Vigil misfire

[SpeedyBee 0]

Hi All!
Has anyone heard about a Vigil that misfired at Skydive Weston in the UK on 15/16 July this year?
Apparently someone's Vigil fired while his rig was hanging in the hangar. Nobody was near the rig at the time.
The use of Vigils has since been banned by the CCI.

I've emailed AAD but haven't had a response from them.

Has anyone heard about this incident?
Any info would be much appreciated.
Blue ones!
Shaun

[skydivepete 0]

Seems to be true, check out the forum overthere:
http://www.rafspa.com/

some quotes from that forum:

Quote

Vigils have now been banned at Weston. There was a notice put up in the manifest last weekend.

Quote

A vigil fired in the packing hall this weekend with nobody near the rig - it just went off and popped the reserve pilot chute - the owner is discussing this with Vigil

Quote

Be aware that statistics will support the most accurate picture of Cypres vs Vigil on the ground fires. If you are unsure, Airtec will happily talk you through there success rate.

Quote

I cannot imagine a day where Cypres is banned from Weston. Also be aware a container manufacturer HAS banned Vigil from use with there equipment - again Riggers can advise to ensure you have not ordered a unit that is grounded for that container type.

Quote

so who wants to swap a Vigil for a Cypres? I have a Cypres 1, good working order, new batteries!

Bad news for Vigil inthe UK...
Pete

[packerboy 3]

I would really like to hear more about this. I jump with a Vigil.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[piisfish 135]

there has been another misfire in Interlaken (Switz) last week. I only have 2nd hand info that the Vigil (mis)fired on the ground.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[TrickyDicky 0]

did the cypres not have similar problems in it's infancy?

UK Skydiver for all your UK skydiving needs.

[Remster 24]

Quote

did the cypres not have similar problems in it's infancy?

There were a few (dont remember how many, but 2 comes to mind) where strong radio waves or static made the original CYPRES 1 fire. This was beofre they added some sort of static shield.

Remster

[billvon 2,400]

>did the cypres not have similar problems in it's infancy?

Yes. As time went on, they discovered problems (like the EMC problem) and fixed them. One thing that concerns me about Vigils is that they consider the recent misfires in the jet and on the WT06 jumps as "operating normally." In other words, they're NOT going to fix the problem - and if they don't, Vigils won't work as well as a Cypres 2 on such aircraft.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Okay... stupid question... what's the CCI?


--- break --- break ---

Quote

>did the cypres not have similar problems in it's infancy?

Yes. As time went on, they discovered problems (like the EMC problem) and fixed them. One thing that concerns me about Vigils is that they consider the recent misfires in the jet and on the WT06 jumps as "operating normally." In other words, they're NOT going to fix the problem - and if they don't, Vigils won't work as well as a Cypres 2 on such aircraft.

Bill.. Et All... seems to me, the initial responses from the manufacturer regarding problems the Vigil AAD has had to date has consisted of them trying to "deflect the problem" and not "we're working the problem to try to determine the circumstances and cause and, potential, fixes"... and following up and doing that... Does anyone else get that same feeling??

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

Okay... stupid question... what's the CCI?

Club Chief Instructor. As I understand the structure of UK parachuting, they're pretty much the last word on what happens at the DZ they're in charge of.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

did the cypres not have similar problems in it's infancy?

yes, but the catch is that Vigil already repeated that experience with shielding two years ago .

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Bill.. Et All... seems to me, the initial responses from the manufacturer regarding problems the Vigil AAD has had to date has consisted of them trying to "deflect the problem" and not "we're working the problem to try to determine the circumstances and cause and, potential, fixes"... and following up and doing that... Does anyone else get that same feeling??

As a Vigil owner, yeah, I'm very concerned about the lack of quality communication from Vigil. I'm not a PR expert, but it would seem like people are having a bit of a crisis of confidence in their product, and now is the time to be proactive, not reactive in their communications. I'm to the point now where it's hard to tell what to believe, but if DZs are making decisions to ground Vigils, even if it's just pending investigation, that's potentially a big deal.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[upndownshop 0]

Does anyone have the DOM of these units? Maybe they are the 1st generation that needed the static electricity problem fixed?

[PhreeZone 15]

I'm pretty sure that the SB from Vigil stated the affected units were grounded until they were fixed. That either puts the issue as an AAD issue, or a rigging issue if they were jumping grounded units.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[SpeedyBee 0]

Hi All,

Just thought that I'd send an update.
I received a call from Vigil today.
The rep said that he had been in the States and apologised for not getting back to me.
He will accompany one of their engineers and do a full investigation at Skydive Weston this week.

He also said that he would give me the results of their investigation.
I'll post that here when I receive it.

Cheers!
Shaun

[skydivepete 0]




There's a statement at the website of vigil. Copy paste seems not possible with this PDF.

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

In short the Vigil did what it is supposed to do.

Pete

[billvon 2,400]

>the initial responses from the manufacturer regarding problems the
> Vigil AAD has had to date has consisted of them trying to "deflect
> the problem" and not "we're working the problem to try to determine
> the circumstances and cause and, potential, fixes"... and following
> up and doing that... Does anyone else get that same feeling??

Yep. Their most recent reply (see post above) seems to say the same thing, to wit:

"The Vigil activates a lot faster than any other AAD on the market. . . Due to this, again, we advise pilots not to restore pressurization in a pressurized plane too fast."

They also state that during the Perris* and Thailand firings, that the Vigils "acted at the same moment and they all activated as programmed." So it looks like there is very little chance we will see anything done to change this.

To me, an AAD that fires when you are sitting in an airplane is not as reliable as one that does not, even if the pilot makes a mistake or the aircraft has a pressurization issue. Yet they almost seem to be proud of the fact that the Vigils all misfired rapidly and simultaneously.

(* = I think they meant Rantoul.)

[JPDECHENE 0]

Anyway, I prefer an AAD that fires in my back sitting in the plane in such unusual circumstances and refrains me from jumping than an AAD that just shuts off and let me jump without realizing that I have no AAD anymore.
Imagine what had happen at the World Record if Vigil's had not fired : it seems that everybody would have jumped and those with Cypres 1 on their back would have done it without the back-up of the AAD. What would have be the issue in case of an accident ?

MPO is that I prefer a device that tells me, even that radical way, not to jump than one that does not warn me when getting not operational and let me jump.

JPD

[PhreeZone 15]

If the Vigil fires in the plane, you don't make the skydive. On something like the Jet jumps its not that big of a deal but o nthe World Record jumps that is a big deal since you now have to stand the entire team down since if 1 person doesn't jump then the formation can not be counted as complete. If the vigil fires in the plane you are now faced with having to repack the reserve, if the Cypres1 shuts off you won't know it and will make the jump.

My perfered answer is what the Cypres2 does and does nothing just like it should do.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[rasmack 0]

Quote

They also state that during the Perris* and Thailand firings, that the Vigils "acted at the same moment and they all activated as programmed."

That is interesting. Rumour on the ground at the WFFC had it that one Vigil didn't fire. Anyone know if there is any truth to this?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Buried 0]

i hope they at least provide free cutters to those who had these 'correct' misfires. the owner is still out 40-60$

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[Ron 7]

Quote

Anyway, I prefer an AAD that fires in my back sitting in the plane in such unusual circumstances and refrains me from jumping than an AAD that just shuts off and let me jump without realizing that I have no AAD anymore.

I prefer an AAD that does neither. The CYPRES2 ignored the false events and did nothing and still worked. Since the CYPRES1's are not made anymore compare the new models, not new to old.

But given the choice of an AAD that misfires (Call it what you want, an AAD that fires when you do not expect it is a misfire in my book), or an AAD that shuts off....I'd rather the thing shut off than misfire.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Anyway, I prefer an AAD that fires in my back sitting in the plane in
> such unusual circumstances and refrains me from jumping than an
> AAD that just shuts off and let me jump without realizing that I have
> no AAD anymore.

I prefer an AAD that just keeps working, like the Cypres 2 does. A misfire can be dangerous in a skydiving aircraft.

[skydivepete 0]

Vigil maths:
42 fires of which:
15 life saves. What about the other 27 “normal”fires?
2 fires in Thailand (Worldrecord). I understood there were at least 5 fires overthere?
1 fire in a car
1 fire while travelling (also car I assume).
2 fires in the same country same date and take a look at the serial numbers: 2530 and 2531.
1 fire balloon jump?????

Source Vigil life saving list http://www.vigil.aero/life-saving-list.php

As I read all this and do the maths 27 unwanted openings (no life saves) out of a total of 42, and reading how dangerous these can be, I agree with Bill that it is better to shut down the aad when in doubt.

Pete

[meatbomb 0]

Quote

As I read all this and do the maths 27 unwanted openings (no life saves) out of a total of 42, and reading how dangerous these can be, I agree with Bill that it is better to shut down the aad when in doubt.

First off, I applaud Vigil for putting ALL of the fires on their website, it's great to see such openness in the industry.

Secondly, I think you'll find a similar ratio of "unwanted" activations with any AAD. The "normal" activations are mostly those where the jumper has taken some action to save their life (ie low pull/slow reserve pull). If you pull below a certain height (usually around 1300ft), any internal AAD will be fooled by your change in attitude, and fire.

Now, do you want the AAD to shut-off in this situation, thus possibly allowing people to die, so you can remove the risk of the "unwanted" firings? When you talk about risk with AADs, surely the AAD must err on the side of firing...

Personally, I prefer to take personal responsibility for pulling. That's why, although I jump with a Vigil in my rig (so I can go to DZs with mandatory AAD policies), it is, for the most part, switched off.

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[JPDECHENE 0]

What they call "No life-saving fires" are when the device fires while the main is in opening sequence in case of a low main pull.

That can happen with every brand of AAD.

I remember we had a few years ago a quadruple Cypres activation during main opening on the same jump when the base went too low at pull time.

All those activation occur when the jumper starts to be in stand up position but still at high speed during the beginning of the opening process; at that moment the AAD is not any more exposed to the depression (corresponding to circa 80 meters - 250 ft) on the back of the jumper and then it reads the true altitude and if that altitude is within the activation range (below for Cypres : 225 m + 80 m or Vigil : 256 m + 80 m) then the device fires.

JPD