teason 0
Recommended Posts
gjhdiver 0
QuoteSounds like RI doesn't much like the Vigil, or the company. Wonder how they feel about the Argus.
Don't know about RI, but Karel, the owner of Argus, was at the Wings factory with units for fitting and testing not too long back to ensure there were no problems with his units in regard to installation in Wings containers. As far as I am aware, there were no issues to prevent their installation.
I expect that if he's done that for us, then he'll repeat that effort with the other manufacturers.
QuoteWithout defending Vigil, I ask, did RI withold the same approval when Airtec had issues with the Cypres 1 unit?
RI had issues with Airtec over the placement of the battery/ processer pack. Sandy was adament that the unit be placed on the pack tray and Helmut was equally adament that it be placed on the reserve vertical wall. They went round and round on this issue for months, Sandy's position was (correctly) that the H/C mfg had jurisdiction over how the AAD would be installed in their product. Eventually they resolved their respective issues, as far as witholding approval I don't think there was ever any official stand on that issue. Remember the CYPRES was the only AAD of it's type during this period so everything was new and unproven about it.
Mick.
Agreed that the right of approval is the H/C manufacturers, however reasons for non aproval are not listed.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
thelem 0
QuoteWithout defending Vigil, I ask, did RI withold the same approval when Airtec had issues with the Cypres 1 unit?
Thats not really a fair comparison, since the AAD market was different back then. As I understand it, even with the teething problems, the Cypres was clearly the safest AAD available. The same is not true with the Vigil - it offers no clear safety benefits over a Cypres, yet it is having teething troubles that could reflect badly on RI.
In response to the people who are saying that Vigil and Argus are taking advantage of Airtec's goodwill with free pouches etc, Airtec had a near monopoly on the market for over a decade - I'm sure they can afford to pay for those pouches with the money made over that period.
Then show me an example of a RI or another manufacturer refusing to allow a reserve or main that has had issues to be used in their container.
On that note, does their lack of aproval simply give them a defense? Does it really prevent the use of the Vigil in their system? What about the provision for a rigger to determine compatability?
On that note, does their lack of aproval simply give them a defense? Does it really prevent the use of the Vigil in their system? What about the provision for a rigger to determine compatability?
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
IanHarrop 41
QuoteWithout defending Vigil, I ask, did RI withold the same approval when Airtec had issues with the Cypres 1 unit?
I had much the same question about why Mirage has not approved Vigil so I wrote them and asked.
The answer came back...
"All Mirage rigs come Cypres ready. AirTec and Mirage has done extensive factory testing with Cypres units to insure proper compatibility. To this date, the manufacturer of Vigil AADs has not responded to our requests for similar testing to be done with Vigil AADs, therefore we can not approve the installation. This being said, there are many Mirage containers in the field with Vigils in them with no reported incidents."
Perhaps the same is true with RI
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy
BKR 0
QuoteThen show me an example of a RI or another manufacturer refusing to allow a reserve or main that has had issues to be used in their container.
On that note, does their lack of aproval simply give them a defense? Does it really prevent the use of the Vigil in their system? What about the provision for a rigger to determine compatability?
If you have a look on the AS8015/B paragraph 5.1 you can read that manufacturer is in charge of the assembly testings. So, any manufacturer has the right to not approved the use of any kind of components if these testings are not made.
Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468
QuoteThen show me an example of a RI or another manufacturer refusing to allow a reserve or main that has had issues to be used in their container.
There was a recent issue with a container and a reserve. They had some TSO issue. Maybe with PDR.
QuoteThere was a recent issue with a container and a reserve. They had some TSO issue. Maybe with PDR.
That does't help much now does it?
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
riggerrob 643
QuoteQuoteThere was a recent issue with a container and a reserve. They had some TSO issue. Maybe with PDR.
That doesn't help much now does it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What is he babbling about?
sdctlc 0
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1651849;search_string=Mirage%20TSO;#1651849
Thinking this is what he is refering to
Scott C.
Thinking this is what he is refering to
Scott C.
"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"
I see you know what I was talking about.
Or was that the Astra didn't offer the same competition to the cypres that the Vigil does.
Also, did the Astra seek approval like the vigil is being asked to do? Is the astra affected by this? I have some Astras on the DZ, maybe a call to the manufacturers is in order.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites