Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
Cypres 2 service bulletin

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 11, 2013, 10:01 AM
Post #151 of 186 (2285 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
It can't fire in the plane and especially not in freefall or during canopy ride, just read the FAQ, answers to questions 14 to 17.

THEY say it can't fire.... They also thought these units were perfectly fine - Till they were not.

Simple fact is that they are making a guess based on a problem that they didn't know they created. I'd say being aware that they might also not know what else might happen is a very valid position.

Blind faith is foolish.

They said that the unit cannot fire because of this problem. Not that that it will be 100% error free once this has been fixed. Besides, statistically, I'd say that they are correct as we have not seen any unit fire in freefall caused by ESD even though millions of jumps being made. What is your agenda really? You do realize that there has been hundreds of saves by these 'faulty' devices and perhaps 20 deaths that could have been prevented if the person had an AAD in their rigg? The FUD you are spreading isn't exactly making skydiving safer. Statistically speaking that is.


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 11, 2013, 10:45 AM
Post #152 of 186 (2270 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dpreguy] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This isn't a reply to f94, but a general question.

A long time ago the Cypres 1 units were thought to be affected by the pilot keying the mike to transmit. Or something like that. The Cypres factory solution back then was to insert the display unit into a "silver sleeve". This was a little plastic tube/sleeve which was somewhat opaque but still allowed the user to see the readings. Supposedly shielded the unit from the mike keying. I saved a couple and put them in my Cypres notebook, just because I am a collector.

Are we about to see "silver sleeves" (covers) for the display and/or the box itself make a comeback?

I hope you dont' mind me giving my thoughts on this? Smile

A metalized sleeve would do very little to prevent ESD from reaching the unit. The issue with units triggering when they were subjected to high levels of electromagnetic waves is a different EMC (ElectroMagnetic Compatibility) problem. A metalized sleeve is essentially forming a Faraday cage around the unit which electromagnetic waves have a hard time penetrating. The signal from any radio system is carried in an electromagnetic wave. A charge that is discharged to the sleeve is likely to continue to the Cypres unit next as the charge has nowhere to go. The only way for a sleeve to be protective of ESD is if you connect it to ground. In this case, the charge is now taking a predictable path to somewhere in the electronics where it wont do any damage.
Therefore, putting the unit into a sleeve is only going to be a marginal improvement, but the real issue remains.

Besides, if you open up a Cypres unit, I am pretty sure that they have certain parts shielded with metallic parts. But as you cannot shield everything, there are places where the ESD will find its way inside and then you have to rely on other measures, such as diodes connected to the signal wires. (In addition to the diodes that are always part of a regular input/output pin in a chip)


nigel99  (D 1)

Feb 11, 2013, 2:22 PM
Post #153 of 186 (2204 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
It can't fire in the plane and especially not in freefall or during canopy ride, just read the FAQ, answers to questions 14 to 17.

THEY say it can't fire.... They also thought these units were perfectly fine - Till they were not.

Simple fact is that they are making a guess based on a problem that they didn't know they created. I'd say being aware that they might also not know what else might happen is a very valid position.

Blind faith is foolish.

They said that the unit cannot fire because of this problem. Not that that it will be 100% error free once this has been fixed. Besides, statistically, I'd say that they are correct as we have not seen any unit fire in freefall caused by ESD even though millions of jumps being made. What is your agenda really? You do realize that there has been hundreds of saves by these 'faulty' devices and perhaps 20 deaths that could have been prevented if the person had an AAD in their rigg? The FUD you are spreading isn't exactly making skydiving safer. Statistically speaking that is.

Ron made the point early on that he does alot of team jumps and the 'fix' of remembering to press a button prior to every jump is not nice. It results in him having to change his procedures that have been ingrained over 6000 odd jumps.

So I see Rons agenda as simply being a disapointed and probably angry customer. Ron has always promoted safety here, and I don't for a moment think he is suggesting people stop using AADs.


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 11, 2013, 3:14 PM
Post #154 of 186 (2176 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So I see Rons agenda as simply being a disapointed and probably angry customer. Ron has always promoted safety here, and I don't for a moment think he is suggesting people stop using AADs.

As parts of his message was an attempt to prove that a Cypres could fire at any time of a jump and that Airtec has no clue whats going on, it is not hard to see that people could misinterpret that as a statement that an AAD makes your skydive more dangerous instead of safer. I don't mind him being a disappointed customer, however, the issue is taken far out of proportion. Do the math and you will see how silly this entire discussion is. (Silly as in how all of a sudden people think that their Cypres II turned into a paper weight overnight)


Ron

Feb 11, 2013, 3:27 PM
Post #155 of 186 (2167 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
As parts of his message was an attempt to prove that a Cypres could fire at any time of a jump and that Airtec has no clue whats going on, it is not hard to see that people could misinterpret that as a statement that an AAD makes your skydive more dangerous instead of safer.

An AAD that could fire at any time is not a safe device. The truth is that they do not KNOW what the problem is and until recently didn't think there was a problem at all.

I am pretty consistent that a 'safety' device that causes a problem is a problem. Given that 20% of skydivers will not jump without an AAD and that we are not sure what the total failure picture of this actually is (and that just blindly trusting the media from a company that just weeks ago said there was no problem at all) is foolish.

I also am 100% consistant with ANY AAD problem... No matter the brand. But I have held CYPRES as the standard and now they are having the exact same issues and I will not give them any more slack that I gave any other company.

If you doubt my consistency..... Do a search. When VIGIL had issues, I held them to the fire. When ARGUS had issues, I held them to the fire.... To not do the SAME when CYPRES screws up in the SAME manner would be to show a bias.

So you will have to excuse me if I don't just blindly trust the word of a company that they know everything about this problem when just a week ago they didn't know they had a problem.

Quote:
Do the math and you will see how silly this entire discussion is.

And if ONE of these fires on climb out and takes off the tail of a a plane..... Will I still be "silly"?

And the fact is they don't know what the end result is....


nigel99  (D 1)

Feb 11, 2013, 5:22 PM
Post #156 of 186 (2148 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
So I see Rons agenda as simply being a disapointed and probably angry customer. Ron has always promoted safety here, and I don't for a moment think he is suggesting people stop using AADs.

As parts of his message was an attempt to prove that a Cypres could fire at any time of a jump and that Airtec has no clue whats going on, it is not hard to see that people could misinterpret that as a statement that an AAD makes your skydive more dangerous instead of safer. I don't mind him being a disappointed customer, however, the issue is taken far out of proportion. Do the math and you will see how silly this entire discussion is. (Silly as in how all of a sudden people think that their Cypres II turned into a paper weight overnight)

Just remember context. I'm not sure how widespread AAD acceptance was when you started jumping, but when I started people were very sceptical. When an AAD has a flaw or problem, many people will rightly be extremely worried about the potential impact. After all it is not possible to do a physical inspection, in the same way that you can for a reserve handle fault (for example).


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Feb 11, 2013, 5:38 PM
Post #157 of 186 (2140 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
(Silly as in how all of a sudden people think that their Cypres II turned into a paper weight overnight)

Silly? I resent that. But if it makes you feel better my wife who owns it does not consider it a paperweight. She considers it a door stop. It does not do what was advertised to do. Would you buy an affected one with your money? Now THAT would be silly.


piisfish

Feb 11, 2013, 11:57 PM
Post #158 of 186 (2077 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Silly? I resent that. But if it makes you feel better my wife who owns it does not consider it a paperweight. She considers it a door stop. It does not do what was advertised to do. Would you buy an affected one with your money? Now THAT would be silly.
can I buy her doorstop for 100$ ? That's a fair price for a doorstop Smile


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 12, 2013, 5:38 AM
Post #159 of 186 (2011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
An AAD that could fire at any time is not a safe device. The truth is that they do not KNOW what the problem is and until recently didn't think there was a problem at all.

Truth is a pretty strong word coming from a person who is accusing people from making wild guesses... But otoh, truth seem to mean a different thing to some marketing people so I guess you just fall in the category Laugh
If Airtec was shipping AAD's without this ESD problem prior to the component change and are now shipping units with a fix that makes as resistant to ESD as it was prior to 2009-02 it seems like they have a tiny little more clue what is going on compared to an armchair expert on the internet whose sole ground for his conclusion is a marketing degree.

Again, if you want to be pissed that you need to press the button to check the unit instead of just looking at the display, be my guess, but stop pretending that you have a clue whats going on. You haven't done the homework and you will (statistically of course) get people killed if you convince them that an AAD is an unsafe(er) device.

Quote:
So you will have to excuse me if I don't just blindly trust the word of a company that they know everything about this problem when just a week ago they didn't know they had a problem.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Airtec has been working on this since end of last year. How could that be if they had no idea that they had a problem a week ago? I happen to have insight info on when they started to work on this problem and how it affected other things (no new units were produced while they were looking for the problem and no units were serviced).

I'm sorry, but you are making wild accusations and speculations, you are comparing oranges to apples etc. Again, can you tell us what your agenda is? If it is safety, you are not exactly making skydiving safer by convincing people that AAD's are inherently unsafe devices.

Quote:
And if ONE of these fires on climb out and takes off the tail of a a plane..... Will I still be "silly"?

Do the math. 2011, 9 skydivers died in accidents that could have been prevented by the use of an AAD. No one was killed because of a Cypres unit firing on climb out. In fact, there is no knowledge of any unit firing other than around its designated altitude. When you enter a skydiving plane, you expose yourself to a huge number of unknown factors that can kill you, yet, you have no control over them. One of them is of course the fact that an AAD can deploy a reserve while the jumper is standing in the door. However, from a statistical point of view, you will die many many times over for other reasons than that. I am not sure what your agenda is, but given that you seem to have convinced at least one reader here that the device in his wife's rigg is an unsafe device, you are not exactly improving the odds better for people to survive a skydiving incident.


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 12, 2013, 6:01 AM
Post #160 of 186 (1996 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Silly? I resent that. But if it makes you feel better my wife who owns it does not consider it a paperweight. She considers it a door stop. It does not do what was advertised to do. Would you buy an affected one with your money? Now THAT would be silly.

Can you explain what the logic behind that conclusion is? All Cypres saves that happened last 3 years, really didn't happen? Or could I put any door stop in my Cypres and have it save me in freefall?

Here are some hard facts for you:

2011, there were 9 fatal incidents in the world that could have been prevented by the use of an AAD. There were 6 documented saves. (I am sure that there are more, but lets just use the documented saves for now)

That means that the odds that your wife will die from a no pull is 1 : 405 314

The odds that she will find he Cypres unresponsive (ie find her rigg not airworth) is 1 : 1 321 679

The odds that her rigg will open on the packing matt due to a Cypres activating is 1 : 18 239 169

Ie, the chance that she dies from a no pull is 3 times higher than she even seeing her Cypres being locked up. The later being a completely harmless event. I sincerely hope that you have found other ways of improving her safety odds.

I am sure that you would like to get your unit serviced sooner than the scheduled maintenance period, however, did you consider asking SSK what the earliest time they could accept the unit is? In the meantime, do you really think that it is unsafe to jump with the unit? (Look at the real data and not what your instinct tells you...)


Ron

Feb 12, 2013, 6:06 AM
Post #161 of 186 (2004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Truth is a pretty strong word coming from a person who is accusing people from making wild guesses... But otoh, truth seem to mean a different thing to some marketing people so I guess you just fall in the category

Oh look, more personal attacks. CrazyWhen out of facts
and logic, people often attack the person. It seems the best you can do.

It seems the only thing you wish to do is attack me, so good day.


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Feb 12, 2013, 7:21 AM
Post #162 of 186 (1971 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I am not sure what your agenda is, but given that you seem to have convinced at least one reader here that the device in his wife's rigg is an unsafe device, you are not exactly improving the odds better for people to survive a skydiving incident.

I am not sure what YOUR agenda is. But I want to assure you that nothing ANYONE has said in this forum has in anyway influenced our decision to remove this unit from service and return it under warranty to have it's defect corrected. We decided this after reading the SB. The unit can not be trusted to perform is intended function, and the defect has been linked to a misfire. My wife has been in a two out situation before, due to a p/c in tow, and no, there was not an AAD firing involved. She escaped that uninjured, but does not want to chance another one. If she wanted to be "statistically" safe, she would stop jumping. She wants a non-defective AAD, that's what she paid for.

You don't seem to be capable of understanding any viewpoint but your own. Go ahead and jump your faulty CYPRES, (or do you even have one?) If it was really OK to continue using these why did Airtec stop production? How many lives will be lost due to unavailability of AADs? I'm not willing to wait 3 years and then pay them to correct the problem. Let them spend some of the money they use for advertising to fix this flaw. This company likes to take shots at their competition in their ads, it's about time they ate a nice slice of humble pie. And it's about time you learn to respect view points different from your own.

You are correct that no one here has a clue what's going on, but you fail to see that includes you. Airtec carefully chooses what information to release, and when to release it. And even if they shared everything it would be highly technical. The armchair engineers here would immediately start misinterpreting it. The bottom line for me is that the unit is faulty and needs repair. How simple is that?

Do you work for or have any connection to Airtec? Is your unit affected?

Ken


(This post was edited by gowlerk on Feb 12, 2013, 7:30 AM)


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 14, 2013, 11:25 AM
Post #163 of 186 (1743 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Truth is a pretty strong word coming from a person who is accusing people from making wild guesses... But otoh, truth seem to mean a different thing to some marketing people so I guess you just fall in the category

Oh look, more personal attacks. CrazyWhen out of facts
and logic, people often attack the person. It seems the best you can do.

It seems the only thing you wish to do is attack me, so good day.

I thought I could lighten the mood with the smiley, but apparently I was wrong. You failed to comment on any of the obvious flaws in your reasoning that I pointed out. Instead you were pretty quick to pull out the "personal attack" card. I can only assume that you are out of arguments since long. You have been unable to counter any of my arguments with anything but "you dont know" while your pride yourself with having access to "the truth". Care to explain that?


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 14, 2013, 4:04 PM
Post #164 of 186 (1674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I am not sure what YOUR agenda is.

To keep people as safe as possible. And to avoid having people judgements clouded by the FUD that is being spread.

Up until a week ago, most people in this forum had no idea what ESD was short for. I happen to have a fair amount of knowledge of it, so if you were interested in an explanation of the reasoning that Airtec has made, I could give you one. If one is convinced that they are lying their teeth off, I don't think that there is any point discussing anything, that a source that can be remotely biased, has presented. If your viewpoint is that you want to go by your gut feeling, I am not going to stop you, but if you argue with me about technical things, I have the knowledge to back it up. Thats not an opinion, thats facts. The same as for the odds around skydiving. How you chose to interpret it, its up to you, but again there is no point arguing around those facts.

It is interesting to see someone claiming their Cypres being 'faulty' when you don't even know what 'faulty' is defined as. Let me just tell you that your Cypres will be faulty by definition even after the fix. ESD protection measures deteriorate as a part of the way they protect the device. If you zap your cellphone/computer/AAD enough times it _will stop functioning_. No matter how much protection that is added to it. I completely agree that 14 locked up units is not acceptable and I am glad that Airtec finally got themselves together to flush out the issue. However, I think that you are heavily overreacting claiming that your Cypres all of a sudden turned into a doorstop. If that's how you feel, dont worry, I am not going to force you to change your opinion, however I was presenting some facts that might get you to see things from a more objective perspective.

Statistically, your Cypres is still much more functioning than most of the other gear we use. Did you know that a reserve parachute only has to show a certain number of successful openings to be certified? It does not matter how many tests that fail as long as x number of tests were successful. How many reserve parachutes are tested (not just inspected) before being shipped to a customer?

Again, I am just trying to put these failures into perspective of everything else related to skydiving. I am sorry to hear about your wife's two out and I have no problem that she is making choices based on that experience. However, I just wish that you wouldn't project that to the rest of people who listens as the facts simply don't agree with you. (Again, just look at the statistics and you'll see).

To be honest, I'd be perfectly ok jumping without doing the check every time I jump. Statistically, it is more likely that I am going to forget to turn my Cypres on in the morning of a fatal jump compared to the unit locking up without me noticing it.

No, I dont work for Airtec, nor am I sponsored by them in any way. I just happen to work a lot with both electronics and skydiving safety.


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Feb 14, 2013, 5:33 PM
Post #165 of 186 (1640 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

      I don't really care about the extra check or the fact that it may not fire. The only thing that matters to me is that the problem has been linked to a misfire. Misfires can have disastrous consequences.

I'm not sure what FUD is, but I suspect it is another of the ways you like to use to ridicule other people. Like calling them "silly" or accusing them of having an "agenda." Your technical knowledge is impressive, but you do not have access to Airtec's data, so your analysis is meaningless. I do not agree with your definition of faulty.

I use the word " faulty" because the unit contains a component that the manufacturer has determined must be replaced before the unit can be trusted to work as designed. I am not happy about the situation, but neither do I particularly blame Airtec, nor do I think they are lying. They do however have an agenda that is different from mine. That is just a fact of being a for profit business.

I also am not discouraging others from using affected units. Just today I installed one in a customer's rig. I sat down with him and made sure he had read and understood the SB. I didn't tell him what my wife had decided about hers. He had already decided to just go along with Airtec's plan for now. It is a brand new unit DOM 11/12. Interestingly enough, I had thought that they had suspended production before this, but apparently not.

As far as statistics go, I will paraphrase Samuel Clement. There are three kinds of lies. In order of severity they are lies, then damned lies, and then statistics. How well other components are tested is irrelevant to the subject at hand. I am aware that there have so far only been a small number of cases. I hope it stays that way. But it will not surprise me if it doesn't.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 14, 2013, 5:48 PM
Post #166 of 186 (1632 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

>But if it makes you feel better my wife who owns it does not consider it a paperweight.
>She considers it a door stop. It does not do what was advertised to do. Would you buy
>an affected one with your money?

If the price was right? Sure. I've made thousands of jumps with people using AAD's from those batches with no problems. If not I'd just buy a new one (I get them at dealer cost anyway.)

ANY AAD can misfire. You can have an affected unit, send it back to Airtec, have them update it, get it back - and still have it fire in the door. The odds of that are very low, but they are there. The odds of it happening with one of the affected units are somewhat higher but are still very low. Is it low enough for you? Your call.


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Feb 14, 2013, 7:13 PM
Post #167 of 186 (1607 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If the price was right? Sure.

Agreed, but the price was full retail. I'd like to trade it for a new one minus the one year of use it has. I fact I've asked Airtec to do that. But I know they won't.

Quote:
Is it low enough for you? Your call.

This one is tougher. We don't really know what the odds are. We do know that Airtec felt it was necessary to mention it in the SB, and that they would like to down play it. Since I don't know what the odds are why would I chance it? Any AAD could fire at any time, but these ones are known to have a component that have caused a misfire, and that the manufacturer feels needs to be replaced. There is a large difference there. The only reason they are not recalling the units is that it would be logistically difficult. An experienced skydiver with a proven record of handling EPs only gets a small benefit from using an AAD. I'm sure you don't need to be reminded of when no one used them. And why they didn't. I did notice that you stated you've made thousands of jumps with people using them, and not that you use one yourself. I will also continue to jump with people using them. Also my call.


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 15, 2013, 3:09 AM
Post #168 of 186 (1557 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

You are taking the misfire out of proportion and reading something into it that it is not. If you chose to believe that Airtec has done their homework, they have determined that the on ground misfire due to ESD will not happen in the air. They even explained why. If you think that they are lying, then we can stop having this discussion. If you are curious about it, there is a scientific argument why their statement is accurate. The only counter arguments that I have seen so far are "They are lying" "You have no clue" or "They do not know".

FUD means Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, and it is pretty close to your words when you claim that your Cypres unit is nothing but a doorstop. It is not used to mock anybody. I am glad that you didn't use the same claim when you spoke to your customer today, but how would I know that from your previous posts? (Btw from what I know, the production stopped after 11/12 so this unit is probably one of the very last ones produced before the shutdown)

As far as you Samuel Clement quote, you are reading something into it that it is not. What the quote refers to is the fact that statistics can be used to prove anything _if_ you skew the facts or leave other things out. From a predictability perspective it is pretty accurate. (I use statistics in my work to help my decision making and it is a pretty powerful tool). For example, statistically, we could be fairly certain that over the next 3 years, we would have seen around 10-20 locked up Cypres units if the fix wasn't applied. You being surprised over that outcome is based on nothing but your feeling which is often not accurate. Google "Monty Hall problem" for an excellent example where people feel for whats correct is completely opposite to the real outcome, which btw can be easily predicted using statistics.


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 15, 2013, 3:39 AM
Post #169 of 186 (1548 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
We don't really know what the odds are.

Actually we do. Over the last 3 years, 14 locked up units, one on ground misfire, no in air misfire. You can look up the number of jumps made during that period and you will have a pretty accurate picture of the likelihood of this happening.

Quote:
but these ones are known to have a component that have caused a misfire

This is wrong. You make it sound like the unit itself can misfire at any point in time. ESD has caused the misfire and the units unfortunately does not have enough ESD protection to handle that. Why is this important? It is, because you can solve this in 2 ways: Eliminate ESD and/or improve the ESD protection. As ESD of this kind is eliminated in freefall, it wont happen there. You are already taking the misfire out of proportion and making it something it is not. Should Airtec address is issue. Of course they should (and they are, we just dont like the way they do it). Should we stop jumping with Cypres's as they can now spontaneously fire in freefall more often than 2 weeks ago. Seriously not!

Quote:
An experienced skydiver with a proven record of handling EPs only gets a small benefit from using an AAD.

People still die from no-pulls. Experienced people. And not everyone has yet had time to become experienced. Looking back at the statistics from 2011 indicate that AAD's have not had as marginal impact as you make it seem.

Quote:
I'm sure you don't need to be reminded of when no one used them.

How about a reminder of the fatality rate from no-pulls back then?


nigel99  (D 1)

Feb 15, 2013, 4:23 AM
Post #170 of 186 (1532 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi,

Just to be awkward, Cypres in their own documentation regarding ESD state that significant levels of static are generated DURING deployment. In fact in their article that Peter posted, not once do they mention static on a packing mat.

It does seem that since 2004, they have substantially changed their views, and the views posted in the SB, directly contradict their own published paper.


f94sbu  (D 16017)

Feb 15, 2013, 6:02 AM
Post #171 of 186 (1494 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi,

Just to be awkward, Cypres in their own documentation regarding ESD state that significant levels of static are generated DURING deployment. In fact in their article that Peter posted, not once do they mention static on a packing mat.

It does seem that since 2004, they have substantially changed their views, and the views posted in the SB, directly contradict their own published paper.

Agreed, I have also seen that part. I took their statement back then as a reason why they felt it is necessary to test the device up to levels of 25 kV (while the legal requirement to get the CE approval is only 8kV). If such high levels of static was generated during deployment, you would feel a shock once you land or once you touch your rigg again. As that is something I have never heard of, I can only assume that the levels of static that is built up is lower. However, dragging your feet across a mat, especially if you have rubber shoes is a well known way of creating static electricity. (Anyone you used to play pranks with their friends using this method knows what I am talking about)

I am not sure that the SB is contradicting their paper, all that the are really saying is that they feel that they need to protect the device for more ESD than normally required. I am not sure if their paper would need to state that static electricity can be built up on carpets as that's a known fact for anyone who is developing an electronics device.


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Feb 15, 2013, 7:41 AM
Post #172 of 186 (1474 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f94sbu] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

   Thank you. I'm glad to see that the level of the discourse around this issue has improved greatly. The main reason I posted in the first place was to let the group know that I had decided to send the unit to SSK for repair under warranty and that we would see what happened. I did not say that all these units are doorstops. I said that once it was decided to remove the unit from service until it's repaired mine may as well be. I'd rather have it sit in the SSK building than my desk. It won't get repaired here.

I must confess that I do have enough FUD in me that I do not entirely trust that the unit can only misfire under the limited conditions stated. This partly grows out of the understanding that it is in Airtec's best interest that this be so, and I hope it's correct. But Airtec's best interest is not my best interest.

FUD can be misused, but it is not a bad thing. We would not be here without it. I do not advocate that these units be pulled, only that in our case that is the decision we have come to. And I'm not wanting to rehash the AAD argument in general but I stand by the simple statement that only a small benefit is received in this case. I chose those words carefully. Do not read into them any more or less than they say.

I am curious about the fix for this. I had assumed it would be replacing the component, but the FAQ states only that there is both a software and a hardware aspect to it, and that the original component is no longer available. I'm not sure why they need to be so murky about this, but I do feel there may be a reason they aren't more clear.

As to seeing what will happen with the unit the UPS tracking indicates that they received it 7 days ago. They have not yet acknowledged that, or answered my request for warranty service. Under the circumstances I can understand that and I will give them another 7 days before I inquire about it.


Lineset

Mar 6, 2013, 11:57 AM
Post #173 of 186 (1055 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

How about a update .


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Mar 10, 2013, 8:43 AM
Post #174 of 186 (921 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Lineset] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

They have sent an email acknowledging that they have received it. That's all for now.


1888  (D 320)

Apr 21, 2013, 1:41 PM
Post #175 of 186 (509 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Cypres 2 service bulletin [In reply to] Can't Post

They had mine for two months. It was not affected by the SB as it was made in 04. SSK said it had to go back to Germany for additional adjustments etc. Probably backed up with SB issues. Guess I'll buy a Vigil next time around?


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)