Vigil V. Cypres ( Need help as to which one I buy )

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Or why Airtech waited to produce the Cypres 2 till another AAD was on the market?

Which company wants to have an in-house competition?

Which company wants to kill the milk-cow?

I would ask why Artech waited with Speed-Cypres until the first dead due to a misfire?

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Or why Airtech waited to produce the Cypres 2 till another AAD was on the market?

or when the first Cypres were arriving close to "age limit"

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

[DougH 270]

Cypres II for me. None of the Cypres II's at any of the dropzones I jump at have gone off on final . I can't say the same about the Vigil.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[meatbomb 0]

for me. None of the 's at any of the dropzones I jump at have appeared to turn off in the middle of the day. I can't say the same about the Cypres II.

My point...Every AAD has had issues. Don't let anyone tell you they haven't. At the end of the day, it's an electronic device, therefore it has failure modes. Research for yourself what they are, and what they mean to you.

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[billvon 2,396]

>If it fired as programmed in a pressurized aircraft I don't see it as
>a misfire. It is firing on an algorhythm.

Well, that's like saying that the Nova isn't that bad a canopy; it's _designed_ to not be as stable in turbulence for increased performance. So when it collapses it's doing what it was designed to do.

The Cypres and the Vigil may indeed both be performing exactly as their algorithm dictates. If that's the case, Vigil needs a better algorithm. I jump from pressurizable planes pretty often; I'd rather have an AAD that doesn't care about transient pressurizations than one that fires.

[DougH 270]

Quote

for me. None of the 's at any of the dropzones I jump at have appeared to turn off in the middle of the day. I can't say the same about the Cypres II.

The fact that every electronic product can fail doesn't change the fact that certain products have been shown to produce faults more often, or that some products have fault modes that are more dangerous than others.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[klingeme 0]

Quote

CYPRES units, which also use airpressure measurements, were in the same aricraft at those times and did not fire, but instead detected it as an abnormal situation, shut down and were ready to go again after being restarted on the ground, so without needing to know what the exact air pressure readings were, it seems that there must be some way to distinguish this from a life-threatening freefall scenario.

In regards to this senario, Vigil believes their AAD performed better than the Crypres. It did what it is designed to do when it reached the parameters. It fired. Imagine if you will the following senario.....

You are on a stretch C130 getting ready to make a skydive with 400 of your closest friends (or people you just met that morning). The airplane does something goofy that causes your AAD to fire, it only causes the guy sitting next to you's AAD to shut down. Do you want to leave the airplane with 399 other people thinking you have a functioning AAD on your back or not leave the plane knowing you do not have an AAD for the jump? Vigil lets you know when it can't work. It Fires.

At least that is the story I got from Vigil when I spoke to them in Gap.

Mark Klingelhoefer

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

Vigil lets you know when it can't work. It Fires.

My thought is that this is an intersting choice for a warning process.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You are on a stretch C130 getting ready to make a skydive with 400 of your closest friends (or people you just met that morning). The airplane does something goofy that causes your AAD to fire, it only causes the guy sitting next to you's AAD to shut down. Do you want to leave the airplane with 399 other people thinking you have a functioning AAD on your back or not leave the plane knowing you do not have an AAD for the jump? Vigil lets you know when it can't work. It Fires.

Yes, I want leave the airplane with 399 other people thinking I have a functioning AAD on my back. I would much rather have it shut off than fire.

Derek

[DougH 270]

Quote

Vigil lets you know when it can't work. It Fires.

One of my biggest fears is having my reserve pilot chute out of my rig inside a plane!!!

Both situations aren't ideal, but I am much more concerned about a pilot chute going out a door killing me and tearing the plane up. The other way around the Cypres has to turn off, AND I have to be put in a no pull situation.

Just my personal opinion as a consumer.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Both situations aren't ideal, but I am much more concerned about a pilot chute going out a door killing me and tearing the plane up.

which of course isn't very likely if the fire is due to aircraft pressurization, is it? Unless it occurs at DOOR OPEN, then it's about the worst possible 'warning' system.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

In regards to this senario, Vigil believes their AAD performed better than the Crypres. It did what it is designed to do when it reached the parameters. It fired.

And in this regard I disagree with Vigil. I don't buy an AAD to fire when it meets some air pressure parameters that some guy in a design lab over in Belgium came up with. I buy it to deploy a canopy over my head if I'm in freefall at a low altitude. That's the requirement for an AAD. My requirements for an AAD have nothing to do with air pressure measurements.

Quote

Do you want to leave the airplane with 399 other people thinking you have a functioning AAD on your back or not leave the plane knowing you do not have an AAD for the jump? Vigil lets you know when it can't work. It Fires.

Again, I disagree with Vigil here and prefer the CYPRES behaviour. This wasn't a freefall scenario. CYPRES identified that this was a situation it was not programmed to handle and shut down. That's exactly what I want my AAD to do. If it doesn't know what's going on then stay the fuck out of it. An AAD is a backup device. I rely on my main canopy. I rely on my harness. I would even say that I rely on my reserve. I don't rely on my AAD. Hell. I've never even had a cutaway, let alone an AAD fire and sure I only have 125 jumps, but I know at least one guy with thousands of jumps whose only cutaway was an intentional one for training purposes. I have an AAD as a backup device, just in case.

I know of at least one fatality due to an AAD misfire, and if I'm not mistaken, this wasn't the only AAD misfire during a high performance landing. It was just doing what it was designed to do - firing when some pre-determined parameters were met, but somebody still died.

An AAD should have enough smarts in it to know that a freefall skydiver is extremely unlikely to exceed a vertical acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, if the air pressure suggests an altitude more than a few hundred feet below expected ground level, then again, I'd wager that the device really has no idea where I am in the sky and should stay out of things. You could probably set similar upper bounds on vertical velocity.

I'm not saying that any of the AADs out there are perfect. None of them are. The sport of skydiving is constantly changing. Today swooping seems to be the big issue in trying to build a better AAD. In 10 years, it may be some other completely new discipline that once again challenges the AAD designs of the day. All I really expect of my AAD is to deploy that canopy when I need it and it there's any uncertainty as to whether that's what's required, then do nothing.

Imagine if you will this scenario... You're on a pressurizable plane with a bunch of other jumpers all sitting back to the wall. There are four other jumpers between you and the door. Around 10000', your buddy checks your pin. Shortly thereafter, the pilot mistakenly pressurizes the plane. Your AAD fires, but because of the noise and your weight holding the reserve container closed against the wall of the plane, nobody notices. The door opens. You lean forward. Your reserve PC pops out and catches some wind. You get dragged out the door by your reserve, hitting people as your dragged past with yoru feet and your head. The reserve wraps the left horizontal stabilizer of the plane. Things get progressively worse from there...

Sure. This exact scenario hasn't ever happened, but neither did your story (nobody ever jumped on that load) and either way, I'm pretty sure that I'd rather be jumping out of a plane with 300 other experienced RW jumpers than jumping out of one that's about to crash because a canopy has wrapped the horizontal stabilizer.

[jbanning 0]

Just bought a cypres2, awesome never have to change the battery!

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Just bought a cypres2, awesome never have to change the battery!

errr.. please re-read the instructions... Battery is changed at least every 4 years, no more "every 2 years or 500 jumps" battery change though...

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

[brianfry713 0]

http://www.cypres2.com/cypres2faq.htm

How can you be so sure that the CYPRES 2 battery will last 4 years? What is so different that allowed you to get rid of the 2-year battery change requirement? I don't see how this could be from more efficient electronics alone. Is the battery a new technology type? If not, why no 2 year limit?

- one of the many items in the list of requirements for CYPRES 2 was "no battery hassle at all for the owner", it took a long time and a lot of effort to find the solution - you are correct in thinking that it is not only the electronics - without being rude, we have to say that the information is proprietary, and that we just can not explain all technical details about CYPRES, as there are those out there that have an interest that is more than just to satisfy their curiosity, sorry
- for that matter who said that CYPRES 2 even used a battery and that it only lasted 4 years? :-)


Seriously, why is the CYPRES 2 battery good for 4 years?

- for the user, the power supply of CYPRES 2 is actually "good" for the 12 year lifetime of the unit (as long as the 4 and 8 year maintenance are performed) - as far as the technical particulars, again, sorry as this is proprietary


http://www.cypres2.com/userguide/CYPRES_2_users_guide_english.pdf
1.4 Power supply
No attention is needed to the power supply of
CYPRES 2.
The unit is designed to function from the date of
manufacture until the first maintenance, from the
first maintenance to the second maintenance, and
from the second maintenance until the end of life
without limitations concerning the number of
jumps. If CYPRES 2 should cease to function due
to a faulty power supply prior to the maintenance
due date, Airtec will take care of this with the
highest priority.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Just bought a cypres2, awesome never have to change the battery!

errr.. please re-read the instructions... Battery is changed at least every 4 years, no more "every 2 years or 500 jumps" battery change though...

While they might change the battery during the servicing if it didn't check out, they do not charge anything for it, and the overall servicing cost remained the same. Compared to the cost of 6 sets of batteries for the C1, it's quite an improvement.

[JPDECHENE 0]

Ok, They shut down but , in the plane, did you knew that they had shut down ? And, the plane being depressurized what if you had jumped thinking that you were still "covered" by your AAD when in fact you were not anymore ?

Let's imagine the worse : If in Thailand the Vigil's hadn't fired, maybe a lot of people would have jumped with a Cypres I down or Cypres II maybe re-calibrated on a far lower altitude - To be honest, regarding the Cypres II reaction, I do not know if the devices just ignored the pressurization and kept the same setting, considering the occurance as fully abnormal or if the pressurization modified the setting of the activation altitude. - What would have been the reaction in case of an accident ?

That makes me think that it was most probably a good thing, even if that frustrated people, that the Vigils "rang the bell" the way they did.

I would be stupid saying that Cypres is a bad product, I have jumped - and wouldn't have jumped without - for the last twelve years. They have the real merit of having invented and developped a great device but they must face the fact that competition can be there and develop products that can be at least as good and maybe better in some aspects.

JPD

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Ok, They shut down but , in the plane, did you knew that they had shut down ? And, the plane being depressurized what if you had jumped thinking that you were still "covered" by your AAD when in fact you were not anymore ?

Having an AAD doesn't change how I jump. I don't jump out of a plane thinking that I'm covered by my AAD. I jump out of a plane thinking that I'm covered by my skills, my training and my desire to keep breathing for many years to come. If I don't think I can complete a jump with those things alone, I don't do the jump. Given the choice to jump a rig with or without an AAD, I'll choose the one with the AAD, but I'm not above jumping a rig without one if I don't have such a choice.

Quote

Let's imagine the worse : If in Thailand the Vigil's hadn't fired, maybe a lot of people would have jumped with a Cypres I down or Cypres II maybe re-calibrated on a far lower altitude - To be honest, regarding the Cypres II reaction, I do not know if the devices just ignored the pressurization and kept the same setting, considering the occurance as fully abnormal or if the pressurization modified the setting of the activation altitude. - What would have been the reaction in case of an accident ?

I think you have your facts wrong, there. Both CYPRES and CYPRES-2 units shut down according to the reports that I read. CYPRES-2 merely needed to be turned on again on the ground, so if anyone had jumped, the AAD would not have fired, since it was off. CYPRES needed a factory reset, which is a little annoying. That was the only difference I saw in the reports. Can someone who was there confirm or deny this?

What's so bad about 395 people jumping out of a plane without AADs? Do you have any numbers about how many lives were saved by AAD fires during the record camp? Nobody jumped on that load, but if they had, I still feel that having 5 open reserve containers was a bigger safety concern than 395 AADs that had shut down.

I'd agree that it may be a good idea to have some user-visible indicator that the AAD is no longer confident of its ability to identify a dangerous freefall scenario. I don't feel a need for such an indicator, but it's certainly not a bad idea.

Quote

I would be stupid saying that Cypres is a bad product, I have jumped - and wouldn't have jumped without - for the last twelve years. They have the real merit of having invented and developped a great device but they must face the fact that competition can be there and develop products that can be at least as good and maybe better in some aspects.

I have no doubt of the technical merit of the Vigil. I think it is probably a very good product and it definitely does have some advantages over the CYPRES-2, but this attitude that whenever something weird happens, it should fire to me seems a very bad idea. As you pointed out, in this case, the air pressure readings suggested something that invalidated at least one assumption used in the design of the AADs. In such a case, the device no longer has any idea where ground is in relation to the jumper nor what else is going on and therefore shouldn't really be making decisions that could potentially endanger the jumper and others. Deploying a canopy at the wrong time can do exactly that.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Seriously, why is the CYPRES 2 battery good for 4 years?

- for the user, the power supply of CYPRES 2 is actually "good" for the 12 year lifetime of the unit (as long as the 4 and 8 year maintenance are performed) - as far as the technical particulars, again, sorry as this is proprietary

my understanding was that the battery was changed at each 4 year service. Better for us consumers if not moneywise. Beetter for the environment also

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

>If it fired as programmed in a pressurized aircraft I don't see it as
>a misfire. It is firing on an algorhythm.

Well, that's like saying that the Nova isn't that bad a canopy; it's _designed_ to not be as stable in turbulence for increased performance. So when it collapses it's doing what it was designed to do.

The Cypres and the Vigil may indeed both be performing exactly as their algorithm dictates. If that's the case, Vigil needs a better algorithm. I jump from pressurizable planes pretty often; I'd rather have an AAD that doesn't care about transient pressurizations than one that fires.

Jo Smolders of Vigil explains how the Vigil works, why they recalled 700 units, and how Vigil has been updated since the misfires at Rantoul.
Dunno if his technical explanation will help or hinder the discussion, but there it is...

[aguila 0]

I also asked the same question and while Vigil looks great I went for the Cypres 2. Why (IMHO)?

1- More saved lives
2- Waterproof
3- Simpler: it just does what I want it to do

I expect purchasing a Vigil within 10 years or so. It looks great!

Gonzalo

It cannot be done really means I do not know how to do it ... yet

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

I'm a die-hard cypres fan because:

1) they've been out forever
2) they've been proven to work
3) the factory maintains them

As a mechanical engineer working in an electrical component division of a major aviation company, I call bullshit on anyone who says they have a product that lasts 20 years 100% of the time with zero field data. I furthermore call bullshit on anyone who says "oh, well if it breaks it just won't turn on". I guarantee there was something they didn't think of. Cypres wasn't sucessful, and the vigil has already had several issues... the difference is that Cypresses are returned regularly, so they get lots of field data and quietly fix problems we don't even know about, before they kill someone. The vigil does not have this benefit.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[2shay 0]

cypress is definitely proven but the vigil is soundin sweet w the less downtime and 20 yrs for more or less same price. my opinion is that vigil whenever it gets all the bugs out will rule but oldtimers will take the oldtime approach towards change. by the way i jump a cypress and will continue til its out but when my time is up i will definitely research the vigil once again

don't try your bullshit with me!!!

[meatbomb 0]

Quote

1) they've been out forever

The Cypres 2 has been out for around about the same time as the Vigil, and the Argus was not that long afterwards...

Quote

2) they've been proven to work

They've also been proven to fail, as has every other AAD...

Quote

3) the factory maintains them

If you mean that the manufacturer requires periodic maintenance on them, so does the Argus. I would imagine that if you had an issue with a Vigil, the factory would maintain it as well...

Quote

I furthermore call bullshit on anyone who says "oh, well if it breaks it just won't turn on".

You mean, like Airtec did with the Cypres? Think error codes...

I wish people would lift the marketing wool from their eyes, and look at the facts...all the AADs out there work most of the time, and they have all had failures...don't let any one brand's marketing tell you otherwise.

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[DSE 3]

I'm not on any side of the Vigil/Cypres/Argus camp, but do believe they can build a product that is good for say....6000-8000 uses (avg 300-400 jumps per year/20 years).
The device isn't stored in a constantly vibrating rigid enclosure that is moving for long periods of time. I have at least 4 calculators in my office that are nearly 20 years old; an AAD isn't significantly more complex than a calculator in terms of what the physical aspects are, and a chip will hold the static memory indefinitely.
Along that same line, after having spoken with all of the AAD manufacturers this past week, I truly believe that they're all trying to do what they feel is best for skydivers, at a profit for their company, of course. But I don't believe any of them are cutting corners, seeking cheaper ways to design an AAD that might have risky features at the expense of safety.
In other words, my opinion is that you likely can't go wrong with any of them.
That said, I have a Cypres in both of my rigs.

• Quote