MARS M2 AAD

[gowlerk 2,253]

That website shows that UPT has approved it. But no USA dealers are listed. What good is it if you can't buy it?

Ken

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SEREJumper 1]

So just to bump this to the top, looks like the MarS M2 AAD got it's approval by a few manufactures. So with all the AAD debate going on, this will be an interesting addition to the market.

My only question would be the 15,000 jump lifespan, in the manual it says to get 15k jumps, the average flight/skydive/canopy flight was calculated at approx. 20 min. I know that is not the case at a lot of smaller DZ's so that could be misleading to a point. In the end its 15 year lifesapn and even if you get 10k jumps out of one, thats amazing.

So who is going to be switcing over??

"The m2 is an automatic activation device from MarS a.s.

The automatic activation device m2 provides automatic cutting of the closing loop of the reserve parachute when a skydiver is going above a set speed and through a set altitude.

The m2 is available in versions of EXPERT, SPEED, STUDENT or TANDEM. The mode can be changed by the factory.

The main features of the m2 are:

■Lifetime of 15 years
■No scheduled service
■Battery life of up to 15,000 jumps
■Simple operation
■Stores the flight record during active use
■4 Available modes: Expert, Speed, Student and Tandem
■Replaceable cutter
■Able to be submersed under water
■Solid structure
■Flexible cables
The metal parts are made from stainless steel or aluminium alloy. The cutter is replaceable by a rigger.

m2 AAD units have been sold since June 2011. Since this time there have been thousands of jumps with m2. There have been three known saves with the m2.

It is constructed and produced on the basis of the latest skydiving research by MarS a.s., which is based out of the Czech Republic. Automatic Activation Devices in MarS a.s. were first produced in 2003. The first device was MPAAD (Mars Parachute Automatic Activation Device). The device has already received a number of activations and saved many lives. This unit was the second electronic automatica acitvation device in the world. Another device from MarS is the MPAAD Pilot. The device is intended for use in emergency parachutes for pilots of aircraft and helicopters. For cutting of the closing loops of rescue parachute, it uses two cutters.

The new generation of AAD is represented in the m2, by combining experience in development, production and use of previous security devices.

In the U.S., the m2 currently has approvals for use in the following rigs: Vector, Wings, Icon, Infinity, Basik 7 and Mirage. But other approvals may already be completed as well. Contact your rig manufacturer for more information."

We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

[Southern_Man 0]

What are the activation parameters in the various modes? I may still have the manual in English on my computer at home but I don't have it at work.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[faulk04 0]

Expert Top- 885 Bottom- 330 Alt- Lock- 1475
Student Top- 1085 Bottom- 195 Alt- Lock- 1475
Tandem Top- 2000 Bottom 330 Alt- Lock 2950
Speed Top- 885 Bottom 490 Alt- Lock 1475

[woppyvac 0]

^^^^ what does that mean? lol can someone do a breakdown for this noob?

Woot Woot!

[GobbleGobble 0]

Quote

Expert Top- 885 Bottom- 330 Alt- Lock- 1475
Student Top- 1085 Bottom- 195 Alt- Lock- 1475
Tandem Top- 2000 Bottom 330 Alt- Lock 2950
Speed Top- 885 Bottom 490 Alt- Lock 1475

At what velocity?

[hillson 0]

Expert: 78 mph
Student: 45 mph / 29 mph (sort of like Cypres)Tandem: 78 mph
Speed: 101 mph

Student: Activation occurs if the altitude above the landing area is below 330 m (1,085 ft) and the falling speed is over 20 m/s-1 (45 mph), or if the altitude above the landing location is less than 200 m (660 ft) and falling speed is over 13 m/s-1 (29 mph). The altitude lock is 450 m (1,475 ft). Activation will not occur under an altitude of 60 m (195 ft). Therefore, the activation zone is in
the range between 330 m and 60 m (1,085 ft and 195 ft) above the landing location.

http://www.m2aad.com/download-en/manuals

[Divalent 145]

Quote

Quote

Expert Top- 885 Bottom- 330 Alt- Lock- 1475
Student Top- 1085 Bottom- 195 Alt- Lock- 1475
Tandem Top- 2000 Bottom 330 Alt- Lock 2950
Speed Top- 885 Bottom 490 Alt- Lock 1475

At what velocity?

Note: the # in the above table are in ft.

"Lock" refers to the altitude you have to exceed in the plane before the unit will work as an AAD (so if you jump with any unit before the plane reached the "lock" altitude, it's not going to anything (might be better considered an "unlock" altitude)).

"Bottom" is the altitude below which the unit will not fire regardless of conditions. (Presumes, I guess, that you are too low and too fast for any reserve activation to help you at that point).

"Top" is the highest "altitude"** it will fire at if velocity conditions are met. So it will fire if the velocity condition is met between the top and the bottom. (assuming it was unlocked).

Velocity thresholds:
speed version velocity is >101 mph
expert and tandem is >78 mph
student is 45 mph above 655 ft, and then above 29 mph from 195-655. (stated another way: 45mph from 1085 to 655, and 29 mph from 655 down to 195)

Anyone think the expert and tandem "bottoms" are a tad too high?

[** of course, by "altitude" we all know it (and all other AADs) are really sensing barometric pressure, and body position can influence the actual altitude it will fire at.]

[riggerrob 643]

If anything, the bottom of the tandem firing envelope sounds too low. If it fires at 330 feet, you will probably get line stretch on impact.

[Divalent 145]

Well, I guess my thinking is, what if you have a low cutaway and are accellerating, but on your back, so that "330" ft is really 480 ft. You can't find you reserve handle, and you reach 78mph at 470 ft (but AAD thinks it's "320 ft"). An AAD that fired then *might* save you, but one that shut off clearly can't.

[ufk22 33]

my understanding is that the "botom" is a turn-off altitude to prevent a possible 2-out.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[Apollo87 0]

Why would being upside down make the AAD think it's 100ft lower than it was? I'm still a student so forgive my ignorance.

[kilranian 0]

It wouldn't. He has it backwards. On your back, the AAD is getting "clean" air and a good reading. On your belly, the AAD is getting "dirty" air. As such, if the AAD is intended to fire at ~800 feet, it will fire when the unit reads ~900 ft, in case you are falling on your belly.

This is my understanding of the Cypres and Vigil AAD parameters.

[sundevil777 102]

kilranian

It wouldn't. He has it backwards. On your back, the AAD is getting "clean" air and a good reading. On your belly, the AAD is getting "dirty" air. As such, if the AAD is intended to fire at ~800 feet, it will fire when the unit reads ~900 ft, in case you are falling on your belly.

This is my understanding of the Cypres and Vigil AAD parameters.

By "dirty", it means that it is a lower pressure zone, so the AAD thinks it is higher than it would otherwise.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Divalent 145]

kilranian

It wouldn't. He has it backwards. On your back, the AAD is getting "clean" air and a good reading. On your belly, the AAD is getting "dirty" air. As such, if the AAD is intended to fire at ~800 feet, it will fire when the unit reads ~900 ft, in case you are falling on your belly.

This is my understanding of the Cypres and Vigil AAD parameters.

No, I had it right. (but then so did you.) An AAD only senses pressure, and pressure is higher the closer you are to the ground. AAD firing altitude that the mfg states (e.g., 750 ft) assumes you are in a belly position (and so within the low pressure burble behind you), and thus the AAD is seeing a lower pressure than if you were on your back.

So whatever air pressure that particular unit is programed to fire at, it will fire lower if you are on your belly than if your are on your back. And the same would apply to the air pressure that it is programmed to shut off at.

[Skydivesg 7]

Apollo87

Why would being upside down make the AAD think it's 100ft lower than it was? I'm still a student so forgive my ignorance.

The only time you need to apologize for ignorance - is when you do nothing to change it.

To help you better understand, I copied some stuff I posted in another thread about the Vigil. Combine this information with the fact that as you get closer to the ground the barametric pressure increases. I hope this helps.

**************************

When a jumper is falling back to earth the Vigil is designed to activate at 840 ft AGL (back flying - sit flying - free flying).

However when a jumper is falling face to earth, it places the sensor of the unit in a depression zone which will cause it to read an up to 10mbar lower pressure or an altitude of 260 ft higher than the true altitude. This would cause the unit to activate 260 ft lower resulting in a 580 ft activation which of course is too low.

Therefore a compensation of + 260 ft above the nominal activation altitude was integrated into the PRO mode parameters.

In PRO mode a programmed activation altitude of 1100 ft has been set to guarantee
not withstanding the position of the jumper, activation at a minimum altitude of 840ft above the ground.

So if a jumper were falling in anything other than a good, stable, face-to-earth position (which at that altitude is very possible and some would say likely) the unit will fire at 1100 ft AGL. If in deed the jumper is in a stable, face-to-earth position then the unit will activate at 840ft AGL. (due to the depression zone near the sensor)

.
Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be. .

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

The only time you need to apologize for ignorance - is when you do nothing to change it.

I am so stealing that line.

Far, far better than "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask" that I use.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Apollo87 0]

Thanks! I really appreciate the comprehensive answer. I've never met such a massive group of people that genuinely look out for each other. Back to the topic, I'm pretty dead-set on a Cypres 2, but is there any reason I shouldn't take a serious look at the M2 (misfires, failures, etc..)? I'm a broke college student and I figure if I'm @ 800 ft & don't have my shit together, I probably shouldn't be skydiving. That being said, accidents happen, but I'm more frightened of a misfire or a 2-out situation than an unconscious or altitude unaware one. It'd be pretty nice to save ~$500 and get a few more years out of it as long as its reliable.

[Skydivesg 7]

Apollo87

Thanks! I really appreciate the comprehensive answer. I've never met such a massive group of people that genuinely look out for each other. Back to the topic, I'm pretty dead-set on a Cypres 2, but is there any reason I shouldn't take a serious look at the M2 (misfires, failures, etc..)? I'm a broke college student and I figure if I'm @ 800 ft & don't have my shit together, I probably shouldn't be skydiving. That being said, accidents happen, but I'm more frightened of a misfire or a 2-out situation than an unconscious or altitude unaware one. It'd be pretty nice to save ~$500 and get a few more years out of it as long as its reliable.

Your statement seems to be contradicting. You say you are a broke college student but yet your "dead set" on the most expensive AAD in the market.

In my years I've noticed almost all gear in our sport - including AADs - has had early growing pains. Which is why I've always waited a few years for them to work out the bugs before I strap it on my back.

It's my understanding that the M2 has only been out for about 2 years which - IMHO - is really not long enough to get it in enough rigs to give it a good test. Personally, that's not long enough for me to formulated an opinion. You mention resale value. I suggest you talk to people who have the Argus and get their opinion on that subject.

Over the years I've jumped both the Cypres and the Vigil. I'm completely comfortable currently jumping the Vigil. If you think you should jump a Cypres, then any thing I say will not likely change your mind. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[Apollo87 0]

I have to disagree since I'd be buying a used cypres 2, a used vigil 2, or possibly a new m2. In any case, it's going to take some saving up and it'll be a while before I can afford one. I'm buying my equipment one piece at a time. I only have a main, alti, and container. As I'm saving $$, I'm gathering as much info as possible from people who know more than me. I'm not against a Vigil 2, either. Originally, that's what I wanted to get until everyone told me otherwise. I shouldn't have said "dead-set". It's just the one I've been wanting because everyone swears by them. I'm a little skeptical of their self-proclaimed flawless track record, but nonetheless, they seem to be the most reliable. I'm just bummed about the 3-6 wk down time for maintenance/testing.

[gowlerk 2,253]

Here we go. As far as I can see, Cypres is 90's technology and can't be trusted without a 4 year check up. Vigils are a later design. The batteries last much longer and the device is reliable enough that the self test is considered adequate. The M2 is newer yet, and is even less power hungry. It does no have any leds flashing at turn on, possibly allowing the battery to last longer.

AADs are basically small electronic computers connected to a cutter. I'd rather have a 2011 designed circuits than 1992 circuitry. Cypres is the only one currently having problems with faulty electronics. But skydivers are a conservative bunch and many believe that the older nearly obsolete design that can't be trusted more than 4 years is somehow better. Maybe because the total cost of ownership is nearly twice as much. Must be twice as good right? Airtec spends a lot of money on advertising, some of it has been downright nasty toward the competition. They can afford this because of the high price they have been able to charge for many years on a product they haven't updated much in years. And when they do update components they have been known to fail to do enough testing. They currently have thousands of known defective units in the field and are asking their customers to be patient while they take 4 years to fix them. At the customer's expense no less. Why would anyone choose a CYPRES?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

As far as I can see

You don't see very well

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[gowlerk 2,253]

Now there's a logical well thought out argument. And probably the best one you can come up with. Cypres belief is like a religion! No use trying to reason with a believer.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[pchapman 279]

gowlerk

Here we go. As far as I can see, Cypres is 90's technology and can't be trusted without a 4 year check up.

You're frustrated with Airtec and definitely looking for replies...
Some points you make are within a reasonable range of argument, but a couple I'll challenge:

Do you know specifically that the Cypres 2 uses such old technology? You didn't state but you certainly implied early 1990s technology.
I kind of doubt it. I have only pulled a C1 apart though. Airtec is pretty conservative with their algorithms, and probably have not changed the core ones much at all. And they seem to work quite well. But the parts and circuit design likely got modernized between the C1 and C2.

A newer design is better than an older design... all else being equal... which it isn't always.

(e.g., The Argus is a newer design than a Cypres 1. The Vigil 1 is also newer than the Cypres 1, even accounting for Cypres 1 updates to not require the silver sleeve. Vigil's type 1 cutter had an issue - even the type 3 had some - and their circuit boards before s/n 6600 are a little frowned upon.)

Criticize away on specific problems, but I won't buy the "old = bad" thing without more specific evidence.

As for 4 year checks, I think that was more a marketing strategy both for Cypres and Vigil, than a statement about belief in actual failure rates over time. That is open to discussion though, and I don't think you (or I) have the data required to prove things either way.

[gowlerk 2,253]

I actually trust all three of the current AADs. I don't really have any reason to think any is better than the others. That being said, I see no reason to pay more for one than the other. Even the Argus would be fine as far as I know except for the cutter issue. But how long the battery lasts is most likely a function of more modern less power hungry components. I do know that only one has an SB out with thousands of units affected, caused by insufficient testing. That alone would make it my last choice. The price is just the icing on the cake.

I predict that within the next 2 years Airtec will come up with an updated product that doesn't need a 4 year check and has ten year batteries. If they don't they will slowly go out of business. I'm guessing their sales this year will drop at least 30% from last year. In my local market they are being outsold about 10 to 1 lately.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.