Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by Paul Quad » Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

> I, for one, would like to see a Cypres model which would activate in the 40+
> fps range.

I'll agree that 51 mph is probably unsurvivable, but what makes you think you can
survive a 27 mph impact with the firmness of the earth?

Just curious,

Paul

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by JWDZBo » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Snipped from a recent accident report: " His reserve handle was never
pulled and the Cypres never fired since the rate of descent under the canopy
was not sufficient to do so." In other words, a skydiving brother was killed
because the device which was designed to save his life didn't know that the
human body dies at speeds much slower than 76(?) feet per second.

I've always been curious as to why there isn't an intermediate-speed cypres
available for those of us who aren't students (Cypres is set at a very slow
rate of descent for them for very obvious reasons) and don't want to be
hook-turning, downplaning skyscreaming "experts". It seems odd to me that the
design parameters of this remarkable device fail to account for the fact that
the very device that could save your life will not do so because it has been
designed to accommodate the needs of a very broad band of jumpers when, I
believe, there are quite a number of us who really wouldn't mind a chance at a
good reserve deployment at a slower airspeed than that which is attainable in
the most catastrophic nose-down dive or downplane.

Am I the only one who wonders about this? I, for one, would like to see a
Cypres model which would activate in the 40+ fps range.  But I'm old, and
scared, and constantly reminded of just how frail our poor bodies can be.

Does anyone know of any attempts by Cypres to design such a model?

Jamey Woodward

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by Gerj » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00


." In other words, a skydiving brother was killed

Quote:
>because the device which was designed to save his life didn't know that the
>human body dies at speeds much slower than 76(?) feet per second.

>I've always been curious as to why there isn't an intermediate-speed cypres
>available for those of us who aren't students (snip)

What if you, whatever the reason might be, have a *** spinning canopy
after opening. The cypres would fire at 2000 ft because it's an intermediate
cypres and you'd be flying two canopies when you could have solved the
problem of the spinning.

I personaly wouldn't like an AAD to fire when I have sufficient altitude
left to deal with a "minor" problem.

Remember what David TK Hayes said?
"5. Give all of your problems 2 tries to fix them, and then get out of
there.
Earlier reaction and detection of a problem would surely have had a
different outcome."

It's sad that a fellow jumper had to die because of the cypres settings, but
I think that a lot of jumpers would get into troubels when they'd use an
intermediat cupres.

I also agree with Paul quade who said: "I'll agree that 51 mph is probably
unsurvivable, but what makes you think you can
survive a 27 mph impact with the firmness of the earth?"

Save jumps,
Gerjo

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by Winsor Naugler II » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>Snipped from a recent accident report: " His reserve handle was never
>pulled and the Cypres never fired since the rate of descent under the
canopy
>was not sufficient to do so." In other words, a skydiving brother was
killed
>because the device which was designed to save his life didn't know that the
>human body dies at speeds much slower than 76(?) feet per second.

Not hardly.  A brother skydiver died because he had plenty of time, but
spent the rest of his life doing something other than going to plan B.
Quote:

>I've always been curious as to why there isn't an intermediate-speed cypres
>available for those of us who aren't students (Cypres is set at a very slow
>rate of descent for them for very obvious reasons) and don't want to be
>hook-turning, downplaning skyscreaming "experts". It seems odd to me that
the
>design parameters of this remarkable device fail to account for the fact
that
>the very device that could save your life will not do so because it has
been
>designed to accommodate the needs of a very broad band of jumpers when, I
>believe, there are quite a number of us who really wouldn't mind a chance
at a
>good reserve deployment at a slower airspeed than that which is attainable
in
>the most catastrophic nose-down dive or downplane.

It's not a design flaw.  The fact that Airtec does not indend the CYPRES to
be all things to all people, but to do one thing supremely well speaks well
of their design philosophy.

If you're going slower than the activation speed of an Expert CYPRES, odds
are you're conscious and initiated lifesaving procedures well above the
hard-deck.  If you possess the competence to use the equipment, it is
incumbent on you to continue with emergency procedures.

Quote:
>Am I the only one who wonders about this? I, for one, would like to see a
>Cypres model which would activate in the 40+ fps range.  But I'm old, and
>scared, and constantly reminded of just how frail our poor bodies can be.

If you really feel dependent on last ditch equipment to that extent, it may
well be time to hang it up.  Any skydive where the presence or absence of an
AOD is more than a secondary consideration is one on which I'll pass.  If I
need a CYPRES to jump at all, it's time for me to quit.

Quote:
>Does anyone know of any attempts by Cypres to design such a model?

No, and I sincerely hope they leave the effort to the competition, such as
it is.

Blue skies,

Winsor

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by SBoz » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

 Well spoken Winsor.
 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by JWDZBo » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I didn't ask the cypres to activate at 2,000 feet and I agree with trying to
solve the problem. Keep the activation altitude at 750 feet, just lower the
threshold speed.

Has anyone at Cypres ever contemplated this problem?

Jamey

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by JWDZBo » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Guess it would depend on many factors. I've witnessed more than a couple
"experts" survive a 27+ mph impact when their  high-performance landing went
bad. The "firmness" would be a factor if you had bad enough luck to hit the
runway as opposed to the grass.  I find it hard to believe that a person can
survive a 60 mph impact, so something less seems more palatable.

Just a thought ...

Jamey

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by JWDZBo » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Thank you for your pontificating to my objective question, Windsor.  I guess
I'll quit now.

Jamey

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by Climbnju » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
>I've witnessed more than a couple
>"experts" survive a 27+ mph impact

yea, that happens

Quote:
>.  I find it hard to believe that a person can
>survive a 60 mph impact, so something less seems more palatable.

>Just a thought ...

>Jamey

believe it, ive seen it too.......
 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by B.Nixo » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

JWDZBoss, (I like that handle, opps, user name)
     I say to a friend,"Watch this start some comments."
     If the Expert Cypres were set at 40 fps, that would obviate the "hook
turn debate" wouldn't it?

--
Niki
Bob Nixon     D-3103


Quote:
>Snipped from a recent accident report: " His reserve handle was never
>pulled and the Cypres never fired since the rate of descent under the
canopy
>was not sufficient to do so." In other words, a skydiving brother was
killed
>because the device which was designed to save his life didn't know that the
>human body dies at speeds much slower than 76(?) feet per second.

>I've always been curious as to why there isn't an intermediate-speed cypres
>available for those of us who aren't students (Cypres is set at a very slow
>rate of descent for them for very obvious reasons) and don't want to be
>hook-turning, downplaning skyscreaming "experts". It seems odd to me that
the
>design parameters of this remarkable device fail to account for the fact
that
>the very device that could save your life will not do so because it has
been
>designed to accommodate the needs of a very broad band of jumpers when, I
>believe, there are quite a number of us who really wouldn't mind a chance
at a
>good reserve deployment at a slower airspeed than that which is attainable
in
>the most catastrophic nose-down dive or downplane.

>Am I the only one who wonders about this? I, for one, would like to see a
>Cypres model which would activate in the 40+ fps range.  But I'm old, and
>scared, and constantly reminded of just how frail our poor bodies can be.

>Does anyone know of any attempts by Cypres to design such a model?

>Jamey Woodward

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by Dick Edward » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I wonder why some jumpers who think about stuff like this; can't think about
a simpler way to handle the problem! Pull higher and give yourself that
extra time that you may need to react appropriately. Too many people think
about every step of the jump, but what happens after the pull.
***
Quote:

>" If the Expert Cypres were set at 40 fps, that would obviate the "hook
turn
>debate" wouldn't it?"

>Grin, grimace.  Oh God no, that's not what I was even remotely suggesting,
>although it would certainly clean up the fatality pages.  No, I was
suggesting
>a completely separate Cypres model niched directly between the student and
the
>expert.

>Heavens no ... lets not take away the hook-turners absolute right to die at
our
>places of business.  Heaven forbid.

>Jamey

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by JWDZBo » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00

" If the Expert Cypres were set at 40 fps, that would obviate the "hook turn
debate" wouldn't it?"

Grin, grimace.  Oh God no, that's not what I was even remotely suggesting,
although it would certainly clean up the fatality pages.  No, I was suggesting
a completely separate Cypres model niched directly between the student and the
expert.

Heavens no ... lets not take away the hook-turners absolute right to die at our
places of business.  Heaven forbid.

Jamey

 
 
 

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

Post by Tom Bea » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
>.  They tend NOT to read the instructions,

>                                    Kevin O'Connell

Hoonestly, I waz trying to read them.  But they blew outa my hand even
before I reached terminal.

Humor aside - I did read them once.  sorta.  Maybe I need to spend
some time rereading (studying) them.

Thanks,  I am rebuked.

tom (the humble) beals