mcstain

Ok thanks, that makes sense. In Australia the requirement to wear a camera is a C license, which can be obtained after a minimum of 100 jumps. I'm not saying I'm going to strap a camera on for my 101st jump, but I don't think it's totally inconceivable that the AS100 would still be a current model once I start looking for a camera. Let me clarify - I am asking whether mounting the camera on the same side as your PC throw increases the chances of a snag compared to mounting it on the opposite side.

Jesus dude just shut up. Nobody cares about your advanced powers of sarcasm and irony, or your extensive knowledge of the mobile industry.

I do have an Ozone already. My worry is that there aren't any really true flat spots on the helmet. If you're referring to the section over the ear (see attached picture), it's not really flat from memory (but I'd have to check my helmet to be sure). Wouldn't a left hand side mount be less likely to snag the PC/bridle on deployment? I'm actually not very familiar with the Ozone. If you're concerned about the snag hazard then don't do it. I've have a pretty aggressive throw on my p/c and I can't remember the last time I ever had to deploy without being rock solid stable. Frankly, if you're concerned about your main p/c or bridle snagging with something on your helmet the you're not ready to jump any camera. Based on your jump numbers - why are you in a hurry to put any snag hazard on your head? I figured that would be the reaction I would get with my low jump numbers. I'm not in a hurry to put a snag hazard on my head - I'm the kind of person to over-research anything and everything before I go ahead and make a decision. From the time I decided I wanted to get into skydiving it was two years before I made my first jump. I'm just looking into cameras now as I'm toying with the idea of a full face helmet. If I can't mount a camera on my Ozone it would influence my decision. In regards to snag hazards, I accept that all cameras are a risk, but my question still stands: given that we toss out a PC on the right hand side, wouldn't it be at least slightly less likely to present a snag hazard if the camera was mounted on the left? You mentioned that it was best to mount a camera on the right hand side. Why is that?

I do have an Ozone already. My worry is that there aren't any really true flat spots on the helmet. If you're referring to the section over the ear (see attached picture), it's not really flat from memory (but I'd have to check my helmet to be sure). Wouldn't a left hand side mount be less likely to snag the PC/bridle on deployment?

The only thing I can find on this issue is Chuting Star suggesting that the Ozone can only be top mounted: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3567604 Have shot them an email to confirm.

Would this be suitable? http://www.chutingstar.com/skydive/sony-action-cam-sleeve The description mentions the G3 and Fuel but doesn't specifically indicate that it would work for the Ozone.

http://www.dropzone.com/news/Gear/Best_Action_Camera_2014_-_Ultimate_POV_Camera_Shootout_1027.html Link to the write-up. Great info, thanks DSE! Can anyone tell me whether it would be possible to mount the AS100 to a Cookie Ozone?

He spent it on tandems. Seriously.

From their website: http://www.skydivedubai.ae/contact-us.html This is for the Palm dropzone. I believe you can jump in the desert without restriction.

To be fair, if you'd actually read his post you'd realise that it was his buddy who bought the N3 - he started the topic because he was considering buying one himself. He's trying to do the right thing by getting to know the gear before purchase.

Wait, are you saying he was trying to use it as an audible altimeter in freefall but was wearing it on his wrist? You will not be able to hear the alarms in freefall unless it is mounted on the helmet somehow. Those who wear it on the wrist are probably using it mainly for the visual digital altimeter, plus maybe for alarms under canopy. But to use the freefall alarms it cannot be worn on the wrist.

Point taken. Perhaps we should get a mod to move our posts to a new thread regardless, as the original topic is related to Cypres 2, not the Vigil... Might not be a bad idea to direct the Vigil reps to the two recent threads in which these discussions have been playing out: Current thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4621027 Similar thread in Gear and Rigging forum: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4617303

I can't find any information on this, do you have any?

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: 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.

I work in psychology, and the Myers-Briggs personality tests are seen by many to be about as useful as astrology. See here for some general criticisms of the scales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

I have a Cookie Ozone open face helmet and saw that you can add a chin cup to it. As someone who won't be flying a camera for a long time, what are the advantages and disadvantages of using a chin cup (non-cutaway style, see attachment). My guess is that it provide a small amount of impact protection to the jaw, but might also be less comfortable? It wouldn't be an expensive addition, so would it be worth considering if I'm not flying camera?

Ok, thanks for the clarification, this is exactly what I was after. When I saw the diagram showing the Cypres window, I wanted to know whether the Vigil operated within a similar kind of window. I understand that the two products are different, but I'm trying to understand the ways in which they differ. I disagree, just trying to understand my gear. The recent fatality in Otay appears to be related to a failure to understand the parameters under which the AAD will operate correctly. I'm trying to avoid the same thing happening to me. Thanks for your input, I appreciate you taking the time to understand my question properly.

The term offset came from the use of that word in relation to changing the activation altitude of a Cypres in this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/forum/Skydiving_C1/Gear_and_Rigging_F6/Changing_activation_altitude_on__Cypre_2_P4465101/. The term offset refers to changing a parameter to account for differences between takeoff and landing altitudes, while activation altitude refers to a parameter that solely controls the height at which the cutter fires. The Cypres has two different settings because if you were to change the offset parameter in order to increase the activation altitude, this would also raise the height at which the Cypres disarms. I understand that the Vigil and Cypres are totally different units, but the original question was trying to work out whether this was also the case with the Vigil. This is the crux of the question though... when it descends to 150 feet, is it expecting the landing zone to be a different height to the takeoff zone due to the altitude correction parameter?? If it is set to expect the ground to be 300ft higher at landing, will the Vigil now disarm at 450ft (300ft + 150ft) above the height of the takeoff area? It is my understanding that the primary use of the Vigil's altitude correction parameter is to compensate for a discrepancy between the altitude at which you are planning to take off and land. See the first attachment for a rough diagram I drew to try and explain this. In the diagram, imagine that you have programmed a +300ft altitude correction into the Vigil. You can see that if the landing zone were in fact 300ft higher, then the Vigil would fire at a minimum of 840ft above the landing zone, which equates to 1,140ft above the original takeoff altitude. All fine so far. However, you will also note that the Vigil would be programmed to disarm at 150ft above the landing zone. This equates to disarming at 450ft (300ft + 150ft) above the original takeoff altitude. My question is: if you program a +300ft altitude correction into the Vigil when the takeoff and landing altitudes are the same, will the Vigil now disarm at 450ft above the ground since it is expecting the ground to be higher on landing? Or in other words: if you were to change this parameter but are taking off and landing at the same altitude, does this affect the window within which the Vigil will operate? See the second attachment for an example of how the Cypres handles changes made to the activation altitude. You can see that it increases the size of the activation window itself, it doesn't simply shift the window up and down (which is what the offset parameter on the Cypres does). I'm trying to work out whether the Vigil increases the size of the window (as seen in the diagram) or whether it shifts the fixed size window up and down. My suspicion is that because the parameter on the Vigil is designed to compensate for differences in altitude between takeoff and landing, it will operate in the same way as the offset parameter on the Cypres. That is, if takeoff and landing are the same height, but you change the Vigil's activation altitude, it will also affect the height at which the unit disarms. 150 feet relative to what? Takeoff or landing? Remember that in my question the takeoff and landing altitude are the same, but from what I understand, the Vigil's altitude correction parameter is designed to tell the unit that they are different. Hopefully I've managed to make myself clear... I feel like it's a complex question, and I'm struggling to put the concept into words.

Incorrect. Belly to earth it is ~840 ft. Other attitudes such as back to earth etc is can be as high as ~1040. Similar to Cypres in that regard though the Vigil is ~100 feet higher across the board. Changing to student mode isn't the optimal solution as the activation speed is slower and there is the possibility of setting it off under canopy depending on the situation. RTFM Well spotted. I didn't read the post you quoted as closely as I should have. I've got the manual in front of me now, and this is what it says: This still doesn't answer the original question but does clarify the point regarding activation altitude in different body positions.

Ok thanks for the info. I'm planning on emailing them to confirm.

Ok sure, but it's still a valid question. For argument's sake, let's say someone wanted to program their activation altitude to be 1,250ft. Does this mean that the Vigil will now disarm at 550ft?

Interesting. From what I've read, the Vigils are the same as the Cypres units, in that they disarm at around 150ft on the way down. It is not advised to increase the Cypres activation altitude by programming an offset, as this also affects the disarm altitude. I wonder if it is the same for Vigil. The concern would be that if you increase the activation altitude on the Vigil by programming a +150ft offset, then your unit will disarm at 300ft instead. While 300ft would still be cutting it close, I'd rather my Vigil didn't simply turn itself off if it hadn't fired my reserve by then.

Is it possible to change the activation altitude on a Vigil II? Just to be clear, I'm NOT talking about entering an offset to account for a difference between the takeoff and landing area. I'm asking if it is possible to program the Vigil to activate at a higher altitude on each jump (e.g., 1000ft in belly to earth orientation as opposed to the standard 840ft), without affecting any of the other parameters. I won't be changing this setting without first speaking to instructors at my DZ, so let's not turn this into a discussion of the pros and cons of changing this parameter, but I want to find out whether it is even possible.

Thanks, but I can't seem to access the forums, keep getting this message:

I just bought a used Altitrack. Does anyone know what the current firmware version is? Mine has 1.07. Also, I've heard that Jumptrack is no longer supported. What is the best logging software for the Altitrack that can be used on a Mac?