skydiverton 0 #101 September 13, 2004 QuoteQuote....like to hear from vigil owners that are unhappy and havent had their concerns addressed. Funny, this hasn't happened yet. I'm still loving my vigil. I used both rigs this weekend, cypres 1 told me a bunch of numbers and crap. My vigil speaks english--I'm honestly much more comfortable using the vigil and jumping it than the cypres. I think I need to ditch the cypres for another vigil I'm really getting a little bit sad about this. I don't care what language my AAD speaks, as long as I understand it. According to your arguments Microsoft products must be ok too. Well, in as soon as Microsoft starts making aeroplane flightsoftware I will take a boat! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit, Especially when you are jumping a sport rig Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #102 September 13, 2004 QuoteI see you are just a skydiver, not an astronaut :). How old is the oldest Space Shuttle? More than 12 years? :) Notice two of them have failed?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #103 September 13, 2004 QuoteWas CYPRES a proven unit 12 years ago? Nope, but then again since you were not around when the CYPREs came out and I was...There was PLENTY of doubt about the CYPRES also."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #104 September 13, 2004 QuoteBecause that is forced upon you, since your rigger doesn't want to pack your reserve anymore except without the old cypres1? BTW: When I bought mine, nowhere it said it had a limited lifetime and that lifetime was 12 year and three months from the date of mfg. I bought and use it under dutch rules that say no part of the parachute assembly should be older than 20 years. AND (AFAIK) there is one documented save by a unit that was older than 12 year and 3 months (Rantoul 2004 I believe - despite of it being 'outside of the guarantee period' and therefore illegal it worked as advertised). So apart from their proven technical reliability they also came up with business tactics that as such might make me take a hard look elsewhere... None of that answers the question of WHY you would jump an unproven unit. I alos am unpset about the 12 year life span. I bought mine when it didn't have a life span also. But being upset about the life span is nto a good enough reason to jump a unit with KNOWN problems. I would love for a reliable safe cheap AAD to compete against the CYPRES....However VIGIL still has yet to prove to be safe in my eyes."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattjw916 2 #105 September 13, 2004 Too bad both of those failures had nothing to do with the shuttle body itself and were caused by an SRB and insulation impacts which are reuseable and disposable components respectively.NSCR-2376, SCR-15080 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #106 September 13, 2004 QuoteToo bad both of those failures had nothing to do with the shuttle body itself and were caused by an SRB and insulation impacts which are reuseable and disposable components respectively. But notice the last one had to do with AGE?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #107 September 13, 2004 >But notice the last one had to do with AGE? Well, no. In both cases the original failure (unseated O-ring, loose insulation) were on brand-new, disposable components. The orbiter wasn't the problem in either case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattjw916 2 #108 September 13, 2004 thanks, I was about to say that...NSCR-2376, SCR-15080 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #109 September 13, 2004 Quote Would you risk your life on a 12 year old computer? If you've ever flown on a commercial airline I wouldn't at all doubt that there was a 12+ year old computer system keeping you alive at some point during the trip. If old computers aren't used in businesses, then why did we have the Y2K scare 4 years back where everyone was fixing COBOL code that was done back in the 80's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
friflaj 0 #110 September 13, 2004 QuoteWould you risk your life on a 12 year old computer? Hey, if it works for NASA... and a 12 year old design doesn't neceasrily mean 12 year old components Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #111 September 13, 2004 QuoteQuote Would you risk your life on a 12 year old computer? If you've ever flown on a commercial airline I wouldn't at all doubt that there was a 12+ year old computer system keeping you alive at some point during the trip. When I worked for IBM I used to support the techs that fixed the AIX systems at the Aurora FAA center. I'm not sure if I am still under the NDA, but I can say that the systems being used there were over 10 years old and we created special fixes just for those machines so they could take them past Y2K without any worries. If you know anything about midwest aviation you would know just how huge the Aurora Center is, and how many flights it controls. They were running systems that IBM refused to support for ANYONE else._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #112 September 14, 2004 Quote.....I don't care what language my AAD speaks, as long as I understand it. Thats just my point. I don't always understand my cypress. numbers numbers numbers? I just want to know if my battery is OK. Or should I ever have to set a DZ offset, that I can do it without having to remember special button push sequences that I last read 2 years before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #113 September 14, 2004 QuoteNone of that answers the question of WHY you would jump an unproven unit. Once a thrillseeker, always a thrillseeker? (I mean I jumped with the cypres when it had 'known problems' - like the self test giving no guarantee that it would actually work / i.e. it could show you enough voltage and count neatly back to zero yet not produce a spark when needed in certain instances, it could go off near radars, radio's and mobile phones, etcetera. So for me it is nothing new to jump AAD's with 'known problems' - I jumped with FXC 8000, FXC 12000 and as a student I even jumped original Steve Snyder sentinels back then - now that's thrillseeking for ye ...) For the evergrowing crowd that needs a new AAD because they don't want to- or are not allowed to jump without one there simply is no proven unit available...(Or is the cypres 2 already 'proven' in your book?) Also there's no unit that takes into account if I'm in the proces of opening my main (albeit a bit late) or that I'm still in freefall and have done nothing to save myself.(how hard can that be with a computer that does five calculations per second - just a few extra sensors...) Funny thing is - whoever builds THAT will try to sell us an unproven unit, that might or might not work... Other than that, I 've 'been around the block' long enough to be a follower usually when it comes to shiny new life saving toys... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #114 September 14, 2004 Bill, MarkM, mattjw916 Do you drive 12 year old cars? I know you CAN, but given the choice of a 1993, or a 2005 which do you think is more reliable, and safer? friflaj Do you drive a 1993 car that has been overhauled? Just cause it has new components does not mean it is as safe as a 2005. You can all claim that a 1993 unit is just as good as a 2005....Even in reguards to aviation....But a new Bonanza is better than a 1993. A new Cessna 182 is better than a 1993. Anyone here think the Cirrus is a worse plane than a 1990 Cessna 182? Just because it may still work does not mean it is better. How many of you jump Sentinals? Liemberg, The CYPRES 2 is not "Proven" in my eyes...But it is miles above the Vigil in the fact that the CYPRES2 is based off of a popular quite reliable design. The history of the CYPRES has its black marks...But that was for the most part a while ago. And I liked how CYPRES handled the problems...I don't like how Vigil tried to hide the problems. BTW, I am looking to replace my 2001 Mustang GT...I will NOT be buying the 2005 GT due to not wanting to be the first to have the cool new toy with unknown problems...The 2003 Cobra had 390 HP, 390 foot pounds of tourque, and a problem with the #8 cylinder. The 2004 Cobra had the same HP and tourqe...without the problems."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #115 September 14, 2004 >Do you drive 12 year old cars? I drove a '73 Datsun 610 until 1987. Most reliable car I've ever owned. >I know you CAN, but given the choice of a 1993, or a 2005 which do >you think is more reliable, and safer? Depends on the car. Our 1993 Toyota van has 180,000 miles on it and is more reliable than many of my friend's new cars. >Just because it may still work does not mean it is better. Of course. And just because it is old does not mean it is worse. Who would you rather take advice from on your gear - Bill Booth or a 19 year old freeflyer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #116 September 14, 2004 QuoteOf course. And just because it is old does not mean it is worse But being old DOES mean that it has a higher chance of breaking. I'm pissed that my CYPRES will die. They said it would not, then changed their position. If the Vigil proves to be as safe as the CYPRES I will buy one on that reason alone...But so far in my eyes the Vigil has not shown to be safe and reliable. I will sit back and let others test them for me. That action will not make me cool, but I don't care about me being seen as cool. I would rather stay safe."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
koz2000 1 #117 September 14, 2004 QuoteDo you drive 12 year old cars? Yep, actually 13 yr old. but that's probably cause I've got a wife (that also jumps) and kids. At least she has a new car. Mine's got 180,000 miles. If I can keep it for one more year....... ______________________________________________ - Does this small canopy make my balls look big? - J. Hayes - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #118 September 14, 2004 >But being old DOES mean that it has a higher chance of breaking. It seems that your argument has been that if it's new, it has a higher chance of breaking. But both have far more to do with design than with age - there are plenty of 50 year old devices that work great and will for another 50 years (do a search on the Kurta calculator) and there are plenty of brand-new consumer electronics that won't last a year. The mechanisms are different in both cases. It's worth understanding the wearout mechanisms involved in the various devices (and the business reasons one might declare a device past its service life) before deciding which one will last longer. To put it another way - parachutes wear out far faster than cypreses do. If you had a 30 year old Parafoil with 4 jumps on it, stored in a good environment, would you throw it out? If an accuracy jumper decided to use it, who would decide if it was safe to jump? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #119 September 14, 2004 QuoteIt seems that your argument has been that if it's new, it has a higher chance of breaking No, if it's new and unproven it has a higher chance of not working correctly. A new product can have unseen problems...Novas, Crossfire 1's, The Reflex, Raven reserves, Astra's (anyone even jump these anymore? Remember they were the next big thing?), SUV's flipping over,...I could go on. If it is old it has a higher chance of breaking due to wear. My old Stilleto was sent in for a reline and they said they didn't want it flying anymore...It had over 2,000 jumps on it, and when the pull tested it it ripped apart....a lot. My new Stiletto most likley will not rip to pieces if I pull test it. So you have two risks...One is that a new device will have problems, the other is that an old device will break. Best bet? Get a new device based on proven designs and materials from a company with experience in that field. Of the AAD's on the market, the only one that fits that is the CYPRES2...And even then I would not be the first in line to get one...They too had problems. QuoteIt's worth understanding the wearout mechanisms involved in the various devices From my understanding in Germany devices are given a "life span"...And it makes sense that a company that is in Germany would follow that same thought with a product they make. Don't get me wrong...I don't think a CYPRES will turn to crap in 13 years...And I a pissed that they gave thema life span. However, it seems to me that nothing lasts forever, and I don't know enough about electronics and AAD's to know what the life span of a product is....And in the case that an AAD breaking could kill someone, I can see the desire not to just wait to see when they start to break. My Stiletto was a fine example...I needed a line set on it for 800 jumps...But I finaly sent it in, and found out that it was unsafe. If the lines were not bad, I might have jumped it till it exploded."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badlock 0 #120 September 14, 2004 Ohhhh... what a thread! Someone is talking about AADs, someone about Space Shuttles, someone talks about airplanes and old computers and another are talking about old cars. In germany we describe this kind of unobjectively discussions with a proverb: "They compare apples with pears" Don't be a Lutz! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #121 September 15, 2004 QuoteBut being old DOES mean that it has a higher chance of breaking. No, not as a general rule. Since we have been talking cars, space shutles, aad's and parachutes let's introduce (for arguments sake) sewing machines and camera's There are sewing machines dating back to the beginning of the 20th century that can still sew. My guess is that there are also more advanced and complicated machines that can be programmed to sew AND do all sorts of complicated things the 'pedal driven singer' cant do and that some of the forerunners of these machines are left completly useless already because a certain chip that was incorporated into them is broken and isn't produced anymore (if it happens with the shutle it happens elsewhere...). Now if I wanted to repair a hole in my pants (or my parachute) I might prefer the older model whereas embroidering my name would be almost impossible with the 'stone-age' machine. Some old things don't have a higher chance of breaking since the design is simple and they have (for their purpose) an unlimited lifespan. (i.e. should something break they can be repaired with of the shelve spare parts, one can 'canibalise' several machines to keep one running,etc.etc.) Somebody once told me that the shutter mechanism of most camera's were tested for over 50.000 times and that the people who bought these camera's even when they were avid photographers only made some 5000 photo's before buying a new camera. Don't know if that is true but I do know that my grandpa's camera worked and could be used (was used on special occasions) 30 years after he bought it. 13 years ago I bought a video-8 camcorder. Last year I bought nr 4... (Ok , maybe jumping with them out of airplanes doesn't help, but...AND (speaking about airplanes) we all should be glad that airplane manufactures don't follow the same approach as Airtec does - skydiving would come to a standstill if all planes older than 12 year and 3 months were grounded as of tomorrow ... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #122 September 15, 2004 QuoteThere are sewing machines dating back to the beginning of the 20th century that can still sew. Notice these are not electrical devices. And then you say: QuoteMy guess is that there are also more advanced and complicated machines that can be programmed to sew AND do all sorts of complicated things the 'pedal driven singer' cant do and that some of the forerunners of these machines are left completly useless already because a certain chip that was incorporated into them is broken and isn't produced anymore Is the bold added by me not a good reason to have a limit on electric devices that if they break could kill someone? QuoteDon't know if that is true but I do know that my grandpa's camera worked and could be used (was used on special occasions) 30 years after he bought it. 13 years ago I bought a video-8 camcorder. Last year I bought nr 4... Yep a simple device does not break as much...Are you claiming that a CYPRES is a simple device? Its not a simple device. We will just have to disagree. I don't mind the CYPRES life span (other than I bought mine before they had one).... And I think the new Vigil is that...NEW. and that means new problems. I was not the first in line for a CYPRES1, and I will not be the first in line for ANY new gadget that could kill me if it malfunctions. But please, feel free to buy several of them...That way you can do the test jumps needed to prove to me it is safe."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #123 September 16, 2004 QuoteAstras' FXCs Actually not the Astra, but the (mechanical) Guardian/FXC was meant. Sorry for the confusion.The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
schwede 0 #124 September 28, 2004 Does anyone have the latest on the VIGIL and if they haved solved the problems with it??? www.vigil.aero doesn't give you any news since 1st of June 2004 and that is nothing to do what have been discussed in this thread.... Interested still but it's fading...Would hate to see that we would missout on competition on this market, due to that Vigil was to early on the market before their AAD was ready...Schwede "Das Leben ist schön, nicht immer aber immer öfter" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
padalka 0 #125 September 28, 2004 They have immediately changed our units with new ones . MD Tina Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
