Cypress +/- 6 Months?

[VincePetaccio 0]

A VERY experienced jumper (23,000+ jumps) with a rigger's ticket at my home DZ mentioned that a Cypress can generally be safely jumped for up to six months after its "expiration" date. Of course he didn't recommend doing it, but said he'd be comfortable doing it himself.

Is this a piece of information I can trust?

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[Coreefdiver 0]

from the Cypres2 manual (pg 29)

Quote

...The maintenance has to be performed 4 and 8 years
after the original date of manufacture. The earliest
possible date for the CYPRES 2 maintenance is 6
months early, the latest 6 months after the month
of manufacture.
A delayed maintenance has no advantage. It does
not save any cost as the Lifetime Warranty remains
the same. It’s smart to choose a suitable time during
the 13 month window for sending the unit in
for maintenance, rather than waiting until the last
possible moment, or until the beginning of the
next season. ...

download the manual here:

http://www.cypres-usa.com/userguide/CYPRES_2_users_guide_english.pdf

DS#727, DB Cooper #41, POPS #11065, SCR #13183, FA #2125, SCS #8306, HALO #309 SRA #5930

[iwo 0]

It depends if its second model or the first.

Cypres 2:
Lifetime Warranty Period: 12.5 years from date of manufacture.

Cypres 1:
Total lifetime 12 years from date of manufacture + 3 months maximum

So if its second model then it is designed and legal to have it installed 6 months after 12 years, and if its first model then its 3 months.

[indyz 1]

The lifetime of a Cypres 1 is 12 years and 3 months. The lifetime of a Cypres 2 is 12 years and 6 months. Jumping a Cypres up to that limit is not an issue if it is maintained properly. Jumping a Cypres past that limit is illegal.

[chuckakers 369]

Quote

A VERY experienced jumper (23,000+ jumps) with a rigger's ticket at my home DZ mentioned that a Cypress can generally be safely jumped for up to six months after its "expiration" date. Of course he didn't recommend doing it, but said he'd be comfortable doing it himself.

Is this a piece of information I can trust?

Logically, I'd say yes. There was a time when Cypres units didn't even have an expiration date, and the expiration is arbitrary to begin with. Additionally, (unless something has changed since I switched brands) it is already acceptable and legal to install a Cypres that is in date for maintenance purposes and continue to jump it after it's out of date until the next repack cycle. That fact means it's possible to legally - and presumably safely - use the unit for up to 6 months after its' mandated maintenance due date. That's obviuously not the same as a unit exceeding its' total life limit, but the premise is the same.

Yes, the time limits placed on the units were supposedly determined after a lot of use in the field and subsequent inspections, but the specific time limits were still put into place by the company and those decisions IMO can not be considered impartial nor subjective.

While we're on the subject, does anyone know if a Cypres has ever been found not to operate as designed do solely to being past its' life limit?
My guess is no. But I don't sell AAD's for fun and profit!

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 2,380]

>While we're on the subject, does anyone know if a Cypres has ever been
>found not to operate as designed do solely to being past its' life limit?

Would be difficult to gather that info since:

1) No one wants to admit to 'using' a cypres to save themselves, especially an out of date cypres

2) No one wants to get their rigger in trouble, and riggers do not want to get themselves in trouble

3) Even if someone had an out-of-date cypres that failed to operate, it would be nearly impossible to determine if it had failed due to being past its life limit.

[chuckakers 369]

Quote

>While we're on the subject, does anyone know if a Cypres has ever been
>found not to operate as designed do solely to being past its' life limit?

Would be difficult to gather that info since:

1) No one wants to admit to 'using' a cypres to save themselves, especially an out of date cypres

It's not very often that a jumper has the opportunity to "use" an AAD without other people's knowledge, given the fact that most jumps occur on established DZ's where there are almost always witnesses to jumping activity. I was thinking of a scenario where an expired Cypres was in a rig illegaly when used and that fact was discovered by a rigger's post-activation gear inspection.

2) No one wants to get their rigger in trouble, and riggers do not want to get themselves in trouble

See comment 1. If someone comes to a DZ with a pencil-packed reserve and expired Cypres, that would create the possibility I mentioned in my question.

3) Even if someone had an out-of-date cypres that failed to operate, it would be nearly impossible to determine if it had failed due to being past its life limit.

Likewise it would be nearly impossible to determine if an AAD that had not exceeded its life limit failed to operate because of its' age. That's why I question the life limit to begin with.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 2,380]

>I was thinking of a scenario where an expired Cypres was in a rig illegaly
>when used and that fact was discovered by a rigger's post-activation gear inspection.

Right. The above bolded text is the issue. There is no mandatory "post-activation gear inspection;" the jumper is perfectly free to take out the cypres before he 'gets in trouble' if it's another rigger that will have to repack it. If he takes it back to his own rigger (who repacked it the last time) that rigger has a strong incentive not to post on DZ.com and say "hey, check it out! I did something illegal and that cypres didn't work." Or, alternatively, "hey, check it out! This longtime customer of mine did something really stupid; go ahead and attack him."

Unfortunately, about the only case I can think where there wouldn't be a reason to hide it would be during a fatality investigation where it did not fire.

>Likewise it would be nearly impossible to determine if an AAD that had
>not exceeded its life limit failed to operate because of its' age.

Without a complete teardown, I agree.

>That's why I question the life limit to begin with.

I don't. You have to choose a life limit on any device/machine. Capacitors age, silicon based sensors drift, FLASH memory cells lose charge, metal on connectors migrates and wears away. Military electronics often have hard life limits based on worst-case wear conditions, even though 99% of the devices will continue to function well past their life limits.

What's the best limit to choose? Should you be able to guarantee a 99.9% survival rate before the device times out? 90%? 80%? If the failure mode is that the device gives an error code and won't turn on, maybe 80% is OK If the failure mode is that it fires in the door, better use the 99.9% number.

These are all very tough numbers to come up with. An MTBF analysis is a good place to start. Manufacturers have all the data available to be able to plug into such an analysis - and thus are generally the best ones to determine what the life limits are.

[mark 102]

Quote

Additionally, (unless something has changed since I switched brands) it is already acceptable and legal to install a Cypres that is in date for maintenance purposes and continue to jump it after it's out of date until the next repack cycle.

Not exactly.

It is legal for a rigger to pack a rig with an AAD that will need service before the end of the pack cycle, just as it is legal for an aircraft mechanic to sign off an annual even though there will be scheduled maintenance due before the next annual.

It is not legal to jump with an AAD that requires service. If the required service falls during the repack cycle, the rig is no longer legal to jump until the service is performed or the AAD is removed.

Think of it this way: at the time you plan to make your jump, ask yourself
. . . reserve inspected and packed within the previous 180 days?
. . . AAD meets manufacturer service requirements right now?
. . . other parts of the rig also airworthy?

The date on the packing data card is not a forecast of serviceability for the next 180 days. It is simply a statement that on that date, the rig was airworthy.

It is up to the owner to bring his rig to a rigger whenever it needs scheduled service (like a repack, normal battery change, or AAD replacement), or unscheduled service (like runway rash repair, or battery change because of a low battery indication).

Mark

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

While we're on the subject, does anyone know if a Cypres has ever been found not to operate as designed do solely to being past its' life limit?

I know someone with an almost 16 year old Cypres. Still powers on and passes its self test.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

It is legal for a rigger to pack a rig with an AAD that will need service before the end of the pack cycle

Mark,
As you know that is still in AFS-100 (Legal) for an interpretation.
With that said, it is not definite either way.

By the way,when did PIA remove the statement saying it was OK for other riggers to open/close a reserve to change batteries?

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

Quote

Quote

It is legal for a rigger to pack a rig with an AAD that will need service before the end of the pack cycle

Mark,
As you know that is still in AFS-100 (Legal) for an interpretation.
With that said, it is not definite either way.

By the way,when did PIA remove the statement saying it was OK for other riggers to open/close a reserve to change batteries?

BS,
MEL

The common construction is that if something is not forbidden, it is permitted. Until AFS-100 makes a determination, packing a reserve on a rig where some component may need scheduled or unscheduled service before the end of the pack cycle is legal. After all, we can't know at the time of repack whether the system will be airworthy for the next 180 days. It's the owner's responsibility to keep track of that, and bring it back for service as needed.

PIA still has that statement on its website. You just have to look for it.

Mark

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

The common construction is that if something is not forbidden, it is permitted. Until AFS-100 makes a determination, packing a reserve on a rig where some component may need scheduled or unscheduled service before the end of the pack cycle is legal.

Depends...The FSDO here thinks otherwise!

Quote

After all, we can't know at the time of repack whether the system will be airworthy for the next 180 days.

But we do know if the Batteries or service will expire before the 180 days...old battle and will resume in Reno I guess..

***
PIA still has that statement on its website. You just have to look for it.
***

I still did not find it.
What I do have are the first document and what is on the website now.
See Attached.

I do find it kind of funny that with the first publication, it was announced loudly that any rigger could change out the batteries.

Now after a double fatality in Ohio that was attributed to a battery change mid-pack cycle, it seems to be quitely removed.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[piisfish 135]

Quote

But we do know if the Batteries or service will expire before the 180 days...old battle and will resume in Reno I guess..

reason why we have on our data cards here in Switzerland a column for the expiry date, where we can write the reason.

Example : rig packed 04jan2011, expires 18mar2011 (need AAD revision/battery change)

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

[mark 102]

Quote

I do find it kind of funny that with the first publication, it was announced loudly that any rigger could change out the batteries.

Now after a double fatality in Ohio that was attributed to a battery change mid-pack cycle, it seems to be quietly removed.

MEL

Search for TB 252. It's still there.

Mark

[chuckakers 369]

Quote

Quote

Additionally, (unless something has changed since I switched brands) it is already acceptable and legal to install a Cypres that is in date for maintenance purposes and continue to jump it after it's out of date until the next repack cycle.

Not exactly.

It is legal for a rigger to pack a rig with an AAD that will need service before the end of the pack cycle, just as it is legal for an aircraft mechanic to sign off an annual even though there will be scheduled maintenance due before the next annual.

It is not legal to jump with an AAD that requires service. If the required service falls during the repack cycle, the rig is no longer legal to jump until the service is performed or the AAD is removed.

Think of it this way: at the time you plan to make your jump, ask yourself
. . . reserve inspected and packed within the previous 180 days?
. . . AAD meets manufacturer service requirements right now?
. . . other parts of the rig also airworthy?

The date on the packing data card is not a forecast of serviceability for the next 180 days. It is simply a statement that on that date, the rig was airworthy.

It is up to the owner to bring his rig to a rigger whenever it needs scheduled service (like a repack, normal battery change, or AAD replacement), or unscheduled service (like runway rash repair, or battery change because of a low battery indication).

Mark

Sounds like you are taking the long way around to say that if the AAD maintenance comes due mid-reserve cycle that the rig is no longer legal to jump.

I'd like to see that regulation, because if it's true there's a lot of grounded rigs on planes in this country every weekend.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Search for TB 252. It's still there.

Not the part that states that OTHER riggers can open and close someone else's pack job to change batteries.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Sounds like you are taking the long way around to say that if the AAD maintenance comes due mid-reserve cycle that the rig is no longer legal to jump.

I'd like to see that regulation, because if it's true there's a lot of grounded rigs on planes in this country every weekend.

Both 105.43 and 105.45 have language that requires an AAD to be maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions.

The manufacturers that require maintenance have statements that their devices will not be considered airworthy unless the maintenance is performed at certain time.

Therefore, there is a date beyond which the AAD cannot be legally used until the maintenance has been performed.

An AAD in that condition must be brought into compliance or removed from service for the rig to be used legally.

[VincePetaccio 0]

Quote

I'd like to see that regulation, because if it's true there's a lot of grounded rigs on planes in this country every weekend.

This is one part I'd like to know more about, if anybody has anything.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Quote

I'd like to see that regulation, because if it's true there's a lot of grounded rigs on planes in this country every weekend.

This is one part I'd like to know more about, if anybody has anything.

read the post above yours by Riggerpaul. It pretty much sums it all up.

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

[Coreefdiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd like to see that regulation, because if it's true there's a lot of grounded rigs on planes in this country every weekend.

This is one part I'd like to know more about, if anybody has anything.

read the post above yours by Riggerpaul. It pretty much sums it all up.

yep..

105.43 (c)

Quote

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

should change the "must" to "should" or something along those lines.. 105.43 is pretty much a blanket reg for skydiving operations, so we're stuck with it. I feel for genereral skydiving, it should be changed, as an AAD is not mandatory, ecept for Tandem and Students (~). So what if it's not "in-service", outside of everyone wanting to sue everyone else around here, the aad could not even be installed and someone could die, heck, even if it was installed, there is no quarantee and you wouldn't die anyway. kind of a confusing situation, probably in out best interest, protecting us from ourselves kinda thing (?)

DS#727, DB Cooper #41, POPS #11065, SCR #13183, FA #2125, SCS #8306, HALO #309 SRA #5930

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

Not the part that states that OTHER riggers can open and close someone else's pack job to change batteries.

Taken from TB-252 v1.1:

"NOTE: A rigger may elect to re-close, sign, and reseal only a reserve that they originally packed. " (emphasis added.)

Perhaps other riggers were not excluded in v1.0, but PIA now indicates they consider it the job of only the rigger who sealed the pack job to open it for maintenance, without performing a full AIR.

But they don't pretend it doesn't happen:

Also from TB-252 v1.1

"NOTICE: Before opening and re-closing a container packed by another rigger, careful consideration should be given to any and all legal ramifications."

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[chuckakers 369]

Quote

Quote

Sounds like you are taking the long way around to say that if the AAD maintenance comes due mid-reserve cycle that the rig is no longer legal to jump.

I'd like to see that regulation, because if it's true there's a lot of grounded rigs on planes in this country every weekend.

Both 105.43 and 105.45 have language that requires an AAD to be maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions.

The manufacturers that require maintenance have statements that their devices will not be considered airworthy unless the maintenance is performed at certain time.

Therefore, there is a date beyond which the AAD cannot be legally used until the maintenance has been performed.

An AAD in that condition must be brought into compliance or removed from service for the rig to be used legally.

I'm familar with the requirements to follow the manufacturers instructions. That's valid for any kind of certificated parachute equipment.

I could swear I remember a time when Cypres allowed their units to stay in service until the next repack. Was that a change or a misunderstanding in the field. Seems in my memory it was that way for a while.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

I could swear I remember a time when Cypres allowed their units to stay in service until the next repack. Was that a change or a misunderstanding in the field. Seems in my memory it was that way for a while.

I am with you, Chuck. Just anecdotally, I have seen rigs being repacked, that when the rigger came to the Cypres - if it was found that it would come due ANY TIME during the upcoming cylce in which he was closing the rig - in other words, within the next 180 days (now - was 120), that rigger would NOT close/seal that reserve with that Cypres in place. It would either need to be removed for service, or serviced before he/she would re-seal it for that next subsequent possible full 180-days.

Prior to these language changes - at least in my experience, I don't know of any riggers previously opening reserves mid-cycle, just to change out AAD batteries or remove them for service without a full A-I-R, then re-sealing them for only what would have been the remaining cycle term.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Prior to these language changes - at least in my experience, I don't know of any riggers previously opening reserves mid-cycle, just to change out AAD batteries or remove them for service without a full A-I-R, then re-sealing them for only what would have been the remaining cycle term.

I have seen lots of them, also on my rigs. I would not hesitate to do so. That was with a 6 months and now mostly 1year reserve cycle.

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