skydivepete

Probably your dentist can do it too. Pete

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

A cutter without a knife is than on that side open and looks like the barrel of a gun. I think the fire that cause might damage the reserve seriously.

Yes but this is all about the same cutter replacement. I think it were 2, one in 2006 and one in 2010 (sept. or so)

I think you are wrong here. Argus replaced in 2006 and in September (?) 2010. Vigil had over the years 4 or 5 cutter changes and replacements.

No they are not unnoticed: http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dcWbbA

It seems they do:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3969437 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3939871;search_string=cypres%20baum;guest=75191422#3939871 Other examples of failing cutters? Now we need to ground Cypres too. It seems to be this happens frequently.

The type 3 cutter also seems to have a problem now http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3721248;search_string=vigil;#3721248

What about other brands of AADS? Does not happen the same?

Its from October 2006 French Parachute Federation Service bulletin CS 120 - the cable of the control unit of Vigil 1 does not resist unusual movement (translation) - que le câble de l’unité de contrôle du Vigil 1 ne résiste pas à des efforts inhabituels (original) Pete

Vigil has problems with its cables too (not able to handle simple movements) There was a service bulletin about that Pete

How did that happen? Pete

Where is the Argus in this debate?

Looks like the French have a different opinion. They published an open letter too: Paris 5 June 2008 OFFICIAL NOTICE ref PDA/2008.1207 Ladies and Gentlemen, On April 29, 2008 the company AAD published by email an open letter followed by a second one in English on June 2, 2008. These letters were published on line after the publication of the safety bulletins (CS N°156 and N°157) emitted by the French Parachute Association (FFP), and Airworthiness Directive CN 2008-005 published by the General Management of The French Civil Aviation Authorities (DGAC). These publications are concerning the Vigil automatic openers manufactured before August 1, 2006. The CS and CN were the result of a meeting between the manufacturer AAD, the DGAC, the DTN (National Technical Board), the CTP (Permanent Technical Committee) on April 9, 2008 at the seat of the FFP, concerning the problems with the Vigil AAD. One of the problems is the unwanted firings on the ground and in-flight. The AAD company confirms they know of 9 misfires world-wide , including 2 under open canopy, out of 4500 systems sold until 2005. In France alone, there were 5 misfires on less than 1000 systems built before August 2006, which represents an overall ratio of 1 bad system per 500. In-flight misfires with main canopy deployed can cause double canopy- openings and can result in serious injuries or death, in particular with fast canopies. As a precaution the FFP, representing the Ministry for Sports, recommended its members not to use this equipment anymore. According to the same principles, the DGAC in charge of parachutes and integrated equipment, prohibited use of these AADs. We deny strongly all accusations concerning lack of competence, dishonesty and partiality, on behalf of the FFP, as well its leaders as its staff. Consequently - the FFP acting as guardian of the safety and the interests of its members - will maintain its policy of protection of the users disregard the consequences for the manufacturer. Signed, Francois BOUTELOUP President Jean –Marc SEURIN National Technical Director

The text of the link above TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN By this letter, we want to confirm that the French Federation of Parachutes (F.F.P.) has established the C.S. n° 156 and 157, involving a CN F2008-005 issued by the D.G.A.C. We disagree totally with this statement, which is an unsigned and therefore an invalid document. Even the content must be formally rejected; there has never been an incident of “non-firing” or failure to fire on any commercial Vigil. The statements made by the CN of the D.G.A.C. also have no legal basis and are not based on any test data or input from the manufacturer. We can state that this is a very serious attempt to eliminate competition between our product and other manufacturers. It is evident that Vigils are no more or less dangerous than any other electronic AAD on the market or that they are any less reliable. They are definitely far superior to any mechanical AAD on the market, and there has never been any attempt to remove them from the market and are still in use today without any restrictions. A risk calculation has been established and the risk of an accidental Vigil firing in the activation zone during a jump is 0,000023%. Of course, this must be avoided but this risk is not unacceptable in relation to the equipment and its advantages (33 life saves and not one accident!). For all those reasons, our lawyers have officially asked for the withdrawal of the C.S. 157 before the end of this week. It is obvious that we will keep fighting for the withdrawal of the French statements through our lawyers and we will keep you informed on the situation. (This is also relevant for the Australian and UK bulletins, as they are only based on the French statements.) Please be aware that the political statements are putting all our users and ourselves in a very difficult situation. This is also damaging the trust our customers have in our company and product. We apologize for all the inconveniences this may cause for Vigil users. It is easy to understand that exchanging 5.000 Vigils at once worldwide is just impossible! Even if it was necessary. This is a clear attempt by certain parties to put us out of business. We will use this situation to our advantage to show our commitment to our customers, and at the same time to try and repair whatever damages this may have caused to your trust in Vigil. We do know that our Vigil 2 is a superior product than the Vigil 1. If you are compelled to exchange your Vigil because of the French directive, we will exchange the affected Vigils with vigil 2’s for a fee to be determined. To do this successfully we will have to schedule the replacements outside of our normal production. We will only have a certain amount of replacement production slots available per week therefore this process will take at least 12 months to exchange all Vigil 1’s produced before August 2006. Be convinced that we are at the moment vigorously contesting the French directive and attempting to have this directive withdrawn. We can assure you that we will always stay at the disposal of our customers, but in a realistic and manageable way. Thanks again for your understanding and support. Best regards and Blue skies, Jo SMOLDERS Managing Director

I agree but how long before trusting something. Vigil is around since 2003. And even Cypres recently discovered a problem. All 3 AAD producers (Cypres, Vigil and Argus) saved lives.

It seems Australia has jumped on the band wagon too... COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 107 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES Page 1 of 1 AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE For the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below issues the following Airworthiness Directive (AD) under subregulation 39.001(1) of CASR 1998. The AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate considers necessary to correct the unsafe condition) be taken in relation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in the compliance section. Parachute Equipment AD/PARA/18 VIGIL Parachute Automatic Activation Device 7/2008TX Applicability: All reserve parachute harness containers equipped with a VIGIL automatic activation device, manufactured by Advanced Aerospace Designs (AAD). Requirement: Check the VIGIL automatic activation device manufacture date on the manufacturer (AAD) identity card. If the date is 1 August 2006 or earlier, remove the VIGIL automatic activation device from the harness container and quarantine the device. If the date is later than 1 August 2006, check that the VIGIL automatic activation device cutter is made of stainless steel and the hole has got a vinyl sleeve. If not, replace the selector and the closing loop. This replacement must be with parts supplied by AAD, and must be performed by a qualified, approved person. Record the above actions in the parachute logbook. Note: DGAC Emergency AD UF-2008-005 refers. Compliance: Before further use after 23 May 2008. This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 23 May 2008. Background: The DGAC received reports of reserve parachute harness containers equipped with the activation device not opening during a parachute jump and unpredictable opening on the ground. This situation could lead to a catastrophic result in the case of an opening within the dispatching aircraft or during a parachute jump. David Villiers Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 22 May 2008

N/A

The French gave out a safety bulletin for the Vigil: Concerning: Vigils manufactured before September 2006 (950 in total, figure provided by AAD). Because of five ground misfires in 3 years in France alone the manufacturer declared to us: - to have listed in the world nine misfires of which eight come from the same problem. From these eight cases, two took place under open canopy. - that by the current knowledge, these misfires can only take place between the ground and 256 m or 317 m or 622 m, ( according to the choice of mode). - to have identified the origin of the problem without being able to solve it. Due to the unpredictable aspect of the failure and, is therefore not to distinguish those AADs that are likely to be failing. - to have implemented an improvement of the hardware and software from October 2006. - not to be informed of failures concerning AADs manufactured as from October 2006. - not to consider an immediate withdrawal of any AAD produced before September 2006. Action: While waiting for a acceptable solution of the manufacturer, the CTP (Comission Technique et Pedagogique) of the French Parachute association: - Informs the owners and users of Vigils for the potential danger of an opening under canopy with all the possible risks. - recommends, parachuting schools lending or renting parachutes to their members or customers, to withdraw all Vigils manufactured before September 2006, - recommends for the private users, not to use any Vigils manufactured before September 2006. However, by the continued use to take the following precautions: On the ground - To approach the plane by the back and not to turn your back to the propeller. - not to take part in the start up of the aircraft (installation and withdrawal of the starter) - not to carry your parachute on the back at the time of travelling by bicycle or on a motor cycle Under open canopy: - Under activation height to reduce the speed of your canopy - To be attentive for a possible unwanted opening - In the event of an unwanted opening, to try to catch the reserve pilot chute before the reserve canopy can deploy. - not to carry out a “overspeed” in landing, (swoop, hookturn??) - To warn AAD and the FP of any misfire. This is a translation. The original bulletin (CS 156-2008) can be found here : www.ffp.asso.fr/spip.php?rubrique296

What is the status for Argus? (I assume also???) Pete

I saw last week a Vigil II and an Argus next to each other. The Argus is much smaller and lighter too. PS in your profile: an 18 sq ft reserve canopy??

The one I saw last weekend in Spa was 63 meters

I think the Cypres has a better maintenance program (which is to say, has one at all), although I admit the Vigil is built more robustly.*** From the Argus website FAQ: Maintenance Does the Argus require any maintenance? The Argus requires a mandatory check-up each four years. This functional check-up can be performed by a certified service center near you.

Check the Argus site. They dit it last year also using a teddy bear. Pete http://www.argus-aad.com/testcorner.htm