Which AAD to get? Vigil II, Cypres 2, M2?

[SStewart 13]

Unstable

Quote

No idea how much longer the manf. has been around, but they have been making AAD's since 2003.

This product variation has been around since 2011.

Perhaps I have been giving it an unfair rap.

The Mars AAD has been around in Europe for quite some time now, the M2 is the newest version (like Cypres 2, Vigil 2) It is not a new start up company, many documented saves. From what I have been told it is more similar to the Vigil than the Cypres. No maintenence unless needed, 15 year life on battery. Very well made, aircraft quality aluminum case, stainless cutter, etc. I will likely replace my expired cypres units with the M2.

Onward and Upward!

[Rstanley0312 0]

SStewart

***

Quote

No idea how much longer the manf. has been around, but they have been making AAD's since 2003.

This product variation has been around since 2011.

Perhaps I have been giving it an unfair rap.

The Mars AAD has been around in Europe for quite some time now, the M2 is the newest version (like Cypres 2, Vigil 2) It is not a new start up company, many documented saves. From what I have been told it is more similar to the Vigil than the Cypres. No maintenence unless needed, 15 year life on battery. Very well made, aircraft quality aluminum case, stainless cutter, etc. I will likely replace my expired cypres units with the M2.

Not at you SS... just a general post. The CYPRES arrives at firing parameters with greater accuracy bc it uses way more data. I cannot speak to the M2 but the Vigil does not come close. I believe it can be trusted to fire when it is supposed to but I do not trust it to not fire when it is not supposed to. That is the most important aspect of an AAD. It is often thought about less and rarely even really looked at but it is the most active piece of gear you own if you use an AAD. It is always working. My opinion but based on a lot of known facts. I also think the SSK and CYPRES have excellent customer service and I also agree with Terry as to why CYPRES.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[DougH 270]

Rstanley0312

This statement and opinion is garbage. Please cite sources and while you are at it... your experience with them as well as jump numbers etc.

I just made a similar request myself, in a thread where he was adding his opinion that a Sabre II was at least 50% safer in turbulence, than the Safire II, in his opinion, and his experience of course.

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

[Rstanley0312 0]

DougH

***
This statement and opinion is garbage. Please cite sources and while you are at it... your experience with them as well as jump numbers etc.

I just made a similar request myself, in a thread where he was adding his opinion that a Sabre II was at least 50% safer in turbulence, than the Safire II, in his opinion, and his experience of course.

I jut saw that.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[lyosha 46]

As I am at work my participation is limited to things I can type in 30 seconds, and I don't have time to do your research for you.

But this is the url for google:

www.google.com

A good place to start would be "Vigil manual" and "Cypres manual". Then you can proceed to Vigil's recent PIA talk.

[lyosha 46]

Two more things that'll paint some more color:

Cypres's explanation for Jeff Nebelkopf's cypres fire (or lack thereof) and their promotional literature during their "our units are too smart to fire during a swoop" days (back before they caved and made the speed cypres).

Glue that all together and you will find my opinion has a solid foundation.

[pchapman 261]

The good old AAD wars.

Yes, Airtec were very arrogant when it came to the issue of 'you can't set it off in a swoop' and Adrian Nicholas' death. But that was a long time ago and they started paying attention to swoop speeds.

But is that any more arrogant than saying that if you drive down a hill or slam a car door or let the aircraft door pop open while climbing, your Vigil might pop.... and that's really just your fault so no product improvements are really needed?

That being said, I have heard that Airtec is still tougher to work with at a professional level, less willing to be flexible to worth with others -- according to a poster involved in tests with special AAD requirements for forestry jumpers.

I'm not sure Vigil (A.A.D.) is all that much better after an incident:
Airtec: "Yup it worked as it should. It fired at X speed and Y altitude. Trust us."
Vigil: "Yup it worked as it should and here's a graph. See, it fired at X speed and Y altitude."

For example, I downloaded from dz.com the Vigil firing graph from the 2010 Colorado incident where it inadvertently fired when the door opened on climbout. That is indeed nice for transparency... but the AAD still fired at a dumb time.

[mxk 1]

Rstanley0312

The CYPRES arrives at firing parameters with greater accuracy bc it uses way more data.

[citation needed]

Rstanley0312

I cannot speak to the M2 but the Vigil does not come close.

[citation needed]

Rstanley0312

I believe it can be trusted to fire when it is supposed to but I do not trust it to not fire when it is not supposed to.

Where's the data to support this statement? I've read about the same number of reports of Vigil and CYPRES firing when not supposed to. Furthermore, without knowing the firmware version and whether that specific case is now handled correctly, old reports are of limited value.

Rstanley0312

My opinion but based on a lot of known facts.

Please share those facts with others. If you provide any evidence for your claims, I will go out and buy a CYPRES for myself. Seriously, I don't mind spending another $1,300 on a new AAD if the facts show that it has a better hardware and software design.

[uer16 1]

Man this is funny.
"A is better than B because facts"
"what facts?"
"Google it"

Unless both companies give away all the C code/hardware design/mechanical design to a 3rd party for analysis all this yelling is senseless and feels like brand loyalty for subjective reasons.

Nobody outside the manufacturer (potentially not even) will ever really know what is going on inside an AAD's brain, and seems like people can't make peace with that.

Besides, describing an AAD as "safety critical" is doing a disservice to it's users imho. It's a consumer electronics device that's made to consumer electronics standards, just like your shitty iPhone. It's not like this crap is certified to DO-178/DO-254/IPC610-class 3, etc...

Wouldn't it be nice if someone made an open-source (both software AND hardware AND mechanical design) AAD, so when it inevitably malfunctions, everyone can take a look at the design and see exactly where it went wrong. And fix it.

// end rant

[lyosha 46]

uer16

Man this is funny.
"A is better than B because facts"
"what facts?"
"Google it"

Unless both companies give away all the C code/hardware design/mechanical design to a 3rd party for analysis all this yelling is senseless and feels like brand loyalty for subjective reasons.

Nobody outside the manufacturer (potentially not even) will ever really know what is going on inside an AAD's brain, and seems like people can't make peace with that.

Besides, describing an AAD as "safety critical" is doing a disservice to it's users imho. It's a consumer electronics device that's made to consumer electronics standards, just like your shitty iPhone. It's not like this crap is certified to DO-178/DO-254/IPC610-class 3, etc...

Wouldn't it be nice if someone made an open-source (both software AND hardware AND mechanical design) AAD, so when it inevitably malfunctions, everyone can take a look at the design and see exactly where it went wrong. And fix it.

// end rant

For all intents and purposes Vigil gave away the pseudocode to their non-speed unit at the latest PIA... after every fire they go through the output from the jump, demonstrate the inputs that led to the firing.

Cypres publically says "unit activated cutter at firing parameters". And that's it. Whatever that means.

[virgin-burner 1]

Rstanley0312

******
This statement and opinion is garbage. Please cite sources and while you are at it... your experience with them as well as jump numbers etc.

I just made a similar request myself, in a thread where he was adding his opinion that a Sabre II was at least 50% safer in turbulence, than the Safire II, in his opinion, and his experience of course.

I jut saw that.

you guys must be jealous from about his wealth of experience which you obviously lack!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[piisfish 135]

virgin-burner

*********
This statement and opinion is garbage. Please cite sources and while you are at it... your experience with them as well as jump numbers etc.

I just made a similar request myself, in a thread where he was adding his opinion that a Sabre II was at least 50% safer in turbulence, than the Safire II, in his opinion, and his experience of course.

I jut saw that.

you guys must be jealous from about his wealth of experience which you obviously lack! i only lack 27% of it.

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

[councilman24 36]

mxk

Where's the data to support this statement? I've read about the same number of reports of Vigil and CYPRES firing when not supposed to. Furthermore, without knowing the firmware version and whether that specific case is now handled correctly, old reports are of limited value.

Citation needed!

I know of no reports of a cypres firing do to pressure changes when it wasn't supposed to, like in a pressurized aircraft or in an automobile. And without required maintenance any number of firmware versions may be in use for years. Cypres' did have an issue, on the ground out an airplane, with static electricity. Field solve provided, hardware fix later.

BTW and not directed mxk unless it applies, but some of the posters on this thread are sponsored by one or the other aad manufacture. At least I've found Vigil sponsored posters. There may be Cypres sponsored posters. Others are anonymous with little information. I believe posting without revealing these sponsorships is disingenuous. Any poster offering opinions or advice should not be anonymous and should reveal any financial interests in any specific gear.

For the record. I am not and have never been sponsored by ANY gear manufacturer. Neither have I ever worked for, am a dealer for or am an owner of any sport gear manufacture. I am a dealer for Aerosport USA, Strong for pilot rigs (I guess sport and tandem if I wanted but I've never been in that business), and Paraphernalia. I have been a member of PIA since 1989 base on being a rigger.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

councilman24

I know of no reports of a cypres firing do to pressure changes when it wasn't supposed to, like in a pressurized aircraft or in an automobile...

I could well be "misremembering", but wasn't there a case at one of the WFFCs where they pressurized the jet on the ground and everyones CYPRES (original) fired?

And another, a few years later, (Thailand?) where they did the same thing, all the Vigils fired and all the CYPRESs shut down?

And, for transparency, not sponsored or anything by anyone in any way. (I agree that knowing which people have a financial interest in what makes for better commentary).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[councilman24 36]

gowlerk

Quote

Add in patent infringements and you have the reason A.A.D. has never been voted into membership of PIA. Vigil USA is a member. Those who claim it's because Cliff was PIA's President didn't set through all of the meetings and votes. Along with AirTec doing it better IMO.

You need to be voted in to be a member of PIA? It's not enough to be a manufacturer of a parachute related company and pay your dues? That knocks PIA down at least 2 notches in my eyes. I thought it was an association for parachute related companies. Now I find out that it's more of an exclusive club dedicated to preserving the status quo in the market. They refuse to admit AAD as a member? AAD is a major manufacturer with a large and growing market share. And you don't think Airtec and SSK have something to do with keeping them out?

It says a lot that although AAD is not in enough favor to join the club, the Vigil USA is allowed in. We all know who owns that company. None of this looks very good on PIA.

Airtec did indeed go a long way in revolutionizing AADs. But that does not entitle them to expect an iron grip on the market. Even if the owner is very popular within the club.

Would you rather that PIA let skyride be a member and use the logo? or the scam sellers on here?

Go read the PIA member list and the Code of Ethics. First, SSK and Airtec at the most have had three votes for three member companies, at the time of A.A.D.'s membership votes I believe only two. Membership requires approval of the voting members present. Sport equipment manufacturers are always in the minority. Majority members include companies that forge the hardware, that make the nylon, that weave the fabric, that make only PEP's or military equipment, that deal with parachutes for the U.S. government. There have been elections where the U.S. government members could have likely taken over control of PIA.

PIA requires a vote of members to prevent companies that don't reach the level of involvement or level of ethical business practices appropriate in the COLLECTIVE opinion of the membership. It is an organization of competitors. These include Airtec, Mars and FXC. I haven't attended every meeting in the recent past but I've attended a majority of them since about 1999. (This means business meetings, not symposiums. I've only missed two symposiums since 1991) The only company I remember being denied (and they were denied twice) is A.A.D. There may have been another one that was determined not to be in the industry in any way. A.A.D. was denied not because Cliff was President. For those who knew Cliff you now he was a gentleman and very fare. A businessman dedicated to his product? Sure. They were denied because the membership that didn't have a dog in the fight and some of whom didn't know what an aad was (representatives from forge companies, fabric weavers, etc.) were convinced that the business practices at the time were not in accord with PIA's code of ethics. PIA is anything but exclusive. If we can't confirm a companies business (has happened with some Asian companies) they might be delayed.

BTW, not necessarily directed at you unless it applies, I have found posters on this and other threads that are sponsored by one or another aad manufacturer. I believe that anyone offering an opinion or advice on any equipment should disclose any relationship with companies being discussed. I'm going to recommend that a sponsorship list be added to the profile.

I have never been sponsored by anyone in the parachute industry and have never worked for, been a dealer for or am an owner of any sport gear manufacturer. Those who know me know I'm fiercely independent, as well as opinionated.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[councilman24 36]

I don't recall Cypres' firing in the original 727 jet in Quincy but maybe they did. There may have been an issue with the first jet. There certainly was for exit speed.

You are right about Vigils firing and Cypres' turning off in Thailand. They also fired at the WFFC Rantoul in the DC-9. I find turning off when confused about conditions measured instead of firing when they shouldn't to be much better. One of the biggest obstacles to getting experienced jumpers to use an aad was the concern and fear of it firing when it wasn't supposed to. This was an issued with FXC 12000's when used by experienced jumpers. At the time of introduction of the Cypres many experienced jumpers wouldn't jump with someone wearing an aad. Partly why the control unit of the cypres was hidden.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Ok, it may have been Vigils firing in the DC-9 at Rantoul that I'm "misremembering" as CYPRESs.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mcordell 2]

councilman24

Any poster offering opinions or advice should not be anonymous and should reveal any financial interests in any specific gear.

I'm an M2 dealer...but I only answered a question about if they offered a 2 pin model. That being said, now you know.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[Rstanley0312 0]

councilman24

***

Where's the data to support this statement? I've read about the same number of reports of Vigil and CYPRES firing when not supposed to. Furthermore, without knowing the firmware version and whether that specific case is now handled correctly, old reports are of limited value.

Citation needed!

I know of no reports of a cypres firing do to pressure changes when it wasn't supposed to, like in a pressurized aircraft or in an automobile. And without required maintenance any number of firmware versions may be in use for years. Cypres' did have an issue, on the ground out an airplane, with static electricity. Field solve provided, hardware fix later.

BTW and not directed mxk unless it applies, but some of the posters on this thread are sponsored by one or the other aad manufacture. At least I've found Vigil sponsored posters. There may be Cypres sponsored posters. Others are anonymous with little information. I believe posting without revealing these sponsorships is disingenuous. Any poster offering opinions or advice should not be anonymous and should reveal any financial interests in any specific gear.

For the record. I am not and have never been sponsored by ANY gear manufacturer. Neither have I ever worked for, am a dealer for or am an owner of any sport gear manufacture. I am a dealer for Aerosport USA, Strong for pilot rigs (I guess sport and tandem if I wanted but I've never been in that business), and Paraphernalia. I have been a member of PIA since 1989 base on being a rigger.

The biggest thing is Vigil still has this problem. Be carefulwith the trunks slamming......

Full disclosure: I get free servicing on my CYPRES that is the extent of my "sponsership". I also worked with CYPRES/SSK on a large bid for a project that I cannot discuss due to NDA's. That is why I know more than the average bear about how the CYPRES works as well as the competition.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[hackish 8]

Rstanley0312

The biggest thing is Vigil still has this problem. Be carefulwith the trunks slamming......

Full disclosure: I get free servicing on my CYPRES that is the extent of my "sponsership". I also worked with CYPRES/SSK on a large bid for a project that I cannot discuss due to NDA's. That is why I know more than the average bear about how the CYPRES works as well as the competition.

Can you point to any threads here about vigils popping when trunks are slammed? On the ground they wouldn't be in active mode no matter how hard you slammed the trunk.

From the vigil website:
http://www.vigil.aero/vigil-how-it-works

Quote

During take off, Vigil I and Vigil II will go to an “active” status from 150 ft / 46m in a time of max. 32 seconds. Vigil 2+ will go to an “active” status at a fixed 1000ft / 305m altitude because it starts taking measurement 8 times per second already at 90ft / 27,5m.

I'm all about discussion here but when you make statements please make sure they have some semblance of accuracy.

-Michael

[Rstanley0312 0]

hackish

***

The biggest thing is Vigil still has this problem. Be carefulwith the trunks slamming......

Full disclosure: I get free servicing on my CYPRES that is the extent of my "sponsership". I also worked with CYPRES/SSK on a large bid for a project that I cannot discuss due to NDA's. That is why I know more than the average bear about how the CYPRES works as well as the competition.

Can you point to any threads here about vigils popping when trunks are slammed? On the ground they wouldn't be in active mode no matter how hard you slammed the trunk.

From the vigil website:
http://www.vigil.aero/vigil-how-it-works

Quote

During take off, Vigil I and Vigil II will go to an “active” status from 150 ft / 46m in a time of max. 32 seconds. Vigil 2+ will go to an “active” status at a fixed 1000ft / 305m altitude because it starts taking measurement 8 times per second already at 90ft / 27,5m.

I'm all about discussion here but when you make statements please make sure they have some semblance of accuracy.

-Michael

It's been discussed here. I am sure you can use the search tool but I also know of it happening to a jumper that I know.

edited to say... not trying to be a dick just rushing to get out of the office.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Unstable 8]

Quote

I'm an M2 dealer...but I only answered a question about if they offered a 2 pin model. That being said, now you know.

OK, here is another question - when is the 2-pin model coming out? I can't imaging that it takes much engineering to make that happen.

=========Shaun ==========

[mcordell 2]

Unstable

Quote

I'm an M2 dealer...but I only answered a question about if they offered a 2 pin model. That being said, now you know.

OK, here is another question - when is the 2-pin model coming out? I can't imaging that it takes much engineering to make that happen.

That I don't know. To be honest if I were an AAD manufacturer I wouldn't make a 2 pin model. The reason I say that is because Sherman has openly stated he doesn't approve any AADs in his rigs (even though they are AAD ready) and so I wouldn't go out of my way to make an AAD that can be used in a racer which I believe comprises the majority of 2 pin containers on the sport market. Maybe I'm wrong about that. There are far more 1 pin containers out there than there are 2 pin containers and quite frankly I'm not sure it would be worth the expense to produce a 2 pin model. That is just MY opinion and not that of Mars or M2 distribution. I don't know if or when there will be a 2 pin M2.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

OK, here is another question - when is the 2-pin model coming out? I can't imaging that it takes much engineering to make that happen.

It may be related to the 15 year battery needing more power to fire two cutters. Or it may be simply the size of the market. Racers, Tandem Racers, and Strong Dual Hawk Tandems. Any others?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Unstable 8]

Quote

It may be related to the 15 year battery needing more power to fire two cutters. Or it may be simply the size of the market. Racers, Tandem Racers, and Strong Dual Hawk Tandems. Any others?

I think that's it. Jumpshack is still cranking out rigs and it seems every DZ has at least a small handful, but I would think the biggest market is the Strong Dual Hawks. At least here in the Midwest, *most Cessna DZ's are using strongs, and we have 2x IE's right in the area. I have not seen the TNT (their 1 pin model) making a big splash in the market, but then again it is competing directly with the Sigma.

Edited to add*
More I think about it, the more I lean towards the adaption to a 2-pin model would make economic sense. I'll be the first to say I have not seen the numbers, but Airtec, AAD, and Aviacom (defunct) found it profitable to make 2-pin adaptions, so I would be interested in the numbers if M2 came to a different conclusion. Talking to my contact at JS, their output has increased, not decreased, since 2001, so I find it a hard argument to believe that the demand for 2-pin models is in decline.

=========Shaun ==========