Nelyubin

That Airtek concerning shooting of their device will tell.

Foto

Quote

That is just one incident brought up by 2 people who know nothing about it.

This your subjective opinion.
About incident with the device all is accurately written in the given theme.

Guys, I share opinion ORGASMO.
Why I have the right to possession of the weapon but I have no right to jump without AAD?

Guys. As far as I know, Airtek has sent the device to the dealer together with the first message. How they are going to solve a problem with defect? Ten thousand precisely such devices in our systems.

Check the electrical resistance of a conductor.

Received another answer Airtek.
***We are also very surprised. We really try to solve the problem.
We do not say that this can not happen, but it is very strange that there is no data.
So we are really interested in that incident, but need all the information from the guy who jumped that rig, directly, in order to get to any conclusion. That is why Regina send the letter to our dealer (and only to him, because he was the only contact to the guy) but till today there was no reaction and no answers to the questions.

I just talked with Helmut. He is every day together with our technicians now to figure out what probably happened. We really never had a Cypres fire with out any datas. So this would be the first case. We do not say, that it can not happen, but it is very, very strange.

Quote

Quote

"Hmm. Have you seen an incident where a Cypres or Vigil cutter fired, but failed to cut the loop and trapped part of it? "

No I haven't, however I have heard of a Cypres firing while a jumper was performing a HP turn, the jumper died. Is this "as serious" as the "incident" you are referring to with thed partially trapped loop? No product banning after that one.

the jumper met the AAD firing parameters, and the AAD worked as written in the manual. Later in time, the manufacturer issued a new version of the AAD in order to cater to a growing population of FAST canopy pilots.

Airtek a long time to convince all of the return.
I well remember the phrase from old instructions - "that whatever you do"

Quote

P.P.S. - Despite the big improvements made by AAD manufacturers to overcome static electricity issues, and given that the Cypres may not have recorded setting off the cutter, I gotta wonder how cold and dry the air was on that February day in Moscow. Might be on the upper end of bad days for static charge buildup.

http://rp5.ru/archive.php?wmo_id=27613&lang=en

Minimum level of humidity that day was 60%

Quote

Quote

Yes, because with the new Cypres version, they can actually test the cypress while it isn't send to them yet?

Maybe there was some honest confusion in that case about which unit Airtec had?

Even if one is suspicious about Airtec, would they really think it worthwhile to issue a statement about testing a particular unit when a DZ can show they still have it sitting in their hands and not at Airtec?

What did Airtec say after actually receiving the unit?

If someone still had the unit number written down, I'd guess that Airtec would still have their records from the time.

It's tough to figure these things out years and years later...

The device in Airtek.
Years and years later, is important for Cypres. Cypres-2 other device. Chip Cypres-2 is not such as chip Cypres.

2
Look here
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4116276;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Quote

Quote

It's interesting to see how the Argus ban triggered so much heat in the AAD industry.
I assume (maybe I'm wrong) this type of incidents concerning the Vigil and Cypres are not a novelty but they were going unnoticed until now.

No they are not unnoticed:

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dcWbbA

AlexV partly right. For newcomers to the market attention. You will be very difficult to find such information on Cypres until 2003. On the market there was no competition, these failures were not given to users.

I do not remember a case when at the death of a parachutist hitting the ground in Cypres, the data has not been read.

Inclined to agree AlexV.

P.S. On the device, there were no traces of mechanical action.

Communicated with the moderators in private mail.
They do not have a material interest.

Message from Airtek was not.

Nothing.
Unfortunately Airtrek not offer to exchange Cypres-1 to Cypres-2 for 200 Euro.

It's a little more than the manufacturing cost of Cypres

I hope he did not have partial amnesia, as happened with Cypres.

P.S.
Moderator, 3 delete my posts.
You get from Airtek money?

I broke the forum rules?
If yes. Please let me know.

I hope he did not have partial amnesia, as happened with Cypres.

P.S.
Moderator, delete my posts.

I broke the forum rules?
If yes. Please let me know.

I hope he did not have partial amnesia, as happened with Cypres.

I hope he did not have partial amnesia, as happened with Cypres.

:) Yes.

Quote

Ne nado nam lohmatit babushky

Quote

Anyway, if the unit e.g. detected a hard impact on the ground at one point it could happen that some of the latest data gets erased and therefore I cannot tell you exactly what happened.

Journal Cypres device can read or modify only the manufacturer.
This is very strange or incompetent statement.

Quote

why? are you a commie? they rip off other skydiving gear. why not rip off cypres? do you even jump anymore old man? or do you just sit and post bs from your rocking chair. peace out i'm on a call

Do not say stupid things in the theme forum.
Want to gossip about politics?
You here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?forum=35;

Everything has been inspected and verified.
The conclusion is straightforward, the device worked.
Cypres cutter was activated.

The cypres was sent to the Airtec in complete set.

Yes.
Received a very strange answer.