0
kallend

Who's raised their CYPRES 2 firing altitude?

Recommended Posts

kallend


Just got mine back from its 4 year service and it now has this feature. I was wondering if people have raised their firing altitude and if so, by how much?



Even if I had that feature, I wouldn't bother. I don't pull until around 2.5 usually so I don't want to risk a 2-out, and since I don't have an dumbass overstuffed rig with a dumbass snivelly reserve, I'm happy with it firing at the normal height if I'm unconscious or injured.
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


Just got mine back from its 4 year service and it now has this feature. I was wondering if people have raised their firing altitude and if so, by how much?



No

I am thinking about it but now open higher than I have in the past.

For me personally what I want to see from myself is developing a pattern of opening higher. Also in checking my alti-track afterwards and then comparing deployment altitude to the altitude I am under my fully opened main.

Once I am satisfied with this I do believe I will set it to 1000 AGL... not much of a difference granted but it is a nice easy round number to have in my mind. Although what does concern me most is not being conscious, that is why I have an AAD. I have removed myself from certain groups when it exceeds my comfort level. Such as Zoo tracking dives. I don't like 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me give you a perspective from discussions at PIA committee meetings.

It's been clear that over the last decade we've had several instances of AAD's firing at normal altitudes in seemingly normal circumstances, speeds and body attitudes but reserves failing to open before impact. A few years ago USPA and PIA issued a joint statement asking riggers to help us investigate this issue by reporting anything unusual when opening reserves and extracting bags on the ground. Last I knew we had received three reports.[:/]

Members of PIA have discussed this issue for a number of years. There are many circumstances that may be contributing but no single issue has been identified. MANY people who post on here will tell you that THEY KNOW what the problem is. I've sat in on most of the discussions an I'll tell you we don't know. It may be that each instance has been caused by a DIFFERENT issue. I know things that CAN cause problems but there are now common circumstances between the occurrences.

In any case we know the gear, canopies and H/C's, have changed since the introduction of the CYPRES and VIGIL. We know that canopy/rig choices made by jumpers have changed. We know that rigging practices vary. We know that skydiving itself, the maneuvers we do before we open our parachute have changed. We know lots of stuff has changed. The PIA technical committee has been trying to understand why this has become an issue and have some studies planned. Again, some folks on here will say THEY KNOW. You can agree with them or not.

Given these changes and the seeming increase of AAD activations not giving enough time for reserves to open the PIA Risk Management committee has been lobbying all AAD manufacturers to increase activation altitudes. One argument against his is "My product works as designed and that was good enough when introduced and should be good enough now." Again, many of us believe things have changed and that perhaps the historical activation altitudes no longer give enough cushion. Finally Airtec offered service center increase of 100' or 200' as a permanent, non user adjustable change. That was good but little publicized and little used. Now, as an answer in part to the lobbying of PIA, Airtec has offered the user adjustable activation altitude. While I believe the company still thinks that 750' is the appropriate balance between high enough to open and not high enough to cause a large number of two outs they now give the user the choice to make a different decision.

I believe this is a good thing. But, each jumper will have to consider there own deployment altitudes and their own main (and perhaps reserve) characteristics and chose their activation altitude accordingly. If you go to 2500' and jump a canopy that takes 800' to open (which didn't exist when the CYPRES was introduced, we called those streamers, or Units;)), or jump a Wonderhog were the reserve bag falls out, then maybe 750' is still right for you. If you deploy at 3500' (old farts would ask how many points do you want to turn exiting at 3500':o) and or like me you still jump canopies that open when deployed instead of streamering forever then maybe a higher AAD activation altitude, to give your reserve a little more time save your life is appropriate.

So now, every jumper with a CYPRES has to do the calculation for themselves. We've been doing it with slower opening canopies causing higher opening altitudes anyway but now there is another reason. And some of my customers have raised their activation altitudes.

BTW many people quote the three hundred feet standard in the TSO specs. (Now somewhat more complicated) But remember that is the alternative standard if you can't meet the 3 sec. standard. Three seconds at any terminal speed is more than 300' and pushes real close to the 750' activation altitude. It's always been a LAST CHANCE TO LIVE.

When I get mine back, even though I'll get out lower and deploy lower than most younger jumpers, because I jump Triathlons and original Sabres I'll raise mine a couple of hundred feet.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have. 300 feet.

I believe if I have a AAD fire it will be because of me beeing unconsius and not in a good position for deployment.
So geting that extra margin is probably a good idea.
And if I'm not unconsius I will have 300 feet more to set up for a landing and testflare my reserve.

I have not changed my maindeployment altitude because I don't jump a streeming canopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings all

I have raised mine 400 feet (+4) and am happy that Airtec have offered this. I think councilman has summed up perfectly why it might be considered prudent.
Everyone has their own their own view on what acceptable is, but I really struggle with these awful “ AAD fired as designed but reserve didn’t have time to inflate incidents”. Yes, I know that these are few compared to the number of AAD saves out there, but still frequent enough to make me think.
With regards to changing pull heights etc, well having only been in the sport 5 years I’m not one that remembers the days of low pulling and instant opening canopies , but I do know one thing. By my own standards if I have not begun my deployment by 3000 feet at the latest dependent on jump type (higher with a wingsuit), I have fucked up. Accounting for a belly firing height of 1150 feet on my CYPRES, if for whatever reason I have fucked up so badly that I have nothing out by 2000 feet (I hope not, but it could happen too being human and therefore susceptible to failure), then I have drilled straight to reserve.
Although not mentioned specifically here, I read with interest various opinions on device dependency. I have 2 audible, 2 altimeters and a Cypres set higher than standard. Am I device dependant? I prefer to see it as I am giving myself as much chance of possible to account for any brain farts/events outside my control (knocked out etc). This sport is damn cool, but it isn’t worth dying for, and I’m happy with the decisions I have made.

Keep safe out there people, the incidents forum is horribly busy at the moment.

Blues.

Gib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No worries

Depends on the jump (how many people etc), both audible set the same warnings as backup.

Typically set for

1st alarm 5300 feet "You are already thinking about tracking/turning to track / actually tracking now aren't you?"
2nd Alarm 4200 " You have already tracked away, bled off speed and are ready to pull at your stated altitude yeah"
3rd Alarm 3000 "WHY ARE YOU HEARING ME? Evaluate and chop and reserve quickly if not looking Great"

Gib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another 'terrain issue' example:

A year ago my DZO upped the firing altitude on the rental gear by 150', due to the combination of somewhat higher ground in one common upwind direction of the DZ (100' higher?), and this concern about realistic deployment distances.

(They're actually Vigil 2's on Pro mode, using the "altitude correction" which is both their landing zone and firing altitude offset, and bumps the altitude from 840 to 990').

On the waivers he also recommends all jumpers to set their AAD's up by a similar amount. I don't think most jumpers have bothered, but some may have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have raised my Cypres2 firing altitude by 300 ft.

It doesn't sound like much, but having read about reserves being at line stretch at impact following an AAD fire... 300ft could make a HUGE difference. ;)
The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just an observation...

The Cypres 2 allows a user activation height offset of up to +900 ft or 1650 ft AGL. According to the manual, the Cypres 2 arms once you are 1500 ft above the higher of either the airfield or the selected landing zone offset, and there are some caveats about what not to do as a jump pilot or else you will confuse the units and cause them to fire low or not at all.

There's no discussion of the 1500 ft arming altitude or the "important notes for jump pilots" and how they may be affected by this user setting that I could find in the manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It's been clear that over the last decade we've had several instances of AAD's firing at normal altitudes in seemingly normal circumstances, speeds and body attitudes but reserves failing to open before impact. A few years ago USPA and PIA issued a joint statement asking riggers to help us investigate this issue by reporting anything unusual when opening reserves and extracting bags on the ground. Last I knew we had received three reports.



I think the answer to why you have not received any more reports is the fact that nothing but a quick look-over of the gear was done on the first three.
After that, the manufacturers simply pointed fingers at one another.

Quote


Members of PIA have discussed this issue for a number of years. There are many circumstances that may be contributing but no single issue has been identified. MANY people who post on here will tell you that THEY KNOW what the problem is. I've sat in on most of the discussions an I'll tell you we don't know. It may be that each instance has been caused by a DIFFERENT issue. I know things that CAN cause problems but there are now common circumstances between the occurrences.



Maybe the committee simply has the wrong people on it?

We (people in the field, actively jumping) have identified pilot chute in tow problems with one manufacturer (with video BTW...several times).

So what does the committee need to move on this to make that problem go away?


Quote


In any case we know the gear, canopies and H/C's, have changed since the introduction of the CYPRES and VIGIL. We know that canopy/rig choices made by jumpers have changed. We know that rigging practices vary. We know that skydiving itself, the maneuvers we do before we open our parachute have changed. We know lots of stuff has changed. The PIA technical committee has been trying to understand why this has become an issue and have some studies planned. Again, some folks on here will say THEY KNOW. You can agree with them or not.



I guess I am one of MANY people......

I know that if you follow the H/C manufacturers recommended reserve canopy sizes, 99% of them are too tight on the high end of the scale.

I know what reserve canopies do not meet TSO 23b initial testing requirements, thus making them incompatible with the H/C TSO and basically useless with AAD that has a 700 ft trigger.


All this reminds me of the guy with the high water bill all of a sudden one month.

The plummer comes out and says he can't find a major leak anywhere and doesn't do anything.

The next plummer comes out and finds 6 or 7 little leaks and repairs all of them one at a time.
The owners problem went away.

The moral of the story is fix all of the "little" problems and maybe you do not have a Major one!

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe the committee simply has the wrong people on it?

We (people in the field, actively jumping) have identified pilot chute in tow problems with one manufacturer (with video BTW...several times).

So what does the committee need to move on this to make that problem go away?



As you well know MEL the PIA has no power and little influence on any individual manufacturer's actions. We also move at a glacial pace. And 'we' includes you since your a member also. What would you do with three reports? Certainly isn't enough data for anything even if they were the same rig.

Not sure which committee you want to have different members but for the most part anybody that's a member and wants to show up at the business meetings can be on most any committee they want. How the committees are run are a function of the results of the elections for chairmen by members. If anybody wants it different they have to show up to vote. Jo Oosterveer from Belgium is coming to business meetings so NOBODY has an excuse.:P BTW good having dinner with you in Chattanooga.

Quote

I guess I am one of MANY people......

I know that if you follow the H/C manufacturers recommended reserve canopy sizes, 99% of them are too tight on the high end of the scale.

I know what reserve canopies do not meet TSO 23b initial testing requirements, thus making them incompatible with the H/C TSO and basically useless with AAD that has a 700 ft trigger.


All this reminds me of the guy with the high water bill all of a sudden one month.

The plummer comes out and says he can't find a major leak anywhere and doesn't do anything.

The next plummer comes out and finds 6 or 7 little leaks and repairs all of them one at a time.
The owners problem went away.

The moral of the story is fix all of the "little" problems and maybe you do not have a Major one!



Glad you recognized yourself.:)
While I don't 'know' what you know I don't disagree with there being lots of little problems. I agree lots of rigs are too tight. I know one rigger who measures pull force on ripcords pulling very slowly, and so get high results. His solution? To either add inches to the loop or replace reserve flap grommets that show very minor marks. Several people trying to talk to him got nowhere. We have seen that even 1/2" change in the loop can cause a PC to delay or not deploy after an AAD fire. And IIRC he saw the same video!

Things like this along with all the other 'little' things do add up. And if we want AAD's to have a better chance to save our lives with a higher activation altitude that's an easier fix than telling a H/C manufacturer that they need to redesign their rig. We have to fight the battles we can win. Is that the way it should be? Maybe not. Is that where we live? Yep.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

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