4 4
df8m1

New AAD made in USA

Recommended Posts

mark

A master rigger would not need approval to install the unit in the main container, say, on the wall between reserve and main. Would that be close enough for testing?

Mark



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's an incident report from today that shows how much we need an improved AAD. Two out to a downplane leading to a fatality. I personally am glad you are taking on this challenge and wish you all the best with your product. If you meet your claims Your system will be on my back.
ATTACK LIFE ! IT'S GOING TO KILL YOU ANYWAY!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

Why? - does 'New AAD made in USA...' mean better than 'Old AAD made in Germany (or Holland or Belgium or wherever)'? If that's the sales pitch, it will be an uphill battle outside the US.

More seriously...

Any AAD algorithm is a delicate balance of 1) getting the thing to fire when it should vs 2) not letting it fire when it shouldn't.

Getting 1) right is mostly more important than 2): an AAD going off in the plane can be dangerous, but is mostly nuisance. An AAD not going off when it's needed is mostly fatal. The fast-swooper firing problem has largely been solved by application-specific algorithm improvements.

But getting that algorithm right is difficult - especially when the failure conditions are rare, which means difficult to replicate and therefore predict.

So having had a device on the market for a long time is advantageous - those rare failures can be analyzed, and maybe even trends spotted. Which leads to improvements such as the 'Expert' Cypres version.

But it also makes it difficult for newcomers - they won't have the hard-won experience and wisdom the incumbents have.

And translating a military/professional product to civilian/amateur users isn't simple: the risk:cost equation will be different for military vs civilian applications.

Generalizing: professional/military users are younger, fitter, better trained, more current and ultimately expendable, whilst civilians are older, slower, less current and not expendable.

The cost of ownership and inconvenience of serviceability issues clearly aren't decisive for most jumpers.

Challenging the status quo is always good. Improving upon it is another matter...

Good luck!


Sorry for the full quote, but I did so because it mostly covers my view of this. I will be back in the market for an AAD in 3 years when my Cypres expires. Even if this new unit is on the market tomorrow, if similarly priced to the Cypres or Vigil, I will probably go with one of them (although will be keeping my eye on how the MARS unit fares).

Mostly that's because, while I do like you thinking about doing it better, and think those features would make it a better unit in theory, by the time I'm back to buying one, even if you hit the market this year and do really good sales for 3 years, your units will have a mere fraction of the jumps that Cypres and Vigil have had over the last 15-20 years. Although your unit will have benefited some from their experience (e.g., those few unanticipated situations that came to light and that Cypres/Vigil addressed as time went on), your hardware and software will be v1.0 at best.

The reality is that the vast majority of AAD's have never fired because the conditions were never met to do so; and that will be true for your unit as well. I understand how they work and their limitations, and for me the risk/benefit of a new theoretically better but less well field-tested (for reliability) unit over the long time players in the market comes out against your unit at this time. (I'll also note that those companies have been in business for a very long time; what are the odds that you will be around when a unit needs their 4-year service?)

I will make a counter point to one item in the quote above: I do think cost of ownership is a big deal for those that do not currently jump with an AAD, as well as for many that do. Have you considered a marketing model where you just charge for the 4 year continuous service life? I bet something like a $600 up front cost (and perhaps a $50 deposit so it gets returned to you at the end of that 4 years (to be refurbished and resold (or re-leased) for another 4 years?)) would allow you to establish an immediate foothold in the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

df8m1
There will always be Cypres buyers, Vigil buyers, and maybe Mars buyers, that cannot 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 below it to reference to? :P



Sorry, but I missed the 'Mars' references explanation: what did you work on for the Mars expeditions? I'm guessing that must be one of the most desirable engineering jobs ever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Divalent


(I'll also note that those companies have been in business for a very long time; what are the odds that you will be around when a unit needs their 4-year service?)



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.

Divalent


I will make a counter point to one item in the quote above: I do think cost of ownership is a big deal for those that do not currently jump with an AAD, as well as for many that do. Have you considered a marketing model where you just charge for the 4 year continuous service life? I bet something like a $600 up front cost (and perhaps a $50 deposit so it gets returned to you at the end of that 4 years (to be refurbished and resold (or re-leased) for another 4 years?)) would allow you to establish an immediate foothold in the market.



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 :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUBLHED

There's an incident report from today that shows how much we need an improved AAD. Two out to a downplane leading to a fatality. I personally am glad you are taking on this challenge and wish you all the best with your product. If you meet your claims Your system will be on my back.



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I did see that update. However this could have easily happened in a AAD fire 2 out situation.

As of today it seems to me that it is really just a game of odds.
Are my odds of being knocked out, or having a loss of altitude awareness and needing an AAD to save me better than the odds of having an AAD fire at an inopportune time injuring or killing me. I personally don't know haven't had ether happen to me as of yet. I do feel like a smarter AAD could swing the odds more in the favor of the AAD doing no harm, therefore making an unforeseen event much more livable
ATTACK LIFE ! IT'S GOING TO KILL YOU ANYWAY!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get me wrong: I do appreciate you trying to make an improved AAD. It would be *very* good to have an AAD won't ever fire in the plane, that takes into account falling rate in determining the activation point, considers the target altitude as the point where you have a fully opened canopy (as opposed to mere when the closing loop is cut), is able to detect when you activated your main, etc.

It just that, for any new product/device, it is virtually certain that unanticipated situation and/or problems will arise; at the design, component, or software level, that will have to be addressed and worked out. That is the risk an early adopter of your device will face. Right now, for Vigil and Cypres their initial "defects" have been identified and corrected over the decades of use, and the somewhat common remaining risks have been (mostly?) identified. The weaknesses (it might not fire high enough) are known, and there are things you can do to minimize them (like, raising your firing altitude). If you produce such a device and get a bunch of them in use for millions of jumps over several years so that those rare situations get identified and corrected for your unit, then I might give it a chance. But as I see it, the benefits you hope to achieve are marginal beyond what the current generation AADs provide, and is countered by the risk of being the beta tester that finds out something unexpected about your new unit. Particular so it if the cost is the same as the other guys.

BTW, I did some searching and the (third party) rental offers I've seen are on the order of $60 a month with a 12 month (minimum) lease, which strikes me as pretty poor deal. ($720 for a year? I can't imagine who would go this route). That might make it doable for someone that absolutely needs one and can't buy new, but an extremely poor investment over all. (Better to spend twice as much for a new Vigil, use for a year, then sell for almost what you paid for it. Or buy a used Cypres with some remaining life.) So I wouldn't count on the availability of that option offered by third parties to be a way to get your unit some overlooked market share. I do understand that selling (or leasing) it this way means you forgo the full upfront bolus of money, but over the life of the unit, you get the same (and perhaps more). And from the buyer's perspective, it somewhat reduces the risk that you cease to support the product (or go out of business) leaving them with an orphaned device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24

Depends on whether you want to sell to Racer owners. For older two pin rigs I wouldn't bother.



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their are a lot of strong tandems out their. They are very popular here in Texas. The new strong is a one pin but the two pins will still be out there in service for many years. How much more would it cost to do a duel cutter. If the unit has the ass to fire two cutters, and I don't think that firing amperage is some thing you want to skimp on, Why not make an adapter? A plug in adapter that takes an ordinary unit from one to two cutters. I'm assuming that you are going to have field replaceable cutters. It's a couple of extra connections but tandems have room. No need for an extra run of cutters setting on the shelf gathering dust and running out of shelf life. All standard parts except a little peace that looked like a stereo splitter.

I do think it's important to have a tandem unit or setting. At first I was wondering whether you should go there at all. Liability and the fact that on the whole tandem AAD's seem to be doing fairly well. They don't wind up in as many bad situations. Then I think about the duel fatality that your unit might have prevented and tandems ride the plane down more then ordinary jumpers. With the higher firing altitudes they are much more prone to in plane firings. With the longer opening times on the reserves your flexible firing altitude would be a good thing. Some people disconnect their RSL's on tandems. There are still fears of broken risers with that high of a load, I know of tandem risers that have broken. An AAD that could since a cutaway could be a good thing if that handle got lost. I've seen newbie tandem masters have trouble finding handles. It's being addressed as a training issue but it's still out their.

Another thought. Nobodies really had much luck building an AAD for pilots, and aircrew. Lot of people pushing cargo out the back of planes in the military and else where. With what you are doing with your static line unit it's a shuein for that job. Pilots need AAD's more then any one else and their are a lot of pilot rigs out their, all two pins. I take that back The Lap rig guy builds a nice one pin container. He has a whole line of rigs and I don't know if they are one pins or not. Point is their are lots of pilot rigs in service. Many in required high liability situations. An aerobatic instructor must by law have parachutes for both him and his student. Student aerobatic pilot... good odds of problems, over speed, over controlled, over G'ed, old plane... Before you know it a wing comes off or hell the engine just quits. Their are a lot of places where an off field landing would not be good. There are a lot of planes that for all practical purposes can not land off field. Those war birds are not getting any younger. Hitting your head on the way out on the tail is a real problem and do you really think that a passenger in a T-6 can find the handle. Their are businesses all over flying people in their "High performance world war II T-6 fighter plane" Their are schools that let people try their hand at dog fighting in them. I'm wondering if you could get them a discount on their insurance with an AAD. For that matter I wonder if any one has ever talked to an actuary about cost of life insurance and AAD's? I mean their are stranger things If you live within a certain distance of a fire station you can get cheaper home owners insurance. My point is that their is a market their. Lot's of pilot rigs. The problem is that they don't care but if you could convince an actuary that they should have one. Cheaper insurance or a requirement for one say for student operations? I think their is a long enough track record that you could sell an actuary on that.

The point is that their is a place for a two pin AAD. Between Pilot rigs and all the BA-22's in the military I think it's worth building a little "stereo spliter"

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A big aside:

You will likely know this Lee, but for the thread in general I'll note that there is an Aircrew / Pilot version of the CYPRES, with a green button.

If a pin is pulled by a lanyard on exit (or by a manual handle), the unit starts calculating and will fire if above 78mph descent and below 13000'.

That's very useful if a pilot is injured during the bailout (hitting the tail etc), but not at very low altitude. Presumably there's also some sort of time delay so if the aircraft is in a steep dive there's a chance to clear the aircraft after the lanyard is pulled.

I imagine it would be a little trickier for a computer to figure out if you are actually still in the aircraft or not, compared to skydiving, if the aircraft has the canopy or door open and is diving.

At $2500 that CYPRES it is also priced a little differently than the average AAD.

Basic specs at a seller:
http://parachuteshop.com/automatic_parachute_release_open.htm

It's not even listed on SSK's or Airtec's product list though -- as if it is a specialized item, maybe sold more to the military than anything, that isn't normally advertised...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yah but it's things like the activation lanyard that bug me. In theory it's all right if you are just setting in a cockpit. But it's less convenient to remove the rig from the plane if you want to adjust it to your new student. Then you have to hook it back up again. And it's basically impractical if you're working as a crew in the back of a plane pushing out cargo. They do use harnesses with lanyards but having a tail sucks and is in my opinion dangerous. The cypress is a good example of what they have had to resort to in order to fill this need. And as you see their is a need, I've packed those cypresses in rigs. But an AAD that could since an exit does away with the need for that lanyard. Now a crew member can move around freely. And I'll bet you can beat the price by half. It just goes to show the need for a two pin.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
df8m1

To mode or not to mode???
[much text removed]
Any thoughts either way?



I have to say that I think of "modes" in a much different way, and that is, "how many types of dangers should my AAD save me from?"

I'm thinking of a mode where the user wants their AAD to save them only from "freefall problems", as in a no-pull while traveling at a high speed below a certain altitude after the AAD has determined that the jumper has been in freefall for a while. This mode would prevent the AAD from firing for any reason after the AAD has determined that a canopy has opened. (This mode would then NOT save them from freefalling away from a collision and cutaway, then becoming unconcious or forgetting to use the reserve.)

I'm also thinking of a mode where the AAD does not "arm" until the jumper is at a "normal" altitude for jumping, say 2500 feet. This mode would prevent the AAD from firing if an unusual pressure change were to happen while climbing in the aircraft, caused by a door popping open or something like that. (This mode would then NOT save them from the wing falling off the airplane, getting out at 1500 feet, and forgetting to deploy a parachute.)

In other words, I'm tired of hearing about AADs that fired when they should not have.

Instead of trying to make the software in the AAD complex enough to try to figure out all of the possibilities of when it should not fire, give the user the choice of modes so that the software does not need to be so complex, thereby increasing the reliability of the software.

The problem with "modes" like this of course is that if someone selects one of these modes, and the AAD does not save them and they die, you are going to be sued for allowing a "less safe" mode to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek


I have to say that I think of "modes" in a much different way, and that is, "how many types of dangers should my AAD save me from?"

I'm thinking of a mode where the user wants their AAD to save them only from "freefall problems", as in a no-pull while traveling at a high speed below a certain altitude after the AAD has determined that the jumper has been in freefall for a while. This mode would prevent the AAD from firing for any reason after the AAD has determined that a canopy has opened. (This mode would then NOT save them from freefalling away from a collision and cutaway, then becoming unconcious or forgetting to use the reserve.)

I'm also thinking of a mode where the AAD does not "arm" until the jumper is at a "normal" altitude for jumping, say 2500 feet. This mode would prevent the AAD from firing if an unusual pressure change were to happen while climbing in the aircraft, caused by a door popping open or something like that. (This mode would then NOT save them from the wing falling off the airplane, getting out at 1500 feet, and forgetting to deploy a parachute.)



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.

peek


In other words, I'm tired of hearing about AADs that fired when they should not have.



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.


peek


Instead of trying to make the software in the AAD complex enough to try to figure out all of the possibilities of when it should not fire, give the user the choice of modes so that the software does not need to be so complex, thereby increasing the reliability of the software.



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.

peek


The problem with "modes" like this of course is that if someone selects one of these modes, and the AAD does not save them and they die, you are going to be sued for allowing a "less safe" mode to be used.



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
df8m1

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.



I would like to think that the software in current AADs is using more than just altitude and descent rate, but maybe it is not. If so, then carry on! You will succeed in designing some rather robust algorithms.

(I have never liked using words like "armed" and "disarmed" to describe what the software is doing, but since the manufacturers of the current AADs are not going to tell us what the software is doing, I guess they need to use simplified terms for skydivers.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Just a hint, no 15 year battery life claims... This unit will be doing a lot of work which requires power... .



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'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek

***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.



I would like to think that the software in current AADs is using more than just altitude and descent rate, but maybe it is not. If so, then carry on! You will succeed in designing some rather robust algorithms.

(I have never liked using words like "armed" and "disarmed" to describe what the software is doing, but since the manufacturers of the current AADs are not going to tell us what the software is doing, I guess they need to use simplified terms for skydivers.)

Current AAD's use a lot more information other than altitude and descent rate.
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rstanley0312

Current AAD's use a lot more information other than altitude and descent rate.



How do we know? And what additional parameters are those and how are they used?

Temperature data is available, but that is useful mainly to adjust pressure sensor data. Time/timing is available of course. What else, and how is it used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek

***Current AAD's use a lot more information other than altitude and descent rate.



How do we know? And what additional parameters are those and how are they used?

Temperature data is available, but that is useful mainly to adjust pressure sensor data. Time/timing is available of course. What else, and how is it used?

We need to make a distinction between external information available to the AAD and information used to make the firing decision. Current AADs have just two input signals - pressure and temperature. You can think of time as a third. From those, the device extracts multiple features, which are used to update the internal system state. That state contains many variables, altitude and descent rate among them, which are functions of current and past sensor readings. All of these variables are fed into the firing logic.

Thus, it's fair to say that there are many other firing parameters. For example, the armed/disarmed state is another input. However, all of them are derived from the history of a single pressure/temperature sensor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I own a vigil 2 and have just ordered a c-mode cypres. I like the idea of being able to switch between modes myself based on the type of skydive I'm doing. If the basic operation of my AAD is not to fire unless I'm going to die then, clearly, modes aren't necessary. All of the modes in AADs are to work around problems with the basic operation of the AAD so, they're not necessary if the AAD truly knows what's going on which I get is the point of your new AAD but I think you'll need to clear a VERY high bar to prove that to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

4 4