Cypres not worked ?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

As long as AADs are made by man and not from a divine source, there will always always always exist the possibility that either scenario will occur, regardless of how minute the chances are.

That's a fatalist attitude. Just because error cannot be totally eliminated doesn't mean that reducing it isn't worthwhile. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't give up just because we have something that's more than halfway decent.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[goose491 0]

Quote

No, that's not quite it. What I want is to never have to worry about it not firing when I want it to fire...

Well there's the real issue IMO.

You should never want your AAD to fire.



And stop saying "ergonomics"... lol

The CYPRES has a one button interface with it's user. Can't be more simple. Having to press said button 4 times and at the right time is a step FORWARD in the devices ergonomic quality because it eleminates the chance of inadvertantly turning it on/off without knowledge of it being done.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[LawnDart21 0]

Quote

Just because error cannot be totally eliminated doesn't mean that reducing it isn't worthwhile.

That's what your missing. Error already has been reduced, GREATLY.

Your other post said you "never wanted to worry", that would require perfection in manufacture and function of the gear. Never gonna happen, EVER.

Quote

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't give up just because we have something that's more than halfway decent.

For its designed function, when used correctly, the cypres is way more than just "halfway decent". There are numerous "dead men walking" that can attest to that fact. The device works, and when usd correctly, works very very very well.

I'm sorry, but I think its rediculous to think that SSK needs to make the cypres more user friendly.

It works, and works well, as is, and is already very very reliable. Rather than change the design & function of the unit, a more practical use of your energy would be spent on educating people on its function and use.

How idiot proof must our gear become before someone stops and says, "hey, you know what, I'm taking responsibility for my own safety. I'm not gonna count on SSK building a unit easier to use, I'm gonna expend the energy to learn to use what I have correctly, and take responsibility for my own safety, instead of depending upon the manfacture to acount for my lack of understanding of how my gear works."

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

There are numerous "dead men walking" that can attest to that fact.

I'm not debating the utility of the device with you. I use one myself. There are also several dead men six feet under who can attest to the fact that design improvements might cause fewer people to die.

Quote

I think its rediculous

Laugh all you want.

Quote

How idiot proof must our gear become before someone stops and says, "hey, you know what, I'm taking responsibility for my own safety.

Improvement in gear design is not about giving manufacturers responsibility. Gear manufacturers rarely push you out of the plane or pay the manifest girls for you. Responsibility doesn't mean squat if you are about to get hurt because you and your gear didn't get along. And the point is that's not a one-way street.

What it comes down to is getting better gear and being able to do more with it. Before you die.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Scoop 0]

I dont think about it much yet at this stage in my skydiving career. I know that I should pull silver (assuming im concious) if its not looking good.
If I cant for whatever reason I am pleased that something else will try to do it for me.

If it doesnt work and im not concious and cant pull silver Im not gonna worry about it anyway. If I am concious but cant get anything above my head. then ill start to worry. For all the 20 seconds Ive got left to live. If it goes off prematurely then really thats my own stuipid fault for wanting to do osomething so stupid as jump out of an aircraft.I suspect its akin to getting struck by lightning playing golf.

I always have that 1/2 second hesitation before I exit that if it all does go bent its all over, but I accept that risk, as is discussed in a recent poll.

I dont think you can complain if it doesnt work. Itd be like someone wearing a life jacket drowning. Its a safety aid but its not your guardian angel

[LawnDart21 0]

Quote

There are also several dead men six feet under who can attest to the fact that design improvements might cause fewer people to die.

Chances are for almost all of them, had they understood the device (AAD) functions better on the current gear they had, they would still be here.

Quote

Laugh all you want.

"Ridiculous" does not imply comedy, I am simply saying I find it (your theory) to lack any merit.

I want to give you a very clear idea of what it is you are saying by suggesting that there exists a need to improve upon the design and function of current AADs (as they relate to safety):

There exists another well known saftey device, the 3 ring release system. When installed correctly, after the cutaway is pulled, the 3 ring releases, with a very very very high degree of reliability. Unless of course, the jumper hooking up a main misroutes the 3 ring loop assembling it, then you may not be able to cut away. Is that a design flaw? should the designer redesign the 3 ring to account for user error in the hook up sequence? or should the designer release the responsibility of understanding how our gear is supposed to work, before we actually jump it, to us the individual jumper? Next, it states in all the manufacture manuals, and is said here on this board a million times quite clearly.....FLEX YOUR THREE RINGS EVERY MONTH to prevent the rings/webbing from developing a memory and causing a hard cutaway. Do a poll Nathaniel, ask people anonymously how many of them flex thier three rings every month. Most people DO NOT. Thats fine, but when their 3 ring fails to release because there is now a set memory in the rings/webbing, is it the designers fault for not designing a more idiot proof 3 ring system that accounts for the fact most people wont maintain according to manufacturers recommendations, or is the jumper at all responsible for undertstanding how it works and actually being proactive and doing the preventative maintence ourselves.

By your definition/theory, even though the current 3 ring system, like the current cypres, is a highly effective piece of gear for its designed purpose WHEN USED AND MAINTAINED CORRECTLY, you think the designer should still be sitting at the drawing board trying to come up with an even better 3 ring system. He should be trying to make it that .01 percent better.

Or the designer could say, "I did the best I could do, and the best I did is pretty darn good. I think I'll devote my efforts now to another more pressing problem, I think I'll design the skyhook"

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

By your definition/theory, even though the current 3 ring system, like the current cypres, is a highly effective piece of gear for its designed purpose WHEN USED AND MAINTAINED CORRECTLY, you think the designer should still be sitting at the drawing board trying to come up with an even better 3 ring system. He should be trying to make it that .01 percent better.

*cough* People have been working on improving the 3-ring. Aerodyne has been using one with a lengthier middle ring piece, I don't remember who came out with mini-3 rings first but I do remember hearing Bill Booth lament that someone else built & sold it before him (he didn't seem to think it was safer than the original 3-rings...but he did seem to begrudge it being invented by someone else...)

It's inexorable. Just because you are satisfied today with a product doesn't mean it can't be improved. Even airtec/ssk made minor tweaks to the cypres 2 over the cypres wrt ease of battery maintenance.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not debating the utility of the device with you. I use one myself. There are also several dead men six feet under who can attest to the fact that design improvements might cause fewer people to die.

You haven't supported this claim very well. Potential design improvements suggested can lead to different failure situations, and while it may save one group of idiots, the changes could then kill a different set. Vigils added feature set has seen misfires when set to the wrong mode, for example.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

You haven't supported this claim very well. Potential design improvements suggested can lead to different failure situations, and while it may save one group of idiots, the changes could then kill a different set.

Sure. But it's an open-ended conjecture... For it to be demonstrably untrue, the cypres would have to be the pinnacle of design.

Do you predict that AADs will look & function much the same in 50 or 100 years as they do today? One button, 4 digit display hidden inside the backpad or at the neck of the rig, 12-year device life? 14-hour manual reset. Limited data interfaces, no integration to real-time data collection & presentation instruments (think about what Alti-2 is doing with their Titan research)...

No. There's no way I can assume that the cypres is the end of the line.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[LawnDart21 0]

Quote

It's inexorable

Admittedly, I had to look that word up, I didn't know what it means. dictionary.com says it means "relentless". "Not to be persuaded" is what I got.

Quote

Even airtec/ssk made minor tweaks to the cypres 2 over the cypres wrt ease of battery maintenance.

AFAIK the parameters for firing havent changed. The start sequence hasnt changed.

Were arguing different points now.

Again, you said, you want to "never" have to worry about a misfire/no fire, and I have said and continue to say that reaching that level of perfection is not possible. End of debate on that one for me. My stance is inexorable. (Now that I know what that means).

As for improvements, unless a situation occurs where a misfire or no fire occurs outside of the current envelope of performance, I don't think there is much use in pushing for that .01 percent of improvement. Has Aerodyne's imporvement of the middle ring made the Aerodyne 3 ring any better/safety? I seriously ask that you provide test results to show that it has.

Lastly, I'll give you an example of an appropriate designation of effort pertaining to our conversation. Its no secret swoopers are pushing cypres firing limits under canopy. A fatality even occured as a result of the current parameters being exceeded in a way not expected in the original design. SSK has since gone on to work on developing a new operating parameter to meet the need of swoopers.
Thats a good thing.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[Ron 10]

Quote

*cough* People have been working on improving the 3-ring. Aerodyne has been using one with a lengthier middle ring piece

Please provide PROOF that it is better. Youa lways ask for others to provide proof...So its your turn.

Quote

I don't remember who came out with mini-3 rings first but I do remember hearing Bill Booth lament that someone else built & sold it before him (he didn't seem to think it was safer than the original 3-rings...but he did seem to begrudge it being invented by someone else...)

GREAT example....You think mini rings are better? Did you know that mini 3 rings also caused a bunch of problems to include deaths?

So any "improvement" also carries greater risk. You want to claim that the CYPRESS needs work? OK, but the major area of improvement is in making sure the idiots that don't bother to read the manual of a device that could kill them learn about it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nathaniel 0]

I know that some of my wants are unattainable...that doesn't keep me from wanting them. It's part of being human, don't you think?
I have no data from Aerodyne...but I suspect they have a reason up their sleeves for going with a tweaked design. Tho not all improvements are safety related, like Bill Booth said about mini 3-rings. Perhaps not quite as reliable as full size, but sexy enough to sell very well.
Another weakness of the current cypres: wingsuit jumpers like me. I regularly descend at way less than airtec / ssk's published activation descent rate when I'm "cruising" in my suit. If I were to get distracted and pass through 750 ft I don't have too much confidence that my cypres would do anything.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

I don't remember who came out with mini-3 rings first but I do remember hearing Bill Booth lament that someone else built & sold it before him (he didn't seem to think it was safer than the original 3-rings...but he did seem to begrudge it being invented by someone else...)

Funny thing, human memory.

I do remember that Bill Booth said he feared that the minirings (plus mini-risers) had too little margin of error to be succesfully produced consistingly by the parachute industry as it was at the time minirings and -risers appeared for the first time.

IMO history (with a load of incidents involving torn risers, stuck rings etc.) has proven him right.

What else is new?

O, and by the way, I find that your position on what the AAD ought to be borders trolling...

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I do remember that Bill Booth said he feared that the minirings (plus mini-risers) had too little margin of error to be succesfully produced consistingly by the parachute industry as it was at the time minirings and -risers appeared for the first time.

Your memory and mine are much the same...and I agree that he's probably right on the safety bit. But the market has shown that safety is not the only consideration on the average jumper's mind when he purchases a rig & new risers.. Why else would mini-3 rings still be everywhere?

Hrm...maybe we need a new bsr against mini-3 rings <--- now that is a troll

The rest is serious.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sure. But it's an open-ended conjecture... For it to be demonstrably untrue, the cypres would have to be the pinnacle of design.

Do you predict that AADs will look & function much the same in 50 or 100 years as they do today? One button, 4 digit display hidden inside the backpad or at the neck of the rig, 12-year device life? 14-hour manual reset. Limited data interfaces, no integration to real-time data collection & presentation instruments (think about what Alti-2 is doing with their Titan research)...

No. There's no way I can assume that the cypres is the end of the line.

That's really not the same as debating the 'ergonomics' of the current Cypres.

The 4 push, 1 activation concept may well last. It's critical that the device be turned on intentionally, and not turned off accidentally. Perhaps AADs may evolve as dive computers did, and turn on as soon as they're in a few feet of water, but then again, no one uses their dive computer as their last resort of life. And automatic activation does have issues in the water.

Hidden deep inside the rig - location might change, might not. It's protected against rough handling there, which is a plus. Comes down to whether or not you want to argue it's too onerous for jumpers to look at the back of their rig when doing their equipment check. Really most of what you've been saying is about the notion of idiot proofing the AAD so user error can't result in a no fire. I don't think it's asking too much of a participant in a life threatening sport to exercise basic care of use.

14 hr reset - likely to stay. Barometic pressure can drift over time with weather. Might be enhanced so that someone jumping all day and then into night jumps doesn't get caught if they don't manually recycle. No idea how, though.

12 year lifespan - most likely to change if Vigils hold up over time. This may be driven more by market pressure than anything else, may not be an improvement in safety. Or it could be a validation of Vigil's self test as the way to verify a unit is in good condition.

Data collection - Vigil does do this and I could see this evolving. But really then you have just coupled an AAD with a jump computer. These features would have nothing to do with the 'ergonomics' of AAD operation, just would be to differentiate a given model from its competition.

Pointing again to dive computers, total integration of features on a critical tool isn't always a positive. Air integrated computers that replace a mechanical pressure guage have a incident/failure rate way too high to be suitable for an AAD. Cochran in particular was notorious for eating batteries by the weekend, and a friend of mine often found herself with a blank display at depth. At the very least, I'd want my cutters and triggering computer powered by a different battery than the one doing all the data recording/outputing features.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Another weakness of the current cypres: wingsuit jumpers like me.

Thats not a weakness. Thats you doing an activity that might take you into the firing range of a saftey device.

If they made a CYPRES that would fire if you forget to pull at a grand...It will also fire with me under canopy.

Quote

If I were to get distracted and pass through 750 ft I don't have too much confidence that my cypres would do anything.

So weakness in *you* makes you think that the design is bad?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

So weakness in *you* makes you think that the design is bad?

That's ergonomics! (sorry goose491). Not so much that the design is bad but that changes to the design of the machine can make up for deficiencies in the design of me. And all the people like me.
That's what the device is for after all. I don't have enough hubris to be certain that I'm more like the 1%(or whatever miniscule percentage it is) of people who needed their cypres due to incapacity instead of in-volition. Key the cypres debate in 3...2...1...
To me the cypres is only a successful and popular brand. Like a Model T in the 1910s. But not the epitome of design by any means.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[LawnDart21 0]

Quote

I have no data from Aerodyne...but I suspect they have a reason up their sleeves for going with a tweaked design.

Regardless of whats "up their sleeves" you agree you cannot offer any proof their design is better than the original 3-ring design, hence your example is flawed. The basic 3 ring assembly as created, is still the most reliable version in its basic form. Advanced versions have done nothing to make it better. And even the Aerodyne version is susectible to being hooked up wrong (human error).

Quote

If I were to get distracted and pass through 750 ft I don't have too much confidence that my cypres would do anything.

1) On any jump you should not exude any level of confidence that your AAD will work as intended. Thats device dependance.
2) If you honestly perceive that there exists a possibility that you would get distracted on a wingsuit jump (or any jump for that matter) and still be in freefall at 750ft, then you need to seriously reassess your decision to jump a wing suit.

Lastly lets analyze your theory. Lets say SSK creates a wingsuit version cypres, that will only fire if your going say more that 45mph, to account for the slow vertical decent speeds of wingsuits. You've now placed half the wing suit pilots at risk of errant cypres fires because their canopies descent faster in turns than 45 mph. More people are now in greater danger.

Your answer? Create an on/off button? So after opening you can resume normal canopy flight. So now we have one major change, fall rate firing speed, and a second major change, an on/off feature to prevent canopy fires.

Two more areas to potentially screw up an already complex design. The nature of the AAD is to be turned on and forgotten about. You start placing having to deal with an AAD into an already busy list of after opening procedures, its gonna take more time, and give people one more thing to screw up.

All that, so you can feel confident that if you dont do you job (open any parachute) it will do its job?

The easiest/safest solution is to make sure you do your job.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's ergonomics! (sorry goose491). Not so much that the design is bad but that changes to the design of the machine can make up for deficiencies in the design of me. And all the people like me.

So now they make the CYPRES so it will fire if you are so stupid as to "cruise" through 750 feet. You have no ADDED risk to many more jumpers who are operating within the design. Now you have people like me who can't jump the device since my canopy will set it off.

Quote

That's what the device is for after all

The device is a BACK UP to you doing something stupid. If you design the device to fit your singular fuckup, then you create more danger in other areas.

The first RSL....Killed people,
The First AAD's....Killed people,
The first 3 rings....Killed people,
The first squares....Killed people,
Collapsible pilot chutes....Killed people.

Get the point?

Anything in this sport has killed or failed to save someone at some point.

Almost EVERY death could have been prevented by the person paying attention.

So far every CYPRES death/not save I can think of would have been prevented if the person had bothered to understand the manual.

Quote

To me the cypres is only a successful and popular brand. Like a Model T in the 1910s. But not the epitome of design by any means

And every other design has special features that wll kill you if you don't pay attention. VIGILS can be set to fire at TANDEM altitude for expert jumpers.

You may think that multi-mode is a good design feature, but it can also kill you if you don't pay attention....Just like setting the ADD at home and driving to a higher altitude DZ can kill you.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nathaniel 0]

How's that adage go, great minds think alike...
LawnDart21

Quote

:You've now placed half the wing suit pilots at risk of errant cypres fires because their canopies descent faster in turns than 45 mph. More people are now in greater danger.

Ron

Quote

So now they make the CYPRES so it will fire if you are so stupid as to "cruise" through 750 feet. You have no ADDED risk to many more jumpers who are operating within the design. Now you have people like me who can't jump the device since my canopy will set it off.

Clearly that's not the way to do it then. Ok then, we're done, time to call it a day. It must be impossible to do

There's more than one way to tell how high up off the earth you are, and whether your parachute has opened and whether another one ought to be. Not all of them are accessible to us right now because our current designs have all made similar choices. You guys have it tho, using a single variable (altitude) parameterized over time is not the Way.

To start off with, there are non-trivial ways of tinkering with the cypres mode of operation, such as creating a base station (presumably at the manifest office or in the plane) that could program cypresses throughout the day with authenticated data about the dropzone.

Then we can get weird. GPS wasn't affordable in the early '90s. It's still not particularly reliable today. Then there are radio services such as LORAN and WAAS, DGPS, radar, transponders, etc, all of which in 1990 couldn't fit into a device the size of your altimeter, but today that can. I've got a hunch that something like this could be used to improve upon the cypres, or at least match up to it in many circumstances.

In 1990 you couldn't buy a video camera that ran off tiny batteries and could fit on the side of your head. And you couldn't buy a computer fast enough to process images from the cameras we have today, and certainly that computer wouldn't fit in your pocket. The 5" handheld ipaq I just bought outclasses the cutting edge 30 lb system I bought in 1997. Hardly anybody had studied the image processing algorithms you'd use.

My imagination is not limited by the toys I have in front of me. Yours shouldn't be either. The military, at least, has demonstrated the feasibility of using video for navigation. They've been doing it on big budgets since the 70's at least. Why could this never work for skydiving? For illustration about what's easy now compared to 1990, last year a kid put together an automated aiming system for his BB gun using a webcam and his computer. linkety goodness

Actually it's been redone independently, this time with a paintball gunwith more linkety goodness

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,076]

>If I were to get distracted and pass through 750 ft I don't have too
>much confidence that my cypres would do anything.

Cypreses will often not fire during normal wingsuit flight. Fortunately, since wingsuits require the jumper to navigate, wingsuit jumpers are generally more aware of where they are. If you were to be disabled due to a collision during a flock dive, it is likely that your fallrate would increase beyond the 78mph limit, and the cypres would fire.

If that's a good thing to you, then a cypres could be a good investment. If you do not think that a cypres will work for you, then don't use one.

[LawnDart21 0]

Quote

There's more than one way to tell how high up off the earth you are

You already have the best altimeter available; your eyes.

You already have the best AAD available; your brain.

Use the best and you wont need the rest.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[wmw999 2,544]

I would agree that virtually nothing that we're using is the epitome of design. However, you might contribute more by looking at how things can improve, rather than simply pointing out that they can improve.

Others will tell you that it's not better etc, but that will at least give you data to work with.

If you come up with ideas that make products better, the manufacturers in a world as small as skydiving are very likely to listen. I've had at least one idea listened to (not implemented, but that's OK), and I'm no different from anyone else.

Just analyze how your gear/Cypres/whatever works, and think about what would make it better.

edited to add:
in other words, quit just talking about what you see wrong, make suggestions and work on them to make them better

Wendy W

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[goose491 0]

Quote

Quote

So weakness in *you* makes you think that the design is bad?

That's ergonomics! (sorry goose491).

hehee, don't sweat it. I'm just a bit of a stickler for terminology.

Ergonomics has to do with the physical relationship between man and machine... physical.

Examples:
Problem: "The lever on my machine is big, hard, square and awkward. At the end of the workday, my hand feels like a crippled claw!"

Ergonomic Solution:"Let's give it a nice gel-grip which is shaped with finger grooves in it so that your grip is both more effective AND comfortable."

Problem:"The electronic flaps selector switch is located directly below the interior light switch in the cockpit. Pilots are turning out the interior lights and then fiding themselves fighting back pressure to keep level flight before realising that they have inadvertantly selected full flaps. This causes not only a moment of confusion, but also a structural safety issue if you are above the maximum airspeed for flap use."

Ergonomic Solution:"Let's move that flap selector to a more isolated location in the cockpit so as to avoid hitting it by mistake while doing other things in the cockpit."

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

I'm going to go ahead and assume you might just be taking some flight lessons and that you are now focussed on the "human factors in aviation" aspects? That perhaps this is why "ergonomics" is a big buzz word for you today?

... could be wrong.

Quote

Not so much that the design is bad but that changes to the design of the machine can make up for deficiencies in the design of me. And all the people like me.

But your wingsuit example, that's not Ergonomics. That's merely expanding the intended uses of the device. It in no way changes the physical interaction between it and you. It merely allows for you to screw up on your dive (i.e. not pull until passing through a grand). As Ron pointed out, we don't want it to fire in the situation you have described.

Perhaps you should go out and invent the "Cypres, Birdman Model" ?

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Ergonomics has to do with the physical relationship between man and machine... physical.

It's for lack of a better word to indicate the rest of the relationship. My usage is not without precedent...it's used the the tech world to some degree to refer to user interfaces of all sorts. But I'm not attached to terminology & I actually wouldn't mind to take in new language, if you have any to offer.

Quote

That's merely expanding the intended uses of the device.

IMO, that's part of "ergonomics" / human-machine-interface. "If the shoe fits" type of thing. In this case, the shoe nearly fits, but not quite. History is replete with examples of machines that exceeded their designers' original intentions. Could be and were modified to exceed their original form.

Quote

As Ron pointed out, we don't want it to fire in the situation you have described.

Ron & Lawndart's proposals for modifying the cypres to fit a wingsuit pilot are facile. It completely misses the point to focus on dead ends like that.

Quote

Perhaps you should go out and invent the "Cypres, Birdman Model" ?

I'm sure I will, if someone doesn't before me. My trade is not in device design and manufacture right now...If anyone wants to wait for me to do it, it will be at least several years...

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?