Worrying Safety Bulletin concerning the Vigil

[skydivepete 0]

The French gave out a safety bulletin for the Vigil:

Concerning:
Vigils manufactured before September 2006 (950 in total, figure provided by AAD).

Because of five ground misfires in 3 years in France alone the manufacturer declared to us:

- to have listed in the world nine misfires of which eight come from the same problem. From these eight cases, two took place under open canopy.
- that by the current knowledge, these misfires can only take place between the ground and 256 m or 317 m or 622 m, ( according to the choice of mode).
- to have identified the origin of the problem without being able to solve it. Due to the unpredictable aspect of the failure and, is therefore not to distinguish those AADs that are likely to be failing.
- to have implemented an improvement of the hardware and software from October 2006.
- not to be informed of failures concerning AADs manufactured as from October 2006.
- not to consider an immediate withdrawal of any AAD produced before September 2006.

Action: While waiting for a acceptable solution of the manufacturer, the CTP (Comission Technique et Pedagogique) of the French Parachute association:
- Informs the owners and users of Vigils for the potential danger of an opening under canopy with all the possible risks.
- recommends, parachuting schools lending or renting parachutes to their members or customers, to withdraw all Vigils manufactured before September 2006,
- recommends for the private users, not to use any Vigils manufactured before September 2006.

However, by the continued use to take the following precautions:

On the ground
- To approach the plane by the back and not to turn your back to the propeller.
- not to take part in the start up of the aircraft (installation and withdrawal of the starter)
- not to carry your parachute on the back at the time of travelling by bicycle or on a motor cycle

Under open canopy:
- Under activation height to reduce the speed of your canopy
- To be attentive for a possible unwanted opening
- In the event of an unwanted opening, to try to catch the reserve pilot chute before the reserve canopy can deploy.
- not to carry out a “overspeed” in landing, (swoop, hookturn??)
- To warn AAD and the FP of any misfire.


This is a translation. The original bulletin (CS 156-2008) can be found here :


www.ffp.asso.fr/spip.php?rubrique296

[skydiverton2 0]

But scheduled maintenance is still not required according to the supplier

Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habid.
.
.
Also in case you jump a sport rig!!!

[erdnarob 1]

First, that bulletin doesn't concern the new VIGIL II which has been launched in Summer 2007.
I was in Florida less than a month ago and had the chance to meet a parachuting technical director from France. We have had a lot of very interesting discussions together and here is what I learned:
IN France there is several federations or associations ruling parachuting. For instance, the professional tandem pilots have their own federation. Unfortunately there is a lot of politics (understand fight) between those federations up there. Other sources of information told me that there is also some directors of federation who use their position to favour some manufacturers by putting down others. Connections by federation directors with specific manufacturers are obvious. This is particularly true when AAD's manufacturers are concerned.
What we can say is that competition is good for the products users (skydivers). Competition will promote better price and product. This is not different when dealing with AAD's. ALL AAD manufacturers have had their share of problems: software, cutter, electrostatic, electromagnetic radiation which have caused some firing at the wrong time. They have learned about it but it's almost impossible to design a product and foresee all possible situations. The AAD design is quite complex since an AAD works with pressure and time but has to transfer the readings into altitude and speed. All AAD's on the market are the result of intense research. They are all good. However, you might prefer a particular design. Personnally I have a VIGIL II because I like the sturdy solid aluminum electronic/battery box, the 2 cables reinforced with Kevlar (weakness cable problem with competion), the device is ready to fire if needed as soon as you go up at 150 feet (others like Cypres have to reach 1500 feet to get cocked and ready, if you bail out with those below 1500 feet, they will not fire if needed), and obviously the Vigil multimode PRO, STUDENT and TANDEM which is from my point of view a very great feature for DZ equipment managment (possibility to change from PRO to STUDENT for instance on location) and easier to sell since the owner can change the mode easily. By the way, no chance of confusion provided you do your reserve pin check before each jump since the Vigil keeps the chosen mode on display all the time the device is on. The Vigil II is waterproof in case of use in a swoop pond. I personnaly bought the Vigil interface, (unique to Vigil so far) which allows me to download the data from the device to my computer and get info about my last jumps including graphs of altitude and speed with respect to the time.
WHAT IS SCARRY is to have some manufacturers trying to keep their monopoly. In North America we have anti-trust laws but we have also the possibility to get knowledgeable about the products we would like to use. I suggest everybody to spend some time on Internet on AAD's manufacturer sites and get a better idea about the products. After all, it's your money, a lot of money and your safety. Get involve and do some research.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[Deci 0]

Title of the thread should read "AAD industry nastiness".

Here's vigil's response:

http://www.vigil.aero/pdf/30-04-2008_Open-letter-to-our-dealers-and-customers.pdf

Content of PDF below:
___________________________

OPEN LETTER TO OUR DEALERS AND CUSTOMERS

Dear Vigil users, customers and dealers,
First of all, we want to thank you for the trust you give to our product. Be sure that without your support, we would never have reached what we are today in this very well protected and difficult monopole-ruled business.

Vigil or your “Guardian Angel” opened this market to competition and is now sold in 42 countries through 167 distributors.

But in France, the free choice of the user is put in doubt by a state organization (F.F.P.). This has obliged us to react firmly to defend our rights. In June 2007, we went to the Paris court to protect our sponsoring rights against our German competitor (still ongoing court case).

Previous to that, we needed to defend our rights against Mr. Fradet concerning his denigration without any foundation or facts against Vigil.

Today, we can easily prove that the Vigil is certainly as safe as any other electronic AAD on the market, taking namely in consideration the Airtec misfires due to battery problems stated in the USA and the Airtec misfires due to the pressure sensor stated in Australia.

Concerning the misfires due to rejected sensors: we want to state that the Swiss sensor factory has advised their customers in December 2006 of a possible default in their products and the danger to use those sensors. Why did Airtec wait 15 months to act and advise their users of a potential danger is an open question.

We can confirm that we immediately sent our full batch of incriminated sensors back to the factory for control. It’s evident that the French Federation is now protecting their new German sponsor by damaging the reputation of Vigil.

To remember is that we became leader in France. That the F.F.P. was sponsored by Vigil since 1 October 2001, with a 2-year renewable contract. In June 2007, without any advise, they suddenly switched to Airtec for sponsoring all their VR-Teams. This was confirmed by a publicity in the Paramag edition of June 2007!
In counterpart, in 2008 we had to face 2 unexpected problems with the French Federation concerning:

A.
The cutters:
Our design with the hard plastic protection rings was designed to be placed at the bottom of the rig. But above the pilot chute between the 2 flaps or 2 stainless steel rings, they could encounter possible damage.
In August 2006, we changed our cutter to a full stainless steel body. In some cases, there were internal burs, due to a new body supplier. As soon as we stated this, we decided to exchange them all free of charge for our current stainless steel cover version. From August 2007, we supplied this new cutter with a stainless steel loop protection cover.
In February 2008, Mr. Fradet advised by e-mail to return those cutters to the producer, due to their so-called non-conformity to specification. This is incorrect and unjustified criticism. Tests have been done on those cutters by an official laboratory of the Belgian Army (L.A.E.E.). The results of their tests confirm our previous statements (See on our website: http://www.vigil.aero/downloads.php - section ‘Official Statements’).

Suddenly, after having sent those 2 reports, our cutters became acceptable for the French market.

B.
Vigil misfires:
After the previous point, the French Federation took a position to reconsider the Vigil misfires that we experienced during the last 3 years. This problem started by coincidence (?) when Jo Smolders just arrived in China for personal reasons.

We admit to have recorded 9 misfires on more than 8.000 Vigils in the field (of which 7 on the ground and 2 in the activation zone of the Vigil). The first stated misfire (May 2005) in France had a cutter activation by its first fit in a rig. This Vigil was totally dismantled for analysis and the real reason of the misfire was never found (a crazy temperature value was stated, which proved that this Vigil registered wrong information).
Today, we have 8 cases where we are still looking for the exact reason of the misfires.

That the F.F.P. now suddenly recommends not to use the Vigil in France must be in agreement with their new sponsor by starting a denigration-campaign against a dangerous competitor, is evident.

We firmly will refuse to accept this and we will defend our rights by all means.

We launched Vigil II with an adapted hardware to achieve a better working stability of the micro processor. A software-upgrade was implemented by some additional security factors to avoid misfires.
Considering those facts, we want to state that Vigil has saved 31 lives (all documented).

We are certainly as safe (or dangerous) as Cypres today, who also has misfires and not only on the ground.

The up to now stated misfires are of course not in our favor, but please believe that our own engineering team was already doing its utmost best to analyze and correct the reasons of those unexplained activations.
Actually, we are testing new electronic components, which must in theory drastically reduce or even eliminate the risk of a misfire. Our aim is of course to try to reach the zero default.

A point to know is that today’s electronics-producing companies will never guarantee the application in which their product is used.

We can assure you that we are already testing the Vigil of a new generation (totally redundant) to avoid future misfires.

Nevertheless, we will give you an official statement as soon as we can.

We calculated that the risk of a misfire in the air for Vigil I is actually 1 on 200.000 days of use.

Allow us to say that the risk of a misfire is extremely rare and exceptional and that we are not the only company to have misfires.

In agreement with our open and straight policy, we don’t want to hide this problem but understand that we analyzed the facts correctly.

We want to point out that we introduced new options to the users, namely:

- 3 modes in one ergonomic, compact and strong unit
- An internal memory of the last 16 minutes of jump information with a user-friendly download tool
- Ergonomic design with a clear graphical display, protected by a scratch-proof sapphire glass
- A sophisticated power management, giving a battery life-span that has never been reached before
- The pulses plus technology assures that the cutter will always activate in less than 2 msecs, even with a low battery charge
- A jump counter in a unit that the user can set in meters or feet and in °C or °F
- A very strong specific flexible wire which is reinforced by Kevlar
- Complete self-test at the start-up, to eliminate fixed required maintenance as high maintenance costs

These and many other useful innovations were implemented to the satisfaction of most of our users.
With all our thanks in the trust you give to Vigil.

Best regards,

Jo Smolders
Managing Director


______________
Edited to add content of pdf link

CSPA D-1046 TI Coach2 RiggerA JM SSI SSE GCI EJR Canadian 102-way record holder
bard.ca

[erdnarob 1]

This open letter from VIGIL illustrates exactely what I was talking about in my precedent post.
It seems that Airtec keeps on with the darkness culture and doesn't behave all the time as a good corporate partner. Airtec probably never heard about anti trust laws and seemingly doesn't believe too much in a healthy competion :

Think twice about this:

1) A friend of mine sent back his Cypres 1 last year for the 4 year maintenance; why on a costly (435$) 4 years Cypres 1 maintenance report, there were no details about what has been inspected ? When I go at Pennzoil for a car oil change I have a complete report of all inspected items.

2) Why on the same above unit, AIRTEC changed the cutter while the former cutter has not been fired? That change wasn't written on the report either!!

3) Very recently Paragear started selling VIGIL. Lowell Bachman passed away few months ago. Lowell Bachman started Paragear many years ago, and was vice president of the PIA (BTW, the actual PIA president is Cliff Schmucker who is also AIRTEC USA SSK president) very strange coincidence! But I am glad that Paragear has now a better choice of AAD's.

I am sure skydivers will be able to understand the reality behind that mess.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[billvon 2,400]

>Airtec probably never heard about anti trust laws and seemingly
>doesn't believe too much in a healthy competion . . .

Both Airtec and Vigil make a good product. The Cypres has some more time in the field. The Vigil is built very solidly. For my sort of jumping (that includes occasionally jumping from pressurized aircraft) I prefer a Cypres II, since it doesn't fire during spurious pressurization. If that wasn't true I'd have no qualms about using a Vigil.

I hope we can stop the childish "my AAD rules, yours sucks! Cliff/Jo is an evil greedy bastard!" sort of attacks. They don't help anyone, and the people who make such attacks come off as children.

[PhreeZone 15]

$435 for maintianence sounds like that included the 4 year check, the 8 year check and new batteries.

Cypres cutters have a 12 year 3 month life span also. They also will replace them if they are damaged or have any abnormalities during any of the tests including the cold soak.


Did you ask Airtec any of the questions that you are posing here or did you just assume they wouldn't answer them?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

For my sort of jumping (that includes occasionally jumping from pressurized aircraft) I prefer a Cypres II, since it doesn't fire during spurious pressurization. If that wasn't true I'd have no qualms about using a Vigil.

The Military Vigil II is capable of being used on pressurized aircraft. Expect to see the same feature in the sport model of the Vigil II in the future.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[billvon 2,400]

>The Military Vigil II is capable of being used on pressurized aircraft.
>Expect to see the same feature in the sport model of the Vigil II in the future.

Per Jo, he expects to include that in the Vigil III (although it won't be called that.)

[erdnarob 1]

Excerpt from the VIGIL II user's manual page 20 at the bottom. << VIGIL (II) will work correctely even when used in a pressurized cabin as long as the pressure differs at least by + or - 5 hPa compared to the atmospheric air pressure at take off >>

BTW 5 mPa = 0.148 inch of mercury and is equivalent to an altitude change of 150 feet up or down since we have about one inch of mercury of pressure change per 1000 feet (5 hPa or 5 hectoPascal or 500 Pascal is a very small change of pressure)

I consider a serious pilot mistake to pressurize an airplane when there are turned on pressure sensitive devices aboard. The story which comes to my mind is the following. Could you imagine what would have been the result if Colonel Tibetts flying the ENOLA GUAY over Hiroshima had decided to pressurized his airplane with the atom bomb aboard equiped with altimeters set at 1500 feet for the explosion!!!???? It is well written in the AAD's (VIGIL OR CYPRES) manuals specifying that the pilot has to avoid to pressurize the airplane. Believe me I know what I am talking about, I was in the DC-9 at Rantoul when I have been the witness of what I am trying to tell you. When in the DC-9 at Rantould still on the ground, somebody asked for the air conditioning, the pilot had to pressurized the cabin to do so and 6 VIGIL I fired including mine. Vigil I's fired because they felt the important change of pressure equivalent to a fall of more than 35 m/s. They did exactely what they were designed to do. Perris Valley people who own the DC-9 paid for everything, reserve repack, a new cutter and guess what... an extra free DC-9 ticket of a value of 99.00$. But with the Vigil II it shouldn't be a problem with such a situation.

I can see that a lot of people are not really aware of the AAD's technical specifications. For the pricey devices they are, AAD's should be known on how they work and its features better understood .

I already mentioned it, the Cypres II or I will not get cocked (ready to operate) until you reach 1500 feet. If you bail out below 1500 feet, the Cypres I or II WILL NOT FIRE if needed (written in the owner's manual), the Vigil will.

And since problems are more likely to happen with an airplane (I am a pilot), at or after the take off and at landing I believe it's a good idea to have an AAD ready to fire if needed as soon as the airplane takes off. We skydivers rarely have to land with an airplane. It happened to me 3 times in more than 2000 jumps.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[billvon 2,400]

>I consider a serious pilot mistake to pressurize an airplane when there
>are turned on pressure sensitive devices aboard.

Perhaps - but in my experience that mistake is fairly common. I'd prefer a device that can handle that error. Per Jo, the current Vigil II will not.

>The story which comes to my mind is the following. Could you imagine
>what would have been the result if Colonel Tibetts flying the ENOLA GUAY
>over Hiroshima had decided to pressurized his airplane with the atom
>bomb aboard equiped with altimeters set at 1500 feet for the
>explosion!!!????

Nothing. It also had a propeller-driven arming system that prevented arming until the bomb had been freefalling a significant time. Most bombs of that era had this safety device.

(Needless to say, it's something of an academic question since you can't pressurize a B-29.)

>the Cypres II or I will not get cocked (ready to operate) until you
>reach 1500 feet. If you bail out below 1500 feet, the Cypres I or II WILL
>NOT FIRE if needed (written in the owner's manual), the Vigil will.

Agreed. I prefer AAD's that err on the side of not firing under unusual conditions. If I have to bail out at 1400 feet from a burning airplane, I will be more worried about my AAD firing and wrapping around the tail than forgetting to pull.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

> Could you imagine
>what would have been the result if Colonel Tibetts flying the ENOLA GUAY
>over Hiroshima had decided to pressurized his airplane with the atom
>bomb aboard

Nothing. It also had a propeller-driven arming system that prevented arming until the bomb had been freefalling a significant time. Most bombs of that era had this safety device.

(Needless to say, it's something of an academic question since you can't pressurize a B-29.)

[thread drift]

You can pressurize a B-29, but the bomb bay is not pressurized. Hence the little tunnel with a cart for crew to transfer between the front and aft pressurized sections.

[/thread drift]

[hackish 8]

I read that press release from vigil and I really think they need a better translator. At least the germans can translate the descriptions of their problems properly. Unfortunately the marketing strategy of that German company seems to be one that does not talk about any malfunctions their devices have had.

Certainly they call an AAD that was apparently off and still fired a faulty battery, then may have proceeded to fix the problem with software. Or was it a software bug to begin with?

The worrying safety bulletin above strikes me as a pollitical thing rather than a technical thing. For the record I'm saving up to buy a vigil 2.

-Michael

[Flying_Penguin 0]

- In the event of an unwanted opening, to try to catch the reserve pilot chute before the reserve canopy can deploy.
\

[erdnarob 1]

When I mentioned about pressurizing the Enola Guay with the atom bomb aboard, of course I was providing the reader with a caricature and never meant that "exemple" to be taken literally.
Anyway, my example seems to have triggered some reaction and that was my goal.
On a more Terra Firma note: Another excerpt from Cypres owner's manual this time (page 32 at the bottom) :<>.
I guess it's clear enough.
Coming back to what AAD to choose: well after reading several posts, I can see that a lot of skydivers are like many people who prefer their old slippers to new ones. But that doesn't apply too much with technology. One can like the Blackberry but after having seen an iPHONE and its features, the choice is obvious. You can prefer a Rolex watch which puts more that 20% of its budget into publicity, I prefer and I have the OMEGA SPEEDMASTER Professional watch which has been chosen by the NASA among 5 other mechanical watches-chronographers for the Appollo program and which is still in 2008 the standard at the NASA.
Vigil seems to have a more advanced technology, has a more rugged construction including box and cables and is made by a company which is more likely to speak about the features of its device and therefore a company which doesn't consider its customer as a child. When you pay 1300$ for a device, one has the right to know the main parameters of his AAD in order to make a good decision when problems happen. As a pilot, I am asked to know all the features or parameters of the airplane I am flying for better emergency decision purpose. As a parachute pilot, it should be the same approach. Vigil provides you with all Vigil AAD parameters , not its main competitor which has 2 known parameters, pressure and speed and << 5 secret ones >> (written in a Skydiving Magazine article from Airtec SSK a couple of years ago).

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

When I mentioned about pressurizing the Enola Guay with the atom bomb aboard, of course I was providing the reader with a caricature and never meant that "exemple" to be taken literally.

Similarly, I'd hope the atomic bombs weren't Vigil activated, just in case the flight crew slammed the cockpit hatch after climbing in. :)

Despite Airtec's sometimes frustrating level of secrecy or unwillingness to admit problems over the years, my personal opinion is that they still seem to come out ahead of the Vigil in terms of reliability and doing what one wants them to do.

Even if Airtec has secret parameters or secret potions, I still trust their algorithms, reliability, and engineering a little more than for AAD/Vigil.

[erdnarob 1]

With no figures and the fact I am into physics and mathematics stuff I find your argument very weak. On the other hand:
How long Cypres is on the market? At least 14 years. Then how come they still have problem (ref. with the recent recall of about 500 units for a deficient sensor). How long it would take to solve problems , another 14 years? Who claim about 100% reliability to justify their 4 years maintenance with article in all skydiving magazines few years ago and who put a disclaimer on their owner's manual?
A friend of mine was right on the target when he told me that more something is expensive and more irrational are the motivations to buy it.

Vigil is doing better in less than 5 years.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

With no figures and the fact I am into physics and mathematics stuff I find your argument very weak.

Yes. Maybe we're both hoping someone else will spend the time to catalogue on a web page a list of all known problems the manufacturs have had, the dates, the manufacturers' responses, and so on.

Quote

Vigil is doing better in less than 5 years.

Even with facts, interpretation can be tough. Does Vigil get free reign to make mistakes for the next decade because Cypres already has made mistakes for at least a decade and a half?

Both companies have had very recent bulletins and notices on inadvertent firing. At least Cypres produced their own bulletin. Vigil only wrote their "open letter" after the FFP told the world about the problem (even if there are politics involved.) But then Vigil claims both companies knew about possibly defective sensors from a supplier in 2006, and only Vigil acted on that information! An interesting battle.

P.S. - Andre / erdnarob, I finally realized who I'm arguing with!

[billvon 2,400]

> With no figures and the fact I am into physics and mathematics
>stuff I find your argument very weak.

Personally, being an engineer, I'll take the more reliable unit over the one with the better explanation of the math used by the processor. But that's just me.

>How long it would take to solve problems , another 14 years?

Both Vigil and Airtec have had several problems and recalls. When Vigil is around as long as the Cypres was, I'd be willing to bet you will see as many problems as the Cypres has had.

>A friend of mine was right on the target when he told me that more
>something is expensive and more irrational are the motivations to buy it.

I find that if someone likes a product, they will often find a way to justify their purchase (and a way to denigrate the options they did not pursue) to justify their decision. Which is too bad; both Airtec and Vigil make a good product. Neither one deserves all the sniping that they get.

[DougH 270]

Quote

How long Cypres is on the market? At least 14 years. Then how come they still have problem (ref. with the recent recall of about 500 units for a deficient sensor)....
....Vigil is doing better in less than 5 years.

Problems with components are just that, problems with components; this happens at the biggest companies making some of the worlds most mission critical items. Helicopters, jet engines, medical equipment. It doesn't make a device better or worse, and the way they handled this recent recall speaks volumes about the company.

I guess I could make an argument that the Vigil is a piece of shit because the company can't seem to source a half decent cutter unit but I won't because it makes as much sense as your argument that the recent Cypres recall sends Vigil to the front of the class. I will make the argument that their response to their own recalls and possible saftey issues has left a lot to be desired. The way they handled a misfire that a close friend experinced also left a lot to be desired, so we got rid of all our vigils.

I have 4 Cypres tandem AAD's down because of this latest recall, and guess what I am glad because I know that they are looking out for my safety and the safety of my customers.

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

[french 0]

the French Civilian Aviation Agency just releases a safety note to defintely ground all Vigil DOM prior August 2006 and all Vigil cutter DOM prior June 2007

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

- Complete self-test at the start-up, to eliminate fixed required maintenance as high maintenance costs

Checking the electronic health (continuity/stability) of a sensor during a self test is not the same as checking the accuracy and resolution of the sensor in response to actual pressure changes. No self test can do that. No self test can confirm what will happen when the unit is subjected to vibration and temperature extremes.

To imply that any self-test is as complete as what is done during the Cypres maintenance check is intentional deception, in my opinion.

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

[french 0]

here you go with the Airwothiness Directives in the attached file, english version after the french

[smears 0]

I feel like Vigil and Cypress can be compared to new vs. old airplane engines. New engines are more likely to fail than one that has been used (and properly taken care of) for 5-10 years. Engines fail when they are still new because all the bugs haven't been sorted out. Same thing with Vigil, it's still new, all the bugs haven't been sorted out. Cypress did the same thing when they were new. Vigil is still working out the bugs (misfires on the ground), so until they sort that out, I'm sticking with a Cypress.
**Disclaimer, this is only my opinion, so don't tear my post apart word by word please

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

I feel like Vigil and Cypress can be compared to new vs. old airplane engines. New engines are more likely to fail than one that has been used (and properly taken care of) for 5-10 years. Engines fail when they are still new because all the bugs haven't been sorted out. Same thing with Vigil, it's still new, all the bugs haven't been sorted out. Cypress did the same thing when they were new. Vigil is still working out the bugs (misfires on the ground), so until they sort that out, I'm sticking with a Cypress.
**Disclaimer, this is only my opinion, so don't tear my post apart word by word please

That would be a sound analogy if Cypress wasn't also having misfires, be it on the ground or in the air. The last one was in late December( 29-30th) 2007.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING