AAD vs TSO

[aerorigging 6]

The AADs modified or invalidate the TSO ????
Please dont start any brand discussion, I would like to keep this just on the TSO technical aspect
Tanks

Nico

Nicolas Lopez
Master Rigger
Aerorigging Parachute Loft

[piisfish 140]

in m yopinion, the AAD does nothing to the TSO, as long as it does not interfere with a normal reserve deployment.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

in m yopinion, the AAD does nothing to the TSO, as long as it does not interfere with a normal reserve deployment.

Exclude Argus then .

[piisfish 140]

Quote

Quote

in my opinion, the AAD does nothing to the TSO, as long as it does not interfere with a normal reserve deployment.

Exclude one of them then .

please do not start another brand war as asked by the original poster.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[JohnSherman 1]

The FAA considers an AAD a "Black Box" and does not regulate them. They do not affect the TSO. The doctrine adopted by most of the H&C manufacturers is "An AAD must not interfere with the normal operations of the H&C". It has become recently apparent that cutters can trap the loop preventing deployment. This means that they, the cutters, can and do violate that doctrine. This is relatively recent information in the industry and remains unresolved. If the current cutters do violate that doctrine then all of the AAD’s in use today would become unusable. My position is that each jumper must make his or her own decision as to the benefit/risk involved pending redesign to a more compliant system.

[DiverMike 5]

What about containers like Dolphins where the cutter is on the bottom of the tray? If it trapped the loop you can still manually deploy. I would say that all AAD's in use would not become unusuable, just most containers.

Quote

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

• Quote

[mjosparky 4]

The FFA doesn’t think so.

Sparky

---

105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems.

3) The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system. The device must—

(i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and

(ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.

6) The reserve parachute meets Technical Standard Order C23 specifications.

---

Also see attachment.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The FAA considers an AAD a "Black Box" and does not regulate them. They do not affect the TSO. The doctrine adopted by most of the H&C manufacturers is "An AAD must not interfere with the normal operations of the H&C". It has become recently apparent that cutters can trap the loop preventing deployment. This means that they, the cutters, can and do violate that doctrine. This is relatively recent information in the industry and remains unresolved. If the current cutters do violate that doctrine then all of the AAD’s in use today would become unusable. My position is that each jumper must make his or her own decision as to the benefit/risk involved pending redesign to a more compliant system.

John, is it that the cutters violate the doctrine, or the specific placement of them in the reserve system violates the doctrine? (i.e. above or below the reserve.)

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

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

John, is it that the cutters violate the doctrine, or the specific placement of them in the reserve system violates the doctrine? (i.e. above or below the reserve.)

It is the cutter. The fact that a cutter can fail and trap the loop. This act is "interferance with the normal operation of". Pass through cutters must be redesigned to allow the loop to release in case of "failure to cut" or we must find a way to get around this problem.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

John, is it that the cutters violate the doctrine, or the specific placement of them in the reserve system violates the doctrine? (i.e. above or below the reserve.)

It is the cutter. The fact that a cutter can fail and trap the loop. This act is "interferance with the normal operation of". Pass through cutters must be redesigned to allow the loop to release in case of "failure to cut" or we must find a way to get around this problem.

That kind of redesign of the cutter may not be possible. However, the containers can have the placement changed rather easily, at least for most it seems that is true, but is it also possible to have the cutters placed in a location (out at the cap?) on a racer so that it would not lock?

Of course we realize that cutter locations that allow lock also enable the quickest PC launch and tolerance of less than great rigging. Right now there is a mix of implementations. Perhaps someday all will agree to go in one direction, or all will be forced to go in one direction, so I'm wondering if the racer could adapt. It seems that would be more challenging for a racer.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[aerorigging 6]

Tanks a lot John for your point of view and info.
Very helpfull.

Nico

Nicolas Lopez
Master Rigger
Aerorigging Parachute Loft