deadwood 0 #26 May 14, 2011 I saw an incident once where the reserve opened when the jumper was walking back to the van after a jump. We looked and the cutter had fired. He was an experienced jumper jumping a student rig with a student Cypres. Turns out he got a little “enthusiastic” with his canopy work on the way down and managed to exceed the student cypress firing parameters. Due to the rig size/configuration and closing loop length, the reserve stayed closed until it got bumped on the ground and then it opened.He who hesitates shall inherit the earth. Deadwood Skydive New Mexico Motorcycle Club, Touring Division Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #27 May 14, 2011 Quotewhy? 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; Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pasha_justas 0 #28 May 14, 2011 Quote they rip off other skydiving gear. why not rip off cypres? Should it be funny? Or are you seriously? In case 'yes': you may try to make some rip similary to Cypres-2 by your own hands. Without original software of course. If you are novice in software development, you can try to steal Airtec soft. This is easy, isn't it? I'm upset. :( Trolls are everywhere. Even on this forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gearless_chris 1 #29 May 14, 2011 Quote I saw an incident once where the reserve opened when the jumper was walking back to the van after a jump. We looked and the cutter had fired. He was an experienced jumper jumping a student rig with a student Cypres. Turns out he got a little “enthusiastic” with his canopy work on the way down and managed to exceed the student cypress firing parameters. Due to the rig size/configuration and closing loop length, the reserve stayed closed until it got bumped on the ground and then it opened. You must've been mistaken, that could never happen with a CYPRES, they're perfect. "If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane. My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #30 May 14, 2011 Quote Quote I saw an incident once where the reserve opened when the jumper was walking back to the van after a jump. We looked and the cutter had fired. He was an experienced jumper jumping a student rig with a student Cypres. Turns out he got a little “enthusiastic” with his canopy work on the way down and managed to exceed the student cypress firing parameters. Due to the rig size/configuration and closing loop length, the reserve stayed closed until it got bumped on the ground and then it opened. You must've been mistaken, that could never happen with a CYPRES, they're perfect. No one claims Cypres are perfect. This being said, this could very well be a problem with the reserve pilot chute or flap configuration. On top of that, reports of "saw this in the parking lot" need to be taken with a grain of salt. But back to the current problem... Was the fired cutter sent to Airtec with the unit?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rover 11 #31 May 15, 2011 Quote Quote they rip off other skydiving gear. why not rip off cypres? Should it be funny? Or are you seriously? In case 'yes': you may try to make some rip similary to Cypres-2 by your own hands. Without original software of course. If you are novice in software development, you can try to steal Airtec soft. This is easy, isn't it? I'm upset. :( Trolls are everywhere. Even on this forum. Don't lose any sleep over it. A classic example of 'the ugly American' who earns no respect from anyone outside the 'goddamn USA'. 2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadwood 0 #32 May 15, 2011 The Cypres worked as advertised. Quote Quote I saw an incident once where the reserve opened when the jumper was walking back to the van after a jump. We looked and the cutter had fired. He was an experienced jumper jumping a student rig with a student Cypres. Turns out he got a little “enthusiastic” with his canopy work on the way down and managed to exceed the student cypress firing parameters. Due to the rig size/configuration and closing loop length, the reserve stayed closed until it got bumped on the ground and then it opened. You must've been mistaken, that could never happen with a CYPRES, they're perfect. He who hesitates shall inherit the earth. Deadwood Skydive New Mexico Motorcycle Club, Touring Division Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #33 May 15, 2011 I saw one incident when swooper fired cypress thru the turn but reserve container never popped open until he throw the rig on the ground to pack for the next jump. Combination of tightness of the reserve tray and lenght of the closing loop locked it in.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skydivesg 7 #34 May 15, 2011 Don't leave us hangin. When? What rig? Was the reserve the correct size for the pack tray? Details please.Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #35 May 15, 2011 >Combination of tightness of the reserve tray and lenght of the closing loop locked it in. This is happening more and more often and is generally caused by two things: 1) Oversizing a reserve for a given container. This is often the result of jumpers wanting to say they have a tiny container and/or wanting people to see them have a tiny container. 2) Riggers who lengthen a closing loop to make a difficult pack job easier, or an impossible pack job merely difficult. While jumpers are surely foolish to purchase and try to use incompatible or barely compatible gear, riggers are the last line of defense against such poor decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pasha_justas 0 #36 May 15, 2011 QuoteBut back to the current problem... Was the fired cutter sent to Airtec with the unit? see Post#24. Nelyubin said that the Cypres was sent to the Airtec in complete set. That means with cutter. QuoteI saw one incident when swooper fired cypress thru the turn but reserve container never popped open until he throw the rig on the ground to pack for the next jump. You're right. And in this case Cypres must have appropriate log message in the logbook. However it isn't in considering incident despite cutter was activated and loop was severed. QuoteWhen? What rig? Was the reserve the correct size for the pack tray? When: 2011/02/26 (see Post#1) Rig: Rent rig. I don't know its manufacturer. Was the reserve the correct size for the pack tray: yes, as far as I know. If you understand Russian, you may read more here: http://www.skycentre.net/index.php?showtopic=10801 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pasha_justas 0 #37 May 15, 2011 I just paid my attention to the next interesting quote from Airtec answer: http://www.skycentre.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=10801&view=findpost&p=207079 QuoteAnyway, 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. FYI EPROM can be partially erased by electrical influence only. Any mechanical influences (e.g. impact) can caused full damage of chip or do nothing. In this case destructions of chip can be easily detected visually. As for me, it is very dilettantish assumption for the official statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #38 May 15, 2011 QuoteDon't lose any sleep over it. A classic example of 'the ugly American' who earns no respect from anyone outside the 'goddamn USA'. And that remark puts you in the pile as the other poster. Feel better now. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #39 May 15, 2011 QuoteAnyway, 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pasha_justas 0 #40 May 15, 2011 Quote This is very strange or incompetent statement. I agree with you fully. Because Airtec made impact stress test for Cypres-1 and Cypres-2 with acceleration approx. 20g. Here is "Design and Test Report": http://www.sskinc.com/cypres/ts120cv3b.pdf Read chapter "4.5. Environmental testing." As you well know death acceleration range for human is 16g. However Cypres keeps functionality even after 20g. So, may be Russian skydivers are iron people? Nelyubin, what do you think about Russian health? Or would be better to say in Russian: "Ne nado nam lohmatit babushku"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #41 May 15, 2011 :) Yes. QuoteNe nado nam lohmatit babushky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 63 #42 May 15, 2011 QuoteAs you well know death acceleration range for human is 16g. Incorrect. Indycar driver survived 214g. Key factor is the DURATION of Gs. You can survive 214g for a brief moment. You would not survive 20g for longer period of time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVpux5JxqEk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #43 May 15, 2011 I hope he did not have partial amnesia, as happened with Cypres. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #44 May 15, 2011 I hope he did not have partial amnesia, as happened with Cypres. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #45 May 15, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #46 May 15, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pasha_justas 0 #47 May 15, 2011 QuoteKey factor is the DURATION of Gs. You can survive 214g for a brief moment. You would not survive 20g for longer period of time. Yes, you're right but not completely too. Ok, lets make all points clear. According to the YouTube comments: QuoteThe impact was enormous, but leaving the cockpit intact. It recorded a record 214 g impact and left me seriously injured... Sensor was seted up on the cockpit but not on the pilot body. If cockpit is damaged it absorbs part of impact power and pilot is testing much less deceleration if he could in opposite case. It is base of passive safety. According to Airtec "Design and Test Report" http://www.sskinc.com/cypres/ts120cv3b.pdf QuoteDeceleration in axis of the table 20g generated in 5ms. Information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force QuoteHuman tolerances depend on the magnitude of the g-force, the length of time it is applied, the direction it acts, the location of application, and the posture of the body. QuoteA hard slap on the face may briefly impose hundreds of g locally but not produce any real damage; a constant 16 g for a minute, however, may be deadly. QuoteThe record for peak experimental horizontal g-force tolerance is held by acceleration pioneer John Stapp, in a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments culminating in a late 1954 test in which he was stopped in a little over a second from a land speed of Mach 0.9. He survived a peak "eyeballs-out" force of 46.2 times the force of gravity, and more than 25 g for 1.1 sec, proving that the human body is capable of this. Stapp lived another 45 years to age 89, but suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this last test. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexV 0 #48 May 16, 2011 I think we should open another topic about the moderators financial interest in this whole AAD issue. I constantly see messages against Cypres being deleted. This topic looks like the original poster is ignoring the conversation while in reality his replies are deleted by the moderators. There's not even a mention by the moderators that his messages have been deleted so all the other users asking him questions are ignored. I want to know more about this incident but I feel like half of the info is missing because it was erased. The moderators should watch the news more often, censorship only makes things worse. Posts against them will be more common if they keep erasing posts damaging their sales of Cypres AAD. This also applies to the Argus discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #49 May 16, 2011 Communicated with the moderators in private mail. They do not have a material interest. Message from Airtek was not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexV 0 #50 May 16, 2011 This is a strange thing to say coming from Airtec: "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." By this I understand it might or it should erase data if it detects a hard impact. Detecting a hard impact is different from suffering a hard impact. In theory, a faulty sensor could "detect" a hard impact even though the impact did not occur. So by this statement did Airtec mean the AAD is intentionally programed to erase information after a hard impact or was it a poor choice of words on their part? If they program it to erase data after it "detects" a hard impact then it could be to cover their ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
