0
Elisha

Vigil Status report

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

If you think about it the Vigil did what it was supposed to do.It is possible, if the pressurization controls were set incorrectly,to take the cabin pressure of the aircraft to ground level.The aircraft pressurization system took the Vigil through it firing altitude.As for the Cypress shutting down maybe they thought of that when they wrote the code.

.



I just read the press release on the http://www.cypres2.com/cypres_news_letter_feb_2006_c.pdf site.


Quote

Udon Thani, Thailand over 400 of the
world's best skydivers are undertaking
a huge project: setting a new record by
building a 400-way freefall formation.
On Wednesday February 1st, during
practice jumps, it was necessary for one
of the five C130 Hercules, which are
being provided by the Thai Airforce, to
descend and land - possibly due to some
jumper oxygen problems. During the
descent, the aircraft was extremely
pressurized, which resulted in a cabin
pressure in excess of 1100 millibars - far
more than what can happen in any
normal environment on the earth...



If you read the whole release, the Cypres 1 did exactly what they were supposed to do when they measured unrealistic pressurization - they locked out and said, "send me home to get checked out, I am confused, I just saw something weird." The Cypres 2 have more advanced brains, apparently, and knew they did not have to see the doctor.

However, the Vigils fired. Both the Cypres 1 and 2 did exactly what they were programmed to do... The Vigils? Is there any proof to show that the pressurization would mimic a skydiver in freefall at firing altitude?

If the pressurization was within the parameters of AAD fire - all the AADs (Cypres 1, Cypres 2, Vigils) should have ALL fired, unless there is some documentation to show that the Vigils have different firing parameters and the exposure was within the Vigil parameters and not within the Cypres...

So, I don't believe the Vigils did what it was supposed to do...

I believe Vigils are great products, and some day I might own one... But, clearly there is something wrong with the code. To err is human, humans wrote the code - so now I just want to see them fix it quickly or announce why they fired... Sure, they don't have to - but I don't have to buy one either.:$



Scenario: Simulated rapid descent apparently close to ground level.

CYPRES: Locked up.

CYPRES2: Failed to fire.

Vigil: Fired.

It appears the Vigil was designed and worked properly. The CYPRES units appear to need an improved algorithm.

For Great Deals on Gear


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

does anyone use the Astra - I see it advertised but never seen one in person. I like the idea you can turn off easily.



I've seen a few people use them and dropzone's that have them on their rental gear. Depending on where the control unit is mounted, it shouldn't be too difficult to slide open the plastic cover and turn the switch to off. I've even seen some people that have the control unit mounted on the front of their rig, attached to a lift web or something, to make this even easier.



That is the recommended location for the Astra.

For Great Deals on Gear


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If only the Cypres was as rugged as the Astra, we would have the best of both worlds.



The Vigil is as more rugged than an Astra.

Quote

FXC actually claims the lack of a "time consuming" on-off procedure as an advantage! I think it is simply a dumb engineering decision to have a switch so obviously vulnerable to inadvertent actuation. I think it likely the misfire at 10K mentioned earlier was due to the unit somehow being turned off and then on at 9K. The cypress simply can't suffer this failure because of the "time consuming" on-off procedure-it has a purpose!



While moving the switch is a quick way to turn the Astra off, turning it on requires about the same time as a CYPRES. It is very unlikely it would turn on in a climbing plane. The switch is well protected, and not prone to being accidentally switched on or off.

For Great Deals on Gear


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It appears the Vigil was designed and worked properly. The CYPRES units
> appear to need an improved algorithm.

I must disagree. At the end of the day, an AAD that fires when it needs to (i.e. when installed in the rig of a skydiver who will die if it doesn't fire) and more importantly does NOT fire when it's not supposed to (i.e. inside an airplane on the ground) is the superior one, and is doing its job well. I'm not really all that interested in the details. What matters to me is that the next time I am on a record attempt like this one, if I use a Cypres 2 I will be able to make the jumps with the protection of an AAD without worrying about whether it will fire inside the aircraft. That is a big selling point for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>It appears the Vigil was designed and worked properly. The CYPRES units
> appear to need an improved algorithm.

I must disagree. At the end of the day, an AAD that fires when it needs to (i.e. when installed in the rig of a skydiver who will die if it doesn't fire) and more importantly does NOT fire when it's not supposed to (i.e. inside an airplane on the ground) is the superior one, and is doing its job well. I'm not really all that interested in the details. What matters to me is that the next time I am on a record attempt like this one, if I use a Cypres 2 I will be able to make the jumps with the protection of an AAD without worrying about whether it will fire inside the aircraft. That is a big selling point for me.



IMO, if an AAD is in a situation where it should fire, and it doesn't, that AAD failed, whether that situation was simulated or real.

For Great Deals on Gear


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IMO, if an AAD is in a situation where it should fire, and it doesn't, that AAD failed, whether that situation was simulated or real.


You are assuming that the conditions measured by the AADs reflected a situation that required them to fire. We dont know if the variation of pressure was within what can be encountered while in freefall or not.

The fact is, the AADs didnt need to fire in that particular situation. Some did, some didnt.
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read airteckais posts in this thread, same forum?

Cypres 1 status reports

The way i understand it the Cypres 2's did what they where designed to do. Not fire under these circumstances because not being at the activation altitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

IMO, if an AAD is in a situation where it should fire, and it doesn't, that AAD failed, whether that situation was simulated or real.


You are assuming that the conditions measured by the AADs reflected a situation that required them to fire. We dont know if the variation of pressure was within what can be encountered while in freefall or not.

The fact is, the AADs didnt need to fire in that particular situation. Some did, some didnt.



You're right, I made that assumption when I shouldn't have.

Assuming "the variation of pressure was within what would be encountered while in freefall," I would want the AAD to function as designed for freefall in simulated conditions.

You're right, though. There is not enough information available yet, so we shouldn't make assumptions.

For Great Deals on Gear


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Scenario: Simulated rapid descent apparently close to ground level.

CYPRES: Locked up.

CYPRES2: Failed to fire.

Vigil: Fired.

It appears the Vigil was designed and worked properly. The CYPRES units appear to need an improved algorithm.



Sorry I have to totally disagree with you on this one. The Vigil’s MIS-fired because their algorithm was not sophisticated enough to understand that they were in a situation inconsistent with free fall. I assume the pressure changing too fast was the issue and the AAD’s would be seeing something like this  (passing through 750 feet at 800MPH). The Vigil fired, the Cypres I said “my sensors don’t seem to be functioning properly please check me out” and the Cypres II said, “Hmm, this is not a possible skydiving scenario so I’m not going to fire” And yes before anyone gets on my case I’m making up the 800MPH as an example we don’t know what the real numbers were. Sorry the Vigil’s just plan misfired! It’s a shame we didn’t have a test of an Argus too!

This incident makes me more comfortable that I have a Cypres II!
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It amazes me that so many people are quick to condemn the Vigil without even first seeing the graph of the "skydive" that it experienced. Without that data all this "my AAD's algorithm is better than yours" BS serves no purpose whatsoever.

To make an assumption that it did not function as designed without any actual facts is assinine. The fact that so many people rush to pat themselves on the back for buying a Cypres 2 is equally lame.

Wait for the info. If you want to feel good about having AAD "X" in your rig, fine... but don't speculate, draw half-assed conclusions from said speculation, and purport them to be factual.

Fact: The manual states in no uncertain terms the actions to take when the Vigil is in use in a pressurized aircraft. Failing to adhere to them, or cycling your Vigil off and on again whilst climbing or descending in a plane, pressurized or not, is not within the operating specs of the AAD.

It's no wonder we have to have labels on things like hairspray that say "keep away from flame" to prevent liability lawsuits because people can't use common sense when dealing with complicated and not-so-complicated items.

P.S. I have nothing vested in this argument either way. :S
NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To make an assumption that it did not function as designed without any actual facts is assinine.

Fact: The manual states in no uncertain terms the actions to take when the Vigil is in use in a pressurized aircraft. Failing to adhere to them, or cycling your Vigil off and on again whilst climbing or descending in a plane, pressurized or not, is not within the operating specs of the AAD.



Well, the issue is not "that it did not function as designed" but instead that it did function as designed but was misdesigned! It is not speculation that they misfired.

What does the manual say about using it in a pressurized aircraft? That would be interesting reading. If it says to not use it in a pressurized aircraft than many people made a mistuke using it on the record.

You are right we need more info. But the one thing we can say is that Vigils MIS-fired, Cypres I's found somthign that made them think there was a problem and asked for service and that Cypres II's handled it without a problem.
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Vigils MIS-fired


You aren't listening. Without seeing the result of a Vigil's logging feature all we know is that they "fired". A "MIS-fire" implies that they fired at a time outside of their activation parameters. We simply have no way to know that yet. Technically the statements you have made would be considered libel.

If you want to know what the manual says, go download and read it. I did.

The information about the circumstances regarding the AAD fires is sketchy at best. Instead of blamestorming how about we all STFU and chill the f&$% out until we get official word. 95% of this thread is an utter waste.
NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>IMO, if an AAD is in a situation where it should fire, and it doesn't, that AAD failed.

AAD's should not fire in airplanes. Again, I don't much care what's going on with the pressure, or what parameters were met or not met. If it fires in freefall when you need it and doesn't fire in the airplane where it can be hazardous, it's a good AAD. I am going to replace my Cypres 1 for a Cypres 2 for the next World Team event because everything doesn't always go as planned - and I would prefer an AAD that fires in freefall and not in airplanes. (Naturally, if a jumper knows he will never be in a C130 or other aircraft that can pressurize, this is a non-issue.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Scenario: Simulated rapid descent apparently close to ground level.

CYPRES: Locked up.

CYPRES2: Failed to fire.

Vigil: Fired.

It appears the Vigil was designed and worked properly. The CYPRES units appear to need an improved algorithm.



I think both CYPRES units worked great (2 better than 1). I think the Vigil has a problem.

I would rather an AAD not misfire.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IMO, if an AAD is in a situation where it should fire, and it doesn't, that AAD failed, whether that situation was simulated or real.



My point is the CYPRES didn't need to fire. Neither did the Vigil. Only one misfired, and it was not the CYPRES.

I would rather have an AAD that didn't fire when not needed over one that did.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You aren't listening. Without seeing the result of a Vigil's logging feature all we know is that they "fired". A "MIS-fire" implies that they fired at a time outside of their activation parameters. We simply have no way to know that yet. Technically the statements you have made would be considered libel.



AAD's should not fire in a plane. The CYPRES's did not fire, the Vigils did.

Unless you want to claim that the VIGIL is designed to fire when sitting in a plane, it *is* a misfire. You could argue that an AAD should fire in an unknown situation, butI don't think thats a good thing.

The Vigil encountered a situation, and it fired.
The CYPRES1 encounterd the smae situation and locked up.
The CYPRES2 encountered the same situation and never skipped a beat.

Given that info I think the winners are: CYPRES2, CYPRES, and then Vigil.

AAD's should not fire when they are not needed. Reserves were not needed, but the Vigils fired anyway.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used an astra, and like it. I sold it with my old rig and plan on getting a Vigil.

Some like the Cypress because they like all the security of the 4 year checks. Some like the vigil and astra because they like the idea of saving money not sending it unless it fires. plus they don't have tio jump with out an AAD or ground themselves because the AAD is out for a check. Do your research and make your own decision.

Also I wanted to say that this thread reads like a debate in which non of us are experts. The Manufacturers are the experts. Riggers- remember that your greatest tool is the telephone to ask the manufaturer when you don't know. Let the manufacturers make thier studies and file reports. Non of us can say one way or the other why or if a product failed or not. Fact is, both AADs behaved in an undesired way because of what ever situation. only the manufacturer can say if it is a failure or not.

Jumpers wanting to know if they should use product or another (AAD)- take in consideration what type of skydiving you do, where you pull, the altitude your DZ is MSL. And then make a decision on what product you should use. They wouldn't be on the market if they didn't function properly. Same thing with containers they all work, but how many times do you hear people say "I hate "x rig" they are shit." They aren't shit they work people use them, they just aren't popular.

I used an astra everyone told me they were crap, but I did my research and decide that they aren't after all. Not only that but when I asked why the astra was crap the people who told me that, couldn't tell me why. Thus my research to make my own decision. I did get strange looks because the control arm of the astra is on the outside of the rig but the switch that turns it off/on is protected. Fact is, people get scared when they see things they aren't accustomed to. I think that is bad, seeing minor things that are out of the ordinary from time to time keeps us on our toes and thinking and asking questions.

This is something I always tell new jumpers. Ask the experts. You want to know about free fall ask someone who is accomplished in that free fall discipilne, want to knnow about CRW ask a CRW Dog, gear- ask riggers. Any one of these people, if they are trustworthy, should have enough integrity to say I don't know and to point the one who is asking the question in the right direction. This isn't happening in this thread.

Gunnery Sergeant of Marines
"I would like it if I were challenged mentally at my job and not feel like I'm mentally challenged." - Co-worker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Leapdog,

You hit the nail on the head.
This thread is about skydivers who know little about their gear and are not interested in any new information.
They take what little news - they hear about Vigils - and us it to confirm their Cypres 2 purchase.

Please don't remind these ignorameses that a batch of military Cypres 1s "mis-fired" a few years back when a C-130 crew cycled the cabin pressurization system on the ground (low-high-low, etc.). From the Cypres 1's perspective, the pressure changes felt like a skydive gone wrong, so they all fired.
The key point is: when you cycle cabin pressure, you can scare Cypres 1, Vigil, etc.
The problem is not with the AADs, the problem is with the operators (aircrew).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly,

If an AAD reaches activation parameters, it should fire, whether in a plane or not. An AAD can't differentiate between freefall or a plane that is pressurizing rapidly.

The use of the word "mis-fire" is a red herring here as it has been in the past.

Adrian Nichols' Cypres didn't "mis-fire", it "fired". Andy H's Vigil didn't "mis-fire" either, it "fired". Both those AADs achieved the necessary conditions to trigger their cutters. One with fatal results.

I don't want my AAD firing in a plane or under canopy either, but if it does as a result of pressurization problems, hypoxic people poking the button on the plane without understanding the status messages, or building too much speed whilst swooping I can hardly see how the AAD is at fault.

The result of all this will hopefully be even better AADs in the future.
NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

a batch of military Cypres 1s "mis-fired" a few years back



actually this incident was not the first for Vigil either. Last summer one or couple of them fired in Lithuania under similar circumstances (pressurized Antonov-26 being the cause).
The answer from Vigil was basically "it works as designed" and replacement cutters free of charge. Of course, Lithuania being small country the incident didn't have much publicity ;)

So, does it really work as designed? Well, yeah! ...but maybe Vigil should consider designing it even better? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I don't want my AAD firing in a plane or under canopy either. . . .

Fortunately, this example gives jumpers some data on what AAD to choose if they want their AAD's to not fire in the plane.

>I can hardly see how the AAD is at fault.

AAD's are designed to save your life if you cannot pull - but far more importantly, are designed to NOT injure or kill you if you CAN pull. Similar to Bill Booth's observation that the most important thing a 3-ring device does is NOT disconnect when you don't want it to. Some devices are better at that than others.

A car that has its airbags fire due to a minor bump in the road, blinding the driver and causing an accident, had a misfire - even if the bump created an acceleration profile that the sensor misread as a collision. No one in the auto industry would find this acceptable, nor would they claim that the airbags worked as designed. The system would be at fault. Perhaps this fault was caused by a malfunction of the system; perhaps it was caused by the design of the system being too sensitive to deceleration or shock.

AAD's get a lot of testing, but unfortunately some of this testing has to be performed in the field, both by test jumpers and by actual customers. One advantage of selling AAD's for a long time is that you have a chance to collect data, review it and refine your design to prevent these sorts of misfires. Even the best device will misfire occasionally in the real world, and even the best device can fail to fire when it's needed. But experience with data from test jumpers and real world incidents can help minimize the odds of both those things happening.

>The result of all this will hopefully be even better AADs in the future.

Definitely agree there. I think the Vigil is a good device, and I have no doubt that future versions of the Vigil will be redesigned to better handle problems like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying but this part:

Quote

Fortunately, this example gives jumpers some data on what AAD to choose if they want their AAD's to not fire in the plane.



Can be miscontrued by people that don't understand that the problems encountered were a result of a set of circumstances that are not generally applicable to 99% of all skydives made.

If anyone wants to sell their Vigil at a large discount as a result of this, I will happily take it off their hands. :)
NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just bought my first brand new rig. It's the second rig I've owned, and the first w/ an AAD.

It has a Vigil.

I will likely NEVER be in a situation where I will be in a plane where it rapidly depressurizes.

Any plane I'm in that even uses pressurization will likely be an airliner when I'm travelling with my rig and in that situation, the Vigil will be off.

Unlike the elite folks who participated in the 400 way (again, huge congrats to all), the overwhelming majority of skydivers will not be in a situation where this is ever even a concern.

It just seems that some people are making mountains out of molehills.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


If an AAD reaches activation parameters, it should fire, whether in a plane or not. An AAD can't differentiate between freefall or a plane that is pressurizing rapidly.



But it ought to have some sense of what parameters are so far out of bounds that it can't be freefall. I'd hate to have a misfire caused by a single event upset when cosmic radiation does a bit flip on the memory. (a not too uncommon event for satellite ops)

As you've suggested, it may be necessary to wake for the reports to come out from Airtec and Vigil to judge more fairly. (If they release this, of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0