Airtec response to recent events

[RTB 0]

This information comes from one of Airtecs dealers, I am just passing it on.

The following text is soon to be published at Airtecs site:


20. September 2005
Over the past 15+ years we have had a continuous program of data
gathering
using custom
instrumentation to monitor new techniques and equipment in the sport. Our
previous statement that
"it is not possible to safely perform such radical maneuvers below 750
feet
and activate CYPRES, as
even if a jumper reaches 78 mph vertical speed for a brief amount of
time,
it will not activate" has
been superceded by new techniques involving a small handful of the best
of
the best canopy pilots.
For them it is now possible to sustain vertical speed in excess of 78 mph
for an extended period of
time, and land safely.
As the line between freefall speeds and vertical flight under canopy
becomes
less and less distinct,
the statements and conclusions from the section below are still valid for
the vast, vast majority of
skydivers. However, additional fine-tuning of extreme vertical approach
landing technique involving
multiple 360's starting above 1500 feet by a handful of jumpers, has
resulted in exceeding the
activation design criteria of Expert CYPRES / CYPRES 2.
It is important to note that:
1) it is not simply a matter of wing loading
2) For the majority of skydivers, the risk of such an occurrence is
infinitesimal as compared to the
risks of jumping without CYPRES. Be aware that only a handful of world
class
CP professionals
have developed the skills to exceed the activation speed.
3) In order to cope with these new advanced canopy piloting techniques,
the
development of a
special model of CYPRES 2 has been underway for a number of months.
It was the goal to exactly evaluate what is happening at the moment and
the
trial to foresee a
possible development of this discipline in the future. Therefore we
equipped
professional CP pilots
(also the PD Factory Team) with data instruments and made other basic
research jumps to find the
best suitable way to cover also potential possible speeds.
The important parameters of this special model do not only consist of the
definition of a vertical
speed.
This model is presently in the final test phase, and currently being
test-jumped - release date will be
available soon
4) for most skydivers, this special CYPRES 2 will actually increase some
risk: because of its more
stringent activation parameters, it will not activate as soon or at all
in
certain circumstances as
compared to the Expert model
5) specific recommendations for those skydivers who are candidates for
using
this special CYPRES
2 will be available soon, but for now, suffice it to say that it is a
very
small community of canopy
pilots who presently are capable of crossing the line of Expert CYPRES
under
canopy while still
landing safely
more info soon...

[Tonto 1]

Quote

2) For the majority of skydivers, the risk of such an occurrence is
infinitesimal as compared to the risks of jumping without CYPRES.

I think that's a bit of a presumption. The "vast, vast" majority of skydivers pay for and maintain cypreses that they will never need.

They are essensially buying peace of mind, and that peace of mind has been shaken somewhat.

RSL's save many, and kill a few.
AAD's fall into the same category, along with airbags, seatbelts etc.

Each jumper should make their own, informed desision. Personally, I don't like the idea of any safety device that may kill me, but it's all about playing the odds. I'll keep wearing a seat belt.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Remster 30]

Quote

3) In order to cope with these new advanced canopy piloting techniques,
the
development of a
special model of CYPRES 2 has been underway for a number of months.

I'm sorry, but I'm fuming at the ears reading this. Assuming you are a Airtec representative, and this statement is true, then your company realy, realy fucked up by not making this issue public as soon as you knew it existed.

Remster

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

3) In order to cope with these new advanced canopy piloting techniques,
the
development of a
special model of CYPRES 2 has been underway for a number of months.

Then, "a number of months ago" there should have been a service bulletin alerting all of us to the danger involved. I don't want to slam this company, but clearly this was an error in judgment, and it cost us one of the most talented skydivers of our time. Worse, it cost Katarina her soul mate, and Ella her father.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Assuming you are a Airtec representative, and this statement is true, then your company realy, realy fucked up by not making this issue public as soon as you knew it existed.

I disagree.

AirTec (and other AAD manufacturers) have published the operational criterial of their devices, not RTFM is no excuse to place the blame on the manufacurers. It's not like they tried to conceal the information either. The incidents happened in public places, and I caught wind of several of them.

Heck, as pointed out in 2003 another jumper though of the possibility and did indipendant testing which showed that this sort of thing *was* absolutly possible.

Does PD make an anouncement that you could die, everytime someone goes in under a fully function main canopy they manufactured? No, because the fact that they hooked into the ground is assumed to be operator error. It also applies to this AAD situation. As soon as canopy pilots began exceeding the activation requirements of their AAD's, they were at risk.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Then, "a number of months ago" there should have been a service bulletin alerting all of us to the danger involved.

There was. It's called the manual. Exceed the activation parameters either in freefall or under canopy and you risk a deployment.

Quote

I don't want to slam this company, but clearly this was an error in judgment, and it cost us one of the most talented skydivers of our time.

No. Stop trying to play a blame game. This company has made an effort to evolve their device to suit a wider range of clients. Your're bashing them for that, rather than applauding their efforts and potential exposure to added liability.

The jumper (who I've met and consider his death a huge loss to the sport) made an error. Happens all the time.

edit: clarification

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[phoenixlpr 0]

This is from the Cypres` users manual:

"Even with extreme maneuvers during exit and in freefall, CYPRES will cope with it.
Whatever you can think of under canopy like stalls, spiral turns, down planes, hookturns
with the smallest canopies as well as any CRW, CYPRES will analyze these movements
without problems. It won't interfere with any normal activities while skydiving."

Is it the same manual???

[jdfreefly 1]

Bullshit. As a consumer of their product, and a friend of those involved in this incident, I have every right to fault their handling of this issue.

They new about this possibility, they did nothing to be proactive in drawing attention to it. The may have had what they thought were good reasons. They may still think they were correct, I don't know.

Perhaps I should have said, "I feel this was an error in judgement." Regardless, I have every right to feel the way I do, and I have a feeling that a lot of paying customers are going to agree.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[diablopilot 2]

Yep. And when it was created, for the situations it was created for it works. Skydivers have a knack for creating new, and interesting ways to die every year.

It's pretty simple. Exceed the requirements to make the unit think you are doing greater that 78mph vertical above 130 ft agl and you risk a deployment.

Now who ya gonna blame? The H/C manufacturer for not giving you an airspeed indicator?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[mnealtx 0]

How so?

I'd really like to know how you feel Airtec has any responsibility in this.

Airtec did not jump from that aircraft and make the maneuvers that caused the Cypress to activate, Adrian did.

Any swooper that is getting close to that type of speed (and I'll be willing to bet that most of them could tell you what MPH they hit on their last swoop) should be WELL cognizant that they're getting into a danger area for their Cypress. If they don't, then they're being damned foolish by not knowing their equipment.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

Also from the manual:

"the occurrence of a malfunction cannot be excluded. We accept no responsibility for damages and consequences resulting from a malfunction."

You take certain risks jumping with a Cypres. If you pull low, it may fire. If you land near a radar installation, it may fire. If you swoop at high speeds, it may fire. It may fire for no reason at all. If this risk is worth it to you for the added protection against a no-pull, then use it - but be aware that it is NOT risk-free.

[Remster 30]

I wholeheartdly disagree JP... The manual goes beyond a statement of a activation speeds of 78mph: its STATES that any maneouvre can be made under canopy.

Even after Troy's tests result that he published in Skydiving, Airtec re-stated that this speed could not be reached for long enough and still result in a safe landing

Quote

It's pretty simple. Exceed the requirements to make the unit think you are doing greater that 78mph vertical above 130 ft agl and you risk a deployment.

That would be true if there wasnt that statement :

"Even with extreme maneuvers during exit and in freefall, CYPRES will cope with it. Whatever you can think of under canopy like stalls, spiral turns, down planes, hookturns with the smallest canopies as well as any CRW, CYPRES will analyze these movements without problems. It won't interfere with any normal activities while skydiving."

I RTFM JP.

Remster

[jdfreefly 1]

Half the people I jump with are probably close to that speed. How close? Good question, but I know they can't answer it because we don't have a radar gun.

I would think I made it quite clear where I feel their responsibility lies in this. Yes, Adrian could have avoided this accident by not turning on his cypress or not flying such a high speed aproach. Airtec could also have possibly avoided this accident by issuing a service bulletin or a press release the moment they were aware this potential existed.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[dragon2 2]

Quote

Half the people I jump with are probably close to that speed. How close? Good question, but I know they can't answer it because we don't have a radar gun.

Well a lot of swoopers nowadays have neptunes. This means you CAN see your vertical speed under canopy.

I checked some jumps that are on my laptop right now, a quick 270 on a ~1.7 loaded stiletto 120 gave a top speed of 45 mph. That's how fast I'm going in my wingsuit... And it is NOTHING compared to the tiny swoop chutes. So yeah, anyone with a neptune could've seen we're getting close... love to see a profile from a 540 by Jonathan or something though.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Remster 30]

Quote

Also from the manual:

"the occurrence of a malfunction cannot be excluded. We accept no responsibility for damages and consequences resulting from a malfunction."

Assuming it wasnt a malfuntion, this cant apply Bill. While yes, in the end, each jumper is responsable for his own safety, the issue I have here is that a manufacturer claims that no canopy maneuvre will make the unit fire. Even after some ad-hoc tests by a jumper that shows an activation, the manufacturer claimed it would not be applicable in a real landing. YET AT THE SAME TIME, they are developing a new version of the unit to address this very issue without a either a Service Bulletin, or warning to all users.

I feel Airtec has always been pretty tight lipped about things with public information. I dont think they should have in this case.

Remster

[billvon 2,991]

>the issue I have here is that a manufacturer claims that no canopy
>maneuvre will make the unit fire.

From Kai's letter to Skydiving in 2003:

"according to our current knowledge base, it is very unlikely that
a skydiver will reach the necessary (vertical) speed for a CYPRES
activation after the setup for a high performance landing. This does
not mean that something like this may never happen in the future."

Looks like we've reached the future. The CYPRES works pretty well for the skydiving that took place when it was developed. It doesn't work as well with ultra high performance canopies or wingsuits, because these can exceed the fire/no fire parameters of the thing.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Looks like we've reached the future. The CYPRES works pretty well for the skydiving that took place when it was developed. It doesn't work as well with ultra high performance canopies or wingsuits, because these can exceed the fire/no fire parameters of the thing.

They cpouldn't tell me my Cypres wouldn't fire with my VX-60 at the 2001 PIA Symposium, so I removed it. I couldn't get any sort of solid information out of them. They acted like they either didn't know or didn't want to make a definate statement because of liability reasons. I asked to jump a data logger to find out, but they wanted to charge me to jump it. I just removed and sold the Cypres and was done with it.

Derek

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

It doesn't work as well with ultra high performance canopies or wingsuits, because these can exceed the fire/no fire parameters of the thing.

How are the wingsuits coming in picture???

[PhreeZone 20]

If you take a wingsuit down to under 700 feet in max flight you will probally be going slower then the required speeds to fire the AAD. Therefor you could impact at wingsuit terminal and never have the AAD fire.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[MB38 0]

I'm sure at wingsuit terminal you could set off the AAD [wings collapsed]. But at normal flying speed... bounce.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[Kris 0]

Quote

I'm sure at wingsuit terminal you could set off the AAD [wings collapsed]. But at normal flying speed... bounce.

You misunderstand the definition of terminal.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[MB38 0]

No I didn't, I was merely being a buffoon.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[Kris 0]

Quote

No I didn't, I was merely being a buffoon.

Actually, you did misunderstand.

Terminal Velocity in a Non-Vacuum Environment

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[MB38 0]

No, I understood all of that. I was merely making a regrettably asinine post about the interpretation of "wingsuit terminal." Wingsuit terminal could be interpreted as wings out [40-60mph vertical] or wings in [120+mph vertical]. The former would not set off the AAD, the latter would.

I'm probably still making a fool of myself. I love teh intarweb.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Ops. It seems Cypress is not the Holy Grail. Please, conform .