dorbie

It seems credible. Grats on your bargain, it sounds like this guy didn't quite know what a deal he got originally.

All this and more people died. Here's the problem with simply pursuing the same rules more rigorously, if even SOME DZs had implemented these recommendations, fatalities might have been expected to decline (underneath the noise). So this doesn't offer any explanation for the increase just proposes another untested solution. In fact rough though it may seem, one candidate for the biggest change during this increase may have been emphasis and training on canopy piloting. There are alternative explanations, since a lack of follow-through on incident investigation would NOT in itself CAUSE numbers to "skyrocket". therefore a few other questions might be higher on the priority list. Did those involved in accidents recieve additional canopy training; many aspiring swoopers tend to, are the emboldened by it? What type & size of loads and jumps led some of the incidents. Some of the loudest voices on canopy piloting love bigways (for example). When stuff isn't working it's time to get dispassionate and ask some questions that aren't simply aimed at promoting the same rules and agenda.

And that determination depends on scenarios and priorities. Your abject reply linked below told me all I need to know about your ability to offer a reasoned and credible response on non Cypres AAD related matters: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3825061;page=unread#unread AADs are useful and save lives, even imperfect ones.

Every AAD has problems. There is no such thing as a perfect AAD. What a gem of insight that is. No perfect AADs, yes we can agree on that. What we apparently don't agree on is the extent of how unintelligent (not smart) the vigil is. The folks designing it had a clear target (the cypres) to do better than. They have clearly missed the mark. The vigil doesn't need to be "detuned" to not have fired when a door opens, it needs to be smarter. Instead of talking vague nonsense about "smartness" propose an algorithm. Simply adjusting a few factors in the Vigil and keeping the algorithm generally the same could have prevented these firings, but it IS a tradeoff, it is not "smarter", no matter how much ill informed nonsense you post about it needing to be smarter. There are also scenarios where it performs well that some are bending over backwards to ignore. You could try to make it smarter, but that's potentially fraught with more pitfalls than you realize or anyone can easily even quantify. It's just a bad strategy for a device like this. Vigil is understandably cautious about making adjustments, as I have said you want this kind of alteration to be data/evidence driven as any competent engineer will tell you. There is a lack of data and this is a rare event, if these were popping off all the time you might take a different approach but under the circumstances the right thing to do is appreciate the saves Vigil has under it's belt vs. risks associated with jumping with it (no AAD is without such risks), as they collect the data to inform any required adjustment. If Cypres was out after the Vigil it would have been banned SOMEWHERE because of it's activation altitude and maybe its disarming deck, and all the loons would have been bashing Cypres for years. Because these are AADs everyone assumes that performance envelopes on newer products should be the same in every respect but better (in unspecified ways) than the incumbent. But it is rarely how real innovation happens. The Vigil will be better in some scenarios and the Cypres in others. In this case the Vigil after years of use & many saves is showing signs taht it may be a bit twitchy under extremely rare circumstances, and this is rare despite FUD that has tried to lump in decompression related firings. And FYI I jump a cypres 2 and wouldn't change it, I don't have a dog in this hunt.

Well if that's the case you seem to have picked the wrong thread for it. The guy asked which camera. Is it your intent to e-stalk him on here because of a personal grudge to the point where he can't seek advice without you barging in and swinging your dick? Maybe you should save the bashing for a thread where he's earned it.

Perhaps that is why it was hidden under the mattress. This is the problem here. It wasn't found in the bottom of grandads old trunk, or forgotten in a drawer. It was hidden in an accessible location and discovered during a search. It is a serious crime to posess a weapon like this in the UK. She might have been able to get away with it but the circumstances are not mitigating.

Every AAD has problems. There is no such thing as a perfect AAD.

The transient pressurizations are irrelevant to most jumpers and outside the intended design envelope IMHO, it's seriously misleading to bring them up in this context. The door oppenings are the primary concern. As I said the thing could be 'detuned' or reparameterized (and it has nothing to do with a smarter device) based on new door opening pressure data, but the decision should be data driven and Vigil is conducting those experiments. They're building a data logger that doesn't require firing, says so right there in their document. I'd have thought just sticking a sensor and logger in a box on board a several AC rather than one rig would be the way to collect a lot of data fast and augment with in rig data on the same runs. Hmmmm... an engineering company conducts tests and data gathering after a statistically unlikely outcome is uncovered in an attempt to improve their product. This is an OUTRAGE! Puh-lease.

Firing because the door opened is not the same as a low chop or a bailout. But it can look the same to an AAD. Descending quickly in an aircraft is not the same as freefall but a student cypres can fire under those circumstances. Diving a canopy is not a chop, but someone died because their AAD thought it was and this had been anticipated for years. A decision was made that it wasn't enough of a risk factor to compromise safety on a low chop (my interpretation of the decision to do nothing about it) (edit to add , or any borderline mid-speed mal). AAD heuristics are tradeoffs between firing when you want it to fire and not firing when you don't. There is no device that can give you perfect decision making, it is not possible.

And, IMO, it is a bad design if it can fire due to only the door opening. And if it saves you from a low chop or low bailout then it's a brilliant design that saved your ass. As the document says there are tradeoffs, The vigil claims to have some advantage in acting (detecting freefall) faster. I think it is marketing hype or worse - a characteristic that has proven to be dangerous with no advantage. As others have said in this thread, AADs don't pause once they've detected their firing criteria. Please explain to us how the Vigil acts in a way that is an advantage, and I have yet to have it explained how it would behave any differently than a cypres in a low cutaway scenario. The claim is there, but it doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. The folks that designed the Vigil had a clear target to beat. They didn't even match their competitor in such an important characteristic as being able to recognize when the data is inconsistent with skydiver physics. It isn't a matter of "detuning" it. It is a matter of making it smarter. I really do wish there was better competition out there to drive down prices and push the quality up. Making it smarter is an easy thing to say, and it is not difficult to make it more complex, but there is a philosophy and I think probably a wise one to keep the heuristics simple in these devices. As for the claimed advantages, they are not the same as their competition, parameters and philosophies vary in nuanced ways that produce a different outcome. I'm not here to justify or argue for Vigil algorithm, I jump a cypres2 but if you cannot discern a scenario where arming altitude differences can be of benefit I don't think anyone can move you past your anti-Vigil rhetoric.

And, IMO, it is a bad design if it can fire due to only the door opening. And if it saves you from a low chop or low bailout then it's a brilliant design that saved your ass. As the document says there are tradeoffs, no set of choices can produce the perfect AAD. You yourself can sit down with a piece of paper and specify what YOUR ideal AAD activation altitude would be, the descent rate and altitude required and any other heuristics. So come up with them and share with us all. Simply saying it's a bad design because one aircraft ride had a pressure variations that met it's firing criteria is a bit of a stretch. Vigil could change the microcode & 'detune' it in a heartbeat if they thought it made sense, it's not a decision they make lightly.

Claims that this is an MLW length/fit issue are a stretch. The MLW length would not have to vary much if at all to allow the hip ring and therefore the lateral to move back significantly. It looks more like a hip articulation position issue where you position the leg straps. Look at the hip ring, and imagine rotating the leg strap around the leg until the hip ring is further forward and towards the groin. It seems to me the only way to guarantee positioning is a belly band to hold the hip rings or MLW forward. I'd expect many rigs to show this issue unless you have uncomfortable tension on the MLW, which is going to vary depending on whether you stand sit arch crouch etc. My 2c. ... so is this really MLW length or more to do with leg strap geometry and placement? Wouldn't tension on the MLW to prevent this be uncomfortable? Isn't a belly band the more reliable solution (with other benefits)?

Been pretty cool watching you guys come up and bust it out, Steve. Thanks again for coming and helping with the wingsuit water experiment. I think that's what makes S'nore so great; so many people willing to give their time, knowledge, and energy to helping others. It's a "pay it forward" DZ. There's a great group of L.O.s who jump at Perris and progressing after your A license graduation is very easy at Perris. Showing up at other DZs a newbie can have a much harder time doing anything other than solos soon after their A license. I got on some great 4-ways with coaching at Elsinore and like the vibe there but L.O. availability is patchy. No matter where you do your AFF you'll still be welcome at other DZs (well you'll be welcome after your A, phone calls and checkout dives will be made after your AFF). One factor may be the availability of coaching jumps and signoffs after AFF but before your A license graduation, and some continuity is advisable there. Ask both dropzones about progression to A license after your AFF. Be grateful you're spoiled for choice and have a wind tunnel close to both DZs.

If I'm going to get assed if I go over there, I'll just stay here AFAIK he'll have to pay out the ass for insurance/membership regardless.

Seems like a great article with the people who know what they're talking about getting the last word in. The student is a bit confused which is to be expected. He pulled his reserve and saved himself from a mal, something more experienced jumpers have failed to do at times, and now he has a great story that he's itching to tell. Nothing to see here. IMHO if skydiving wasn't perceived as dangerous FEWER people would do it on their 50th birthday.

War is always going to be 100 times worse than doors getting kicked down and homes invaded.

Should they have been scarred and bled from dog bites instead? Should thay have invaded the innocent dog owner's home like a militray force, heavily armed and armoured and screaming orders? This sounds more like you haven't seen the armor that some drug dealers are packing. Look at the most recent set of links that I just posted. This guy gave plenty of reasons to think that it wasn't going to be an easy take-down. Still, the police look stupid now because there wasn't jack shit there and they killed a dog in front of a kid. There's egg on their face and they'll very likely change their tactics (according to the follow up reports). You simultaneously want to justify this even as you say they will probably change their tactics over this. This is NOT unprecedented, it is a standard knockless serving of a drug warrant and they are getting out of hand. It does indeed stem from "worst case scenario" planning but as we've established I think, the line of what the worst case is is somewhat arbitrarily drawn and it has been drawn way too far towards the overwhelming force end of the spectrum for many cases, and drawn there entirely for the safety of the officers. Boiling this down to it's essence, that mother and child were terrified and the dog shot for the safety of the police officers. You don't get to do that and simultaneously call yourselves "America's Finest" in my book. Since you like links, here's one: http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d8-SWAT-raid-on-Columbia-MO-family-just-one-more-reason-to-end-noknock-raids

. . . and you exhault yourself as an expert on this because of your extensive study and training in law enforcement. I only say this because you seem to be very certain of which methods would be right and which ones are too forceful. Could you describe in detail your tactical execution plan for us please, OH, and please provide all available intel on the subject, including all priors, known aliases, known weapons, and registered weapons. Until then, I don't really think you have even a grain of sand to stand on do you? You perhaps would like to study and practice and maybe gain some experience in these matters before you make judements, instaed of knee jerk reactions. I agree that the gutless trigger happy prick who shot a family Corgi is more qulified than me, as is everyone on that SWAT team. Their entire world view is antithetical to effective police work in my book, but they are the experts on bullshit. Your problem is you're immersed in the self-perpetuating nonsense that leads to family pets being executed by paramilitary home invaders. You have no perspective and don't see that the policing has become worse than the crime. I can see the results of their actions and understand that their mentality and conduct undermines our constitutional protections. If freedom means anything it should mean freedom from armed home invasion for non violent crimes based on nothing but suspicion and the fear of non specific "worst case scenarios" from the officer's involved. I certainly defer to your expertise in the justification for shooting harmless family pets and terrorizing women and children in the dead of night. It's something any real man sould be ashamed to justify, it's what many GOOD men get into law enforcement to protect us FROM.

Where do you draw the line and exercise reasonable force and judgement. I can always take your worst case scenario and make it even worse, what are you going to do? Breech the living-room with a tank? It's an insipid and profoundly gutless philosophy. Not everyone is steeped in a culture that believes it is a police officer's right to terrorize a family like this while serving relatively petty warrants for non violent offences, simply to cover their own asses. If you're really so afraid of serving warrants that you have to use tactics that would make Hitler proud then perhaps police work is not for you. In enforcing the law it helps if the enforcement does not become worse than the crime you're trying to prevent. Sticking a badge on bullshit does not ameliorate the problem.

Really? Says it all really, thankfully we each get to make our own decisions.... unless you're in Poland.

"black ass"? No...I was initially thinking "sorry ass"... And you honesly felt the need to substitute sorry ass with asterisks? Really....?

Should they have been scarred and bled from dog bites instead? Should thay have invaded the innocent dog owner's home like a militray force, heavily armed and armoured and screaming orders?

"black ass"?

It happens every day in the land of the "free".

You really think being in Germany protects them when they're selling AADs in America?