0
pchapman

Vigil bulletin PSB-7 missing blade

Recommended Posts

PSB-06
Oct 4, 2011

My interpretation only - please read the actual attached .pdf bulletin:

Recall of all cutters produced in October 2007.

Reason: One cutter (involved in a fatal accident in Canada) didn't have the blade installed.

Believed to be an isolated incident.

Those cutters should all be returned.

Other cutters build before June 2008 should be magnet tested to confirm the presence of the blade, just as a precaution. (Later ones are 100% xray tested.)

When: before next jump for the list of Vigils provided; at next repack for other Vigils (e.g., in case cutters were swapped around)

Thanks to the CSPA who had this bulletin even before the A.A.D. site.

[comment: Oops!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have unlocked this thread and removed PSB #6 due to it's being recinded by AAD and replaced with PSB #7. PSB #6 was a draft version and was not supposed to be distributed as it lacked some of the information that is now found in PSB #7. PSB #7 can be found on the Vigil Facebook page, the AAD website and via the links below.

PSB-7 can be found here: http://www.vigil.aero/files/images/Product_Service_Bulletin__7.pdf

Serial Number list can be found here: http://www.vigil.aero/files/images/gil_serial_N___with_Cutters_Oct_2007_Extract.pdf

Report from Royal Military Academy can be found here:
http://www.vigil.aero/files/images/Pre-Report-Jump288-031011.pdf

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Reason: One cutter (involved in a fatal accident in Canada) didn't have the blade installed.



Wow! I wonder how the rig manufacturers will handle this one? If it goes anything like the Argus ban, this could be HUGE!

The manufacturers will not react the same (in my opinion). A cutter without a blade would not have the possibility to prevent a reserve deployment (in opposition with a cutter which would lock the loop instead of cutting it)
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Wow! I wonder how the rig manufacturers will handle this one? If it goes anything like the Argus ban, this could be HUGE!



I don't think we have to worry about a ban as the cutter maufactuer modified their QC procedure in 2008 to x-ray all the cutters. In this situation I'm happy with the disclosure and correction from AAD.

As I understand it the argus problem was more related to the rig manufacturers feeling that the problem was not being addressed by Argus.

They did test fire 15 cutters from that batch so they aren't all bad but instead there is a possibility. There are 283 cutters in the field so let's go find them!

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this was a quality control failure, it happened at the cutter supplier, Stresau (Wisconsin based), not Vigil/AAD itself. This shows the importance of a close relationship, in terms of quality control, with a cutter supplier. Aviacom wasn't able to buy or manage that kind of relationship. The whole skydiving AAD industry would fall apart if experienced explosive devices companies were not willing to supply parts for skydiving.

And thankfully the fatal accident didn't happen to a skydiver who got knocked out or the like, but to one who simply didn't deploy a parachute in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Aviacom wasn't able to buy or manage that kind of relationship.



Are you claiming here Vigil/AAD did? Somebody died due to a serious quality control error. Some kind of relationship they bought....



Someone died because they failed to activate their parachute on time. Every AAD out there has had a failure of some sort so it's important to remember that these things are backup devices you can't rely on to pull for you.

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:)
I would NOT wait for the next reapck - it must be tested before NEXT JUMP.

Found one does not mean it is the only one.

Skydivers jump AAD's for a reason & they might need the SAVE on the next jump - why to take the RISK ???

Argus Mfg. said the same when the Argus cutters issues came up & look what happaned !!! I said the same - BEFORE NEXT JUMP !!!

Also a tip for riggers & owners - when a cutter is changed the S/N & Mfg. Date of the cutter must be on the Data Card & Vigil have also a certificate & report the Vigil Mfg. process.

Be Safe !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its amazing how many folks are trying to stick up for Vigil while this failure is an absolutely disgusting, negligent qc issue. We've all heard for years excuses for why Vigils go off when you slam a car door or drive down a hill in the road. Nothing but excuses. In my opinion this is no better than the Argus cutter problem, and is in someways worse because it was caused by pure irresponsibility as opposed to a faulty design. This is absolutely 100% disgusting, and shouldn't be tolerated in the industry regardless of whether or not some of us know and or are friends with the folks at Vigil. Completely unacceptable.
I think I've found a way for you and I to finally fly free.
When we get there, we're gonna fly so far away.
Making sure to laugh; while we experience anti-gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So were they just hoping nothing would happen, and released the bulletin only after fatality hapened?



I don't speak for Vigil and I don't know the facts behind this change in QC procedure, but it is my understanding the procedureral change is unrelated to any issue(s) that resulted in a cutter (or cutters) going out without blades.

The two issues are unrelated.
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI- Just because you purchased your Vigil recently doesn't mean that yours isn't on the list. We found one on our DZ that was purchased Summer 2011 that was part of the recall. Do yourself a favor and check your serial # against the list no matter when you bought it.

PS- It passed the magnet test but has been deemed unairworthy by Vigil
Blue Skies, Soft Docks and Happy Landings!
CWR #23
(It's called CRW, add an e if you like, but I ain't calling it CFS. FU FAI!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Completely unacceptable



You're right! Manufacturers should ban Vigils until Vigil starts Xray'ing all cutters befored assembly.

Oh, wait.... They started doing that in 2008... Never mind.





Do we know why, Vigil started to X-ray all cutters
before assembly, in 2008 ???
Was this procedure also done by Aviacom Argus and is it done, now, by Airtec ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Completely unacceptable



You're right! Manufacturers should ban Vigils until Vigil starts Xray'ing all cutters befored assembly.

Oh, wait.... They started doing that in 2008... Never mind.





Do we know why, Vigil started to X-ray all cutters
before assembly, in 2008 ???
Was this procedure also done by Aviacom Argus and is it done, now, by Airtec ???



I have no idea and no clue, nor do I have a dog in this fight (I jump a Cypres, and I never have been sponsored or sold gear).

This being said, it seems like a logical thing to add to your QA process.
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do we know why, Vigil started to X-ray all cutters
before assembly, in 2008 ???
Was this procedure also done by Aviacom Argus and is it done, now, by Airtec ???



It has been done by Airtec for the last 20 years"

"Meanwhile 19 years 3 months and 20 days later over 220,000 cutters have been manufactured and used "out in the field". Over 95 million jumps have been made using the CYPRES cutter. Still under the strict quality regulations layed down for the first cutter's by the 3 guys that designed it. With the advancement of technology in other area's even more quality regulations had been layed into place. Every CYPRES cutter is still generated under laboratory conditions, x ray ed, checked and tested by a number of individuals."

http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=304&lang=en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It has been done by Airtec for the last 20 years"

"Meanwhile 19 years 3 months and 20 days later over 220,000 cutters have been manufactured and used "out in the field". Over 95 million jumps have been made using the CYPRES cutter. Still under the strict quality regulations layed down for the first cutter's by the 3 guys that designed it. With the advancement of technology in other area's even more quality regulations had been layed into place. Every CYPRES cutter is still generated under laboratory conditions, x ray ed, checked and tested by a number of individuals."

http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=304&lang=en




Nice slogan. Nothing more.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960054375_1996092858.pdf
Look on page 175. For a machine. When did the machine flies. Who done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nice slogan. Nothing more.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/...54375_1996092858.pdf
Look on page 175. For a machine. When did the machine flies. Who done.



Not sure I understand your question or point. ...??
What does your reference to a NASA devices catalog document (albeit within it showing a device listed/shown that looks strikingly similar to the loop cutters our AADs also use) - have to do with anything?

You seem to want to be throwing disparagement on Airtec GmbH with your post somehow, and maybe I'm dense - but I just don't follow/see your point here, relative to the post you are responding to. ...???

The post merely quoted a section from Airtec's manual on the inspection process (which has included x-rays on their cutters as a part of the mfr process, since DAY/CUTTER 1) used in their manufacturing process of THEIR OWN cutter(s). Someone had asked whether CyPReS was or was not currently doing this as a part of their process - to which, in essence, the answer was: YES, they are, in fact, they ALWAYS have.

So you reply that this answer is "nothing but a slogan", and provide link to a totally unrelated (although similar cutter design, granted) NASA supplier/vendor catalog document (where mfr test/evaluation standards and procedures are not even mentioned) and cry "bunk"? You've lost me here. I just don't get it. What are you trying to say?
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have released PSB-8 which supersedes PSB-7.

I can't find it on their web site but they embedded it in a note in facebook:

Quote

Please find attached our Vigil PSB–8. This is an update that replaces our recent PSB-7. Vigil PSB-8 includes better guidance and compliance requirements, as well as expanded serial numbers to be checked for October 07 cutters.

Only those cutters found with an OCT 07 manufacture date on the cutter itself must be replaced. We have received some cutters with Sept and Nov 07 dates. September and November 07 cutters would only require the magnet test be performed.



https://www.facebook.com/notes/vigil-aad/product-service-bulletin-8/301421876540881

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0