What the hell is going on with AAD's ??

[ORGASMO 0]

I have read everything I can find on the "Argus ban" and related topics and in the process have educated myself quite well on the workings and "working when not needed", "not working", "failing to cut loop", "firing on ground", "firing but not opening container" issues that seem to be plaguing ALL AAD manufacturers lately, (see recent threads in gear and rigging).

When this whole "cluster f@&k" of banning the Argus started, I began reading and reading and reading (info is good) and I could not believe the reaction from H/C manufacturers,countries and now even individual DZ's.
Even with evidence such as improper rigging, unit not sent to Aviacom immediately for inspection and no investigation results to learn from H/C manufacturers allowing the Argus fell like dominoes....wtf!

There are NUMEROUS "incidents" with both Vigil and Cypres NOT performing as ADVERTISED..... I know of a few Cypres "incidents" that the general skydiving community is unaware of....it seems that they have friends in high places helping them to keep such incidents out of the spotlight.
Now in light of the recent "incidents" with Vigil and Cypres both firing when they shouldn't (Cypres firing on ground, and Cypres' very strange response, and Vigil firing in air under fully functional main) should H/C manufacturers not ban ALL ADD's until they get their shit together!! Why the hell are skydivers being FORCED (in AAD mandatory areas) to use these UNRELIABLE ADDITIVES to our fully functioning gear and adding an extra risk to an already dangerous sport?
I fully agree with Students and Tandem mandated use, because it seems all AAD's have a higher rate of success than failure, however with the knowledge available to Licensed skydivers we should be able to make out own decision to use or not to use.
I do not own ANY AAD, but will be purchasing one due to jumping where one is necessary.
I am in the market for new gear, and I have made my decision based on all the information I have gained from this recent WITCH HUNT..... I am really pissed that not all are treated equally in the AAD market...it's sickening and as much as I hate falling for "conspiracy theories" this reeks of politics!!!!

For what it's worth, this is my choice in gear due to recent events..... Container: Wings, AAD: Argus (they are going CHEEEEAAPP) Reserve: PD or Smart

I really hope this SHITSTORM is cleared up soon!!! It looks bad for the whole industry. If anything positive can come from this I hope it is that the average skydiver is better educated about the gear they are using. Open to feedback from anyone else who may have differing views based on recent events and information.
That's my rant, I will carry on as if normal now.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[piisfish 135]

Quote

What the hell is going on with AAD's ??

They were sold to wingsuiters to continue BRAND WARS

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

[drewcarp 0]

Had an AAD save a friend a few months ago (vigil/mirage if you must know) The saves are less published than the failures, which are still very rare. You odds are much better with one than without. Considering what the device is suppose to do I'm quite surprised they are as reliable as they are. Closing loops probably break with much greater frequency than Cypress misfire, I would guess. I agree they aren't perfect. container design seems to have a lot to do with AAD's not opening containers. I heard the least bad things about Cypress's so that's what I have. And outside of my lemonade and vodka that's all I got at midnight

[ineed2fly 0]

2012 dude, solar flares. Worlds ending.

"As soon as you're born you start dying. So you might as well, have a good time."
-CAKE

I'm crazy not stupid. There is a difference.

[tazsz 0]

Lets ban solar flares and world endings than.

But it really looks like orgasmo has a point here, the more I read about AADs the more it looks like some of them have friends in high and low places helping them to keep such incidents out of the spotlight.
It stinks more and more

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

the more I read about AADs the more it looks like some of them have friends in high and low places helping them to keep such incidents out of the spotlight.

I not sure there is a conspiracy. Some manufacturers are better with dealing with the public than others. Aviacom is an example of how not to handle bad publicity - throw a form letter on your website and close down all communication. Who the hell is the drunk marketing director for that company?

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[tazsz 0]

Quote

Quote

the more I read about AADs the more it looks like some of them have friends in high and low places helping them to keep such incidents out of the spotlight.

I not sure there is a conspiracy. Some manufacturers are better with dealing with the public than others. Aviacom is an example of how not to handle bad publicity - throw a form letter on your website and close down all communication. Who the hell is the drunk marketing director for that company?

I totally agree about the Aviacom part, but that doesn't explain why the others can cover up there incidents, a conspiracy is a big word but some of them getting more credits than others, and they are doing it over our backs, safety seems no issue anymore

[ibx 2]

Quote

There are NUMEROUS "incidents" with both Vigil and Cypres NOT performing as ADVERTISED..... I know of a few Cypres "incidents" that the general skydiving community is unaware of....it seems that they have friends in high places helping them to keep such incidents out of the spotlight.

I think that exactly this behavior contributes more to a jumpers uncertainty than anything else. You are complaining how the AAD companys handle incidents and yet you are contributing to the general uncertainty by claiming of knowing about incidents the others do not know about. Where you directly involved ? did you hear about them 1st. 2nd. or 3rd. hand ? How reliable is your information ? Do you care to elaborate ?

If one thing holds true in our little sport is that rumors spread like wildfire and seem to change from person to person. This seems to be true for everything that is not written in black and white.

I, myself have heard 4 different versions of an an incident that I witnessed myself and none of those where correct.

The same goes for rumors concerning AAD Incidents.... There is just way too much hear-say involved...Claiming you know about "Cypres" incidents without further elaboration contributes more to this uncertainty... Have you asked yourself why these incidents where not publicized ? Why where you not the one post the incidents in these forums ? Going public will definitely increase the pressure on the manufactures to release a statement.....

[mjosparky 3]

First of all I have no vested interest in any AAD on the market.

Quote

I could not believe the reaction from H/C manufacturers,countries and now even individual DZ's.

Why could you not believe it? There was a chance that the failure mode at issue could prevent the jumper from opening his rig with the ripcord.

Quote

Even with evidence such as improper rigging, unit not sent to Aviacom immediately for inspection and no investigation results to learn from H/C manufacturers allowing the Argus fell like dominoes....wtf!

Of the 4 incidents that brought on the ban, Poland, Portugal, Italy and San Marcos, which one had evidence of improper rigging?
The AAD in the San Marcos incident was held by the DZO for 9 days after the event when a meeting was held with Jesus M Cavazos, Aviation Safety Inspector with the FFA, Kirk Smith, Master Parachute Rigger representing Aviacom, Eric Butts, Senior Parachute Rigger, Paula Hunt, Senior Parachute Rigger, Marcus Reed, Senior Parachute Rigger, Karel Goortz, Owner of Aviacom, by telephone. After the meeting the unit was shipped to Aviacom.

Quote

I know of a few Cypres "incidents" that the general skydiving community is unaware of....it seems that they have friends in high places helping them to keep such incidents out of the spotlight.

If you do know of any “secret” incidents please share them with us. If not you are doing the same thing you are accusing them of doing. Hear say and you heard it from a friend don’t count.

Quote

Why the hell are skydivers being FORCED (in AAD mandatory areas) to use these UNRELIABLE ADDITIVES to our fully functioning gear and adding an extra risk to an already dangerous sport?

That is not a problem caused by any of the AAD manufactures.

Quote

I am really pissed that not all are treated equally in the AAD market...it's sickening and as much as I hate falling for "conspiracy theories" this reeks of politics!!!!

I can’t blame you for being pissed. But I can fault you for “falling for the conspiracy theory”. Mr. Goortz has done more to bring this on than anyone else. There has been a cutter problem with the Argus going back to 2006. I believe this latest SB with be the forth cutter upgrade for the unit.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skydivepete 0]

Quote

There has been a cutter problem with the Argus going back to 2006. I believe this latest SB with be the forth cutter upgrade for the unit.

I think you are wrong here. Argus replaced in 2006 and in September (?) 2010. Vigil had over the years 4 or 5 cutter changes and replacements.

[Nelyubin 0]

2
Look here
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4116276;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

[mdrejhon 8]

Dude, airbags have killed people before...

The industry is under extra scrutiny lately, and more people are on the Internet than when Cypres was invented in 1991. Even Facebook had not yet been invented when Cypres2 and Vigil came out.

They still save far more experienced (non-student) skydivers than hurt or kill them. Even many of the 'reserve container did not open' were from rigging mistakes or tight reserve packjob, and removing the AAD won't make those safer. (Likewise, sometimes airbags don't deploy in an accident)

Yes, some problems that needs to be resolved (riggers, gear purchases, AAD makers, etc), but I disagree if you say AAD's making skydiving less safe for experienced skydivers.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

There has been a cutter problem with the Argus going back to 2006. I believe this latest SB with be the forth cutter upgrade for the unit.

I think you are wrong here. Argus replaced in 2006 and in September (?) 2010. Vigil had over the years 4 or 5 cutter changes and replacements.

I can only find three but I am pretty sure there is one more issued this year.

Issue date: 11 December 2006
Bulletin number: SB AMM021206/2
Subject: Mandatory cutter replacement

Issue date: 5 September 2010
Bulletin number: SB AMMO050910/2
Subject Mandatory cutter replacement

Issue date: 7 December 2010
Bulletin number: SB AMMO050910/3
Subject: Extended period for mandatory cutter replacement

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skydivepete 0]

Quote

I can only find three but I am pretty sure there is one more issued this year.

Yes but this is all about the same cutter replacement. I think it were 2, one in 2006 and one in 2010 (sept. or so)

[julio_gyn 0]

Hi Sparky, IF somebody doesn't open the main and reaches the AAD firing altitude, how long before impact? 3 sec? if the AAD fire, locking or not, is 3 seconds enough to pull the reserve handle and open the reserve?

Julio Cesar
blue skies

[ORGASMO 0]

"""You are complaining how the AAD companys handle incidents and yet you are contributing to the general uncertainty by claiming of knowing about incidents the others do not know about. Where you directly involved ? did you hear about them 1st. 2nd. or 3rd. hand ? How reliable is your information ? Do you care to elaborate ?"""

I am not complaining about how AAD companies handle incidents.I am only stating that there are numerous cases where both of the other major brands have not worked as adverftised. ("incidents").I witnessed two myself, have heard about others 2nd,3rd hand via friends or via online (Dropzone.com threads ring any bells) because I did not witness them first hand does not make them any less real, do you really think people post about make believe incidents on these forums? Many "incidents" are not known to the general skydiving community simply because they do not care to take the time to do the research, and only the most "sensational" ones are passed around the bonfire. I do not wish to elaborate as you can do your research as I or many other people have done.It takes time and you have to read through a truckload of bullsh*t and "brand cheer leadering" to get to facts, but most of the info is there for anyone to read. I don't waste time spreading rumours or hearsay. I am stating a simple fact that both Cypres and Vigil have had SB's and more than a couple cutter replacements, and "incidents" where they have not performed in a way they were designed/wanted/was in the best interest of the user or his fellow jumpers on that load.However, neither of those companies were slapped with bans.In the end, the AAD market is not a level playing field due to ??? Politics.
I am not trying to contribute to uncertainty, I am hoping others will take the time to educate themselves about this issue, what brought it on, how it was handled versus how other "incidents" of the other companies were handled, about their own gear and how it functions, right down to the very last detail, and how a 1 second delay in your reserve opening sequence can be the difference between a canopy over your head and almost getting to line stretch after an AAD fire (side note: when jumping with an AAD due to it being necessary I will be setting the acvtivation altitude 250-500ft higher than the manufacturer set altitude, if I am 1500ft without a canopy I am already in trouble, I would like a couple extra seconds due to a number of variables(pc delay for one), another personal choice I am able to make all on my own)

Also I am trying to point out that because no AAD can claim perfection of performance, that maybe it is not just to mandate their use.We are intelligent people for the most part.We are allowed to decide for ourselves to jump out of an airplane or not, but in many places you cannot decide for yourself if you would like to buy "the extra insurance" (Jump with an AAD) As I said before I understand and even agree with mandated use for Tandem/Student status due mainly to the liability issues, but I think after you graduate to A (possibly b) license you should be able to make that call for yourself, especially due to the "inherent failure rate" all models have.The odds of you being the guy it fails on are really slim I agree, however so are the odds of hitting your head on the plane on exit, or any other scenario AAD's were designed to save your ass from. So if the odds are slim both ways we should be allowed to make our own informed decision about which way we wanna roll the dice.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

Also I am trying to point out that because no AAD can claim perfection of performance, that maybe it is not just to mandate their use.

Not wanting to join the general clamor, I choose to respond to this point because I see a lack of fundamental understanding here.

Your premise is that AADs are not 100% effective and therefore should not be mandatory (students, some countries), right? Well, parachute systems are not 100% effective either, but you're OK with them being mandatory. Altimeters? Audibles?

Where do you propose to draw the line?

I propose to keep it drawn in the realm of sensibility and reasonability. AADs are shown to be effective tools for preventing fatalities. Do they or can they prevent every fatality? No, but that does not mean they are useless.

Far from it.

Please do us all a favor and tone down the rhetoric, which is neither constructive nor helpful to understanding AAD issues.

Furthermore, if you have information on unknown AAD misfires please share them or indicate specifically where they can be found. Your Secret Squirrel bullshit is just that: bullshit. One is neither impressed with your sleuthing skills nor with your 'Chalice of Knowlege' nonsense.

If you have something constructive and germaine to contribute please step up to the plate and do so.

.02

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

[ORGASMO 0]

"Why could you not believe it? There was a chance that the failure mode at issue could prevent the jumper from opening his rig with the ripcord."

Because they did not ban Cypres or Vigil when they had "incidents", they let them work their shit out. Why THIS time??
"There was a CHANCE this failure mode COULD prevent..."

there is a chance Vigil's could start taking down entire plane loads of jumpers, there was a chance at one time that swoopers equiped with a Cypres could be killed due to Cypres stating that their product could not be set off by speeds reached under canopy ......and now recent threads on here about a Cypres fire on the ground and a Vigil fire under fully functional canopy with no aggressive turning.............. no action taken to ban them.
THAT'S why I cannot believe the action taken by so many H/C manufacturers against the Argus.Their actions are not consistent with how they treat "incidents" from the other major manufacturers.

"If you do know of any “secret” incidents please share them with us. If not you are doing the same thing you are accusing them of doing. Hear say and you heard it from a friend don’t count."

Please re-read my post, I never said they were "secret", I said the general skydiving community is unaware of, meaning they have not heard of them.They have not been reported in skydiving publications, but if you care to do the research you can find out about most of them on these forums.My guess is most jumpers have not taken the time to do a thorough research of AAD "incidents" or "mis-fires" and results of or statements made after internal investigations were done.

"The AAD in the San Marcos incident was held by the DZO for 9 days after the event when a meeting was held with Jesus M Cavazos, Aviation Safety Inspector with the FFA, Kirk Smith, Master Parachute Rigger representing Aviacom, Eric Butts, Senior Parachute Rigger, Paula Hunt, Senior Parachute Rigger, Marcus Reed, Senior Parachute Rigger, Karel Goortz, Owner of Aviacom, by telephone. After the meeting the unit was shipped to Aviacom."

Is this the same protocol and procedure used when a Vigil or Cypres "mis-fires"?

"But I can fault you for “falling for the conspiracy theory”. Mr. Goortz has done more to bring this on than anyone else."

I may have come across wrong there, I am not saying I HAVE fallen for the conspiracy theory, I am only saying that the unlevel playing feild in the AAD market helps perpetuate that idea.I don't see a conspiracy but I do smell politics and unfair business practices. Mr. Goortz debatably may not be great at damage control or customer service, but that does not make Argus' issues any more unsafe than Vigil's or Cypres'

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[ORGASMO 0]

"Your premise is that AADs are not 100% effective and therefore should not be mandatory (students, some countries), right? Well, parachute systems are not 100% effective either, but you're OK with them being mandatory. Altimeters? Audibles?"

My premise is that it should be a personal choice.You can jump without an AAD and live 99%(random % don't bust my balls if it is only 90% based on some one else's superior mathmatical skills) of the time (if you pull your handles) If you jump without a parachute system you will die 99% of the time, your agument is hilarious and lacking simple logic.

"Please do us all a favor and tone down the rhetoric, which is neither constructive nor helpful to understanding AAD issues."

Rhetoric ??? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric
If any one skydiver educates himself further on the AAD topic, it is constructive.You do not have to agree with another's conclusions or ideas to find them helpful.

"Furthermore, if you have information on unknown AAD misfires please share them or indicate specifically where they can be found. Your Secret Squirrel bullshit is just that: bullshit. One is neither impressed with your sleuthing skills nor with your 'Chalice of Knowlege' nonsense"

As I mentioned in replying to other posts, it is not "Secret Squirrel bullshit" I am saying I know about them because I have taken the time to research them, as you are free to do. I also have been told about others from friends not in North America, should I suspect they are lying just to make a good story around the bonfire?.The "general skydiving community is unaware" becuase they have never been given the information and have never had a desire to research and look for them.Not all "mis fires" and "incidents" are published in Parachutist and not all are posted on here either.Maybe another thread should be started asking for input to help make a data base for ALL "mis fires" or "incidents" from all manufacturers, that way the information is readily available for all to see without having to spend hours and days searching through forums and threads to find incidents from around the world, and keep in mind that Dropzone.com is not used by EVERY SKYDIVER in every country around the world.. would it be so shocking to you that there are "incidents" you do not know about? Go through these forums related to AAD "incidents" and take a look at the number of views each one has, what percent of the general skydiving community do you think those numbers represent, and then ask yourself what are the odds of coming across that information randomly?

Do you really think Aviacom has been treated the same way Cypres and Vigil have when faced with "growing pains" as others have called it.
Do you think the average skydiver is 100 times more "aware" of Agrus "issues" than previous and recent Cypres or Vigil "issues" ..... the answer is undoubtably YES! now ask yourself why that is.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[ORGASMO 0]

"They still save far more experienced (non-student) skydivers than hurt or kill them. Even many of the 'reserve container did not open' were from rigging mistakes or tight reserve packjob, and removing the AAD won't make those safer. (Likewise, sometimes airbags don't deploy in an accident)

Yes, some problems that needs to be resolved (riggers, gear purchases, AAD makers, etc), but I disagree if you say AAD's making skydiving less safe for experienced skydivers.

I never said that AAD's make skydiving less safe, I am saying they have a rate of failure, however small it may be, and that failure rate can kill (and yes, that failure rate has rigging as a human variable that can greatly increase an AAD's failure rate), So as an experienced jumper knowing the risk of jumping without one vs the risk of jumping with one, I should be able to make the decision, wheather you or anyone else disagrees with that decision. In my mind my decision to not jump with an AAD can only adversley effect me directly(unless I burn in on some one), however your decision to jump with one can adversley effect a whole plane load of your friends directly.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Many "incidents" are not known to the general skydiving community simply because they do not care to take the time to do the research, and only the most "sensational" ones are passed around the bonfire. I do not wish to elaborate as you can do your research as I or many other people have done

I am sure I have done more research on AAD’s in the past 15+ years then you have. I am not aware of any “incidents” not known to the rigger community involving any of the AAD’s on the market today. If you feel you have information I don’t please share. If not maybe you should quit waving a red flag and shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ORGASMO 0]

"I am sure I have done more research on AAD’s in the past 15+ years then you have. I am not aware of any “incidents” not known to the rigger community involving any of the AAD’s on the market today. If you feel you have information I don’t please share. If not maybe you should quit waving a red flag and shouting “fire” in a crowded theater."


Dude reel it in, this isn't a pissing contest to see who has read more on the topic, I concede if it means that much to you.You and the "rigger community" are not the "general skydiving community". Please read and try to comprehend, I have said it more than once now... "I know of a few Cypres "incidents" that the general skydiving community is unaware of...." I can't type it any slower for you.

On the topic then about the "rigging community", is it protocol for all riggers to get a notification from the AAD manufacturers EVERYTIME one of their units fires, for whatever reason? and if this is the case why do you riggers not feel it is important to share this information with their customers or the "general skydiving community"?

For what it's worth here is one example of an "incident" I personally know about, you can debate over how many of the "general skydiving community" know this information as much as you like.
One "incident" I have witnessed FIRST HAND, was a student cypres fire under a fully fuctioning main while working at a DZ in Spain (between 2006-08), causing a double out scenario (landed fine no injuries)...the student canopy(Nav 240), Cypres said after testing the unit, was flown aggressively enough to cause the cypres fire parameters to be met.This is acceptable because the unit worked within it's parameters.Kinda like the same statement made every time a Vigil goes off when it isn't wanted.You may want to say this isn't an incident because the unit did what it was programmed to do, I say it is an incident because it's firing was not needed and could easily have caused a very serious injury or fatality.Cypres fire while under a fully fuctioning main is defitely an INCIDENT...I cannot give you any links or web site to vet this information, but if riggers are kept in the loop about all firings then you should already be aware of this one.
If you want another example read the most recent thread on the Cypres 2 that fired on the ground, on top of page two deadwood relates another similar story, how many of the "general skydiving vommunity" are aware of that one.(latest view count says maybe 1287) not very "general" knowledge, yet anyway. a little further down page 2 stayhigh relates another cypres story most probably haven't heard. or maybe they are just making these stories up to look cool.Is it so hard to believe that there are "incidents" you haven;t been informed of? There are other examples on these forums, just because they are written about on here does not make them "general knowledge" I would also say that the multiple issues Cypres and Vigil both had in Thailand in 2006 are not common knowledge to the average joe skydiver. Billvon touched on that "incident" in this thread page 2.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2315705;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
and so far it has only 144 views, I may have missed where that incident(s) was published in a major skydiving publication, but it's the only post about it that shows up in a search on here.
Are those enough examples of "incidents" not known to the general skydiving community ? Let's define that to be more than half of the jumpers in the world.I'll stop waving my red flag and shouting "fire" now
And now Cypres' as well are firing on the ground, and in at least one case reported by deadwood (40yrs/3500 jumps) it seems the Cypres cutter design is not immune to having the container stay closed until getting "bumped" after firing due to size configuration/loop length? on a student rig??? Great!.Maybe some "loose ends" to clear up on the Cypres cutter too. pun intended
I am not here to bash any AAD manufacturer, I am only asking for a fair playing field for all.Plain and simple.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[billvon 2,400]

>Because they did not ban Cypres or Vigil when they had "incidents", they
>let them work their shit out. Why THIS time??

Because this failure mode could lock your reserve closed and guarantee your death. That makes it a bit different than other failure modes.

>there is a chance Vigil's could start taking down entire plane loads of jumpers

Yes, there is. As there is for Argus and Cypres. And as there is for jumpers without AAD's. But a failure that locks your reserve closed and guarantees your death after a cutaway is pretty unique.

>Is this the same protocol and procedure used when a Vigil or Cypres "mis-fires"?

There is no protocol. Sometimes cops confiscate the gear. Sometimes the DZ hangs on to it. Sometimes it goes straight back to the company. Sometimes the gear is intentionally destroyed afterwards.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

I say it is an incident because it's firing was not needed and could easily have caused a very serious injury or fatality.Cypres fire while under a fully fuctioning main is defitely an INCIDENT

Lots of things are an "incident" by strict definition, but it does not matter in the context of "what the hell is going on with AADs?" I'd like to think that we can only talk about incidents that matter in this thread. If you want to discuss a different design strategy for student AADs, that could be interesting, but not relevant to this thread.

As you know, all of the AADs have a student version with a much lower speed threshold. The thinking is that a student is much more likely to not cutaway when they should, and so getting the reserve out is a good strategy. Along with that strategy is the complete understanding that those with a student version AAD should not make hard turns low. DZs have the choice to not use student version AADs. That must be a tough call for DZOs.

Quote

I would also say that the multiple issues Cypres and Vigil both had in Thailand in 2006 are not common knowledge to the average joe skydiver. Billvon touched on that "incident" in this thread page 2 post 28.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2315705;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

The cypres 1 units on the plane shut down due to sensing the unusual conditions (unusual pressurization of the plane). The vigils fired. Apparently you consider the response of the cypres 1 to be an incident that matters. I consider it trivial. I think it is an excellent example of how the cypres 1 software designers were very wise to make the unit "smart" enough to realize the data could not result from a skydive, and to conclude that there might be something wrong with the electronics and shut off. The vigil in contrast is very "dumb". That seems like a positive attribute of the cypres 1 (whereas you consider it an incident that matters), and the cypres 2 handled it without a problem at all.

I didn't check out your references to other "incidents that matter", but after seeing what you consider what is important, I suspect I would not agree.

There is a problem in relying on hearsay. As said before, claims that Airtek would intentionally falsify results before receiving a unit don't make sense. If people were inclined to cover their ass as suggested, they would wait until after the unit was in their possession. Sure, it is possible, but there is no where near enough info provided for it to be considered more than wild rumor.

Quote

And now Cypres' as well are firing on the ground,

No, it fired in the air, and the container failed to open. The AAD can only cut the loop, what happens after that is a different discussion.

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

[ORGASMO 0]

"Lots of things are an "incident" by strict definition, but it does not matter in the context of "what the hell is going on with AADs?" I'd like to think that we can only talk about incidents that matter in this thread. If you want to discuss a different design strategy for student AADs, that could be interesting, but not relevant to this thread."

All "incidents" matter, they provide details and insight on how the unit(s) actually fuctions in given scenarios, that is information that we all can use.Should we not discuss them and hide them away for fear it may look poorly upon the manufacturer? The thread is "what the hell is going on with AAD'S?" These "incidents" and many others are "what's going on" who are you to decide which are relevant to the thread or not? and wich ones are "important" enough to discuss? They all have possibility for disasterous outcomes given the right set of variables...most skydiving "incidents" come from not one single fuck up, but usually a series of events/errors.

"I didn't check out your references to other "incidents that matter", but after seeing what you consider what is important, I suspect I would not agree"

Again, I never made any such distinction in any of MY posts about "incidents that matter" only "incidents" YOU added the qualifier. Any incident where an AAD fires when not wanted/or is not benificial to the user is an "incident" and one worth study and possible discussion.Discussion can lead to advancement and progression,You may be opposed to change it is normal as you age.Fight it!

"There is a problem in relying on hearsay. As said before, claims that Airtek would intentionally falsify results before receiving a unit don't make sense. If people were inclined to cover their ass as suggested, they would wait until after the unit was in their possession. Sure, it is possible, but there is no where near enough info provided for it to be considered more than wild rumor."

Where did I EVER say Airtec falsified ANYTHING! Please re-read and direct that comment to the appropriate poster.(in another thread IIRC)

"No, it fired in the air, and the container failed to open. The AAD can only cut the loop, what happens after that is a different discussion."

Dude the title of the thread is "Cypres-2 fire on ground" the OP seems legit enough he has 29ys in and 6200 jumps according to his profile, as a youngin myself, I generally find the old timers don't lie or spread bogus info about AAD "mis fires", however I could be wrong and the OP could be off his rocker....maybe you know something about the gear and AAD the OP does not? Do you work for Airtec? (that would explain your cheer leading stance in other threads) from the "Cypres 2 fire on ground" thread post by sundevil777 :
Do you know for sure the closing loop was not in one piece?

Is it possible that the closing loop was cut by some means other than the cypres cutter?

Was it confirmed that the cypres cutter had activated (that is a visual check, right)?

Was the cutter returned to Airtek?

Normally these questions don't come up, but when the unit itself doesn't show the activation we can't help but wonder.

Sounds like the expected semi unbelieving words of a Cypres "fan"

In regards to your reply about the Thailand "incidents" where the cypres 1 unit's only shut down.... I am not attacking Airtec as you seem to feel.That "incident" was included to highlight the Vigil firing(s), the Cypres 1 "shut downs" were just a side note,Your defensiveness for Airtec would suggest your rent/food/health depend on them.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough