f94sbu

There is a huge difference teaching first timers and teaching beginning skydivers. If you have first timers who paid for 1+1 minute of flying time, you want to maximize their flight time (flying by themselves) and to keep people safe, you turn the speed down and let people fly with really straight legs and arms. With a slow speed people cannot quickly de-arch and pop up high. If you teach them to arch (and let them fly at that speed) they can cause an issue if they panic for some reason and de-arch. If someone wants to do pre-aff training, this creates a very bad muscle memory unless you spend some time in the tunnel flying a proper box position. Doing 2 minutes of first timer flying before AFF is imo a waste of money. However, if you follow with 10-15 of real flying skills, dedicated for what is to come in the air, then the tunnel is a great resource for pre aff training. Bottom line, if people only want to fly 2 minutes, the first timer training is optimized for as much flying as possible under those circumstances but if you want do tunnel training as pre aff, you need to let the instructors know so that they know how to optimize the tunnel time.

Get some Flysight data and I am sure that you will find that you fly the canopy differently in different wind conditions. I am not going to go into all the details on how you fly differently as it has either already been explained or has to be experienced first hand to fully grasp it. One easy way to get a better understanding of this is to consider the wind and then try to figure out how different wind speed and wind directions makes you fly your wing differently (crabbing into a strong headwind for example) Once you have noticed how you fly your wing differently, then you will probably figure out how flying the wing differently will affect your turn and roll out. Next step is to think about how different wind speeds change your perception of the ground and you have another set of variables that will affect your turn and roll out.

Exactly which investment do you refer to? The investment of realizing that it is possible to build more tunnels like the Las Vegas one? Or any specific technical detail that is expensive to develop? I totally agree that if the patents cover technical ingenuity, it should be protected, but is that really the case here? There is a difference in stealing technical innovation, saving you from doing the work yourself and "stealing" an idea that doesn't really cost you any money to come up with.

One broken femur + injured neck in Dubai last November with a pilot under a Peregrine. Could have been another one with a Petra, but fortunately the pond was in the right place and forgiving enough to let the pilot (and the rest of us) off with wet pants. Accidents have been happening with JVX and Comp Velos, I see no reason why it would be different with even more aggressive canopies.

Will do (except for the part closest to the liner what I need to keep there to keep the liner securely attached in the ground.) I love the idea of using a variable depth as that will save on cost significantly.

Hi! Skydive Stockholm is in the final stages of finalizing our swoop pond and I'd like to know how other DZ's have constructed their zone acc course. What is the depth of the gravel that you used and what kind of gravel did you use? We are probably going for a little higher quality gravel so I dont want to make gravel too deep unless I have to. Cheers! /Stefan

I could quickly come up with the following devices: Cypres, Vigil, Argus, m2, Astra (which is a US brand btw). Some may not be in business any longer for various reasons but 5 different manufacturers for a relatively small sport is definitely competition in my book. I dont want to start a brand war, but just to highlight that there is competition and the competition for lower cost could very well have caused at least one of them to make a design decision that has proven to cause trouble. Some manufacturers state that their design is maintenance free (resulting in a lower total cost of ownership) where as others state that there is no way to make a device 99.999% reliable without a periodic maintenance. TCO is a point often brought up when various models are being compared.

You forget the fact that people are expecting to lowest possible cost and applaud competition from lower priced AADs. FWIW, the level of aging tests performed by Airtec by far exceeds the normal level of testing that a similarly priced consumer electronics product are subjected to.

If you submerge the unit (regardless of the filter) it will sense a rapid increase of pressure. At 15 cm below the water surface, the pressure will look like it is 100 meter below the ground level. To the unit, this will look like a rapid change of altitude and it may look like you are in freefall too close to the ground. To prevent two outs, the unit shuts itself off with some margin before it may be submerged.

Haha, just to nitpick back then EMC stands for ElectroMagnetic Compatibility, ie if the device is not disturbing devices around itself and if it is not disturbed itself. This includes all sorts of radiation, ESD, etc. EMI stands for ElectroMagnetic Interference which is what you were looking for. Ie does the device emit things that it may not. As these terms have been used from time to time, I just thought it to be valuable for people to know what we are talking about. And yes, you were right, FCC only regulates EMI, ie does the device disturb other devices. All forms of disturbance on the device is subject to the manufacturers discretion. I guess this is a moot point though as the (at least my) Cypres unit has a CE mark in it which means that it has been tested for compatibility of all kinds. Ie, both whether it radiates and how it withstands outside radiation and other disturbances such as ESD.

The dbi link was the result of a quick scan to digg up the ESD levels required by FCC testing, per your request. If you want to have the complete comparison, you probably need to contact a test lab. As far as self regulation. I know for a fact that this is not the case. Think about it, your product might be radiating signals into the licensed radio spectrum, it would potentially cause major harm to by civilian and military emergency systems. When it comes to ESD, I would agree that it is more of an internal issue, but I still dont think that anyone that has done FCC compliance testing would skip ESD.

Talk to a local instructor if you are genuinely interested in knowing how your lifesaving gear works. (No offense meant, it is not uncommon that layers and journalists register accounts here to get a ammunition for their own agendas ) The internet is way to blunt as a tool to get understand completely how your gear works. I have been teaching 100s of students over the years and I have have never had any trouble using the AAD manuals as a basis explaining how the device works. However to be able to explain all the nuances of how things work, no manual will be able to accurately explain all followup questions. As for your 130AGL question, the logic is pretty simple. To avoid releasing your reserve in the event of a water landing, the unit will not react below 130 feet AGL. The difference between a Cypres and Vigil is most likely how the two manufacturers build in margins for any errors in the measurements.

1) The label on my Speed Cypres has the CE stamp. I am not sure if a unit sold in the US has the corresponding FCC stamp though. The following portion is taken directly from the manual: "14. Electromagnetic compatibility Manufacturer's Certification: We herewith certify that the automatic parachute activation device "CYPRES" (Cybernetic Parachute Release System) is free from electromagnetic interference in accordance with order no. 1045/1984 of Deutsche Bundespost. Deutsche Bundespost was informed of the release of this system, and has been granted the right to check that these products conform to standard. Airtec GmbH, Mittelstrasse 69, 33181 Wuennenberg, Germany" 2) I think the above is the reference you are looking for 3) http://www.dbicorporation.com/standard.htm#product. It is difficult to tell which class of product a Cypres would fall under, however the ESD requirements for most categories are the same. The ESD requirements are the same as CE (+/-4kV for contact discharges, +/-8kV for eir discharges. ) however, the test setup might be defined differently, but you'd probably have to buy the standard document to get the details. 4) I have no idea. I dont think that the Cypres is classified as an avionics product though. However, I am pretty sure that avionics get separate treatment as they have several sensitive ports that are exempt from ESD testing. (The same as external antenna ports on a cellphone) regards, Stefan

ESD testing is required for CE/FCC approval. Airtec even published the test protocols from their testing. The fact that you have been unable to read and understand those is (imho) beyond me. FYI, the required levels of ESD resistance required by CE/FCC approval is way lower than the levels to which Airtec is testing. If you are looking for any luck in a consumer rights case, you need to prove that the ESD susceptibility is breaking the CE/FCC approval. Good luck doing that!

One of the pitfalls with coaching is that it actually gets in a position where you are performing beyond your survival skills. As a coach, it is relatively easy to tell someone how to do a perfect swoop, use the rears etc. (after all, it is all just simple mechanics). As a student, it is also quite easy to follow these instructions and perform reasonably well. What's missing from this equation is that neither coaches nor students are prefect. Sometimes we screw up and it is in those situations that the student is left with their (sometimes very limited) own survival skills. There is nothing in the world that the coach can do when the shit hits the fan other than to hope that the student will bail out, forget about the perfect swoop and spend 100% of their attention on surviving. Your story is very similar to others that I have been told where people are surprised why they bounced, after all, they were doing so well, their coaches told them that they were talented, they were using rears, smaller canopies etc. But what they were missing was the ability to tell when things were going wrong and how to handle it. One of they key factors here is the size of your wing. When shit hits the fan, having a larger wing gives you more time to react and the wing is pulling out of the dive faster, both on its own and because of your input. Many people are capable of performing very well on smaller wings, but before you go there, make sure that you have learned the hard lessons on your bigger wing. If the first time you are low is under a 75sq ft canopy, loaded @ 2.9, the likelihood of successful outcome is very low. Thats why experienced coaches insist on keeping people on larger wings longer than people would like to. Not because they cannot perform with the smaller one, but because they need to learn the hard lessons on the bigger one. As a coach, I can only explain to you what skills you need to have to survive a botched swoop but you will have to learn how to apply them yourself. And when you do, give yourself the best possible conditions. In your case, if you have not been low on your new wing, swooping it over the asphalt is probably not a good yourself a suitable playground to learn to make mistakes. (I know nothing of your progression, I am just using it as an example of how you can give yourself the best learning opportunities while still being able to walk away from the close calls). I hope that this gives you some ideas how to train to become a safer pilot so that you have larger margins when explore the performance of your wings. regards, Stefan

Hi! As the skydiving season hasn't started here, I dont need a logger. I was more looking for someone who has been using a FlySight and who is willing to share the data with me.

Hi! Does anyone have a GPS recording of a swoop that they'd like to share with me? I am working on a tracking system, but as the skydiving season hasn't started here yet, I cannot do live tests and have to resort to simulations for the time being. PM me if you have a log of a swoop that you are willing to share. Thanks! Stefan

Shit happens. Just ask the crowd at a NASCAR or Hockey game. People who go to those events know what to expect. People at a beach hotel probably dont expect to be taken out by a skydiver playing in the pool. Nevertheless, awesome swoop.

Agreed, I have also seen that part. I took their statement back then as a reason why they felt it is necessary to test the device up to levels of 25 kV (while the legal requirement to get the CE approval is only 8kV). If such high levels of static was generated during deployment, you would feel a shock once you land or once you touch your rigg again. As that is something I have never heard of, I can only assume that the levels of static that is built up is lower. However, dragging your feet across a mat, especially if you have rubber shoes is a well known way of creating static electricity. (Anyone you used to play pranks with their friends using this method knows what I am talking about) I am not sure that the SB is contradicting their paper, all that the are really saying is that they feel that they need to protect the device for more ESD than normally required. I am not sure if their paper would need to state that static electricity can be built up on carpets as that's a known fact for anyone who is developing an electronics device.

Actually we do. Over the last 3 years, 14 locked up units, one on ground misfire, no in air misfire. You can look up the number of jumps made during that period and you will have a pretty accurate picture of the likelihood of this happening. This is wrong. You make it sound like the unit itself can misfire at any point in time. ESD has caused the misfire and the units unfortunately does not have enough ESD protection to handle that. Why is this important? It is, because you can solve this in 2 ways: Eliminate ESD and/or improve the ESD protection. As ESD of this kind is eliminated in freefall, it wont happen there. You are already taking the misfire out of proportion and making it something it is not. Should Airtec address is issue. Of course they should (and they are, we just dont like the way they do it). Should we stop jumping with Cypres's as they can now spontaneously fire in freefall more often than 2 weeks ago. Seriously not! People still die from no-pulls. Experienced people. And not everyone has yet had time to become experienced. Looking back at the statistics from 2011 indicate that AAD's have not had as marginal impact as you make it seem. How about a reminder of the fatality rate from no-pulls back then?

You are taking the misfire out of proportion and reading something into it that it is not. If you chose to believe that Airtec has done their homework, they have determined that the on ground misfire due to ESD will not happen in the air. They even explained why. If you think that they are lying, then we can stop having this discussion. If you are curious about it, there is a scientific argument why their statement is accurate. The only counter arguments that I have seen so far are "They are lying" "You have no clue" or "They do not know". FUD means Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, and it is pretty close to your words when you claim that your Cypres unit is nothing but a doorstop. It is not used to mock anybody. I am glad that you didn't use the same claim when you spoke to your customer today, but how would I know that from your previous posts? (Btw from what I know, the production stopped after 11/12 so this unit is probably one of the very last ones produced before the shutdown) As far as you Samuel Clement quote, you are reading something into it that it is not. What the quote refers to is the fact that statistics can be used to prove anything _if_ you skew the facts or leave other things out. From a predictability perspective it is pretty accurate. (I use statistics in my work to help my decision making and it is a pretty powerful tool). For example, statistically, we could be fairly certain that over the next 3 years, we would have seen around 10-20 locked up Cypres units if the fix wasn't applied. You being surprised over that outcome is based on nothing but your feeling which is often not accurate. Google "Monty Hall problem" for an excellent example where people feel for whats correct is completely opposite to the real outcome, which btw can be easily predicted using statistics.

To keep people as safe as possible. And to avoid having people judgements clouded by the FUD that is being spread. Up until a week ago, most people in this forum had no idea what ESD was short for. I happen to have a fair amount of knowledge of it, so if you were interested in an explanation of the reasoning that Airtec has made, I could give you one. If one is convinced that they are lying their teeth off, I don't think that there is any point discussing anything, that a source that can be remotely biased, has presented. If your viewpoint is that you want to go by your gut feeling, I am not going to stop you, but if you argue with me about technical things, I have the knowledge to back it up. Thats not an opinion, thats facts. The same as for the odds around skydiving. How you chose to interpret it, its up to you, but again there is no point arguing around those facts. It is interesting to see someone claiming their Cypres being 'faulty' when you don't even know what 'faulty' is defined as. Let me just tell you that your Cypres will be faulty by definition even after the fix. ESD protection measures deteriorate as a part of the way they protect the device. If you zap your cellphone/computer/AAD enough times it _will stop functioning_. No matter how much protection that is added to it. I completely agree that 14 locked up units is not acceptable and I am glad that Airtec finally got themselves together to flush out the issue. However, I think that you are heavily overreacting claiming that your Cypres all of a sudden turned into a doorstop. If that's how you feel, dont worry, I am not going to force you to change your opinion, however I was presenting some facts that might get you to see things from a more objective perspective. Statistically, your Cypres is still much more functioning than most of the other gear we use. Did you know that a reserve parachute only has to show a certain number of successful openings to be certified? It does not matter how many tests that fail as long as x number of tests were successful. How many reserve parachutes are tested (not just inspected) before being shipped to a customer? Again, I am just trying to put these failures into perspective of everything else related to skydiving. I am sorry to hear about your wife's two out and I have no problem that she is making choices based on that experience. However, I just wish that you wouldn't project that to the rest of people who listens as the facts simply don't agree with you. (Again, just look at the statistics and you'll see). To be honest, I'd be perfectly ok jumping without doing the check every time I jump. Statistically, it is more likely that I am going to forget to turn my Cypres on in the morning of a fatal jump compared to the unit locking up without me noticing it. No, I dont work for Airtec, nor am I sponsored by them in any way. I just happen to work a lot with both electronics and skydiving safety.

Oh look, more personal attacks. When out of facts and logic, people often attack the person. It seems the best you can do. It seems the only thing you wish to do is attack me, so good day. I thought I could lighten the mood with the smiley, but apparently I was wrong. You failed to comment on any of the obvious flaws in your reasoning that I pointed out. Instead you were pretty quick to pull out the "personal attack" card. I can only assume that you are out of arguments since long. You have been unable to counter any of my arguments with anything but "you dont know" while your pride yourself with having access to "the truth". Care to explain that?

Can you explain what the logic behind that conclusion is? All Cypres saves that happened last 3 years, really didn't happen? Or could I put any door stop in my Cypres and have it save me in freefall? Here are some hard facts for you: 2011, there were 9 fatal incidents in the world that could have been prevented by the use of an AAD. There were 6 documented saves. (I am sure that there are more, but lets just use the documented saves for now) That means that the odds that your wife will die from a no pull is 1 : 405 314 The odds that she will find he Cypres unresponsive (ie find her rigg not airworth) is 1 : 1 321 679 The odds that her rigg will open on the packing matt due to a Cypres activating is 1 : 18 239 169 Ie, the chance that she dies from a no pull is 3 times higher than she even seeing her Cypres being locked up. The later being a completely harmless event. I sincerely hope that you have found other ways of improving her safety odds. I am sure that you would like to get your unit serviced sooner than the scheduled maintenance period, however, did you consider asking SSK what the earliest time they could accept the unit is? In the meantime, do you really think that it is unsafe to jump with the unit? (Look at the real data and not what your instinct tells you...)