Recommended Posts
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>There is no analogue for the unsolvability of the general problem of
>opening a parachute.
I'm not talking about the solvability of the problem. The issues I deal with in code have nothing to do with the solvability of the problem - they have to do with banging the correct bits at the correct time.
>The distinction between groups A and B is in the hands of the
>designer, and need not hold any meaning at all.
So an aircraft designer can design an aircraft control system such that there is no difference between a skilled pilot and a layman operating that aircraft? I suppose, but that essentially means designing an interface that will negate the pilot's experience operating aircraft so that he was 'brought down' to the level of a layman. In practical terms, it would be something like a keyboard where you entered your destination and had the aircraft do everything else. And you could do that, but the end result would likely be less desireable than an aircraft that a pilot could actually fly.
People have certain innate skills; different groups of people have different skills. Designing interfaces that disregard those skills has lead to some of the more famous failures in HMI (the BMW iDrive and early aircraft GPS systems come to mind.)
>Even assuming that there is a group A and a group B, a sufficiently
> complex device could be constructed that exceeds both group A and
> group B . . .
See my previous post for a reply to that.
>opening a parachute.
I'm not talking about the solvability of the problem. The issues I deal with in code have nothing to do with the solvability of the problem - they have to do with banging the correct bits at the correct time.
>The distinction between groups A and B is in the hands of the
>designer, and need not hold any meaning at all.
So an aircraft designer can design an aircraft control system such that there is no difference between a skilled pilot and a layman operating that aircraft? I suppose, but that essentially means designing an interface that will negate the pilot's experience operating aircraft so that he was 'brought down' to the level of a layman. In practical terms, it would be something like a keyboard where you entered your destination and had the aircraft do everything else. And you could do that, but the end result would likely be less desireable than an aircraft that a pilot could actually fly.
People have certain innate skills; different groups of people have different skills. Designing interfaces that disregard those skills has lead to some of the more famous failures in HMI (the BMW iDrive and early aircraft GPS systems come to mind.)
>Even assuming that there is a group A and a group B, a sufficiently
> complex device could be constructed that exceeds both group A and
> group B . . .
See my previous post for a reply to that.
Quote
an aircraft designer can design an aircraft control system such that there is no difference between a skilled pilot and a layman operating that aircraft?
No! Well yes, but like we discussed about Airbus that's a bad design. There's no reason that a design cannot be flexible to fit the user. Like spandex clothing vs burlap.
Quote
People have certain innate skills; different groups of people have different skills. Designing interfaces that disregard those skills has lead to some of the more famous failures in HMI (the BMW iDrive and early aircraft GPS systems come to mind.)
This is a false dilemma, since there is no reason that both cannot be catered in the same device. It will not be quite as static or dull as the devices you are thinking of.
(ed: Crumple activators for) Airbags in a car, for illustration. You can perform all the complex maneuvers in a car you want, but when the dashboard crumples it matters not whether you are a 16yr old on a learners permit or Kyle Petty. Or a flight simulator (or a game)that can be programmed with varying degrees of realism(difficulty), which can be selected by the operator, or which can be dynamically tuned by the simulator's analysis of your performance.
The engineering & functionality of these examples differ from each other and from AADs, but they demonstrate that multiple user classes can be willed away, or adapted to by advanced design. Someone else's failure to do it correctly in the past is irrelevant, there's every reason to believe it's possible, short of an actual implementation.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
goose491 0
QuoteThe fact that Airtec recently released a "swoop" Cypres shows that there had been room for improvement in that specific area, too.
The fact that Airtec recently released version 2, which was different than version 1 shows that Airtec beleived there was room for improvement.
No device is perfect.
I see a bunch of people arguing that the Cypres is perfect. Quite frankly, that's absurd.
_Am
Hey Andy,
All very good points man... but you'll note that nobody is stating the CYPRES is perfect. In fact, your example display just what we are saying:
That if you want your AAD to do something different, something outside of the currently programmed operating parameters, you don't change the current operating parameters of the Every-Skydiver-AAD and give them the option to chose (or lose in the case of choosing wrong). Instead, you put out an entirely separate machine that those who are interested in, will buy.
i.e. 'swoop Cypres'
And though different models/versions have been created, proving that improvements have been made and can be made again, you'll note that the ergonomics have not been altered. It is still a one button interface, with a 4-press redundancy factored in to prevent inadvertent setting.
Nick
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Quote
The Cypres2 is an improvement on the original. But the functionality remains the same. The only differences I know of are the power source and the water resistance. I don't think I'd call it more user friendly because of that.
The one difference that makes it a nicer experience is the quicker self test on the C2. If you're at a place like Hollister where you cycle after every jump, it's nice being able to do it more quickly.
But for the greater part of the usability issues that we're talking about here, there's no difference between the two.
Quote
nobody is stating the CYPRES is perfect
We're doing everything but by suggesting that it cannot be improved, and erecting strawmen to show that it can't. It's crooked...
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
goose491 0
QuoteQuote
nobody is stating the CYPRES is perfect
We're doing everything but by suggesting that it cannot be improved, and erecting strawmen to show that it can't. It's crooked...
Untrue Nate. We are all aware of the improvements made in the past, and nobody is saying that imporvemenst can't be made in the futur.
But two things are certain:
-Turning the device on and off should NOT be made easier. It was purposely made more difficult to improve ergonomics (i.e. to avoid inadvertent setting)
-The current operating parameters had purpose in mind... scenarios in mind... the device has a purpose... that purpose is to allow a last chance, or a "shot in the dark" for someone who's life has just been drastically cut short by their errors in judgment or a freak occurrance... Not to allow retarded people to skydive. lol
Once again, nobody is saying that improvements cannot be made. Just that the one and only improvement that you have suggested won't work without being outweighed by the additional risks. That unless it is present in an entirely seperate machine, market specifically for your purpose.
Nick
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Quote
-Turning the device on and off should NOT be made easier. It was purposely made more difficult to improve ergonomics (i.e. to avoid inadvertent setting)
That's unjustified. And possibly unjustifiable, imo. There's not even an explicit need for an on or off at all, since this concept is redundant with whether it ought to fire.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Ron 10
QuoteI think I'm not being clear then. I'm not trying to endorse any particular change to the device, quite the opposite. I agree with all of you that there's more bad designs than good ones, and finding the good ones takes time, money, and effort, and is itself an error-prone process.
But you will not answer my question....How much is it worth, both in accidents and money, for there to be a "better" device that fixes a problem that could be fixed by people not being dumb?
You mentioned how VIGIL had it right in some areas...But the VIGIL multi-mode has CAUSED accidents.
Is "newer", "better" if it causes accidents?
The very nature of ergonomics says no, yet you keep saying it.
QuoteThere are deficiencies in people that changes the device could possibly fix
Think about that for a second. You want a better AAD...OK but think about this. There are today people jumping that would not jump without an AAD. They consider the risk way too high. But by making a good AAD we allow those jumpers to participate in a sport that they just might not be suited for.
So by having a good AAD we have in fact created more unsafe jumpers. (Lets not get into the whole, "I wear an AAD, so I am safer BS"...Lets just stick to the point that people who do not trust themselves will jump with an AAD when they would not jump without one).
So now you wnat to make an AAD so good that a total idiot will be safe? The problem is that then we WILL have total idiots jumping.
QuoteTo assert contrariwise requires that the cypres cannot be exceeded. This is hubris, extremely unlikely, but not yet disproven.
Oh I think in some ways the CYPRES could be better...But is the ROI worth it? How many accidents are we willing to have in the process of finding a "better" AAD? How many people dying is it worth to make an idiot proof AAD so more people will feel safe that wouldn't jump without one?
QuoteOr that the cypres can be exceeded, but the value is so marginal and the cost is so great that nobody should be allowed to do it. This is also unlikely, but not yet disproven.
So how many accidents and how much money is it worth?
I realize that every "improvement" in this sport is often the result of accidents. (Case in point the new swoop mode AAD). But I also know that many new "improvements" also COST lives (mini rings, Xbraced canopies). Is it worth it to fix a problem that is not really a problem? In your "I would like an AAD that will save me if I "cruise" through 750 feet...." How about putting a focus on not cruising through 750 feet? How stupid do you have to be? Ever been that low in freefall? Shit is very big. Do you really want people that stupid to jump?
Please answer what number of accidents you are willing to have to make something that is not broken "Better".
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
goose491 0
You use the term "Strawman", then you tell people their stance is that the device is perfect when in fact all they are doing is pointing out flaws in your specific suggested "Improvement"? That's irony. Or you argue that the device shouldn't need to be turned on/off as a response to why turning it on and off is done the way it is?.
Okay nate, civil discussion is one thing; Just arguing for the sake of it is quite another. I know you aren't trolling, but you aren't thinking this through either... only typing.
It's good to want to improve things. But it's also good to know what it is you are doing. I think you should make up a proposal and send it to AirTech. So far, your recommended "improvements" are:
-It should know when I am wearing a wingsuit, and
-The user should not have a choice if it is On or Off
Good luck, let us know what they say.
Nick
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Okay nate, civil discussion is one thing; Just arguing for the sake of it is quite another. I know you aren't trolling, but you aren't thinking this through either... only typing.
It's good to want to improve things. But it's also good to know what it is you are doing. I think you should make up a proposal and send it to AirTech. So far, your recommended "improvements" are:
-It should know when I am wearing a wingsuit, and
-The user should not have a choice if it is On or Off
Good luck, let us know what they say.
Nick
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
goose491 0
QuoteThere's not even an explicit need for an on or off at all, since this concept is redundant with whether it ought to fire.
Do a search. You'll find that people have reasons they want them set. And people have reasons why they would like to be able to turn them off.
Taking away the ON/OFF is a major step BACKWARDS.
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
billvon 3,111
>This is a false dilemma, since there is no reason that both cannot be catered in the same device.
I have given several examples of where this cannot be.
>Airbags in a car, for illustration.
Airbags in a car do not have an HMI. They are like crash barriers at the end of a runway. You don't 'operate' them.
>but they demonstrate that multiple user classes can be willed away.
Again, you can do this easily by lowering all operators to a (low) common denominator. I think that is a bad idea in general.
I have given several examples of where this cannot be.
>Airbags in a car, for illustration.
Airbags in a car do not have an HMI. They are like crash barriers at the end of a runway. You don't 'operate' them.
>but they demonstrate that multiple user classes can be willed away.
Again, you can do this easily by lowering all operators to a (low) common denominator. I think that is a bad idea in general.
Ron 10
QuoteThe number of times I've had to teach newbies how to simply turn off a Cypres, never mind the dificulty of doing so - shows me clearly that there is room for improvement in one specific area - turning it off.
How many accidents have been caused by not being able to turn off an AAD?
It does just fine if you KNOW how to do it....Do you have a problem turning it off? I don't have a problem turning mine off at all.
Would you rather have an AAD that turns off too easy so someone burns in accidentally? Again, how many accidents have been caused by not being able to turn off an AAD?
QuoteThe fact that Airtec recently released a "swoop" Cypres shows that there had been room for improvement in that specific area, too.
And they also said that it is not an AAD for everyone and that for the average jumper it will INCREASE RISK. Thats not really an improvement then is it.
QuoteI see a bunch of people arguing that the Cypres is perfect. Quite frankly, that's absurd.
No, what you see is that some people know that any new device will bring new risk. (The new swoop CYPRES increases risk to most jumpers, the muti-mode Vigil increased risk...ect).
What you think is people thinking the CYPRES is "perfect" is people saying that its not "broken" and not seeing a need for a "better" device since the newer device will ADD risk in most cases.
An idiot smoking it down to 750 feet on a wingsuit jump and not being saved is not the fault of the CYPRES....It is the fault of the user.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Quote
Or you argue that the device shouldn't need to be turned on/off as a response to why turning it on and off is done the way it is?.
The reason that a particular device was designed in a particular way does not necessarily extend to all similar devices.
For instance, I can't turn by neptune off, (except maybe by removing the battery...). If I don't want my neptune on my jump, I take it out of my ear. This is a superior design than any number of on//off switches, because this way I can infer the device's likelihood of operation without interacting with it. The consequences of the neptune being on or off when I want it otherwise are lesser than that of an AAD...but that's not of consequence here because the neptune's operational model is superior.
You are making unnecessary assumptions about how an aad ought to be constituted and operated.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Quote
You don't 'operate' them.
There's no reason that a well designed AAD needs to be 'operated' any more than a crash barrier or an airbag. To me, the measure if the cypres' deficiency is exactly that I cannot treat it like an airbag. That I must switch it on or off at all, and that people have died as a result of failing to turn it on or off correctly.
All this putting aside technicalities like legal requirements for airbags and child safety seats...of course.
And imo, an airbag deployment is a form of HMI...that's a terminology flap, tho.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Ron 10
This is funny.
You say this in this post: "There's no reason that a well designed AAD needs to be 'operated' any more than a crash barrier or an airbag. To me, the measure if the cypres' deficiency is exactly that I cannot treat it like an airbag. That I must switch it on or off at all, and that people have died as a result of failing to turn it on or off correctly."
But right above this post you say:
"You are making unnecessary assumptions about how an aad ought to be constituted and operated".
Is that not exactly what you are doing in this whole thread?
You say this in this post: "There's no reason that a well designed AAD needs to be 'operated' any more than a crash barrier or an airbag. To me, the measure if the cypres' deficiency is exactly that I cannot treat it like an airbag. That I must switch it on or off at all, and that people have died as a result of failing to turn it on or off correctly."
But right above this post you say:
"You are making unnecessary assumptions about how an aad ought to be constituted and operated".
Is that not exactly what you are doing in this whole thread?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteIs that not exactly what you are doing in this whole thread?
No, mostly I'm making conjectures.
Slight difference...
I want to dispel as many assumptions as I can, and hold up the ones I can't.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
goose491 0
QuoteIs that not exactly what you are doing in this whole thread?
There is no rational explanation of what he is doing in this thread.
The AAD should somehow fire for birdman who's vertical speed might be the same as that of a hot canopy. It should not fire for the hot canopy though. It cannot count on the user to tell it which is which though, because the user should not be able to 'operate' it.
"There's a hole in the bucket! Dear Liza, dear Liza...."
Nick
p.s. I think in the future, the CYPRES should hop out and pack the main parachute for me when I'm done my skydive.
Have a great weekend all!!!
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Ron 10
QuoteNo, mostly I'm making conjectures.
Slight difference...
I want to dispel as many assumptions as I can, and hold up the ones I can't.
Could you answer the questions I have asked several times?
1. How much is it worth, both in accidents and money, for there to be a "better" device that fixes a problem that could be fixed by people not being dumb?
You mentioned how VIGIL had it right in some areas...But the VIGIL multi-mode has CAUSED accidents.
2. Is it "newer" or "better" if it can cause accidents that the other avoided?
3. Is it worth it to design a device that may in fact encourage stupidity in a high risk sport?
This is not driving, it is a high risk sport that requires people to pay attention and train to participate...Should the sport be down dumbed to the level that an idiot with no training should be able to participate?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Quote
There is no rational explanation of what he is doing in this thread.
Collecting insults, perhaps?
No... I'm collecting & tossing out ideas on how to improve AADs. More or less on topic to the original post, I think. Tho it's a bit of a trying process...collectively I think we need more imagination, and more patience.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Quote1. How much is it worth, both in accidents and money, for there to be a "better" device that fixes a problem that could be fixed by people not being dumb?
As many lives as it saves, for there will always be dumb people, including dumb skydivers. There is only an empirical answer to this question.
QuoteYou mentioned how VIGIL had it right in some areas...But the VIGIL multi-mode has CAUSED accidents.
That means that the vigil isn't perfect either. It means we have more work to do. Skydiving has "caused" accidents too...
Quote
Is it "newer" or "better" if it can cause accidents that the other avoided?
All that matters is the cruel calculus of injuries and accidents. Newer, better, one or the other is irrelevant to safety except insofar as it causes accidents. Thus, if 'better' means fewer and less severe accidents, then better means safer...this is pretty much just wrestling with definitions here...
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
billvon 3,111
>I'm collecting & tossing out ideas on how to improve AADs.
I think you may be too busy trying to "prove" this or that to people to collect any ideas on how to improve AAD's. I can think of half a dozen improvements -
Acceleration sensor, to disable firing if the main opens and decelerates the jumper by at least 100fps before 800 feet. (Drawback - less protection after a cutaway)
Attitude sensor, so device will fire earlier during head-down flight (since reserve needs more altitude to open at higher speeds.) Drawback - more likely to misfire if jumper is head-down and opens his main at 1500 feet. More to fail; attitude sensor can be fooled by centrifugal force.
Light sensor. If the sensor detects light at the bottom of the reserve tray (i.e. top of the main container) it disables firing since the main is out. Drawback - firing disabled during baglock; AAD operates normally during night jump (i.e. no disabling of firing during low pulls on night jumps.)
Dual pressure sensors, one in control head, one in 'battery box.' Redundancy.
Larger display, so it's easier to see "AAD set for takeoff + 1000 feet" and similar info. Drawback - more fragile.
And of course all the above add complexity which equals more cost and lower overall reliability.
I think you may be too busy trying to "prove" this or that to people to collect any ideas on how to improve AAD's. I can think of half a dozen improvements -
Acceleration sensor, to disable firing if the main opens and decelerates the jumper by at least 100fps before 800 feet. (Drawback - less protection after a cutaway)
Attitude sensor, so device will fire earlier during head-down flight (since reserve needs more altitude to open at higher speeds.) Drawback - more likely to misfire if jumper is head-down and opens his main at 1500 feet. More to fail; attitude sensor can be fooled by centrifugal force.
Light sensor. If the sensor detects light at the bottom of the reserve tray (i.e. top of the main container) it disables firing since the main is out. Drawback - firing disabled during baglock; AAD operates normally during night jump (i.e. no disabling of firing during low pulls on night jumps.)
Dual pressure sensors, one in control head, one in 'battery box.' Redundancy.
Larger display, so it's easier to see "AAD set for takeoff + 1000 feet" and similar info. Drawback - more fragile.
And of course all the above add complexity which equals more cost and lower overall reliability.
A breath of fresh air, thank you.
To me the barometer, although it is central to current designs, is a major weakness. I recently dissected raw data that came out of my neptune, and while it's clearly not the same thing as a cypres or a vigil etc, make me realize how unreliable barometric data can be. Just trying to find the point, manually and algorithmically, at which I exited the plane and when my canopy deployed seems very problematic.
I suspect that the cypres delay between 1100 feet or so at activation and 750 feet at firing has a lot to do with data smoothing.
I like the ideas about sensing the rig's configuration. That also seems like the right direction to be moving in.
To me the barometer, although it is central to current designs, is a major weakness. I recently dissected raw data that came out of my neptune, and while it's clearly not the same thing as a cypres or a vigil etc, make me realize how unreliable barometric data can be. Just trying to find the point, manually and algorithmically, at which I exited the plane and when my canopy deployed seems very problematic.
I suspect that the cypres delay between 1100 feet or so at activation and 750 feet at firing has a lot to do with data smoothing.
I like the ideas about sensing the rig's configuration. That also seems like the right direction to be moving in.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Quote
To me the barometer, although it is central to current designs, is a major weakness. I recently dissected raw data that came out of my neptune, and while it's clearly not the same thing as a cypres or a vigil etc, make me realize how unreliable barometric data can be. Just trying to find the point, manually and algorithmically, at which I exited the plane and when my canopy deployed seems very problematic.
Why are you so sure the problem is with barometers, and not with the Neptune? I saw a lot of funny results from it when I demoed it, particularly with regards to the start of freefall and the average speeds. But not with the displayed altitude - it seemed to do that essential function well.
Pressure is the best means for determining altitude. GPS is very poor for this, and very slow. Nevermind the extra dependencies it creates. It's not by accident that Garmin sells models with a barometric altimeter.
Using radio beacons on the ground would be even crazier for this function. Huge complexity added for no gain. If the cypres barometer was so unreliable as a means for measuring, where are the failures in the sky? (Activating the unit at agl - 1500 doesn't qualify)
Improving devices is always positive, but this sounds so much more like solutions in search of problems.
I'm not arguing that its perfect, I'm saying it works, and pretty well at that from what I've read.
What your referring to, swoop cypreses and waterproof cypres 2s, those are evolution of 1) people exceeding the gears limits (in swooping), so it makes sense to alter the limit. No arguement there. Thats progress. People get better (faster) landings, they need/want the gear to catch up. Even the Cyp 2, waterproofed for pond swooping. People get wet at comps, meaning the environment changed for people (swoop ponds), progress would dictate that SSK (or anyone) meets the need of the jumper as the current design limit (getting wet) was exceeded by jumpers in ponds. Cyp 2 is the progressive answer. Thats great, I'm all for that type of progress.
But to be clear that is not what Nathaniel is arguing for. He is arguing for the need for an AAD to account for a dumber skydiver, one that would still be in WS flight at 750. He wants a perceived deficiency in the jumper to be made up for by the gear.
Cyp 2 and the swoop AAD make up for a deficiency in the gear, not the person, to meet the new demands placed on the gear by jumpers pushing the limits of our current gear.
--
My other ride is a RESERVE.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites