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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

USPA  (D 81812)

May 26, 2011, 6:24 AM
Post #76 of 124 (1936 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 (1901 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 (1900 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 (1818 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 Cypresí?

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 (1759 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 AADís 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 donít you think it would be nice for you to follow up. If you donít 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. Itís doing what I feel a rigger should do. If you see a problem with gear take the steps necessary to ďfixĒ 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 canít be bothered with the facts. What got Argus banned was 4 well written reports detailing what happened. That and Mr. Goortsís 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 havenít seen the ball since kick off and what for. I donít 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 (1767 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 (1764 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 (1744 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 (1734 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 (1722 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 donít you think it would be nice for you to follow up. If you donít 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 (1693 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 (1680 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 (1663 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 (1578 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 (1567 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 (1518 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 (1459 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 (1428 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 (1397 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 Koppleís 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 donít 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 doesnít 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 (1388 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 (1381 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 (1373 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 (1360 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 (1319 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 (1314 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypres-2 fire on ground [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you are refereeing to Koppleís 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)


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)