m2 AAD? Worth it, or go with a different brand?

[pchapman 261]

gowlerk

But I do know that Airtec releases absolutley no information that they do not have to. Not ever. They are a complete black box and they have a level of arrogance that is astounding.

Jawohl!

As opposed to Vigil, who release data graphs from misfire incidents and basically say "we don't know what went wrong" or "it fired like it was supposed to because it sensed the appropriate conditions". Followed by restrictions in the user manual and the like without necessarily improving the product.*


* Such as the door open restrictions around firing altitude after inadvertent firing in the plane. And there were the 'waterproof' units that later were not considered waterproof and had to be sent in if soaked. Or the Vigil 2+ now doesn't arm until 1000 ft above the ground, more like the Cypres philosophy, but totally unlike what they always trumpeted for the Vigil I and II about their amazing sensitivity. Or changing their bulletin numbering system in 2015 to be based on date and not a sequential number -- maybe that's an innocent change but it helps you forget about the earlier bulletins #1 through 10.

That being said, both companies have been doing better in recent years.

Just keeping the AAD wars alive Ken!

[piisfish 135]

gowlerk

***

Quote

Adrian Nicholas

That would definately be one that springs to mind and one which was investigated by a UK coroner who also questioned the business ethics of Airtec for not disclosing the problem as soon as it became known.

i rather have a black box than utter bullshit

I know nothing of this incident. But I do know that Airtec releases absolutley no information that they do not have to. Not ever. They are a complete black box and they have a level of arrogance that is astounding.

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

[gowlerk 1,905]

Quote

i rather have a black box than utter bullshit

Which of these products do you consider to be "utter bullshit"? It's good for you that there is a device available that meets your standards. Other people have other standards. All of the currently available devices have had problems, but mostly have been proven to do their job well.

[skytribe 16]

Each to there own when it comes to equipment choices.

The fact that Airtec say their stuff is 100% reliable - with an asterisk and a legal disclaimer. "Since 10th January 1991 no CYPRES failed to activate when the conditions were given. Therefore CYPRES showed a level of reliability within the reach of 100% at that time."


This is clearly a distortion of the truth - if the conditions that were established by the AAD manufacturer were wrong - even though the unit fired. They count that as a reliable activation.

Sorry but
there are a number of accidents which have resulted in misfires,
the software has been updated, new version of the cypres have appeared,
there have been fatalities from AAD's that have fired too low for successful activations.
AAD cutter placements have been moved on rigs to account for the potential hesitation of the 2 inches of closure loop having to feed through grommets, but having a potential of container lock if the cutter fails to cut successfully. (at the request of Airtec)
there have been firings as a result of radio interference (on cypres 1 units)
there have been lockups as a result of atmospheric conditions combined with a change of components - leaving the unit in a state that appeared to functional when it wasn't requiring servicing that could have meant having to do additional steps to validate it was functioning before each jump and wait literally years before this was corrected.

So forgive me if I don't believe the 100% reliability statement and determine it is purely marketing language.

None of the AAD's are 100% and using this in the marketing is rather distorting the truth. The other manufacturers are not saying their devices are 100%

Yes, they are a great backup device. Yes, I do jump rigs with them installed but do I for one second believe they are 100% reliable - hell no.

[piisfish 135]

I am not talking about reliability (or communication/marketing regarding reliability).

There are "complains" above regarding the silence of Airtec.

I would rather have a rather silent manufacturer, instead of having another one announcing completely false results.

For example, the manufacturer telling you that units have fired because they have exceeded speed at firing altitude. In that case, 3 rigs with devices turned ON (which was the first mistake, as stated in the manual, you should turn them OFF prior to get in a vehicle). 2 out of 3 (WHY NOT ALL ???) fired while driving on the motorway, on a downhill, in a minivan.

Quote

AAD cutter placements have been moved on rigs to account for the potential hesitation of the 2 inches of closure loop having to feed through grommets, but having a potential of container lock if the cutter fails to cut successfully. (at the request of Airtec)

I believe that it was not due to "failure of cutting", but in order to reduce the hesitation due to potential poor rigging. The cut failure has only been seen on circular blades.

Quote

there have been firings as a result of radio interference (on cypres 1 units)

over 15 years ago, not all manufacturers have learnt from this unfortunately (remember the Vigil misfires due to static charge while packing ?? )

You like CYPRES bashing don't you ? I believe we count more recalls on Vigil than on Cypres, with more or less 11 years less on the market.

I personally prefer there fire/no fire settings. Vigil is too "fire happy" in my view (it is personal)

I prefer the color of the Vigil, and the appearance of their cables though.

I would personally go first for CYPRES (even though I like less and less the evolution of the product), then M2, and last Vigil. Then again, this is my personal opinion.

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

[councilman24 36]

gowlerk

***

Quote

Adrian Nicholas

That would definately be one that springs to mind and one which was investigated by a UK coroner who also questioned the business ethics of Airtec for not disclosing the problem as soon as it became known.

I know nothing of this incident. But I do know that Airtec releases absolutley no information that they do not have to. Not ever. They are a complete black box and they have a level of arrogance that is astounding.

I won't change your opinion but I have exactly the opposite on who is arrogant.. Its Airtec who would send me the MSDS for their silicon because I had a need to know. A.A.D. that wouldn't tell me anything but "100% silicon". Just one of many examples. Just because you want to know something doesn't mean you get to.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[pchapman 261]

Airtec is cutting it pretty fine with their language.

"100% reliability" is clearly not true.

But it is pretty close to true when you look at the explanatory text after the asterisk, "... no CYPRES failed to activate when the conditions were given." That's awkward English but you know what they mean.

They're talking about firing when needed, not whether one fired when not needed.

The only case you mention where you make a claim for not firing when needed is the one aobut "fatalities from AAD's that have fired too low". There you have to distinguish between firing too low to survive, and too low compared to the specifications. I think it would be pretty tough to show that any fired below the specified altitude when they shoud have (when set correctly). I don't think anyone has proof of that, even if there are always general suspicions when someone bounces after an AAD fire.

You're even blaming problems with reserves and general container design on Airtec, things that affect any modern AAD.

The lockup thing while still looking to be "on", that was bad but in the end never resulted in a missed firing that I know of, so technically due to luck Airtec gets a pass on that as far as their firing-when-needed claim goes.

So they are sleazy to put the crucial part of their claim into the "fine print", but have some support for their claim if one includes all that...

[gowlerk 1,905]

It’s good that they were able and willing to help you. They pretty much lost me with their “it’s just a button push” campaign.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[councilman24 36]

gowlerk

It’s good that they were able and willing to help you. They pretty much lost me with their “it’s just a button push” campaign.

And what about not having enough trained, experienced personnel to fix them all at once didn't you believe? I griped about that too but understood the logistics challenge. But I do have the luxury of a good relationship with Airtec. Not dealer or anything else but former Rigging committee chairman and friend.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[gowlerk 1,905]

I probably shouldn’t rehash the whole thing that I had with them at the time. But as you note, they are much more responsive to someone who is an insider in the industry like you. Your experience with your friend is not the same as an average customer gets.

[councilman24 36]

I fully agree that Helmut, and to a lesser extent Cliff , aren't/weren't the best at customer relations. And I spent the 10 plus years before the user adjustable firing altitude cypres came out arguing with Helmut, sometimes to his face and sometimes through PIA.

When Cliff was still alive I was given the investigation data for all the cypres' fired but still bounced events. Around 15 over 10 years. In all cases the cypres fired when speed AND altitude parameters were met, as set by user if applicable. Many were lower than spec altitude because speed was not high enough. Others fired when at 750 but reserve failed to open. Some were user error. Is 750 too low? Now I believe so. Was it in 1991 with vector IIs, centaurus, two pin Northern Lites, etc? When people routinely opened main at 2000'? No. Helmut had to overcome two out fear from FXCs. With main openings at 2000' activation altitude couldn't be much higher than 750. For years SSK would set them higher if asked. But Helmut believed that he shouldn't have to change his product because containers had changed.

I don't know how close they were but they considered leaving the sport US market because of the legal system, when they were a defendant in the Archway student death in Ill. where the loop wasn't put through the cutter. It was unbelievable to Airtec that they could be held liable when their product worked, fired, but the rigger made it useless.

BTW i like the new MARS and liked the old one except 750 altitude. But price difference from my dealers is non-existent. And no I don't get any special.price that anyone on my DZ can't get.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[HPC 7]

Quote

there have been fatalities from AAD's that have fired too low for successful activations.

Because the AAD fired below its set altitude (e.g. 750' on a Cypres) or because it fired at its set altitude but the reserve didn't deploy and inflate in time?

What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

[pchapman 261]

councilman24

When Cliff was still alive I was given the investigation data for all the cypres' fired but still bounced events. Around 15 over 10 years. In all cases the cypres fired when speed AND altitude parameters were met, as set by user if applicable. Many were lower than spec altitude because speed was not high enough. Others fired when at 750 but reserve failed to open. Some were user error.

Very interesting! This is the first time I've heard anything reported about such cases other than by Airtec itself saying that everything worked fine.

While it isn't as if the data is public, it is useful to know an independent, trusted rigger reviewed a bunch of the data.


(I know there's still the argument that "How do you know it fired at an actual 750' just because it said it did -- it could be sensing the pressure wrong, and that's the only data we have after the event." Presumably though other data is available, such as the pressure trace to look for anomalies like impossible accelerations, and the unit could be tested for general accuracy.)

[councilman24 36]

pchapman

*** .......trusted rigger .......)

Who the hell is that?

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[20_kN 0]

On a related note, can anyone explain the purpose of the altitude lock? As I understand it, the M2 does not activate until the airplane climbs above 1475 feet (or 2950 feet on tandem mode). What is the point of this? I know some DZs open the door once the seatbelts come off to cool down the interior. The way I read the manual, if you fell out accidentally before 1475 feet the M2 wont activate. I dont know if Cypress or Vigil has an 'altitude lock' as well but I did not see one mentioned in the manual for the Vigil.

[skytribe 16]

They all do this and have different arming and activation altitudes depending upon the models.

Read the manual's

Vigil (http://www.vigil.aero/wp-content/uploads/Vigil-2.0.3-Users-Manual-June2015.pdf) section 3.1

Cypres
https://www.sskinc.com/images/Res/files/User_Guide/CYPRES_2_users_guide_English_01-2012.pdf Page 31.

[benlangfeld 1]

Quote

I know some DZs open the door once the seatbelts come off to cool down the interior. The way I read the manual, if you fell out accidentally before 1475 feet the M2 wont activate.

It is my understanding that these things are compatible at most DZs. At my home DZ, the door doesn't get opened until jump run (except for a few inches when someone breaks wind) and seatbelts are off at 1500ft.

[pchapman 261]

20_kN

On a related note, can anyone explain the purpose of the altitude lock? As I understand it, the M2 does not activate until the airplane climbs above 1475 feet

For many years the Vigil and Vigil 2 did not have this. It was only with the Vigil 2+ (2014) that they introduced the idea.

Prior to that, any Vigil was 'on' from a couple hundred feet after takeoff, as soon as it realized it was climbing.

Problem was (one time in 2010 I think) Vigils went off in the plane (a small Cessna) while the door was opened when around normal firing altitude. Vigil could only say they never had it happen before, and then changed the manual to say you shouldn't open the door near firing altitude...

Cypres did it a different way, by having that 'lock' as you call it. Both companies thought they had a good way to do things, despite down sides to both.

The consensus now seems to be to avoid having the AAD active until once well past activation altitude, just to make sure that the algorithms aren't somehow fooled. (That being said, Vigils algorithms do seem to be simpler. Hit the right rate of altitude change for 5 eighths of a second, and it pops.)

So yes you need to be aware that if you are bailing out very low to go to your reserve, that's a bad time to get knocked out or miss your handle.

[skytribe 16]

Was this also behind the reason that you could fire Vigil's by putting in the trunk of your car turned on and slamming the trunk shut.

Numerous reports of that happening.

[20_kN 0]

pchapman

***On a related note, can anyone explain the purpose of the altitude lock? As I understand it, the M2 does not activate until the airplane climbs above 1475 feet

For many years the Vigil and Vigil 2 did not have this. It was only with the Vigil 2+ (2014) that they introduced the idea.

Prior to that, any Vigil was 'on' from a couple hundred feet after takeoff, as soon as it realized it was climbing.

Problem was (one time in 2010 I think) Vigils went off in the plane (a small Cessna) while the door was opened when around normal firing altitude. Vigil could only say they never had it happen before, and then changed the manual to say you shouldn't open the door near firing altitude...

Cypres did it a different way, by having that 'lock' as you call it. Both companies thought they had a good way to do things, despite down sides to both.

The consensus now seems to be to avoid having the AAD active until once well past activation altitude, just to make sure that the algorithms aren't somehow fooled. (That being said, Vigils algorithms do seem to be simpler. Hit the right rate of altitude change for 5 eighths of a second, and it pops.)

So yes you need to be aware that if you are bailing out very low to go to your reserve, that's a bad time to get knocked out or miss your handle.

Were these door opening incidents in pressurized aircraft? I am curious what effect opening the door has in an unpasteurized aircraft. I always assumed it had no effect at all. I watch my digital altimeter when the door comes open and it doesent skip a beat.

[pchapman 261]

The Colorado incident was an unpressurized aircraft.
(It was never quite clear what was going on there. There must be a big thread here on dz from back then...)

There have been incidents with pressurized aircraft, where pressurization was applied at the wrong times.

[skydiverek 54]

20_kN

******On a related note, can anyone explain the purpose of the altitude lock? As I understand it, the M2 does not activate until the airplane climbs above 1475 feet

For many years the Vigil and Vigil 2 did not have this. It was only with the Vigil 2+ (2014) that they introduced the idea.

Prior to that, any Vigil was 'on' from a couple hundred feet after takeoff, as soon as it realized it was climbing.

Problem was (one time in 2010 I think) Vigils went off in the plane (a small Cessna) while the door was opened when around normal firing altitude. Vigil could only say they never had it happen before, and then changed the manual to say you shouldn't open the door near firing altitude...

Cypres did it a different way, by having that 'lock' as you call it. Both companies thought they had a good way to do things, despite down sides to both.

The consensus now seems to be to avoid having the AAD active until once well past activation altitude, just to make sure that the algorithms aren't somehow fooled. (That being said, Vigils algorithms do seem to be simpler. Hit the right rate of altitude change for 5 eighths of a second, and it pops.)

So yes you need to be aware that if you are bailing out very low to go to your reserve, that's a bad time to get knocked out or miss your handle.

Were these door opening incidents in pressurized aircraft? I am curious what effect opening the door has in an unpasteurized aircraft. I always assumed it had no effect at all. I watch my digital altimeter when the door comes open and it does not skip a beat.

I can see the needle of my analog altimeter 'jump' a bit (and then return) when the skydiver exits, so there is some pressure change for a split second, just when someone jumps out (and blocks the airstream in the door).


.

[Unstable 8]

Quote

I can see the needle of my analog altimeter 'jump' a bit (and then return) when the skydiver exits, so there is some pressure change for a split second, just when someone jumps out (and blocks the airstream in the door).

There is a certain brand of digital altimeter with an analog face that is notorious at our DZ for resetting and having other errors when the door is opened and closed during normal operations consistent with running a static line / IAD operation. I don't want to derail the conversation but I would imagine we are discussing the same phenomenon with AADs as well, depending on the logic used.

=========Shaun ==========