df8m1

This AAD does not "need" modes like current AADs do, for it to preform properly when used in the various diciplins, except for Tandem because there is no way to discern a Tandem jump from the video jumper filming the Tandem. This AAD would use modes to determine its failure mode operational procedures. This AAD is able to make decisions beyond that of a traditional AAD because of the data recorder providing additional information beyond barometric pressure. In the event that one of the instruments were to fail during a jump, the AAD's emergency procedures would be determined by the mode that it is set in. I do not want to get into this too much because this is getting into IP territory, but we would use discipline specific modes to allow the AAD the ability to deal with a problem in a manner that minimizes the risk to the jumper. Once the AAD has identified that there is a problem, the interface screen will say ERROR!! DO NOT JUMP!!. Once the user shuts down the AAD, it will detect the error during start up and shut down. So just like Modes address limitations with current AADs during normal operation, our AAD's modes would address the limitations that are a result of a problem identified during a jump. Or to put it another way, we jumpers have emergency procedures to deal with different malfunctions, and this AAD will have it's own emergency procedures which will be dependent on the mode it is in. I can see that being confusing, so if that does not make any sense let me know and I will try to take another stab at it.

I agree with the bar being high, especially given that people are use to having modes for each discipline. From strictly a marketing stand point, I think having modes will be necessary as the required re-education to get away from them would be prohibitive. __________ The recent posts above regarding how the current AADs work are excellent. I think there is a group of people who would be very uncomfortable jumping their AADs if they truly knew how they worked lol.. I am honestly very impressed with what Airtec, AAD, and Mars are able to do with so little information. AAD and Airtec can talk about how their unit works because they have patented the process. I have been advised that patenting code is not piratical and that it is better to protect is as a Trade Secret. Code evolves so quickly that by the time a patent is issued, the code no longer resembles what was patented lol.. As such I have to keep the Secret Recipe under wraps. I have been scolded so to speak for saying what I have lol... The proof will be in the pudding as they say. We plan on doing some side by side comparison tests this summer to see how the Current AADs do compared to mine. The Vigil will probably be the main unit to compare to as it will put out some data that we can put side by side with ours.

If true its just a matter of time till someone jumps a unit without power when they need it. Not sure I'd call that progress or better design. A bit like 'the operation was successful but the patient died of complications' I'm sure the M2 will indicate a low battery condition during start up if it don't make it to the advertised 15 year mark.

That train of thought is based on current AAD design and operational philosophy. Current AADs have to have “Arming” altitudes and “Disarming” altitudes because they can not evaluate the situation they are in, to a fine enough degree, to be able to make a determination whether to fire or not, they simply look at descent rate and altitude. Yes they each have different math that they use to process the descent rates and altitude, but at the core that is solely what they are using. Because of that, the manufacturers have employed “Arming” and “Disarming” altitudes and rely on the pilots to descend bellow the trigger descent rate, or else a current AAD will fire in the plane. They have to have “Speed” models that compromise function at another point in the jump in order to “try” to keep the their AAD from firing during a high performance landing. They simply do not have an alternative way to do it. There is a thread about a Vigil 2 that fired during a high performance landing and the results from AAD checking the unit have not been posted yet, but it is a perfect example of how fine a line they are trying to walk. In contrast, our new AAD is able to determine the situation it is in and does not need “Arming” and “Disarming” altitudes to keep it from firing in an airplane. Because it will have “Situational Awareness” and can tell if a jumper has exited the plane or not. It will not, by design, fire inside an aircraft, regardless of any series of altitudes or following descent rates. With this new approach to how an AAD will operate, we do not need to restrict one area of operation so it will operate better in another, as you acknowledge your concept of “modes” does. You are not alone with that thinking because all the majority of programmers have had do base their thinking on, is the current AAD platforms and single string logic that they use, and given that, your thoughts are pretty much in line with what the current AAD manufacturers have had to do to try and keep up with the new disciplines that did not exist when they were designed. I totally agree! IMOP, there is no reason why a processor driven AAD should fire in an aircraft period. This AAD is designed to not fire in an airplane without limiting proper operational response if the jumper exits the aircraft. I can't get into how it works, that is a trade secret and my cats aren't talking lol... I wish I could. I jumped it last summer and was extremely pleased with how well it worked, and with the fine tuning over the winter, I am really excited to start testing this summer. Something to keep in mind is I am not making the clame that this AAD will not fire in an aircraft based on theory, we have been testing and refining the logic for some time now and the results have been better than I honestly expected them to be. If things keep going as smoothly, I expect to conclude Alpha testing this summer and start Beta testing this winter. That is where the current AADs are at optionally speaking. It will be interesting to see if Airtec and AAD change their platforms and principal of operation to follow suit with this new AAD. Now, even thought this new AAD operational philosophy does not need "modes" like the current AADs do in order to operate properly, there is some level of optimizational benefit that a discipline specific mode would allow.

To mode or not to mode??? Personally I am not a fan of modes as I can see it creating an opportunity for the user to select the wrong one, but then again why potentially diminish some operational capability just because a user "might not care enough to know how their equipment works"? I have gotten some feed back that suggests that having a separate mode for everything creates a higher confidence level in the user that is using it in a specific discipline. Modes would also allow allow us to really tweak the settings to maximize the "mode" of operation to specific disciplines. For instance there could be a Wingsuit mode, but there really would not be much of a difference from the "Standard" mode, meaning that a the AAD would work properly in any combination of the above modes and disciplines. However I can see a slight advantage in a "Wingsuit" mode operationally speaking. Same for a "Swoop" mode, there is not really a compelling reason for it, but there are some subtle advantages that the user can benefit from with a dedicated mode. Any thoughts either way?

Bueller??..... Bueller??......Bueller???

If I recall, someone came up to us at PIA and inquired about a pilot application, or it came up in conversation over the Static Line AAD. That is indeed a potential market and there was a discussion in the hotel room at Daytona about it, so you are right in there with your thinking lol.. As for the number of cutters…For my AAD the difference between 1 or 2 cutters is more than just an adaptor to allow 2 cutters to be attached. IMOP there is a problem with how Airtec, and I think AAD, have designed their firing circuits, in that, the cutter detect can not tell the difference between 1 or 2 cutters, and in the case of a 2 cutter configuration, if one cutter is damaged, (the plastic tail on a Cypres cutter brakes off for example) but the other cutter is OK, then the self test will not see the damaged cutter because it sees the remaining good one. The Static line AAD requires 2 cutters, and it has 2 firing circuits (one for each cutter) and checks for “both” cutters. Given the above mentioned damaged cutter scenario, the Static Line AAD would detect the damaged cutter and alert the user. A 182 pilot checks both Mags before take off, and I think that if there are 2 cutters attached, they both should be checked prior to take off too. I did some power calculations based on some assumptions and have decided to build the guni pig unit with A cell batteries which are thinner than the C batteries, and I have reconfigured the overall layout of the housing to make it thinner, but the board space is reduced as a result. If I can eliminate some parts, that will free up some valuable realestate on the board. As for Strong Tandems, don’t they have an end of life? Or is it that they have to be sent in to be recertified airworthy? If it was as simple as adding another cutter, then I could see offering a 2 pin set up, and like you said, the tandem AADs seem to be doing ok. However you are also correct about the in aircraft firing potential. Nothing is cut and dry when you are building something lol.. I think Butler had an Airman Cypres (I think it is called) at his booth. Airtec has had that for some time now for pilots… they eject, the pin is pulled and yada yada.. If they are selling for $2500.00 USD that is a good price compared to over $5000.00 for a military free fall Cypres. As for my AAD knowing if it is in an aerobatic plane or has left, keep an eye on the thread this summer lol..

The only rigs that I can think of that have a 2 pin reserve left in existence is the Racer and Strong DuelHalk Tandem? I'm not sure if the new Strong Tandem has a single or 2 pin still. John Sherman has made it quite clear that he does not like cutters in his reserves period. There is cost that would go into the duel cutter wiring harness and given that we are only going to get a small percentage of the market, and of that percentage how many would have 2 pin reserves? I think that is why Mars and even Argus only offer single pin set ups.

Single pin or duel pin cutters? Cypres and Vigil have duel cutter assemblies available, but the M2 doesn't as far as I know. Leaning heavily toward only a single pin reserve cutter only as well.

I saw that last night. Just checked the thread and it was reported that the closing loop was intact and the reserve handle was pulled.

I pared down your comments to cover something that has not been touched on before. I have specifically not mentioned who I am or what company I am with, for a couple of reasons; one I want to keep the focus on the AAD topic, and not a company, two, there is a fine line between discussing a product that is in the works and marketing it with company references. I think going into how long the company has been around, would be hard to tie to what the AAD does in a technical discussion. Who we are, how long we have been around, how long we have been doing what we are doing, who we have done it for, how did it do, will be covered in the marketing campaign in due time. Given the Argus debacle I totally understand the concern. There are many legal steps that have to be taken before it is prudent to start talking about what company is going to produce it or sell it. That is an interesting concept, and I think one of the early posters referred to a rental program in their country like what you are suggesting. Perhaps that could be a business model for someone, they could buy some AADs and rent / lease them out, or even fiance them over many years. __________ I do get a kick out of the comments that this device will be new and therefor without the track record, be it good or bad, that the other AADs have on the market, and there for it is too risky. If everyone took that stance, we would still be jumping mechanical AADs lol. Everyone has their own requirements they demand from their gear and that is a reflection of their understanding of just how critical their gear choice can be. A wingsuiter, for example should be concerned that the AAD that they choose will initiate reserve pack opening even if they are in full flight mode at the altitude they have set the AAD to take action. Jumpers jumping snively mains should be concerned about their AAD firing during main deployment if they get a little deep, which may be the prudent thing to do depending on the situation, as apposed to just not being altitude aware. Jumpers with slower opening reserves should be concerned about their AAD firing at an altitude proportionate to their fall rate and the distance their reserve takes to open. High performance canopy pilots should be concerned about their AAD firing when they need them to, however, not to when they don’t, and as such, how much margin are they sacrificing as a result. All jumpers should be aware of the conditions in which their AAD will fire in an aircraft, unless they have one that won’t by design. Proper testing and validation is critical for any aerospace part. I am not saying that the testing period will be sufficient to “guarantee” that there will not be any issues, that is not reasonable given the creative nature of jumpers lol.. It is very important that jumpers buy gear that they are comfortable with, and if that is not this AAD I am good with that. I have said before that I hope Airtec and AAD will not follow me down this path, so those who are comforted by a product designed in the 80s, and that is starting to be pointed out in Seminars as perhaps behind the times with modern skydiving disciplines, will have something to chose from in the future. They do work well for what they are working with. I am honestly very impressed as to how well they do work and I am being genuinely sincere. There is just a “wall” as Lee said, that they are up against, not that they can’t perhaps get around some of it, but that would require changes to how they work now which could have unknown affects as well. So all in all, unless Airtec and AAD stand fast, the next few years could have a lot of new AAD code in the air

That is an idea for sure, and it would allow the jumper to retain an AAD.

With any luck Airtec and AAD will keep making the same AAD as they have in the past so there will be a comfortable alternative to choose from lol.. I'm not a Vette guy either, never saw the apeal even after building a couple of them, I prefer the comfort and performance of my 84 diesel Benz lol There will always be Cypres buyers, Vigil buyers, and maybe Mars buyers, that can not be swayed, no matter what, and I think that is a good thing... I mean how can something claim to be the best without something bellow it to refference to?

I have thought of that and wonder if the negative pressure above the jumper would have some influence on the measured pressure at the boundary layer behind the jumper compared to free fall. I plan on preforming test in both mediums and see how they compare. I have a laboratory wind tunnel that we use to calibrate the air speed sensor in the Flight Data Recorder, but is only has an 8" test section diameter I bet the magnetic sensor will be useless in the tunnel, but we could still use the accelerometer to cross reference orientation to pressure.

That is very interesting... I will certainly take your advice. If the FAA is going to start to get involved with AADs, it would make sense, given where this one is in the process, to get inline with any FAA requirements or guidelines that may be in the works.. My only concern is in regards to the rigger who seals the reserve. I have to look out for him / her / them as eventually the validation will expand to several rigs with active units in them and I want the reserve seals to be legal. From a container manufacturer’s perspective, plausible deniability would be my preferred defense lol... I wonder what has spurred the FAA to start to question AADs. I posted some questions about a TSO like test standard for AADs in a thread some time ago and it was like I was playing dodge ball lol... Very interesting in deed...

Jumpers need to know how their gear performs, every piece of it. The larger canopies such as the example above are definitely outside the normal "solo" realm (IMOP) and are in the tandem crossover range. I certainly hope the jumper jumping the reserve mentioned has adjusted his AAD to compensate for the additional vertical distance his reserve needs to open! There is a way to do it and keep it pretty straight forward. Can’t go into how, but don’t panic yet lol…

I was rushed for time on the last post so I forgot a couple of things I wanted to mention. This AAD will operate on a "canopy over head" altitude that translates into a firing altitude. I think if you were to ask the majority of AAD users what altitude their reserve should be over their head given a firing altitude of 750 or even 1000ft and I bet most will not know. They will guess based on where they would like it to be, but they will have no idea how long it takes their reserve to open on average. (which does vary depending on the reserve and method of deployment). This AAD will compensate the firing altitude for increased speeds in an effort to consistently achieve a canopy over head at the desired altitude, regardless on the descent rate of the jumper. I recall a post saying that different reserves take different times to open as a challenge to this concept. My answer is, and correct me if I am wrong, but the TSO limit in regards to time is 3 sec, and that is the longest that a reserve is allowed to take to open. It would be fun discussing how we are going to do all of this, but I can’t, that is magic or the secret recipe if you will. It will be interesting to see if Airtec or AAD make any changes to their designs to incorporate any of the operational characteristics I have mentioned, of if they dismiss them and trudge forward. Lee mentioned that the container manufacturers should be interested in supporting the development of this AAD as it would help reduce their exposure. That would be nice but I do not see that happening lol.. Interesting perspective on the ability for a rigger to pack a prototype up in a reserve. Of coarse the AAD will be passive initially, I will have the cutter plugged in, but visible outside the container. It is important to have the actual cutter in the mix as I want to test it in its proper configuration electrically speaking, so it is exposed to static as it would be in real life. I will be able to see if the cutter fires, and tell if the controller commanded it or if it was “unintended”. I am not a rigger and I want to keep everything above board. AADs are beta tested all the time, so there has to be some way to do it legally. I agree there is no way a container manufacturer will sign off on an AAD let alone a prototype, but then again, from what I understand, a rigger can not install an AAD in a container that is not listed by the container manufacturer as being approved.. Is that not why people are so interested in which manufacturers approved the Mars for use in their containers?

I would only rig up our drop test dummy with the GPS or Radar or what have you, but that is really thinking in a complicated sense. There is actually a way to determine the error of the altimeter in different orientations or as you change orientations, but how we will do that is classified. Rest assured everyone… This AAD will do nothing more than cut a loop, what happens after that is beyond my influence. There will not be any GPS, no Cellular, no Facebook, no Twitter, no ordering pizza, no reminders to pick up the dry cleaning on the way home, no log book, no coleslaw either.. Not even a data collector that jumpers can down load, that data is stored in a Micro-SD card inside the box, inside the container. Post incident, that card will be accessible by opening up the box, and the data can be sent to us for analysis, or they can send the hole AAD. What it will do is wait until you are out of the plane before it will fire, it will have a tighter orientation altitude deviation, it will hold off from firing if it sees a main deployment just before it reaches the altitude that the jumper selected, it will determine that a Wingsuter has not deployed after they have exited the plane, and fire to get a canopy over their head at the altitude they have selected if they have not done so them selves. I truly do not want anyone to misunderstand exactly what this AAD will do and not do. This is an AAD, with one task alone end of story. If there is any confusion as to how this AAD will differ from the previously mentioned Cypres, please post your question and I will do my best to clear it up.

LOL... You did not really think that idea was about building it into the AAD did you? That is funny! This topic will get stale real fast if all we talk about is what it will do lol.. If have found that indulging in tangents of thought that are ludicrous to the main topic at hand sometimes result in thinking of something beneficial (totally by accident) that other wise would not have been thought of.. Here is a hint, if it sounds absurd, then it probably is lol… And as a previous poster pointed out (obviously a pro Cypress guy ) , everyone will have an alternative AAD to choose from.

Sorry for the multiple posts.. I forgot to mention something else I wanted to lol.. This thought is in regards to the AAD as I see it. I was PMed by a jumper wanting to clarify the circumstances in which I claim this AAD would not fire in an aircraft. I must confess that when I say that I am thinking of “pilot in control” conditions where the pilot has control of the aircraft, but this message was about a situation were the pilot did not have control of the plane and it hit me really just how important it is that any AAD should not fire inside the aircraft under any circumstances. I mentioned it to my associate and he pointed out that turbine aircraft can rocket up to the arming altitude of the AADs available today and then have a problem that causes them to come down fast, fast enough to cause AADs to fire. Given that some DZs take off with the door open, or if the jumpers in the back get the door open as the plane is going down, then an AAD or multiple AADs going off could make a bad situation that might be manageable for the pilot, into one that is tragic. I think it is very important that an AAD not fire when it is in an aircraft, regardless of altitude and descent rate, or regardless of pressurization. I keep saying to my self, with in it’s normal operation, “an AAD should do no harm”.

It was just a conceptual thought I had and I agree with you that and AAD has only one job so don't worrie about being able to sink it to I-tunes lol... This concept would be like the "I've fallen and I can't get up" thing, but on a higher level lol... I will scribble down some notes on it and put it in the folder along with the Canopy tracker lol LEE: I know that the GPS has to be unlocked to get the vertical speed up, but I do not remember what the speed limits are, (it has been a while since I looked into GPS), and the refresh rate, (sample rate) on GPS is usually limited considering this application, so the data could be very late to the party. If the GPS could keep up with the vertical speeds, then the slow sample rate would not be as much of a problem, but I would be concerned about basing a correction factor on a slow sample rate. I would want to have a way to validate the GPS data's accuracy during operation, as if it were to get erratic, things could get interesting in a bad way. The reason that I have not built a flight data recorder with GPS is that every customer has tried it and found it to not be reliable. Granted I do not know what they were using for GPS data collection, so perhaps that was the problem. Might it be worth playing with a GPS recorder specifically made for us to compare the AAD data to?? In a prefect world absolutely, but the GPS systems that are already available are for military parachute navigation, or cargo navigation which is slow in movement, and allows for a good amount of error between data points, (there is more time to average and correct for error prior to needing the next data point.) I would lean more to a laser or radar measurement system for a comparative altitude measurement value to validate the AADs altimeter. You mentioned a radar system previously and I assumed it worked fairly well at speeds higher then the average jumper. Thank you for your offer to help. I have received several such offers privately but unfortunately I accidentally deleted my PM mail box so I lost all of them. The trick will be to get a waver from the manufacturers to allow a rigger to pack the box into the reserve container. I have a Vector and 2 Infinities, I have not contacted Infinity and have not heard back for UPT yet, I will call next week and see what it takes to stay within the spirit if the “accordance to the manufacturers recommendations” or however it is worded, so my rigger is legal when he seals the container with this thing in it. Rest assured, we will reach out for third party efforts when we reach that phase.

I just had a thought pop in my head and if I do not write it down I will forget it my morning.. Just thinking out loud about all the "smart phone" type apps that could theoretically be created for this AAD and one situation came to mind that is both relevant and not too far out there. From time to time jumpers go in off airport and sometimes they are not found right away. I recall a couple of wingsuiters that went in, in remote areas, and I am not sure if one was ever found. What if there was a device that had GPS and a Cellular capability, and it could detect a significant impact consistent with a fatal result, after which, it would call/text a number and transmit the GPS location along with an announcement of the hard landing? A feature like this could be incorporated into an AAD, I’m not saying I am doing that, but the concept came to mind and I thought it might be worth discussing. This could easily be a stand alone item, heck, I bet a high school kid could write an app for a smart phone to do that in an hour lol… Too bad the phones are so delicate lol..

I guess that is enough silliness for now It is going to be a while before these would be available to the public. There are quite a few differences between how the Military use gear and how we use it for sport jumping, so it will take a bit of time to validate the changes to the settings and tweaks for sport specific conditions. The plan is to jump it and mature this version of the logic this summer, then, baring any problems, expand to a beta round. The development process for these things can not be rushed. Even though we have a solid platform from which to start with, it is a different application in reality, and no assumptions can me made as to any potential crossover conflicts. I have been told that I have a tendency to nit pick something in an effort for perfection. I am fond of the quote, "in the pursuit of perfection, all was lost", and have emulated it from time to time lol... Rest assured, that what ever AAD that you purchase as a stop gap will still have a resale value when we release this one,

Probity should also in include Instagram and Twitter to? LOL Snap Chat probably wouldn't work though...

I also want to thank everyone as I have enjoyed the exchange very much as well. I know it is risky for a manufacturer to engage with the public, as we have all seen where that has gone bad fast lol... Doesn't L&B have a data logger of some kind that will link up to a phone like you and Lee have described? I have always been surprised that they have not come out with an AAD... guess they are smarter than I am lol...