Incidents from Jumping a CYPRESS that is overdue for Maintenance

[jakebaustin 9]

I am not jumping a AAD that hasn't been sent in for maintenance, I am just curious. Have there have been any incidents where a Cypress that was past its maintenance due date malfunctioned before during or after a Skydive? And if so, does anyone have links with information? I Don't need an explanation on what ifs and what is legal or not. Simply looking for incidents where a jumper with a due for maintenance CYPRESS had a malfunction(misfire) specifically as a result of the AAD being overdue for Maintenance and not functioning properly. Thanks! 

[husslr187 24]

Every rigger I talked to wouldn’t pack a reserve if the aad was going to expire before the next repack. 

 

EDIT: they will pack without them in the container though 

Edited March 7, 2019 by husslr187

[20kN 93]

Well, there are AADs out there that do not require any maintenance for 15 years, so...

Edited March 7, 2019 by 20kN

[meat.missile 25]

3 hours ago, 20kN said:

Well, there are AADs out there that do not require any maintenance for 15 years, so...

........

finish that thought for us. 

[gowlerk 1,902]

9 hours ago, husslr187 said:

Every rigger I talked to wouldn’t pack a reserve if the aad was going to expire before the next repack. 

Bring it to me. I will repack it and sign the card if the AAD is not expired and if you sign a note agreeing that I have informed you of the expiry date. When it leaves my loft it is airworthy. I am not required to guarantee that it will remain airworthy for 180 days, or a year, or even the next day. Skydivers are adults and responsible for their own gear.

[mark 102]

10 hours ago, husslr187 said:

Every rigger I talked to wouldn’t pack a reserve if the aad was going to expire before the next repack. 

Or bring it to me.  As gowlerk wrote, when any rigger packs a rig, he is certifying only that it is airworthy at that time.  He cannot guarantee airworthiness for the next 180 days.  It is the user's responsibility to make sure his equipment is airworthy when it is jumped, and to bring it to a rigger whenever the next maintenance is due, whether that maintenance is a reserve repack, AAD service, or repair.

--Mark

[pchapman 261]

Probably pretty hard to find that kind of information, especially in first world-ish English speaking countries & many others. Unless it is some company-internal data at Cypres.

Cypres kind of lets people go past the inspection dates and expiry lifetime (and I'm not talking about the newer units with different lifetimes), but I get the impression that was more to accommodate far-off places where such stuff was going on anyway, or units would get stolen when shipped for service, due to a bad postal system.

It would be very rare to have past-maintenance or past-expiry units be used in the US / Canada / UK etc as 'here' the company recommendations are considered strict rules.  In one publication in 2014 Airtec wrote: " "Airtec, the manufacturer of CYPRES does not recommend to keep out of date CYPRES units in use for life saving activities subsequently and therefore limits the warranty to 12.5 Years (CYPRES-1 - 12,25 years) in total, according to the present knowledge base and safety standards" "     Note that is says "recommend".

Anyway there may be some places in the world where a few more Cypres' are used past 4 yr maintenance or 12.5 yrs life, other then the ones now authorized to do so.

 

The only accident I can recall that someone once died because their Cypres 1 battery was way overdue for its 2 year replacement and ran out of juice. Not sure of the details but that's hardly relevant now in an era with lower-power electronics and thus batteries that last 4 to 15 years. (Accident was in Canada, mid 90s maybe, novice screwed up. Not sure of how Cyp1's handled low charge, but I guess the device booted up but didn't quite have enough charge to fire.)

 

[cjdskydiver 4]

3 hours ago, mark said:

Or bring it to me.  As gowlerk wrote, when any rigger packs a rig, he is certifying only that it is airworthy at that time.  He cannot guarantee airworthiness for the next 180 days.  It is the user's responsibility to make sure his equipment is airworthy when it is jumped, and to bring it to a rigger whenever the next maintenance is due, whether that maintenance is a reserve repack, AAD service, or repair.

--Mark

You're putting yourself at risk...

I recall asking my rigger about this before I became a rigger, and he said he wouldn't pack a rig if the battery or unit was going to go out of date (4-yr check) during a repack cycle, at that time 120 days. I wouldn't either. It's not worth it. You can try and justify it to yourself all day long. It makes no difference. All it will take is for an incident to happen, an attorney to do some digging and a sympathetic jury to convict...

[gowlerk 1,902]

13 minutes ago, cjdskydiver said:

You can try and justify it to yourself all day long. It makes no difference. All it will take is for an incident to happen, an attorney to do some digging and a sympathetic jury to convict...

Thanks for you permission and concern. A lot of people have unreasonable fears about the civil law system in America. I'll bet you can cite no applicable case law though. Blaming fear of lawsuits is an old and tired excuse for all sorts of questionable behaviors. Riggers tend to be control freaks, it's in the nature of the game. I know there will be riggers jumping all over me for my position.  I  could not care less.

[husslr187 24]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Blaming fear of lawsuits is an old and tired excuse for all sorts of questionable behaviors. 

Never underestimate the power of stupid. 

Oh well your certification 

[mark 102]

2 hours ago, cjdskydiver said:

I recall asking my rigger about this before I became a rigger, and he said he wouldn't pack a rig if the battery or unit was going to go out of date (4-yr check) during a repack cycle, at that time 120 days.

Can you tell me the reasoning (besides fear of lawsuits) that led your rigger to his conclusion?

--Mark

Edited March 7, 2019 by mark
spelling correction

[gowlerk 1,902]

57 minutes ago, husslr187 said:

Never underestimate the power of stupid. 

Oh well your certification 

Let me get this clear, are you calling me stupid? Are you threatening my certification? Can you justify any of the things you are saying or are you just spewing out your gut feelings?

 

[husslr187 24]

57 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Let me get this clear, are you calling me stupid? Are you threatening my certification? Can you justify any of the things you are saying or are you just spewing out your gut feelings?

 

Neither. Stupid jumper, lawyers, judge, jury, and the press that covers it all put enough stupid together and we get court cases that go the wrong way.  if you’re willing to put your certification against that, good for you. I don’t think I would take a chance in a society where it’s fashionable to be a victim just to get likes on Facebook.

 

[gowlerk 1,902]

Honestly, I feel this is a lot like the current trend to force ground perfectly good PDRs that are 20 years old. There is no reason, there is clear guidance from the manufacturer that it is not necessary, yet more and more lofts refuse to pack them. Of course they are all gear dealers too. And I bet every one of them will mumble some bullshit about potential lawsuits. The best all-purpose excuse ever.

[husslr187 24]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Honestly, I feel this is a lot like the current trend to force ground perfectly good PDRs that are 20 years old. There is no reason, there is clear guidance from the manufacturer that it is not necessary, yet more and more lofts refuse to pack them. Of course they are all gear dealers too. And I bet every one of them will mumble some bullshit about potential lawsuits. The best all-purpose excuse ever.

I’ll agree with you there. There’s no set limit from the manufacturer on the pdr but there is limits set on AADs. Why anyone would want one that’s past due in their rig is beyond me. It’s your absolute last chance when all else failed. Yeah sure it probably would work a little longer just fine but I want my last chance to work as best as it can. Why bother with having it in the rig otherwise 

[faulknerwn 36]

I know 10-12ish years ago we sold a whole bunch of expired Cypres for cheap to Russians who I assume probably put them in rigs.  

I know that I have had rigs come in for repack that sat in closets for a long time with Cypres' that were 10 years out of date but turned on and passed all their checks just fine.  Would I pack an expired one in the US?  Nope.  If I lived in Russia or somewhere the rules are a bit more lax would I put one in my rig?  Absolutely.  I have no AADs in my rigs right now so if I could put cheap ones in - I would not fear that they would harm me - it might not fire if the battery is low or something if I needed it - but I have none now so I figure something is better than nothing.  

A lot of poorer jumpers in this country and others cannot afford AADs at all so most likely something is better than nothing.

[Baksteen 84]

Why not simply have the repack expire together with the AAD and make a note why the repack interval is shorter?

[mark 102]

3 hours ago, Baksteen said:

Why not simply have the repack expire together with the AAD and make a note why the repack interval is shorter?

Because if all you need done is to have one AAD taken out and a different one put in, you shouldn't have to pay for a full repack.

--Mark

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

10 hours ago, Baksteen said:

Why not simply have the repack expire together with the AAD and make a note why the repack interval is shorter?

I don't think a rigger can 'have the repack expire' at a specified date. 

The rig is presumed airworthy for 180 days after the date of the repack. 
Obviously, if something gets damaged, or a time controlled part of the rig (the AAD) 'times out', then the rig is no longer airworthy and cannot legally be used. 

But I have never heard of a rigger having the ability to alter the interval and say "This repack expires at this time due to..." 

 

Note -  I don't pretend to be an expert, and I could certainly be wrong on this. I welcome correction if so.

Edited March 8, 2019 by wolfriverjoe

[skytribe 16]

The rig certainly is not presumed airworthy for 180 days.   It is presumed airworthy at the time it is inspected/packed.   

If the owner goes out and spills battery acid on it 10 minutes after he leaves my loft then it is unairworthy.

Clearly marking the packing data card that an AAD expires on a given date and should not be considered compliant/airworthy at that point I don't consider as unreasonable.    If the owner is having card inspected at DZ and this is marked clearly - then the DZ employee can record this date as expiry.   When that date arrives they can check to see if the AAD has been removed or replaced.

 

[billvon 2,380]

On 3/7/2019 at 10:16 AM, cjdskydiver said:

You're putting yourself at risk...

I recall asking my rigger about this before I became a rigger, and he said he wouldn't pack a rig if the battery or unit was going to go out of date (4-yr check) during a repack cycle, at that time 120 days. I wouldn't either. It's not worth it. You can try and justify it to yourself all day long. It makes no difference. All it will take is for an incident to happen, an attorney to do some digging and a sympathetic jury to convict...

Of course.  But even if you refuse to pack an AAD that is within a _year_ of going out of date, that same attorney can still sue you and a sympathetic jury can still find you liable.  The best you can do is follow the FAR's.

[pchapman 261]

On 3/7/2019 at 1:16 PM, cjdskydiver said:

 recall asking my rigger about this before I became a rigger, and he said he wouldn't pack a rig if the battery or unit was going to go out of date (4-yr check) during a repack cycle, at that time 120 days. I wouldn't either. It's not worth it. You can try and justify it to yourself all day long. It makes no difference. All it will take is for an incident to happen, an attorney to do some digging and a sympathetic jury to convict...

This has been hashed out before in big arguments on dropzone. Someone did get a statement from the FAA that it is perfectly legal to pack a rig where the AAD expires before the end of the pack cycle. As others are saying, it is absolutely 100% clear that as a rigger you are not certifying a rig for 180 days, you are certifying a rig to be airworthy at this very moment.
If you have liability concerns, then you might as well give up rigging. "I'm sorry, I won't pack for you because you're a bit of a goof. And you might try to deceive your DZ about your rig's airworthiness at some point. And your gear is kind of old; you should buy new stuff, through me.  And I don't like the brand. Plus it is ugly. And you have kids and a spouse who might sue if you bounce."

Edited March 9, 2019 by pchapman

[TommyM 3]

Does the status of the AAD affect the airworthiness of the rig or pack job? Does the FAA treat an AAD as mandatory to the reserve system and something for riggers to control?

 I don’t think an expired unit would prevent a normal manual deployment would it? An AAD is not supposed to be relied on to pull for you, correct? I thought they were just for worst case scenario, not first case scenarios. I suppose an expired AAD could fire incorrectly but If there is doubt, would it not be the jumpers responsibility to shut it off?

[mark 102]

6 hours ago, TommyM said:

Does the status of the AAD affect the airworthiness of the rig or pack job? Does the FAA treat an AAD as mandatory to the reserve system and something for riggers to control?

 I don’t think an expired unit would prevent a normal manual deployment would it? An AAD is not supposed to be relied on to pull for you, correct? I thought they were just for worst case scenario, not first case scenarios. I suppose an expired AAD could fire incorrectly but If there is doubt, would it not be the jumpers responsibility to shut it off?

For solo rigs, an AAD is optional.  If installed, it must be maintained IAW manufacturer instructions.  For tandem rigs, an AAD is required, it is required to be turned on, and it must be maintained IAW manufacturer instructions.

--Mark

[gowlerk 1,902]

A good example of the proper way to look at this is what happens in aircraft maintenance. After a 100 hr. check there can be many tasks that need to be completed before the next 100 hr is due. But the aircraft goes out to work anyway. It may not be airworthy for another complete 100 hrs. , but that is irrelevant. The out of phase tasks must be accomplished as they become due. The AMO does not bear responsibility for this. It is the responsibility of the aircraft owner and/or the pilot to track these items and make sure the aircraft is airworthy before each flight. But of course, someone much smarter than I once said, "skydivers are the least disciplined of all aviators".