Vigil Status report

[luis 0]

Quote

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

never say never ... as you can see from my previous post, you don't have to be part of "elite 400way" - sometimes being part of 30 way in a small country is quite enough
I have some 20 or 30 jumps from an aircraft that can (at least theoretically) be pressurized - and I am not "elite" by any means

[jsaxton 0]

If you're descending at > 78 mph in a commercial jet, well, you probably have bigger things to worry about

Quote

>So I doubt mistakenly leaving a Vigil on in a commercial airliner will cause any problems.

Probably true. Airliners routinely pressurize to a cabin altitude of between 5000 and 8000 feet, so pressurization alone would not cause a problem. If the airliner were descending rapidly it could, of course, cause the same problems you would see in a rapidly descending plane if the AAD was on (which is a good reason to turn it off before shipping/checking it!)

[billvon 2,394]

>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.

Well, 90% is perhaps a more accurate number. Some of the Vigil firings occurred at ground level on an aircraft that did NOT intend to pressurize, or even go higher than 12,500 feet. Given that, I would be uncomfortable using a Vigil on any aircraft that can be pressurized, even if the intent is to not pressurize. Such aircraft are common at bigger boogies like the WFFC.

[mattjw916 2]

I'm not sure which incidents you are even specifically referring to now. The only other Vigil fires I can recall were attributed to static electricity and were units built prior to April 2004.

All Vigils built after April 1, 2004 have additional static shielding to prevent that from happening again and I have not heard of any further occurences since that particular upgrade was made.

I don't think your feelings regarding Vigils and pressurized planes are particularly rational and splitting hairs over a statistic that isn't even collected does nothing to enhance your position.

I've jumped from about 20 different types of aircraft, been to most of the major boogies, and have yet to see any of them spontaneously pressurize and fire any AADs. Faulting the AAD manufacturer because people can't RTFM and adhere to the warnings contained therein is ludicrous. That's akin to faulting a reserve manufacturer for a canopy blowing up after overloading it and deploying it while headdown.

With the sheer volume of jumps that teams like AZ Airspeed and Deland Majik make with Vigils, if there were real tangible problems with them, don't you think they would have manifested by now? There are in excess of 5000 Vigils in use and 27 saves to-date. Has a properly used Vigil ever failed to save anyone? Have they killed anyone due to failure? Not that I know of. That seems like a pretty good track record to me.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[leapdog 0]

Everyone- seriously why is everyone debating on any of this when the manufacturer's reports are not released. Further why when you all are skydivers and not AAD experts?

I don't understand, is this discussion about which product is best or an investigation to report what happened and why? Someone explain, please.

The original poster simply asked if Vigil had made a report public yet. The end.

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

[Elisha 1]

Quote

Everyone- seriously why is everyone debating on any of this when the manufacturer's reports are not released. Further why when you all are skydivers and not AAD experts?

I don't understand, is this discussion about which product is best or an investigation to report what happened and why? Someone explain, please.

The original poster simply asked if Vigil had made a report public yet. The end.

Because we're human and we love speculating of course.

[USPA 0]

You don't know if the cypres didn't fire because it recognized an inconsistent pattern, or that the 120 feet firing window saved the cypres.

The way I see it, you should compare the Vigil with the CYPRES2 do have a fair comparison. The Vigil is programmed to fire below 840 ft when parameters are met. The CYPRES2 is programmed to fire below 750 ft and above 120 (or 300 for speed). When the activation parameters were met it might be (we all don't know this yet) that it was under 120 feet. The cypres was already "disarmed" the vigil wasn't.

Does this mean cypres is "better", you can't say this yet. It depends on your choice, do you like your AAD always to fire under its activation altitude, or do you like cypres solution which (may) prevent this fire?

Personally, the Cypres solutions seems a good choice in this case, and the Vigil solution (no "bottom" window) may have no advantages, but maybe it does. In any case, if the above described scenario (IF this is the case), it has nothing to do with "more sophisticated software" of "mis-firing because the unit was confused" But much more simple.

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[f94sbu 0]

Until we see a real graph of the preassure measured I guess it is not a good idea to speculate. However, when I think about it, it would be really interesting if the C-130 is able to preassurize the chamber so that it equals a freefall speed of 35 m/s. Besides, if I were in the aircraft at that time, it'd pie my pants if I read my altimeter and saw that I was in freefall in the plane that close to ground :)
Did anyone actually notice anything on the Neptunes? Once when we decended and people started freaking out regarding their cypresses I just glansed at my Neptune to see that we were decending with 35 feet/s. Safely above the activation speed. If it showed 35m/s, I'd be rather worried, not for my cypress but rather for my life in C-130 diving towards the ground :-)

rgds,
Stefan

[wimdevos 0]

As far I do not have a report from AAD , the Vigil manufacturer , and as far I know nobody checked the fired Vigils in an I.R. Box:

http://www.vigil.aero/pdf/VIGIL%20-%20Manual%20Download%20box%20US%20Version.pdf

I only have the manual to make my own conclusions:

USPA , your statement : disarmed the Vigil wasn't
I don't think so. As I wrote before, the Vigil manual say: During take off the Vigil will go to an active status (64 calculations per sec.) above 150
feet or under -150 feet (+ 46 m or - 46 m) in a time of max. 32 sec.

This means that the Vigil disarms earlier than the Cypres (Vigil at 46m, the Cypres1 and 2 at 40m) when you are descending towards ground level.

So they can not have fired above the "ground", because they disarm earlier. They must have fired somewhere below zero, below - 46m.... .

[USPA 0]

Don't forget arming is something different then disarming. E.g. Cypres I armes at 1500 feet, but disarmes under 120 feet.

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[Popovitch 0]

Here is what i found on Vigil Web Site :

http://www.vigil.aero/home.php

Have a nice Week end.

[USPA 0]

So it seems, that indeed this was NOT a misfire, as stated earlier by more people.

Only question remains: Did the vigil fire, and the cypres2 not, because the vigil has a quicker response, or because if was below "120 feet"?

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[BrianM 1]

Quote

Here is what i found on Vigil Web Site :

http://www.vigil.aero/home.php

Have a nice Week
end.

This hasn't completely answered the question in my mind. While they state that the units detected a fast enough rate of descent at a low enough altitude to cause them to fire, they haven't said whether the whole of the data could have reasonably represented a freefall. Any digital AAD should be be smart enough to know that it's not physically possible to, say, be at 800 feet a few seconds after being at 20,000 feet. Anomalies do show up in any data collection system, and the system needs to be able to filter them out.

I don't know whether or not the Vigil has such smarts - I've never seen any information about this aspect of the Vigil's design. Whether the Cypres units didn't fire because they had these smarts, or because they just got lucky by not having their firing parameters met, is also not clear.

I would like to see the altitude and speed data for the entire event.

P.S. Airtec has also posted a statement about this incident:

http://www.cypres.cc/Sites/englisch/Frameset01_engl.htm

"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

Don't forget arming is something different then disarming. E.g. Cypres I armes at 1500 feet, but disarmes under 120 feet.

anyone, why don't they have aads arm at 1500ft and disarm OR fire at 750ft. I would like to have my aad (when/if I get one) OFF below 750ft.

rm

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Quote

Don't forget arming is something different then disarming. E.g. Cypres I armes at 1500 feet, but disarmes under 120 feet.

anyone, why don't they have aads arm at 1500ft and disarm OR fire at 750ft. I would like to have my aad (when/if I get one) OFF below 750ft.

rm

That would exclude the AAD from saving your life in certain scenarios. Such as cutting away (with no reserve pull) from a low altitude, say around 1000 ft or slightly above. It will take several hundred feet to get up to the threshold speed for firing, and by then you would be below 750 ft, but still at an altitude where the reserve has a chance to work.

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

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Don't forget arming is something different then disarming. E.g. Cypres I armes at 1500 feet, but disarmes under 120 feet.

anyone, why don't they have aads arm at 1500ft and disarm OR fire at 750ft. I would like to have my aad (when/if I get one) OFF below 750ft.

rm

That would exclude the AAD from saving your life in certain scenarios. Such as cutting away (with no reserve pull) from a low altitude, say around 1000 ft or slightly above. It will take several hundred feet to get up to the threshold speed for firing, and by then you would be below 750 ft, but still at an altitude where the reserve has a chance to work.

Fair enough - I'd rather not have it that way. Keep it simple. I want it off below 750ft.

rm

[riggermick 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Don't forget arming is something different then disarming. E.g. Cypres I armes at 1500 feet, but disarmes under 120 feet.

anyone, why don't they have aads arm at 1500ft and disarm OR fire at 750ft. I would like to have my aad (when/if I get one) OFF below 750ft.

rm

How about switching off @150 feet. Below that altitude an AAD is practically worthless, but for swoopers coming in under high speed approaches it could mean the difference between life and death.

Mick.
That would exclude the AAD from saving your life in certain scenarios. Such as cutting away (with no reserve pull) from a low altitude, say around 1000 ft or slightly above. It will take several hundred feet to get up to the threshold speed for firing, and by then you would be below 750 ft, but still at an altitude where the reserve has a chance to work.

Fair enough - I'd rather not have it that way. Keep it simple. I want it off below 750ft.

rm

[billvon 2,394]

>Faulting the AAD manufacturer because people can't RTFM and adhere
>to the warnings contained therein is ludicrous.

They did RTFM; the aircraft pressurized due to a problem in the pressurization system. One jumper attempted several times to shut it down, and it would not remain off. It may well be designed to do just that, but again, that's not changed by whether you read the manual or not.

Note that I have no problems with people using Vigils. I will not use one for these sorts of jump because I sometimes jump from planes that can be pressurized, and I do not want it to fire in the aircraft even if that's "how it works." I prefer AAD's that don't fire in aircraft even if the pilot screws up or the pressurization system fails. Just my preference. You may prefer something different, and that's fine too.

>That's akin to faulting a reserve manufacturer for a canopy blowing
>up after overloading it and deploying it while headdown.

That's an excellent example. Once a manufacturer builds a reserve that can survive such an opening, it might well be a good decision for a jumper to buy that reserve over one that can blow up while in a headdown. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either reserve, just that they are designed differently - and one is better for a specific job than the other.

>if there were real tangible problems with them, don't you think they
>would have manifested by now?

They just did manifest themselves, half a dozen times.

[AndyMan 7]

I think you're over reacting.

It may fire on on a very short specific list of planes that happen to be malfunctioning - to say a rare case is a collosal understatement. There's only a few planes that can pressurize when used in jumping, but that plane has to malfunction, too.

When it does fire, it creates a managable inconvenience but not a safety hazard. By definition: if the plane is pressurizing, the door is closed.

Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if I ever hear of this specific issue happening again.

An issue to be aware of? Sure. Just like turning off the student Cypres's when descending. Turn off the Vigils before pressurizing.

Never buy one? Well, that's a personal choice, but I don't see any reason to go that far.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[divestarter 0]

VIGIL AAD STATEMENT ON WORLD TEAM 06:

http://www.vigil.aero/pdf/WorldTeamResponse_003.pdf

Quote

To Willy’s personal statement, he first switched OFF his Vigil but due to his special lens glasses, he switched it back ON by mistake at +/- 6000 ft.

(but I must admit that Willy is sponsored by Vigil)

and does someone understand the last sentence?

Quote

Currently, the Vigil has 27 recorded activations; eight of these activations were real life savings.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

and does someone understand the last sentence?

Quote

Currently, the Vigil has 27 recorded activations; eight of these activations were real life savings.

I think they mean actual saves, as opposed to an AAD activation during a snivelly main deployment or as the jumper reaches for the silver handle, etc. In such instances, the AAD fire is not considered a save, since the jumper is actively trying to save their own life.

For Great Deals on Gear

[billvon 2,394]

>Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if I ever hear of this specific issue
>happening again.

We thought the same thing after the first round of firings. Then it happened again.

>Never buy one?

Who said that? I won't use one for record attempts or boogies (or at Perris once the jet gets flying) since that's where you can get planes that pressurize. And experience has shown that they can fire in the plane in those cases. But for a typical jumper at a cessna or even otter DZ? No problem.

[freeflygirlz 0]

The information content of the report on the Vigil website is quite low.
It's not mentioned when the Vigils fired, as ''below activation altitude'' can be anywhere.
The third case which billvon reported where several Vigils fired on the ground in a pressurized cabin before a planned 50 way is not mentioned at all.
blue skies

[skyjenn 0]

We can all continue to express opinions on what may or may not have happened, but one thing is sure: Airtec stood behind their product 150%. The most impressive occurence was when replacement cypress units showed up the next day and were installed overnight for jumping to continue. A product is only as good as the company willing to stand behind it. I will replace my Cypress I this fall with the newest Cypress technology available based on the company's committment to customer satisfaction and for addressing the situation (rare or not) immediately.

blue skies and congratulations to all
Super Sector 6 member