RiggerLee

Licencing it is one possibility. When i spoke of multiple companies hiring each other I meant multiple independent companies all of which you owned. You can own more then one company and as long as they keep at arms reach from each other, there are rules about that, a law suit affecting one company can not cross over to another. It's a means of hiding your real assets while sacrificing an empty shell to a law suit and bankruptcy. Again this is a lawyer question but I've seen set ups like this. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

And if you need some one to man your Baffin office, particularly in the spring time, I'm your man! But I will require a sat phone so that you can reach me when I'm away from my desk. Best throw in a solar charger for it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Having this conversation with non lawyers is really meaningless. You can't discuss this rationally using normal logic. Don't make any decisions based on any thing said here by a non lawyer, including me. I can and have told you some second hand antidotes of what I've heard over the years. One of those is that the real reason that they changed the name to "Uninsured" is that legally you can not say in court or tell the jury that you have no insurance. It was a way to enter that fact into the court room. My thoughts, from a non lawyer and there for should be dismissed out of hand, is that your company should not build AAD's. It should build small self contained data recorders with GPIO pins and a full suit of instruments. and connections. Think Raspberry PI or Ardrinio micro controllers. Another totally separate company Might take this controller and write software for it that allowed it to perform some function, like act as an AAD. They might do this under contract from yet another company who buys cutters from a supplier and markets it as a package to skydivers as an AAD. It's just a shell marketing company with no assets and no profit. The soft ware company is just writing code to the contracted specs set down by the third company. The last company who simply builds boxes for any one or any aplication, and I can think of a number, saw a little data recorder like that for $500 at PIA that I thought about buying just on a whim. They have no connection with the other two companies but they are well payed by the third company say to the tune of $1,199.00 or what ever the third company makes minus marketing. Third company whose idea this all was holds no sizable assets and is uninsured. They would probable be uninsureable. The first company simple being a manufacturer of electronics could probable get liability insurance. What's the liability on a raspberry pi? Third company might actually be located some where else. Some where with easier liability laws. Maybe Canada? Surly you could afford a P.O. box in Canada. And make it some place really far north like Baffin or Ellesmere. Let them fly up there in winter for their court date. Keep in mind that that is straight out of my ass and has absolutely no validity till a lawyer signs off on it. You should have had a sit down with the skydiving lawyer guy at PIA. Figure this out now. Set up your disposable companies now so that it will be painless when the inevitable happens. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

This is getting way to philosophical and esoteric. I didn't mean to imply that this AAD could replace the RSL. They are fundamentally different things. The RSL is first off mechanical and almost fool proof in it's function. It also is almost identical in it's recreation of the proper opening sequence of the container and can not be beat for speed. This doesn't even touch on the cost of a cutter. On the other hand unless you manually release it you lose the option of taking a delay before you fire your reserve. This device would not take away that option for you. At any reasonable altitude you remain in control of opening your own reserve. But at the point where you are scary low. If you chop, well an RSL would be your best friend, but this is the next best thing. There is a range where you can cut away and live if you pull your reserve imeadeantly. Other AAD's will or I should say can, see Vigil lecture on tumbling, wait too long to fire. This AAD although not a replacement for an RSL tightens up that gap and would have saved lives that have been lost. I'm not even touching on MARDs here. I consider that to be a whole other level of complexity. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

What was happening there? Did a riser come lose? Was the other canopy looped through that riser group? Is that why it stayed stretched out and inflated? Why did he chop? When did they start teaching them to chop? And I don't know how they pick the videos that play automatically after that one. But it was an airborn guy with a gopro on his head, didn't realize they allowed that. Perfect jump looks like it's going to be a prefect landing next to a road. Might be a bit of a ditch. But he breaks the shit out of his leg and squeals like a pig. Perfect follow up to segway into a lecture on feet and knees together. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I should clarify some thing. Please correct me if I'm miss stating this but it's my best understanding. When you dump data from a vigil there is a low resolution and a high resolution data. The low seems to be an averaged, filtered, version of the high speed data. I think the graphs he was showing and were used in the firing algorithm are the filtered "low speed" data. The idea being to remove or smooth out the "noise". I don't think the are feeding raw data into their firing algorithm. The error from rolling over in the burble creates big spikes in the decent rate. That's a product of differentiating a discontinuity in the curve of the data. They don't seem to be able to filter that out. It seems to me that they could do more in that regard but at that point you might be losing real information. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Ok, so he's going open or at least more so. I thought they might want to wait on this till they were closer to market. But think about the implication of just what he's said so far. Pressure based AAD's have been around for a long time. It dates back to the mechanical age where it was some thing we could measure. The problem is that's the wrong thing. Pressure is not what you need. You need altitude, preferable AGL, But altitude is logarithmicly related to pressure. But wait we can't measure static pressure just absolute at the instrument location. So there is an error. They also tried to use decent rate. But we can't measure decent rate. You can take a derivative of altitude but that magnifies noise. And it's ultimately taken from instrument pressure which is already several steps removed with substantial known error due to burble. Wish I had a copy of the Vigil lecture. This is exactly what it was about. It was interesting to see how a roll or tumble caused discontinuities in the altitude reading as the sencer passed in and out of the burble. That error caused huge spikes in the decent rate to the point that it looked like the person was actually going upwards. This fed into their firing logic where they look for five data points in a row with decent rate above firing. That condition met at the first such data point at altitude below firing the unit will activate. But with the noise in the decent rate it can be interrupted by the error and have to start counting again. So it can miss a chance to fire and be delayed by another half a second. Which doesn't sound like that big a deal but it can equate to up to 90 ft. But then what if this happens again? This actually does work out generally and it's a good system with good logic. You wouldn't want it to fire any easier then this. That can also be very bad. The lecture was actually about how this relates to the high speed unit where the activation speed is higher and how it can be that much more difficult for the unit to reach firing parameters. What they are trying to do is actually very hard. The units are highly evolved but fundamentally limited. This is why it bugs me when some one talks about how simple these units are. They just fire at such and such an altitude at such and such a decent rate. You don't realize what goes into that statement. Now let's think about what you could gain from this new unit. It come from this contract to build a static line AAD where a pressure sincer is not enough. Waiting to see decent rate from 525 ft doesn't work. Your dead. The ability to reconise the exit from the aircraft is mandatory. The ability to reconise an opening event is critical. Pressure altitude and decent rate taken from instrument pressure are no longer adequate. This is the back ground that it comes from and the extremely demanding environment that it was designed for. What does this mean for skydiving? I'm not the designer but I'll exstapulate some possibilities. It can "see" you exit. In an aircraft emergency it can reconise the fact that you exited and your altitude and decent rate. It doesn't have to wait for you to accelerate before it fires. It would not need to have to climb to some altitude to arm or at least it could be more conservative in that regard. say 300 ft rather then 1500 ft. Finally a working AAD for pilots. If can see an opening event. and reconise whether you are under canopy or in free fall. A wing suiter may not fire a cypress or a vigil but this AAD knows that you exited. It knows it has not seen an opening yet. If you go below firing altitude with out ever opening a canopy it can reconize that you are still in free fall at a very low speed and fire. For Swoopers. It saw you open. It can reconize a cutaway. You're under canopy. It knows you haven't cut away It can see the G's of the swoop and recovery arc of the canopy. It knows you are just in a dive and will not fire even though you are above firing speed. No need to increase the firing speed and lose safety like the high speed Vigil. No offence, but that's the only option that they had with their swooper unit. This is smarter. If you are just a jumper and cutaway low. It doesn't have to wait for you to build up speed from a 1,000 ft cutaway. It's not prone to tumbling burble error that might further delay the opening. Because you can correct a lot of the error in the burble with the acceleromiter. But more then that, it knows you just cut away at 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft should be survivable but we are having people die from that. Partly do to other gear issues but having the AAD wait and twiddle it's thumbs is not helping. If you chop at 1,000 ft and do not have an RSL or do not pull your reserve emeadently it can fire with out waiting for you to build up speed. There have been people that died from low cutaways even though they had AAD's. And I'm talking situations where there was time for them to live but they couldn't find their handle and the AAD waited too long. Even just having the accelerometer alone open up innumerable possibilities that were closed to us before. I wasn't exaggerating when I said that this was a quantum leap forward and the first of a whole new generation of AAD's. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

If your interested in the software and how these units work you would have enjoyed the lectures at PIA. Does any one know if they were recorded? The Vigil High speed unit lecture as an example was very good and gives a lot of insight into how the unit functions and the differences and limitations of the operating modes. Is there a document available from Vigil or a recording of the lecture on you tube or Skydive TV? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

He's hedging which is understandable. But there is nothing incremental about this. It's more like scraping the old design and starting from scratch. This is a fundamentally different concept with a completely different decision tree. I do think he'll need to pair it down a bit in terms of power consumption and I'm not sure if he needs quite so high of a sample rate. But I think there is a mid ground there. It's more about the fundamental concept which is a departure from the current designs and what that allows you to do. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Hmmm. They were pretty open about it at PIA but if they are going to go forward with it as a civilian unit they may want to keep some of it more under wraps at least until their release date. I just don't think it's my place to say. I don't want to steal their fire. We'll have to let them make their own announcements. I see this as becoming a new step forward in technology. Right now they are ahead. Once it comes out Cypress and Vigil will both have to re work their products to keep up with it. It will be a race and market share will be determined by the standings at the finish line. I see this as a good thing for all of us so I'm not inclined to interfere with natural selection. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

And there are several... misconceptions in your statements. That's not really surprising because frankly these things are not really well understood. Cost. This is going to be a bit of a rant. Russel, he's the guy that builds the flight computer for what is basically a medium range ballistic missile, was looking at an open cypress where they had the guts on display at the last PIA. He estimated that the electronics added up to... I forget the number he gave but it was under $25. Cypresses cost $1200 because they are cypresses. Their's testing and liability but the unit has little to do with the cost. And the cost of all of this has dropped since the conception of the cypress. Ever heard of a Raspberry Pi? It's a fully functional computer sold for $35. There is no significant increase in cost. In fact a unit like they are proposing with all the added functionality would undoubtedly cost less to produce then a cypress built in 1990. It's an open secret that the price fixed in the military contract is a good bit lower then the civilian cypress. Now if I was them I'd still price the civilian unit at or above the cost of a cypress. It's just that much better of a unit. The Vigil already has a data logger built into it. It's actually very nice. You should look at getting one of the down load units. It's very interesting. This is not exactly difficult technology any more. Your AAD is not simple. Your understanding of it is incomplete. It's not simple to set up. It's not simple to use. And it's not simple when it functions. I'm guessing that you weren't in the PIA technical meeting. Or that you weren't at the public seminar on the limitations of the Vigil high speed AAD. Which was very good by the way. It was an extremely open lecture on how the vigil fires and it's limitations under certain circumstances and the reduction in safety margin in the high speed Vigil. It's a really impressive unit and very well designed but they are fundamentally up against a wall in their technology. Those guys are awesome by the way. I think they are the most open, transparent, honest people I have ever delt with. The truth is that your AAD doesn't work as well as you think. In fact it's actually really struggling. You should be looking a better unit. You should be demanding more. One that will be there for you when you need it. Because the more I learn about these units and the better I understand the failure modes The less impressed I am. There are situations where they can fail you. Skydiving is advancing. We need a new unit. It's time to build some thing better. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

In case you didn't know these are the same guys that build the release for our suborbital rocket. There equipment has flown to over 300,000 ft. survives the cold of space, the heat of reentry and is entrusted with $1,000,000+ payloads on every flight. I've heard about some of the things they are doing on their military unit and if they include the same technology in the civilian version it will leave all of it's competitors behind in the dust. I'm not dissing the existing units. They are as good as they can possibly be with the technology they are using. But they are fundamentally out dated. We're looking at a quantum leap forward. Their unit will be the first of a totally new generation of AAD's which over come all of the processing and firing issues that we have seen up till now. This next generation will be as far beyond the Cypress and Vigil as they were beyond the FXC 1200. I know these guys and I hope they do well but what I hope even more is that this will push all the manufacturers to the next level. These devises are too important and the technology they are based upon has been stagnant for too long. And I'm not just blowing smoke here. Their shit really is that good. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

A couple of thoughts to clarify my actual concerns. I don't actually know what you would find. I don't know how many hole you'd make in the ground or what would blow up or break. That's kind of my interest. I'd like to see. The thing is I'm not sure the manufacturers know what would happen. All of these thing have "passed" the TSO testing. This is true but it's not as simple as you might be lead to believe. For starters there is no test. The FAA doesn't test any thing. The builder submits a packet of data and the FAA accepts it and their QC program. So the builder is doing the certification of their own equipment in the manner of their choosing. I don't think any one has ever set out to build a bad rig or to deliberately lie or falsify data. But there's plenty of room for inconsistency. Let's take an example. So all containers have been drop tested for the heavy loads right? If they passed that then surely they won't blow up for you. What if they weren't? I heard a story. I don't remember if it was on here or in an e-mail, but I was told that when they made the transition from wonder hog to vector 1, which did involve harness changes, that the new rig was not drop tested for it's 5000 lb. certification. A C-9 would not fit the container so they got authorization to pull test it on the ground with a hydraulic press and a load cell. I don't know if it's true but keep in mind the time period. There was no way to gather data. Rather then just tossing it out a plane and consulting a rather questionable table this gave them real numbers on the strength of the harness. They could actually pull it to 5000 lb. So it actually sounds like a good thing, right? Lets skip forwards thirty years. If you're not familiar with the failure of the squirrel base harness then go read up on it on basejumper.com There are several threads relating to it. They did very thorough ground testing on that harness. They come out of the paragliding community and it seems to be common there. The thing is that the way they pulled it didn't really recreate what can happen on a dynamic opening. Failed bigger then shit when opened in a track. Please note that it's built almost exactly like our skydiving harnesses. My point is that depending on how you test something you may find different failure modes. If you used a soft opening canopy you might never reach the forces that you can actually measure on the ground. But pulling it may not load it the same was as a head down whipping opening for example. That's just one example but who knows what you might find if you tested all the gear out there. On standards. People are fudging their way around parts of the TSO. Examples: I hear there are wavers for the over all speed on some of the reserves. Or the rather questionable opening times on some. The thing is I actually think that they are doing what they think to be right in some of these cases. The FAA is dangerously behind the power curve with the evolution of the sport. I think some of the standards are wrong or at least may need a little more flexibility in them. Opening speeds on reserves are a perfect example. I'm actually in favor of slower reserves. I don't see them as a problem. The problem arises when we expect them to open like an old school canopy. Thats one of the reasons why I think you should be able to dial up the opening altitude on an AAD. I don't see why we had to change the BSR's. If the information was out there I think people could make their own decisions on it. Same thing with over all speed. Rather then having a secret waver and allowing people to think that the canopy would land them safely we need to be honest about the consequences of jumping a highly loaded reserve. That's what it really comes down to. I think we need to start being honest about the real numbers. Some people are hung up with whether they will meet the TSO's but I don't actually see that as being that important. I've jumped gear all the way from one end of the spectrum to the other. It's all about understanding the performance envelope of the equipment and respecting it. What ever those numbers may be, it doesn't matter, as long as we know what they are and respect them. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Sorry, to clarify my comments were better directed to Masterrigger1. It had changed pages and I just clicked on the last thread. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It seems that manufactures regularly define who has authorization to do what repairs on their rigs. There are many references in their manuals as to who can replace a line, who can do a patch, where they can do a patch, what kind of patch. It seems that they decide what repairs affect the airworthiness of their equipment and which are minor and major. Things like pointers and the new parachute manual are sited as references when there is no guidance from the manufacturer. They seem to be secondary not the primary rule. They seem to be taken from general practices of most manufacturers. The fact that there is argument or disagreement over them doesn't change the fact that this is what the FAA has chosen to site as standard practice in the industry to be referenced when lacking direction from the manufacturer. You dis agree with Sandy. Fine but that's just your opinion. What makes your interpolation more authoritative then his? And by the way, I'm not picking sides here. There are things in that book that I disagree with. I just wish this could come to a final ruling on this. Oh and lets not forget SB which with out fail state who the Manufacturer authorizes to perform the SB. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I think we are talking about different things. "Lofts" no longer exist. Bear with me because I was posing a question not making a comment. My understanding of this is imperfect and I'm hoping some one can clarify this. As I understand it the FAA recognizes "Repair Facilities" I think that's the right term. It's a cite that they have certified other then the manufacturer to work on certified, TSO'd components. Example, If you want to sew on a balloon, a certified aircraft, you have to be a repair facility. If you want to work on a navigation radio or gyro then you have to be a repair facility. I know a guy that got certified to test and repair Peto static systems on aircraft. Their calibration has to be checked for the transponder. It's a real thing in FAA speak. It's a term that has a specific meaning for them. I got the impression that the conversation with the FAA went some thing like this. Buttler is a manufacturer holding a TSO allowing them to manufacture these certified components. But there is equipment here being returned for repair. The TSO does not authorize them to repair certified components. I'm assuming they were Buttler made. Are you a "Repair Facility", note capitalization as certain terms have special meaning for the FAA. If not then how are you replacing that Velcro. The Master rigger thing seems to be a end run around the issue. Could some one clarify how this all fits together. If a TSO lets you produce certified gear then does it matter whether or not you are a master rigger or even a senior rigger. Most are any ways but that's beside the point. Most things in the FAR's say the "Manufacturer" or a master rigger. As another example. If you build a 51% kit plain then you are the "manufacture" and you do not have to be an A+P to sign off the condition inspection, annual of the air plane. What about repairs. Is being a TSO holder authorization to perform repairs to their own TSO'd gear? It would seem from the conversation that it is not. What if they had been a Repair Facility, and there are still such things, then could they have been authorized to repair their own equipment and would it matter whether or not they were master riggers if they were an approved "Repair Technician" I think that's another term. Can any one explain to me exactly how this works. Note that this is really more a broader FAA question and may reach beyond just arguments on AC 105. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

A couple of years ago I heard an interesting story during one of the meetings. I think it was the guy from buttler that stood up and was talking about an inspection from the FAA. If I understand correctly they were asking if Buttler was a "Repair Facility". It was in regards to maintenance and repairs being done to equipment being returned. In the end I think they did in fact simple make the argument that they had Master Riggers on staff. Where do Repair Facilities fall into this? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

The answer is "No." The vast majority have no interest in the establishment of or certification to any such standard. They are far more interested in how shiny their hardware is and whether the colors of their gear match. Their only interest in safety is they want to be told that every thing will be alright so that they don't have to think about scary things. And then cry in their beer when their friend dies. Evidence: Cypress. Why are AAD's so popular, to the point that many people wont jump with out them? The numbers don't really justify it. Impacts have gone down but it's been caused more by the rise in opening altitudes, partly do to cypresses and in part high performance canopies. Subtract from the "saves" all the two outs that put jumpers in real danger and some time severely injured them. Then subtract from the very few that have actually been knocked unconscious the people for whom the AAD fire contributed to their death... I'm not saying they're in the red... but the numbers don't justify the obsession with having an AAD. In a small rig it takes up a good bit of space. If I had a choice I'd rather have one size larger reserve then an AAD. More Evidence: What is one of the most popular high speed, go fast, free fly rigs on the market? Why the container which has the very lowest level of certification and testing of all rigs on the market. I and every one else laughed our asses off when they got busted and they made them start sewing in labels with big 1 inch tall lettering "LOW SPEED PARACHUTE" So technically illegal to free fly with. End of Rant. So what you're basically proposing is a TSO standard. So gee we've had (b), (c), (d), and now (f). You could have joined the comity. You could have helped write the dammed thing. But the only people that show up for the meetings are the ones with a special interest ie. pulling the wool over the FAA's eyes once again so that we can just keep doing what ever we want. The FAA is actually starting to smarten up a bit and push for some reasonably amount of safety. Example, the requirement to limit the over all speed of the reserve with the breaks set. Read that as, "No more small reserves". PIA is next month. Show up early at the meeting and start asking these questions. The issue is that we honor the old TSO's It's expensive to retest so we don't make them do it. So we have this strange mix of incompatible standards. What you're suggesting is that we retest all gear to a new "rational" standard. Hell we could even test AAD deployments, gleefully rubs hands thinking of all the new craters in the ground. And we could do it publicly, insert Evil Laugh. How about test drops that weekend. Or a nice ongoing program with video of new craters every week. Posted on the front page of dropzone. Why don't you float that idea next month and see how well it goes over. Let people send their own rig in for a "Certification" check. For a small fee complete data dumps and video of the actual performance of your own rig. Does you rig really meet the TSO? Should you trust it? How about Little Jimmy's rig that bounced. How fast does that canopy actually open? Am I just Evil? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Interesting point. A few years ago I remember reading about a... I don't remember if it was a pilot or an A+P, but he was charged with violating an AC. The charged him formally just as if it was a regulation. It was an interesting case because it might set a president. Keep in mind that an AC does not go through any of the notification or commentary process that a change to the FAR's would be subject to. I never heard how it turned out. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I think that's a little skewed. All rounds are not equal and Mill surplus are not at the top of the list. I've never actually jumped an unmodified round and I'm assuming yours were cut, 7TU or LL. I have made a number of jumps on old modified 7TU C-9's. I've got one that's my favorite scary old rig for nostalgia day jumps. It's by no means my nicest round canopy but it's one of my scariest looking ones to freak out the yuppies. The point is that a good Strong Enterprises 26' LOPO is a very nice canopy. It's not an oscillator. At reasonable loadings it doesn't land all that hard. If you keep your legs together it's nothing to be scared of. And as I said I think it can potentially simplify a lot of things. I should also point out that I'm only like 140 lb. My perspective is a little different then some because there aren't that many round canopies that actually scare me. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I actually kind of like the idea of round reserves for student rigs. There are some real advantages to it. Duel outs are much calmer then with two squares. I've seen students injured badly on two outs. The only actual down side is that they are so wind limiting. Students are already have fairly low wind limits but planning for a round just makes it worse and at that point they need to be jumping as much as they can not sitting on the ground. And to keep it in perspective these canopies are only marginally better then a good round. These are not first generation square canopies but they are second and it wasn't till the next one with things like the Pegasus and Cruselite that we really got the squares figured out and working well. I like me a nice Pegasus but most people would scoff at it. This is even older and the fact that more of you are not aghast at the idea of some young jumper being sold it just shows that it's old enough that most of you don't know what it is. If you aunt paid more then a beer for it she was ripped off. If the beer was cold she was over charged. It was badly out dated thirteen years ago and it was a crime to sell it to her. It's probable the reason why she never really became a skydiver. Who ever sold it to her broke it off in her ass. They ass raped her and they didn't even use lube. The idea that you're going to make any money selling it today is comical. I'm glad you asked about it and I'm sorry to disappoint. It would make a good water rig, that's the best use for it. And I like old gear. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Older heavy metal sewing machines, including the home portable models, are always, always, always better then new plastic pieces of shit. Some of them are remarkable good machines. They will handle e-thread. Ultimately you will want a real machine. If you ever sew on a machine with a knee lift you will never go back. Check craigslist and garage sales. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

FXC will fire easily under canopy. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I'm not one to dis older gear. But what you have there is OLD. By that I mean that it's old enough, in design if not in condition, that you wouldn't enjoy jumping it. There are closeted rigs that are perfectly serviceable but these designs are actually old enough that I don't think you will enjoy jumping them and would not be able to sell them. The container is the most serviceable of the components and even it has limited value if you want to be nitpicky about compatibility in the manual. The FXC is interesting if you want to do some type of drop testing but it's far from state of the art. The only thing that can be said for it is that it resets and so is cheep to fire unlike a cypress. But it is utterly useless at a skydiving AAD. It's virtually impossible to maintain. You got nothing. Some one might take the FXC off your hands. I'll accept it and give it a good home if you'll ship it to me. Does that put it in perspective for you? Some one else might do the same for the container. Canopies have virtually no value. Sorry but that's just the truth. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

What they were using was remarkable small. It's a little hard to tell what was what and how much of it was the actual circuit and what was their test/data recording equipment. It was about a five inch tube about four feet long with fins on the back. The antenna was fairly small fitting perfectly under a plastic dome that matched the diameter very nicely. The antenna was pricey. I don't recall the exact number but it was upwards of ten grand. Their electronics package was metal block about an inch and a half thick. I imagine only a small bit of that was the actual circuit the rest being all their data storage and what not. There was almost two feet worth of crush material, some of their drops had to be all the way to dirt. They had to sacrifice the antenna on those but for all the rest of the drops they wanted a parachute to pop out the back and save it right before it hit. The whole back end was the canopy. The only thing they were testing was the firing circuit it self. Ever thing else seemed to be what ever they had on the shelves. I hope the final antenna is not that expensive. The fall rate was controlled with little speed beaks bolted to the back of the fins. Oddly the final qualifications were done visually with a high speed camera. They put up a tall poll in the middle of the field with one meter marks on it. They filmed it with a high speed camera as the circuit flashed strobes at preset altitudes. The camera had a stop switch on it. It recorded on a hard drive in a loop and you pulled the trigger when the bomb hit. At some thing like twenty thousand frames a second it stored the last three seconds before you hit the trigger. The point is that yes you could use this or some thing like this for testing but it would be expensive and it's too... perfect. I mean it's clean and consistent and with the stability and the static ports you get a perfect smooth pressure change. All the things that skydiving is not. You know what I would do? I'd test the thing on the ground. You've got pressure data from skydives and even a tumbling fatality setting there on your computer. You have a very good idea what it looks like at this point. And as time goes on you'll have even more data of what happens on real jumps. Every thing from belly flying to free flying to static line. Both in the plane, as the door opens and on exit. If I was you, I'd build a tank. I'd build a box with a hatch big enough for an AAD or even better for a whole rig. I'd attach a good size tank to it. I'd pump it down to altitude and then open a valve and slowly let the pressure back in. You've got the data from dives. If you hooked up a good valve to your computer where you could control the flow of air to recreate the pressure changes that you had recorded on real dives then you could turn it on and let it run an AAD though real skydives one after another, any scenario you could imagine. But this only lets you increase pressure. If you had a second tank also pumped down... you could also simulate a drop in pressure like rolling back on to your belly as the unit returned into the burble. I'm sure they do some thing similar to this in the four year. In fact they probable plug in to it and monitor what's happening with in it. But what are they testing? Firing at the proper altitude at various decent rates within margins of error? But are they looking at unstable fall rates, transitions, tumbling, set up on opening? Clearly they never simulated the opening and closing of the door on a c-130. I think a computer controlled chamber that could recreate the data your gathering from real jumps would be the way to go. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com