Cypres 2 vs. Vigil 2

[HunterL 0]

I'm looking to buy a half-dozen AAD's, I've always used a Cypres so I may be partial to it but never put too much thought into it.... I'm looking for some of the main differences, and pro's and con's of each before I spend $7k on them.

[727_Jumper 0]

welcome to the site,

you've got some homework to do

you can start here:

http://www.dropzone.com/gear/

or at the site search at the bottom of the page..

a lot of what you're looking for has already been talked about ad nauseum

[Jbag 0]

Quote

I'm looking to buy a half-dozen AAD's, I've always used a Cypres so I may be partial to it but never put too much thought into it.... I'm looking for some of the main differences, and pro's and con's of each before I spend $7k on them.

you can only use 1 at a time ;)

IHYD

[Fast 0]

Quote

I'm looking to buy a half-dozen AAD's, I've always used a Cypres so I may be partial to it but never put too much thought into it.... I'm looking for some of the main differences, and pro's and con's of each before I spend $7k on them.

Sounds like you are buying them for some kind of student or tandem fleet. The reality of this is that the vigil is "cheaper" but not everyone can agree that the level of safety provided is the same. Both have had their problems, but vigils seem to have more problems. I stress on the "seem" part.

At the end of the day, my dz went with cypresses because we liked the maintenance program that they have in place. It helps on liability issues and it overall just "looks good" to be doing regular maintenance on things and being able to state that we are. My personal opinion is that it's a good idea too, so..

The vigil's have some neat features, but most of them just don't apply to our situation so they didn't matter much and we didn't like the open ended lifespan idea. I work around computers, electronics and the like... stuff wears out and dies and people are lazy and wont replace something till it's "dead." I just don't want the unit being dead to correspond to someone being dead as well. Planned obsolescence helps in that regard.

Edited to add: You really need to search on this topic, it has been beat to death on these forums.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[AndyMan 7]

Chicagoland Skydiving Center has more than 20 Vigil 2s in very active use in their Student and Tandem gear. The DZ is replacing Cypres's as they time-out with Vigils.

They've worked fine, and considering the cost difference it saved enough money that a fleet of Cypres's is tough to justify. One of them fired in a rapidly descending aircraft, which we weren't thrilled about.

I'd happily jump either.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[pilotdave 0]

A vigil might fire if the door suddenly opens at low altitude. Why is ANYBODY comfortable with that?

Dave

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

A vigil might fire if the door suddenly opens at low altitude. Why is ANYBODY comfortable with that?

Well, like I said - CSC has 20 of them in very active use. Collectively there's probably more than 10,000 jumps on them this year alone (and the DZ has had them for a while). We haven't seen any problem, except for one firing in a rapidly descending plane. A student Cypres would have fired then too.

I do know about the Cessna incident you're talking about. Back when Cypres's were firing from radio interfefence, we didn't black-list the product or stop buying them, we just became aware of its limitations and waited for the company to fix it.

From the experience at CSC that I've seen - they seem to work well. The cost savings in purchase price, maintenance, and longer lifespan is compelling.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[millertime24 8]

Quote

A vigil might fire if the door suddenly opens at low altitude. Why is ANYBODY comfortable with that?

Dave

Ive had my Vigil II all summer. Not once has it fired when we opened the door at 1k.

Muff #5048

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

A vigil might fire if the door suddenly opens at low altitude. Why is ANYBODY comfortable with that?

Dave

Ive had my Vigil II all summer. Not once has it fired when we opened the door at 1k.

Was it a C182 door? Opening a lexan door in an otter/caravan or similar is of course a different scenario with much less of a sudden pressure change.

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

[millertime24 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A vigil might fire if the door suddenly opens at low altitude. Why is ANYBODY comfortable with that?

Dave

Ive had my Vigil II all summer. Not once has it fired when we opened the door at 1k.

Was it a C182 door? Opening a lexan door in an otter/caravan or similar is of course a different scenario with much less of a sudden pressure change.

It was not, but in the original post a certian aircraft wasn't included.

Muff #5048

[CMiller 1]

Quote

One of them fired in a rapidly descending aircraft, which we weren't thrilled about.
_Am

I've seen student cypreses do this too.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Quote

A vigil might fire if the door suddenly opens at low altitude. Why is ANYBODY comfortable with that?

Dave

Ive had my Vigil II all summer. Not once has it fired when we opened the door at 1k.

Obviously. If Vigils were firing every time a door opened at 1000 feet, they would be banned from all DZs in a heartbeat. The point is that it CAN happen, when a door opens suddenly, and more likely at an altitude lower than 1000 feet. It's probably unlikely, but a rollup lexan door could blow out. But I have no idea how fast a door has to open to spook a vigil. I've visited a DZ where jumpers would commonly open the door at more like 800 feet on those really hot summer days. And I doubt anyone can tell me with certainty that opening an otter door can't spook a vigil.

Dave

[billvon 2,463]

>A vigil might fire if the door suddenly opens at low altitude. Why is
>ANYBODY comfortable with that?

In a student program, if the students were guaranteed to be far back in the Otter, and the DZ felt that the financial benefits (lower purchase cost) outweighed the financial risk (repacks, aircraft damage) - they might be comfortable with it.

[pilotdave 0]

They don't do hop n' pops or sit in the back to practice spotting?

Anyway, the problem affects all vigils. I hope the problem gets fixed before there's a reserve wrapped on the tail of a plane.

Dave

[millertime24 8]

Just curious. Does this problem also appear in the Vigil II? I thought they had sorted that out on the newer models.

Muff #5048

[PhreeZone 15]

Yes, they just updated their user manual for the Vigil II to state not to open the door of a aircraft anywhere in the firing parameters of the unit. IE 300-2400 feet if a tandem Vigil is on the airplane.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,463]

>They don't do hop n' pops or sit in the back to practice spotting?

Well, few of them do that at 1500 feet. So provided there are always non-Vigil people between them and the door (say, the local 4-way team) it could work.

Not saying I would make that tradeoff - but for some DZ's the lower purchase cost might be worth the additional risk.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Back when Cypres's were firing from radio interfefence, we didn't black-list the product or stop buying them, we just became aware of its limitations and waited for the company to fix it.

Not using a radio on top of a rig is less likely than a door opening in skydiving.

To the OP... Like my PM said, I did the research and bought a C2.

The few dollars in savings was not worth the (even slight) increased risk of a misfire to me. I'd rather an AAD never fire than fire when it should not.

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

[erdnarob 1]

A cheap generalization made here. What about millions of jumps using Vigil with no firing at all. What you say sends a wrong idea to the readers. We can call that intoxication. It's not scientific and completely wrong. When you see car accidents with a couple of Toyota, are saying that Toyota cars are all wrong ?. Are you ignorant to the fact that the main Vigil competitor recalled 1200 units 2 years ago for wrong pressure sensor. Just be way more careful in your statements.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

A cheap generalization made here. What about millions of jumps using Vigil with no firing at all. What you say sends a wrong idea to the readers. We can call that intoxication. It's not scientific and completely wrong.

I didn't generalize at all. AAD put the warning right in their manual. I have plenty of other concerns about Vigils (how's that for generalization?), but I only mentioned a specific one in this thread.

I'd never say the cypres is perfect. Did I even mention the cypres or any other AAD in this thread? But the vigil's philosophy of arming itself inside its firing range is one particular design decision that I think is a mistake. When a door suddenly opens at 400 feet, a cypres will "see" the same sudden pressure change, but not fire. Why? Because it isn't armed yet.

Dave

[billvon 2,463]

>What you say sends a wrong idea to the readers.

Dude, the warning is right there in the Vigil manual. Do you not trust the Vigil manual?

>When you see car accidents with a couple of Toyota, are saying that
>Toyota cars are all wrong ?

No. But if more than a few are, they recall them and fix the problem - as they did with Toyotas. Are you suggesting a recall is in order for Vigils?

[erdnarob 1]

What do you prefer ? A firing into the airplane in very rare cases (I have had a Vigil 1 and now the Vigil II without any problem with airplane, chopper...open door since 2005) or no firing at all in free fall then no protection if knocked out at the door due to the rush of jumpers in case of a bail out at 1400 ft. Life is a matter of choice. I prefer the first option, ie. being protected as soon as possible. It is very easy to inhibit an AAD firing until the altitude well above the firing altitude is reached, easy design. For me it is like an insurance car company not covering you within 14 miles from home for instance. That would save a lot of trouble to this company isn't it ? But for you that will be another story.
Again statistics speak by themselves. Even few cases are not significant just like it is car airbags. Apparently 15% of them are defective (to be verified). Again, that shouldn't distract you from being safe.
A friend of mine and myself (having both a Vigil II) had a Bell 230 chopper ride at the Summerfest 2010 at Skydive Chicago. The chopper stayed flying at few feet from the ground for few seconds, then climbed at 200-300 feet and dived to the ground again to finally climb for good at 5000 ft for jumping. NO PROBLEM. Yes the two passenger doors were removed. What better example can I give ??
I am sure you would appreciate that this info is first hand one and the fact I name the location and the conditions.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[erdnarob 1]

I know the info in the Vigil manual. As I said in the precedent post, the Vigil design is a matter of choice. Having (few cases out of 15000 units) is part of the odds of all electronic devices. Why to recall their units when they choose that design ? I prefer to have a firing into the airplane that not being protected in case of a bail out at 1400 ft since we know that airplane engine problems happen most of the time after take off. Even if in such a case I have a little chance to stay alive, I want to keep it by being protected by my Vigil unlike others.
It seems for me that a lot people are more impressed by spectacular events (a firing) than an unseen feature (no protection until 1500 ft for instance). We have to stay cool and use our brain to analyse the pro and the con of a device.

ANOTHER STORY.

I recently read a very interesting article in a scientific review. Here is an extract:
Many electronic devices if not all have circuit board using tin for soldered joint. The problem can arise because tin used for soldering is applied on copper. After an undetermined amount of time, copper diffuses into the tin making a tin-copper alloy. That alloy is more bulky and generates a tremendous local pressure resulting into the appearance of wiskers outside the solder. Those wiskers, even minute, can create shorts into the board circuits and lead to malfunctions. Nothing is spared from that kind of problem. Nasa satellites, car airbag, computers and generally all kind of systems using circuit board including maybe AADs.
Environment laws forbid now using lead for soldering. Apparently lead solder is less likely to generate the problem mentioned above.
If anybody has more info about this "whiskers" problem when using tin-copper joint, I would appreciate to read about it.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Why to recall their units when they choose that design ?

Because it is a lousy design.

Quote

I prefer to have a firing into the airplane

If you know that the reserve PC would stay inside the plane, then it wouldn't be so much of a concern, but of course the scenario is that the door suddenly opens, so it isn't likely to stay innocently inside.

Quote

I recently read a very interesting article in a scientific review. Here is an extract:
Many electronic devices if not all have circuit board using tin for soldered joint. The problem can arise because tin used for soldering is applied on copper. After an undetermined amount of time, copper diffuses into the tin making a tin-copper alloy. That alloy is more bulky and generates a tremendous local pressure resulting into the appearance of wiskers outside the solder. Those wiskers, even minute, can create shorts into the board circuits and lead to malfunctions. Nothing is spared from that kind of problem. Nasa satellites, car airbag, computers and generally all kind of systems using circuit board including maybe AADs.
Environment laws forbid now using lead for soldering. Apparently lead solder is less likely to generate the problem mentioned above.
If anybody has more info about this "whiskers" problem when using tin-copper joint, I would appreciate to read about it.

Sounds like a good reason for a very stringent, periodic inspection and testing program.

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

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

I prefer to have a firing into the airplane that not being protected in case of a bail out at 1400 ft

1400 ft makes sense because it takes so long to reach the vertical speed needed for activation, then you must still have altitude remaining for the reserve to be able to open. Much lower than that, and there is no purpose if you are starting from 0 vertical speed.

As there is a well established design that is able to distinguish obviously impossible scenarios and not activate, it seems reasonable to expect that from the other manufacturers. It really is pathetic (speaking as a former electronics packaging/mechanical design engineer) that the competition couldn't do better with such a benchmark upon which to improve.

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