Airtec response to recent events

[jose 0]

Quote

and this looks hypocritical to me. if you knew about this issue, like you stated, why didn't you put major effort into this fact being known in these very forums? you (and others) know, that you post a lot (and usually a lot of well thought of information and concerned matter) in here. so why did you just shut up?

looks like a case of: i should have told the audience but i forgot - now i have someone else to blame instead of myself

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? He took his own time to do tests for a cause that no one else had. He PUBLISHED IT IN A NATIONAL MAGAZINE! And even did it here, where a lot LESS people would get the info (at that time). How the hell can you say he didn't make a major effort?

I can honestly say that your statements were blatantly ignorant of the gravity of the situation, and the work that one person did to try to bring light to a problem when no else gave a shit. What the hell were you doing about it?

Friggin arm-chair quarterbacks piss me off.

I commend Hook for his work on the matter. No one else here has said thank you for your efforts to effect change. Thanks dude. You certainly did more to bring light to it than the manufacturer ever did.

[slotperfect 7]

For everyone:

It is incredibly sad that Adrian Nicholas is gone. No matter how much risk we may see that he took or who we seek a responsible answer from, it hurts to know that yet another of our skydiving family is gone.

It is obvious that this is a VERY important conversation in our community. Please remember that the Forum Rules apply, and that ALL opinions are welcome, no matter what "side" of the issue they come from.

There is representation from both Airtec and SSK here in the forums, and I'm certain that everything being discussed is being read. It would be a shame for very valid input to be removed because of angry personal attacks attached to a post.

Please think before you post, keep your tempers in check, and remember that there is always someone out there that will post an opposing view to your own.

Thanks.

Arrive Safely

John

[thepollster 0]

Quote

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? He took his own time to do tests for a cause that no one else had. He PUBLISHED IT IN A NATIONAL MAGAZINE! And even did it here, where a lot LESS people would get the info (at that time). How the hell can you say he didn't make a major effort?

Actually, it was TroyK who did the tests.

Or, in you words:
I can honestly say that your statements were blatantly ignorant

[jose 0]

yeah yeah yeah....bite me. Got all heated up, got names mixed up. But so typical of .commers, you avert the issue and intention to show anothers fuck up, as to invalidate my post.

I honestly dont know why I give a shit sometimes. 99% of the posters here just want to be a jerk and tell the world to fuck off anyways....

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

starting diving turns over 1000 AGL

Is this unusual?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Point is, if you're gonna be getting close to the firing parameters while under canopy you're foolish for wearing an armed AAD.

I believe it is foolish to put any AAD in your rig and "forget about it." They do change things, and can prove to be fatal if not taken into consideration when determining deployment altitudes, emergency procedures, and canopy flight.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

Quote

Point is, if you're gonna be getting close to the firing parameters while under canopy you're foolish for wearing an armed AAD.

I believe it is foolish to put any AAD in your rig and "forget about it." They do change things, and can prove to be fatal if not taken into consideration when determining deployment altitudes, emergency procedures, and canopy flight.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the "forget about it" or "jump like you don't have one" advice is frequently given.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Point is, if you're gonna be getting close to the firing parameters while under canopy you're foolish for wearing an armed AAD.

I believe it is foolish to put any AAD in your rig and "forget about it." They do change things, and can prove to be fatal if not taken into consideration when determining deployment altitudes, emergency procedures, and canopy flight.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the "forget about it" or "jump like you don't have one" advice is frequently given.

Yeahhhhh, I am going to go with the "jump like you don't have one" to apply to relying on yourself for emergency procedures, not the AAD. I do not consider it to be applicable to not understanding the device.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yeahhhhh, I am going to go with the "jump like you don't have one" to apply to relying on yourself for emergency procedures, not the AAD. I do not consider it to be applicable to not understanding the device.

He knows that, he just choses to say otherwise.

Derek

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Yeahhhhh, I am going to go with the "jump like you don't have one" to apply to relying on yourself for emergency procedures, not the AAD. I do not consider it to be applicable to not understanding the device.

I don't get that impression from many jumpers, who believe that having an AAD should not play a part in determining their normal skydiving and emergency procedures. They don't understand that the added complexity of the system adds potential for more problems.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

Quote

Yeahhhhh, I am going to go with the "jump like you don't have one" to apply to relying on yourself for emergency procedures, not the AAD. I do not consider it to be applicable to not understanding the device.

He knows that, he just choses to say otherwise.

Derek

I disagree. The advice is very frequently given to "jump like you don't have one", but in an AAD thread no too long ago prominent instructors said they do NOT cover the way the device works in the FJC, and there is no other place it is likely to be covered. And we all know that expecting Americans to RTFM is very iffy.
See, for example, www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1547920#1547920

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

The' jump like you don't have one' concept is meant to convey, do not expect it to work, i.e. do not depend on it. That is all.

Derek

[Deuce 1]

Ditto. During a A-license gear briefing sign-off, I was going over the AAD and RSL with a student who had already heard how they work, but hadn't retained it.

When I explained the RSL, the student said "Oh, OK. Then I don't have to pull the reserve deployment handle, then"

I have also had students tell me that if they lost altitude awareness they should just get stable and wait for the Cypres.

So, now that we have had the Adrian accident, perhaps the saying regarding the Cypres should be "Freefall like you don't have one, and pilot like you do"

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

The' jump like you don't have one' concept is meant to convey, do not expect it to work, i.e. do not depend on it. That is all.

Derek

Absolutely, and that is how I was taught: "Its nice to have, but don't rely on it ever."

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

The' jump like you don't have one' concept is meant to convey, do not expect it to work, i.e. do not depend on it. That is all.

Actually, they have a different statement in their manual to convey that thought.

From the CYPRES manual:

Quote

CYPRES is strictly a backup device, and is not intended to replace proper training or timely execution of appropriate emergency procedures.

"Just switch it on prior to the first jump of the day and forget about it" is listed in the design philosophy section of the manual, and not the disclaimer section. Clearly these two statements are not intended to be related, except in the sense that they are both in reference to CYPRES usage.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

The' jump like you don't have one' concept is meant to convey, do not expect it to work, i.e. do not depend on it. That is all.

Derek

I know what it's meant to convey. That doesn't mean the recipient of the advice will interpret it that way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[badlock 0]

Quote

I know what it's meant to convey. That doesn't mean the recipient of the advice will interpret it that way.

You're maybe right - BUT: Such jumpers made the first wrong interpretation when they decided to be intelligent enough for this sport.
You can't write a manual and hope that every dumbass will understand it in the right way.

Don't be a Lutz!

[tso-d_chris 0]

After a convrsation with one of the sport's true skygods (and not because he's a kick ass swooper or freeflyer), I feel I need to clarify my argument.

I do not believe Airtec was responsible for this incident.

I do, however, believe the CYPRES was marketed as a "it can only improve things for you" device. That is not the case with a CYPRES, or any other piece of skydiving gear.

Slower canopies decrease steering options.

Faster canopies increase likelihood of serious landing injuries.

Helmets can reduce visibility and hearing capabilities.

Secondary main riser covers have been blamed for contributing to hard openings.

And, yes, AADs increase the chances of a two out situation.

It doesn't mean that AADs (or any of the other stuff) is bad. It just means that the consequences of using them should be considered, IMO.

[USPA 0]

I've been biting my tongue this thread, but I can't hold on anymore...

Fact : Every jumper is responsible for his own actions/ choices.

Fact: Every jumper puts his life on the line every time he leaves the airplane and should be aware of this fact.

But I don't understand why cypres is handled with velvet gloves on this case. They are IMHO partly responsible for recent events. That DOES NOT mean they are at fault.

Why?

Fact: Cypres has been adverticed as "turn on in the morning and forget"

(and although I never rely on any AAD by default, I interpet this as you don't have to take the cypres into your decision making)

Fact: The cypres manual states no manouvre van activate the expert unit under canopy

Fact: Untill recent events Cypres said clearly it wasn't possible to activate it under current mains (the velocity 95 was jumped when they released their statements about this)

Fact: Cypres was made aware of its mistake after a field experiment. But chose to attack the experiment instead of taking action.

Fact: A letter was sent to cypress earlier this year reporting similar incidents (4 over the last year at least) with better outcome, crying out to take action.

Fact: Cypres was developing a "swoop" version already, so apperntly they had some insight that it could be activated under the main.

sigh, I had to get this off my chest...

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[riggermick 6]

Quote

I've been biting my tongue this thread, but I can't hold on anymore...

Fact : Every jumper is responsible for his own actions/ choices.

Fact: Every jumper puts his life on the line every time he leaves the airplane and should be aware of this fact.

But I don't understand why cypres is handled with velvet gloves on this case. They are IMHO partly responsible for recent events. That DOES NOT mean they are at fault.

Why?

Fact: Cypres has been adverticed as "turn on in the morning and forget"

(and although I never rely on any AAD by default, I interpet this as you don't have to take the cypres into your decision making)

Fact: The cypres manual states no manouvre van activate the expert unit under canopy

Fact: Untill recent events Cypres said clearly it wasn't possible to activate it under current mains (the velocity 95 was jumped when they released their statements about this)

Fact: Cypres was made aware of its mistake after a field experiment. But chose to attack the experiment instead of taking action.

Fact: A letter was sent to cypress earlier this year reporting similar incidents (4 over the last year at least) with better outcome, crying out to take action.

Fact: Cypres was developing a "swoop" version already, so apperntly they had some insight that it could be activated under the main.

sigh, I had to get this off my chest...

Air tec sould remember the axiom; Once is an incident, twice is a co-incidence and three times is a trend, seems it is a little past three now.

RIP Adrian.


Mick.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

Quote

Air tec sould remember the axiom; Once is an incident, twice is a co-incidence and three times is a trend, seems it is a little past three now.

RIP Adrian.


Mick.

""Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." - Auric Goldfinger, in Goldfinger (Ian Fleming)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[wimdevos 0]

Now
Airtec responded and have token action.
They warned the jumpers , dealers and the FAI.
(The FAI published FAI Bulletin Technical & Safety Bulletin No. 3/2005 W.N.3)
I put it on my Home page :
http://members.a1.net/wimdevos/Safety%20Bulletin%203%2019%20November%202005.htm

Is it not time to warn the jumpers that such a accident can happen with a Vigil to?
Does some one got a warning or information from AAD?
Or does a Vigil not activate in the same kind of situation?

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Is it not time to warn the jumpers that such a accident can happen with a Vigil to?

I received this from Vigil in reference to similar issues when AADs are used with Wingsuits. Vigil is well aware of this incident, and to para-phrase from the e-mail I received, is currently focused on finding a solution to this type of situation at this time.



Concerning speed and time data of free fall, we can confirm that:



- The Vigil is not a data logger and can’t be compared to the Protrack.



- The Vigil detects the free fall as soon as the speed reaches 35m/sec/ (78mph (126km/h)) in PRO mode. If the free fall is below 35m/sec. during more than a 5/8 of a sec., the Vigil will consider that the freefall (data displayed on LCD) is over, but stays active in its measurements up to the ground.



The displayed value is an indicative average data of free fall based on the one internally used by the Vigil.



In the case of a wing suit jump, it is true that the speed can be below 78mph (126km/h) and the Vigil considers you are not in free fall anymore and will not activate.



Of course, if the speed is higher than 78mph, the Vigil will activate at 840 ft and below in PRO.

We hope that we have helped you with these explanations.



We stay at your entire disposal for any further information that you could require.



Blue skies,



Edwin

/Vigil Team

Check out our frequent updates on www.vigil.aero
AAD nv/sa
193, Bld A.Reyers
1030 Brussels - BELGIUM
T: +32 (0)2 732 65 52
F: +32 (0)2 736 06 27
[email protected]
www.vigil.aero

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING