Worrying Safety Bulletin concerning the Vigil

[chris74 0]

Hi,

I ( and now 900 skydivers in France too ) am ( are ) grounded because of this .
Vigil 1 is as good or bad as the Cypres 1 or any other AAD 's . Cypres 1 , 2 and tandem did fire during freefal ( Vigil 1 only on the ground ! ) , Had cutters and magnetics problems too ( near a radar in Thailand ) ...... but they haven't been grounded by either so ........ We must no longer have 2 sets of standards and it's why I think it smells fishy .
Blue skies
Chris

[skydivepete 0]

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

[DougH 270]

Quote

Had cutters and magnetics problems too ( near a radar in Thailand ) ...... but they haven't been grounded by either so ........ We must no longer have 2 sets of standards and it's why I think it smells fishy .
Blue skies
Chris

That is far from the truth. The Cypres 2 just had a mandatory grounding & recall of a bunch of units because of misfires. The company did this on their own.

Jumpers from back in the day can fill us in on how they handled misfires on the earlier units. I know they changed shielding and added some filtering to the units, but I don't know if they did any mandatory recalls at thaty time.

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

[blacksha 1]

Just an in general reply....

Aren't there any software programmers out there?

As you can see from my jump numbers...my experience is pretty miniscule :-)

But, I've been a software developer for 15 years. And as a result of that experience, I've noticed that no matter how awesome the programmer(s), and even no matter how awesome the tester(s), only time can prove a product...

Definitely, competition is a good thing...problem is, it will take time for me to ever trust a new product on the market...

Cypres...and...should hopefully have to never use it, but alot of times that depends on your role in the skydive and how long you've been doing it, or the occasional mistake.

[skydivepete 0]

Quote

Definitely, competition is a good thing...problem is, it will take time for me to ever trust a new product on the market...

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.

[french 0]

it looks like the brits too, decide to ground all these Vigil 1, when does the FAA is going to react ?

[skydiverton2 0]

The reaction of smolders is typically vigil. From the beginning they always answered technical questions/issues with political and/or marketing statements.
When there is a technical safety issue handle it with a technical solution, not with a statement how unfair competitors are taking there change. That is why you call it competitors.

If you believe in win-win You loose!!!

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,356]

Hi french,

Quote

when does the FAA is going to react ?

IMO, never. No AAD has any FAA certification. That, to me, means that they have no authority over it.

I say that having been a US federal employee enforcing US federal standards for 30+ yrs.

Now, if the design were to somehow effect the manual operation of the certificated parachute system, then they could step in. Right now, I do not see any of the electronic AADs that effect the manual operation of the reserve parachute.

That's my $0.02 on it, someone else may have a different opinion.

JerryBaumchen

[chris74 0]

Hi Birds,
12 months grounded they just FUCKED UP PEOPLE !!!
http://www.vigil.aero/pdf/FFPandDGAC_30-05-2008.pdf
Blue skies
Chris " TAZ"

[skydivepete 0]

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

[skydiverton2 0]

Quote

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.

Don't talk shit a commercial company is intended to make money, and will never exchange 5000units if not absolutely required due to safety issues

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

[VincentVL. 0]

Quote

12 months grounded they just FUCKED UP PEOPLE !!!

Who did? France of Vigil? I can't speak for Vigil but something sure smells fishy about these accusations and groundings.

[diablopilot 2]

I think that they are stepping up to the plate and doing their best to help customers feel better while fighting false accusations.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[JerryBaumchen 1,356]

Hi JP,

Quote

I think that they are stepping up to the plate and doing their best to help customers feel better while fighting false accusations.

I agree completely.

And it is going to get much worse in this skydiving industry ( some other products ) if some recent communications I have received are any indication.

If this back-stabbing doesn't end, this sport will simply go downhill.

OK, off of my soap-box now,

JerryBaumchen

[vigilcandi 0]

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

[livendive 8]

[replyI prefer AAD's that err on the side of not firing under unusual conditions.

[champu 1]

Quote

When in the DC-9 at Rantould still on the ground, somebody asked for the air conditioning, the pilot had to pressurized the cabin to do so and 6 VIGIL I fired including mine. Vigil I's fired because they felt the important change of pressure equivalent to a fall of more than 35 m/s. They did exactely what they were designed to do.

Why didn't the other AADs on board the plane fire?

[dragon2 2]

Quote

Quote

When in the DC-9 at Rantould still on the ground, somebody asked for the air conditioning, the pilot had to pressurized the cabin to do so and 6 VIGIL I fired including mine. Vigil I's fired because they felt the important change of pressure equivalent to a fall of more than 35 m/s. They did exactely what they were designed to do.

Why didn't the other AADs on board the plane fire?

Because pressurising is not the same as a fall of more than 35 m/s in a way you'd normally see.

In this case the cypres 1 acts like this: hey this is weird, maybe I'm malfunctioning, get me to airtec i'm not turning on anymore until you do (very nice if you NEED that aad to work in the near future).
Cypres 2 and Argus: hey this is weird, maybe I'm malfuctioning, I'll turn myself off for this jump and we'll see how the self-check goes when i'm turned on again (so an unusable AAD for that one jump).
Vigil 1: hey this is weird, maybe I need to save someone, so I'll fire just in case (maybe this helps maybe it doesn't, you'll need a repack in any case).

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[skydivepete 0]

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

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When in the DC-9 at Rantould still on the ground, somebody asked for the air conditioning, the pilot had to pressurized the cabin to do so and 6 VIGIL I fired including mine. Vigil I's fired because they felt the important change of pressure equivalent to a fall of more than 35 m/s. They did exactely what they were designed to do.

Why didn't the other AADs on board the plane fire?

Because pressurising is not the same as a fall of more than 35 m/s in a way you'd normally see.

In this case the cypres 1 acts like this: hey this is weird, maybe I'm malfunctioning, get me to airtec i'm not turning on anymore until you do (very nice if you NEED that aad to work in the near future).
Cypres 2 and Argus: hey this is weird, maybe I'm malfuctioning, I'll turn myself off for this jump and we'll see how the self-check goes when i'm turned on again (so an unusable AAD for that one jump).
Vigil 1: hey this is weird, maybe I need to save someone, so I'll fire just in case (maybe this helps maybe it doesn't, you'll need a repack in any case).

Sorry for having asked a pointed question but yes, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. The simpler answer to my question would have been that all the AADs "did exactly what they were designed to do." which are words of praise I keep hearing sung of the Vigil every time one goes off inside an airplane.

Electronic AADs introduced higher-resolution pressure measurements, and processors capable of taking more than just the first derivative to give them parameters like acceleration and jerk. "a < 9.81 m/s^2" is a good place to start if you want to figure out if you're in a plane or not. When I said I agree with "pretty much everything you wrote," the one sticking point is where you say the Vigils thought, "hey this is weird." because I'm not sure they did.

Determining that an undesired result was a product of your design is step one. Step two is fixing your design. If this design aspect was fixed in going to the Vigil II, good for them. If not, shame on them.

[skydiverton2 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When in the DC-9 at Rantould still on the ground, somebody asked for the air conditioning, the pilot had to pressurized the cabin to do so and 6 VIGIL I fired including mine. Vigil I's fired because they felt the important change of pressure equivalent to a fall of more than 35 m/s. They did exactely what they were designed to do.

Why didn't the other AADs on board the plane fire?

Because pressurising is not the same as a fall of more than 35 m/s in a way you'd normally see.

In this case the cypres 1 acts like this: hey this is weird, maybe I'm malfunctioning, get me to airtec i'm not turning on anymore until you do (very nice if you NEED that aad to work in the near future).
Cypres 2 and Argus: hey this is weird, maybe I'm malfuctioning, I'll turn myself off for this jump and we'll see how the self-check goes when i'm turned on again (so an unusable AAD for that one jump).
Vigil 1: hey this is weird, maybe I need to save someone, so I'll fire just in case (maybe this helps maybe it doesn't, you'll need a repack in any case).

Would you like the airbag in your car to fire when in doubt (or all 8 as in my car?) or only in case the controller is absolute sure. I do not like the inside of my car to explode in an undefined situation.

Groeten

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

[dragon2 2]

Quote

" the one sticking point is where you say the Vigils thought, "hey this is weird." because I'm not sure they did.

True that, since we are probable never going to see the source code for the vigil 1, we can't be sure if the vigil can even detect a non-standard situation like this and "decides" to fire or if it only reads the "speed" + "altitude" and thinks it is in freefall really low so it should fire. Amounts to the same thing really though...

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[kylestarck 0]

Australia has realized that there was no merit for the ban the French created and has just repealed this bogus ban in their country.