df8m1

I am starting to agree that referring it to being "intelligent" causes people to go to far with the concept of AI, so perhaps "Smart" would be better? There are smart phones, so why not smart AADs? There won't be any cool apps for it though lol...

I'm not seeing going public any time soon lol... but one never knows how the winds of fortune will blow.

I have no idea what Airtec does during its service intervals as they never sent any information back when I had one. I have never had a Vigil, so I can not comment there. I think every AAD should have a log book, just like a plane or a reserve has, and the test results as well as anything that was done to the unit should be logged. That sounds like what you are describing with Vigil, but again, I have not had one to know exactly what the provide after a service, or what they do to their AADs during a service. These AADs would go through the same validation process as the new ones to be sure they are working properly in all conditions, not just the one they are mainly used in. In regards to "repairing" an AAD, depending on what the problem was and were it was located, and the degree of confidence of the repair, I may be inclined to repair the problem, however, I would most likely replace the control unit board assembly as a whole. Should that happen, the end of life date would be set to zero, given it is a new board assembly. I think you are saying that when any AAD hits is end of life date, that the manufacturer should be able to replace the controller board assembly for a lesser price than a new AAD assembly?

Lets see if I can address the issue if lifespan. First and foremost, it is very important to remember that an AAD, any AAD, is enclosed in the reserve, and has the capability of opening the reserve container, there for I consider it to be a operationally critical item, as, if it screws up someone’s day gets a lot more exciting, and potentially not in a good way. The issue is the estimation of how circuit boards and solder joints age, expanding when warm and contracting when cool, a shock here, a drop there… They all add up to take a toll. I work on older Mercedes and they are known to have problems with electronics intermittently, or total failure above a certain temperature. To the untrained eye looking at all the solder joints everything looks good, but under a microscope you can see micro cracks in the solder joints, and when the boards get warm they expand and pull the two halves of the crack apart and circuit is broken until the board cools and contracts back. The fix is to just reflow the solder at all the joints and you are good for another 30 years. The circuit boards in AADs are the same way, only much more delicate as they are smaller. Many surface mount parts have the pads underneath them, so the joint is not visible to be inspected, unlike components with little arms, like a centipede, that are soldered to the pads on the board, those you can at least see. The reflow process that is used to solder the components with the pads on the bottom is hard on the parts as it raises the temperature of the part in order to melt the solder bellow it. Also, some components will absorb moisture and come sealed in packages with desiccant bags and moisture indicator tags. Care has to be taken with these parts as if they are not installed with in so many hours from when the package was opened, they have to be baked for a period of time at a lower temperature to dry them out before they are put through a reflow cycle, if there is any moisture inside the part, and one attempts to relow it, it will go POP, and sometimes you can not hear it, but the tiny parts inside will be damaged, and it may even work for a little while too, but it is damaged and will eventually fail. It is not uncommon for a component manufacturer to declare a lifespan for a component, depending on what that component is used for by some company, in order the limit the parts manufacturer’s liability. If I use a component that its manufacturer has set an end of life date on it, then if I do not honor that end of life date with my product, and there is a problem latter, then I am in a bad spot. Sensors ususaly have a known drift rate… a % of full scale over X time. This is one of the reasons why it is important to see the units every so often, so we can track the drift and recalibrate if necessary, that is if you want to maintain the accuracy of a device that has the task of discerning how high you are when you are traveling at over 200ft/sec. At some point the drift can exceed the available recalibration tolerance, and at that point the sensor is junk. Now I hear people saying, then why not just change the sensor? Well, remember that after say 12/16/20 years of use in a rig, in conditions that vary all over the world, the boards with their little delicate traces have seen a lot of abuse, these are not sitting on a pillow on a shelf somewhere lol.. The stresses that are put on the board in order to remove the old sensor, and the replace it would be risky, given what this thing does. If it were a radio, that would be a different argument. If you figure the total life, yearly cost of the unit, it usually is not much more than a repack these days. At that point in its life, it has done its job, its better to stop while you are ahead IMOP. Now if we were stuck on the island and the only way to get off of it was to replace the sensor, then by all means, but we are not on an island, we are above it! lol. Also, depending on how the boards are assembled, stacked with soldered headers for example, the parts in the middle are not accessible, and it is very brutal process separating the boards when they are soldered together, one could use sockets, but I prefer the structural integrity of a soldered header joint over a spring socked. Each method has its plusses and minuses, but I prefer the solder joint, and as such replacement of parts between the boards would not be possible. ESD diodes tend to decay over time and multiple zaps, so eventually they will fail to protect a circuit from static and there will be a problem. The pyro actuator usually has a life span as well. That is referenced to reaction time at temperature though, so as it ages the reaction slows down. We are talking milliseconds or fractions of a millisecond, but the point is there is a change taking place as it ages, and although it can be predicted, it can not be known until it is activated. The point of service intervals is to detect a budding problem and address it before it matures into a full blown problem. I am sure that expired Cypers 1 units are still being jumped in other countries, and I have heard people reference that a time or two as a reason why they should not have the lifespan Airtec has assigned to them. Twin Otters have several parts in them that have a life span… they are only allowed to be used for so many cycles, then they have to be replaced, regardless of the detection of any problems. The AAD service life is based on the same principle. Remember, something will always fail at the worst time, and when you need it most. I am curious if your thinking is the same now or if it you have a different opinion on life span? I am truly interested to know.

You are correct in that there is some capitalism at play here. Keep in mind that the goal of business is to make more money not more parts, I do not want to make $1.00 on 1000 parts when i can make 1 part and sell it for $1000.00. OK, Lets talk about the production costs since I think you are genuinely interested in the subject. Never mind the R&D investment, the interest on that money, or any investor returns, lets just look at what goes in to an AAD from parts to shipment. Parts that go into my AAD: Controller enclosure Interface enclosure Special shielded cabling Electronic components Circuit Boards Connectors Cutter Batteries Software The enclosures need to be machined and anodized, the circuit boards made and populated with all the parts. The boards go through an initial test after they have been populated. So you have the cost of the machined and anodized parts, the cost of the board assemblies, and some labor to test them at this point. Then the battery contacts are installed in the Controller enclosure and the boards are installed and wired to the connectors, this is straight labor cost. Once the Controller is assembled, the batteries are installed and a test interface is connected to initially test the controller operation and case leakage, and it is then sent to the next phase which is validation. Then the interface has to be assembled, it has a circuit board, an LCD screen, and a cable. Once assembled, it is tested for operation and sent to the next phase which is validation. At Validation, a Controller, Interface, and Cutter are all connected, and then they are put in a climate controlled vacuum chamber to be tested for proper operation at different altitudes and different temperatures. They are vibrated, heat soaked, checked, cold soaked, vibrated, checked, moved rapidly and rotated throughout a 7 day validation process to insure that each AAD is operating properly when it ships. This process requires special equipment, power, and personal monitoring tests and recording the results. There is more than just the cost of the parts to consider, the labor from start to finish is quite intensive. The cutter alone is around $100.00. So considering the additional cost of overhead, return on investment, a $600.00 retail price would not provide a sustainable margin to keep the doors open, let alone provide funding for potential legal fees. Actually $1200.00 for a specialized, operationally critical device for a small market that is sue happy is really a good price IMOP. Another thing to consider is the cost of money, as to mass produce anything you have to order and pay for inventory before you can sell it to the customer. Keep in mind that a company that is, by design, bankruptable at a moments notice, is asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars for inventory to produce an item for a market that involves falling from a plane. Loan sharks start to look very reasonable lol… Does that answer your question at all?

No I didn't mean dropping the price by a small margin to be the cheapest. I meant dropping the price to where it was a significant difference. I'm not an expert in these electronics but it seems to my untrained brain that these units don't cost that much to manufacture beyond the initial R&D. Real question because I legitimately don't know, but could these be manufactured and sold for $500-$600 and still turn a reasonable profit? I understand the profit margin would be significantly less than selling them for $1000 or more but would volume make up for that? Ok, now think about what you just said " I'm not an expert in these electronics but it seems to my untrained brain that these units don't cost that much to manufacture beyond the initial R&D." LOL... Do you often make statements where in the beginning and mid way thorough the statement, you point out that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you are fairly confident that you are right? lol Are you in sales?? LOL All in good fun... but seriously now. Lets say for the sake of argument that it cost $10.00 to make a widget, and they sit on a self at a store with a $1000.00 price tag on it. There are many philosophies about pricing structures to reference, but lets just play here a little... So lets say that you really want to buy that widget but you think that it is too expensive because of what it cost to make it. You then have a couple of options: 1 buy it and enjoy it, 2 not buy it and do without it, 3 hope that no one buys it at that price and the price comes down, 4 make it yourself.. I am have a full machine shop and electronics capability and I often make things my self, but most everyone else does not have that capability, so, if they want something they have to pay the going rate for it if they want it. Lets look at this another way... Lets say that, when broken down to an hourly rate, it costs you $5.00 pre hour to live. Now you go apply for a job and ask $20.00 per hour, Why should the employer pay more than say $7.00 given it only costs you $5.00 per hour to live Crazy thinking right? lol I hope you have a sense of humor lol..

Thank you for following up, now I am really intrigued about some things. I think there may be some communication issues based on terminology or specific measurements that are referenced in word as apposed to in actual number values. I really want to correctly understand your position just as much as I want you to correctly understand mine. In the end I know we will not agree with each other about some things, but we will at least be basing that from a good and accurate understanding of our positions. I apologize for the long post, but given that you are presenting a philosophy from a different country that is very different from the USA, I think it is critically important to continue to brake down the individual thoughts in context of the whole, so first time readers have the complete string of thought to review, instead of bits and pieces that can be taken out of context. OK I will refine my “gear dependent” positions a bit based on your reply. I do not know about other countries, but in the USA we are required by the FAA to have a reserve parachute that is in date in order to jump from a plane. As such, a reserve is not an option and is part of the “minimum” required gear to legally jump from a plane in the USA. An AAD however, here in the USA, is not required by the government, although some DZs do require them in order to jump there. A lot of the Reserve containers in the rigs used her in the USA are based on designs TSO certified before cutter activated AADs were prevalent, and there has been some compatibility issues that have been found that can cause a bad ending to ones day. There have also been cutter issues with various AADs that again could result in a bad ending to ones day. There have been several jumpers go in after an AAD fire for some reason (YTBD), and there have been people killed from AADs going off at a bad time. I blame the “dependency” on marketing that only brags about how many saves they have, but do not mention how many have been killed because of it, or how many died despite having it. I bet when you ask a the average jumper who will not jump without an AAD about the risks of having an AAD, they would have no idea, but they probably would be able to parrot back the marketing information, and that is where the problem lies with me. A choice based on an informed decision is fine, but one made in fear is not, especially when that fear is not complete. Agh! Here is something that I think we are closer than we think, but there is something not being expressed or understood. “However, I'm saying that once we enter the AAD fire area, thinking about "pilot choice" is the entirely wrong mindset.” I think the major problem with our “understanding of each other” is based on what our definition of “AAD firing area” is. I have stated that the pilot will have the ability to set the “activation altitude” (to use traditional terms), that they wish, declaring that, if , after this altitude is reached, they are still falling above the magic speed, then they want the AAD to fire. That is a simple operating protocol, and has resulted in 2 canopies out more than once. There most likely will be a “window” of altitude between the pilots preset activation altitude, and the lowest altitude that a reserve can be activated and still work, (I know about opening speed differences, that is not the point of this spacik example). Given that this AAD will be able to detect if the pilot has activated his main just priot to the preset activation altitude, it will dealy the reserve activation to allow the main to open, unlike standard AADs that will most likely fire when the pilot snivels past the preset activation altitude. The Window that this AAD will delay the reserve activation will be determined by the distance from the pilot selected activation altitude, and what I call “the point or no return” altitude, which in the time in between, the pilot will have the ability to either determine the main has malfunctioned and release it, if they so choose, but, if at the point of no return, the jumper is still falling too fast, this AAD will then activate the reserve, into the main given this scenario, in an effort to slow them down. We definitely differ in regards to how to maximize the chance of survival. If there is a main canopy out that is not generating enough drag to slow the jumper, and that canopy is not released prior to the reserve being deployed, the chances are very good that the main that is still attached will negatively effect the reserve deployment of an otherwise perfectly good reserve, the result of which could be deadly, however not any more deadly than doing nothing, given the scenario. My philosophy given a main over head, is to delay potentially sealing the jumpers fate until the last possible moment, giving the pilot every available moment to clear the air over the reserve prior to reserve deployment thus IMOP providing the maximum chance of survival, again given the prestated scenario. We will have to agree to disagree in this area as well. I have actually talked to some BASE jumpers about that application after someone I know went in BASE jumping. Not totally out of the question, but don’t get in line for one any time soon lol.. We agree there, so we have a few areas where we agree lol.. I truly like debating with someone who can do so intelligently as well as calmly lol.. Every one sees things a little different, and there is more often than not, good points on both sides of any argument if both parties are open minded enough to see them. You seem pretty confident that after AADs were required where you are, that fatalities were reduced, significantly I would think in order to be able to point to this one change. There for I must assume that the number of AAD fires (saves) must have equally gone up? Correct?

I am going to try to address several posts in this one: All I can say about what Lee said is great minds think alike lol I have a free fall data recorder concept flushed out and wanted to have it at PIA, but it was to low in priority due to low interest, and other things took its place in the time line leading up to the show. Nickfrey: I can not think of any unique enough trait that an unconscious jumper would have compared to what a conscious jumper can do. Without some Biometric input, (could be done) I do not see anyway to determine if a jumper passed out. MKX: I just had a PM discussion about plugging in external computers to the AAD. Here is the relevant part of my reply: “You have to be careful about hooking external computers to operationally critical devices such as an AAD. The risk of corrupting the AAD software at a level that is not detectable via the interface and start up systems check is actually pretty good. I have a micro USB port in the end of the interface to change the program during testing without opening the reserve, but production units will not have this feature as it is a direct link to the processor and can cause some interesting things to happen, even with ESD clamping diodes and RF shielding. Blue tooth can be pretty low power and would allow wireless interaction as you have described, but then again, we traditionally try to limit RF radiation around AADs... Remember the Cypres issue with RF.” In regards to rechargeable batteries, I am not a fan of them in this application as they generally are not as good in cold temperatures, vary in actual reusable capacity, and tend to generate heat during charging (fire). Mcordell: To your point of manufacturers over charging for an AAD, (that one made me smile). Mars has the cheapest unit available as far as I can tell, and by your metrics they should be taking over the market.. Maybe they are really stealthy about it? lol... Hcsvader: I think that when the Argus came out there was a bit of a buzz because it had a multi mode operating system, and it was small. I spoke with the owner of Aviacom quite a but when I was considering making a replacement cutter for the Argus, so I can not go into any details regarding how it worked. I will say that there are still Argus units in the air, and I can not recall hearing about the control units failing to operate properly... Cutters yes, but the control units seem to be ok, aside from the initial production process problem that was handled, and could happen to everyone, just look at Airtec's issue with the component.

I thought I would pass this little tidbit allong as it is in regards to "So why do I need to know that my AAD just recalibrated?" Copied and pasted from the Vigil II manual (2013) On page 12 it says: "Your Vigil® will recalibrate itself for variation in the atmospheric pressure. Attention: If after a certain time there is a large change in atmospheric pressure (more than 10 hPa), it is recommended that you shut down and restart your Vigil® to ensure optimal precision." So in your case, you need to keep track of the barometric pressure swing throughout the day to know if you need to turn off your AAD and then turn it back on to recalibrate it. 10 hPa = 260ft by the way...

I want to be sure I totally understand your position as I am getting some mixed messages from how I read your post. I think you are in the “An AAD should be mandatory” camp or at least in the suburbs so to speak? That, either way, makes no difference to me, I just want to be sure I get what you are saying. When I say someone is “gear dependent” I mean someone who will not jump without an AAD period, end of story. That concept is the source of many a debate, but as with your personal position AADs, (if I understand it correctly), mine will surly trigger debate as well, and that is OK, as long as people remain polite lol… Do I also understand correctly that you are not in favor of allowing the “pilot” the ability or choice, to make decisions, regardless of the correctness of those decisions, during the period of free fall that is between the plane and the point of no return? Again, don’t give two flips one way or the other, just want to make sure I have not miss understood what you said. We agree that an AAD should not fire unnecessarily; we just disagree about how one defines necessary… The AAD can only initiate reserve pack opening, and it can not cut the main away, (actually it could but it is not rigged to do so), so given that is the case, even if the “pilot” was screwing up, the AAD is not rigged to declare “My Plane” and take over. Lets say that the pilot deploys his main and it starts to spin up well above the point of no return or even their preset reserve over head altitude. I think I understand you correctly when you say that the AAD should act on the pilots behalf prior to the point of no return, dumping the reserve into the main above the point of no return because it has detected that the pilot is screwing up. My position is to let the pilot act or not, until the point of no return, after which point if the reserve will not be of any use, and dump the reserve to get more nylon over head. Keeping in mind that cutting away bellow 1000ft is not recommended and the point of no return is bellow 1000ft. I think we agree that if the pilot is not able to take the proper action by the altitude that they have chosen to have a reserve over their head, than the AAD should take action as the pilot has set the AAD to do. In regards to 525ft static line AAD activation, the point of no return is reached pretty quick. Your last paragraph as me wondering if you are saying that gear should be made to allow a jumper who is improperly trained, or someone who should be on a gulf coarse (and we all know what I am talking about), to jump without concern for their lack of training or flat out ability to make decisions in a high pressure environment? Please do not take how I explained how I am interpreting what you said as being hostile or sarcastic. I truly am interested in knowing your position, as I think it is, in some ways, radically different than mine, and that intrigues me.

You know in my early twenties someone showed up at our regular drinking hole with a pocket brethalyzer -- first time anyone from my crew had seen one that wasn't attached to a police officers arm. The result was a casual night of beers and pool turned into a competition to see who could "win" with the highest score. Needless to say if the idea of the pocket brethalyzer was to help you make responsible decisions it fell a little short that night I have spend a time or two at the DZ, during the day, as well as at night, in my time lol... One benefit to being in the USA is we know what goes on over here, and we speak reasonably good English to... lol..

And I/we would not be apposed to a licencing deal as long as the numbers made sense to us. The issue is what makes sense to one, may not make sense to another lol... Of course, first someone has to want to licence it from us

I had the "licencing" conversation in the diner across the street from the exhibit hall during PIA. Couple of issues with that concept; it requires a company, ideally in the industry and market, or desiring to be as such, to see value in our "operating system" for lack of a better description. And any such interest, beyond keeping this from reaching the market, could imply that their way of doing it is wrong, or at the very least, not the best... Then there is the volume problem as you pointed out, the math just does not add up to the risk in a licencing play. At least given a standard royalty rate of 4% or even 7%. Granted there would not be any production related investment, but the potential legal costs would be nearly the same. Just thinking now, one of the terms would be that the purchasing company covers all legal costs related to the IP. We already have data collectors for parachute flight data, and free fall data. Personally, I am not a fan of, shall I say, "non professional" jumpers trying to "collect data". A test jumper has to have a lot of discipline. By the very nature of such an activity, that is not manufacturer based, someone is trying to impress themselves or someone else by pushing the limits of either their own, or their equipment's capability, and that, more often than not, eventually results in someone getting hurt. "Hold my beer", or , "everyone watch this" comes to mind when I hear of someone wanting to be able to "collect data".. I imagine that I am a fuddy duddy lol...

LOL... I'll keep you in mind

While trying to make some room in my mail box, I accidentally deleted all of the messages . There were several messages regarding this thread, so if I do not respond to the message you sent, that is why, please resend it and I will respond as best I can. Lets shift gears for a little bit and talk about liability.. I keep thinking of Mr. Booths "uninsured< insert company name>", and I remember him saying that after he did that, the lawsuits really were reduced... It is also my understanding that the wavers that DZs use have stood up in court to a pretty solid degree as well. It would seem to me that a waver, similar in nature to what a DZ uses, could be applied to this item. The idea that the lawsuit against Airtec, based on the rigger that did not put the loop through the cutter, ever made it to court is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the law suit is claiming that Airtec should have foreseen the potential for a rigger installing the AAD, to not put the loop through the cutter, and there for, Airtec is negligent for not incorporating a method for the AAD to detect that the loop was not through the cutter, and indicate as such during self test... Is that correct?

To anyone reading this: If you don't get the myriad of failure modes just described, or why an AAD does not in any way substitute for either an RSL or HUMAN REACTION TO A PROBLEM, please go learn more about gear before you jump again. I agree with your thought, and I think the poster was thinking out loud at the possibilities given the capability being discussed for the first time. I have said several times that I am not in favor of a device that replaces pilot input above the point of no return (altitude speaking), but there is a natural curiosity that a free thinking mind can’t help from indulging, and I think this forum is a good place to do that. However… a lower time jumper, or just someone who is technically naive, who can not discern the difference between theoretical discussion vrs literal fact, can take away the wrong thing from these kinds of discussions. It is hard to balance content to the audience with out stunting discussion, as the kids need to learn, but they may not be ready for some levels of discussion given a lack of a solid foundation of informed experience. It is important that open thought be allowed to be expressed, and at the same time, it is also important for experienced jumpers to step in when it is wanted to advise newer jumpers, and put into perspective, some of the thoughts that are being discussed. This will allow open thought that can be of great learning potential for higher experienced jumpers, and at the same time, a good teaching moment that lower time jumpers can benefit from. When I was a "kid", I learned more on the porch in front of the fire than I realized at the time, and only when I was in trouble did I realize that what so and so said was about to save my butt.. These days there tend to be less fires to gather around, and these forums have replaced that learning environment for the new generations. The natural urge to make something dangerous more safe is hard to keep in check sometimes, and that can lead to good things sometimes, and sometimes not.. It is important to always to take every argument back to the basic truth, which is, every jumper is responsible for saving their own live. That ability to do so results from vigilant and proper training, proper gear selection and complete and correct understanding of how the gear operates, and how it will react in the environments that “can” exist between the plane and the ground. Any equipment, in addition to the two parachutes and three handles, is not, under any circumstances, there to replace the pilot’s responsibility to act in accordance to the situations that they, “can/could”, find themselves in between the plane and the ground. The concept of, “I can do X now because I have an AAD or any other piece of equipment”, says that the jumper acknowledges that they are not prepared to handle what could happen, and are relying on said equipment to make up for their “acknowledged” lack of ability. This is an extreme example for sure, as many jumpers, including myself, only started using an AAD because they were working with students and they/we, are trying to hedge against the consequences of being knocked silly by a student. The difference in that scenario is that we do not rely on the AAD in order to jump with a student, but it is nice to have just in case, and it is still no guarantee that we will be alive after we meet the ground. The trend of “gear dependence” is growing, and I think it is replacing jumper responsibility to react properly and timely… “Why should I worry about finding my reserve handle? I have an RSL and an AAD” … I only hope anyone who has thought anything close to that lives to rethink that thought… It is easer to berate than to educate, and I think everyone has done a good job staying on the educating side of the line. We who have a closet full of t-shirts (and you know what I mean), have a responsibility to at least try to educate those behind us, and sometimes right next to us.. Some, we will not be able to get through to, and Darwin will have the last word in that effort. It is just as important to take tragedy and make it a teaching moment, as it is to try to prevent the tragedy from happening in the first place. We are all only human and we have all found ourselves in situations that we should not have been in, but we managed to live to play another day. Let’s keep it safe, lead by example, step in when it is warranted, and offer help when it is needed.

That is a large portion of the, sometimes headed discussions, we have had, and will continue to have, internally... Yes, it is possible, in time, for this device to "potentially" initiate reserve pack opening immediately or soon after a cut away, but that does not mean that it should. ( I think you were saying this another way).. the only way I, as a pilot, would be comfortable with a computer taking action on my behalf is if, after that "point", (altitude), if I did not take action to slow my self down, I was dead anyway. For example, if I had a super brutal main opening and it rendered me unconscious and shredded the main. In that case, the proper EPs would be to cut away the main and deploy the reserve, but because I was unconscious, that is not going to happen. Now lets say that I deployed my main at 3K, and the fast opening gave me instant canopy, and the wad of crap above my head is slowing me down some, but not enough. Even so, it is giving me some additional time to deal with the situation before it is too late, provided I come to in time. Given that scenario, if the AAD initiated Reserve pack opening on its own, (before I released the main), it would be firing a good reserve into a wad of crap at an altitude that was not life threatening, (that would be premature action, and not good IMOP). Now if the AAD waited until the end all be all altitude, where in, if the reserve did not get out at this point, it will not get out period, then, I am ok with it dumping the reserve into what ever is above my unconscious head, as I have not taken action, I am dead after I cross this line in the sky. We all know that a bigger ball of crap will slow me down better than a smaller ball of crap. In the event of a cutaway, I may decide that it is better to hold off reserve deployment for what ever reason, and provided I am above the point of no return, I do not want the AAD to take action. Should I get to the point of no return, and are still in free fall, then by all means the AAD is at that point trying to save its self lol.. Not funny, but as was pointed out, even though we are a long way away, we are getting closer to some fundamental aspects of AI, and the problem in the movies always is based on the AI trying to protect its self. Again I am very sensitive to when an AAD will take action. I am a firm believer that the pilot is responsible for taking the proper action and pulling handles in the proper sequence. That sequence may differ depending on what the pilot is dealing with, but if the pilot looses track of altitude, then I am OK with an AAD taking action in a "last chance ditch effort" to allow the pilot a chance to find a new hobby. (that is assuming the pilot was psychically able to perform the proper EPs, and just did not). I probably should not say that publicly, but I have become very frustrated with the growing dependence of gear to overcome the pilots lack of willingness to take action and fight till they can grab the grass in a last ditch effort.

I just have a moment and do not have the time to edit your post and respond to each point like I want to, but I wanted to touch on what I can. In regards to redundant instrumentation, the first Cargo AAD we worked on, the ADAPT, had redundant instrumentation. This created its own set of problems as it can be argued, "how do you know which one is correct?".. Three sets are really needed as your airplane example points out. Reliability of the instrumentation... That is one key reason for scheduled check ups, to insure everything is reading with in parameters. Instruments usually have a known "drift" rate, (as I am sure you know, but others may not), and part of the check up is to see if any of the instruments need to be fine tuned. I wish I could go into how to "manage" the instrumentation as well as the problems with it that you have mentioned, but that involves getting into the secret sauce and that is a trade secret. And unfortunately, how we manage the data, and make decisions is also a trade secret. Keep in mind that the US Military is vetting our process as part of vetting the Static Line AAD. They are petty sharp too.

*** I wonder though about the last bit. It's one thing to take objective data and plot a course of action that is easy to infer like the sniveling past hard deck example. But in the case of the AAD needing to take or not take action based on whether the jumper has "consciously" decided to take some kind of action that deviates from a "plan a" scenario, I wonder how accurately software could divine intention from raw data? You have the data so you know what the sensor data would look like for these scenearious far better than I would. But from a strictly code point of view, there is a danger in programming your way into a scenario labyrinth where the increasing number of facets in a tree create a logical problem big enough that your code is going to have to account for a LOT of things. Perhaps given proper test cases and a large enough data set you could in fact reliably diving "intention" from data, but that seems like it would require very reliable data. SO the question to you would be: How confident are you that the program could tell the difference between someone who is intending to do something and someone who is not? That could be a slippery slope....? edited to add: thinking about it a little more, perhaps focusing on the data patterns that indicate a certain thing is happening and not caring about the "scenario" that caused it to happen would simplify things quite a bit. But the sticky bit of deciding whether that pattern of sensor data implies intent is still problematic in my mind. We are thinking a lot alike, and we have these debates internally all the time. Keep it simple is the requirement, and just because we can do something to a relatively high degree of confidence it does not mean that we should. I like the idea that the AAD is there to “potentially” take action only after the jumper has demonstrated that they are un able or willing to do so, but only after a given point that will be adjustable. In other words, the jumper only authorizes the AAD to “potentially” take command, bellow X altitude, in the absence of pilot in command action. In that case, lack of intent can be assumed to a pretty high degree of certainty. However, once the pilot in command takes action, regardless of that action, intent can not be predicted to a high enough degree, (IMOP), with out choking on code as you pointed out. Now that being said, if a pilot in command has taken action, and he/she, is descending at a unserviceable rate bellow an end all be all altitude, then I can see the AAD taking action, which the pilot may have already done… Short on time, but I would love to go deeper into this thinking later..

Times are a change n..

You are very correct. I am looking at this at technically fundamental level in regards to design and operation, and that can get me into trouble depending on the audience as you correctly pointed out. I think it is important for new jumpers to know the full history of their equipment, but as you pointed out, how that history is delivered is important for context. As far as I know, there has not been an in aircraft firing in the sport side for some time, but on the military side there have been a couple in incidents were plane loads of jumpers on mission, in theater have had their AADs fire in aircraft. The incident reports are generally public in time and it takes the government a long time to conclude them, but when they are done, I believe they are available on line. I only know that they occurred, and that the militarily immediately demanded to see my Static Line AAD operational logic. I know it is pretty edgy for me to make that statement with out supplying proof of the "claim", but it is important that jumpers do not get complacent from the marketing of "ALL" AAD manufacturers, and that includes me. My advice to "all" jumpers is to do their own unbiased research, and if they do not understand something, I encourage them to seek out someone who does. Thank you for your comments. I am always open to correction, somethings I'm even wrong lol...

All instruments will be digital MEMS, 3-Axis Accelerometer, 3-Axis Gyro, 3-Axis Magnetometer, and Absolute Pressure, 10 total channels. In a static application, an Accelerometer can be used to determine orientation, but in a dynamic application, as this is, it is extremely difficult to discern movement from orientation with only one 3-Axis Accelerometer. A Magnetometer on the other hand is not influenced my inertial forces, but rather magnetic forces, so it will indicate orientation changes based on a magnetic reference (the earth in this case). My “goal” is to reduce the belly to earth, vrs back to earth, indicated altitude differential to around +- 70 ft as apposed to +- 200 ish ft. In regards to your two out due to a higher activation altitude... My philosophy is based on the idea of a "canopy over head" altitude, not an activation altitude. I want to have a conopy over head by X ft, (which will be adjustable), and most of us know that it takes some time from pin extraction to canopy inflation, and given that, the distance the jumper will fall during that time is directly related to the speed that the jumper is falling. As such, given that I want a canopy over head by X and it takes X time for the canopy to deploy, then the AAD will need to initiate reserve pack opening at X ft at X speed. Now if the jumper is falling faster, then the AAD will need to start the process sooner in order to allow for a canopy over head by the desired altitude. Now, lets say that "BUBA" is a rather large individual, and tends to fall fast. And he is a safty conchous jumper so he set his canopy overhead height a little higher to give him more time to deal with a new canopy prior to having to land it off airport. One day he is really falling fast and gets lost in the beauty of the sun setting, losses track of altitude, and goes a little deeper than he normally does and pitches his main pilot chute. Now keep in mind that he has set his canopy over head altitude higher, and because of his higher descent rate, the AAD will initiate reserve pack opening sooner, so it is very possible that he may snivel right through the corrected firing altitude, resulting in a two out situation. Fortunately for him, his AAD detected his main deployment soon enough, and delayed reserve pack opening to allow the main a chance to inflate, but, if his descent rate is still above X at the X hard deck altitude, it will initiate reserve pack opening in a last ditch effort to slow him down to a survivable speed prior to meeting the earth. Like I said, this is an intelligent AAD or Smart AAD if you rather, that is Situationaly Aware throughout the entire jump. There needs to be a consciences amongst the instrumentation that an action is warranted, be it to fire or not to fire. With only one channel (pressure) it is very difficult to “confirm” that the conditions are what they are, and it takes time to create a history so to speak, that indicates the conditions. That is why rapidly changing events tend to “confuse” single string logic (just made that term up, but it think it describes what I am trying to convey). I can get feed back from 10 channels every 20th of a second, allowing a fast, but more importantly confident reaction or lack there of depending on the conditions as a whole. I was not going to go into that just yet, but since you brought it up I thought I would fill in a few more gaps.. Additionally and consistent with this train of thought, there is an internal debate here about if the AAD should fire directly after a cut away. That is, to fire before the jumper reaches the trigger descent rate. My personal opinion is that I am pilot in command, and if I start the main deployment sequence on my own, then it is up to me to make the proper decisions regarding emergency procedures. I do not like the idea of an AAD taking action when I have consciously decided to delay action for what ever reason. Now if I do not start the main deployment sequence on my own, then that is where the AAD can take action for me with my blessing, as I have not demonstrated that I am capable of action on my own. Any thoughts?

Thank you for your explanation. Make no mistake - I am glad that you have decided to get into the mix and if you can come up with a better AAD then I for one say go for it. I'm not your typical "naysayer" You reference the "incident". Is it safe to assume it was the "C-130 incident"? Please excuse me for being so focused (I often have a very simplistic mind) but it bugs me to watch news interviews when the reporter asks a question and then allows the interviewee talk to about everything but never actually answer the question. My very simple question is: "When is the last time an AAD got confused and locked up"? Yes again :), I am not sure if the, what I call the "incident" lol, where the Vigils fired and the Cypres units shut down I think, was at the WFFC or the record attempt. I recall issues at both, just not sure of the order of progression. I also recall issues at the WFFC, specifically with the helicopter ride causing AADs (do not recall if it was just one manufacture or not) to lock up or shut down because they saw parameters outside of their logic values. I would have to guess that the record attempt was the most recent of the events that I am aware of. I did not mean to imply that has happened recently, only that it is a characteristic that the AADs have demonstrated they are capable of. It is the "potential" for a problem that I have to keep focused on. If I dismiss that "potential" just because its chance of occurring is low, then I open the door to it happening, and should it happen then the results are not something that I am comfortable with personally. During testing, on occasion, we see a situation that we did not expect to see, and could not duplicate again if we wanted to, but, after it occurred, we have to address it, even if odds are that it will never happen again. I am sure the other AAD manufacturers have a similar mind set. By recording the data that we do, we have a record of what happened, and we can rerun that data through our simulation program and make changes to address it, and then rerun all the other normal data to be sure that the change we made to address the strange event, did not negatively affect the operation of the device in any way. How an AAD addresses the "potential for" situations is what separates it from just a device that "measures pressure" as a previous poster implied that is all an AAD needs to do. Not to knock him, not many people truly know about how these things work, let alone develop one.. No need to apologies about being focused lol... I think Peer review is a critical aspect in product development. If I can not properly address a question or concern, then I have a problem that I need to address lol.. If I do seem to be "avoiding the question" it is usually because I either do not understand the question as the poster intends, or I am having a difficult time trying to articulate my thoughts in a manner that thoroughly address the concern posted.. Should that take place, please feel free to point that out and I will take another stab at it.

are you sure you understand how your AAD works ? I assume lyosha is talking about either a loss of altitude awareness wingsuit flight, when the pilot passes below 750ft in full flight, or in a "where's the hacky" fumble position where the descent rate will be higher, but not 78 mph. What were you thinking he meant? If even that. I have more than one friend that believes their AAD will not fire in their medium to big wingsuit because their descent rate will not be fast enough if they are unconscious. Because I feel that's the real issue AADs are trying to solve, not altitude awareness. Come out with "wingsuit" mode for an AAD and I feel you have a niche market. Got it covered, and no special mode needed either lol.. Wing suits are of interest to the Military as well. Like I said, there is a lot that people do not know yet and in due time.. I watched the video of the BPA seminar that Tom Nonnan put on, and as I listened to him describe the limitations of the AADs on the market, I was checking the list of operational features this AAD will have.. Lee has a lot more information that anyone else aside of the military, and we did not tell Lee everything lol...

I'm a bit leery of this function. Seems to me that there is a very narrow window between a descent in the plane and a quick clear & pull. Especially for parachutes which open relatively quickly, such as dircect-bag Static-line systems and CReW canopies. I'd be worried that the AAD couldn't tell the difference. Yee of little faith lol... Would you be surprised to know that the first test jumps I did were clear and pulls? On average, it has taken from 1/4 to 3/4 of a second to detect an exit, for the sake of everyone in the plane, I hope you are not pulling that fast lol... This is not our first Rodeo, we are jumpers with probably close to over 40 combined years in the spot and around 6000 combined jumps, over 3000 tandems, and not sure on how many AFF and Video jumps. We have designed and build data collectors specifically for parachute operations, and have studied the data from many different types of exits, including static line. We have fulfilled a contract with the US military to build some prototype Static Line AADs for Paratroopers exiting at 525Ft AGL. We are currently ironing out the details on the next phase of the process. The "Exit Profile" as we call it, is a very specific thing. Can't go into more detail than that at.