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

[IanHarrop 37]

I was a lttle disappointed in the response you got from the Vigil representative during the interview at PIA when he was asked to discuss the Vigil "misfires". Basically his response was along the lines of thats how its programmed to work and that just how it goes. I interpreted his answer as "like or leave it".

I do like the fact that with the 4 year Cypres check up software gets updated and improvements and new features can be added.

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

[DSE 3]

His response was indeed sort of "like it or leave it," but he also explained that they've changed the algorithm to slow it down somewhat, which Vigil alleges will prevent misfire in this *particular* situation again. I don't know if *particular* means much, if another *particular* situation that hasn't yet been discovered is suddenly discovered.
Jo is the president of Vigil, so while he's a rep, he's also the "boss/head engineer."

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Dude, seriously...

Quote

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

Correct. However, the Cypres 2 had the benefit of 10+ years of detailed, scientific research of field problems, customer feedback, and tens of thousands of returned units to spot problems before they occured. They also had designers with lots of experience and a steady stream of income to fund the improvements. Vigil and Argus are ahead of the original cypres, but they simply do not have the experience that Airtec does.

Quote

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

Yes, and my post said so. Cypreses, Vigils, and Argus have all had failures, and all will continue to have failures. No product will ever be perfect. However, Airtec already went through a lot of the growing pains that the Vigil and Argus are going through today... I am confident that for the next several years we will see fewer issues with Cypres. 10 years from now, (I hope) I won't be able to make that claim with confidence. Today, I can.

Quote

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...

good for Argus, I'm happy to hear that! And I'm sure the factory would work with me on an issue with a Vigil. Problem is, that issue could range from "crap, it won't start" to a failure resulting in death. Required maintenance can identify a problem that has occured before someone dies, or more likley repair damage before it's a problem. The roughly $400 bill that comes with that over 12 years (that's less than 2 jump tickets a year) is worth the peice of mind to me. And the vast majority of jumpers don't keep jumping to the end of their cypresses life anyway (or even to the 8-year check for that matter).

Quote

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.

Fact: Airtec has more than a decade of experience above anyone else making cutter-style AAD's.

Fact: Without routine field returns, vigils will be at a handicap to Airtec and Argus in identifying problems they don't know about yet.

Fact: the cypres, although it has had some issues, has an extraordinary saftey record over it's entire existance.

Fact: All AAD's will have failures, and all AAD's work most of the time. That said, they are NOT equal... FXC's and Sentinals also worked most of the time, but noone recommends buying them. both are cheaper and last longer than a cypres.

Vigil and Argus are probably both good products. In 10 years, they will both probably be better than they are today. In fact, either has the potential to surpass the Cypres in quality. In 2 years, my cypres will expire, and I won't be comfortable enough with the time span to change brands. In 14 years, my future cypres 2 will expire, and I will re-evaluate my decision. In the meantime, I will let others do my test-jumping. I thank all current Vigil and Argus owners for doing that... you are taking on a higher risk today to ensure that tomorrow's AAD's will be superior. All us conservative Airtec die-hards like myself owe you.

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

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

His response was indeed sort of "like it or leave it," but he also explained that they've changed the algorithm to slow it down somewhat, which Vigil alleges will prevent misfire in this *particular* situation again. I don't know if *particular* means much, if another *particular* situation that hasn't yet been discovered is suddenly discovered.
Jo is the president of Vigil, so while he's a rep, he's also the "boss/head engineer."

Good points. I wonder what it takes to get the updated software on current Vigils.

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

[DSE 3]

I suspect one only needs to send it in to Vigil. Jo indicated that they update every unit sent in.
It seems that while they do offer a 20 year life, it would make sense to send it in at least from time to time anyway. I do like the idea that I can choose when to send it, vs the 4/8 requirement of Cypres.

[USPA 0]

Quote

you are taking on a higher risk today to ensure that tomorrow's AAD's will be superior

I take this as an insult, it's your opinion and nothing more. I in fact, think I'm saver with my Argus. Please refrain from insulting others.

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...

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

I take this as an insult, it's your opinion and nothing more. I in fact, think I'm saver with my Argus. Please refrain from insulting others.

Not an insult. You misunderstand my definition of "risk".

In aviation, one benchmark of reliability is the number of failures per million hours of flight. If a part is designed a new way that has not seen 1 million flight hours, it is identified as "higher risk" than the previous design. That does not mean it's an inferior design, or that the person who accepts it is stupid, just that the real reliability is not yet known. The new design is subjected to greater scrutiny, data is tracked, ect. Typically, after a few years in the field, that design is found to be just as good or better than the previous, and is no longer considered "higher risk". It is the same with the Cypres vs. vigil and argus debate... are they better products? Maybe... actually, I hope they are. If they are, it will force Airtec to improve further, and the general saftey of AAD's will increase. Are they "higher risk" until proven otherwise, absolutely yes.

Why do you think the Argus is safer? Test data? Material analysis showing a more robust design? Field data? (I'm honestly asking the question, not trying to insult). If you don't have substantial evidence, then your belief that you are safer with your Argus is opinion and nothing more.

For the record, there are certain deisgn aspects of the Cypres that I think are inferior to other AAD's. One example is that the Vigil uses a hard lead between the wires to the cutter and the box, whereas the Cypres does not. The Vigil design is superior in this one small way... in most other ways, it is unknown.

Cypres is lower risk TODAY becuase it's quality is KNOWN. In time, the Argus and Vigil will become better known, and Cypres may no longer be lower risk.

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

[vdschoor 0]

Quote

His response was indeed sort of "like it or leave it," but he also explained that they've changed the algorithm to slow it down somewhat, which Vigil alleges will prevent misfire in this *particular* situation again.

From what I know (and that is not much.. I have no problem admitting this) the pressure situation with those misfires was somethign that could never happen under normal circumstances.. just as Jo mentioned.
At least it did something (fired)
The Cypress just sat there like.. ow.. this is impossible, and shut off..

what do you prefer? somethign that just quits on you, or something that makes the decision to fire because you might just be in a really narly situation that is "impossible" under normal circumstances?
From how I understood Jo's comments they just changed the algorith to think about it a bit longer before firing under those "unexplainable" circumstances.

I still have a cypress in my rigs, but when they are due for replacement... I'll be taking a good look at the Vigil

Iwan

[USPA 0]

You are using a different definition of a safe AAD then I am. I share your definition, if the device alone would specify how safe an AAD is. Other factors do come into play, which are a.o. how a company responds to issues in te field.

In my opinion the Argus is saver then others at the moment. I won't go into the reasons why, there are other threads for that. What I am trying to say, you should realise "safe" is an opinion and calling others unsafe is an insulting opinion.

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...

[USPA 0]

In fact the safest option an AAD could do, if it was confused is to shut itself off. An AAD can't kill anyone unless it fires when it shouldn't. The other way around, an AAD doesn't fire when it should, then the jumper would have killed himself, the AAD just didn't save him.

BTW personally I think the only reason cypres2 didn't fire is because the parameters were met below 120 ft (at least 120 feet for the algorithm) so it already shut himself off. This is a design parameter in which Airtec was lucky and doesn't add to safety. But this is only speculation from my side.

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...

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

Other factors do come into play, which are a.o. how a company responds to issues in te field.

They do indeed... unfortunately, as the Argus is not popular in the US, I know little about that aspect of the company. Conversely, I live literally 30 minutes from SSK and one of our pilots worked there for many years.

Quote

What I am trying to say, you should realise "safe" is an opinion and calling others unsafe is an insulting opinion.

Yes, it is. I call the Argus "unknown", not "unsafe".

Quote

In fact the safest option an AAD could do, if it was confused is to shut itself off. An AAD can't kill anyone unless it fires when it shouldn't. The other way around, an AAD doesn't fire when it should, then the jumper would have killed himself, the AAD just didn't save him.

I would agree if the AAD had a way to warn the user it had shut off (audible signal, maybe?) If the jumper screws up, and the AAD does not fire because it has shut itself off (or the design parameters were exceeded), it has failed to save the jumper. Different from killing them yes, but they are dead regardless.

Many now-standard developments in skydiving were once higher risk... piggyback containers, throw-out pilot chutes, tandems, ram-air parachutes... each was once in fact less safe than the alternatives, and many pioneers and "test jumpers" in the public died figuring out how to fix them. All jumpers today ought to thank them. Other higher risk ideas didn't work so well... double-dactyl anyone? ropes and rings? the "opening shock inhibitor" on the Delta II? soft cutaway housings? We owe the people who died jumping that stuff too. I prefer to be in the more conservative crowd that adopts new technologies as they are proven. I in fact just sent my rig in for the skyhook mod, which I think has seen enough field data for my peice of mind. But I'll wait several years before considering a low-bulk reserve, even though I support PD at least as much as I do Airtec.

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

[billvon 2,384]

>what do you prefer? somethign that just quits on you, or something
>that makes the decision to fire because you might just be in a really narly
>situation that is "impossible" under normal circumstances?

An AAD that misfires (or fires correctly when it's not needed, however you want to define it) might kill me. If it does not fire when it is needed, then I have killed me by not pulling. I accepted that risk when I started skydiving (no reliable AAD's at that time.)

The number one job of any AAD is to not cause injury or death to the user. The number two job is to fire when needed. I'll take an AAD that doesn't misfire over an AAD that sometimes doesn't fire when needed any day.

[billvon 2,384]

> His response was indeed sort of "like it or leave it" . . .

There was a rather heated debate between a rig manufacturer and Jo at the Vigil seminar; the manufacturer was of the opinion that Vigil Aero has not been very good with service bulletins and updates to users. There is a lot of conflicting information out there about the plastic sleeve problem, for example. The cutters that come with plastic sleeves have been observed (in a few cases) to damage the closing loop. After discussing the issue with several riggers there, it seemed like the problem was more widespread than the note on their website indicated.

I talked to Jo for a while about the "fix" for the pressurization issue. He said he anticipated a partial fix in the near future for the Vigil/Vigil 2, followed by a complete fix in the next version of the AAD (release date TBD.) He was careful to point out that he did not consider this a real problem, and emphasized several times that Perris paid for the repacks (during the DC-9 firings) and thus it was not much of an issue.

We also talked about the problems seen during rapid temperature changes, and he indicated this was likely a contamination problem on the unit's PCB near the processor's crystal. This resulted in erroneous pressure readings as the unit experienced temperature changes. They have improved their manufacturing processes, so this problem should not re-occur.

[AMax 0]

After watching this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glW9qnFQvGcI don't think I will ever prefer Vigil to Cypress. "It worked the way it was designed" is a poor argument in skydiving business

[icevideot 0]

That explanation is much better than I expected. I didn't detect any animosity or undue defensiveness in his explanation. That being said I have to agree with bilvon that I would rather have an aad not fire in a condition that I needed it than to have one fire when I don't need or expect it.

Fortunately for me, my wife and I have 3 cypress 1's that have 6 or 7 years each on them so I don't have to choose now. If I did it would be a Cypress.

I hope many of you will continue to choose the Vigil and Argus so the kinks can be brought to light. That will help me make an informed decision when the time comes.

"... this ain't a Nerf world."

[DSE 3]

Quote

After watching this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glW9qnFQvGcI don't think I will ever prefer Vigil to Cypress. "It worked the way it was designed" is a poor argument in skydiving business

In fairness (and I'm not at all trying to defend Vigil), he also says that the design has now been modified, set to go off more slowly. So yes, it worked the way it was designed, but now that they know a sudden depressurization of the aircraft can result in a misfire (which would be interpreted as a design flaw), they've now modified the design.
My feeling, especially based on the intensity in which I'd originally spoken with him off-camera, was that Jo Smolders felt they have nothing to be ashamed of, just that they'd had an unexpected situation that caused their device to fire, which demonstrates that it does indeed, function. Maybe not the way you or I'd want it to... but they have changed out the design after Rantoul and Thailand.

[gjhdiver 0]

I jump an Argus, and it's a great little unit. Therefore, Vigil and Cypres can duke it out all day as far as I care

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

After watching this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glW9qnFQvGcI don't think I will ever prefer Vigil to Cypress. "It worked the way it was designed" is a poor argument in skydiving business

I've already posted my opinions on my current preference, however, I actually think that interview demonstrates that the people making the Vigil are doing everything they can to make a good product. their "it worked the way it was designed" statement was not an excuse, it was a statement of fact. they then went on to say that the design must change. this is no different from the statements that have been made by Airtec when Cypresses have misfired or not fired.

I prefer the Cypres today because more things have already gone wrong... they've already misfired from static, had people use them in situations they didn't forsee, use them blatantly outside their design parameters... I have more knowledge of what can go wrong, why, and how to prevent it. If the Vigil manufacturer keeps their current attitude, they will have an excellent product a few years from now, although I will never support their decision to not require regular checkups througout the life of the unit.

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