USPA

Fyi, dragon and I are pressumably talking about the same cypres. The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

It is communicated by both in the past, the explain a.o. a number of "misfires" (e.g. "worked as designed") of cypres. (Mostly activation during opening of main canopies (remember we *planned* our opening @ 2000ft those days)). A quick reference to a SKK communication from 1994: http://www.sskinc.com/cypres/cyp12.htm The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Sigh, I have a live which actually happens offline you know. At least one activation in a Swoop competition Empuria Brava in the same year Adrian died, don't know if their are links about it. Maybe I should extend my signature: "Dropzone, the place in which reality is defined by links on the internet" The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Added: -Did Airtec say it was impossible to reach firing parameters in the year Adrian was killed? YES -Was Airtec warned that there were incidents in which it did occur? YES -Did Airtec communicate these warnings to other jumpers? NO -Did airtec instead continue to communicate it wasn't possible and even used extreme demonstration to illustrate? YES -Did Airtec admited their mistake? NO The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

And you fell for the Airtec created myth. Airtec ACTIVELY communicated it was IMPOSSIBLE to meet the AAD firing parameters with a HP landing. Citing test they had done with Lougi(?) using a sub 100 sq feet canopy. Some people had activations before Cypres killed a jumper in this incident. These activations were communicated several times, MONTHS before Cypres killed a jumper. Airtec chose to do nothing. The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Yes, because with the new Cypres version, they can actually test the cypress while it isn't send to them yet? The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Sorry, there was a time before internet you know ;). First was a local incident . Of the second there is also a local incident, but this was before I started jumping (1995) The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

I do remember a case where the data has been read, while cypres didn't even had the unit yet... They are really good... (and alot of cases where they concluded they cypres wasn't turned on) The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

It never did. We are still talking about an alleged failure mode, which may or may not be real, but it never resulted in a total malfunction as far as we now. Furthermore if this failure mode is real (possible, but we can't tell yet), and the cutter is on top, and the failure mode is catastrofic (pulling the reserve pin will not release the pilot) (has never happend and is highly unlikly (although not impossible if .. , if .. if, ). Then it would still only occur it you activate below 800 feet, (which is even more unlikely) and the changes you'll survive are next to nill anyway. Some others have commented Airtec/Cypres doesn't have this problems and therefore did beter development. This is simply not the case, Airtec/Cypres has kept them out of the limelight. This is not surprising, since this has been done since the introduction of Cypres I with help from the community. (see rec.skydiving discussions) This was sensible, since even with all the problems with Cypres I, the community was beter as a whole if people accepted the AAD as "safe". Unfortunatly now the same mechanism (/myth) is used to push competition out of the way. Through is there is not a single perfect AAD out there. Let people chose for themselves. (In the same way chosing a RSL , pull-out or Skyhook are choices people make themselves, wich have direct influence on their safety) The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

You're right, it could. Apart from that, I'm not playing with words. I far more prefer an AAD which doesn't activate, then an AAD that does activate when it doesn't supposed to. Current status is that because of these bulletins their isn't a save AAD out there anymore, which means my rig manufacturer forbids me to use a safety device. I have off course let the manufacturer know of this consequence and off course also put in in writing, if someday someone would want proof on the effect of the ban and I am not able to provide it... The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

- That's still hypothetical - That could only occur if the cutter is on top - That would mean you would want to activate the reserve after the AAD activated - If an activation would go "unnoticed" the display would display activation during pincheck An unwanted activation would actually actively kill the jumper and others in the same jump and plane. The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

You're right. But don't forget Cypres has a lousy trackrecord in communication. The battery change became mandatory after a failed save, actively denying the possibility of an under canopy activation, untill someone died (even worse, after that starting a misinformation approach to obscure the facts). Hiding failed saves, where people went in (even Cypres was correctly set etc.) and stating units "worked correctly after carefull examination", without even having the unit. PS Don't forget the container locking is an hypothetical situation, where there isn't even a single shred of evidence (allot of speculation although) that any cutter has this failure mode. I'm very surprised about even riggers, which I talk too, that don't even know exactly what is happening. (They know "something" is "wrong" with the cutter, but don't know anything else) The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

I was looking at some old threads, but for future reference, www.DZ-manager.com (Olly) can be reached at [email protected]. We are also rolling out DZ-Manager at our DZ (2 grand caravans, 35k jumps a year) and it's the first time users are excited about a change in their software! ;-) (we've been using Jumprun (4.0, 4.2 and 5.0) since 1998) The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

We are an existing DZ, and spent over a year looking into current and future manifest software. We chose DzManager (http://www.dz-manager.com/Pages/Default.aspx) because of the great flexibility, fully integrated web interface, fully integrated barcode and MiFare customer cards and relatively cheap TCO. We are currently implementing DzManager and the although it takes some time setting up, it is extremely powerful in its automation and self-service features (both online as in "kiosk-mode" at the DZ). This way we need less hands on the manifest, who can spend more time on our customers / members. PS We have used JumpRun! for 13 years (4.0 / 4.2 and 5) The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Open source is always nice, but support is the biggest issue, since most DZs have very limited technical knowledge. We took over a year to find a replacement for Jumprun, checking out all the option, including modifying JR itself. We eventually chose to buy DZ-manager licenses this week (www.dz-manager.com). There will be some tweaks added for us, which would make it fit like glove for our operations. We're especially looking forward to features like the online portal for skydivers (logs, topping up accounts) and tandems/students (reservations, payments, automatic (and tracking of!) gift certificates). And also linking the debit/credit card machine directly into DZ-manager. People at the DZ will be able to top-up their account without having to go to the staf, they can just use the self-service kiosk (touch screen)... (Or still come to the manifest if they want to wait... ) PS We're a 2 grand caravan operation, Dz-manager personal edition (only 1 computer) is free of charge... (hint...) The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

@Phreezone I think you mean Dz-manager (www.dz-manager.com) (I know, old post, but for future reference...) The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

This isn't something to worry about as far as I can tell, but found it very funny to find this label attached to a *worn* tandemloop... The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Like I said, I have little knowledge of the testing. I was just annoyed at your judgment, without knowing their protocol. As a mechanical engineer you should know you should reserve judgment until you get such data. The term minimal isn't correct either, I would describe Vigil as minimal and Argus as somewhere in between. The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

So you have very little knowledge about the maintenance and still call it trivial... The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

I stated clearly what I know about the maintenance... Your state yourself you only did a single phonecall. After this call you call it a trivial check (a check you didn't even know existed a few hours ago). Your continuous bashing of other AADs smell like a fanboy. It may be clear I'm a proponent of Argus, but I give credit to Airtec and Vigil where credit is due. Since you state you have extensive knowledge of the maintenance, please share the protocol and software used for testing with us. The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

OMG, you state this after a single phone call to a field service centre... There are 2 words for that: Ignorant and Fanboy. 2 qualities that are new for me in skydiving. The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Although true, I still think regular maintenance could be important. You can check calibration and update software if needed. On the other side, the manufacturer gains valuable information about the performance of the devices in the field. This in turns benefits the customers (skydiver community). Concerning the Airtec maintenance, I pressume they always have / had a conundrum. If they state that so and so many devices fail the maintenance, they're basically saying "Hey, our product became defective somewhere between the last time we saw it and now" and if hardly ever a devices fails, they're basically saying "This maintenance is actually surplus, but we like the data and it keeps our people employed". The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Personally I don't think Argus failed. As far as I know (but I have yet to witness an Argus maintenance) An FXC is a simple go/no go test. The argus maintenance also checks the sensors itself etc. But I really should set up a demonstration to really get to know this stuff.. The cypres testing sounds great, but not sure if it's really needed. There is no way of telling whether the unit itself will still function the moment it has left the testing chamber. Furthermore when you stress the components to their max, the possibility of failure increases. This failure doesn't have to happen during testing itself, but can also occur later... Mind you, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying I'm not convinced it's the only way to go... The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

Argus has mandatory 4 year maintenance... The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

I don't buy that. If the maintenance is so important to a person, he want to pay extra for it, it will be voluntary anyway, either by buying an Cypres or Argus (both mandatory inspection, only the later at "service points") or buying a Vigil and send it in yourself. I know people will find excuses, but that applies at buying the unit also. The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...