Cypres not worked ?

[artistcalledian 0]

Are there any recorded incidents of anybody going in due to their Cypres not firing?

I'm on about somebody who doesn't pull their main for what ever reason and also doesn't pull their reserve handle?

I'm just wondering if there has ever been a malfunction when it was required to save somebodies life, i'm not on about people swooping too fast and fooling a cypres or anything, just about any cases where it should have fired due to the jumper still being in freefall and it didn't

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[speedy 0]

No.
whenever the jumper has meet the parameters for it to fire, it has fired.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Are there any recorded incidents of anybody going in due to their Cypres not firing?

Yes, several times. Speedy is repeating airtec's marketing lingo that the device is not known to have failed under a specific set of circumstances.

While this may be true--it's hard to prove a negative statement like that--it's not the whole story. There are several documented cases where Airtec's marketing circumstances have not been met, a cypres has not fired, and someone has died. eg, cypres not turned on, calibrated incorrectly to a lower ground level, etc.

And recently the reverse case of a cypres firing when it ought not to have (from a jumper's perspective, not an EE's perspective) happened when a swooper died after his cypres fired.

Seat belts have killed people too. But I use both seat belts when driving and my cypres when jumping whenever possible.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[riggerrob 561]

There have only been a few instances of Cypri not firing when needed.
The first instance involved a 3.5 year old battery (too old according to the Cypres 1 manual), a cold day and a Dutch student.
The last instance involved a woman who turned her Cypres on near sea level, then drove up the (1500 foot) hill to Perris, Valley, California. She had a problem with her main and never pulled her reserve ripcord. Her Cypres did not fire because it thought it was still 1500' above the DZ when she impacted.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

a cypres has not fired, and someone has died. eg, cypres not turned on, calibrated incorrectly to a lower ground level, etc.

Can you read? Do you read?

He asked if one had not functioned properly when called upon to do so. An 'OFF" Cypres will never fire. An improperly calibrated Cypres will fire, provided it reaches the firing perameters.

That said, I dont't know the real answer, but I would be surprised if Airtec ever came right out and said (after a fatality), "It just didn't fire. It should have, but it didn't".

The other side of the coin is the jumper who pull low, and snivel into Cypres territory. If the Cypres doesn;t fire, the jumper assume they opened in time. They would never know if it had failed, becasue nobody would ever check.

[jakee 1,260]

Quote

Yes, several times. Speedy is repeating airtec's marketing lingo that the device is not known to have failed under a specific set of circumstances.

And there are also times when it has fired and the reserve has not sufficiently deployed before impact.

Its a great piece of kit but its no guarantee.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ron 7]

Quote

Yes, several times. Speedy is repeating airtec's marketing lingo that the device is not known to have failed under a specific set of circumstances.

Please provide one case where the CYPRES was used correctly and failed to fire.

I honestly can't think of one.

Quote

There are several documented cases where Airtec's marketing circumstances have not been met, a cypres has not fired, and someone has died. eg, cypres not turned on, calibrated incorrectly to a lower ground level, etc.

If its not turned on, calibrated wrong, batteries are out of date...Then the CYPRES did not fail.

Please provide a case where the unit didn't work...To be honest I think I remember one, but can't recall it.

If the unit is not on, mantained, or calibrated correctly (by the user) then its not a failure of the unit. It is a failure of the user.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Then the CYPRES did not fail.

IMO ergonomics is at least as much the responsibility of the device & manufacturer as the operator. The ergonomic factor is sometimes very hard to solve or even quantify...that it has resulted in deaths means to me that there's room for improvement, possibly with the device and probably with operators as well.
Ergonomics is real, and has advanced as a science in large part due to aviation. The cypres and its modes of failure are tightly intertwined with its operator and his modes of failure. It's not always worth the effort to distinguish the two if a design change could improve the situation. Even if the operator were ultimately at fault.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[GravityGirl 0]

>>ever been a malfunction when it was required to save somebodies life,<<

This is the only part of this question that has me concerned. No backup device is required to do anything. YOU are required to do something.

I know it's sounds like I'm being picky, but this is a sport that we should be picky with our education.

As has already been stated, I have not heard of any cypres not functioning as intended when used properly. The user is required to read and understand the manual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[artistcalledian 0]

I understand what you're saying, i'd never EVER sit there in freefall just thinking "well, i can't find my main PC, so i'll just wait for my cypres to fire because i'm too lazy to pull reserve"

I'd be doing everything possible to get something over my head manually

I was just curious as to how reliable that box of tricks is if ever called upon, assuming i'd done everything right in turning it on and setting it correctly

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[GravityGirl 0]

They are pretty damned reliable. I prefer to jump with one. But when mine is out for service, I still jump without it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[FrogNog 1]

The ergonomic considerations of the Cypres are very nearly to the level of idiot-proofing. By that I mean the problem they're up against is not that it's hard to understand or operate the device in most circumstances, but that if they make it any easier (i.e. make it idiot-proof) then someone will just go and make a better idiot.

A Cypres needs to have up-to-date batteries. There are three indicators for battery life: calendar age, number of jumps, and the indicator. A jumper (perhaps with the help of his rigger) should be able to keep track of these.

Turning it on is easy: button and lights, then watch the three places it stops. Some people complain about how "long" it takes on the original Cypres. Puh-leeze. I couldn't buy a plain pine box from Joe's speedy drive-through coffins in that amount of time.

Setting the altitude up or down is harder. Knowing that you have to is one thing, and then knowing how is another. The first - knowing that you have to set the altitude offset for the AAD - is required skydiving knowledge these days. It's part of "AAD operation theory" and if a jumper doesn't learn it, it can kill them just as if they didn't learn that an RSL is a backup device that should not be relied upon, or that maintaining their cutaway system monthly is a great idea.

Setting the altitude offset on a Cypres could be made easier and more convenient (e.g. not having to set it every jump), but that could present other problems, like increasing the complexity of the device's engineering (with more buttons comes a more complex state machine and the possibility for new software errors) and forgetting to reset it to normal altitude. I question whether the difficulty or inconvenience of setting the Cypres altitude offset contributed to the fatality we're thinking of; I think it was just a training deficit (or brain fart - which can happen to anyone).

But I could be wrong. I know jumpers who would realize they need to set the Cypres altitude offset but don't know how and would not miss a load to find someone to help them set it.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

The ergonomic considerations of the Cypres are very nearly to the level of idiot-proofing

cypres' track record speaks for itself. How many people have ever forgot to turn it on for a jump or three? Have you never seen someone new futzing with a cypres trying to turn it on or off? These are the hallmarks of ergonomics compromises.

IMO a good man-machine interface in this case should be designed to minimize or eliminate procedures and instructions, not depend on them. Which is not to say that I have all the answers for how to improve it. The vigil guys seem to have a few ideas.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Setting the altitude offset on a Cypres could be made easier and more convenient (e.g. not having to set it every jump), but that could present other problems, like increasing the complexity of the device's engineering (with more buttons comes a more complex state machine and the possibility for new software errors) and forgetting to reset it to normal altitude. I question whether the difficulty or inconvenience of setting the Cypres altitude offset contributed to the fatality we're thinking of; I think it was just a training deficit (or brain fart - which can happen to anyone).

FYI, the Vigil works that way; once you set an altitude offset, it is set until you change it back, and there are the same number of buttons on a Vigil (one) as there are on a Cypres. The Vigil display makes it pretty obvious that there is an altitude offset in effect, so remembering to set it back isn't that difficult.

That said, whenever I've jumped at a DZ that requires an altitude offset, I always reset it to "no offset" at the end of my visit so that I don't forget next time I'm jumping elsewhere. And yeah, I do have to look at my owners manual to remember how to do it, but that's only because I don't have to do it very often.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The ergonomic considerations of the Cypres are very nearly to the level of idiot-proofing

cypres' track record speaks for itself. How many people have ever forgot to turn it on for a jump or three? Have you never seen someone new futzing with a cypres trying to turn it on or off? These are the hallmarks of ergonomics compromises.

It doesn't get much simpler. Drive to DZ. Turn on Cypres, setting offset if necessary. If you ever land at a different elevation, reset your cypres before each jump.

If you eliminated the 4 push sequence, you run the risk of unintentional activation/deactivation. If you use Vigil's approach of constant offset, you risk forgetting it going somewhere else. I did that with a Neptune - landed at -300ft.

Having one consistent procedure reduces the number of mistakes the user can make.

The only quibble I have is that I'd prefer the indication for offset use a negative sign rather than the arrows in the corner to be less open to misinterpretation.

[Travman 6]

They are reliable, but it could happen, so don't rely on it to fire.

[Ron 7]

Quote

IMO ergonomics is at least as much the responsibility of the device & manufacturer as the operator.

Not really. You blaming Airtec for someone not maintaining the battery, or setting the device at home when the DZ is 1500 feet higher is like blaming Ford when a guy that is running around on bare ties gets a flat, or runs out of gas.

Quote

The ergonomic factor is sometimes very hard to solve or even quantify...that it has resulted in deaths means to me that there's room for improvement, possibly with the device and probably with operators as well.

Deaths have been the result of people drinking Draino as well. In spite of the warnings on the bottle.

If you fail to read the manual and UNDERSTAND it, and use it anyway. It is not the fault of the maker of the equipment.

Quote

cypres' track record speaks for itself.

Yes, Its saved more people than it has hurt. Only one case of it killing someone when they used it correctly...Swooping. All others have failed to follow simple directions.

The CYPRES when maintained correctly and used according to the instructions have been saved MUCH more than injuried.

Quote

How many people have ever forgot to turn it on for a jump or three?

It not the fault of the car maker if a guy runs out of gas on the way home from work.

Quote

Have you never seen someone new futzing with a cypres trying to turn it on or off? These are the hallmarks of ergonomics compromises.

Its a one button operation. No matter how easy a device is to use, someone will not bother to read the instructions and get it wrong.

Quote

IMO a good man-machine interface in this case should be designed to minimize or eliminate procedures and instructions, not depend on them.

If you are too stupid to read the instructions, or ask for help than no amount of coddling will help.

Quote

Which is not to say that I have all the answers for how to improve it. The vigil guys seem to have a few ideas.

Really? Didn't Solly Williams (Current world champion and really heads up jumper) have a Vigil misfire?

So much for that line of thinking

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[gdmusumeci 0]

I note that you are only asking about the negative failure case (that is, under the set of circumstances required for the device to take an action, no action occurred) and not the potential positive failures. To give an example for clarity -- someone dying because their (properly maintained and operated) AAD did not fire would be a negative failure; someone dying because while they were on the step, their AAD prematurely deployed a canopy into the horizontal stabilizer with the obvious chain of events following, would be a positive failure.

Is there some reason why you are only interested in negative failures here? The positive failure cases are usually equally detrimental to one's well-being....

Just curious!

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

The positive failure cases are usually equally detrimental to one's well-being....

Is that true? A premature reserve deployment, especially while freeflying, can be painful, or injurious, but I would say it would on average be less injurous than no reserve deployment right before impacting the ground. An unexpected reserve deployment with a partially-functioning main is hairy, but still sounds more survivable (on average) than a no-out. And an unexpected reserve deployment with a properly-functioning deployed main sounds like pretty good odds to me.

A premature reserve deployment in an aircraft does have the possibility of killing multiple people; that's a multiplier to consider.

Perhaps most of the discussion in this thread has been about (alleged, hypothetical, theoretical, possible, unknown, etc.) negative Cypres failures because we have a comparatively large amount of faith that positive Cypres failures are rare as hen's teeth. I should hope they would be very easy to identify and report! Whereas determining that a black box on a corpse didn't do something it was supposed to requires a more technical and detailed process to determine not just that it didn't activate, but also that it should have done.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Quote

How many people have ever forgot to turn it on for a jump or three?

It not the fault of the car maker if a guy runs out of gas on the way home from work.

sorry to get you wrong here Ron... The "run out of gas" is like battery flat on a Cypres...

What he is saying is you should blame your car manufacturer for being late at work everyday because you don't turn the f*cking key..

Nathaniel, if you want an AAD to fire if it's turned off, that's your point of view. But please really think about ALL consequences. Until then, give a try to bowling, or X-treme ironing....

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

[LawnDart21 0]

If someone could provide any factual data (not "I heard down South one time.....") of a cypres firing while a jumper was still in the door, I would really like to hear about it.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[bmcd308 0]

While the Cypres works consistent with its design parameters, skydivers as a group are finding new ways to work around this.

It's not a magic amulet, and I know you agree with that, because if I was not too lazy to search, I'd just quote your previous posts on the subject.

I think nathaniel's post was very useful in that it explained to the original poster that purchasing a cypres does not automatically exclude a jumper from going in with nothing out, which lots of people seem to think.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[DanG 1]

I know of a Cypres firing off the back of an AFF instructor, and master rigger, at 11,000ft during a Level 1 jump. Not "in the door" but certainly a positive failure.

Upon inspection Airtec found a very small ding in the unit, possibly caused during packing.

- Dan G

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Nathaniel, if you want an AAD to fire if it's turned off, that's your point of view.

No, that's not quite it. What I want is to never have to worry about it not firing when I want it to fire, or firing when I don't want it to fire. An on-off switch might not the best design in this circumstance, since I am fallable and I can't be counted on 100% to get the switch right. More like 99.9%. "Should have done it" is little consolation to me if I get caught in that 0.1%, especially if the device could have been designed to account for it.
Saying that a simple on-off switch is optimal sounds a lot like an unwarranted assumption about ergonomics. I think you guys should read a little bit on the subject...for starters you might try the archives of the Risks Digest which has a lot of descriptions & discussions of accidents, some of which could easily have been prevented by ergonomics.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[LawnDart21 0]

Quote

What I want is to never have to worry about it not firing when I want it to fire, or firing when I don't want it to fire.

As long as AADs are made by man and not from a divine source, there will always always always exist the possibility that either scenario will occur, regardless of how minute the chances are.

If your not comfortable with that undeniable fact, you have two choices: 1) Jump without an AAD or 2) Don't jump.

I don't mean to sound terse, but c'mon, I think your reading way to deep into this. I know there is a chance a meteor could crash into earth and kill us all, but I don't stay up at night worrying about it.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.