Dangers of an Expired Cypress

[clustermagnet 0]

Guys,
What are the dangers of jumping with an expired cypress? :)

Thanks!

[piisfish 135]

DO YOU MEAN AN OLD CYPRESS AS IN AN ANCIENT TREE ?
or old Cypres as an expired electronic device ?

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[clustermagnet 0]

A Cypress thats about 14 years old :)

should i keep it off and wait to catch a knee in the face? Or wait for a premature opening :)

[linebckr83 3]

I think he was commenting on your misspelling of CYPRES as CYPRESS.

As for a 14 year old CYPRESS, it is probably treated the same way as an ancient CYPRESS

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[skybytch 259]

Good luck finding a rigger who will repack your reserve with a 14 year old Cypres in it. If you are your own rigger, you should know better.

[clustermagnet 0]

has there been incidents of premature fires on expired trees? :) :) :)

[AggieDave 6]

Basically it violates the FAA's rules. That means a number of things. Firstly, your rigger could have his ticket taken away. Same with the pilot. If something else happens, it could also increase civil liability to yourself and others.

Basically, man up and buy a new one or an in date used device.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[councilman24 36]

It's illegal for you to jump it, a rigger to pack it, the pilot to let you jump it, and who ever is 'conducting' the operation (i.e. DZO) to let you jump it. You putting everyone's butt in a sling. Anyone with a FAA certificate can loose it and all can be fined.

But it's worth $80 on trade in for a new one.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

It's illegal for you to jump it, a rigger to pack it, the pilot to let you jump it, and who ever is 'conducting' the operation (i.e. DZO) to let you jump it. You putting everyone's butt in a sling. Anyone with a FAA certificate can loose it and all can be fined.

But it's worth $80 on trade in for a new one.

There ya go.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[shaark 0]

Quote

It's illegal for you to jump it, a rigger to pack it, the pilot to let you jump it, and who ever is 'conducting' the operation (i.e. DZO) to let you jump it. You putting everyone's butt in a sling. Anyone with a FAA certificate can loose it and all can be fined.

But it's worth $80 on trade in for a new one.

As above. ++

But it is an interesting question. Assume non- US location, maybe a less than affluent country with no specific aviation regulation. What are the technical ramifications?

Without any scientific and statistical info then maybe it would be prudent to follow Cypres specifications. I understand that Cypres allows that the electronics can drift out of specs, and the company judged that 12 years 3 months is an appropriate unit life.
However, some units might have extremely heavy use. Switched on and off hundreds of times a year; maybe a dozen jump cycles a day. Unlikely, but maybe 40,000+ jump cycles or more over the unit life.
And then you see other units with zero usage, still in the factory packaging. A typical low use unit might be offered for sale with a 4 year check done, still sealed, and reaching 12 years old. Do the electronics drift out of specs while sitting inert? I don't know.
Other things being equal, I would think that a 12 year old Cypres with 100 cycles would have a lot more actual usable life left than a 40,000 cycle unit.
If the self check routine on start up shows good, it would lead one to believe that the unit will probably work as designed.
Having invested heavily in R+D Cypres probably has some interesting statistics on heavy use units meeting / not meeting design specs. And maybe also on zero use 12+ years old units.

You live in Poorland, luckily get given a rig with on out of date Cypres. Do you remove the unit, or go with the rationale that if it self checks good on every start up then it is more prudent to use it?
____________________________________________
tanstaafl

[davelepka 4]

Quote

You live in Poorland, luckily get given a rig with on out of date Cypres. Do you remove the unit, or go with the rationale that if it self checks good on every start up then it is more prudent to use it?

No. The aged Cypres is an unknown. Maybe it will fire while you're climbing out of the plane. Maybe it will fire when another jumper is above you, or just too close for you to safely deploy. You don't know what's going to happen, but either one of those situations endangers others, and that's not a risk you as an individual jumper should assuming on behalf of others.

Jumping without the Cypres also has many 'unknowns'. Will you be in a freefall collision, and knocked out? Will you hit your head on some part of the plane during an exit? Will you lose altitude awareness and go low?

Nobody knows these answers either, HOWEVER, as a jumper you can take steps to avoid these situations, and furthermore you're primarily only risking injury to yourself in these situations.

[ufk22 32]

Reallisticly, probably no danger. If it's safe being 11 years and 11 months old, there's no reason why it's not safe 2 months later. My guess is that the age factor is more about liability than about function.
That being said, it is NOT jumpable and can't be repacked, although I don't know of any FAA regs that apply, there again a matter of liabiliy for a rigger to pack a rig with an AAD he knows is expired according to the manufacture's specs.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[councilman24 36]

Here is the regulation. Added in 2004.

Sec. 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:

......
(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[DJL 232]

Quote

As for a 14 year old CYPRESS, it is probably treated the same way as an ancient CYPRESS

Build a bridge out of it?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

You live in Poorland, luckily get given a rig with on out of date Cypres. Do you remove the unit, or go with the rationale that if it self checks good on every start up then it is more prudent to use it?

No. The aged Cypres is an unknown. Maybe it will fire while you're climbing out of the plane. Maybe it will fire when another jumper is above you, or just too close for you to safely deploy. You don't know what's going to happen, but either one of those situations endangers others, and that's not a risk you as an individual jumper should assuming on behalf of others.

Jumping without the Cypres also has many 'unknowns'. Will you be in a freefall collision, and knocked out? Will you hit your head on some part of the plane during an exit? Will you lose altitude awareness and go low?

Nobody knows these answers either, HOWEVER, as a jumper you can take steps to avoid these situations, and furthermore you're primarily only risking injury to yourself in these situations.

What would be the danger if you don't turn on your expired CYPRES?

...

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

What would be the danger if you don't turn on your expired CYPRES?

I don't know. I suppose nothing, unless the batteries are old and leakage is a concern.

[skydiverton2 0]

Quote

Quote

What would be the danger if you don't turn on your expired CYPRES?

I don't know. I suppose nothing, unless the batteries are old and leakage is a concern.

Because you do not know is enough reason to "not allow the device" in aerospace world

Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habid.
.
.
Also in case you jump a sport rig!!!

[flydog 0]

The age factor is all to do with function. The electronics are life limited. I have been involved in some test drops using a 14 plus year old cypres to open the cargo parachute. The cypres failed spectacularily. 220 pounds burning into the desert at terminal. Enough for me when mine timed out I pulled it and wont use one until I can buy a replacement. Cant say they will fire prematurely but who wants to take the chance. I have already watched one not fire.

[billvon 2,405]

> I have been involved in some test drops using a 14 plus year old
> cypres to open the cargo parachute. The cypres failed spectacularily.

Interesting. Were the batteries new/in date?

> 220 pounds burning into the desert at terminal.

What was terminal for the dummy load?

[DJL 232]

Quote

> I have been involved in some test drops using a 14 plus year old
> cypres to open the cargo parachute. The cypres failed spectacularily.

Interesting. Were the batteries new/in date?

> 220 pounds burning into the desert at terminal.

What was terminal for the dummy load?

Where was the cypres located in relation to the burble on the load?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[shaark 0]

Quote

The age factor is all to do with function. The electronics are life limited. I have been involved in some test drops using a 14 plus year old cypres to open the cargo parachute. The cypres failed spectacularily. 220 pounds burning into the desert at terminal. Enough for me when mine timed out I pulled it and wont use one until I can buy a replacement. Cant say they will fire prematurely but who wants to take the chance. I have already watched one not fire.

Cypres is an excellent company, with an excellent product. Even more credit to them for being pioneers in the evolution of the modern AAD.
I have used dozens of units, and have always considered the purchase and service costs more than acceptable for the added level of safety they bring.
As in my above post, with all their R+D and real world experience Cypres determined that 12 years 3 months is an appropriate lifespan. They are the experts with their product, and I personally feel that I can respect their judgement.
I do, however, generally like to see data, be more knowledgable, understand in some detail background information.

Re my previous post, and to flip the premise to reflect the real world :
Some units get light use, some extremely heavy use. If a heavily used unit passes it's 8 year check, and is back in intensive service, should we have some concern as to it's functionality?
On start up the unit self checks, so this can inform us if the unit is functional. But the electronics that do the checks are the same electronics the checks are checking. Is it possible that out of tolerance electronics could still show as ok? ( I imagine Cypres factored this in.)
Also, though a unit checks ok, is a heavily used unit more likely to function incorrectly during any single skydive, notwithstanding that it is less than 12 years old? We do know that a Cypres unit, when on, has a continuously active controlling function. If a fault is detected, the unit shuts down.
If this function operates correctly, no foul, except if that was the skydive that an AAD would probably have prevented the fatality.
If it doesn't shut down, is there an increased risk of an out of parameters activation?

Personally, I would hate to have an 11 year old Cypres not function as expected, especially on a student or tandem rig, if I could have prevented this possibility by replacing the unit ahead of its 'life' limit.

Basically, it comes down to life TIME limits versus life CYCLE limits. And / or a combination of both.

With aircraft, especially part 135 and 121 operations, many parts are life, cycle or condition limited, or often a combination of these. The FAA can still allow lifed parts to remain in service 'on condition', often extending the life appreciably. Conversely, out of condition parts, if noticed at any time, must be replaced regardless of life time / cycles. Good thing, this.

No, I'm not advocating a life cycle system for AADs, but I'm still curious.
_______________________________________________
tanstaafl

[shaark 0]

Quote

The age factor is all to do with function. The electronics are life limited. I have been involved in some test drops using a 14 plus year old cypres to open the cargo parachute. The cypres failed spectacularily. 220 pounds burning into the desert at terminal. Enough for me when mine timed out I pulled it and wont use one until I can buy a replacement. Cant say they will fire prematurely but who wants to take the chance. I have already watched one not fire.

As a postscript :
I feel a little concerned that a Cypres 15% - 20% over it's life time limit did not function. In very many areas that close a tolerance would not be acceptable.

Were there any special circumstances / parameters involved?
Did Cypres get the unit for investigative purposes?
If so, any results?
____________________________________________
tanstaafl

[riggerrob 558]

Your question was answered during a seminar at the 2009 PIA Symposium.
Two factors cause electronic AADs to wear out.
The first wear factor of fatigue of soldered joints. As electronic components hear and cool, they expand and contract. This causes tension and compression on soldered joints. Eventually soldered joints crack.

The second wear factor is chemical decomposition of explosives.

I will have to find my notes, but Airtec said that Cypres 1 usually fail after about 15 years in service.
Good luck finding any rigger who will sign on top of a Cypres more than 12 years old. Even if no-one dies, he still risks losing his license for ignoring manufacturers' instructions. This is a polite way for the FAA to say that Airtec knows far more about Cypres maintenance than any bureaucrat.

I do not trust promises of 20 year life - and no factory inspections - by other manufacturers of electronic AADs. I expect that around the 15 year mark,they will start requiring factory inspections and they will start limiting service life of other brands of electronic AADs.

[LongWayToFall 0]

You do not think that your 2 reasons for failure could not be overcome? I know for a fact that many many electrical components are 30-40-50-60 years old and function fine, even though they have solder joints. If the self test of the unit passes, the chance of the solder joints breaking between the self test and firing of the unit in an emergency are slim.
As far as the explosives go, many are very stable over long periods. I am curious as to the exact composition used in an AAD, although I would bet it is something similar to lead azide, which is used in car air bags. Air bags have to be good for a long time, they are a life saving device as well.
I have heard of old ww2 torpedos and mines still killing people, they are allot older than 20 years.
I think that vigil has good reason to certify their unit to be operational for 20 years. Its not a "lets see what happens" crap shoot.

[shaark 0]

I am fully with you with respect to chemical decomposition of explosives.
Joint fatigue due to heating and cooling? Most definitely, a very common failure mode.
This, though, is intimately connected to heat / cool cycles.

So again the question arises regarding units used intensively. Are such units just as reliable as low / moderate use units?
Should there be a cycle limit on AADs?

Obviously, without information I have to trust the manufacturer's judgement. What I have always done.
Oh well.
________________________________________________
tanstaafl