Warning! Unairworthy CYPRES Pictured On eBay (Again)

[indyz 1]

The main label on the unit shows a DOM of 01/94, which matches the info on SSK's site. The inspection sticker is on the side of the unit, it reads "2002 Airtec Check/U"

[PhillyKev 0]

I received a response from skydiving magazine questioning how Airtec can declare these unairworthy without inspecting them. The wording of the email implies that this is actually the seller. I'm not sure since I emailed both the seller and Skydiving Magazine. But this guy's email address is @skydivingmagazine.com. If someone from the mag is really the one selling them, that's pretty F'd up.

[slotperfect 7]

Straight from the CYPRES website:

"Non-Airworthy:

The following 8 CYPRES units were in a UPS shipment to a US customer - the shipment was involved in a train wreck, UPS declared the
contents damaged / lost - we have received a recent report that these CYPRES units were sold to a freight salvage company by the train company - because there is no way to tell what physical stresses they
were subjected to, there is no way to perform any sort of check-out with any degree of certainty of future proper operation, therefore Airtec considers these units unairworthy

1050A15E5DCA22 4O 01/94 Expert
1070A15E5FCC22 3O 01/94 Expert
10B1A15E5EC922 5O 01/94 Expert
1110A15E5ECA22 3O 01/94 Expert
3081115E5AC522 1O 01/94 Expert
60A1A15E5CC722 5O 01/94 Expert
60B1A15E58C322 5O 01/94 Expert
6111A15E5AC522 1O 01/94 Expert"

Me again:

I am only trying to keep these units from (illegally) ending up in someone's rig. I trust Airtec/SSK's judgement as I have dealt very closely with them in the past.

As a Master Rigger I can say that the FARs give the manufacturer of the AAD the latitude to declare what is airworthy and what's not. If Airtec says the AAD is unairworthy, it cannot legally be placed back into service. What the laws/regulations are in Canada or other countries I cannot say.

Arrive Safely

John

[wildblue 7]

what an ass - look at that auction now. Here's just a little bit of some of the crap he just posted:

Quote

First of all , i dont think it's fair for anyone to say that these units are unairworthy , when they havent even seen them . Also , there are plenty of documented cases where a cypres has not worked ( malfunctiond )

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[AndyMan 7]

He really is an ass.

At least he posted SSK's email, which clearly states the devices aren't fit to be used.

As far as I'm concerned, he's a moron, but he's satisfied any ethical requirements here. The buyers know what they're getting.

That said, I wonder what the FAA would have to say about any of these devices ever being used. Considering that they've fined riggers for allowing out of date cypres's to be used... is there a risk to riggers of these being used in the US? I suspect there is...

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[indyz 1]

I still want to know where that 2002 inspection sticker came from. It's bugging me. Did he get the unit inspected and approved for use, or did he fake the sticker? Ich bin confused.

[PhreeZone 20]

The units WERE inspected then were in transit to the end customers when they were involved in the train wreck. The stickers were showing the units were inspected in 2002, but after the inspection and therefore the wreck, they were deemed unairworthy.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Ducky 0]

I first discovered this and brought this to light several months back with a post here and an email to SSK. I Believe Michelle also alerted SSK at that time. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=194276;search_string=cypres%20ebay;#194276


I have been "lurking" and following the developments in this thread. I saw no need to assist or even post as all of you have done what seems to be a fine job of preventing these cypres from being purchased.

I do however see one possible "line of fire"....

As I am reading in this thread a rigger can be held responsible ie. fined for allowing these or even just out of date cypri to be jumped???

If that is true can a USPA licensed member be subject to repremand or action by the USPA for knowingly jumping gear declared "unairworthy"? I know very little about this as I am a low-time jumper. It would seem logical that there is some regulation regarding this.

Imagine this scenario the "unairworthy" cypri in question is actually damaged, but is still jumped. Due to the unforseen damage the cypri fires at a not so convenient time, oh like say on the climb to alti in the plane or on the step of a 182 or in the rig of a "hanger" on a hybrid dive wrapping the belly-flyer above.... and so on.

I know most everyone is aware of these dangers and that is why we are all so pissed about it. Back to my point though "line of fire". I would think there is some type of precedence or some type of USPA regulation that would hold a skydiver accountable for KNOWINGLY endangering other skydivers or even himself.

Read the seller's (um I mean nutless assholes) quote from his most recent auction update>>>

"For those who are wondering , yes i am a skydiver , and i am using one of these units myself ."

It's right there by his own admission he has jumped/is currently jumping gear that has been declared "unairworthy" aka dangerous, useless deadly, just plain not cool. He has in fact endangerd everyone he has jumped with.

I see a posssible course of action for The USPA. as for his fellow jumpers, The Karhma Gods, and myself if I could track down the lil bastard no such evidence is needed. It should be easy to reveal the true indentity of the jerk. I mean if someone actually buys this stuff he's gotta wanna get paid somehow, right?? Who know's maybe he was on that 4-way w/ you today?!? Yep think about it.

One other thing I would like to add is that perhaps SSK has a slightly further responsibility here. I would think notifying riggers w/ an SB type alert is in order. Get the word out to riggers who in turn could pass along the word to unsuspecting jumpers. Most often those looking to buy used online are like myself low-time jumpers on a budget not knowing much better.

Anyways that's my rant.

kwak

Sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield. Sometimes your the hammer sometimes your the nail. Question is Hun, Do you wanna get hammered or do you wanna get nailed?????

[jumpy 0]

What a dumbass that guy is! "No i'm sorry people but i know more about these units then the people who made, designed and service them. I don't care if they say there not airworthy I say they are.
But i sure would like to get my hands on one of those units for like 10 bucks just to open it up and see how it works. Now that'd be interesting! But jumping with it...I don't think so. I'd rather pay the extra and get me a cypres that hasn't been in a train accident thanks

[slotperfect 7]

Yes. There is a risk. I am telling all th Riggers I know to make sure they know to check the list on the website before they install a CYPRES or repack a rig that is CYPRES equipped.

Arrive Safely

John

[fudd 0]

Buy it and sue!
He sold you something that could have put your life at risk. Must be worth a couple of millions in a courtroom
Funny how he claims that if you can just send it back to Airtec for a checkup to get it airworthy again, when they clearly states they considder them irreparable.

There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[fasterfaller 0]

Keep bugging the shit out of this guy until he folds .

[moodyskydiver 0]

Grrr! What a jerk! Why does someone always try to make a buck even at someone else's expense?

"...just an earthbound misfit, I."

[fasterfaller 0]

Well guess what , he has relisted it again . Time to e-mail his bidders again !

[narcimund 0]

I don't get it. The listing explains the situation exactly. He quotes Airtek/SSK's position that they're unairworthy. He relates the "do-gooder's" position that they're dangerous. He makes his own case about their value. Everyone's gotten to speak up. The bidders have all the information.

If he wants to sell these to knowledgeable, willing buyers, what's the complaint?

Myself, I'd think twice about the mind of anyone who accepted his silly argument ("This cypres is fine. After all, brand new cypreses sometimes fail." As if occasional failure is a badge of honor that his merchandise is proud to wear.) But he has a right to sell crap and people have a right to buy crap. In this case the guy is being far, far more upfront about the fact that he's selling crap than say, most businesses.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[christoofar 0]

Yes, you have a right to buy a glock, load it, point it at your head, and pull the trigger.


What a bummer.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Yes, you have a right to buy a glock, load it, point it at your head, and pull the trigger.

Would you rather live in a world where you had that right, or a world where you didn't?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[indyz 1]

The problem that I have with the new auction is that he seems to be implying that it's the buyers decision as to whether or not he wants to use the Cypres. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US if Airtec declared the Cypres units unairworthy, they can not be legally used under FAR 105.43, section C.

Unfortunately, many skydivers do not know the law, and may assume that they can decide if they want to use the unit or not, and while an ethical rigger would not install the unit when presented with the facts, it is unreasonable to expect a rigger to check the serial numbers on every piece of equipment that comes through the loft.

[christoofar 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, you have a right to buy a glock, load it, point it at your head, and pull the trigger.

Would you rather live in a world where you had that right, or a world where you didn't?

Just as I have a right to kill myself I also have the right to protest the sale of crap!

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[Jimbo 0]

I'm curious, how did these damaged Cypres end up on Ebay? How did they make it into the hands of the seller? Did he find out about the accident and then buy them for pennies on the dollar from the insurance company? Part of me really needs to understand how they made it from a train wreck to Ebay.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhreeZone 20]

They were written of as salage on the train manifest. All you have to do in that case is buy the salvage from the train's insurance company. Its likely he only paid $5-10 for the whole lot.

One of my friends once got 5 brand new washing machines as salvage from a semi wreck. He paid i think an average of less then 25 each (this company based it on weight, they counted them as scrap metal). He put less then 100 into new parts and they all looked like they had just walked off the show room floor.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[narcimund 0]

How much laundry does your friend have???

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

They were written of as salage on the train manifest. All you have to do in that case is buy the salvage from the train's insurance company. Its likely he only paid $5-10 for the whole lot.

That's what I was afraid of, I would have hoped that upon hearing of the semi-destruction of their product that SSK would have bought them back before they made it into the hands of the public.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhreeZone 20]

Not so much how much laundry does he have.... its how much he made on them selling them in yard sale. I remember it was enough for 2 months rent off of the profit. Not bad for a half days work.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[fasterfaller 0]

The problem is this : they are unairworthy , SSK says so and ar far as I'm concerned thats enough for me . Imagine the small dz rigger that installs it for a jumper and does not know it is unairworthy . He can be really screwed if something happens to the jumper . How would you feel if this guy was selling parts for an aircraft that were unairworthy and the plane crashed because of it . He knows better than the people that declared the parts unairworthy , doesn't he ? Unairworthy is unairworthy and that should end it .