0
nigel99

Cypres misfire

Recommended Posts

Quote

Certificate ‘A’.
Uneventful freefall.Pitched at 3500ft, good canopy.
1 moderate spiral to lose height was completed at
~800ft. CYPRES2 AAD then activated resulting in
a 2 canopy out situation.

Landed safely off DZ. Action: Inspection of quipment
revealed a CYPRES student model installed. Referred
to Rigger for exchange to CYPRES expert model.

The AAD unit was returned to the manufacturer to have it changed to Expert status, plus gain a
report on its final activation.

(Awaiting manufacturer report at time of printing)



This is from the APF incident reports summary distributed by the USPA. Pretty interesting that a novice (A licence jumper) ended up with a 2 out and shows that problems aren't unique to a single brand.

For those that aren't familiar an "A" license here, is very restrictive, so unlike the US there is a strong motivation to get onto a "B" ASAP. Only mentioned because I have friends in the US with 1000+ jumps still on A licenses. So this would have been a novice on a suitably loaded canopy.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Certificate ‘A’.
Uneventful freefall.Pitched at 3500ft, good canopy.
1 moderate spiral to lose height was completed at
~800ft. CYPRES2 AAD then activated resulting in
a 2 canopy out situation.

Landed safely off DZ. Action: Inspection of quipment
revealed a CYPRES student model installed. Referred
to Rigger for exchange to CYPRES expert model.

The AAD unit was returned to the manufacturer to have it changed to Expert status, plus gain a
report on its final activation.

(Awaiting manufacturer report at time of printing)



This is from the APF incident reports summary distributed by the USPA. Pretty interesting that a novice (A licence jumper) ended up with a 2 out and shows that problems aren't unique to a single brand.

For those that aren't familiar an "A" license here, is very restrictive, so unlike the US there is a strong motivation to get onto a "B" ASAP. Only mentioned because I have friends in the US with 1000+ jumps still on A licenses. So this would have been a novice on a suitably loaded canopy.



Why are you calling this a misfire?
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If it's operating as designed, how is it a misfire? Seems more a case of not knowing one's gear.



It clearly states in the report that it was a moderate spiral. Not an HP turn. While that may be how it is designed, it is NOT desirable behaviour.

Remember this is not an up-jumper using the gear, but a NOVICE, using equipment designed for a NOVICE.

Yeah - misfire is an emotive word. It is not a 'save' and it is not at face value, user error, why should a novice have to use an EXPERT device?

Please remember that many people are taught no radical manoeuvres below 500 foot. There is no indication this was a radical manoeuvre anyway. So personally I have no quarrel with the students behaviour from what is in the report. If you read the reports they are usually pretty hard on the user.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Doesn't sound like a misfire.

note the STUDENT mode aad.

Cypres2 Student specs, straight from the horses mouth :

It activates the release unit when it detects a rate
of descent higher than 29 mph (13 meters per second).



As I say, a novice jumping a student model and getting a two out for a moderate manoeuvre isn't desirable, or representative of design intent.

I am fully aware that misfire is emotive, and perhaps something like, undesirable fire is more appropriate wording.

Edited to add: To me this falls into the same bucket as some of the Vigil misfires. The designers have chosen a set of trade-off's that will sometimes bite you (the user) in the arse. Honest evaluation and review on behalf of the AAD manufacturers should hopefully result in improved products in the future.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It clearly states in the report that it was a moderate spiral.



You're relying on a report of "moderate spiral" to characterize how fast the student was descending? Just how exact do you think that definition (moderate spiral) is? Do you really think that because someone reported a single spiral that it really means they only did one 360 degree turn?

Do you not realize that even a large student canopy can descend faster than the student firing limit.

The student limits are set up so that a line twisted, spiraling canopy with a student that brain locks and does not cut away will get more nylon out to hopefully save them. For that reason, I would expect that DZs that use student AADs to instruct their students to not do any spirals at all or at least anywhere close to below the firing altitude. I believe some DZs use expert AADs on students because they know how easy it is for a student having a bit of fun spiraling to get it to fire.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What was the canopy size and wing loading?

At our DZ the smaller student canopies are fitted with expert cypres. Students only get to jump the smaller canopies after a number of jumps on larger canopies fitted with student cypres.
A small student canopy for example is a 200 sq ft navigator.

Good to see cypres is working as designed.
Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What was the canopy size and wing loading?

At our DZ the smaller student canopies are fitted with expert cypres. Students only get to jump the smaller canopies after a number of jumps on larger canopies fitted with student cypres.
A small student canopy for example is a 200 sq ft navigator.

Good to see cypres is working as designed.



No idea on wingloading. The report is copied and pasted from the same email you probably got (USPA update).

It is pretty interesting, regarding parameter choices. We will be jumping this weekend and wife will be on a 200 Navigator. Going to have a look at what model of Cypres is in that rig.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I believe some DZs use expert AADs on students because they know how easy it is for a student having a bit of fun spiraling to get it to fire.



Precisely.

If you read the full report with all incidents. Notice how critical of jumpers behaviour they are. In very few incidents, do they not have feedback to the jumper. This report does not state the jumper was schooled not to do a radical turn/spiral below 1000 foot, rather the equipment was changed.

On your question, regarding a single or multiple spirals. I can only state that my experience at 3 Australian DZ's is that doing spirals in the landing pattern WILL get you noticed and talked to.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can only state that my experience at 3 Australian DZ's is that doing spirals in the landing pattern WILL get you noticed and talked to.



So this fellow got spoken to? Last time I checked, 800ft was pattern height, and starting a turn at 800ft would have you completing it even lower, so this guy was spiraling in the pattern.

As for the Cypres, this was not a misfire. The Cypres did exatcly what it was supposed to do. The prolem here was either jumper behavior, or incorrect equipment choice.

Your comparison to the Vigil misfires is incorrect. In this case, the Cypres worked as-designed, and in the way it was designed to function. A Vigil that fires when the plane door opens is working as-designed, but not in the way it was designed to function. No jumper I know (or AAD manufactuter) is looking to save jumpers from an open airplane door (or closed car trunk).

The real problem with the Vigil is their refusal to admit to, and correct, the obvious short comings in their software. There are just too many instances of Vigils firing at odd times due to incorrect circumstances for them to stand behind the 'It did was it was supposed to' argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If it's operating as designed, how is it a misfire? Seems more a case of not knowing one's gear.



It clearly states in the report that it was a moderate spiral. Not an HP turn. While that may be how it is designed, it is NOT desirable behaviour.

Remember this is not an up-jumper using the gear, but a NOVICE, using equipment designed for a NOVICE.

Yeah - misfire is an emotive word. It is not a 'save' and it is not at face value, user error, why should a novice have to use an EXPERT device?

Please remember that many people are taught no radical manoeuvres below 500 foot. There is no indication this was a radical manoeuvre anyway. So personally I have no quarrel with the students behaviour from what is in the report. If you read the reports they are usually pretty hard on the user.



Student cypres, vigil student mode, argus student mode, FXC: they all fire at 13 m/s or faster.

Know your gear.
If you call this a misfire, you need some education and better procedures.
Even with novice canopies you can and will reach this speed quite easily. This is one reason not to allow that students spiral at altitudes lower than 1500 ft. Another reason is that at this altitude they should enter into a landing pattern and fly predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It clearly states in the report that it was a moderate spiral. Not an HP turn. While that may be how it is designed, it is NOT desirable behaviour.



You can't call it a "misfire" when it didn't misfire.

Quote

and it is not at face value, user error, why should a novice have to use an EXPERT device?



It is 100% user error. Why must a novice use an "Expert" model? He does not. But since there is no "Novice" model he must either use an Expert model, or a fly like a student when using a student model.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


Student cypres, vigil student mode, argus student mode, FXC: they all fire at 13 m/s or faster.

Know your gear.
If you call this a misfire, you need some education and better procedures.
Even with novice canopies you can and will reach this speed quite easily. This is one reason not to allow that students spiral at altitudes lower than 1500 ft. Another reason is that at this altitude they should enter into a landing pattern and fly predictable.



Depending on body position, a Vigil AAD will activate between these ranges of altitude:

• PRO: 78 + mph -- 840 - 1,100 feet

• STUDENT: 45 + mph -- 1,040 - 1,300 feet

• TANDEM: 78 +mph -- 2,040 - 2,300 feet
Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It clearly states in the report that it was a moderate spiral.

Yes. And in general such language is a requirement if the person in question desires to continue jumping at that DZ. That's a strong incentive to describe an aggressive turn as a "moderate spiral."

When reliable AAD's first came out there was a spate of 2-outs where in each case the jumper claimed "I pulled above 2 and it just fired!" Once the units were read out it was discovered that they were pulling closer to 1500 feet. Since in many places an AAD misfire will not get you grounded but pulling at 1500 will, it was an understandable claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Certificate ‘A’.
Uneventful freefall.Pitched at 3500ft, good canopy.
1 moderate spiral to lose height was completed at
~800ft. CYPRES2 AAD then activated resulting in
a 2 canopy out situation.

Landed safely off DZ. Action: Inspection of quipment
revealed a CYPRES student model installed. Referred
to Rigger for exchange to CYPRES expert model.

The AAD unit was returned to the manufacturer to have it changed to Expert status, plus gain a
report on its final activation.

(Awaiting manufacturer report at time of printing)



This is from the APF incident reports summary distributed by the USPA. Pretty interesting that a novice (A licence jumper) ended up with a 2 out and shows that problems aren't unique to a single brand.

For those that aren't familiar an "A" license here, is very restrictive, so unlike the US there is a strong motivation to get onto a "B" ASAP. Only mentioned because I have friends in the US with 1000+ jumps still on A licenses. So this would have been a novice on a suitably loaded canopy.



Not a "misfire"! This jumper should not have been jumping a student CYPRES. The unit did as it was supposed to..... sorry.... misfire's seem to be a problem only one aad manufacturer has right now.
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Someone tell that jackass that a "moderate spiral" has no place in the pattern at 800 feet!



Since the report states that he landed off the DZ, it's not very likely that he was spiraling "in the pattern". Sounds a lot more likely that he did an aggressive-ish turn to get facing the direction he wanted to land.
Owned by Remi #?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There used to be a time when we admitted when we f----d up. We called it taking ownership in our actions or lack thereof.

It seems more and more jumpers are expecting their gear to do things for them that they themselves can't do or simply don't learn to.

What's even worse is the number of people who simply don't know how their gear actually works.

Very seldom does some one admit they used their equipment beyond the design parameters.

Even less seldom does someone - who after coming on this site and declaring the "sky is falling" - often by using the term "Misfire" - actually comes back on and admits that they themselves caused the incident.

It will be interesting to see if someone comes on and tells why the AAD fired on that tandem in Georgia.
Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

in general such language is a requirement if the person in question desires to continue jumping at that DZ. That's a strong incentive to describe an aggressive turn as a "moderate spiral."



Even if the jumper was not tyring to 'sugar coat' the description, what is the definition of a 'moderate turn'.

'Moderate' wouldn't be 'gentle' or 'easy', so you might assume that a turn of less than 1/2 of the toggle stroke could be called 'gentle' or 'easy', and that 1/2 to 3/4 might be called 'moderate', leaving 3/4 to full toggle input as 'extreme'.

Also, if the jumper had been in the habit of 'dumping' one toggle down to their hip, and letting it ride for a turn or two up at altitude, they might describe a slower stroke down to 3/4 toggle for one 360 rotation as being 'moderate'. In comparison to their other turn behavior, it would fit that description.

In any case, we teach students not to cutaway or make turns greater than 180 degress below 1000ft. The cutaway thing is obvious, but the turn limitation is both to discourage bigger turns below pattern altitude, and to keep them from setting off a Student Cypres. Regardless of the jumpers characterization of the turn, any 360 spiral at 800ft with a Student Cypres on your back is a mistake on the jumpers part, and a Cypres fire as a result is certainly not the fault of the Cypres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We will be jumping this weekend and wife will be on a 200 Navigator. Going to have a look at what model of Cypres is in that rig



Regardless of what you find, remind her that patten entry altitude is 1000ft, and that she should only be making 90 degreee turns below that, except in the case of collision avoidance.

That's the real lesson here, not to see what a newbie can 'get away with' or not. Fly the canopy and the landing pattern properly, and you won't have to worry about an accidental AAD firing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It is pretty interesting, regarding parameter choices. We will be jumping this weekend and wife will be on a 200 Navigator. Going to have a look at what model of Cypres is in that rig.



....and just what are you going to do after you take a look?



Well firstly I stay well out of my wifes instruction. Secondly if it is a student Cypres I'll have a chat with the CI about it and get his opinion.

I'm simply curious as to what is in that particular rig, hence wanting to take a look.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There used to be a time when we admitted when we f----d up. We called it taking ownership in our actions or lack thereof.

It seems more and more jumpers are expecting their gear to do things for them that they themselves can't do or simply don't learn to.

What's even worse is the number of people who simply don't know how their gear actually works.

Very seldom does some one admit they used their equipment beyond the design parameters.

Even less seldom does someone - who after coming on this site and declaring the "sky is falling" - often by using the term "Misfire" - actually comes back on and admits that they themselves caused the incident.

It will be interesting to see if someone comes on and tells why the AAD fired on that tandem in Georgia.



And that pretty well covers it. [:/]

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0