Nelyubin

No need to cheat. It was right is violated operating instructions manual instrument.
http://www.vigil.aero/files/WorldTeamResponse_005.pdf
P.S. You "forgot" to say that 24 Cypres were blocked and did not work.

Quote

Any idea when Vigil is releasing the AAD that will not fire due to the aircraft door opening?

Quote

Airtec never said that the unit would not fire during a swoop,

Quote

The Expert CYPRES is designed in a way that it
won't restrict the skydiver in any way. Even extreme
maneuvers during exit and in freefall, CYPRES
will cope with it. Whatever you can think of under
canopy like stalls, spiral turns, down planes,
hookturns with the smallest canopies as well as
any CRW, CYPRES will analyze these movements
without problems. It won't interfere with any normal
activities while skydiving.
Only freefall to very low altitude will cause
CYPRES to take action. In this situation CYPRES
is designed to activate the reserve approx. 4.5
seconds prior to impact

Quote

In the case of all the documented problems that Airtec found, they fixed them and those problems don't exist today.

Quote

Beyond that, even if did take everyone two months to get it back, for some that might be a reasonable time, so again, the time of service for you in your part of the world cannot be used to answer the bigger question of which AAD is best.

Quote

I know what I am talking about in regards to my previous post. And I think that you are not grasping it. It is a product comparison and not directly talking about vigil misfires even though that is indirectly being discussed. I know of a few personally that had misfires with vigils but all of that doesn't matter the math doesn't lie about it. However, personal believes and biases can sure make people believe what they want. Quite frankly I am not going to get in a drawn out argument with you cause I can already tell that you have your mind made up regardless of the facts or how to analyze them correctly.

Quote

Quote

Of course it is not possible to have a 100% safe AAD

...
If you can't handle the expense of a 4 and 8 year service, and cannot schedule those two events into a 12 year period of your life (in which your rig will need to be down for 24 repacks) you shouldn't be jumping. It's not that much cash, nor that much time or trouble.

Quote

Statistics indicate that the use of CYPRES tends to reduce the risk of serious injury or death,
but it does NOT eliminate it, and in certain circumstances it may even increase the risk.

If you or your family are not willing to accept these facts, please discontinue
the use of CYPRES, and seriously consider taking up a safer sport.

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is not possible for a self test to check the accuracy and actual operational capability. It cannot subject the sensor to a simulated jump. It can only check the health of electronics in a static state, and check continuity to the cutter.

You say based on their knowledge of the Cypres. You do not even read the instructions for Vigil. You argue that you do not know.

A self test cannot do what you seem to want to believe it can, no matter what the manual for a product says.

Quote

Quote

I don't claim that it tells you everything you need to know about the sensor of the device, but it is better than not saying anything at all, isn't it?

It is just a little bit better, but also can create trouble. Does the vigil manual give guidance on how far off of the actual pressure it should read for it to be OK? It really isn't important that the sensor be accurately 'zeroed' so that it can give the correct pressure, but if a user is going to look at that number and make some conclusion (the unit is good or possibly bad), then you must have the allowable tolerance - even though that absolute pressure reading doesn't really matter...and on it goes in a circular argument type of fashion.

I strongly suspect that any of the AADs on the market already confirm that the sensor is showing a reasonable value. Perhaps someone with insider knowledge can confirm that. Anyway, self tests can't do nearly as much as some would like for them to do, which is the reason that periodically a really thorough functional fire/no fire test right next to the limits of speed/altitude, and confirming that temp/vibration doesn't kill it is a really good idea.

Quote

>You're talking about cases of misfires Vigil. Please count how many there were.

I can think of about a dozen Vigil misfires due to transient pressurization issues alone.

Quote

It is not possible for a self test to check the accuracy and actual operational capability. It cannot subject the sensor to a simulated jump. It can only check the health of electronics in a static state, and check continuity to the cutter.

Impressed by the BASF plant in Mathayme. Cypres It looks like a small workshop for assembling toys

Quote

Quote

Just saying that you can verify that the sensor seems to be reading a valid pressure

You can verify that it seems to reading a valid static pressure, but that says nothing for the sensor's ability to measure the change (or rate of change) of the pressure during a skydive.

The simple fact is that between Cypres and Vigil, the Vigil is the one with the reputation for firing when you don't really want it to fire. The parameters may have been met according to the sensor, but without filters to refine the info, you get things like Vigils firing when you open the door or the plane, or close the trunk of your car.

No AAD is perfect, they all have incidents where they did not work as designed, or the design turned out to be faulty. The Cypres has had the fewest of the these instances despite the fact that it has been on the market 3 or 4 times as long as the Vigil, and probably has 10, 20, or 30 times the jumps.

Like most things in skidiving, there are no guarantees, it's all an odds game. At this point, the odds are with Cypres.

Quote

...
It is very tempting to see the lack of a mandatory costly maintenance check as an advantage for some AADs, but consider that the start-up self test function simply cannot confirm the accuracy of the unit (it can't provide a change in pressure to the sensor to simulate a jump), and can't confirm that it will withstand environmental (temp/vibration) extremes. All the self test can do is confirm that the electronics still work (to the extent they can self diagnose) and that there is continuity to the cutter. The self test is just not good enough for a device where accurate function is so critical.
...

Quote

Quote

Quote

...

If you want best quality, when it comes to firing when it should and not firing when it shouldn't, Cypres is still the best, at a higher cost.
...

Not true.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4115858;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread
http://www.cypres.cc/images/stories/storypictures/service_bulletin_april_2008_e.pdf

I don't see how a few cases of this completely nullifies the argument. There is not an AAD out there that has not misfired at one point or another. If you look at the overall number of units compared to misfires that you hear about, I am sure there are a lot more that we don't hear about but those are hard to judge, CYPRES by far tends to have less of them. Citing a few examples doesn't discredit the argument towards the quality of the AAD.

Quote

...

If you want best quality, when it comes to firing when it should and not firing when it shouldn't, Cypres is still the best, at a higher cost.
...

Quote

Dear sirs.
I use many years your devices Vigil and Vigil-II.
Lately Airtek have published "Rigging Information CYPRES Disc"
I can use disks of manufacture Airtek?

Thanks for your attention.

Quote

We thank you for your email.

... no objection that you use the Cypres disc.
There is also no influence of it to the used AAD and is completely independent of it.

We stay at your entire disposal for any further information you may require

Best regards
Edwin Bollaerts

Project Manager





AAD nv/sa

193, Bld A.Reyers

1030 Brussels - BELGIUM

T: +32 (0)2 732 65 52

F: +32 (0)2 736 06 27

[email protected]

Quote

The comment about losing data from impact is strange though, but I do not think it means Airtec is dismissing this failure (again, see post #67). That does not support the conclusion by some that Airtec wants to sweep this under the rug. That does not compare to the Vigil response at one time to avoid hot temps, or that the device can't be expected to differentiate between being in freefall and the opening of a door. That does not compare to the Argus response that their cutter can't work reliably unless the loop is lubricated or under tension, or that a metal ball was in the way but we won't show you detailed pics of it. Big difference.

Quote

Quote

If you are refereeing to Kopple’s post it was from Vigil not Cypres.

It does not help that the client does not provide more information. Though there is a language barrier there. We have to assume that the client is telling the truth about the reserve popping open recently so that leaves a few possibilities...

.

Quote

Quote

That Airtek concerning shooting of their device will tell.

Please excuse me, I know that english isn't yours or my mother language, but could you please phrase your comments and questions a bit better? I do not understand what you mean by this sentence.