vigilcandi

Hi Travis, There seems to be some misunderstanding about what we discussed earlier today. You were inquiring about why your Vigil was still turned on, after more than 14 hours. If you leave the DZ with a Vigil turned on, and there is an altitude change, the Vigil will detect that it is in the air and it will not switch off. This security adaption was implemented on the Vigil II to avoid the unit switching off after 14 hours -in case a jumper is airborne at that time. The Vigil will remain on after 14 hours as long as a difference in pressure of 6mbar is measured, compared to its switch on pressure (ground zero) . This measurement will be done every 30 minutes, as long as those two pressures are not equal at +-6mbar or 50 meters or 150 feet, the Vigil will register an "airborne" status. -After the 14 hours, it will stay on at 30 min. increments, until you are back at ground zero. IF you change form one drop-zone to another, one location to another, you must switch your Vigil OFF, ....then, at the new location, turn it back on to re-calibrate the unit to the new parameters. IF you do not do this, the Vigil will keep in memory the wrong ground reference or "ground zero reference" and will function in regards to the wrong parameters. The best suggested training for Vigil customers, or any AAD owner for that matter, is to read the Manual. It is best to do this before you have a problem. All AADs on the market operate differently for different safety reasons. This particular feature is very important to some people.

Please see the letter below (translated to English). This letter was written by the owner of the Vigil who apears in this video. I have included the original in Portuguese as well. Dear skydivers, I am the skydiver who appears on the video. Before the controversy begins, the reason I spoke English on the video is because I wanted my comments to be understood by the manufacturer of the Vigil. The emotion and frustration at the time of the incident are obvious. Regarding the reply from the manufacturer, please read the article on the Airpress magazine, issue n. 158, May/2008. My incident occurred due to a welding problem on the altitude sensor. The flaws reported by the article are accurate, and in some cases like mine, had the influence of the end user ( I insisted in turning my Vigil on even with the message “Ctrl Err”). Statistics show that AADs save more lives than they cause problems. Refusing to use them would be the same as saying that cars should not have airbags, since there have been cases of deaths caused by airbag activation. I received a new Vigil form the manufacturer and have already installed it in my container. Even after the incident, I still integrally trust the manufacturer and my unit. Let us be cautious on our statements. Remember that the development of devices like AADs requires highly qualified workmanship and several tests. Also remember, that the main end user is in fact the USA, a country known for having a very strict and rigorous law system in cases of negligence. If DAAs were considered dangerous and unreliable, the manufacturers would be already bankrupt due to law suits imposed by the American law system. Regards, Frederico Parreira Subject: [pqdsmo_br] VIGIL 2. videodisparo PQDs, Eu sou o pára-quedista que aparece no vídeo. Antes que a polêmica se inicie, falei em Inglês porque queria que o meu comentário fosse entendido pelo fabricante to Vigil. A emoção e inconformismo na hora do evento são óbvios. Quanto à resposta do fabricante, leiam a reportagem na Airpress, edição de maio/2008, n. 158. O meu caso ocorreu devido a um problema na solda do sensor de altitude. As falhas reportadas na revista são pontuais, isoladas e, em alguns casos, como no meu, tiveram a participação dos usuários (insisti em ligar o Vigil mesmo com a mensagem de "Ctrl Err"). As estatísticas provam que os DAA salvam vidas muito mais do que causam problemas. Renegá-los seria o mesmo absurdo que dizer que os carros não devem ter airbags, já que houve relatos de mortes causadas pela bolsa no seu acionamento. Recebi um novo Vigil do fabricante e já o instalei no container. Mesmo com o evento, continuo confiando integralmente no fabricante e na minha unidade. Vamos ter moderação nas colocações. Pensem que o desenvolvimento de aparelhos como os DAAs requer gente altamente qualificada e muitos testes. Pensem, ainda, que o principal consumidor é justamento os EUA, país conhecido por ter um sistema judiciário rígido e implacável nos casos de negligência. Se os DAAs fossem perigosos e não confiáveis, os fabricantes já estaria falidos devido a indenizações que lhes seriam impostas por Juízes americanos. Abraços a todos, Frederico Parreira

This is the official statement from A.A.D. Belgium. The previous statement was posted prematurely. Brussels, 2nd June 2008 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN By this letter, we wish to confirm that the French Federation of Parachutes (F.F.P.) has established C.S. n° 156 and C.S 157, involving a CN F2008-005 issued by the D.G.A.C. The content of the document is erroneous and must be rejected, as there has never been an incident of “non-firing”, or failure to fire, on any commercial Vigil. The statements made by the CN (F-2008-005) of the D.G.A.C are not been based on test data from any manufacturer, and in the absence of any test data those statements have no legal basis. As a result of these unfounded claims we also feel that this is a very serious attempt to discredit our company, our product and our people. After extensive testing, it has been proven that the Vigil AAD offers comparable safety benefits compared to other electronic AAD products on the market and at least equal reliability and risk factors as well. Vigil AAD’s have also been proven to be far superior to any mechanical AAD on the market today and there has never been any attempt to remove the mechanical AAD’s from the market which continue to be used today without any restrictions. These are the reasons why we unreservedly disagree with this unsigned and therefore invalid document. During the extensive research and Test process of the Vigil ADD it was found that by taking in account all vigils I in use the risk of an unwanted firing in the activation zone is of 0.0005% - which is equivalent to one incident per 200,000 parachute descents. This is comparable to any other AAD manufacturer and is more than acceptable when compared to other parachuting equipment. The advantages that are offered (33 lives saved and not one accident!) are far in excess of the inconveniences. For these reasons, our lawyers have officially asked for the withdrawal of the C.S. 157 before the end of this week. We will continue vigorously fighting for the withdrawal of the French statements and will keep you informed as the situation develops. This is also relevant for the Australian and UK bulletins, as they are simply based on the French statement without any request of information from us nor complementary testing or analysis of their own. We apologize to our valued customers as those political statements are putting you, and us, in a very difficult situation. We value your business and appreciate the trust you have placed in our product and sorry for the inconvenience this spurious and spiteful attack has caused. There are discussions about replacing the Vigil’s currently being (safely) used on drop zones world wide, this would lead to an immediate replacement of over 5,000 units, which is not necessary, as the current units all operate far in excess of prescribed safety requirements. We are aware that the Vigil 2 offers advantages over the Vigil I. If Vigil I owners are compelled to exchange their units as a result of this French directive, we will exchange the Vigil I units for a nominal fee. It is obvious that a certain time will be required to produce 5,000 replacement Vigils. Some production slots will be made available for this task in addition to the existing production of Vigil products for the market. We expect that this entire process would take up to 12 months. We can only ask for your comprehension and continued support as patience during this time. Please note that this would only be applicable to Vigil I units manufactured before August 2006. Be assured that we are vigorously contesting the French directive and working towards having it withdrawn. We remain committed to our customers, our product as our people and stay at your entire disposal for any further explanation you could require. Thanks again for your understanding and support. Best regards and Blue skies, Jo SMOLDERS Managing Director