riggerpaul

No, the velcro establishes slack to ensure that the pin can move. But you must also be sure that the pin begins to move as soon as the pilot chute applies tension to the bridle in order to avoid the situation where the bridle is sliding across the tip of the pin. The positioning of the bridle below the pin is what can create/allow a situation where the bridle starts moving before the pin does. Some pin attachments have considerable slack in them, and that slack must be below the pin to ensure that the pin moves immediately as the tension is applied to the bridle. If the slack is all below the pin, then even if the pin were to pierce the bridle, it would not lock the bridle. But if the pin pierces the bridle, and the slack then allows the bridle to move further along the pin, that's when you can lock the container shut.

+1 Adding to bill's points, I'll ask rygon if he has ever heard someone say that wearing his seatbelt allows him to crash instead of attempting to avoid it. I never have. What I do hear is that some people think they are good enough drivers to not really need them, but in acceptance of the fact that others might not be so, they wear them to account for what the other guy will do. Mapping that onto skydiving, that's like a jumper saying that the AAD is for if someone knocks him out, not so that he can ignore pulling for himself. Now, rygon, maybe you don't say that you can ignore pulling because you have an AAD. But some have said it, and some have shown that they actually believe it as well. Those are clearly cases where the AAD has helped made a less safe skydiver.

I don't understand. The matter of the current question was PIA membership. That question has been around since long before the incidents you mention. What has one to do with the other?

Because PIA is infiltered by Airtec That might be true or not, but the brevity of it sort of leans toward the conspiracy thing, and doesn't really help explain it. My understanding is that Airtec has alleged that Aviacom infringes on their patents, and as such, must not be allowed to join. Personally, since I have never heard of any sort of legal actions being taken, I am disappointed that the mere allegation of infringement has had this effect. Now, I am the first to admit that this is a rumor. If someone has information that is better than this rumor, please tell us. I will happily withdraw my statement if someone has something more substantial to say that refutes the rumor.

I know... I was just messing with ya on the paperweight thing. Right now... They are paperweights/doorstops since they cannot be used as they were intended. Although expensive ones. My only real point was my displeasure at how Argus is handling this. They could do a much better job of being honest. My *opinion*. They should publish a letter saying: "Argus is working on a new cutter design and EVERY owner will get this new cutter for free. We apologize for the issues caused. The current design passed all test standards applicable to (Blah, blah, blah) but unforeseen issues have created a situation that demands that we redesign the cutter. We are working on the new design already, and a new design will take some time to develop, test, and distribute. We are working on getting your Argus back the standard we expect from ourselves." So far, they have said nothing that I have seen and too be honest it may be too late now that the tiger is out of the cage. We are in complete agreement on the events and Aviacom's reaction to them. What remains is to wait and see if they do something about it. And I also completely agree with your scenario for solution. If they do that, right now, there is still some hope. Everybody is frustrated - owners (me too) are frustrated, dealers are frustrated, Aviacom is frustrated. But one sure way to minimize the chance of equitable resolution is to abandon hope and end the story right now.

How about "currently an expensive doorstop"??? Until we know how this will turn out, they are not usable for their intended purpose. If the company fixes the problem, then it moves back to a viable AAD (The end user has to decide how viable). But I have seen company's fold over less than this. I must say that Argus is not handling the situation very well.... They should take a page from the Tylenol (Johnson & Johnson) playbook from 1982. If they were open and honest, they would get a much better reception. Staying quiet hurts the public image. Ron, you and I are not disagreeing. You said "currently". I said "at this point". Clearly, both of us admit that the story is not finished yet. It may be that they do turn out to be worthless as far as skydiving is concerned. But, in the meantime, "worthless" is not entirely clear, and I'll stand by my offer to take any worthless Argus for the shipping it costs to stop taking up space for the current owner.

Argus could as well. You pull lowish and it fires, but does not cut the cable all the way. You get on the next load and all the moving around rips the closing loop. or worse you climb out and the reserve fires. Both have the potential. That is true as well. But "worthless paperweight" is a overly harsh decision at this point. It is possible (though perhaps unlikely now) that the device can be repaired, that the cutter can be replaced with one that all find acceptable, and returned to service at some later time. "Paperweight" status says that this can never happen, and that verdict may or may not be in yet. Now, if some owner wants to say that his Argus really is a worthless paperweight at this time, he is free to do that. And I invite him to ship that worthless paperweight to me. I'll even pay the shipping. But if he is not willing to do that, then even he has tacitly decided that the device is not "worthless" yet.

assuming a Cypres is OFF is WRONG (ask around in Eloy, or ask Airtec). A blank screen after trying to cycle it screams "DON'T JUMP ME (and call my Mummy )". This is how I understand page 25 of the Cypres2 manual. You can only assume it is OFF when you finish the TURN-OFF procedure and the display turns blank. Seeing a blank screen on an AAD does not mean it has turned off. It is possible to turn on an AAD the disconnect the control head. The AAD will still be on when you reconnect the control head. Taking into consideration all the various comments about this, we are left with ONLY one course of action. IF THE AAD IS NOT ACTING THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO ACT, DO NOT TAKE IT INTO THE AIR. Thinking it is off is not good enough. Even turning it on and off is not good enough. Passing self-test is not good enough. IF YOU SAW ANY UNEXPLAINED BEHAVIOR, DO NOT TAKE THAT AAD INTO THE AIR. You simply have no idea what that device might do. Remember, the switch is not a power or on/off switch. It is an input to a processor. The processor never really shuts down. It is watching for your switch presses. Something is always "on" enough to see those switch presses, and once you realize that, you cannot help but realize that whenever you see any sort of unexplained behavior, ALL BETS ARE OFF. At that point, the only acceptable reaction is to consider the device unairworthy. DO NOT TAKE IT INTO THE AIR.

From the back of the Argus manual: Well, you've got me on that one. Sort of... That warranty covers "repair or replacement". Nothing about a refund. Please refer to paragraph 9 of the EULA you quote - (RED emphasis mine). So, whatever warranty you have, it only covers "defects" that are deviations from the intended design. If you can claim that your unit has a particular manufacturing defect, they will repair or replace with something that does not have that defect. They do not claim that the design is correct or fit for any use, and provide no warranty regarding that correctness or fitness for use.

Fair enough regarding the cutters. Regarding not banning the Vigil, I was more thinking about the Colorado firings where the door popped open during the initial climbout. To me, that falls under your classification of "do not fire when the jumper is doing less than about 80 mph". (I'll presume "downward".)

Good question. I want to know the answer to that as well. I just purchased a used Argus and now I can't use it. I am not a happy jumper. If you want companies to play in this business, you need to accept that every one of them tells you that their equipment comes with no warranty of any sort. You purchase at your own risk. Period. This presupposes that they tried to do their best to give you what you wanted. I don't believe any manufacturer of any of our gear is knowingly violating that principle. If you don't like the way the cards could been dealt, don't even ante up for the game.

Interesting. We agree. Except that I place not hurting someone else as the first priority. For me - 1) pose no hazard to anyone else. 2) don't get in the way of my saving myself. 3) save me if I clearly need it and it can. What do you think of locating single use, untestable cutters, where it could lock a rig shut? And where do you stand on the whole matter that one is banned and the other is not? Clearly, a partially cut loop that could fail later violates the #1 priority, so I have no problem with banning an AAD that can partially cut a loop.

And finding yourself making an unplanned night jump is more likely? If you don't want to make night jumps, or late sunset jumps, don't get out of the plane. Better yet, don't get on the plane in the first place. The idea that you just happen to find yourself making one is absurd. It represents that absolute worst sort of failure of the personal responsibility element of this sport. It is absolutely always the result of not stopping yourself from jumping in conditions for which you are not qualified. Winds can come up unexpectedly, but night does not - ever. The night jump requirement is purely historical, nothing more. It comes from a time when just about the only extraordinary jump, a jump that was out of the "common" discipline, was the night jump. Back then, it represented the culmination of your experience. It was the final thing you needed to do to be a "complete" skydiver. Things just aren't that way anymore. There are so many disciplines today that very few can ever have any hope to master them all. So, if you really want to make the D the totally complete skydiver, as it once was, add TI, VRW, CF, Wingsuit, Skyboard, bigway, extreme altitude, and every other niche discipline you can think of. They you have the complete skydiver. To that end, I suggest we add an E license. It will include many or even all of those things, including the night jump requirement. Let's stop pretending that the D is now what it once was.

Per Nigel99's post, if they weren't comfortable with putting filtering software into the system in the first place, I'd likely feel better that they didn't try to add it later as an afterthought. So, I'd probably prefer just raising the arming altitude. (I too have a background in embedded software systems, though not life critical or skydiver related like yours.)

On rereading my post, I think I wasn't clear enough. I meant that if the plane had ascended to arming altitude, descended again, then the door popped open. I was trying to come up with a scenario that would eliminate the arming altitude from the equation to allow a more equal comparison. Sorry for not being more clear. I agree, though I'd prefer to have both, and if I could only have one, I'd take the better algorithms over the increased arming altitude. I understood what you meant. What I meant is that if the airplane had reached the arming altitude, and then we decided to come down, I'd already know that I should take steps to be sure that nothing bad will happen. It might be turning off the AAD, which can be difficult. Or it could be as simple as putting my back to a wall of some sort, so that even if it fired, the pilot chute is trapped. Are we on the same page now?

UPT seems to have developed a working solution to the ripcord concern. Yes and no. I like their pin. But the marine eye on the ripcord has the same question about the swage, doesn't it? Since they still offer the cable with the marine eye, we still have the problem of a terminal swage. If they discontinued the cable ripcord, and offered only the Spectra ripcord, then yes, they would seem to have a complete solution.

I suspect there is more than just the arming altitude at play. If the plane had ascended above the CYPRES arming altitude, then descended back to the altitude at which the incident occurred, do you think the CYPRES would have fired? Or do you think it has data filtering and/or algorithms that would have prevented a firing due to a physically impossible event? Yes, that is what I understand (underlined text), that the CYPRES family will filter for impossible situations. I seem to recall Airtec telling us that a tumbling skydiver will make it take longer for the device to fire. That also supports that they have data filters that try to detect spurious conditions. Either way, such a descent back to firing altitude would constitute an unusual event that is easily recognized by the skydiver. Having it happen shortly after takeoff when the door popped open is a completely different thing that no one could expect or plan for. It was only luck that it turned out as well as it did. Even without other filtering, raising the arming altitude out of the firing range would have prevented the activations that happened at the particular moment that they did. Even that improvement would make me feel a lot better about being on a plane with them.

I refused to buy either. But, recognize that the Argus cutter failed. So if it was needed, it didn't work. It then created a dangerous situation if you didn't catch it. The Vigil firing with the door was wrong, but much more in line with how an AAD should operate. Different reasons for the failures. Just to be sure, I'll restate - I am not opposed to the ban on Argus. In fact, as it stands now, I recommend CYPRES2 as the only acceptable AAD. The Vigil firing in the plane (with the door open, and that is very important) also creates a dangerous situation if you didn't catch it. Yes, different reasons for the failures. But failures nonetheless. Either can kill. "Much more in line with how an AAD should operate"? CYPRES doesn't arm so early, and that's what invites the Vigil to fire when it should not. According to the manufacturer, they said the device operated as designed. To me, that means that they are okay with their AAD firing inside an aircraft when nobody was even skydiving yet. I am not okay with that.

I'm certainly not a rigger... but as far as banning one and not the other, the issues between the two AADs are completely different. The Argus has been proven to not properly cut the closing loop and this has not been properly corrected. (Seems pretty cut and dry) The Vigil, had 2 miss-fires in the incident that you mentioned, that seem to be due to a combination or rare set of circumstances. This has yet to be proven to be a defined problem with the device. (not yet cut and dry) Ultimately one is an obviously known problem... and the other is yet just a 'phenomenon'. Actually Advanced Aerospace Designs has told us that the device worked as designed. So, should the same conditions occur again, the same behavior is expected. Regarding the Argus cutter, we have absolutely seen that some cutters have worked just fine. There has been mention that manufacturing tolerances may be responsible for some not working as planned. I say that is pretty much identical to being " due to a combination or rare set of circumstances". That is a long way from saying that all the cutters have been "proven to not properly cut the closing loop". In case you might be thinking that I oppose the Argus bans, I restate that I do not. They have a problem that must be solved. But, as I see it, so does the Vigil.

maybe because one of them does not prevent proper opening of the reserve ? Do you really think that is a valid distinction? Lock the reserve container closed = 1 dead person. Bring down the plane? Depends on the plane, but it seems to me that the number pretty much starts at 2.

So why are the H/C manufacturers not banning the Vigil? It has fired in the plane, and the manufacturer says they won't fix it because it isn't broken. Why would the H/C manufacturers not be scared of that AAD as well? Something in this playing field does not seem to be level. Seems to me that either one of these devices needs fixing before the H/C manufacturers would be happy again. Now, at least one manufacturer I contacted said that they do not approve AADs. But, according to CFR 105.43.b.3 -The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system. The device must— (i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and (ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.(red emphasis mine) If the H/C manufacturer isn't approving AADs, then we can't legally jump the tandem parachute system, can we? Anyway, why aren't the two AADs treated the same way? Either one could easily cause a catastrophe should it repeat a known behavior at the wrong time. So why is one banned and not the other?

(Terry, the following is not really directed at you. But some have implied that this problem has been around long enough for a solution to have been found, were it not for negligent actions of Aviacom.) If it is literally the tolerances, then that would mean that some may be okay, while others might not. Since the devices are single use, it may be difficult to find another that is demonstrably the same as one that did not operate as planned. Further, it seems to me that the event of firing is sufficiently violent that it might change things enough that figuring out why it did not work as planned is effectively impossible. Are we sure that the cutter manufacturer was made aware of this information? Some say that the cutter designs come from the AAD manufacturers. But, I'll hazard that the cutter manufacturer has a big hand in it. Some seem to say that Aviacom has been negligent on this. But if they have relied on an expert to verify and approve of their design, well, it might be that they have done all they thought they could. This doesn't mitigate that we have devices that are not doing the job for which they are intended. I am not saying that the grounding was wrong. But some seem to be saying that evil, negligent, intent was involved. I don't think that is necessarily so.

No, they really should be. They don't work the way they are supposed to, and even though you feel the failures are acceptable, they are not. If something doesn't work right, you don't keep jumping it because you don't 'think' the failure will be a problem, you stop jumping it until the problem has been resolved. There is another AAD that has had a number of documented cases of firing in an aircraft when a door popped open. I don't recall any talk of banning that AAD, and I'd like to know why the two are being treated differently. Ban both, or ban neither. (However, I am absolutely not suggesting that "neither" is the right action.) Banning one and not the other doesn't seem prudent for all the reasons you stated. I don't recall what you might think about that other AAD. I am not arguing with your logic that the Argus should be grounded now. And the question of why the other AAD was not banned is not really directed at you, Dave. But you posted some very good reasons why we should ban an AAD that does bad things, which begs the question of why one is banned but not the other.

This couldn’t be done in the field. It would require a action by the manufacture due to the TSO. Sparky Agreed, but I didn't think anybody ever said that the solution to the problem had to be accomplished "in the field" without larger support. The problem is terminal pins and how to know when they are coming off the cable. Nancy's suggestion that we always use intermediate pins also involves the manufacturer and the TSO as well.

Hmmm... On metal rapide links which connect lines to risers, we put a small line of red nail polish or paint along the nut and the link. That way if the nut starts to unthread itself, it's readily visible because the paint marks will no longer be aligned. I'm thinking it might be possible to do the same thing with paint on a ripcord pin and cable, so that any slippage would be noticed. Is this a viable idea? If the telltale on a rapide link is damaged, you can easily check it and remark as needed. What would happen if the mark on the ripcord was physically damaged by something other than cable slippage? Would you toss the ripcord? On the other hand, I don't like to take shots at your idea without offering an alternative for consideration. So, how about this? Put a the cable through a swageable ball before putting it in the pin. Swage the pin. Push the ball so it touched the pin and swage the ball. Since the ball has no stress on it, it is unlikely to move. So if you get a gap between the ball and the pin, the cable has moved, and you reject the ripcord. That would get the job done once and for all, wouldn't it?