0
PWScottIV

Stolen Re-Programmed Cypress AADs May Fire Unexpectedly

Recommended Posts

My god are you a sap. You realize that the problem here is not the theft of the units. I couldn't care less what people do in their personal time, and if that inclides theivery, then so be it. The problem is that he knowingly sold improperly programmed Cypres to unknowing jumpers. Quote from the article-

Quote


The safety devices which were taken had been re-programmed for product testing to open at a higher-than standard altitude, and had a warning label – but police believe the label was removed before the device, known as a Cypress, was sold.



The articles also state that this was a 3 month investigation, due you think the cops are also jumping the gun? It took them 3 months to get to this point, and I have a feeling they wouldn't waste a 3 month investigation on a baseless charge. If anything, they would just keep investigating until they could make a case that would stick.

It bugs me a little that the guy is a theif, but the real issue that skydivers should have is that he peddled improperly programmed AADs to unknowing jumpers. Unsafe AADs were enough of a reason to make the majority of jumpers jump without AADs in the pre-Cypres days. They would rather take their chances without an AAD then with one that could fire unexpectedly. This dumb fuck took matters into his own hands, and sold people usafe AADs dressed up like safe AADs (as safe as regular Cypres is).

This is not deserving of sympathy or understanding in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Legally, quite the opposite.
The theft charge is a felony while the reckless endangerment (or whatever the actual charge is) is but a misdemeanor.



That sounds a bit arse about face!. Would that change if the jumper had been injured?. (Sorry, not familiar with US federal or state laws).

However if he's found guilty I'm sure the skydiving community will sentence him to life....
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However if he's found guilty I'm sure the skydiving community will sentence him to life....



I imagine no matter what the outcome (legally) he will be.

I just can't think of a way to give him any benefit of any doubt. Maybe, MAYBE, had they not been labeled as non-standard issue and he was ignorant to that fact. But man-o-man thats a lot of guilt to live with if something bad happened, I can't see the risk-reward there at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI ,
All the Cypres involved in this have been identified, located and disposition. The units were bought with a higher preset firing altitude in order to test military HALO systems. The 2 canopy out occurred a few months ago and was not reported on DZ.com because the person did not feel it was an “incident” That unit was sent back to SSK where it was converted to a standard expert Cypres. Once this issue was recognized, all 9 units were placed on the stolen data base and tracked down by s/n and new owners contacted. It just took the police 3 mouths do perform the complete investigation on all of the units. Some on the units were over 7 years old. A low price would be expected.
Jump safe everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

I feel bad for Justin. Not because he stole some AADs and got someone a premature opening. And not because he got caught and arrested and probably lose everything. I do feel bad that he does not get the benefit of the doubt from us. We are not judges or executioners and I don't want to be.



I think you need to save more of your sympathy for the guy whose life was put at risk for the sake of a measly 400 bucks.

Your sympathy is wrongly directed IMO, towards a guy who could have been the "executioner" of an innocent skydiver.

Your idea of a database for equipment though, is a good one.



I have no sympathy for Justin at all if he is guilty but for now I feel sorry for him if he turns out to be innocent (until proven guilty) while he is already tared and feathered by us, who should rise above. I am not really concerned with what he did but rather what we are doing. I can't control his actions but I for one refuse to call him guilty until the due process has run its course.

I guess that my (not so well spoken) point is that innocent people get convicted all the time and guilty ones go free all the time. (OJ didn't do it. MJ didn't do it. Clinton didn't inhale. WMDs were in Iraq. Artificial sweeteners are safe. Anna Nicole married for love. And the tooth fairy leaves money under your pillow.)

I have all the sympathy in the world for the premature deployment skydiver and I never said otherwise. He is a victim no matter how you paint this crap.

I am not sure if there is or isn't a database for AADs but I am starting a list and anyone who wants to PM me their gear details + serials...I am making a digital repository free for everyone and when I have enough numbers I will make it available free for anyone. I also welcome anyone who wants to help out.
There are no dangerous dives
Only dangerous divers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What skydiver buys an AAD that is priced seriously under market value and doesn't question it.



I think this is a good (and valid) point. Although it is conceivable that any purchasers thought this was just a "friendly guy" (I do not personally know the defendant, so I am not stating either way, he is or he isn't) - and a knowledgeable skydiver, after all, with some "credibility" (founder of Flock-U in of itself could be "impressive" / carry some weight) - all those things notwithstanding, still... some rigger would need to actually also install these units and close them into the rig(s), no?

Quote

...it is common knowledge that you can value these units down to the dollar.



Maybe this has already been covered in a subsequent post to the one I am replying to (I haven't gotten all the way through yet, its multiple pages) - but this too is an interesting point. - Doesn't Airtech, or SSK have an actual LIVE / dynamic on-line app to varify/validate any given Cypres unit? I've only just thought of this, because I myself personally, just recently gave a Cypres away - entirely free of charge, that I owned - with the full disclosure that it was a Cypres 1 (or just plain "original" model), it had only 3 years lifespan available on it, and had NOT had it's last 4yr service (so wasn't worth it - to ME to get it done ...but maybe for my friend, otherwise receiving it for free it would have) - and like a week later, I recall him showing me a complete print out of my Cypres' actual (I think) lifetime (including services performed/service due) history and its FMV. I would think then, ALL this information would be readily available quite easily enough, and I don't know how it could be possibly overlooked.

Again, if this is already covered in some # of posts further down from the post I am replying to - my apologies, and if I see it, I will delete this one so as not to be redundant.

Quote

If I could get a Cypres several hundred dollars under FMV I would want to know what is wrong with it, or who it was stolen from.



Very good, and fair / legitimate point, and lesson in life for nearly ANY transaction in an open market, for sure.

Putting the onus on the buyer (caveat emptor) is one thing, and I can see that - but also (like in my case) I would not always just automatically throw the buyer(s) under the bus either, as perhaps they had what they felt were (their own) legitimate reasons to trust, their seller too.

Just goes to show that sadly, there are "shady peeps" out there in ALL walks of life. Just because someone is a "brother (or sister) skydiver" does not make them automatically an exception, or you immune. [:/]
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This guy should be charged with attempted murder for every unit he sold that got jumped! He easilly could have killed any one of the people that bought these units. As far as him just being stupid , the news said that he too was a skydiver, so im fairly certai he well knew what could have happened!!!>:(



Here is a jury charge sheet related to reckless endangerment. This
definition would have me convicting on this incident.
***A person RECKLESSLY ENGAGES IN CONDUCT WHICH
CREATES A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH TO ANOTHER PERSON
when he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk that another person’s death will occur, and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk, and when that grave and unjustifiable risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
2


The charge sheet is from NY, vs CT, but I can't imagine they'd deviate much.

conndcj@po.state.ct.us Let their Chief Attorney know how you feel and why.
Let the USPA know your feelings and why. Each of us has a voice (of support or not).
Use that voice to the benefit or peril of skydiving.
Some folks are going to feel that an AAD firing at an improper altitude is no big deal. You're a skydiver; deal with the risk.

Of course there should be the presumption of innocence; sharing your voice in the event of guilt does not presume guilt, either. It does provide a communal frame of reference in the event of a guilty plea or finding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't make sense that someone would sell a hot AAD knowing it would not function like an AAD is supposed to. The first time the unit doesn't function like it's supposed to it gets sent in and you're busted. On the other hand it doesn't make sense that someone would sell a hot AAD believing it would function properly. The first time it gets sent in for service you're busted. We must be missing some pieces of this story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It doesn't make sense that someone would sell a hot AAD knowing it would not function like an AAD is supposed to. The first time the unit doesn't function like it's supposed to it gets sent in and you're busted. On the other hand it doesn't make sense that someone would sell a hot AAD believing it would function properly. The first time it gets sent in for service you're busted. We must be missing some pieces of this story.



Agreed.

Until the full story comes out, I can think of several different scenarios.

  • Perhaps it's as most of this thread has posited, that Justin stole the AADs, removed the labels that said "WARNING - These AADs will fire at x000 feet," and maliciously sold them to other skydivers.

  • That, to me, seems pretty unlikely.

  • Perhaps it's that the labels only mentioned that they were test CYPRES devices, but mentioned nothing about the activation altitudes.

  • That seems a little more plausible.

  • Perhaps one of Justin's friends/acquaintances stole the AADs, removed the labels, and (knowing Justin was a skydiver) offered them up for him to fence.

  • That also seems entirely plausible.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of anyone dealing in stolen goods. But I think the cries for Justin to be run out of town on a rail might should wait until a little more is known about exactly what happened.

    Personally, I have to assume that there's more here than meets the eye. I doubt Justin would be so blind as to sell a stolen CYPRES knowing that it would fire at a higher altitude, and knowing that it could be easily traced back to him. I have a hard time believing that anyone who's a skydiver wouldn't see that coming, if they knew the devices would fire high.

    So I'm going to hold off on grabbing my pitchfork until I get a little more info. The rest of you, do as you will. B|
    Signatures are the new black.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    To become an unrated coach for discipline specific coaching?
    :S
    Do they check leg straps?
    :)



    Is there any post on this forum about this incident?

    Tried searching can't find any information

    Cheers Dave
    For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    This reminds me of another crime ... a decade-or-so-ago someone sold some Cypres 1 AADs out the back door of the Golden Knights loft.
    By the time all the stolen Cypri were 4 years old, they had all been confiscated -as they returned to the factory (Airtec or SSK) for 4-year checks.

    Stealing serial-numbered equipment is so silly!
    Especially when that equipment has a factory inspection schedule!
    Duuuuh!

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    here's another thought...
    "Dude, I have a CYPRES for sale, dirt cheap. It's got four years left on it, so it can't go back. I'll sell it to you for 400.00."

    Why would they ever need to go to SSK or Airtec? Not saying that's what happened here, but...units that have been reprogrammed are not going to appear new. Especially if warning labels have been removed.

    Quote

    The safety devices which were taken had been re-programmed for product testing to open at a higher-than standard altitude, and had a warning label – but police believe the label was removed before the device, known as a Cypress, was sold.

    (CBS News story)

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Doesnt the rigger have to record the DOM so he will know when it has to be removed from your rig?
    At any rate, I am following this story with some interest, having met Justin about 2 years ago. He struck me as a particularly moraless person (trying to pick up married women, etc) but he also refused a few people their first wingsuit flights for not having 200 jumps in the last 18 months (thus turning down money as he received an instructors fee), and he did evaluation jumps with the ones he did train to ensure they were ready for wingsuiting - so I guess he had some small concern for the safety of others (at least at that point). And this was before the wingsuit BSR...

    As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    Third valid option:

    As a seller, you don't have to tell the buyer how many units you have for sale. You could, for example, say you only have one, and that it has no use now as you don't have a rig for it. It was sponsored and you've been told you can sell it on cheap.

    I'm not saying this is what happened, just that it's a way you could sell several units under market value.



    Do you really think that the margin for profit on a cypress is that high?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    Quote

    Third valid option:

    As a seller, you don't have to tell the buyer how many units you have for sale. You could, for example, say you only have one, and that it has no use now as you don't have a rig for it. It was sponsored and you've been told you can sell it on cheap.

    I'm not saying this is what happened, just that it's a way you could sell several units under market value.



    Do you really think that the margin for profit on a cypress is that high?



    If the seller got the unit for free (sponsorship or theft) and can sell for 'whatever', then the profit margin can be crazy high.
    Cost-0
    Sell-800.00

    800.00 profit (not suggesting that happened here, merely answering your question).

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Third valid option:

    As a seller, you don't have to tell the buyer how many units you have for sale. You could, for example, say you only have one, and that it has no use now as you don't have a rig for it. It was sponsored and you've been told you can sell it on cheap.

    I'm not saying this is what happened, just that it's a way you could sell several units under market value.



    Do you really think that the margin for profit on a cypress is that high?



    If the seller got the unit for free (sponsorship or theft) and can sell for 'whatever', then the profit margin can be crazy high.



    I know, I own 2 AAD’s sold by sponsored jumpers (different brands) and I accept that they make that profit (and also that I pay less ;)). They both openly communicated how many they had for sale. My question was a rhetorical one, because I was thinking about the margin for profit for a new cypress.

    Jurgen

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    0