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

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

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.

No pissing contest but you haven't looked very hard. Here are 4 links that will give all the SB you can read in one setting.

http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/cms/index.php?/forum/291-service-bulletins/

http://www.cspa.ca/technical-a-safety/technical-bulletins#page

http://www.pia.com/PIAPUBS.htm

http://hq.apf.asn.au/index.php/Service_Bulletins

Quote

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),

If you were working when this "incident" then you would know if the DZ filled out a report of what happened and sent it to Airtec. If no one did and you are just now bringing it up how would anyone know about it.

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.

Incidents that are not reported by the owner of the unit for all practical purpose didn’t happen.

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.

Anyone who is not aware that something happened in Thailand that involved AAD’s is living under a rock. It was on both of the AAD’s web pages; stories were published in most of the magazines worldwide and talked about in every skydiving forum.

Quote

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???

I believe the “incident” you are referring to was on 2 Mirage systems and was due to sloppy rigging not the AAD cutter.

http://www.miragesys.com/media/download/MiragePSB1204.pdf

All of the “incidents” you referenced to my knowledge lack one thing. They were not reported to anyone. Having something happen and posting about it on dz.com does not count as reporting it.

As for the “general skydiving community” a good portion of them know little if anything about their gear and how it works. They don’t even pact the damn thing. It’s like they don’t care or are to laze to learn.

I don’t blame you for wanting a “level playing field” but the only way to get that is do it yourself.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ORGASMO 0]

"No pissing contest but you haven't looked very hard. Here are 4 links that will give all the SB you can read in one setting"

But we are talking only about "incidents" not SB's, not all "incidents" are folowed by a SB. If you were commenting based on the belief I was interchanging "incidents" for SB's my apologies for the misunderstanding.

"If you were working when this "incident" then you would know if the DZ filled out a report of what happened and sent it to Airtec. If no one did and you are just now bringing it up how would anyone know about it."

As I stated the unit was sent in to Airtec and reported to have worked as it was programmed.No action or SB needed.Again I am wondering if you may be confusing "incident" with SB.

"Anyone who is not aware that something happened in Thailand that involved AAD’s is living under a rock. It was on both of the AAD’s web pages; stories were published in most of the magazines worldwide and talked about in every skydiving forum."

I will believe you on this, I somehow did not read about it.Also I could only find one thread on it, on this site.So I will accept that this is common knowledge.

"I believe the “incident” you are referring to was on 2 Mirage systems and was due to sloppy rigging not the AAD cutter."

Which may or may not be the case when an Argus fails to completley sever the closing loop. The fact sloppy rigging is a factor, is another reason I am against mandating their use for experienced skydivers.

"All of the “incidents” you referenced to my knowledge lack one thing. They were not reported to anyone. Having something happen and posting about it on dz.com does not count as reporting it. "

I can only verify that the "incident" I witnessed first hand was reprted to Airtec.The other 2 I refered to from other posters, I cannot verify if Airtec was contacted, maybe the quoted posters could verify this information, if they are reading.Although I cannot imagine a person having their Cypres or Vigil fire and not have it sent in or get a new cutter.

"As for the “general skydiving community” a good portion of them know little if anything about their gear and how it works. They don’t even pact the damn thing. It’s like they don’t care or are to laze to learn."

I agree totally, and a good part of why I started this thread, was hoping to induce some "debate" "sharing of information/ideas" and hoping that the positive side of this situation (Argus ban) may be that some skydivers may take notice of what is happening and start to get to know the gear they are jumping with.Also to voice my opinion on what seems to be more a political/business driven decision and show reasons why I feel this way....ie: citing "incidents" from both Cypres and Vigil to help show that given the same circumstances neither has been banned, only Argus.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[billvon 2,402]

>citing "incidents" from both Cypres and Vigil to help show that given the
>same circumstances neither has been banned, only Argus.

Hmm. Have you seen an incident where a Cypres or Vigil cutter fired, but failed to cut the loop and trapped part of it?

[ORGASMO 0]

"Hmm. Have you seen an incident where a Cypres or Vigil cutter fired, but failed to cut the loop and trapped part of it? "

No I haven't, however I have heard of a Cypres firing while a jumper was performing a HP turn, the jumper died. Is this "as serious" as the "incident" you are referring to with thed partially trapped loop? No product banning after that one.
I have also heard of Vigil(s) firing in the door of an aircraft, thus causing the "possibilty" of the reserve going over the tail and taking out the whole lead of jumpers.Is THAT "as serious" ? Again no product was banned after that incident.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[piisfish 135]

Quote

"Hmm. Have you seen an incident where a Cypres or Vigil cutter fired, but failed to cut the loop and trapped part of it? "

No I haven't, however I have heard of a Cypres firing while a jumper was performing a HP turn, the jumper died. Is this "as serious" as the "incident" you are referring to with thed partially trapped loop? No product banning after that one.

the jumper met the AAD firing parameters, and the AAD worked as written in the manual. Later in time, the manufacturer issued a new version of the AAD in order to cater to a growing population of FAST canopy pilots.

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

[Nelyubin 0]

Quote

Quote

"Hmm. Have you seen an incident where a Cypres or Vigil cutter fired, but failed to cut the loop and trapped part of it? "

No I haven't, however I have heard of a Cypres firing while a jumper was performing a HP turn, the jumper died. Is this "as serious" as the "incident" you are referring to with thed partially trapped loop? No product banning after that one.

the jumper met the AAD firing parameters, and the AAD worked as written in the manual. Later in time, the manufacturer issued a new version of the AAD in order to cater to a growing population of FAST canopy pilots.

Airtek a long time to convince all of the return.
I well remember the phrase from old instructions - "that whatever you do"

[USPA 0]

Quote

the jumper met the AAD firing parameters, and the AAD worked as written in the manual. Later in time, the manufacturer issued a new version of the AAD in order to cater to a growing population of FAST canopy pilots

And you fell for the Airtec created myth. Airtec ACTIVELY communicated it was IMPOSSIBLE to meet the AAD firing parameters with a HP landing. Citing test they had done with Lougi(?) using a sub 100 sq feet canopy.

Some people had activations before Cypres killed a jumper in this incident. These activations were communicated several times, MONTHS before Cypres killed a jumper. Airtec chose to do nothing.

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[piisfish 135]

-did Adrian Nicholas meet Cypres firing parameters ? YES or NO ?
-were these speeds imaginable when the original Cypres was invented ? YES or NO ?
-were the firing parameters written in the manual ? YES or NO ?
-did the jumpers read the manual and fly accordingly ? YES or NO ?
-did Airtec try (a bit too late) to cater to such jumpers ? YES or NO ?

edited to add : call me Cypres Fan if you want, I have my reasons... But I also now believe that some competitors are as good as the Cypres as long as they are operated within their parameters. I just don't like too many parameters of the Vigil, it is personal, and for the moment the Argus seems to be a very good unit, but still need to get a better cutter (still just my opinion)

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

[Peterkn 17]

Quote

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.

There are multiple threads about this "incident" on DZ.com, but the most useful one is probably this:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2062418;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Other threads include:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2063517;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2055508;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

[davelepka 4]

I haven't read this entire thread because it seems like another round of the same-old same-old, an Agrus jumper wants to start pointing fingers at other AAD manufacturers.

Whatever you beef is, your fundamental argument is flawed. You stated that there are incidents that are unknown to the 'general skydiving community' for all brands of AADs. Then you conceed to Sparky that the 'rigging community' may be fully aware, but the 'general skydiving community' is being kept in the dark.

I've got news for, the 'rigging community' is the only one that counts, because that includes the manufacturers (ever notice how many riggers work at each rig manufacturer?), and they are ones making the calls at to what is, or is not, safe to continue jumping. So even if these 'secret' incidents were kept from the 'general skydiving community', if they passed with the apporval of the riggers and manufacturers who have to build and pack the gear we jump, that's good enough for me.

I trust them to design, select materials, build, pack, and maintain my gear, and that trust extends to them allowing or dis-allowing different brands of AADs.

Beyond that, just the fact that you consider a student Cypres firing under an open main after aggresive manuvering an 'incident' really waters down whatever argument you have left. That's a simple case of an AAD working as designed, and the user making a mistake. In the case of a student, the 'user' is the instructor who put too big of a student on too small of a canopy for a student cypres, and then did not properly train them with regards to hard turns below 1000ft.

Ditto for swoopers setting off their AADs. Anyone jumping long enough to be swooping at a high enough level to fire a Cypres is well aware of the perameters of 78mph and 750ft, and if they bust that it's their fault, not the AAD. There are simple ways around the problem, even before the release of the Speed cypres. It's called turn off your AAD before making a jump where you plan to do a 'big turn', or limit your turn to one where you start no higher than 750ft to prevent the AAD from firing.

In either case, the error is with the user, not the AAD.

[USPA 0]

Quote

-did Adrian Nicholas meet Cypres firing parameters ? YES
-were these speeds imaginable when the original Cypres was invented ? NO
-were the firing parameters written in the manual ? YES
-did the jumpers read the manual and fly accordingly ? YES
-did Airtec try (a bit too late) to cater to such jumpers ? NO

Added:

-Did Airtec say it was impossible to reach firing parameters in the year Adrian was killed? YES
-Was Airtec warned that there were incidents in which it did occur? YES
-Did Airtec communicate these warnings to other jumpers? NO
-Did airtec instead continue to communicate it wasn't possible and even used extreme demonstration to illustrate? YES

-Did Airtec admited their mistake? NO

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Some people had activations before Cypres killed a jumper in this incident. These activations were communicated several times, MONTHS before Cypres killed a jumper. Airtec chose to do nothing.

Do you have any links to these activations? Where or when? Are these activations something you have first hand knowledge of?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[piisfish 135]

special video for us

we have to agree that we have different points of view.

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

[USPA 0]

Sigh, I have a live which actually happens offline you know. At least one activation in a Swoop competition Empuria Brava in the same year Adrian died, don't know if their are links about it.

Maybe I should extend my signature:
"Dropzone, the place in which reality is defined by links on the internet"

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[ORGASMO 0]

"I haven't read this entire thread because it seems like another round of the same-old same-old, an Agrus jumper wants to start pointing fingers at other AAD manufacturers."

Nope not the same-old, same-old, you see not ALL is as it seems to you.I do not own an Argus or any other brand of AAD

"I've got news for, the 'rigging community' is the only one that counts"

I think the general skydiving community would strongly disagree with that egotistical statement.

"That's a simple case of an AAD working as designed, and the user making a mistake. In the case of a student, the 'user' is the instructor who put too big of a student on too small of a canopy for a student cypres, and then did not properly train them with regards to hard turns below 1000ft."

"Working as designed"? then there is a fundamental flaw in their design and that should be changed.
"too big of a student on too small of a Canopy"? where did you learn such information.This is NOT the case, and shows the same "I know it all" attitude that "the rigging community is the only one that counts" but then again you probably ARE a rigger and likely know better about an "incident" I witnessed first hand than I do myself.You're rigging certificate comes with a crystal ball? The student in this incident weighed less than 180 lbs, let;s give him 20 extra pounds out the door which would make his w/l 0.83, is that too high a w/l for PD Navigator?

"In either case, the error is with the user, not the AAD."

Wrong again! The error is in the design/programming.AAD's were designed for use in skydiving equipment, NOT the other way around!!!

When Cypres and Vigil test units that fired when not wanted and say "the unit worked as designed, no problem here".....It's bullshit, if they work as designed and people are still having "incidents" CHANGE THE FUCKING DESIGN!!!! as it is not condusive to the reality of the skydiving environment we all live in.

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[ORGASMO 0]

"call me Cypres Fan if you want, I have my reasons... But I also now believe that some competitors are as good as the Cypres as long as they are operated within their parameters. I just don't like too many parameters of the Vigil, it is personal, and for the moment the Argus seems to be a very good unit, but still need to get a better cutter (still just my opinion)"

That is a very good unbiased opinion from a self proclaimed "cypres fan" ! very refreshing Thank you! the key word is "parameters" they need to be addressed and changed. For anyone else who thinks I am a "Cypres basher" not true at all, I have jumped with a Cypres and would again.I have no brand loyalty to any AAD manufacturer.I just want to see fair competiion in our industry, competition is good for everyone! well Airtec may not see it that way.
In the end ALL incidents and mis-fires have the possibilty for a fatal outcome, trying to say that this failure mode is more serious than that failure mode is not logical nor does it help solve the problem at hand. ALL AAD'S have some sort of failure mode don't let politics/loyalties cloud your vision/judgement, treat all manufacturers equally!!

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I do not own an Argus or any other brand of AAD

My mistake. Your words from post #1 in this thread led me to believe otherwise.

Quote

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

Quote

When Cypres and Vigil test units that fired when not wanted and say "the unit worked as designed, no problem here".....It's bullshit, if they work as designed and people are still having "incidents" CHANGE THE FUCKING DESIGN!!!! as it is not condusive to the reality of the skydiving environment we all live in.

Maybe not the reality you live in, but it works in my reality.

AADs are a comprimise between successful operation and being non-invasive. Early AADs, which were unpopular, not widely used, and generally frowned upon had the problem of being too invasive. They fired at odd times, and even when the firing 'seemed' right, the exact circumstances were never very exact, the speeds and altitudes when the AAD would honestly fire were 'loose'. Jumpers didn't like any of it, so they didn't jump them.

So Airtec went to work, and came up with a good comprimise between firing speeds and altitudes, packaged it with reliable sensors and electronics, and brought the AAD market back to life.

The point is that if you start to change one aspect of the programming, it effects the functionality in other ways.

What do you want, the student Cyrpes to have a higher firing speed? OK, what happens then when a student freezes up with a higher-speed canopy malfunction that's not fast enough to fire the AAD? That student loses the functionality of the AAD, all so another student can disregard the training of not making hard turns under 1000ft.

I'd rather see the toggle whipper and the scared student both have AAD fires and two-outs, than see the toggle whipper get away with it, and the scared student go in under the malfunctioning main alone. See?

Again, the devices are what they are, and they have limitations. Published limitations that jumpers should be aware of and work toward staying within.

The Cypres work well in 99.99% of all situations. When you weigh the number of jumps made with Cypres AADs in the last 20 years against every incident where a Cypres fired as-designed, but unwanted, you can see that it's a tiny fraction of a percentage. Hardly the type of statistic that merits a redesign and the resultant ripple effect it will have on the 'regular' functionality. If that's not good enough for you, build your own, or just don't jump one.

[ORGASMO 0]

My mistake. Your words from post #1 in this thread led me to believe otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Just above that I stated "I am in the market for new gear" so no, I do not own one as of yet, hopefully by next week, I will be an Argus owner.(tecnicallities I know) however it does matter when you look at context.I only made my decision to go with Argus after reading all I could find on this topic.I have taken the very unpopular stance and instead of running away from Argus and bashing them, I decided to take advantage of the situation and save ALOT of money. I am NOT a disgruntled Argus owner.I think that should be clear if you are trying to read into my mindset (good luck with that btw )

Also in regards to your previous post, "the rigging community is the only one that counts", it is more than pertinent to point out that the consensus of the "rigging community" is far from unanimous.

"I'd rather see the toggle whipper and the scared student both have AAD fires and two-outs, than see the toggle whipper get away with it, and the scared student go in under the malfunctioning main alone. See?"

Good point! This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to see, valid points from others more knowledgable then myself.

"If that's not good enough for you, build your own, or just don't jump one"

This illustrates the other main point of my argument. It should be a personal choice to AAD or not to AAD!! But this is not an acceptable decision in many places. Because an AAD does not make you 100% bulletproof,and has a failure rate that can cause death (however small it may be) we should be given the leeway to choose how we roll the dice, we are allowed that leeway when it comes to the dicision to jump or not jump!

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[ORGASMO 0]

"AADs are a comprimise between successful operation and being non-invasive. Early AADs, which were unpopular, not widely used, and generally frowned upon had the problem of being too invasive. They fired at odd times, and even when the firing 'seemed' right, the exact circumstances were never very exact, the speeds and altitudes when the AAD would honestly fire were 'loose'. Jumpers didn't like any of it, so they didn't jump them. "
They fired at odd times

It would appear after doing any kind of research that this is not just an issue with "EARLY AAD's" it is STILL happening, and with ALL brands of AAD's

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[ORGASMO 0]

Not directed at you personally Dave, I just thought this was a good piece of information, something I haven't been aware of until it popped up on another thread "Vigil fire"

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dcWbbA

How can ANYONE say that a partially trapped loop is "more serious" than these "incidents" and take action angainst one and not the other?

edit: to fix my non working clicky thingy

ORGASMO RODRIGUEZ
If your gunna be dumb
You better be tough

[skydiverek 55]

Quote

Do you have any links to these activations? Where or when? Are these activations something you have first hand knowledge of? Sparky

Happened to PD Factory Team member in France, well before Adrian died. I am also a Cypres fan, but user 'USPA' is correct - they were clearly saying in their printed ads that it was IMPOSSIBLE to meet the firing parameters under an open canopy (they listed doing CRWs, downplanes, spirals, etc). They also used a quote of sth like "whatever you think of doing, CRWs, spirals, downplanes, Cypres will not fire."

Read THIS: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4084655;search_string=impossible;#4084655

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Quote

Some people had activations before Cypres killed a jumper in this incident. These activations were communicated several times, MONTHS before Cypres killed a jumper. Airtec chose to do nothing.

Do you have any links to these activations? Where or when? Are these activations something you have first hand knowledge of?

Sparky

JayMo in Canada, another of the PD team in France, and I think I remember there being at least a third cypres activation before Adrian but cant put a name or place to that one so not 100% sure.

Edited to add: this was the first time a swoop competition in France allowed for turned-off AADs (presumably after signing something), and that only AFTER the cypres fire, not before when PD team and others argued, so the problem was already known by swoopers back then and even the French were forced to acknowledge the issue, when otherwise an AAD is mandatory there.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[billvon 2,402]

>> parameters with a HP landing.

Initially, yes, they did, because it was impossible.

Then canopies improved. In an article in Skydiving, Airtec mentioned that it was now possible to reach firing speeds with a HP turn.

Then someone actually did reach firing speeds, and their AAD fired and killed them. Airtec responded with a new AAD specifically for swoopers.

Had Argus responded to these incidents with a cutter that would not malfunction in the same way, I have a strong feeling this whole issue could have been avoided. Hopefully they will take such action.

[koppel 3]

Quote

In an article in Skydiving, Airtec mentioned that it was now possible to reach firing speeds with a HP turn.

I have been looking for that article as I was sure I remembered reading it at some point.

Perhaps you have a copy you can post/link to?

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

Quote

In an article in Skydiving, Airtec mentioned that it was now possible to reach firing speeds with a HP turn.

I have been looking for that article as I was sure I remembered reading it at some point.

Perhaps you have a copy you can post/link to?

From another thread, this is the link to the letter that was in Skydiving Magazine
http://www.cypres-usa.com/cyp13.htm

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy