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

Lets ban Cypress !!!

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.

Yes.
Received a very strange answer.

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?

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...

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

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)?

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

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

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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

This is very strange or incompetent statement.

As you well know death acceleration range for human is 16g.

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.

The impact was enormous, but leaving the cockpit intact. It recorded a record 214 g impact and left me seriously injured...

Deceleration in axis of the table 20g generated in 5ms.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Don't leave us hangin.

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

Details please.

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)

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?????

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

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.

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

Why won't you write it up and report it to USPA?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Thanks for making it clear!

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

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...

.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.)