0
kallend

Who's raised their CYPRES 2 firing altitude?

Recommended Posts

I will be raising mine when I get it back from service. Probably +2.

For whatever it's worth, I'm 200lbs before gear and I pull around 3200. I've been in freefall at 2 grand exactly one time in a thousand and have no intention of doing again.
--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In reading your comments I am thinking of raising my cypress2 by 300 feet. I am concerned that I am jumping with both a main and a reserve that are at the "tight" fit for both the main and the reserve in my container. I don't want to be going through 1050 with out anything over my head ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24

Yes, when we think that can help. Issues?



Lots!

USPA raised the minimum pull altitude in response to PIA lobbying efforts so the AAD manufacturers could change their arming and fire altitudes. Only that has not happened!

So rather than fix all the "small problems," PIA has chosen a shotgun method of making everyone pull higher. How about PIA does some housekeeping and asks its members to make sure their gear really works according to the law.

It also seemed like the minimum opening altitude BSR change was a good benchmark to see if PIA had enough pull to change the minimum age for skydiving.

What is PIA going to ask USPA to change next?

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Terry,

Quote

Jo Oosterveer from Belgium is coming to business meetings so NOBODY has an excuse.:P



Just a little correction, Jo is actually coming from The Netherlands ;)
"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24


In any case we know the gear, canopies and H/C's, have changed since the introduction of the CYPRES and VIGIL. We know that canopy/rig choices made by jumpers have changed. We know that rigging practices vary. We know that skydiving itself, the maneuvers we do before we open our parachute have changed. We know lots of stuff has changed. The PIA technical committee has been trying to understand why this has become an issue and have some studies planned. Again, some folks on here will say THEY KNOW. You can agree with them or not.



Terry - has anyone done the following test after such 'mysterious' fatality: take *the* rig, repack the main a the reserve, put it on a person or dummy (on the floor), and do the PIA/BPA freebag extraction test. Maybe the scale would show 100 lbs then, for example? Has anyone done that after any of the 'strange' fatalities, where the reserves did not open in time???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a good idea doesn't it. But practical, legal and other issues get in the way. First the gear is usually impounded.by the police. In my area IF the FAA shows up at all its days later and usually just to look at the packing data card. Maybe they bring a rigger maybe not. The gear may be held for a long time but when it is released its often now potential evidence in a lawsuit. At least some lawyer will be looking for one. Often the gear manufacturer can't get a look at it.

To PIA testing it. Sometimes I don't think people realize what PIA is. PIA has no staff other than one part time nontechnical assistant. Committees are made up of volunteers from member organizations, often competing manufacturers. EVEN IF PIA had access to the gear who would anyone trust to do such a test? The lawyer will want their own hired gun to do it, the manufacturer will want to do it but they're likely trying to avoid or defend a lawsuit, many riggers are dealers or have affiliations with manufacturers, etc. For instance the material chair of the rigging committee works for Sandy Reid at USAPR. The chair of technical committee did work for sunpath and now owns his own rig company. There are a few members like me that are independent. I don't make my living from skydiving, I'm not a sport gear dealer or have any other relationship with manufacturers other than being a dealer for softie. I used to be a dealer for Strong for a couple years but only dealt with PEPs. But even I.have my own biases. So who would everyone trust? That's not.to.say I wouldn't trust the folks I've mentioned but.not everyone would. And a lot of folks wouldn't want to do it anyway with gear that has become a biohazard.

And I'm not sure it would prove much. Each rigger is unique in their packing, often part of the gear is damaged. Any test pack would not duplicate the previous one. And then the person who did it would be subject to being called as a witness by either side in a lawsuit.

In other countries where the APF, BPA and others have been given authority by the government or where the government has taken more authority like France it might be easier. Could someone have done this in Poland with the gear from the fatality that involved an Argus?

Yes, maybe someone, maybe PIA should do this but it just becomes hard to overcome all these issues.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we (PIA Risk Management Committee) asked USPA to do is to change the altitude level action description from 'pack opening' to 'fully open and functioning parachute' which is defined in the TSO. This would still have allowed near 2000' exits with fast opening canopies. USPA chose to move the levels.

Why did PIA ask this? Because no matter what the cause of the incidents where AAD's fire and reserves don't open in time skydiving has changed. Airtec determined it's 750' firing altitude in the early 90's when there was no freeflying, no tracking dives, no speed skydiving and when containers were less 'boxed' in, when riser covers were simpler and didn't cover as much of the reserve container, when reserves weren't being designed to open at the slow end of the allowed time and when canopies opened in 200-400 ft instead of 800-1000 ft. We belly flew with Vector II's, Northern Lites, Racers, Centarus's and Talons. We jumped F-111 or early zp canopies that we tried to slow down.

Skydiving and it's equipment has changed from 1991 and we believed the AAD activation altitudes needed to also. In order to convince manufacturer's to do that we needed to have canopies open before 1200-1400 ft resulting from 2000' pack opening and new canopy designs.

And one AAD manufacturer HAS responded. For several years Airtec would increase your Cypres' firing altitude by 100 or 200'. It was a one time, factory adjustment and could not be changed in the field. Their answer last year was to make it user adjustable up to 1650'. So it has happened. I hope that the two other current electronic manufacturers will follow suit. And Airtec did it in such a way to maintain the belief of the owner but give the individual the choice.

Another part of PIA (technical committee) is trying to learn why this is happening. PIA along with USPA asked for some data from the field and received essentially none. Studies have been done by both individual manufacturers and PIA committees trying to gather data to IDENTIFY problems, not opinions. I have opinions, you have opinions but before a trade organization takes any action affecting it's members it needs to have more than opinions.

PIA, as a group of VOLUNTEERS from various manufactures as well as independent folks like me, has no regulatory power or even any ability to call out any manufacturer. BTW not all container manufacturers, or other manufacturers, are members of PIA. The list is available in the PIA yellow pages on the website. I'll let you figure out who is missing. PIA as an organization of competitors goes out of it's way not to comment on the quality of ANY product. Even when many manufactures were 'banning' the Argus from their rigs PIA was careful to not take a position because it is NOT PIA's BUSINESS TO COMMENT ON QUALITY OR FUNCTION OF ANY PRODUCT. To do so, especially of a non member's product could, lead to civil liability and perhaps criminal liability under anti trust laws. And even though we were very careful NOT to discuss the suitability of the Argus in PIA meetings PIA is still being sued by the owner of Argus. PIA did and continues to post service and other bulletins from those in the industry.

There is no grand conspiracy. All PIA meetings with the exception of the discussion and vote for new member applications are open to the public, including executive committee meetings. Anybody is able, invited, and welcome to attend.

Did PIA advocate for 18? Yes. Why? Because of incidents like the one in Oklahoma with the injured 16 year old who went through S/L training and then said she thought she was doing a tandem.:S Many, many lawsuits naming gear manufacturers, DZ's and others have been dismissed or never filed because of effective waivers. In this country, a wavier is meaningless for anyone under the age of majority, mostly 18 but higher in some places. We know how several manufacturers have been affected by lawsuits. When the subject becomes a child and it gets to a jury all bets are off. Even when the product didn't have a chance of working, with the loop not through the cutter, the lawsuit is continuing against Airtec.

We already all pay higher gear prices because of frivolous liability claims. It won't take much for other manufacturers to go the way of ParaFlite, Security and SSE and either become a military contractor only, not do business in the U.S. or go out of business entirely. In order to skydive we have to have gear.

The next PIA business meetings are in Denver in August. Anybody and everybody is invited to attend, offer comments if you'd like and even become a member. There have been very few applications ever turned down and I'm more than glad to be a sponsor and help anybody get another sponsor. Application is here.http://www.pia.com/NEWS/MembershipAppInstFix.pdf

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't build gear, I don't sell gear (with the exception of an occasional pilot rig), I don't own a DZ, I don't even work at a DZ anymore. I do some jumping (not as much as I'd like), I do some rigging, do some rigger training and testing, I try to help with rigger education and try to be an independent voice in PIA to help the sport.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24


And one AAD manufacturer HAS responded. For several years Airtec would increase your Cypres' firing altitude by 100 or 200'. It was a one time, factory adjustment and could not be changed in the field. Their answer last year was to make it user adjustable up to 1650'. So it has happened. I hope that the two other current electronic manufacturers will follow suit. And Airtec did it in such a way to maintain the belief of the owner but give the individual the choice.



As a member of the PIA and speaking as an authority on the subject of aads, I believe you do the skydiving community a grave dis-service by suggesting that Cypres is the only aad that can increase it's firing altitude.

Surely you must know that Vigil has had the ability for the user to set an "altitude correction" for many years now. In fact, it can be increased in increments of 150 ft (50 meters) up to + 6000 ft (+ 2000 meters). Maybe you didn't know that once the altitude correction is set in the unit, it becomes the default every time the unit is turned on until the user changes it back (or to some other altitude correction).

I doubt your statement was intentionally misleading but when young jumpers read this stuff, they get confused by those of us, who should be more knowledgeable, making statements that are less than factual.

We all make mistakes but for the benefit of those less knowledgeable, I believe we all need to be more careful in the future.
Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altitude corrections for landing field elevation different from take off elevation is NOT what we are discussing. These corrections on both the Vigil and the Cypres (which has had it from day 1) change not only firing altitude but deactivation altitude and should NOT be used if you want to change the firing altitude ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. These corrections are to be used when the landing at a site with a different GROUND elevation than the take off airfield and hence the automatic zero calibration is not ground level where landing.

From the vigil II manual
"An “altitude correction” mode allows you to introduce a positive or negative altitude
difference between the departure and landing levels
(from +6000ft to -6000 ft or from +2000m to -2000m) in steps of
150ft or 50 m. " emphasis added

From the 2012 Cypres II manual, before addition of the firing altitude adjustment added.

"You must change the altitude reference whenever
the airfield and the dropzone where you intend to
land are at different elevations.
CYPRES allows for adjustments of up to plus/
minus 3000 feet, or plus/minus 1000 meters."

We all make mistakes but for the benefit of those less knowledgeable, I believe we all need to be more careful in the future.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skydivesg


Surely you must know that Vigil has had the ability for the user to set an "altitude correction" for many years now.



To add to that a little:
On the Vigil the correction for opening altitude and different landing zone are combined into that single "altitude correction". On the Cypres in contrast, there are two separate corrections that act in slightly different ways. I figure that initially, the Vigil correction was really only for special cases -- the manuals mention using it for a different elevation LZ, or having a hill close to the airport.

Only in the last few years, perhaps, when people started wondering whether AAD firing altitudes are sufficient for reserve deployment, would people start thinking about using the "altitude correction" to set a higher firing altitude for general purpose jumping.

Edit:
Councilman24 added another post before I was done this one.

Yes it does look like the Vigil method -- although it is a firing altitude adjustment -- is not quite as sophisticated, in how it treats the de-activation zone (before landing) when applying an adjustment....

To add to what was said about adjusting the Vigil for LZ differences, they also mention in the manual using the altitude adjustment "if there is a hillock near the drop zone." - so it is more than just an LZ adjustment, even if one might argue it isn't a great way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've bumped up my Vigil's activation altitude by one increment (150 feet). It's interesting to note that the deactivation window also raises. In all honesty, though, whether it fires at 150 ft or 300 ft, it isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As posted above the deactivation altitude DOES change on a vigil when using the field elevation correction. It took me a long time to find it but it is in the manual.

These adjustments again are not intended to adjust activation altitude while jumping at one dropzone. They may have that effect but they have other unintended effects also. And not the same as having the factory default at 1050 or so.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am of the understanding that the deactivation (don't bother) altitude and the arming altitude after take off are one and the same for the Vigil. If that's the case, and you change your Vigil ground offset to make it fire at an altitude at or higher than the altitude where doors and windows get opened on the aircraft on climb up, then you are asking for your Vigil to "perform as designed" right into someone's face.

Per my observation in post #22, it's not clear to me whether changing the firing altitude of a Cypres 2 (using the new adjustment, not the LZ offset) has the potential to introduce the same problem on that platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been contacted by someone associated with Vigil America and told that the deactivation altitude does not change when adding a plus altitude correction. I still haven't found anything in the manual that says this. Since all the references to altitude correction are up and down I assumed the deactivation altitude must be moving.

I sincerely apologize if I have misunderstood the manual and given wrong information here. We all keep learning. For now please consider anything I've said about how the Vigil operates as wrong. Until I get clarification about the deactivation altitude I don't understand.

Again, my apologies to Vigil and everyone else for any incorrect statements.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then Vigil did a poor job in the manual.

The manual says "The Vigil® releases at 840 Ft. (256 meters) and below till 150 Ft." It does not make clear that increasing the firing altitude with the "altitude correction", adjusts the 840 ft level, but not the whole 150 to 840 ft zone. Indeed since the manual tends to show the "altitude correction" to largely be about LZ's at different altitudes, one might guess that the 150 ft no-fire zone moves to follow the planned LZ altitude.

So their manual is inadequate in describing the functions of their device. Let them apologize.


So we have the situation for a jumper:

If you put a positive altitude correction into your Vigil, which must be in steps of 150 ft, and you are landing at a landing zone 150 ft or more higher than takeoff, you will have no no-fire zone on the Vigil.

If you apply the positive altitude correction in order to bump up the firing altitude in general, the no-fire zone will continue to be 150 ft above ground.


(For the thread, note that Councilman says Vigil said the deactivation altitude does not change with a PLUS altitude correction. It is important to know that it does change with a minus correction ... otherwise one could have it inhibit the Vigil from every firing if one were landing 1000' low...)


Edit:
We need someone to get an official statement from Vigil, on their web site, describing how the altitude offset actually works, and its implications for jumpers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've asked for a call back to help me understand. I still don't get it. If deactivation doesn't change and you increase 400' altitude offset then will it never deactivate? (shaking head confused) I've been told Vigil has said that using the offset is appropriate for changing activation altitude. If so I've missed it.

I need to know to advise my customers but until I figure it out I'm done talking about Vigils.

Edit I only repeated what someone else told me about the deactivation alt. didn't change with a PLUS change. I don't know.

Second edit.

Okay. I have been told by someone associated with Vigil America that the 150' deactivation altitude does not change/move with a positive/plus altitude correction. This is not in the current manual. It is part of the reason the manual stresses turning off the Vigil if you do a correction and land at a higher LZ. The unit remains in airborne mode, with higher sampling rate and activation enabled. I've learned something today, apologized to Vigil for my misunderstanding and can better serve my customers.

Look to Vigil for more information.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24

I've been contacted by someone associated with Vigil America and told that the deactivation altitude does not change when adding a plus altitude correction. I still haven't found anything in the manual that says this. Since all the references to altitude correction are up and down I assumed the deactivation altitude must be moving.

I sincerely apologize if I have misunderstood the manual and given wrong information here. We all keep learning. For now please consider anything I've said about how the Vigil operates as wrong. Until I get clarification about the deactivation altitude I don't understand.

Again, my apologies to Vigil and everyone else for any incorrect statements.



Terry, allow me to give you credit for being man enough to admit your confusion on this issue. Many people (in fact I believe most) would not have the integrity to come on here and post what you just did.

Kudos to you and thank you for that.

Sandy Grillet

councilman24

I've asked for a call back to help me understand. I still don't get it. If deactivation doesn't change and you increase 400' altitude offset then will it never deactivate? (shaking head confused) I've been told Vigil has said that using the offset is appropriate for changing activation altitude. If so I've missed it.

I need to know to advise my customers but until I figure it out I'm done talking about Vigils.

Edit I only repeated what someone else told me about the deactivation alt. didn't change with a PLUS change. I don't know.



The reason I am so sure of myself in regards to how the Vigil works is because of the hours of time I've spent reading and working to understand the manual along with a multitude of phone calls and emails with upper management at Vigil in addition to two separate (hour long) seminars and Q&A with Candace Procos - Director of Vigil America, Mark Procos - General Manager of UPT Vector and Distributor for Vigil America and Joe Smolders Director and President of Advanced Aerospace Designs in Belgium, maker of the Vigil aad.

But I agree - the manual could be more clear when it comes to the "Altitude Correction" and everything regarding that. However, I do have it on good confidence that the manual is in the process of being rewritten to coincide with the new Vigil 2 + which was officially announced yesterday and will start shipping around the first of May.

In the mean time, please allow me to take a stab at an explanation. For this - let's assume we are taking off and landing at the same location.

The Vigil has two altitudes and one ground level setting aka - "Ground Zero". The "Ground Zero" setting is accomplished by turning on the unit at the take off zone which for this example (and in fact for most of us), is at the DZ. Think of it as "zeroing" your altimeter.

Now that we have "Ground Zero" - the unit measures the atmosphere every 32 seconds but once it senses that it has increased or climbed in altitude to 150 feet (50 meters) above "Ground Zero" [or- for you pilots - AGL (above ground level)] it then goes into Active or "Airborne Mode".

In "Airborne Mode" it reads the atmosphere, barometric pressure, speeds etc., 8 times per second.

It stays in "Airborne Mode" until it senses that it has descended below the "Airborne Altitude" of 150 feet or the term many people like to use (but is not used in the manual) the "disarming altitude".

No matter how hard you try and no matter how many people disagree - this 150 feet "Airborne Altitude" can not be changed. And it is separate from the "Activation Altitude". I wish it stated it that simply in the manual and hopefully it will in the new version.

The 150 feet "Airborne Altitude" is locked in to the "Ground Zero" reading. It will always be 150 feet above the ground. It simply does not change just because you change the "Activation Altitude" [Altitude Correction].

Taking a look at this excerpt from the manual, you'll see that even though the activation altitudes are different for each mode, the 150 feet does not change. And to take it one step further - you'll notice that the only difference between "Pro" and "Tandem" mode is the altitude correction of + 1200 feet.

Quote


3.3.1. “PRO” Mode
The Vigil® cutter activates at 840 ft. (256 meters) and below until 150 ft. (46 meters),
if the freefall speed is equal or superior to 35 m/sec. (78 mph or 126 km/h)*

3.3.2. “STUDENT” Mode
The Vigil® cutter activates at 1040 ft. (317 meters) and below until 150 ft. (46 meters),
if the freefall speed is equal or superior to 20 m/sec. (45 mph or 72 km/h)*

3.3.3. “TANDEM” Mode
The Vigil® cutter activates at 2040 ft. (622 meters) and below until 150 ft. (46 meters),
if the freefall speed is equal or superior to 35 m/sec. (78 mph or 126 km/h)*



I think the mistake being made by many people is the same mistake I was first making, which was reading between the lines in the manual and trying too hard to make a connection between the "activation altitude" and the "airborne altitude".

Once I realized there is no connection between the two altitudes, everything became a lot more simple and made sense.

It is my understanding that Vigil will be adding a section to the new manual regarding the use of the "Altitude Correction" as a permanent answer to the desire to increase the "Activation (firing) Altitude". I also believe they will address the ambiguity of the 150 feet "Airborne Mode"

I hope this helps.

Sandy Grillet
Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy, thanks for the info you have provided here, and in my recent thread regarding this issue (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4617303). I appreciate your time and patience in speaking about this.

I understand that you have spoken about this at length with the manufacturer, so hopefully you can clarify one point that is still troubling me. This point was raised by another user towards the end of my thread, but it was not addressed in that thread.

You assert that both the ground zero and the airborne mode activation altitudes are static, and are not affected by the altitude correction parameter. By following that logic, it seems as though someone who programs a large enough negative altitude correction (landing zone lower than takeoff zone) would not have a properly functioning AAD for their jump. See the following for an explanation:

Presumably (correct me if I am wrong), when you set the ground zero reference point at the takeoff point, the Vigil measures the surrounding air pressure. Let's say the takeoff zone is 2000ft above sea level. This gives us a barometric pressure of 95kPa. So the Vigil records this as the ground zero point, and also calculates the altitude at which airborne mode will activate. According to you, this doesn't change even if an altitude correction is programmed into the unit.

So for a takeoff zone at 2000ft above sea level:
Ground zero @ 2000ft above sea level, 95kPa
Airborne mode activates @ 2150ft, 94kPa
Vigil will fire at 840ft above landing zone @ 2840ft above sea level, 92kPa

Now let's imagine that the landing zone is only 500ft above sea level. The user would then program a -1500ft altitude correction into the Vigil. Presumably (again, correct me if I am wrong), this parameter change instructs the Vigil not to fire until it reaches an altitude of 1340ft above sea level (500ft + 840ft):

For a -1500ft altitude correction:
Vigil will fire at 840ft above landing zone @ 1340ft, 97kPa

But this is a lower altitude (and a higher barometric pressure) than the point at which airborne mode was activated. This seems to present a problem. You say:

Quote

It stays in "Airborne Mode" until it senses that it has descended below the "Airborne Altitude" of 150 feet or the term many people like to use (but is not used in the manual) the "disarming altitude". No matter how hard you try and no matter how many people disagree - this 150 feet "Airborne Altitude" can not be changed.



Following this logic, if airborne mode is activated at 2150ft, then it will also deactivate at 2150ft on the descent. This seems to suggest that in this situation, programming a negative altitude correction would result in a disarmed AAD at the altitude that it is designed to fire. Of course I doubt that this is the way that the Vigil is designed to work, but this is where we arrive after following the argument that the airborne altitude / "disarming altitude" is not affected by programming an altitude correction.

There are two possible explanations that I can see:

* My deductions above are flawed
* The airborne altitude / "disarming altitude" parameter is also somehow changed when an altitude correction is programmed

Note, that it is irrelevant whether the above situation of a 3000ft takeoff zone and 1500ft landing zone is a likely scenario or not. The point is that it also has implications for using the altitude correction parameter when the takeoff and landing zones are the same. My point is that it is unlikely that Vigil would allow a negative altitude correction if it was going to result in the unit "disarming" prior to reaching the altitude at which it is programmed to fire. For this reason, I feel as though there is more to the story than the ground zero points and the "disarming altitude" being completely static.

Again, I appreciate your time in trying to understand where I'm coming from. I feel like this is an important point to straighten out before deciding whether or not to change the activation altitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, I haven't had a chance to digest both previous posts but 'always be 150' ABOVE GROUND' is misleading. The deactivation ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE will always.be the same.as.equivalent to 150' above the ground level.zero. If you land 400' above the ground level.zero, where you turned on the Vigil, the deactivation altitude is 250' below ground level. That's why the manual tells you to turn off the Vigil right away. In a situation like this the Vigil is still in the higher sampling rate airborne mode.

I said I wasn't going to talk about this but above ground, instead of above ground level zero is very different.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24

Thanks, I haven't had a chance to digest both previous posts but 'always be 150' ABOVE GROUND' is misleading. The deactivation ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE will always.be the same.as.equivalent to 150' above the ground level.zero. If you land 400' above the ground level.zero, where you turned on the Vigil, the deactivation altitude is 250' below ground level. That's why the manual tells you to turn off the Vigil right away. In a situation like this the Vigil is still in the higher sampling rate airborne mode.

I said I wasn't going to talk about this but above ground, instead of above ground level zero is very different.



It's not misleading if we stay within the parameters of my explantion.

I think mixing things together is what often causes confusion. This is from my post above.

skydivesg

In the mean time, please allow me to take a stab at an explanation. For this - let's assume we are taking off and landing at the same location.



I don't doubt people would like the answers to the questions you've posed, but for now I think we should let people digest the simplest form of "Ground Zero" and how to set their Vigil to activate at a higher altitude - which is the general subject of this thread.

I'm not sure how many people regularly land at significantly different elevations than they take off, but based on my travels, which are extensive, and conversations with manufacutrer's tour reps, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of jumpers take off and land at the same location/elevation.

So in an effort to not muddy up these waters maybe we could go to another thread to discuss taking off and landing at different elevations. But before that I would like to see what Vigil does with this new manual.
Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not ignoring your post but as I just mentioned in the post above, I would like to address setting a Vigil to activate at a higher altitude for the vast majority of jumpers who take off and land at the same location/elevation.

In an attempt to keep confusion to a minumum, I suggest we disuss your scenario in another thread.

But again, lets wait for the new Vigil manual.
Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0