cypres vs. vigil

[jlau90us 0]

I know this has surely been discussed somewhere else on this forum, but the search doesn't work, so I can't find it. Anyways, I was wondering what was the general concensus on cypres vs. vigil as an AAD...

I know cypreses cost a lot more and require more maintainence... but I'm more concerned with what works better in relation to mis-fires or not firing at all.

[Samurai136 0]

Most incidents branded as 'misfires' are usually attributable to Operator Error (failure to read the manual.) Airtec's design philosophy for the cypres is to save lives and not have their AAD activate in a 'false positive' scenario.

For example, on one World Team jump there was a need to rapidly pressurize the aircraft resulting in a barometric reading change from +20,000 ft agl to below sea level in several seconds. This translates into a tremendous descent rate. Some Vigils activated in the aircraft. The cypres response in this situation is to automatically shut the unit off until serviced by the manufacturer. No cypres activation.

Both brands are reliable AAD's. I have original cypres 1 units which I intend to keep for at least the next 8 to 10 years of their service life.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[mattjw916 2]

Both of them work exceptionally well... I'd jump with either of them without any doubt in my mind.

Both of them have had "misfires" in the past but the causes have long since been addressed.

TCO (total cost of ownership) of a Vigil is lower over its lifetime as reported by Skydiving magazine's review last year so if you are purely considering cost, a Vigil will cost you less money.

Your best bet is not to put yourself in a situation where you _need_ an AAD to save you. Most AAD fires are caused by operator error, i.e. loss of altitude awareness, which is completely preventable.

Like I said, I'd jump with either of them, personally I own a Cypres 1 since it works and I got a deal on it when I bought it. Of course, I just sent it off for it's 4 year check and put new batteries in it, so they definately are more expensive that a Vigil. Then again, Cypres is proven, reliable, technology.

I'm not trying to suggest one is better than the other though, I just think they both work adequately from my perspective.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I know cypreses cost a lot more and require more maintainence... but I'm more concerned with what works better in relation to mis-fires or not firing at all.

The price gap isn't huge, and Airtec narrowed it considerably with the C2 and no battery replacements.

Much of the savings rides on the no scheduled maintence bit, but Vigil hasn't been around long enough to hit the first 4 year on the C2. Vigils will need servicing when it fails its self check, or when the company decides that enough of them have hit it in a similar timeframe. Coupled with the 20 year intended lifespan, it will likely be cheaper, but no guarantees.

I wouldn't hold the World Team misfires against Vigil - it's a pretty atypical scenario.

Argus is also showing up on the scene, but you have to decide if you want to save a few bucks to be on the first wave. Both Vigil and Cypres units had problems with static electricity and misfirings in their initial release.

--
If you can find a well priced 8-10 year old Cypres1, you can stall on the $1300 decision for a few years and see if the picture becomes clearer.

[ChrisL 2]

I've had my new rig equipped with a Vigil.

Got it 2 weeks ago now

It hasnt saved my life nor has it killed me

I have faith that its a good, reliable unit. I would have felt equally confident with a Cypres.
Everything else being equal, the Cypres had the advantage of being waterproof
while the Vigil has a longer life span and lower maintanance costs.

The price difference is not significant enough to have been a factor in my desicion.

__

My mighty steed

[Reginald 0]

There was a great article in skydiving a few months back comparing the different AAD's. I'd dig it up and read it if I were you. sorry, I don't have my copy so I can't tell you the month....anyone?

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[kosanke 0]

at the world team record, airtec had their reps with cypres 2's flown in and were helping in the installation within hours of learning of the trouble. now how that for customer support?

[billvon 3,073]

>Some Vigils activated in the aircraft. The cypres response in this
> situation is to automatically shut the unit off until serviced by the
> manufacturer. No cypres activation.

I would add that Cypres 1's shut down. Cypres 2's were not affected by the pressurization, and functioned normally during it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

at the world team record, airtec had their reps with cypres 2's flown in and were helping in the installation within hours of learning of the trouble. now how that for customer support?

well, at the very least it's intelligent public relations. The nature of the event and the 400some people involved accelerated the response.

[fpritchett64 0]

Ok, did the search and found several pages of threads pertaining to this subject.

Since I am going to be buying a new rig hopefully within 6-8 months that will have an AAD, I wanted to find out how things are today regarding the several AADs out there.

Right now, I am leaning toward the Vigil 2, but have also heard about some bugs in the past regarding this AAD and was curious as to whether they have been worked out now.

Right now, this AAD seems to be cheaper all the way around, purchase price, maintenance, and lifespan.

What are your thoughts on this?

[skydiverton2 0]

Oh boy there we go again

Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habid.
.
.
Also in case you jump a sport rig!!!

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

Oh boy there we go again

Send me the link that answers all the questions I just asked and we wont have the go there again. Would that be easier for ya'?

Guess I should have just started a whole new thread on this subject right??

[DougH 270]

If you read the search results for the searches that you claim to have made then you should realize that there is no real anwser to this question. The topic is highly oppinionated and very subjective.

I won't jump Vigils because I think that they way they have handled previous problems just plain sucks.

No AAD out there is perfect, and they all have misfires and other problems. I just think the Cypres has better over all quality control, it has more time under its belt, and most importantly to me I think the company the makes it back it up better.

Oh, and Chevy's suck; Fords all the way.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Broke 0]

Make sure the rig you buy is compatable. For instance in my Talon the manufacturer will only allow the cypress or the Argus

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[DSE 5]

For instance in my Talon the manufacturer will only allow the cypress or the Argus
this is why I currently own a Cypres, RI hasn't certified the Vigil yet, but when they do, my next unit will likely be a Vigil. I have a used Cypres that doesn't have much life left.

[Broke 0]

If I had a cypress I would use it

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

For instance in my Talon the manufacturer will only allow the cypress or the Argus
this is why I currently own a Cypres, RI hasn't certified the Vigil yet, but when they do, my next unit will likely be a Vigil. I have a used Cypres that doesn't have much life left.

I wouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon given RI's association with Airtec and the on going history between Airtec and Vigil. However, I am positive many Talon owners would like to see the Vigil certified for use.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[hackish 8]

It's a tough decision to make. Many many people respond with emotional rather than scientific arguments. Your AAD is a computer programmed to operate within specific parameters. Such a thing should be decided upon with a scientific not emotional approach.

Some people are so emotionally tied to their decision that they "won't ever jump with a XYZ on their back". Many people will point at a specific incident to say that brand X or Y is "unsafe". How about the time a jet was pressurized and all the vigils went pop? How about the time a cypres fired even though it appeared to be turned off? You can find anomalies with just about every AAD.

I think all the AADs on the market are well enough tested and reliable enough. The differences come down to how rugged they are, what they cost to own etc.

How many times did you use your AAD to open your parachute last year? These things aren't popping all over the place killing every second jumper. One in a million has an unexpected fire or something that didn't behave as we expected.

If one in 999999 jumps has an AAD failure I think you should be more concerned about a rigger error or reserve malfunction.

-Michael

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

Make sure the rig you buy is compatable. For instance in my Talon the manufacturer will only allow the cypress or the Argus

Container will either be an Infinity or Wings.

[billvon 3,073]

>I wouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon given RI's association with Airtec . . .

I wouldn't expect that to happen due to the relationship between RI and Vigil, actually.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

>I wouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon given RI's association with Airtec . . .

I wouldn't expect that to happen due to the relationship between RI and Vigil, actually.

We are saying the same thing.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[pchapman 279]

Quote

It's a tough decision to make. Many many people respond with emotional rather than scientific arguments.

I have no problems with that post but have to add that it is hard to make a scientific or rational judgment with imperfect information.

Say there are two devices:

-- Device A:
10 years of sales
1000 units a year sold (=10,000 total)
major safety problem with 2 units, 5 years ago

-- Device B:
5 years of sales
1000 units a year sold (=5,000 total)
major safety problem with 1 unit, this year


What do we "rationally" conclude?

Both are equally safe, 1 incident per 5,000 sales?

Or does one need to factor in how long a device has been in service (due to gradual failure of poor electronics), not just whether that device is fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, waiting to fail? (Device A has been around longer and has over 3 times as many unit-years in service than device B, a bigger ratio than just the 2 to 1 sales ratio.)

Is device B safer because the company has had only one failure, one time that they screwed up? (What were those failures of device A: Were those failures related or not?)

Is device B no worse than device A because every company makes mistakes in its early days before refining their product?

Or is device B less safe because by now the industry has matured and that company shouldn't have screwed up like device A's company did "in the old days"?

Is device A safer because it has been problem free for 5 years? Is lack of a problem since then evidence that something has been fixed?

If something needed fixing, was it symptomatic of other problems at the company and latent flaws? Or if they said they fixed something, does that show their responsiveness, competence, and concern for the user? Is it a fundamentally flawed design or is something easily correctable?

Or were all failures random, due to problems at the limit of any company to build complex electronics perfectly? When events are rare, it is hard to know whether the events we see accurately reflect the true probability of the event. (E.g., Someone has 1 mal in 2500 jumps. Is he lucky or does he pack better than average? Hard to tell.)

If the failures were random, can we expect 1 in 5000 of device A or B to fail in the long run?


In the end this super simple example with clear facts defies rational or scientific explanation, because there are so many underlying issues about the nature of the failures not known to us, and possibly even to the manufacturers.

Then we get emotional about these things, trying to pick out which facts take precedence over others, because of what they might imply about what we don't know.

And if you think device B is not quite as good, but is cheaper, how does that factor into things? That gets into a whole other mess of drawing utility curves!

In the end, do you pick the device from those arrogant secretive bastards who traditionally kept denying the chance of problems yet still had them? Or do you pick the device from those upstarts with the cool new product but with questionable design decisions early on?

[kingbunky 3]

Quote

>I wouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon given RI's association with Airtec . . .

I wouldn't expect that to happen due to the relationship between RI and Vigil, actually.

so, what exactly is the relationship or lack thereof? bottom line, if i installed a vigil in a 1987 talon, would i be breaking any rules or regulations? i'm curious because my brother bought a vigil, had it installed in his talon, and now the rigger who initially packed it says he can't repack it and shouldn't have packed it in the first place. he was told it was for 'political reasons'.

i sent an email to RI but they appear to be closed for the holidays.

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

[BUBLHED 0]

For me it's Cypress.

Not for emotional reasons or for scientific reasons but instead for simplicity reasons. I believe in the KISS rule. (keep it simple stupid) that being said with cypress you turn it on and forget it. With Vigil however it can be switched between modes therefore changing the firing height. I hope that I wouldn't accidently put the thing into tandem mode and have a two out but It is possible. I also like the fact that something that is supposed to save my ass is being inspected at the factory every so often, just like my rigger inspecting my reserve every so often, but thats just me.

YOMV

ATTACK LIFE ! IT'S GOING TO KILL YOU ANYWAY!!!!

[hackish 8]

Quote

Not for emotional reasons or for scientific reasons but instead for simplicity reasons. I believe in the KISS rule. (keep it simple stupid) that being said with cypress you turn it on and forget it. With Vigil however it can be switched between modes therefore changing the firing height. I hope that I wouldn't accidently put the thing into tandem mode and have a two out but It is possible. I also like the fact that something that is supposed to save my ass is being inspected at the factory every so often, just like my rigger inspecting my reserve every so often, but thats just me.

Both of the units contain the logic for both behaviour. Same as the cypress 1 has the electronics inside for 1 cutter or 2 cutters. It just depends on what they solder on the board. From a software point of view it's actually safer to have one single bit of code than 3 independent sets - one for each behavour.

Also, the vigil very clearly says, student, pro or tandem on the display. So if you turn it on then you will know how it's set. You do look at the display after you turn it on don't you? If you're concerned about accidentally changing settings then you're just as likely to accidentally change the ground offset on either device.

Finally, on the point of inspection you can just as easily send your vigil off to the manufacturer every 4 years if you like. In packing them I find the vigil is a little better put together but I suspect by the time the cypress 3 comes out they'll improve the wiring and such...

-Michael