Cypres Replacement

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

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 had forgotten about that. Was there ever any follow up, I thought it amazing that such an advisory to not leave it out in the sun would have had any other reaction in the marketplace other than a complete rejection of their product.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[pchapman 261]

Quote

In August, in Russia, in interior AN-26 there were false fire 9 Cypres simultaneously.

http://www.skycentre.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=8711&view=findpost&p=173300

Ok, I just read the long thread through Google Translate but that's still a mess to understand. Some of the thread is from 2005-2009 on AADs & pressurization in general.

Then the last half of the thread deals with the Aug 2010 incident. While we're likely to hear more eventually, this is the uncertain impression I have:

An-26. In military use I guess. Climbs, pilot decides to turn on pressurization & air conditioning packs at 600m (2000'). Plane later descends to near or below 300m (1000'), and opens ramp to drop cargo (planning to climb later to drop jumpers). Basically the Cypres' saw a climb from 0' past arming height (1500'), and then a sudden drop from 2000' to firing height as the ramp opened. Pop.

This interpretation assumes that however the An-26 pressurization system was set up, there wasn't enough venting to let the interior pressure increase as the aircraft descended.

(Keep in mind that the AAD is looking for something over 1000' pressure altitude, to correspond to 750' belly to earth & AAD in the burble.)

There was no mention of other AAD brands on the flight. (Well, some mechanical PPK-U's, but that's another issue.)

Sounds like it would be a case that would fool other AAD's too. So there's no point to be scored for Vigil, just a reminder that when playing around with pressurization, any AAD can be fooled. This time, the pressure changes were "more realistic", so we don't get into the argument of what AAD's should do if the pilot pressurizes on the ground to well below ground reference level.

[piisfish 135]

would a "military" version of Cypres have reacted different (if it wasn't that version used) ?

Talk about an untypical flight

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

[pchapman 261]

Quote

I had forgotten about that. Was there ever any follow up, I thought it amazing that such an advisory to not leave it out in the sun would have had any other reaction in the marketplace other than a complete rejection of their product.

One old thread on it is at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2414079;.

Another (with a long list of Vigil gripes in 2006) is at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2404920;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC.

But the actual announcement by AAD/Vigil isn't shown in the threads, nor is it on their web site, even though a bunch of their other old announcements are still there.

Anyone still have that 'sunlight' announcement downloaded?

Probably doesn't apply now to Vigil 2's but, yes, it would be nice to know how the problem was resolved.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

There is a big difference between reality and what we think the reality is. Only facts and figures speak right

Facts and figures? In that case maybe you want to take back this statement from earlier in the thread-

Quote

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

Seeing as the Vigil2 is only 3 years old, maybe hold off on the cost of ownership until one of them gets anywhere near '20' years. You're making the assumption that the device will both make it to 20 years, and do so with zero additional costs.

The advanatge, at this point, still sides with the Cypres, as we have seen a significant number of units make it through the entire life cycle with no additional costs, so if anything, at least you can count on the economics of Cypres ownership.

Back to reality, 20 years? There's lots of talk about old gear, and some countries even have life limits on older gear regardless of use, and those are just fabric, webbing and thread. Maybe the 12 year like-limit of the Cyrpes has colored my thoughts on this, but the last thng I want wrapped around my reserve closing loop is a 20 year old AAD.

Have you looked around your hosue for any other 20 year old electronics? How about ten year old electronics? Now add in the stress of potentially 1000's of deployments, and think about what you end up with. My uncle has an 8mm Sony camcorder that is at least 20 years old that works great, but that's with zero jumps on it. I, on the other hand, have gone through 4 or 5 Sony cameras in the last 15 years, all of them used exclusively for jumping.

The abuse of jumping on electronics is tangible, and you think that jumping an AAD for 20 years with no factory testing or certification is a good idea? Wow.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

My uncle has an 8mm Sony camcorder that is at least 20 years old that works great, but that's with zero jumps on it. I, on the other hand, have gone through 4 or 5 Sony cameras in the last 15 years, all of them used exclusively for jumping.

The abuse of jumping on electronics is tangible, and you think that jumping an AAD for 20 years with no factory testing or certification is a good idea? Wow.

You're comparing a camcorder which has dozens - perhaps hundreds - of moving mechanical parts which can wear, versus an AAD which has almost no moving parts except the cutter. The cutter can be replaced. History has shown that solid state electronics can indeed be very rugged. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare something like a ContourHD or a GoPro, since they have virtually no moving parts to wear out, but they're even newer than the Vigil 2. We'll see how they last when compared to older cameras which had complicated tape transport mechanisms and zoom machinery inside them.

Whether A.A.D. has gone to enough trouble to build a suitably rugged device remains to be seen, but it is certainly possible. I currently do favour the CYPRES, but it has nothing to do with 4 yearly servicing or a 12 year service life.

[Jenn83 0]

Quote

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.

Dave

If you or anyone else could PM with the details surrounding this incident I can certainly try to find AAD's official statement.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

You're comparing a camcorder which has dozens - perhaps hundreds - of moving mechanical parts which can wear, versus an AAD which has almost no moving parts except the cutter

Indeed. The only comparison that couln't be disqualified would be between other AADs, as there are differences between AADs and all other electronic devices. As an aside, none of my failed cameras ever suffered a mechanical failure of the tape drive or ejection system, they were all electronic.

The real point was to illustrate that this is an electronic device that is not sitting on the nightstand for 20 years like a clock radio. It's subject to vast swings in temp, and shock loads from openings, hard landings, and people tossing their rigs around. For anyone to be satisfied with the idea that such a component could be subject to 20 years of that treatment without a check or re-certification of any kind is hard for me to believe.

If you think of the number of times that a reserve deployment could lead to severe injury or death for the user, other jumpers, and possibly downing an aircraft, to feel comfortable moving forward without such checks is nothing short of sticking your head in the sand. To feel comfortable moving forward for 20 years in the same manner is insanity.

To jumpers in general (not just Brett), let's think for a moment if the FAA chose to lift the requirement for a reserve repack or inspection. How long would you be comfortable jumping your rig before taking to your rigger for an I&R? Once a season for northern jumpers? Once a year for the year-round types? Anyone like 18 months?

Now consider that everything that cannot be inspected externally, inside the reserve container, short of a deployment does nothing between repacks. It just sits there and waits. Outside of dirt or other contaminents getting in there, exactly what the last rigger put in there is exactly what's going to come out at the time of an inspection. Again, barring an 'incident' ask a local rigger the last time they repacked one of their own pack jobs and found something other than what they had packed. When was the last time they pulled out an unused reserve and found broken lines or damaged fabric? If you happen to find a rigger with such a story, you are in the smallest minority.

So once you know you how you feel about your textile gear being serviced, ask yourself the same question about your critical electronic gear. The kind of gear that can cut your reserve closing loop at any time. This is the same equipment that is in constant use on every jump you make, not simply along for the ride like an unused reserve. An unused AAD is still sensing and monitoring during every jump.

Unlike your reserve which is not subject to damage via shock or vibration, the AAD is, and suffers through it on every jump. Again, how often would you like your reserve I&R?

The idea that an AAD should never be checked is just wrong. Yes there are AADs out there that have no check required, but they are new players to the game, and haven't had a product in the market long enough to prove that it has the reliability and longevity to negate the checks. How long did it take Vigil to stop production of the Vigil and start on the Vigil 2? Five years? Maybe six?

Even a jumper making 80 jumps/year is only looking at $2 a jump to own a Cypres. Everyone north of that will spend less, but they all get a PROVEN piece of equipment that is rigorously checked every four years, and life limited for the sake of reliability.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi dave,

Quote

Just because nobody believed a working canopy could descend fast enough to make a cypres fire

I was on the dz at Skydive Oregon when Troy K ( please do not ask me to spell his last name ) did the test to make a CYPRES fire under canopy. I even helped him get geared up.

He did make the CYPRES fire ( I saw the results ) & he wrote his experience up in SKYDIVING magazine. AirTec then responded and virtually called him a liar, insisting that it could not happen and that he did not know what he was talking about.

IMO, AirTec's position was quite responsible for Adrian's death. Your opinion may be different than mine.

JerryBaumchen

[in2jumping 0]

Quote

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.

That feature is not going to come in handy when the door fly's open at 400 feet, your Vigil fires the reserve out the door with you still seat belted in and takes you and everyone in the plane out.

[BrianM 1]

Quote

Quote

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.

That feature is not going to come in handy when the door fly's open at 400 feet, your Vigil fires the reserve out the door with you still seat belted in and takes you and everyone in the plane out.

...and won't save you from that height even if you need it.

Here's an exercise for the reader : figure out how much altitude is required to accelerate to AAD firing altitude and then for the reserve to open.

"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

[erdnarob 1]

According your post, I just see one misfiring and it was concerning a Vigil 1 which is not anymore sold just like the Cypres 1. When Vigils fired in a pressurized aircraft it was not a misfire. That happened to me in the Perris Valley DC9 on the ground at Rantoul Illinois. Even if I have explained the logic of this case in this forum already several times I do it again.

We were seating in the DC9 ready to taxi. One person asked for the air conditioning. To do so, the pilot has to pressurize the aircraft. Doors were closed (first pilot mistake). AAD manuals ask for not closing the door completely or leave a gap.
Pressure in the cabin went to minus 1000 ft (according my altimeter) (it was the second pilot mistake). A pilot should avoid pressurizing an aircraft on the ground when pressure sensitive devices are on board.
The Vigil is designed to be armed (ready to fire) at plus or minus 150 ft. The minus 150 ft stands for mountainous regions when the landing area is lower than the runway (case in some DZs in Switzerland and elsewhere). Then we can assume that the first requirement for firing was met (minus 1000 feet is greater than minus 150 feet about pressure equivalent). Now, the rate of increase of pressure ( greater pressure "means" lower) with respect to the time has matched the speed of 35 m/s or more, second requirement for firing. Both the requirements for firing were met then the 5-6 Vigils on board (Vigils bought at different places and different times) all fired together. This is for me a good proof that those devices are well designed. A pressurized aircraft cabin is a pressure chamber just like the pressure chamber to test the AADs at the shop or anywhere.
Due to the DC9 pilot obvious mistake, all costs (reserve repack, cutters) were paid by Perris people and better yet, we got a free (99.00$ value ticket) for an extra DC9 ride. This is why I made 2 jumps from that airplane (one of them to be seen at : "DC9 jump Rantoul" on You Tube)

Now you should be aware of statistics. Data for statistics are difficult to gather with AADs since normally thinking of all the jumps made, AADs are not used or they don't fire most of the time while Statistics deal with large numbers to be precise. Therefore coming to conclusion with very few cases is erroneous and certainly not scientific at all. Another problem with rapid conclusions is that they are often made with no data or insufficient data or not complete ones. In the meantime all brands of AADs are saving lifes.
Cypres was the pioneer of modern AADs and before Vigil (in 2003) and Argus (in 2005) Airtec was almost alone on the market beside the Astra made by FXC. They have had their share of problem for 12 years (bad pressure sensors, firing due to static electricity or due to jumper descending really fast under canopy). This kind of problem prompted Airtec to add a SWOOP mode AAD. Nobody could first think is was possible under canopy to reach a vertical speed of 35 m/s which is more than 6800 feet/minute. AADs are not simple to built and many factors can disturb them. From defective pressure sensors to cutter not made to spec, empty batteries or misuse with jumper not reading their manual... there is an endless list of factors. This is why just like Safety bags in a car they should be there but never taken for granted. I mean we have to do our job as skydivers about safety.
I hope my explanations are as complete as possible and I thank you for participating to this debate.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[erdnarob 1]

The hypothetic case you mention is right but if you have to bail out at 1400 feet (most of the engine failure happen shortly after take off) and if at the exit of the jumpers (every body for himself type) you get knocked out, the Vigil will protect you, not other AADs. Life is a trade, you cannot have it all.
On the other hand, I was at Skydive New England last week-end and it was well written in the rear of the Twin Otter: Door has to be closed at take off. The door is generally open at 2000 feet if it is too hot in the airplane. I hope it's the same rules elsewhere too.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[erdnarob 1]

Since I am a physics teacher lets do it : theoretically, you accelerate at 10 m/second square, which means from rest vertically you gain vertically 10m/s of speed every second (9.8 m/s more exactly) due to gravity pull. To get 35 m/s (firing speed) it then takes 3.5 seconds. Since there is air resistance say 4 seconds. For the first 3-4 seconds we can assume that the air resistance on a vertical fall is not already important. Now how many feet one loses:
D is the vertical distance, A is the acceleration due too gravity and T is the time:
D = (A x Tsquare)/2 = (10 x 4 x 4)/2 = 80 m or 262 feet. If you are at firing altitude you make it if there is no pilot chute hesitation. A reserve deploys within 150-200 feet.
Remaining distance from ground is for Cypres : 750 ft - 262ft - 200ft = 288 ft

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[Nelyubin 0]

The initial rate may be 30 m/s

[Nelyubin 0]

Buy Cypres you must be willing to pay as a result of 2100 $.
Nothing is free.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

The initial rate may be 30 m/s

could you please explain more of the russian multiple Cypres fires in the AN26 ?

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

[Nelyubin 0]

At an altitude of 300 m before parachute cargo ramp opened. All available on board Cypres-2 worked. Other devices did not exist.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

The real point was to illustrate that this is an electronic device that is not sitting on the nightstand for 20 years like a clock radio. It's subject to vast swings in temp, and shock loads from openings, hard landings, and people tossing their rigs around. For anyone to be satisfied with the idea that such a component could be subject to 20 years of that treatment without a check or re-certification of any kind is hard for me to believe.

You've already made it clear before that you find this hard to believe, but your unwillingness and/or inability to accept the existence of technology does not mean that it doesn't exist. It is possible to build rugged electronic devices that can survive for many years in harsh environments. It is also possible to build electronic devices with comprehensive self-testing capabilities via a variety of different design techniques.

It could be argued that the mandatory inspections are actually a weakness in comparing device reliability. I could suggest that Brand A needs this because their self-test has limited ability to detect faults in sensor outputs, whereas perhaps Brand B has multiple redundant or complementary sensors allowing it to validate the precision of sensor outputs. I send in my Brand A for service. I get it back with a clean bill of health. Within a week, the sensor precision starts to drift, but I don't know that until 4 years later at my next service. Meanwhile, a Brand B device has similar precision drift but it gets detected as soon as it goes outside of allowable tolerances. I don't have to wait four years to find out.

You are right in that Vigil is newer in the market, so time will tell whether their faith in the device's maintenance requirements and service life are justified, but I haven't seen any evidence yet to doubt their claims yet. I do have issues with the Vigil design and if I was buying another AAD today, it's unlikely it would be a Vigil, but this has nothing to do with speculation about maintenance requirements. Besides, if you're really not comfortable without regular human testing of your AAD, you indeed can send it back to Vigil/A.A.D. for inspection, testing or service as often as you like.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

The initial rate may be 30 m/s

I'm pretty sure we all start on the ground before we get in the plane. If you're currently descending at 30m/s at some point prior to that, you had to be climbing and/or maintaining altitude. (ie. descent rate <= 0)

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Since I am a physics teacher lets do it : theoretically, you accelerate at 10 m/second square, which means from rest vertically you gain vertically 10m/s of speed every second (9.8 m/s more exactly) due to gravity pull. To get 35 m/s (firing speed) it then takes 3.5 seconds. Since there is air resistance say 4 seconds. For the first 3-4 seconds we can assume that the air resistance on a vertical fall is not already important. Now how many feet one loses:
D is the vertical distance, A is the acceleration due too gravity and T is the time:
D = (A x Tsquare)/2 = (10 x 4 x 4)/2 = 80 m or 262 feet. If you are at firing altitude you make it if there is no pilot chute hesitation. A reserve deploys within 150-200 feet.
Remaining distance from ground is for Cypres : 750 ft - 262ft - 200ft = 288 ft

Great. So there's no way the device can possibly save you unless you're at least 500 feet above ground and it's also not possible for us to meet the firing parameters for at least 3.5 seconds from level flight, so why does the device arm itself at 150 feet above ground and in only 5/8 of a second? A.A.D. loves to spout these things as advantages of the Vigil, but really, I see them as design flaws because it makes the device prone to misfires under anomalous conditions and does absolutely nothing to improve the device's chance of fulfilling it's function as a life-saving device.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

It is also possible to build electronic devices with comprehensive self-testing capabilities via a variety of different design techniques.

From what do you conclude that it can? Redundant or complementary sensors?

Quote

Brand B device has similar precision drift but it gets detected as soon as it goes outside of allowable tolerances. I don't have to wait four years to find out.

From where are you getting this?

That electronic components have failure mechanisms associated with time is not unique to a cypres. It has nothing to do with how rugged the design is.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

if you're really not comfortable without regular human testing of your AAD, you indeed can send it back to Vigil/A.A.D. for inspection, testing or service as often as you like.

Do we know exactly how a vigil would be tested?

We know what happens to a cypres when it gets tested. It must activate when it should, not activate when it shouldn't (quite close to the edge of when it should activate). It gets subjected to and tested while at to the temp and vibration limits for which it is claimed to be capable of withstanding. When tested like this, faults that would never show up on an ordinary day from a self test can be found. A particular unit may never encounter the cold temps or vibration that can cause a bad/cold solder joint to rear its ugly head - cause the unit to not work. So, perhaps a unit that fails at SSK would never have failed in ordinary use, but I would rather that it be found, and that the mfg get the benefit of the knowing more about their product. If a vigil isn't subjected to such thorough testing, then it still isn't able to find that bad solder joint or other failure that only happens when cold/hot/under vibration.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[davelepka 4]

Quote

You've already made it clear before that you find this hard to believe, but your unwillingness and/or inability to accept the existence of technology does not mean that it doesn't exist. It is possible to build rugged electronic devices that can survive for many years in harsh environments. It is also possible to build electronic devices with comprehensive self-testing capabilities via a variety of different design techniques.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I cannot accept the 'possibilities' available with modern electronics. Considering the we can launch space shuttles and safely conduct 1000's of airline passanger flights per day, it's quite clear that electronics can be relied upon in various aerospace applications where lives are at risk.

What I also know is that there is not one system on the shuttle that is not inspected, tested, and possibly rebuilt in between every flight. When they get that thing back on the ground, and begin prepping for the next mission, nothing falls under the, 'Just leave it, I'm sure it's fine' catagory.

Furthermore, after years of existance and my own personal involvement in the process, I can tell you that sending an AAD in every four years for a check-up is not that big of an inconvienience.

Rigs need to be opened every six months anyway, and with half of the country only jumping seasonally, and the other half having the entire year to jump, everyone can find a few weeks to work it in every four years. I believe SSK will even provide you with a loaner if you really need one during your check-up.

I'll briefly repeat my earlier point - how long would you let your reseve go between I&Rs if given the choice? Surely the modern synthetic materials used in todays gear, provided the rig was well cared for, could go for years between repacks with no ill effects. Would be confortable going for years without a qualified individual inspecting your gear? How about 20 years?

[Nelyubin 0]

Vector of acceleration of free falling and speed of falling have one direction.