS working fine. Each event had some "interesting" circumstances surrounding it. Lead shot FFS? Not receiving one of the devices, student gear with a loose loop? If I had a company and knew that each incident had a fishy circumstance surrounding it, I'd want to know what the hell happened before I took action too. I'm not at all saying this is a "conspiracy", but I sure am saying that after the APF and PIA took their stance, the manufacturers and other federations jumped ship too, I'm assuming to protect themselves from being named in lawsuits etc. Please, tell me what happened to Airtec in it's beginning, and AAD in it's? As for pointing a finger at someone else, did you read about Toyota? something like 8 million cars recalled, only to find out that it WAS user error? So, do you believe Toyota is still wrong for not recalling after the first incident? I say Toyota never should have recalled anything, and I'm sure if they were 100% confident that their equipment wasn't at fault, they surely wouldn't have! And clearly you know all the facts, and know for certain that Aviacom is completely guilty, and that they're a shady company, so, I guess nothing I say will be rationalized by you. "When once you have tasted flight..."

The answer: Damage control If you can provide evidence of any company that has ever admitted that their product was at fault before concrete evidence indicated that...it would be a miracle. Fact is, they can't admit it was at fault because that could open them up to lawsuits. They had every reason to believe (based on their testing) that their product was flawless. I recommend re-reading the part above about Toyota. 2 years ago people believed it was Toyota's fault, Toyota denies it (see: Damage control), Toyota decides that it may be their vehicles, then after no problems are found by Toyota and NASA, it's deemed user error. Can you state to me that without a doubt, each of these 4 incidents involving the Argus were CAUSED by the Argus? You can't, because even at this point, I suspect that Aviacom can't confirm 100% that the incidents were caused by their device. As far as blaming it on politics...do you know for certain that it wasn't politics? Yeah, it sucks you lost money, but that's a very narrow minded view. Put yourself in Aviacom's shoes. Here are you choices to choose from as head CEO: 1) Admit fault without knowing for sure it was and as a result, go bankrupt & be open to lawsuits. 2) Don't admit fault unless/until it can be proven that the device "caused" the incidents/fatality. Good luck... "When once you have tasted flight..."

I agree with you that everyone was quicker to react that Aviacom, but I'm certain there was reasoning behind that. They had to determine if it really was related to their unit, that there was nothing else in play, they had to recieve the unit etc. Plus, I think we all have reason to believe that there was a witch hunt as Argus indicated. People who don't believe this should chat with members of PIA... Also, each incident involving the Argus had some "weird" circumstances surrounding it, including a ball bearing inside the cutter. Regardless whether that caused the failure, or attributed to it, or had no impact, it was still not operating "normally". If you review each of the incidents, you'll see that each one had a easily identifiable oddity surrounding the activation. Let's change the example from Aviacom to Toyota (who recently went through a recall). A whole bunch of people dies because of Toyota's that were having brake failures (also known as life saving devices). Toyota had to take time to verify that there was actually a problem with their equipment and that it wasn't garages that installed them incorrectly. This sounds AWFULLY identical to how Aviacom handled the situation with their "terrible" customer service. Aviacom had done many tests and had not found a way to replicate these incidents, but chose to complete a "recall" anyways, until further information could be gathered. You'd never see a car company recall a car after one person dies. They want cold, hard, proof that their hardware caused that death. Toyota took something like 2 years to recognize it as a hardware problem (I don't recall specifically the time, but it wasn't as quick as we were privy to with Aviacom). Seeing it from another angle (aside from your pocketbook) sheds a little positivity to the situation, no? Here's some interesting info: On February 8, 2011, the NHTSA, in collaboration with NASA, released its findings into the investigation on the Toyota drive-by-wire throttle system. After a 10 month search, NASA and NHTSA scientists found no electronic defect in Toyota vehicles.[28] Driver error or pedal misapplication was found responsible for most of the incidents.[29] The report ended stating, "Our conclusion is Toyota's problems were mechanical, not electrical." This included sticking accelerator pedals, and pedals caught under floor mats. This is exactly why companies are hesitant to do a recall that will cost them millions of dollars.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehicle_recalls "When once you have tasted flight..."

So, now you're changing to focus on Cypres and other AAD's when you initially started a thread to "provoke" (not "invoke") negative discussion about Aviacom. Now you've switched to Airtec and how "bad" they are. Do you know where you're going with this? Cause I'm getting the feeling that you have no idea. Your thought process has changed at least 3 separate times in 3 different posts. Get it out....what's your agenda? You're posting anonymously (or are you?), speak up instead of beating around the bush! What are you trying to accomplish with this? You've clearly got something to say if you're willing to hide behind your computer screen to say it. "When once you have tasted flight..."

Wow...it almost seemed like you were being honest there! So, why the hidden identity then? If you're on a fact finding mission, who cares if anyone knows who you are? Something to lose? Something to hide? "When once you have tasted flight..."

I hope you realize that Aviacom will win this OVER and OVER again. They issued the SB for YOUR safety, your PROTECTION, think about how that'll hold up in court. Yes, there may have been a TEMPORARY financial impact, but not once did they force you to sell your AAD, or force you to use THEIR AAD at any time, you bought it under your own free will. I can just see you standing in court after the judgement (not in your favor), saying: "But, but, but...I sold my Argus and lost money on it...but....Mommy!" Haha And FYI...there's many people on here who know people at Aviacom. If a case is filed, your name will be listed on it and it is public record, all you need is a case # which can be obtained in many ways. No use hiding your identity now...it's gonna be public info real quick. You'll quickly see just how many skydivers turn a cold shoulder to you. Then you might have to sue Aviacom for losing your friends too...yikes! This could get complicated for you. Yeah, it sucks, but no one forced you to buy an Argus, no one forced you to sell your Argus, and no one forced you to buy a new AAD. Suck it up... "When once you have tasted flight..."

This has happened before and I was caught in 30 seconds of solid, rainy, cold, thick cloud (Video's on youtube, including the water pouring over my camera lens). It was a 5 way sit fly that went to shit pretty quickly and was incredibly dangerous. It was honestly one of my all time scariest jumps. (Watch from 0:53.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6yAzeq6BM I stuck with the plan, because as far as I could see when we went through a thinner part of cloud, everyone was still in their sit below me. We broke off and thankfully I got a glimpse of them before breakoff to give me a tracking direction. Everyone chose an appropriate direction and was ok. If you watch closely, you can see a couple of times where the rest of the group is, and when I turn to track, there's someone just off to my right. The lesson I learnt from this was monumental: I ALWAYS, check the cloud cover, but more importantly, where the base and tops of the clouds are. Often times there are layers and I know we'll pop through, or if I know we got over a massive cloud I know where we'll pop out or if we should break off above and stagger our openings etc. Essentially, just plan for it. "When once you have tasted flight..."

Based on the last post in this thread, he/she's in Poland...I don't think it's a new incident, it's the one we all know of. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4048981;#4048981 That being said, I've purchased an Argus and am fully comfortable jumping it. Now, I'm slightly "UN" comfortable jumping my Cypres in my Mirage as it's susceptible to the same type of problem. It's a little bit disconcerting to know that it's possible. "When once you have tasted flight..."

Another interesting point that was raised to me via a PM: (I'm saying this with sarcasm to prove a point) How much would it cost to remove a "Cypres" pocket, and have an "Argus" or "Vigil" pocket installed in your rig? Anyone? This makes just about as much sense as Airtec saying that their cord cannot be used with any other AAD's. Better ground the rest of the Argus' and Vigils out there if they are using Cypres loop, and/or pockets too! Oh, and don't forget the washers, cause if you're using a Cypres washer with a Vigil or an Argus...it could cause catastrophic failure since it was only designed for use with the Cypres. Anyways, I'm being way too cynical now. "When once you have tasted flight..."

They do say: "The Cypres loop and disc system is not to be used in combination with other AAD's" That being said, this seems strictly like Airtec offloading legal responsibility. Now, if Airtec has the patent to that specific thread, this could be a different story. Since it's standard Dyneema, I can just as easily take the Cypres loop material (Dyneema) and spool it onto a Vigil spool and guess what? Now it's Vigil loop material...crazy! I think the important fact is that the cutter was tested with the standard material and that's what matters. The manufacturer did testing and it was found to be compatible with a "type" of material, not a specific Manufacturer's "created" material. *If Cypres does have a patent on their cord, this is all incorrect, but I'm fairly certain that a company such as 3M (or whomever) owns the patent to that cord/material. If anyone is curious on the patent for Dyneema (spectra): http://www.freshpatents.com/High-strength-polyethylene-fiber-dt20070628ptan20070148452.php "When once you have tasted flight..."

Yes, sorry about the typo. "When once you have tasted flight..."

I think you might be referring to another Ottawa. I'm in Ottawa, Ontario, not Ottawa, Illinois... Doesn't really change much anyways. On that note, I happen to be VERY close with my rigger and just asked him about installing it. He said "Quit talking to yourself, you look like a fool". I have no issues installing it in a bottom mounted cutter rig. The one question that I haven't received any comment on is whether I can legally use Cypres loop with an Argus, or any other AAD for that matter. Someone PM'd me this info, but I don't know what legal implications Cypres can use against me packing my own rig with an Argus and Cypres loop material. Any other riggers willing to comment? I'm only assuming Argus, Vigil etc...did their testing using Cypres loop, so why change it now, or create your own? "When once you have tasted flight..."

I hadn't actually considered that it was still banned regardless of the rig in some countries. I generally stay within Canada/US anyways, so I should be fine with that. Worst case, I'll take it out while I'm on a trip. Thanks! "When once you have tasted flight..."

Thanks! For anyone else interested: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083951;search_string=aad%20fired;#4083951 "When once you have tasted flight..."

Would it indicate something specific in that case? I'd hope it would say fired, or error or something. I've never seen this scenario on any AAD, so I don't know how any would display a "fired" cutter. And I'm thinking $450 for a Dec 2008 model is a pretty decent deal. "When once you have tasted flight..."

I'm curious what everyone things about buying a "banned" Argus. I've been reading a bunch about the Argus and the SB's, incidents etc... I currently have no AAD in my wingsuit rig and I am jumping it, but I prefer to have one. The rig is a Wings, so it's not banned. My intent with having an AAD is primarily to have a backup in the event of me getting knocked unconscious. Does anyone have any insight on whether buying an Argus from someone who is unfortunately affected by the Ban is a good idea, bad idea? I am a rigger, so adding/removing it from a rig of mine is not a big deal, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing anything that I haven't considered etc. I have read about the incident where it seems to have "pinched" the reserve ripcord, locking the container. But like I was saying, it's for if I ever get knocked unconscious and with the cutter on the bottom of the rig, I'd hope that under 99.9% of circumstances, I'd be pullling the ripcord myself and not require the cutter. Thoughts? "When once you have tasted flight..."

Drifts are awesome for the on-board screen, but I found their video quality a bit dodgy...at least in comparison to the Contour/GoPro. The main reason I didn't go for the Drift....it's HUGE! "When once you have tasted flight..."

I much prefer the Contour over the GoPro. My reason...it's much lower profile. Plus, if you want to wear a giant toaster on your helmet, I've got a few in the garage you can have for free. It's save you the $300+ for GoPro! Haha. Ok, in all honestly, the new Contour has a 170 degree Field of view and if you have an Android of iPhone cell phone, you already own the wireless viewfinder. The best part? AFF instructors like the Contour better when you wear it on AFF levels 3 and above. Most DZ's won't let you jump it until level 3, but I jumped mine on AFF 1 because I'm badass like that. Don't worry though, I have a private pilot's license too so I'm totally badass at skydiving too. "When once you have tasted flight..."