skysurfcam 0 #1 January 29, 2008 A discussion of the recent Airtec cypres service bulletin which was prompted by this incident, and possibly also this problem, have led to the following being reported on skysurfer.com.au as happening at Toogoolawah two weeks ago. Cypres 2, 18 months old, had been turned on for about 4 hours. Rig had just been repacked and after about 5 minutes the unit fired on the ground. Airtec notified. Brother Wayward's rule of the day... "Never ever ever go skydiving without going parachuting immediately afterwards." 100% PURE ADRENALENS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reginald 0 #2 January 29, 2008 Maybe the thread should read, "Cypres 2 fails self test and skydivers jump anyway and have misfire"... "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #3 January 29, 2008 Quote Maybe the thread should read, "Cypres 2 fails self test and skydivers jump anyway and have misfire"... While it may be true, no where does this OZ incident report that the unit failed the self test, nor do we know if it was jumped.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysurfcam 0 #4 January 30, 2008 I chose the title "Cypres 2 Ground Fire." because the report it references mentions a "Cypres 2 Ground Fire". I didn't use the words "fails self test" or "skydivers jump anyway", because the report doesn't mention if the unit failed a self test or if it was jumped. I does however report that it had been switched on for about 4 hours (without mentioning or suggesting a problem with its self test) and that the rig had been repacked about 5 minutes before the Cypres 2 fired on the ground Clear enough? C. Brother Wayward's rule of the day... "Never ever ever go skydiving without going parachuting immediately afterwards." 100% PURE ADRENALENS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #5 January 30, 2008 Really not enough info in the Oz incident to help general jumpers. Did it fail a self test, did it appear to be switched off? Etc etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #6 January 30, 2008 QuoteI chose the title "Cypres 2 Ground Fire." because the report it references mentions a "Cypres 2 Ground Fire". I didn't use the words "fails self test" or "skydivers jump anyway", because the report doesn't mention if the unit failed a self test or if it was jumped. I does however report that it had been switched on for about 4 hours (without mentioning or suggesting a problem with its self test) and that the rig had been repacked about 5 minutes before the Cypres 2 fired on the ground Clear enough? C. Can you tell us what the local conditions were? Hot or cool day? Humidity? Where was the rig packed and on what kind of surface?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #7 January 31, 2008 All speculation until the unit was returned to and tested by airtec and their report is issued. We may never know that if it's not posted in the Oz forum.The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #8 April 21, 2008 It appears that Airtec did actualy do something with this unit and found an issue and issued a AD around it. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3188578#3188578 Its nice to see that manufactors are actually taking field feedback and fixing issues as they identify them.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #9 April 22, 2008 Quote It appears that Airtec did actualy do something with this unit and found an issue and issued a AD around it. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3188578#3188578 Its nice to see that manufactors are actually taking field feedback and fixing issues as they identify them. It's a Service Bulletin, not an Airworthiness Directive. Might sound like semantics, but they are different. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #10 April 22, 2008 True, but a manufacturer can never issue an AD anyway. The effect is exactly the same in this case, since (in the US) mandatory SBs (according to the manufacturer) are mandatory (according to the FAA). So there really isn't a difference, in this case. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites