Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
Cypres-2 fire on ground

 


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 13, 2011, 2:32 AM
Post #1 of 124 (6215 views)
Shortcut
Cypres-2 fire on ground Can't Post

Russia, Moscow, DZ Birky 26.02.2011 in a hangar on the ground, tripped Cypres-2 # 37780 DOM: 09.2007
The manufacturer's site there is no any reaction.


piisfish

May 13, 2011, 2:43 AM
Post #2 of 124 (6180 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

do you mean that airtec was contacted and that they didn't answer ?

interesting case. Do you have any idea of what could have caused the Cypres fire ?


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 13, 2011, 2:46 AM
Post #3 of 124 (6176 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Ideas to not.


dqpacker  (D 32043)

May 13, 2011, 6:13 AM
Post #4 of 124 (6024 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

you sure it wasn't some shitty commie ripoff cypres2?


Nukrites  (D 30239)

May 13, 2011, 6:42 AM
Post #5 of 124 (5976 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dqpacker] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Lets ban Cypress !!!


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 13, 2011, 6:48 AM
Post #6 of 124 (5965 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dqpacker] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
you sure it wasn't some shitty commie ripoff cypres2?

No, he didn't say Argus.


Hellis

May 13, 2011, 7:41 AM
Post #7 of 124 (5929 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nukrites] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lets ban Cypress !!!

Sure, but i think the trees are doing us good.


ufk22  (D 16168)

May 13, 2011, 7:48 AM
Post #8 of 124 (5910 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Was the unit sent in for inspection????


Skybear

May 13, 2011, 8:41 AM
Post #9 of 124 (5868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Russia, Moscow, DZ Birky 26.02.2011 in a hangar on the ground, tripped Cypres-2 # 37780 DOM: 09.2007
The manufacturer's site there is no any reaction.

I can hardly imagine no reaction from Airtec. Contact Jupp Veltmann, jupp@cypres.cc , he will help you for sure.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 13, 2011, 2:48 PM
Post #10 of 124 (5726 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ufk22] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes.
Received a very strange answer.
Attachments: Cypres2.JPG (200 KB)


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

May 13, 2011, 3:02 PM
Post #11 of 124 (5723 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes.
Received a very strange answer.

So, you sent them a device with a cutter that had been fired, and they say the device did not record it. Is that correct?

Did you personally see that the cutter had fired?

Or are you only reporting what you have been told by some other person?

Did anyone see it fire?

Did anyone hear it fire?

Are you the owner?

Are you a rigger?

(I am just interested to have some background information. As you say, the story is very strange so far.)


JCulver  (A 55781)

May 13, 2011, 3:49 PM
Post #12 of 124 (5691 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

According to the response from Airtec, the unit was activated at jump 183, but they didn't receive the unit until after jump 343. Is it possible that the cutter didn't completely sever the reserve closing loop?


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

May 13, 2011, 4:05 PM
Post #13 of 124 (5674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JCulver] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
According to the response from Airtec, the unit was activated at jump 183, but they didn't receive the unit until after jump 343. Is it possible that the cutter didn't completely sever the reserve closing loop?

I was figuring that it had a "normal" activation back at jump 183.

It seems unlikely to me that it went 160 jumps with a partly severed loop.

But, you are right, I should have asked the OP for clarification on that too.


Premier Remster  (C License)

May 13, 2011, 5:00 PM
Post #14 of 124 (5651 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It seems unlikely to me that it went 160 jumps with a partly severed loop.
Especially considering the display would show it and no complete it's activation sequence on the next power cycle...


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

May 13, 2011, 5:27 PM
Post #15 of 124 (5636 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
It seems unlikely to me that it went 160 jumps with a partly severed loop.
Especially considering the display would show it and no complete it's activation sequence on the next power cycle...

Of course! What was I thinking?!?

(I was a bit stunned by the concept. I should have thought some more before responding. Thanks for your post!)


sundevil777  (D License)

May 13, 2011, 5:50 PM
Post #16 of 124 (5627 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you know for sure the closing loop was not in one piece?

Is it possible that the closing loop was cut by some means other than the cypres cutter?

Was it confirmed that the cypres cutter had activated (that is a visual check, right)?

Was the cutter returned to Airtek?

Normally these questions don't come up, but when the unit itself doesn't show the activation we can't help but wonder.


(This post was edited by sundevil777 on May 13, 2011, 5:52 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 14, 2011, 12:45 AM
Post #17 of 124 (5529 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dqpacker] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
you sure it wasn't some shitty commie ripoff cypres2?

Your remark was uncalled for. Unsure

Sparky


pasha_justas  (C License)

May 14, 2011, 1:41 AM
Post #18 of 124 (5510 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JCulver] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Airtec answer was posted to Ukrainian web resource. You can read more details here: http://www.skycentre.net/...indpost&p=207079


(This post was edited by pasha_justas on May 14, 2011, 1:54 AM)


shropshire  (C License)

May 14, 2011, 2:09 AM
Post #19 of 124 (5494 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JCulver] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
According to the response from Airtec, the unit was activated at jump 183, but they didn't receive the unit until after jump 343. Is it possible that the cutter didn't completely sever the reserve closing loop?


'If' it was the case that the unit had fired at jump 183 ... What would be the indications on the control unit every time that it was switched on after that (i.e from jump 183 - 343)?


pasha_justas  (C License)

May 14, 2011, 2:12 AM
Post #20 of 124 (5488 views)
Shortcut
Re: [shropshire] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
'If' it was the case that the unit had fired at jump 183 ... What would be the indications on the control unit every time that it was switched on after that (i.e from jump 183 - 343)?
Error code 1111 or 2222 according to Cypres-2 manual.


shropshire  (C License)

May 14, 2011, 2:14 AM
Post #21 of 124 (5487 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pasha_justas] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
'If' it was the case that the unit had fired at jump 183 ... What would be the indications on the control unit every time that it was switched on after that (i.e from jump 183 - 343)?

Error code 1111 or 2222 according to Cypres-2 manual.

Cheers mate.

So that 'probably' wouldn't have gone un-noticed?


pasha_justas  (C License)

May 14, 2011, 2:50 AM
Post #22 of 124 (5478 views)
Shortcut
Re: [shropshire] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So that 'probably' wouldn't have gone un-noticed?
Exactly.
It is very strange incident.

When Vigil-I misfired on the ground in 2006, manufacturer honestly made statement about registering of cutter activation conditions in the AAD memory. http://www.vigil.aero/...atementAUG06_000.pdf For now they replace units with old softwar version with new one at a charge. http://www.dropzone.com/...;;page=unread#unread

Cypres-2 incident in Russia looks like sad mistery unlike Vigil-I misfiring.


(This post was edited by pasha_justas on May 14, 2011, 5:44 AM)


gearless_chris  (D 29012)

May 14, 2011, 2:52 AM
Post #23 of 124 (5475 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Do you know for sure the closing loop was not in one piece?

Is it possible that the closing loop was cut by some means other than the cypres cutter?

Was it confirmed that the cypres cutter had activated (that is a visual check, right)?

Was the cutter returned to Airtek?

Normally these questions don't come up, but when the unit itself doesn't show the activation we can't help but wonder.

I had a bad grommet on one of my reserve flaps that was gradually sawing through the reserve closing loop. It never got to the point where it broke, but it could have.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 14, 2011, 3:48 AM
Post #24 of 124 (5452 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gearless_chris] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Everything has been inspected and verified.
The conclusion is straightforward, the device worked.
Cypres cutter was activated.

The cypres was sent to the Airtec in complete set.


(This post was edited by Nelyubin on May 14, 2011, 4:02 AM)




deadwood  (D 9930)

May 14, 2011, 7:32 AM
Post #26 of 124 (2878 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

I saw an incident once where the reserve opened when the jumper was walking back to the van after a jump. We looked and the cutter had fired. He was an experienced jumper jumping a student rig with a student Cypres. Turns out he got a little “enthusiastic” with his canopy work on the way down and managed to exceed the student cypress firing parameters. Due to the rig size/configuration and closing loop length, the reserve stayed closed until it got bumped on the ground and then it opened.






gearless_chris  (D 29012)

May 14, 2011, 1:05 PM
Post #29 of 124 (2776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [deadwood] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I saw an incident once where the reserve opened when the jumper was walking back to the van after a jump. We looked and the cutter had fired. He was an experienced jumper jumping a student rig with a student Cypres. Turns out he got a little “enthusiastic” with his canopy work on the way down and managed to exceed the student cypress firing parameters. Due to the rig size/configuration and closing loop length, the reserve stayed closed until it got bumped on the ground and then it opened.

You must've been mistaken, that could never happen with a CYPRES, they're perfect. Crazy


Premier Remster  (C License)

May 14, 2011, 3:08 PM
Post #30 of 124 (2738 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gearless_chris] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I saw an incident once where the reserve opened when the jumper was walking back to the van after a jump. We looked and the cutter had fired. He was an experienced jumper jumping a student rig with a student Cypres. Turns out he got a little “enthusiastic” with his canopy work on the way down and managed to exceed the student cypress firing parameters. Due to the rig size/configuration and closing loop length, the reserve stayed closed until it got bumped on the ground and then it opened.

You must've been mistaken, that could never happen with a CYPRES, they're perfect. Crazy

No one claims Cypres are perfect. This being said, this could very well be a problem with the reserve pilot chute or flap configuration. On top of that, reports of "saw this in the parking lot" need to be taken with a grain of salt.

But back to the current problem... Was the fired cutter sent to Airtec with the unit?


Rover  (D 241)

May 14, 2011, 5:18 PM
Post #31 of 124 (2714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pasha_justas] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
they rip off other skydiving gear. why not rip off cypres?
Should it be funny? Or are you seriously?

In case 'yes': you may try to make some rip similary to Cypres-2 by your own hands. Without original software of course. If you are novice in software development, you can try to steal Airtec soft. This is easy, isn't it?

I'm upset. :( Trolls are everywhere. Even on this forum.

Don't lose any sleep over it. A classic example of 'the ugly American' who earns no respect from anyone outside the 'goddamn USA'. Unsure


deadwood  (D 9930)

May 14, 2011, 7:18 PM
Post #32 of 124 (2674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gearless_chris] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

The Cypres worked as advertised.

In reply to:
In reply to:
I saw an incident once where the reserve opened when the jumper was walking back to the van after a jump. We looked and the cutter had fired. He was an experienced jumper jumping a student rig with a student Cypres. Turns out he got a little “enthusiastic” with his canopy work on the way down and managed to exceed the student cypress firing parameters. Due to the rig size/configuration and closing loop length, the reserve stayed closed until it got bumped on the ground and then it opened.

You must've been mistaken, that could never happen with a CYPRES, they're perfect. Crazy


stayhigh  (F 111)

May 14, 2011, 8:35 PM
Post #33 of 124 (2641 views)
Shortcut
Re: [deadwood] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

I saw one incident when swooper fired cypress thru the turn but reserve container never popped open until he throw the rig on the ground to pack for the next jump.

Combination of tightness of the reserve tray and lenght of the closing loop locked it in.


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

May 14, 2011, 8:56 PM
Post #34 of 124 (2636 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stayhigh] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Don't leave us hangin.

When? What rig? Was the reserve the correct size for the pack tray?

Details please.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 14, 2011, 10:19 PM
Post #35 of 124 (2606 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stayhigh] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

>Combination of tightness of the reserve tray and lenght of the closing loop locked it in.

This is happening more and more often and is generally caused by two things:

1) Oversizing a reserve for a given container. This is often the result of jumpers wanting to say they have a tiny container and/or wanting people to see them have a tiny container.

2) Riggers who lengthen a closing loop to make a difficult pack job easier, or an impossible pack job merely difficult.

While jumpers are surely foolish to purchase and try to use incompatible or barely compatible gear, riggers are the last line of defense against such poor decisions.


pasha_justas  (C License)

May 15, 2011, 12:10 AM
Post #36 of 124 (2575 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But back to the current problem... Was the fired cutter sent to Airtec with the unit?
see Post#24.
Nelyubin said that the Cypres was sent to the Airtec in complete set. That means with cutter.

In reply to:
I saw one incident when swooper fired cypress thru the turn but reserve container never popped open until he throw the rig on the ground to pack for the next jump.
You're right. And in this case Cypres must have appropriate log message in the logbook.

However it isn't in considering incident despite cutter was activated and loop was severed.

In reply to:
When? What rig? Was the reserve the correct size for the pack tray?
When: 2011/02/26 (see Post#1)
Rig: Rent rig. I don't know its manufacturer.
Was the reserve the correct size for the pack tray: yes, as far as I know.

If you understand Russian, you may read more here:
http://www.skycentre.net/....php?showtopic=10801


(This post was edited by pasha_justas on May 15, 2011, 12:28 AM)


pasha_justas  (C License)

May 15, 2011, 1:21 AM
Post #37 of 124 (2542 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pasha_justas] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

I just paid my attention to the next interesting quote from Airtec answer:
http://www.skycentre.net/...indpost&p=207079
Quote:
Anyway, if the unit e.g. detected a hard impact on the ground at one point it could happen that some of the latest data gets erased and therefore I cannot tell you exactly what happened.
FYI EPROM can be partially erased by electrical influence only.

Any mechanical influences (e.g. impact) can caused full damage of chip or do nothing. In this case destructions of chip can be easily detected visually.

As for me, it is very dilettantish assumption for the official statement.


(This post was edited by pasha_justas on May 15, 2011, 1:40 AM)




Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 15, 2011, 4:35 AM
Post #39 of 124 (2475 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Anyway, if the unit e.g. detected a hard impact on the ground at one point it could happen that some of the latest data gets erased and therefore I cannot tell you exactly what happened.
Journal Cypres device can read or modify only the manufacturer.
This is very strange or incompetent statement.


pasha_justas  (C License)

May 15, 2011, 5:59 AM
Post #40 of 124 (2432 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is very strange or incompetent statement.
I agree with you fully.

Because Airtec made impact stress test for Cypres-1 and Cypres-2 with acceleration approx. 20g. Here is "Design and Test Report":
http://www.sskinc.com/cypres/ts120cv3b.pdf
Read chapter "4.5. Environmental testing."

As you well know death acceleration range for human is 16g. However Cypres keeps functionality even after 20g.

So, may be Russian skydivers are iron people? Nelyubin, what do you think about Russian health?

Or would be better to say in Russian: "Ne nado nam lohmatit babushku"?


(This post was edited by pasha_justas on May 15, 2011, 6:47 AM)




Premier skydiverek  (C 41769)

May 15, 2011, 8:24 AM
Post #42 of 124 (2372 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pasha_justas] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As you well know death acceleration range for human is 16g.

Incorrect. Indycar driver survived 214g. Key factor is the DURATION of Gs. You can survive 214g for a brief moment. You would not survive 20g for longer period of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVpux5JxqEk


(This post was edited by skydiverek on May 15, 2011, 8:58 AM)










pasha_justas  (C License)

May 15, 2011, 11:02 AM
Post #47 of 124 (2214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydiverek] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Key factor is the DURATION of Gs. You can survive 214g for a brief moment. You would not survive 20g for longer period of time.
Yes, you're right but not completely too. Ok, lets make all points clear.

According to the YouTube comments:
Quote:
The impact was enormous, but leaving the cockpit intact. It recorded a record 214 g impact and left me seriously injured...
Sensor was seted up on the cockpit but not on the pilot body. If cockpit is damaged it absorbs part of impact power and pilot is testing much less deceleration if he could in opposite case. It is base of passive safety.

According to Airtec "Design and Test Report"
http://www.sskinc.com/cypres/ts120cv3b.pdf
Quote:
Deceleration in axis of the table 20g generated in 5ms.

Information from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force
Quote:
Human tolerances depend on the magnitude of the g-force, the length of time it is applied, the direction it acts, the location of application, and the posture of the body.
Quote:
A hard slap on the face may briefly impose hundreds of g locally but not produce any real damage; a constant 16 g for a minute, however, may be deadly.
Quote:
The record for peak experimental horizontal g-force tolerance is held by acceleration pioneer John Stapp, in a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments culminating in a late 1954 test in which he was stopped in a little over a second from a land speed of Mach 0.9. He survived a peak "eyeballs-out" force of 46.2 times the force of gravity, and more than 25 g for 1.1 sec, proving that the human body is capable of this. Stapp lived another 45 years to age 89, but suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this last test.


(This post was edited by pasha_justas on May 15, 2011, 1:16 PM)


AlexV

May 16, 2011, 12:10 AM
Post #48 of 124 (2076 views)
Shortcut
Re: Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

I think we should open another topic about the moderators financial interest in this whole AAD issue.
I constantly see messages against Cypres being deleted. This topic looks like the original poster is ignoring the conversation while in reality his replies are deleted by the moderators. There's not even a mention by the moderators that his messages have been deleted so all the other users asking him questions are ignored.
I want to know more about this incident but I feel like half of the info is missing because it was erased.
The moderators should watch the news more often, censorship only makes things worse. Posts against them will be more common if they keep erasing posts damaging their sales of Cypres AAD. This also applies to the Argus discussion.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 16, 2011, 12:27 AM
Post #49 of 124 (2070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AlexV] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Communicated with the moderators in private mail.
They do not have a material interest.

Message from Airtek was not.


(This post was edited by Nelyubin on May 16, 2011, 12:35 AM)


AlexV

May 16, 2011, 5:28 AM
Post #50 of 124 (1980 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

This is a strange thing to say coming from Airtec:

"Anyway, if the unit e.g. detected a hard impact on the ground at one point it could happen that some of the latest data gets erased and therefore I cannot tell you exactly what happened."

By this I understand it might or it should erase data if it detects a hard impact. Detecting a hard impact is different from suffering a hard impact. In theory, a faulty sensor could "detect" a hard impact even though the impact did not occur.
So by this statement did Airtec mean the AAD is intentionally programed to erase information after a hard impact or was it a poor choice of words on their part?
If they program it to erase data after it "detects" a hard impact then it could be to cover their ass.


(This post was edited by AlexV on May 16, 2011, 5:29 AM)


HighJB  (C License)

May 16, 2011, 5:38 AM
Post #51 of 124 (3156 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AlexV] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Do not Forget that English is not the mother tongue of most of Airtec members. This could be an incorrect use of one word.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 16, 2011, 6:15 AM
Post #52 of 124 (3128 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AlexV] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

>By this I understand it might or it should erase data if it detects a hard impact.

I read it as "you might lose data if you have a hard impact."

When a write to a serial EEPROM begins, it must complete or data loss can occur. If a hard impact causes a power interruption (i.e. a hit so hard that the spring contacts in the battery connector rebound and create a transient power glitch) then an EEPROM write can fail, resulting in lost data. Since generally you have to write more than one piece of info at a time, you can lose the last X samples of data.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 16, 2011, 7:16 AM
Post #53 of 124 (3096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

I do not remember a case when at the death of a parachutist hitting the ground in Cypres, the data has not been read.

Inclined to agree AlexV.

P.S. On the device, there were no traces of mechanical action.


USPA  (D 81812)

May 17, 2011, 12:50 AM
Post #54 of 124 (2913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

I do remember a case where the data has been read, while cypres didn't even had the unit yet... They are really good...

(and alot of cases where they concluded they cypres wasn't turned on)


(This post was edited by USPA on May 17, 2011, 12:51 AM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 17, 2011, 1:39 PM
Post #55 of 124 (2765 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I do remember a case where the data has been read, while cypres didn't even had the unit yet... They are really good...

(and alot of cases where they concluded they cypres wasn't turned on)

Do you have a link to any of these incidents?

Sparky


USPA  (D 81812)

May 17, 2011, 9:59 PM
Post #56 of 124 (2689 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995)


champu  (D 28302)

May 17, 2011, 11:20 PM
Post #57 of 124 (2670 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skydivesg] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I saw one incident when swooper fired cypress thru the turn but reserve container never popped open until he throw the rig on the ground to pack for the next jump.

Combination of tightness of the reserve tray and lenght of the closing loop locked it in.

Don't leave us hangin.

When? What rig? Was the reserve the correct size for the pack tray?

Details please.

If it's the incident I think he's talking about, it was at Elsinore about a year and a half or two years ago. Rig was an Infinity but I'm not certain of the container and reserve sizes. I'm pretty sure he discussed the incident with Kelly at VSE.

The jumper in question did a 630 on a velocity 90 loaded at about 2.4 with a Sport Cypres 2 (not a good idea.) When sent to airtec they replied, "yep... you made it fire..." and converted it to a Speed Cypres 2 free of charge before sending it back.


Squeak  (E 1313)

May 17, 2011, 11:35 PM
Post #58 of 124 (2660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995)
OK if they were THAt long ago then they were Cypres ONES and probably 1st generation. They have made quite a few changes since then.


USPA  (D 81812)

May 18, 2011, 12:10 AM
Post #59 of 124 (2645 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, because with the new Cypres version, they can actually test the cypress while it isn't send to them yet?


pchapman  (D 1014)

May 18, 2011, 6:16 AM
Post #60 of 124 (2574 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes, because with the new Cypres version, they can actually test the cypress while it isn't send to them yet?

Maybe there was some honest confusion in that case about which unit Airtec had?

Even if one is suspicious about Airtec, would they really think it worthwhile to issue a statement about testing a particular unit when a DZ can show they still have it sitting in their hands and not at Airtec?

What did Airtec say after actually receiving the unit?

If someone still had the unit number written down, I'd guess that Airtec would still have their records from the time.

It's tough to figure these things out years and years later...


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 18, 2011, 8:55 AM
Post #61 of 124 (2527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Yes, because with the new Cypres version, they can actually test the cypress while it isn't send to them yet?

Maybe there was some honest confusion in that case about which unit Airtec had?

Even if one is suspicious about Airtec, would they really think it worthwhile to issue a statement about testing a particular unit when a DZ can show they still have it sitting in their hands and not at Airtec?

What did Airtec say after actually receiving the unit?

If someone still had the unit number written down, I'd guess that Airtec would still have their records from the time.

It's tough to figure these things out years and years later...
The device in Airtek.
Years and years later, is important for Cypres. Cypres-2 other device. Chip Cypres-2 is not such as chip Cypres.


dragon2  (D 101989)

May 18, 2011, 10:03 AM
Post #62 of 124 (2486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995)
OK if they were THAt long ago then they were Cypres ONES and probably 1st generation. They have made quite a few changes since then.

Yes, like now for instance they actually want the unit shipped to them so they can do the readout, instead of using their old crystal ball where they performed a "verdict" of "you pulled too low, not our fault" about a unit when it was still inside the rig and at the DZ. Good trick, that.


DanG  (D 22351)

May 18, 2011, 11:44 AM
Post #63 of 124 (2441 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Does anyone have any information on this alleged incident where Airtec made up a report? It all sounds like something someone's brother's friend's next door neighbor's barber told him that one time.


Baksteen  (C 708753)

May 18, 2011, 12:12 PM
Post #64 of 124 (2413 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DanG] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Does anyone have any information on this alleged incident where Airtec made up a report? It all sounds like something someone's brother's friend's next door neighbor's barber told him that one time.

Hm.. I dunno - sounds like a conspiracy to me. Ah bet it wuz all hushed up by the gubmint.


pchapman  (D 1014)

May 18, 2011, 9:43 PM
Post #65 of 124 (2294 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes, like now for instance they actually want the unit shipped to them so they can do the readout, instead of using their old crystal ball where they performed a "verdict" of "you pulled too low, not our fault" about a unit when it was still inside the rig and at the DZ. Good trick, that.

Again I'm thinking this sort of situation could be just one of miscommunication, plus a little defensiveness on the part of Airtec.

Airtec will have seen plenty of cases where someone says "it just popped!" where it later turns out "uh, I guess I did really pull way lower than I thought".

Whether it is because of a good Cypres track record, or excess pride in their own gadget, maybe Airtec after an incident says that the AAD probably fired due to a low main deployment. That's their opinion, or verdict, or whatever one wants to call it. If the jumper still strongly disagrees with that, then they need to provide additional information about the incident, and need to get that AAD sent in for analysis.

If the AAD isn't sent in, Airtec thinks everything is all hunkey dorey, all fine, since they don't hear anything more; no complaints. They log the AAD firing as just another low-pull 2-out.

Meanwhile the jumper goes away pissed off that he's been dismissed out of hand, and starts telling his friends about Airtec coming up with a magic explanation without ever seeing the unit.

Years later here we are arguing about it and having trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.


P.S.- I checked and was told that Airtec still has the Moscow ground firing incident (the original thread topic) under investigation and is trying to get additional info about what happened from those at the DZ.

Edit:
P.P.S. - Despite the big improvements made by AAD manufacturers to overcome static electricity issues, and given that the Cypres may not have recorded setting off the cutter, I gotta wonder how cold and dry the air was on that February day in Moscow. Might be on the upper end of bad days for static charge buildup.


(This post was edited by pchapman on May 18, 2011, 10:07 PM)


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 18, 2011, 10:38 PM
Post #66 of 124 (2273 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
P.P.S. - Despite the big improvements made by AAD manufacturers to overcome static electricity issues, and given that the Cypres may not have recorded setting off the cutter, I gotta wonder how cold and dry the air was on that February day in Moscow. Might be on the upper end of bad days for static charge buildup.

http://rp5.ru/...id=27613&lang=en

Minimum level of humidity that day was 60%


(This post was edited by Nelyubin on May 19, 2011, 2:04 AM)


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 20, 2011, 8:03 PM
Post #67 of 124 (2133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Received another answer Airtek.
Quote:
We are also very surprised. We really try to solve the problem.
We do not say that this can not happen, but it is very strange that there is no data.
So we are really interested in that incident, but need all the information from the guy who jumped that rig, directly, in order to get to any conclusion. That is why Regina send the letter to our dealer (and only to him, because he was the only contact to the guy) but till today there was no reaction and no answers to the questions.

I just talked with Helmut. He is every day together with our technicians now to figure out what probably happened. We really never had a Cypres fire with out any datas. So this would be the first case. We do not say, that it can not happen, but it is very, very strange.


(This post was edited by Nelyubin on May 20, 2011, 8:25 PM)


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

May 21, 2011, 6:29 AM
Post #68 of 124 (2057 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

If the cutter fires from static electricity, does it still test as "fired" at the next Power On Self Test?

Do we know? - Is the cutter test just checking continuity across some sort of an ignition filament?


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 21, 2011, 8:02 AM
Post #69 of 124 (2036 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Check the electrical resistance of a conductor.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 22, 2011, 9:31 AM
Post #70 of 124 (1941 views)
Shortcut
Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Guys. As far as I know, Airtek has sent the device to the dealer together with the first message. How they are going to solve a problem with defect? Ten thousand precisely such devices in our systems.


Frankyspanky

May 25, 2011, 3:28 PM
Post #71 of 124 (1780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Why is everybody that was so quick to attack Argus and Vigil so silent on this particular issue?

It seems this is the worst failure of all so far in the AAD market. The unit failed to work within it's perameters, it failed to lag any data and it put lives in danger.

Is the community going to accept the weak response from airtec on this issue?

Too many people to ground if cypres 2's are to be grounded?

Airtec do not seem to have found any damage to the unit, and it failed to work more than once.

That means any cypres 2 unit 'could' fail in the same way.

After the letter about their perfection and dilligence recently in response to the argus issue, one would expect a more comprehensive approach to their own issues.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 25, 2011, 4:01 PM
Post #72 of 124 (1762 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995)
OK if they were THAt long ago then they were Cypres ONES and probably 1st generation. They have made quite a few changes since then.

Yes, like now for instance they actually want the unit shipped to them so they can do the readout, instead of using their old crystal ball where they performed a "verdict" of "you pulled too low, not our fault" about a unit when it was still inside the rig and at the DZ. Good trick, that.

What incident was this and where was it? Where would I look for the report by Airtec?

Sparky


USPA  (D 81812)

May 25, 2011, 10:30 PM
Post #73 of 124 (1711 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Fyi, dragon and I are pressumably talking about the same cypres.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 25, 2011, 10:55 PM
Post #74 of 124 (1701 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Fyi, dragon and I are pressumably talking about the same cypres.

Then maybe you can shed some light on it. Do you know where it happened or even when it happened?

Sparky


koppel  (F License)

May 26, 2011, 2:19 AM
Post #75 of 124 (1680 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Sparky, you have often asked people to provide information on events that are purported to have occurred. You ask in this case for the report from the manufacturer.

In April I had a ground fire of an AAD in my own loft. I reported it comprehensively to the manufacturer of the AAD and to the APF. I got a very quick response from the manufacturer in reply to my email telling me that the person that deals with these matters was ill and would respond to me when they returned to work. After two more emails from myself I have still not heard from them.

The unit has been replaced via the local dealer and the owner now has a shiny new one.

There is no report from the manufacturer so if you asked me to provide the report then I could not. By your logic then the event did not occur.

As riggers we rely on the manufacturers to be forthright and upfront with information. This is sadly not the case for any of them! They are all obtuse and secretive about events where their products either operate outside of the required parameters or fail to operate as advertised.

While I recognise that you are trying to prevent hearsay and rumour from being spread as fact you also need to acknowledge that not every event that occurs ends up with a public report that we can create a link to for all to read and say to ourselves 'see, there it is written from the factory so it must be true'

Whilst my own personal experience as a rigger is many years less than your own I have seen with my own eyes enough events occur that have never made it to the general public even though it has been reported to the relevant persons/factories/federations.


USPA  (D 81812)

May 26, 2011, 6:24 AM
Post #76 of 124 (1990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In the Netherlands, at the National Skydiving Centre, in the late '90's.


piisfish

May 26, 2011, 7:19 AM
Post #77 of 124 (1955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In the Netherlands, at the National Skydiving Centre, in the late '90's.
Would that mean that "you" are still expecting some answer on a 12 year old case ?


USPA  (D 81812)

May 26, 2011, 7:23 AM
Post #78 of 124 (1954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Why do you think that?


Frankyspanky

May 26, 2011, 4:16 PM
Post #79 of 124 (1872 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Can we address the current fault please?

I am still interested in what people think about the Cypres failing to operate within, it's parameters, fail to log the problem and inhibit the container system from working correctly.

This is much, much worse than simply firing of, or failing to cut the loop.

Currently Argus' are banned, and nothing is being done about it.

Vigils and Cypres' are posing more danger as they are still in service, are still having problems, and these problems are not being addressed by the manufacturers.

Are we expected to accept that because AAD and Airtec are PIA members that the letter sent out by the PIA is not relevant to Vigils and Cypres’?

A severed loop will inhibit the correct function of a container.

The Argus was banned on that basis, why not vigil and cypress?

Money?

Where is the safety factor in this? It is OK if you are the main player and PIA member?


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 26, 2011, 11:28 PM
Post #80 of 124 (1813 views)
Shortcut
Re: [koppel] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

You are assuming that you understand my logic for asking these questions.

USPA and dragon2 bring up something may have happened before they started jumping and before the 3 major AAD’s on the market today were built. The Cypres 2 was introduced in 2003. That is just one incident brought up by 2 people who know nothing about it. If we are going to come to any logical conclusions about any problem we need to have reliable information about incidents that a least happened in this century.

The way you presented your incident in April is the type of response I am looking except you failed to identify the brand. Have you had a chance to check with the dealer and see if he has gotten any information? Since it was your customers rig in your shop don’t you think it would be nice for you to follow up. If you don’t who will?

In reply to:
Whilst my own personal experience as a rigger is many years less than your own I have seen with my own eyes enough events occur that have never made it to the general public even though it has been reported to the relevant persons/factories/federations.

Your experience as a rigger is not in question here. It’s doing what I feel a rigger should do. If you see a problem with gear take the steps necessary to “fix” the problem. If in your opinion there if there is a problem with a specific AAD why would you continue to pack them in rigs? You are the last line of defense jumpers have to check the air worthiness of their gear.

There are a couple of threads going on about AAD misfires but little if any useful information as to exactly what happened. It seems everyone wants to come on line and yell and scream about the situation but can’t be bothered with the facts. What got Argus banned was 4 well written reports detailing what happened. That and Mr. Goorts’s method of dealing with the problem. If you see a problem as a rigger do something about. If there is a problem with your rig do something about. Anyone who is not willing to do this is stupid and coming on the net and whining with not change that fact.

I have spent the last 2 months trying to collect information, have exchange numerous emails with the 3 major manufactures, all in an attempt to identify any problems and figure out what can be done. I end up getting shit from snot nose kids that haven’t seen the ball since kick off and what for. I don’t even jump anymore. I wish you guys luck, I done with it.

Sparky


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 27, 2011, 12:36 AM
Post #81 of 124 (1821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That is just one incident brought up by 2 people who know nothing about it.
This your subjective opinion.
About incident with the device all is accurately written in the given theme.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 27, 2011, 12:41 AM
Post #82 of 124 (1818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
That is just one incident brought up by 2 people who know nothing about it.
This your subjective opinion.
About incident with the device all is accurately written in the given theme.

Please explain?????


dragon2  (D 101989)

May 27, 2011, 1:46 AM
Post #83 of 124 (1798 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
That is just one incident brought up by 2 people who know nothing about it.
This your subjective opinion.
About incident with the device all is accurately written in the given theme.

Please explain?????

That we know nothing about it. And that any incident with a cypres (1 or 2) isn't worth discussing in this thread (or elsewhere).

It's really really funny how any argument against an Argus is taken as FACT and how in contrast any argument against a Cypres is taken as LIES, or at best as irrelevant, by default.

UnimpressedUnimpressedUnimpressedUnimpressedUnimpressedUnimpressedUnimpressedUnimpressedUnimpressedUnimpressed


USPA  (D 81812)

May 27, 2011, 2:41 AM
Post #84 of 124 (1788 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
USPA and dragon2 bring up something may have happened before they started jumping

You should really stop making assumptions. I was very much already jumping when the referenced incident occured.

The incident is very much relevant, since this and all the other "incidents" set a trend, about misleding communication. This is just an incident in which I was actually there myself. I've heared countless more incidents, but these are at other Dropzones where I wasn't around, so I tend to just register those as "Oh, again a similar story".

Because in those days there weren't any (serious) competitors (although we had people jumping FXC 12000 and Astra also), and we didn't had the internet, this trend is not so obvious. The certain "trustworthy" mythical reputation of some manufactorers isn't correct IMHO.

IMHO I'm not saying Cypres is a bad product, it's just that based on my experiences with Airtec (also reports of fattalities of friends), I have serious trust issues with them.


koppel  (F License)

May 27, 2011, 3:31 AM
Post #85 of 124 (1776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

 
In reply to:
The way you presented your incident in April is the type of response I am looking except you failed to identify the brand. Have you had a chance to check with the dealer and see if he has gotten any information? Since it was your customers rig in your shop don’t you think it would be nice for you to follow up. If you don’t who will?

I chose not to identify the brand as it was not relevant to the comments I was making. I am not taking part in the 'this brand that brand' discussion.

I work with the dealer in question and have the information available. My point was that the company in question chose not to respond to my emails themselves and also did not choose to provide a response to me via the dealer. They IGNORED the issue I raised, replaced the unit and carried on with no further comment. This is a failure on their part.


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

May 27, 2011, 5:44 AM
Post #86 of 124 (1747 views)
Shortcut
Re: [koppel] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I chose not to identify the brand as it was not relevant to the comments I was making. I am not taking part in the 'this brand that brand' discussion.

I work with the dealer in question and have the information available. My point was that the company in question chose not to respond to my emails themselves and also did not choose to provide a response to me via the dealer. They IGNORED the issue I raised, replaced the unit and carried on with no further comment. This is a failure on their part.

In my opinion it is completely unneccessary to discuss your matter without identifying the AAD. In that light, your comments about the mfg being uncommunicative are irrelevant.

It is relevent to buyers and users of AADs to know if the loft firing is part of a trend or was it a rogue situation; what caused the AAD to fire? Was it a true fire or was it a partiallly cut closing loop that failed at that time?

It is relevant to the AAD discussion to identify them so those who are in the market for an AAD or are considering a different AAD will have the ability to consider the company's attitude toward service and openness.

In reply to:
As riggers we rely on the manufacturers to be forthright and upfront with information.

We also rely on other riggers to be forthright and upfront. This is not a matter of AAD vs AAD; this is a matter of corporate trust which buyers and users will probably want to know about. That trust involves the basic premise the device will perform as advertised.

Customer service and openness are important to individuals who are going to pop $1k+ for a small electronic safety device.

.02


Divalent  (C 40494)

May 27, 2011, 6:04 AM
Post #87 of 124 (1734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [koppel] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Koppel,

I think Sparky's point is that the incidents that ultimately led to bans on ARGUS units were all formally investigated (to some degree at least). The ID of the brand/mfg, an account of the circumstances, a description of the gear inspection, photographs, etc. About as good a set of data that you can get (which is not to say that the reports didn't have any flaws). But anyone can read all 4 of them, and at least understand the reasoning behing the bans (even if you don't agree with them): 4 incidents, all involving the same AAD, all pointing to the same common defect.

One of the points being raised by many here is "Hey, Argus is not so different than the other brands, so why are they being singled out?" and is supported by vague anecdotal evidence. The incident you descibe sounds serious: much like the Texas incident that was the straw that broke the Argus's back, yet you won't even identify the unit. Why won't you write it up and report it to USPA? Maybe other brands are no different than Argus units, but until we have good data, we cannot tell. And until outside publicity forces Mfg to release the results of their own investigation, Mfgs will continue to do exactly what you would expect them to do even if their units are flawed: keep it quiet, deny a problem, and replace the unit to keep the customer happy.


piisfish

May 27, 2011, 6:38 AM
Post #88 of 124 (1717 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Divalent] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why won't you write it up and report it to USPA?
why would he ?? Apparently he is jumping in aUSTRALIA...


koppel  (F License)

May 28, 2011, 1:21 AM
Post #89 of 124 (1632 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

The report was made in full to the APF and to the manufacturer.


The following is information from Vigil provided via the APF to its members

Quote:



Vigil Ground Fire
On the 31st December 2010 an incident occurred where a Vigil1 (DoM Jan 2006) fired on the ground at a SQ DZ.

Downloaded electronic information from the AAD was forwarded to the manufacturer, Advanced Aerospace Designs, for their analysis and comment.
After analysis, the manufacturer responded that there has been some ground misfires on the 5,000 Vigil1 units in the field over the last six years.

"First, we want to confirm that those incidents are very exceptional in regards of the number of jumps done with all those Vigils I of that type in use.
The main reason is that on some of the printed circuit boards or PCB's of those Vigils I, the functionality of the crystal (which generates the operating frequency) could in some specific conditions (high ambient temperature and temperature variation) be influenced. This could exceptionally generate a the cutter activation.
We also state and confirm that this could only happen on the ground or exceptionally in the activation zone.
Please be aware that this concerns only a very low percentage of those 5000 units. It makes the probability of this happening even less.
Important information:
We confirm that all Vigils I (serial number #6800 or higher) produced since November 2006 and all Vigils II (serial number #8000 or higher) have been adapted with new extra build-in software security parameters as well as hardware improvements to avoid this to happen on those units produced after September 2006!"

The manufacturer will be putting forth an offer to all owners of Vigil1s with serial numbers lower than #6600 made before August 2006, to upgrade to a new Vigil2 for a pro-rata price depending on the year of manufacturer of the Vigil 1.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 28, 2011, 3:09 AM
Post #90 of 124 (1621 views)
Shortcut
Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

That Airtek concerning shooting of their device will tell.


Skybear

May 28, 2011, 3:18 PM
Post #91 of 124 (1572 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That Airtek concerning shooting of their device will tell.

Please excuse me, I know that english isn't yours or my mother language, but could you please phrase your comments and questions a bit better? I do not understand what you mean by this sentence.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 29, 2011, 11:01 AM
Post #92 of 124 (1513 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
That Airtek concerning shooting of their device will tell.

Please excuse me, I know that english isn't yours or my mother language, but could you please phrase your comments and questions a bit better? I do not understand what you mean by this sentence.
Airtek will give the reasonable answer concerning shooting of cartridge Cypres-2 on the earth?


Frankyspanky

May 29, 2011, 3:01 PM
Post #93 of 124 (1482 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Basically I think he is asking the same as I am;

Why is such a vague and ambiguous answer with no resolution acceptable from Airtec?

Why have all the people that were so quick to bash Aviacom so silent on this matter...?

Probably because they have a Cypres in thier own gear.

The moderators were even in on the Argus bashing, but I don't see them commenting here now.

Double standards?

This was the single worst failure of an AAD to date, and we are just expected to accept it and just carry on...

I don't think so Airtec, you had better start explaining yourselves.

Especially considering how you were recently touting yourselves as the integrety based company that has impecable standards and quality assurance.

Mad


(This post was edited by Frankyspanky on May 29, 2011, 3:02 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 29, 2011, 7:06 PM
Post #94 of 124 (1451 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Frankyspanky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why is such a vague and ambiguous answer with no resolution acceptable from Airtec?

If you are refereeing to Kopple’s post it was from Vigil not Cypres.

In reply to:
Why have all the people that were so quick to bash Aviacom so silent on this matter...?

Probably because they have a Cypres in thier own gear.

I have not been silent and I don’t own an AAD of any brand.

In reply to:
This was the single worst failure of an AAD to date, and we are just expected to accept it and just carry on...

This is your opinion and frankly from the information in your profile it doesn’t carry much weight.

In reply to:
I don't think so Airtec, you had better start explaining yourselves.

Especially considering how you were recently touting yourselves as the integrety based company that has impecable standards and quality assurance.

From the research I have done the worst source of truthful information on any AAD incident is the skydiving community.

Example, in this thread alone with 99 + posts there is only one that gives any useful information about and AAD incident.

You come on here and rant and rave but have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

As I posted before the reason Argus got banned is someone took the time to do a through investigation and document what happened. Until this same method is used with other AAD manufactures nothing willed be accomplished.

Start writing things down and comforting Companies with fact not hear say bull shit you heard in the parking lot. If you are not willing to do this than STFU.

Sparky


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 29, 2011, 7:20 PM
Post #95 of 124 (1442 views)
Shortcut
Re: [koppel] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The report was made in full to the APF and to the manufacturer.


The following is information from Vigil provided via the APF to its members

Quote:



Vigil Ground Fire
On the 31st December 2010 an incident occurred where a Vigil1 (DoM Jan 2006) fired on the ground at a SQ DZ.

Downloaded electronic information from the AAD was forwarded to the manufacturer, Advanced Aerospace Designs, for their analysis and comment.
After analysis, the manufacturer responded that there has been some ground misfires on the 5,000 Vigil1 units in the field over the last six years.

"First, we want to confirm that those incidents are very exceptional in regards of the number of jumps done with all those Vigils I of that type in use.
The main reason is that on some of the printed circuit boards or PCB's of those Vigils I, the functionality of the crystal (which generates the operating frequency) could in some specific conditions (high ambient temperature and temperature variation) be influenced. This could exceptionally generate a the cutter activation.
We also state and confirm that this could only happen on the ground or exceptionally in the activation zone.
Please be aware that this concerns only a very low percentage of those 5000 units. It makes the probability of this happening even less.
Important information:
We confirm that all Vigils I (serial number #6800 or higher) produced since November 2006 and all Vigils II (serial number #8000 or higher) have been adapted with new extra build-in software security parameters as well as hardware improvements to avoid this to happen on those units produced after September 2006!"

The manufacturer will be putting forth an offer to all owners of Vigil1s with serial numbers lower than #6600 made before August 2006, to upgrade to a new Vigil2 for a pro-rata price depending on the year of manufacturer of the Vigil 1.

Thank you. Now if others would follow your led something useful might come of it.

If not all you have is a rat pack running in circles.

Sparky


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 29, 2011, 7:40 PM
Post #96 of 124 (1435 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

We will wait from Airtek the similar answer?


Skybear

May 29, 2011, 8:13 PM
Post #97 of 124 (1427 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
That Airtek concerning shooting of their device will tell.

Please excuse me, I know that english isn't yours or my mother language, but could you please phrase your comments and questions a bit better? I do not understand what you mean by this sentence.
Airtek will give the reasonable answer concerning shooting of cartridge Cypres-2 on the earth?

Thanks for making it clear! Smile


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 29, 2011, 9:16 PM
Post #98 of 124 (1414 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
That Airtek concerning shooting of their device will tell.

Please excuse me, I know that english isn't yours or my mother language, but could you please phrase your comments and questions a bit better? I do not understand what you mean by this sentence.
Airtek will give the reasonable answer concerning shooting of cartridge Cypres-2 on the earth?

Thanks for making it clear! Smile

I am sorry but that is clear as mud.

Sparky


jurgencamps  (D License)

May 30, 2011, 1:25 AM
Post #99 of 124 (1373 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Airtek will give the reasonable answer concerning shooting of cartridge Cypres-2 on the earth?

shooting = firing
on the earth = on the ground

... concerning the activation of a cypres 2 on the ground.


Frankyspanky

May 30, 2011, 1:59 AM
Post #100 of 124 (1368 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you are refereeing to Kopple’s post it was from Vigil not Cypres.

I am refering to this comment from Airtec to the concerned.

http://www.dropzone.com/...t;postatt_id=129001;

It states that the unit had fired 160 jumps previously, and that is the only data in the unit pertaining to any activations.

They then go on to say if the unit had a hard impact then there is potential for any data to be lost.Crazy

That is the bizarre comment that makes me feel weary about their reply.

It does not help that the client does not provide more information. Though there is a language barrier there. We have to assume that the client is telling the truth about the reserve popping open recently so that leaves a few possibilities...

I don't want to start guessing though I can come up with 3 scenarios, but the response from Airtec seems less than diligent as far as resolving and addressing the problem. It seems they have the 'it couldn't possibly be us' attitude.

I may be wrong about that, but the relative silence on the issue from those that were filling up several threads on the Argus just days ago is quite interesting.

You are right; there are not many posts at all in this thread that address the issue.

I could fill out my profile with whatever statistics I like, what is written in my profile does not affect this one Iota.


(This post was edited by Frankyspanky on May 30, 2011, 2:00 AM)


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 30, 2011, 3:56 AM
Post #101 of 124 (2438 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Frankyspanky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
If you are refereeing to Kopple’s post it was from Vigil not Cypres.

It does not help that the client does not provide more information. Though there is a language barrier there. We have to assume that the client is telling the truth about the reserve popping open recently so that leaves a few possibilities...

.

Such statement very strange.
The device has been given in Airtek with the detailed description of a case.
Airtek has received the device. Airtek has replaced a device cartridge. Airtek has sent the device to the owner. The case with the device has interested Airtek only after publicity at forums.


(This post was edited by Nelyubin on May 30, 2011, 4:02 AM)


sundevil777  (D License)

May 30, 2011, 5:53 AM
Post #102 of 124 (2403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Post #67 of this thread seems to show to me that Airtec is admitting that they are stumped, but are asking for help in gathering the circumstances (had not at the time received that help), and want to solve this mystery. The fact that a firing was previously recorded that seems to not have actually happened (at least in terms of the unit still powering up normally), does make the lack of data on the final jump where the reserve activated more understandable - in terms of something seriously being wrong with this unit. Airtec is left with being in the position of wanting to recreate what happened, but can't simply expose it to a set of well understood conditions such as the door of a plane opening, or a plane pressurizing, or an electromagnetic field, or trying to cut a loop with no tension or lubrication, or swooping. I find it reasonable that they have never seen this type of failure, and would truly like to be able to figure it out.

The comment about losing data from impact is strange though, but I do not think it means Airtec is dismissing this failure (again, see post #67). That does not support the conclusion by some that Airtec wants to sweep this under the rug. That does not compare to the Vigil response at one time to avoid hot temps, or that the device can't be expected to differentiate between being in freefall and the opening of a door. That does not compare to the Argus response that their cutter can't work reliably unless the loop is lubricated or under tension, or that a metal ball was in the way but we won't show you detailed pics of it. Big difference.


Frankyspanky

May 30, 2011, 2:16 PM
Post #103 of 124 (2346 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Post #67 of this thread seems to show to me that Airtec is admitting that they are stumped, but are asking for help in gathering the circumstances (had not at the time received that help), and want to solve this mystery.

They have been given the information and they seem stumped because they are reluctant to conclude that it was entirely a failure of the unit?

They probably want more information because they cannot come to any other conclusion other than their unit was faulty.

Yes they are interested, as expected, but nothing is beng done about it and the rest of us are left to wonder.

I'm sure Avacom are interested in their cutters too.

AAD in their sensors, so all 3 major AAD companies have a fault they are interested in.

Still makes this one the single worst failure of all IMHO.


(This post was edited by Frankyspanky on May 30, 2011, 2:22 PM)


Frankyspanky

May 30, 2011, 2:21 PM
Post #104 of 124 (2344 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Such statement very strange.
The device has been given in Airtek with the detailed description of a case.
Airtek has received the device. Airtek has replaced a device cartridge. Airtek has sent the device to the owner. The case with the device has interested Airtek only after publicity at forums.

I appologise for insinuating that a full description was not given to Airtec, obviously from your response it has.

This clarifies things more. Especially your information about Airtec only becoming interested once the fault hit the public forum.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

May 31, 2011, 7:56 AM
Post #105 of 124 (2242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:


The comment about losing data from impact is strange though, but I do not think it means Airtec is dismissing this failure (again, see post #67). That does not support the conclusion by some that Airtec wants to sweep this under the rug. That does not compare to the Vigil response at one time to avoid hot temps, or that the device can't be expected to differentiate between being in freefall and the opening of a door. That does not compare to the Argus response that their cutter can't work reliably unless the loop is lubricated or under tension, or that a metal ball was in the way but we won't show you detailed pics of it. Big difference.
Such words Ertek put into question the incidents when they say " the device not included "


HSPScott  (D 22285)

Jun 7, 2011, 9:25 AM
Post #106 of 124 (2099 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Has there been any final conclusions on this?


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

Jun 8, 2011, 8:58 AM
Post #107 of 124 (1998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [HSPScott] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

No.
Also I think won't be what conclusions.


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

Sep 20, 2011, 7:28 PM
Post #108 of 124 (1829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Funny answer:
http://www.cypres.cc/...emid=178&lang=en


catfishhunter  (D 28796)

Sep 20, 2011, 8:25 PM
Post #109 of 124 (1804 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Wow so the dealer was taking the new cutters and replacing them with out of date cutters? Scary as no one would know unless soemthing happened as who checks the serial number except the rigger putting it in andi if that rigger is the dealer as well....Lots of questions in that report.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Sep 20, 2011, 9:13 PM
Post #110 of 124 (1794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Nelyubin] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

To summarize, Airtec says that the cutter activated because of cable damage and thus a short circuit, which fired the cutter without the computer recording an activation. They believe the cable was damaged by rough handling at some time.

The cutter was not the one that came with the Cypres 2 originally, but a 10+ year old one off a Cypres 1, that had never been sent in for servicing. (The Cypres 1 & 2 mixing is OK, other than that the Cypres 1 connector is not waterproof.)

They essentially admit that the investigation took longer than it should have, because at first they didn't check whether the cutter firing could have come from a damaged cable.


My comments:

Presumably damaged cables are quite rare and they haven't seen many of them, explaining why that wasn't what they first suspected.

(This would probably be a different issue than that of the fitting between the metal cutter body and the cutter cable, where older ones were more flexible, and newer ones harder, leading to a few broken cutters in some rigs where the cutters take a lot of force. That came up in a dz.com discussion in the last year or so.)

Airtec implies that there was no opportunity for them to notice whether the cabling might have been damaged, because the cutter had never been sent in.

So it appears that the Cypres' internal checks can detect some but not all wiring faults in the cutter cable. (e.g., Cypres 1 code 8997 for a cable error)

The Cypres 2 manuals, both older and newer ones I have seen, do state (in a highlighted box) that spare cutters still need 4 year checks!

The Cypres 1 manual, however, does not seem to mention this. The Cypres 1 manual never got much updating. The current edition on the SSK site is the 2001 version, which is very close to the original version, with hand sketched drawings. Early Cypres' did not have a field replaceable cutter so the issue of spare cutters wouldn't have come up when the manual was written. The manual was updated to show the connection for the field replaceable cutter, but didn't mention maintenance for spare cutters.

I don't know if any other documents (e.g. on the SSK site) might have asked for Cypres 1 cutters to be checked at 4 yr intervals too.

So while Airtec may have always intended for spare cutters (once they were field replaceable) to be checked every four years, this seems not to have been communicated to users until the Cypres 2 era. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Leaving aside the issue of the factory checking spare cutters, one wonders whether the damage to the cable would have been visible to a rigger, whether looking for damage specifically or not.

I also notice that this year SSK has included small cards showing a photo of a new cable stowage method, if one receives a Cypres back from servicing. Perhaps a coincidence. This method wraps some of the cable within the main pouch, instead of coiling it all under the small cable cover, where the cable could easily get kinked right next to the long cutter connection plug.

In the end it comes down to the ideas that spare cutters are supposed to get 4 year checks too, and that if a cable is physically damaged, a cutter can inadvertently fire. Despite the idea that AAD's are working fine if they pass their self test, not all errors can be found -- especially a short circuit that hasn't yet occurred.

It does make me wonder how power is distributed in the cutter cable -- I would have thought when a cutter isn't being activated, there would be no power supplied to the cutter cable at all, so a short circuit would not matter. Hmm.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Sep 20, 2011, 9:37 PM)


NWPoul  (D 178119)

Sep 20, 2011, 10:05 PM
Post #111 of 124 (1777 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It does make me wonder how power is distributed in the cutter cable -- I would have thought when a cutter isn't being activated, there would be no power supplied to the cutter cable at all, so a short circuit would not matter. Hmm
This is exact part which make me confused...
How in da **** the short cut in da cable can lead to activation of cutter??
Without any traces of electrical impulse (enough for ignition) passes from battery through all electrical chain inside the cypress's body?? How Airtek can find out, that exact disccovered cable damage had lead to activation??


Nelyubin  (D 18617)

Sep 20, 2011, 10:14 PM
Post #112 of 124 (1772 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Wow so the dealer was taking the new cutters and replacing them with out of date cutters? Scary as no one would know unless soemthing happened as who checks the serial number except the rigger putting it in andi if that rigger is the dealer as well....Lots of questions in that report.


CYPRES 2 User’s Guide, page 25:
Quote:
Notes:
1. CYPRES 1 field replaceable cutters (no aluminum
grip) can be used with CYPRES 2. They
will function properly, however this combination
is not water-resistant.
CYPRES 2 cutters (identified by aluminum grip)
can be used with any CYPRES 1 with the field
replaceable cutter connector. They function
properly - but this combination is not waterresistant.


(This post was edited by Nelyubin on Sep 20, 2011, 10:21 PM)


spootch  (C License)

Sep 20, 2011, 11:52 PM
Post #113 of 124 (1734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWPoul] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

+ 1
somethings fishy. I also would assume the cable would be dead till the unit sent the signal through it.
I know nothing about how the unit self tests, but the only way I can see it fire is if the unit was turned on and it checked for a circut an POP! That, or theres a constant live that runs through it and it touched the dead side?

anyone?


sundevil777  (D License)

Sep 21, 2011, 3:25 AM
Post #114 of 124 (1672 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So it appears that the Cypres' internal checks can detect some but not all wiring faults in the cutter cable. (e.g., Cypres 1 code 8997 for a cable error)

The nature of wiring faults can be that they are intermittent. The internal checks can't detect them if they are not there at the time of the check.


theonlyski  (D License)

Sep 21, 2011, 6:15 AM
Post #115 of 124 (1580 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
So it appears that the Cypres' internal checks can detect some but not all wiring faults in the cutter cable. (e.g., Cypres 1 code 8997 for a cable error)

The nature of wiring faults can be that they are intermittent. The internal checks can't detect them if they are not there at the time of the check.

Once the cypres (atleast the cypres-1 I tested) was powered up and past the POST... you can unplug the cutter and the unit says nothing.

I got the idea from the first part that the cutter seemed to be activated intentionally with a battery.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Sep 21, 2011, 3:38 PM
Post #116 of 124 (1413 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWPoul] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

>How in da **** the short cut in da cable can lead to activation of cutter??

When explosive initiators are used it's common practice to short their leads together at all times to ensure no inadvertent activation. Before use they are twisted together, and once installed they are shorted together by the firing circuit until needed. They are spec'd to pass a VERY small current without activating, so you can easily test them (i.e. if you can pass 100uA, then you know the initiator is connected to the firing circuit.)

Thus a short in a cable would prevent the unit from detecting an open cutter. In addition, depending on how the firing circuit was wired, a short from shield to one of the leads could fire the cutter. (It would be silly to design it this way but I have no details on how they actually did design it.)


NWPoul  (D 178119)

Sep 21, 2011, 10:16 PM
Post #117 of 124 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>How in da **** the short cut in da cable can lead to activation of cutter??

When explosive initiators are used it's common practice to short their leads together at all times to ensure no inadvertent activation.
Well, that mean that SC is prevent, not lead of activation

In reply to:
In addition, depending on how the firing circuit was wired, a short from shield to one of the leads could fire the cutter. (It would be silly to design it this way but I have no details on how they actually did design it.)
Yep, I though about this, but even not mention it coz it's would be really silly design can't imagine that such devices can be made this silly way








USPA  (D 81812)

Sep 23, 2011, 2:13 AM
Post #121 of 124 (1071 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

Bei Angriff unter Wasser gedrueckt, Wasserbomben. Letzter Gegnerstandort
08:30 Uhr, Marqu AJ 9863, 220 Grad, 8 Seemeilen, stosse nach. 14 Millibar
faellt, NNO 4, Sicht 10.


virgin-burner

Sep 23, 2011, 2:16 AM
Post #122 of 124 (1067 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

is that in texel!? i was there two weeks ago.. Tongue







Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)