Vigil???

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

1 - I wanted a multi-mode AAD. I plan to start swooping at some point over the next 12 years, and would like to know my AAD is ready for that. That ruled out the Cypres.

You can send the CYPRES back to Airtec/SSK and they will change it to a swoop mode one for you if that is what you need.

For free!

Or I can just press a few buttons (also free, with less shipping & downtime )...and then change it back to standard mode if I decide to sell it to someone with 75 jumps, for some reason.
(Not saying I'm not glad Cypres has that program...just saying I appreciate the versatility of the Argus).

Signatures are the new black.

[jurgencamps 0]

Quote

You can send the CYPRES back to Airtec/SSK and they will change it to a swoop mode one for you if that is what you need.

You can choose between 2 completely different solutions, the speed version (cypres) or the swoopmode (argus), each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
You can pick the solution that you prefer.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

I plan to start swooping at some point over the next 12 years, and would like to know my AAD is ready for that. That ruled out the Cypres.

Very few are able to reach the speeds needed to activate the cypres while swooping. I would rather that an AAD be more likely to activate during a scenario of high speed partial malfunction, where the jumper hasn't cut away yet. If they ride a fast mal down that far, they likely have lost track of altitude and need the AAD to save them (even if the main is still there - you have to hope it works, not enough time left to wait any more). If you have an AAD in swoop mode, you risk not going fast enough to trigger it, but plenty fast enough to die.

Just my opinion, that most swoopers would be much better served without a swoop mode AAD (at least in the way cypres does it).

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

[billvon 2,400]

>I would rather that an AAD be more likely to activate during a scenario of
> high speed partial malfunction, where the jumper hasn't cut away yet.

That's a pretty basic difference in philosophy that, in my experience, is often related to the background of the jumper. I started back when AAD's were unreliable, and people were often put in harm's way by them. So, to me, an AAD's #1 job is to not fire unless it absolutely, positively has to.

Today, though, it seems like the paradigm is that "well, sure AAD's are reliable." We quibble over the details of three different designs each of which, when you get right down to it, are all pretty dang reliable, and that's the environment they started skydiving in. So often I see the opposite take on this - they hope the AAD fires even when it's questionable, in situations where a reserve deployment may harm or help.

It will be interesting to see where this leads with AAD designs. One of the reasons I like the cypres 2 is that it tends to not fire when it's confused; people have posted that they actually like that the Vigil can misfire in pressurized aircraft because it "proves that it works." Different strokes I guess.

[Fast 0]

Quote

>I would rather that an AAD be more likely to activate during a scenario of
> high speed partial malfunction, where the jumper hasn't cut away yet.

That's a pretty basic difference in philosophy that, in my experience, is often related to the background of the jumper. I started back when AAD's were unreliable, and people were often put in harm's way by them. So, to me, an AAD's #1 job is to not fire unless it absolutely, positively has to.

Today, though, it seems like the paradigm is that "well, sure AAD's are reliable." We quibble over the details of three different designs each of which, when you get right down to it, are all pretty dang reliable, and that's the environment they started skydiving in. So often I see the opposite take on this - they hope the AAD fires even when it's questionable, in situations where a reserve deployment may harm or help.

It will be interesting to see where this leads with AAD designs. One of the reasons I like the cypres 2 is that it tends to not fire when it's confused; people have posted that they actually like that the Vigil can misfire in pressurized aircraft because it "proves that it works." Different strokes I guess.

I wouldn't say that it's totally a function of background. I started jumping in 2003 and I am fully in the camp with the people who believe that a misfire is much more of an issue than a non-fire. Maybe it has to do with training or something else. I have pretty good confidence that I will deal with situations that arise. I bought my AAD incase I get incapacitated (I have had this almost happen to me twice, not my fault either time) and incase i screw up and forget where the fuck I am.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

>I would rather that an AAD be more likely to activate during a scenario of
> high speed partial malfunction, where the jumper hasn't cut away yet.

That's a pretty basic difference in philosophy that, in my experience, is often related to the background of the jumper. I started back when AAD's were unreliable, and people were often put in harm's way by them. So, to me, an AAD's #1 job is to not fire unless it absolutely, positively has to.

Today, though, it seems like the paradigm is that "well, sure AAD's are reliable." We quibble over the details of three different designs each of which, when you get right down to it, are all pretty dang reliable, and that's the environment they started skydiving in. So often I see the opposite take on this - they hope the AAD fires even when it's questionable, in situations where a reserve deployment may harm or help.

It will be interesting to see where this leads with AAD designs. One of the reasons I like the cypres 2 is that it tends to not fire when it's confused; people have posted that they actually like that the Vigil can misfire in pressurized aircraft because it "proves that it works." Different strokes I guess.

My primary point is that I think it a poor choice for someone to want a swoop mode AAD because they will want to swoop years from now. Even if you're swooping now, very few are able to go that fast, so I don't think it is worth taking away its ability to possibly save someone that doesn't cut away from a high speed mal (assuming that they are falling too slow to trigger a swoop mode version).

I agree that not firing when it is confused (pressurized scenarios) is good, but the situation I'm talking about should not be "confusing" to the AAD.

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

[sundevil777 93]

The only AAD fire I've witnessed was in the early '80s, when a guy had a streamer on a T-10 and did nothing. The old sentinel fired his belly reserve and saved his ass. He may have been falling too slow to be saved by a modern AAD (except maybe in student mode) - don't know what the parameters of the sentinel were.

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

[377 20]

Quote

> People who will tell you that they prefer the Cypres are a bit like people
> who tell you they prefer their old slippers because they make them more
> confortable.

Personally I prefer Cypres II's to Vigil's because they don't misfire in pressurizable aircraft. It's a bummer to have a reserve open in the plane. For many jumpers, though, that's not an issue, and a Vigil (or Argus) is a good replacement for a Cypres.

>the Vigil II is the most advanced AAD because of the features it has . . .

It does indeed have far more features than the cypres. I prefer an AAD that does only one job very well, though.

I think any of the new AADs will save your life when you are going in as a no pull, but I choose to fly with a Cypres. I like tried and true not cutting edge when it comes to mission critical electronic systems.

As an electrical engineer I am almost embarassed by Airtec's ancient 7 segment LCD and crude user interface, but as a skydiver it is comforting knowing that my AAD design is a mature time proven one.

I will bet that among skydivers who are electrical engineers, Cypres is the most popular.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[377 20]

Quote

The only AAD fire I've witnessed was in the early '80s, when a guy had a streamer on a T-10 and did nothing. The old sentinel fired his belly reserve and saved his ass. He may have been falling too slow to be saved by a modern AAD (except maybe in student mode) - don't know what the parameters of the sentinel were.

The old Sentinels just fired when you decended below about 1000 ft without turning the device off after opening your main. SSE later incorporated an add on barometric rate switch in series with the altitude switch so that it wouldnt fire if you were under a fully open canopy decending at a normal rate. That eliminated the need to turn the device off after opening your main. The last Sentinel, the MK 2000 put it all in one package: an altitude switch in series with a rate switch. No microprocessor, no software, just a couple of AA batteries, two switches and a cutter or pin puller cartridge. I liked the MK 2000 for plain old belly flying, but many though it was too prone to misfires.

Anyone else besides me admire that simple MK 2000 design? I think it was about as simple and reliable AAD as you could make in the day.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[sundevil777 93]

The sentinel save I witnessed was with the type where you had calibrate by pulling out the wheel, turn one direction, then the other, etc. It was likely very reliable, but perhaps vulnerable to inaccuracy due to the method of calibrating.

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

[377 20]

That was definitely a sentinel MK 2000. Actually the calibration using the manual thumbscrew was reasonably accurate. It used two LEDs to signal the proper stop point. This procedure just set the zero altitude to the DZ level.

The Sentinels had their faults but they saved a lot of student lives when no other decent AADs were available.

I'd still jump a MK 2000 (in a strict belly fly jump and normal straight ahead landing) if they were still legal. I don't think they could handle the abrupt and large pressure changes in extreme skydiving. That's why Cypres had to resort to a software and microcontroller solution.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[sundevil777 93]

The sentinels I used as a student looked like they'd been used as hammers and drug behind a car through the desert. I trusted them so little that by my 5th jump or so I would disconnect the wire to the handle when the jumpmaster wasn't looking. I would also disconnect the Steven's line when he wasn't looking (didn't want that huge metal handle smacking me in the face).

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

[377 20]

Quote

The sentinels I used as a student looked like they'd been used as hammers and drug behind a car through the desert. I trusted them so little that by my 5th jump or so I would disconnect the wire to the handle when the jumpmaster wasn't looking. I would also disconnect the Steven's line when he wasn't looking (didn't want that huge metal handle smacking me in the face).

Yikes. Every instructor's worst nightmare, the novice gear tamperer. What were you gonna do next, jump with the Capewell covers pre-opened?

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[Glandu 0]

"Now, the Vigil III is coming and the possibility of firing problems near the ground will be solved plus we will see some surprising new features."

Where did you get this info. from?

[hackish 8]

From the engineering point of view maybe this Vigil III is just some software changes to improve these points of criticism. As any engineer understands these things take a lot of time to properly test and audit.

On one side you have people saying "sheesh it took them THAT long" and on the other side you have people saying "2 revisions in 5 years, that's scary". By the looks of it in the 3 expired cypress 1's I've cracked open they seem to change the entire board inside every 4 years.

Everyone out there is revising and improving their products. Some tell you and some don't. As long as the changes are properly tested I've got no problem with that.

-Michael

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

"Now, the Vigil III is coming and the possibility of firing problems near the ground will be solved plus we will see some surprising new features."

Where did you get this info. from?

The Vigil reps @ PIA 09 in Reno.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[USPA 0]

Quote

For many jumpers, though, that's not an issue, and a Vigil (or Argus) is a good replacement for a Cypres.

Uhm, Argus also doesn't misfire in pressurizable aircraft. So it is a good replacement for cypres for jumpers in which this is an issue...

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...

[blueskiesbill 0]

When does the Vigil III come out? and should i wait to purchase that one?

the condemned convict climbs the highest peaks without fear

[piisfish 135]

Quote

When does the Vigil III come out? and should i wait to purchase that one?

if you need an AAD, don't wait for one which doesn't exist yet.
after doing your research, do your educated choice and purchase one of the actual AAD's on the market.

Don't forget that ALL "first versions" of AAD's had their lot of bugs and birth problems. Wait till everything has been ironed out.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Jumping from a pressurised airplane or bailing out in an emergency at an
>altitude less than 1700 ft.

From my experience, jumping from a pressurized aircraft is more likely. I've jumped from perhaps 60 pressurizable aircraft and been in only one emergency descent.

>In the first case, your Vigil can fire; in the second case your Cypres
>will not fire if needed. Which one do you prefer ?

I will always prefer an AAD that does not fire when there is any doubt. It would suck to die because your AAD didn't fire, but it would suck even more because it fired in the door and killed everyone else in the plane.

> And this is why I have chosen the Vigil. I have no regret for the choice
>made and now based on how the Vigil I and II have worked twice for me,
>as designed . . .

Just to be clear here - you've had two AAD firings because you needed them?

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

> And this is why I have chosen the Vigil. I have no regret for the choice
>made and now based on how the Vigil I and II have worked twice for me,
>as designed . . .

Just to be clear here - you've had two AAD firings because you needed them?

I read that same thing early on in this thread and it made me wonder also. Two AAD fires in 2100 jumps?

[hackish 8]

I think one was seated on a plane at the wffc when the pilot screwed up and pressurized the AC.

-Michael