badlock

And this is, I have to admit, out of Date since a long time (at least in case of Jump numbers and time in sport) Don't be a Lutz!

Personally I never had a better grip than with the Vector 3/Micron FF handle. You have a massive block that stays in place, waiting for your hand Don't be a Lutz!

Same here. No problems at all since the beginning. But maybe this is because I practiced it on the ground quite often before I jumped it the first time. Don't be a Lutz!

I find the (UPT) Freefly handle very good and in my opinion it is a good choice for everyone, not only for Freeflyers. I don't find it harder to pull. Instead of this it doesn't moves around like other handles, so - for me - it is much easier to find. I used the standard plastic handle before (often I had to rotate it on pull time a little bit to have a good grip). And the monkey fist handle I had before tumbled around and never couldn't be stuffed so safely as the FF handle or even the plastic roll. But I have to admit, that it will depend much on the manufacturer if the FF handle is a good choice or not. I only know the UPT Micron handle from my own experience so I can't say nothing about the others. Don't be a Lutz!

Answer to myself: His balloon floats away unexpectetly... Don't be a Lutz!

ROFL Don't be a Lutz!

I had one reserve ride with a Speed 2000 (170 sqft.). It opened very fast but soft and incredible on heading. A perfect parachute opening. Most jumper love this fact as also their good flying and landing abilities. In Germany, the Speed 2000 is very popular. It holds also TSO c23d. At someone mentioned, it packs amazingly small. I would guess that it packs like the Optimum at least one size smaller (if not more). And yes, this is due to a special low bulk material since many years now. If I'm right informed, the Speed 2000 is Europes most popular reserve and I heard nothing but good about it. Don't be a Lutz!

Good question. Dunno. But I'm sure: In the future I will! Don't be a Lutz!

Hi Folks, as you can imagine, the headline contains a tang of irony. Of course, I didn't jump with a BASE rig out of airplanes, but I was the victim of a disastrous major rigging error that resulted in having a rig on my bag without a functioning reserve. At the beginning of the last season I bought a brand new, custom-made Vector Micron (V310) with a Skyhook, a PD-R reserve, Cypres 2 and a Safire 2 main. A great rig, very nice and well build. But even if it was so well built, it was assembled in a fatal way that maybe would have prevented the reserve from (at least sufficient) opening. The error was found during the regular repack and I thank God that I didn't have to use the reserve, even if I was a half of a second from a cutaway on one jump (due to a spinning main canopy). When the rigger (NOT the rigger who assembled and packed the rig) opened the rig, he found the following situation on the reserve: - The left Rear-Riser and the C and D Suspension Lines went thru the left front Grommet of the Slider. - The left Stering-Line went thru the left tail end Grommet. - The left Front-Riser went with the A and B lines thru the left tail end Grommet. - The slink that holds the A and B lines was rotated at 180 degrees. But look at the pictures! My rigger guessed that the reserve wouldn't have inflated at all because of the blocked Slider. He said, that this was the biggest major rigging error he had ever seen (2500+ reserve packjobs). He informed the rigger who made this error and also the German Parachute Association (DFV). The causer told me the follwing: - He led a rigger aspirant assemble and pack the whole system on its own. - He didn't prove his work at all. - However he (the rigger) placed his stamp and signature on the packing card. - After the investigation by the German Parachute Assosiation, the rigger got just a warning. He's still in business. It would be interesting to hear: - what the consequences in other countries would have been. - what do you think what a reserve opening would have caused in this case. Excuse me for my odd english, but - as you can imagine - I'm from Germany :) Don't be a Lutz!

Yes, the battery was in the unit. So it was my (dumb) fault Don't be a Lutz!

As an aside, While this is definitely the case of how the Cypres is documented, and is clearly what Airtec wants to communicate, I wonder if it's actually the case. My curiosity stems from the fact that Cypreses work on air pressure, and when in a belly-to-earth position, the Cypres is in a low-pressure environment. In order to get a Cypres to fire at 750 Feet BTE, I suspect they program it to fire at roughly 1000 feet in a "normal" pressure environment. We see evidence of this when Cypres's fire at often 'higher' altitudes mid-snivel - often at roughly 1000 feet. So while Airtec says that a student Cypres will fire: 750 feet @ 78 MPH (BTE) 1000 feet @ 29 MPH (vertical). I suspect that both are actually the same altitude. 750 feet BTE is approximately 1000 feet standing up. That means that there is only one effective student activation altitude, which is 1000 feet standing up or 750 BTE - and the activation speed at that altitude is 29 MPH. Thus, the only difference between the student and Expert models are the activation speed at the single altitude. Either way - just to reinforce - Student Cypreses do not fire higher. They may have a second (lower) altitude at a lower speed, but I suspect the real difference is that they fire at a slower speed at the same altitude. _Am I don't think that the used alogirthms are so simple as you describe (speculate). The fact that fires during low pulls occur at around 1000 ft. doesn't means - for example - that the only difference between an Cypres Expert and an Cypres Student is the activation speed. With other words: The second criteria will be a special designed algorithm and not the thumb rule "it will certainly fit" (...if we change only the activation speed). It is designed that way - to fire in case of low speed mals under canopy. Additionally, when talking about this incident, a major aspect has to be considered: How solid is the information that the Cypres fired at 800 ft.? The point is: There are better measuring instruments out there than humans reading altimeters (or guess altitude) while loosing altitude. I know from a study that said that humans tend to make height-measure/-guessing/failures around a couple of hundret feets. Don't be a Lutz!

Just a guess: One day, I wanted to cut a Cutter off an old, expired Cypres 1 to do some tests. The cutter fired when I cut its cable (maybe due to some kind of short circuit). Maybe a similar short circuit (because of the broken Cutter) was the reason for this misfire? And maybe the cutter was damaged during packing. And when the container was a little bit streched during a turn or something, the cutter broke down completely and produced the short circuit. As I said: Just a guess (but with the background of my own experience I mentioned above). Don't be a Lutz!

C'mon, that's hairsplitting. Even im combination with the second point. My opinion: There can everytime occur an error that isn't described in ANY manual. So, the use of the brain is necessary to make the whole thing faile-safe. If I see something that I can't explain by knowledge or the manual, I ask someone who should know it (Rigger, manufacturer...). It's simply not woth the jump. If I'm not 100% convinced that my gear is OK I don't jump out of airplanes. Don't be a Lutz!

If I remember right, there's a big difference: The units you speak about had the problem that the display turned off but the units still were useable (they could turned on and off). But in this case the unit gave any vital signs (no LED activity). I didn't say it will happen to all AAD's. I said, it CAN happen. I spoke about a chance. A windows PC can crash and a Mac can do it the same way. The point is that you can't produce something and believe that it is absolutely impossible that it will produce malfunctions. The chain can break on every link. If comparable products have comparable components (links) than there's a realistic chance that some units of every product will break down on similiar ways. *** BTW this is the second time cypres 2 has problems with it's display and the second time AirTec doesn't find a recall nescessary. At least the first time they could fix it in the new units... I would need more technical details to get a opinion if Airtecs behaviour was right. . Maybe you're right in this point. But the problem that is discussed here is another. And as some others here explained: The big problem was that it was known that the rig wasn't grounded even it was known that - it produced strange errors - it didn't turned on / gave any feedback when the button was pushed. So the major difference between the example you brought into the discussion and this example here is that there was clear that - as someone told before - the unit wasn't ready to fly. There was a noticeable difference between these two scenarios. Noticable for everyone with an IQ above room temperature. In my opinion its a no-brainer that you shouldn't jump a gear that isn't 100% perfect fine. Thats a safety principle. A principle that held the Space Shuttle down (for example). Don't be a Lutz!

Yes That implies that Cypres has one. But theres only a minor chance to produce such an error. And this minor chance is a thing all manufacturers have. If you don't believe me - wait a couple of years and you will see that I was right. Will or CAN? Dude, the point is that you don't know more than I do about this "problem". You do nothing other than interpret written words. The difference between your statements and mine is that you interpret a lot more than I do and that I know that anything that can happen with electronic devices can happen on all similar products. Very funy. How long is Cypres out there and how long are the others? How much Cypres units are out there and how many Vigil/Argus? Probability calculation is the keyword here.... Don't be a Lutz!