Nelyubin

Logical conclusion. Must follow the instructions. Know that jumping from an airplane a pressurized with Cypres, Cypres does not work . In the past time I bought Cypres.

No need to cheat. It was right is violated operating instructions manual instrument. http://www.vigil.aero/files/WorldTeamResponse_005.pdf P.S. You "forgot" to say that 24 Cypres were blocked and did not work.

Just observe the instruction to the device. Have you tried? Failure to follow instructions and Cypres shoots. I am well known for the case when the MI-8 both shot 4 Cypres. They wrote about this in the instructions. Specifically for you attached the part of the old (before 2010) instructions. What do you say about this case? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4115858;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread I do not want to depend on the slowness = bad service of any Manufacturer drivers. Speed of service Airtek beyond reasonable limits. Even the service plane often takes less time.

Unlike you I have something to compare (you have too little in this sport). Airtek withdraw device units from a malfunction of the control unit, bad batteries, static, bad sensors. They lied that the device is suitable for Swoop (until the man no died). If you do not know about it - it's your problem.

Vice versa. Money in this matter is not important. Term regulation Cypres (for Russia and many other countries) is rarely less than two months. I do not want to to wait so long . As there is no desire to hasten their lazy employees

... If you can't handle the expense of a 4 and 8 year service, and cannot schedule those two events into a 12 year period of your life (in which your rig will need to be down for 24 repacks) you shouldn't be jumping. It's not that much cash, nor that much time or trouble. You and Airtek try to dictate to other people. I have started to jump when wasn't Airtek and Cypres. Jumped with various devices. Jumped with Cypres. But time goes. Airtek isn't in time behind modern technologies. They need to repeat a prayer "we very long in the market" Yes, not your care with what to me to jump.

You say based on their knowledge of the Cypres. You do not even read the instructions for Vigil. You argue that you do not know. A self test cannot do what you seem to want to believe it can, no matter what the manual for a product says. You can always make provrkuon a number of of parameters ( speed ,altitude, andmore ... ) comparingthe readings with a digital altimeter ( for example, Neptune) . But you are too lazy to even read the manual.

It is just a little bit better, but also can create trouble. Does the vigil manual give guidance on how far off of the actual pressure it should read for it to be OK? It really isn't important that the sensor be accurately 'zeroed' so that it can give the correct pressure, but if a user is going to look at that number and make some conclusion (the unit is good or possibly bad), then you must have the allowable tolerance - even though that absolute pressure reading doesn't really matter...and on it goes in a circular argument type of fashion. I strongly suspect that any of the AADs on the market already confirm that the sensor is showing a reasonable value. Perhaps someone with insider knowledge can confirm that. Anyway, self tests can't do nearly as much as some would like for them to do, which is the reason that periodically a really thorough functional fire/no fire test right next to the limits of speed/altitude, and confirming that temp/vibration doesn't kill it is a really good idea. We essentially don't read the instruction?

I pointed out in specific cases. Made reference to the topic. Please do the same in support of words.

You say based on their knowledge of the Cypres. You do not even read the instructions for Vigil. You argue that you do not know.

Impressed by the BASF plant in Mathayme. Cypres It looks like a small workshop for assembling toys

You can verify that it seems to reading a valid static pressure, but that says nothing for the sensor's ability to measure the change (or rate of change) of the pressure during a skydive. The simple fact is that between Cypres and Vigil, the Vigil is the one with the reputation for firing when you don't really want it to fire. The parameters may have been met according to the sensor, but without filters to refine the info, you get things like Vigils firing when you open the door or the plane, or close the trunk of your car. No AAD is perfect, they all have incidents where they did not work as designed, or the design turned out to be faulty. The Cypres has had the fewest of the these instances despite the fact that it has been on the market 3 or 4 times as long as the Vigil, and probably has 10, 20, or 30 times the jumps. Like most things in skidiving, there are no guarantees, it's all an odds game. At this point, the odds are with Cypres. Yes, a chance not to open fire when needed in Cypress, is much higher than that of other devices http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4085713;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Nobody asked the question why in all cases Cypres ?

You're talking about cases of misfires Vigil. Please count how many there were.

You speak about that that isn't known to you. Gage Vigil always can be checked up independently. Independently to check up gage Cypres it is impossible. Read instructions. In one you are right. Cypres the obligatory regulations are required.

Not true. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4115858;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread http://www.cypres.cc/images/stories/storypictures/service_bulletin_april_2008_e.pdf I don't see how a few cases of this completely nullifies the argument. There is not an AAD out there that has not misfired at one point or another. If you look at the overall number of units compared to misfires that you hear about, I am sure there are a lot more that we don't hear about but those are hard to judge, CYPRES by far tends to have less of them. Citing a few examples doesn't discredit the argument towards the quality of the AAD. If you do not take into account that in one example, affected 800 Cypres .

Not true. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4115858;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread http://www.cypres.cc/images/stories/storypictures/service_bulletin_april_2008_e.pdf

Cypres. At carrying out of regulations the manufacturer changes the electronic block when parameters of the gage of pressure became incorrect. On it to you won't inform. You will never know that the year, two, three jumped with the faulty device. Vigil You always will check up as the gage of pressure of your device works.

Cypres. At carrying out of regulations the manufacturer changes the electronic block when parameters of the gage of pressure became incorrect. On it to you won't inform. You will never know that the year, two, three jumped with the faulty device. Vigil You always will check up as the gage of pressure of your device works.

No. Also I think won't be what conclusions.

control unit https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-f8Vr6i59cOU/Tc2HS3_uruI/AAAAAAAAGI4/etmIDu3fFPY/s912/3.JPG https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mEN_O8uHdM8/Tc2HUSqxA4I/AAAAAAAAGI8/Ws9gUXrsQRQ/s912/2.JPG https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WhIJKtYYGgQ/Tc2HWYeHseI/AAAAAAAAGJA/YJszuJee9Pk/s912/1.JPG https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-SodYqYDqYoI/Tc2H1TD5J9I/AAAAAAAAGJE/RKCpPWDkbx4/s912/5.JPG https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-l0DYXUQilVg/Tc2H54OvdaI/AAAAAAAAGJI/gPohtmhFkvA/s912/4.JPG https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wavImGvEKVk/Tc2IEotki8I/AAAAAAAAGJQ/k3GcrNbtwn0/s912/7.JPG https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-pIqNz-6hHeg/Tc6yXqHTG_I/AAAAAAAAGJo/JyrJebbujR4/s912/8.JPG https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-piE8bn-cXTc/Tc6z3Iev43I/AAAAAAAAGKM/_bHEqJiKFdk/s912/10.JPG

Such words Ertek put into question the incidents when they say " the device not included "

It does not help that the client does not provide more information. Though there is a language barrier there. We have to assume that the client is telling the truth about the reserve popping open recently so that leaves a few possibilities... . Such statement very strange. The device has been given in Airtek with the detailed description of a case. Airtek has received the device. Airtek has replaced a device cartridge. Airtek has sent the device to the owner. The case with the device has interested Airtek only after publicity at forums.

We will wait from Airtek the similar answer?

Please excuse me, I know that english isn't yours or my mother language, but could you please phrase your comments and questions a bit better? I do not understand what you mean by this sentence. Airtek will give the reasonable answer concerning shooting of cartridge Cypres-2 on the earth?