0
kevin922

Cypres Replacement

Recommended Posts

My cypress will be un-airworthy in a year due to age. I'm looking to replace it with something... I haven't kept up with all the AAD technology out there, last I was keeping up was when the Vigils were mis-firing in airplanes... 99% of my jumps are wingsuit jumps if that makes any difference.

Keeping cost, maint, and features in mind.. what are the pros/cons of the various AADs out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a Cypres fan, so I'll vote for them. People will be quick to point out that every ADD out there has had mis-fires, or other odd problems, but if you consider the number of Cypres units in the field and how long they've been around, and then compare that to the number of mis-fires, it's a very low percentage. Comapre that to the newer AADs, and their overall numbers in the field, and you can see that in comparison to the Cypres, that percentage is much higher.

If you consider the cost of purchase and the two visits for maintenence/batts, a Cypres2 will run you about $175 a year. Not an unreasonable cost, and a moderately active jumper with a 7 month jumping season will be paying about a buck a jump. If you jump year round, the per-jump cost goes down.

In terms of that maintenence, keep in mind that it's standard practice to have 'critical' aviation related electronics and pressure sensing devices checked on a regualr basis. Airplanes equiped with instruments that allow them to fly in clouds (zero visibility, aka IFR), require that all the instrumentation used in IFR flight needs to be checked and certified every two years to ensure proper operation and calibration. If the check is not performed, or a component doesn't pass, the entire aircraft loses it's IFR certification, and a pilot can lose his ticket for taking that aircraft into IFR conditions.

Keep in mind that these are instruments produced by large, long standing avionics companies, and they cost thousands of dollars each. Comapre that to the Cypres, the one and only product produced by Airtec, a company that did not exist before the Cypres was born, and you can see how a four-year check is both reasonable, and probably a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also a CYPRES advocate based on:
a) I've been using Cypres (1 and2) since I started skydiving
b) I was at their headquarters during my instructor course (sort of a "field trip" B|) and we all were very impressed by the high standards. You got to be there to see how much effort they take, how meticulously they work etc. CEO Helmut Cloth told us how it all began, all the hardships etc; took about 90mins - It was very impressing.
c) We use CYPRES here in Gera for all kinds of rigs from students to tandems. There aren't many birdmen around here but the few who come around all use... CYPRES.
One might argue that "competition is always good and a monopoly is bad". That's true and CYPRES no longer has a "monopoly" (never had, if you consider FXC12000 etc) and if you know how much effort it took and still takes to provide highest quality at a reasonable price (as well as free goodies such as the CYPRES loop etc) you no longer listen to people giving flak to Airtec just for the single reason of "fighting a monopoly" ;)

My 2 €-cents

The sky is not the limit. The ground is.

The Society of Skydiving Ducks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I'm a Cypres fan, so I'll vote for them. People will be quick to point out that every ADD out there has had mis-fires, or other odd problems, but if you consider the number of Cypres units in the field and how long they've been around, and then compare that to the number of mis-fires, it's a very low percentage. Comapre that to the newer AADs, and their overall numbers in the field, and you can see that in comparison to the Cypres, that percentage is much higher.



Where would you find the numbers for this?
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where would you find the numbers for this?



Not sure. I would guess that each manufacturer would have their total production numbers, and probably a good record of mis-fires (and fires). Getting them to share those figures would be the trick though.

Aside from exact numbers, Cypres hit the market (I think) in '92 or '93 (anyone have an exact year on that?), so conservatively you could say 16 years. I can't give you a hard number on how long the Vigil has been out, but 5 years sounds about right. Ditto for the others (Astra, Aargus, etc) but those might be less than 5 years.

Either way, Cypres was really the only choice for at least 10 years. In the US (where a good bit of jumping takes place) every student and tandem rig requires an AAD. I don' think there was another choice for tandem rigs, so all of those were Cypres equipped. Student rigs could still rock an FXC, but those would have been in a declining minority during those years.

So you figure a decade of all Cypres tandem rigs, mostly Cypres student rigs, and mostly Cypres sport rigs (of those who chose to jump an AAD). The scope of that coverage alone dictates a massive number of jumps on Cypres AADs, and even if only half of the mis-fires were publicized, it still pales in comparison to the overall number of jumps.

If you just look at the Vigil, which to me seems like the #2 player in the market, 5 or 6 years in the field, and every one of those years competing with Cypres (and others) for market share. There's no way it could even come close to the overall Cypres numbers, and in recent years I have heard more frequent problems with those than Cypres.

One thrid of the time in the market, with zero years as a sole player in the market vs. Cypres with 3x time in the market, with 2/3 of that as the sole player. I don't think I'm going out on a limb suggesting that Cypres has a better track record than the other players.

Tp be fair, Cypres has more time, experience, and data to support their performacnce (it has to help that they see every unit every four years). In that sense, it might not be a 100% fair comparison, but in the end, fair is not my concern. If today, here and now, they have a better record and presumably a better product, then that is the product I would reccomend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About wingsuits: No difference between all AADs, electronic or mechanical ones. You can outfly them and die, but it is hard to do so. If you are knocked out they will save your life. I know a wingsuiter in person who was knocked out and saved by his Cypres 2.

About the brands: All do what they are supposed to do: Saving your ass when it is time to do so. Reliability and customer service are the most important points for me, followed by value for money. The Cypres 2 comes with a 12,5-year full warranty from Airtec (lifetime). Every competitor offers only a 1-year warranty and different life expectancys (not guaranteed). So, if want to be really sure about your investment go for Cypres 2, if you are willing to gamble a bit you might consider other AADs. As far as I know their customer service is okay, but they are not committed to it in the way Airtec is. The committment for reliability is of course way stronger when you are giving a full warranty for lifetime instead of talking about life expectancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



One thrid of the time in the market, with zero years as a sole player in the market vs. Cypres with 3x time in the market, with 2/3 of that as the sole player. I don't think I'm going out on a limb suggesting that Cypres has a better track record than the other players.



I suspect you are right, but the fact is that we do not know for sure. I jump a Vigil but am aware of the recent misfirings. Unfortunately anecdote =/= data. A little frustrating that safety information is not readily available. Not just on AADs but also on things like injuries as well.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not just the 'mis-fires' of an AAD brand that you need to consider but also the 'no-fire' when it should that you need to look at.

Lots of information out there that is not clear or where the person had bias when writing the report.

I strongly believe that you pick the one you are happy with for reasons that make sense to you and go jump it. having one is far better than not having one is a proven fact by the fact that more people have been saved by their use than hurt by having one.

I jump an Argus and 'personally' find them to be the best unit out there and the one that I trust my life and my family and friends to. you may find something else.

enjoy the BS that people spout on the subject ;)

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Cypres 2 comes with a 12,5-year full warranty from Airtec (lifetime).


The manufacturer writes absolutely another.
Quote

Technical defects that show up during the frst 2 years from the date of manufacture will be repaired by the manufacturer at no cost. The manufacturer reserves the right to decide whether the unit will be repaired or replaced. Nei- ther repair nor replacement will change the original warranty period of 2 years from original DOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had a Vigil 1 and Vigil 2. Both of them have done their job when they were supposed to do it. I can speak by experience since I got twice a firing. The first time was with a low pull when my main was at the first stage of inflation which resulted in a biplane which I landed without any problem. The second time was when a pilot by mistake pressurized the airplane cabin. In both case, I was fine.
The Vigil 2 is a more modern AAD than the Cypres 2 which is a 2002 design while the Vigil 2 is a 2007 design. The Vigil is more user friendly, shows in clear language what it is checking (BATT OK, CONTROL OK and CUTT OK). If at least one of the 3 checks is wrong, it switches off immediately.
The Vigil has the 3 modes you can yourself choose from (PRO, STUDENT and TANDEM). And the chosen mode stays written on the display window again in clear language as long as the device is switched on.
The Vigil unlike its competitors is ready to fire soon after take off (150 feet). Personally I like to be protected as soon as possible. The 3 modes of the Vigil makes it a favorite of several DZs since it is easy to manage the equipment and change this AAD from a rig to another like from STUDENT to TANDEM for instance. Because of that I believe it is easier to sell it.
Vigil like its competitors has had its share of problems (static electricity, cutters, pressure sensors...). The electronic components are unpredictable even when checked say every 4 years. They can give up anytime. Electronic is like that and we have to live with it. But the attitude of a jumper should be always to consider that an AAD is a back up device. Therefore, it's good to have one but after switching it on, one should forget it.
The Vigil has no scheduled compulsory maintenance but anytime you decide to do so you can sent it back for a check. Since it is a self checking device, it works as long as the 3 checks are OK. The Vigil has also unlike its competitors a correction altitude of 6000 feet which is very convenient for mountainous regions like Colorado, Switzerland .... The biggest problem with AADs comes from users who are not reading the user's manual and got their device not working as they want when their set up is wrong. As a rigger since 1977, I have seen cases where the user was setting the device in the airplane in altitude or not checking the mode in use.
Now I can say that a Vigil 2 costs for a life of 20 years about 70 $/year while his main competitor's device costs more that the double. As I said already, there is nothing to justify such a difference.
The Vigil2 has the same pressure sensor than competitors and probably the same electronic components providers as well. The Advanced Aerospace Designs company has a history of transparence unlike its main competitor and for all of that, this is why I have chosen the Vigil AAD.
Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have had a Vigil 1 and Vigil 2. Both of them have done their job when they were supposed to do it.



I can't believe that you still believe that. I can't believe after all the misfires that you still stand by this product and its design philosophy. I wonder what you'll say when the Vigil 3 (or 4 or 5) comes out with arming and firing parameters more like the cypres. It's become very clear that arming below firing altitude is a very bad idea, and I'm willing to bet that AAD has realized that by now.

Quote

Therefore, it's good to have one but after switching it on, one should forget it.



That's pretty much the opposite of much of what you're saying. You can't forget it because it might just be trying to kill you... such as when the door opens by accident at 400 feet. Like you said, its important to read the AAD manual and understand its limitations and its idiosyncrasies. It's much easier to just forget about an AAD that tends to NOT fire when it gets confused than one that is likely to fire when it sees an errant pressure spike.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The Cypres 2 comes with a 12,5-year full warranty from Airtec (lifetime).


The manufacturer writes absolutely another.
Quote

Technical defects that show up during the frst 2 years from the date of manufacture will be repaired by the manufacturer at no cost. The manufacturer reserves the right to decide whether the unit will be repaired or replaced. Nei- ther repair nor replacement will change the original warranty period of 2 years from original DOM.



Thanks for the hint, the homepage says it different. I will forward this to Airtec and post their reply here.

http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82&Itemid=103&lang=en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

he Vigil has also unlike its competitors a correction altitude of 6000 feet which is very convenient for mountainous regions like Colorado, Switzerland



care to tell everybody what the correction parameters of an Argus are? ;)
I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All misfires ? How many ? Hearsay ? Do you have trustable sources ?

What about the Cypres 2 recall of 1200 units two year ago ? Do you want to check the serial numbers. I have them.

As far as I know the Vigil never killed somebody. Adrian Nicholas the famous British skydiver who has jumped the Leonardo Da Vinci like parachute died with the AAD you praise. See old Skydiving magazines.
There is a big difference between reality and what we think the reality is. Only facts and figures speak right.
Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When an AAD fires in an aircraft that isn't descending within the firing parameters, it's always a misfire. That includes a pressurized aircraft or a door opening inadvertently. There are plenty of documented cases of those happening with the vigil. I can think of at least one incident of a cypres firing during climbout, but it was a defective unit that did not pass the startup test. Adrian Nicholas' cypres did not misfire. He met the actual firing parameters in terms of descent rate and altitude. A misfire may occur when firing parameters are met based on pressure... but clearly AADs other than the vigil seem to do a much better job of detecting these erroneous speed/altitude calculations and prevent them from firing.

I've also seen a vigil 1 misfire on a tandem (under a good canopy at 1500 feet flying straight)... which was never explained by AAD. Soon after it happened they came out with the warning about using vigils in warm temperatures.

I'd never suggest the cypres or any other AAD is perfect. But I believe that the firing logic in the vigil does not do an adequate job of validating the raw data or the calculated parameters. What it does in a pressurized aircraft on the ground is an absolutely perfect example. It detects a sudden descent with no climb and fires. That's just scary.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Argus has an altitude correction of + or - 3000 feet just like the Cypres 2



They recommend no more than +/- 1500 "to err on the side of caution", but it will do more. I just tried it with one of mine to see how high it would go, I gave up after exceeding 30,000 feet.
"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When an AAD fires in an aircraft that isn't descending within the firing parameters, it's always a misfire. That includes a pressurized aircraft or a door opening inadvertently.



Agreed. Vigil 1 and 2 have misfired in aircraft several times over the years. I personally consider that this is a design flaw in the device.

Quote

Adrian Nicholas' cypres did not misfire.



You need to be careful here. Adrian Nicholas' CYPRES did misfire. I'm pretty sure that he didn't want it to fire and as I understand, at the time everyone had been reassured that it was not possible to meet the AAD firing parameters under a properly functioning parachute. Basically, I'm pretty sure that neither Adrian nor anyone at Airtec would have wanted the device to fire when it did, so it is a misfire. Calling this anything other than a misfire because he met the firing parameters of the device is falling into the same trap that's been the problem with A.A.D. since as far back as 2006 (see their press release on the World Team misfires...) Designs can be flawed, just as much as the components, build, installation and/or operation of the device.

The questions you need to ask are whether these different types of misfires can be reasonably prevented through a better, yet practical design. There are designs which address both these types of misfires. If we consider the swoop misfires, there are at least two different design approaches to address this:

  • Argus has a swoop mode which deactivates the device after it detects what appears to be a stable parachute deployment.

  • Speed CYPRES increases the descent rate required for firing

  • Each has it's own pros and cons.

    In the case of in plane misfires, we know that there are practical design changes which can address these, since such design differences have been demonstrated in CYPRES devices present at most of these misfires. I put this down largely to Airtec's design philosophy, which seems to be that if in doubt, the device should do nothing, and that they seem to do a lot more to try to differentiate between pressure gradients due to freefall and pressure gradients that cannot be produced by freefall in Earth's atmosphere. This is a good thing. A.A.D. on the other hand, seem to have designed the Vigil with the philosophy of "if in doubt, get it out." This makes a lot of sense for the design of a human skydiver, since the human has a lot of data on which to make such a call and can see, for example, if he/she is in freefall or not. For a device which has nothing but a barometric pressure sensor to base such a decision on, I think that's not terribly smart. After the recent incident with a Cessna door opening triggering misfires at 400 feet, it seems to me that A.A.D. is starting to question some of those design decisions - or at least I hope that they are. IMHO, that would be a good thing, but something to keep watch on.

    For the record, I have a Vigil 2 in my main rig, however, if I was buying a new AAD today, it would be extremely unlikely for me to buy another Vigil. I'd probably buy a CYPRES 2 or maybe an Argus. I say this mostly because I like Airtec's design philosophy better. I think it makes a lot more sense.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    You need to be careful here. Adrian Nicholas' CYPRES did misfire. I'm pretty sure that he didn't want it to fire and as I understand, at the time everyone had been reassured that it was not possible to meet the AAD firing parameters under a properly functioning parachute.



    I hate to argue semantics, but I just don't see this as a misfire. If I pulled low and was snivelling in cypres fire territory, I wouldn't want it to fire. But if it did, it sure wouldn't be a misfire. Whether we wanted it to fire or not doesn't define whether its a misfire or not.

    Just because nobody believed a working canopy could descend fast enough to make a cypres fire doesn't mean it shouldn't have fired. It absolutely should have because the advertised firing parameters were met. While it was wrong for airtec to advertise that it couldn't happen, it was Adrian's responsibility, as someone pushing the limits of what was possible, to decide for himself whether or not it was safe to use a cypres. I can think of a bigway organizer that doesn't use an AAD because he is aware that his normal jumping could likely have him in AAD firing range. And in this case I'm talking about pull altitude. But he realized that for himself, an AAD could be more likely to cause harm than save his life. A swooper pushing 70+ mph in a swoop better be thinking similarly.

    Dave

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    The semantics here is that the production company here said that could not be fooled into firing other than when it was needed.

    Also they had been advised that people were meeting firing parameters and they stood by their original statement.

    It took the loss of a world figure to get their attention.
    I like my canopy...


    ...it lets me down.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    You have incorrectly understood or I have incorrectly written

    Have opened a stage of the plane. They have fire in the plane.

    what I have understood :
    people were inside the AN26, 9 Cypres fired inside the plane. Is it correct ?

    My questions :
    -were there more people on board ?
    -if YES, did the have : Cypres which did not fire ? different AAD ?
    -were these Cypres 1 or 2 ?
    -did the plane have a special flying attitude ?
    scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    0