New AAD made in USA

[piisfish 135]

29 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Why is it 'bold'?

I would think it very hard, if not impossible to meet the firing parameters for a CYPRES in a car.

Unless as mentioned above, if you drive the car out of the plane 

[riggerrob 558]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Why is it 'bold'?

I would think it very hard, if not impossible to meet the firing parameters for a CYPRES in a car.

It has happened.

About 15 years ago, we had a really busy week at Beiseker, Alberta (3,000 feet above sea level) then we tossed all the student rigs in a van and started driving towards Vancouver, B.C. at sea level. While driving down a steep mountain pass, all dozen Vigils fired!

Kicking Horse Pass is 5,338 feet above sea level.

I vaguely remembered them being vigil 1s.

[df8m1 19]

7 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Why is it 'bold'?

I would think it very hard, if not impossible to meet the firing parameters for a CYPRES in a car.

That is true.. firing in the car should not be an issue at all.

The concern is the periodic calibration of the "device" (in an attempt to be brand neutral) and the possibility that it could mistaken changes in altitude during the drive and stop updating.

I recall, going a bit back now, that more then one jumper had "issues" because they turned their device on at their house which was at a lower altitude then the DZ and they did not reset the device once they got to the DZ, rushed to get on a plane, jumped, had a problem and hit the ground.

I think it is bold because if a jumper thinks nothing of driving home with the AAD on, why would they give a second thought about truing it on at home, for what ever reason, and then driving to the DZ which may or may not be at the same altitude, and depending on the speed and grade along the way, it could stop updating the calibration (zeroing itself) and the jumpers first jump would be with a device that thinks the DZ is at a different altitude then it really is.

No device should ever fire in a car, unless that car just rolled out of the back of a Cassa.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by df8m1

[BrianM 1]

Two years since the last update - any news?

[timski 80]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:01 PM, BrianM said:

Two years since the last update - any news?

Yeah, buy CYPRES! 

[Deyan 31]

On 5/12/2023 at 7:01 PM, BrianM said:

Two years since the last update - any news?

The guy said he will make it. You don't need to remind him every two years....

[df8m1 19]

On 4/11/2021 at 10:43 PM, df8m1 said:

That is true.. firing in the car should not be an issue at all.

The concern is the periodic calibration of the "device" (in an attempt to be brand neutral) and the possibility that it could mistaken changes in altitude during the drive and stop updating.

I recall, going a bit back now, that more then one jumper had "issues" because they turned their device on at their house which was at a lower altitude then the DZ and they did not reset the device once they got to the DZ, rushed to get on a plane, jumped, had a problem and hit the ground.

I think it is bold because if a jumper thinks nothing of driving home with the AAD on, why would they give a second thought about truing it on at home, for what ever reason, and then driving to the DZ which may or may not be at the same altitude, and depending on the speed and grade along the way, it could stop updating the calibration (zeroing itself) and the jumpers first jump would be with a device that thinks the DZ is at a different altitude then it really is.

No device should ever fire in a car, unless that car just rolled out of the back of a Cassa.

 

 

 

 

 

Even though jumpers should be trained not to turn on their AAD at the house, it happens and could have been a factor in some fatalities, which is why I spent a lot of time on the automatic barometric update algorithm. Although I do not want to encourage people to do so, it is something that people have done, so I think that an AAD should be able to handle that poor habit.

Different AADs handle their automatic update process differently, for better or worse. I am pleased with how my automatic update is working, I have tested it in several different turn on and DZ altitudes and drive times, both live and simulated.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by df8m1

[df8m1 19]

On 5/13/2023 at 9:35 PM, timski said:

Yeah, buy CYPRES! 

If you are jumping within the parameters of their AAD, then the Cypres, along with the other AADs currently available will be fine. However, for those who are pushing the limits of those AADs, or are looking for something without a performance trade off then they will want to look for something more advanced..

[df8m1 19]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:01 PM, BrianM said:

Two years since the last update - any news?

It has been a while hasn't it. Between Covid, some changes on my end, as well as some projects that I could not turn down, progress has been slower then I wanted. I have been laying low on DZ.com as a result. There has been a lot of progress, but all the public cares about is a release date lol..

I was live fire jump testing last summer and will restart test jumps in a couple of weeks, it is still cold here and then there is life lol.

I was not able to get to PIA this cycle so I was planning on an up date here.

One new thing that I am thinking about is taking the Blue Tooth that the Military AAD has and adding it to the Sport Tandem AAD so it could notify the DZ management if a Tandem Instructor pulls low or turns more then 90 degrees on final; this in an attempt to reduce the number of tandem incidents.

Of the two, the low pull is really the only alert that makes sense to alert management of, as anyone who has been jumping for any amount of time knows that 180 hooks a standard tandem landing pattern, and why alert management of something that they see happen all day long lol..

Now I imagine that such an alert would get a lot of push back from TIs, but, buss and truck drivers pushed back when GPS monitoring was introduced and now it is normal. Bottom line is, if you are doing what you are supposed to then there is nothing to worry about.

An AAD is not a product that should be rushed in my opinion. This AAD does things the current AADs just can't do, and there is a lot to consider and test to reach the reliability and confidence level that want.. I am really excited and proud of what my team and I are creating.

[timski 80]

8 hours ago, df8m1 said:

 

Now I imagine that such an alert would get a lot of push back from TIs, but, buss and truck drivers pushed back when GPS monitoring was introduced and now it is normal. Bottom line is, if you are doing what you are supposed to then there is nothing to worry about.

An AAD is not a product that should be rushed in my opinion. This AAD does things the current AADs just can't do, and there is a lot to consider and test to reach the reliability and confidence level that want.. I am really excited and proud of what my team and I are creating.

GPS is backed by science. I'm guessing you will suffer serious law suits with what you've just posted about the potential usage of said device... What are you REALLY after here? 

[gowlerk 1,911]

8 hours ago, df8m1 said:

Now I imagine that such an alert would get a lot of push back from TIs,

Already the push back has started! But seriously I'm not sure that the extra expense of the capabilities you are speaking of will be of much interest in the tandem industry. The needs there are quite simple and already being well met.

Edited May 17, 2023 by gowlerk

[df8m1 19]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Already the push back has started! But seriously I'm not sure that the extra expense of the capabilities you are speaking of will be of much interest in the tandem industry. The needs there are quite simple and already being well met.

LOL!!

Regarding your comment: From the AAD performance standpoint I agree in that they are well suited for tandems. 

What makes our Tandem AAD (should we decide to offer one) different is it records way more data then any of the current AADs. Enough data to be able to generate a 3-D model of the Tandem's mass orientation during the jump.  This Black Box feature would provide details such as if the pair were spinning and how fast, did they impact something, where they head up or down, opening shocks, exactly when a cutaway was performed, etc, during an incident investigation.

Now as you pointed out is that something that a DZ or manufacturer would put enough value in? I don't know.

It was asked what the status of development was and I shared some of my thoughts. The primary focus is the Sport AAD at this time.

[BrianM 1]

On 5/16/2023 at 9:16 AM, df8m1 said:

but all the public cares about is a release date lol..

Release it when it's ready, and not before. I was just curious if the project was still alive. I'm glad to hear that it is! Thank you for the update.

[NickDG 23]

The Ten Million Dollar Broken Leg . . .

Judge: Mr. Shyster, you may begin your closing argument.

Plantiff's Lawyer: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. My client sits before you with a badly broken leg. And we have shown by direct evidence my client's injury can be traced directly to an initial low main canopy deployment on the part of the TI, the ongoing disregard of the DZO to ensure their TIs follow the rules, and the USPA which has a record of being laissez faire when it comes to regulating tandem jumping. We have presented indisputable evidence from the 'Snitch-O-Meter' that shows without a doubt the defendant in this case initiated main parachute deployment at 4,700-feet. And that is a full 300-feet below the prescribed 'safe' altitude. How far, ladies and gentleman, is 300-feet? It's the equivalent length of a football field closer to the ground than permitted by the rules. (The jury gasps.) And we offer this very late main deployment left too little time to set up a proper landing pattern and therefor my client is maimed for life. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously folks, there is no issue with having too much information in this sport. But, that information in the wrong hands, like a sharp lawyer in front of a whuffo jury, may be a can of worms best left unopened. When it's video of a mistake we say the video malfunctioned. Are we going to start saying the AAD failed when it records a mistake? That's not going to fly.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by NickDG

[gowlerk 1,911]

23 minutes ago, NickDG said:

The Ten Million Dollar Broken Leg . . .

Judge: Mr. Shyster, you may begin your closing argument.

Plantiff's Lawyer: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. My client sits before you with a badly broken leg. And we have shown by direct evidence my client's injury can be traced directly to an initial low main canopy deployment on the part of the TI, the ongoing disregard of the DZO to ensure their TIs follow the rules, and the USPA which has a record of being laissez faire when it comes to regulating tandem jumping. We have presented indisputable evidence from the 'Snitch-O-Meter' that shows without a doubt the defendant in this case initiated main parachute deployment at 4,700-feet. And that is a full 300-feet below the prescribed 'safe' altitude. How far, ladies and gentleman, is 300-feet? It's the equivalent length of a football field closer to the ground than permitted by the rules. (The jury gasps.) And we offer this very late main deployment left too little time to set up a proper landing pattern and therefor my client is maimed for life. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously folks, there is no issue with having too much information in this sport. But, that information in the wrong hands, like a sharp lawyer in front of a whuffo jury, may be a can of worms best left unopened. When it's video of a mistake we say the video malfunctioned. Are we going to start saying the AAD failed when it records a mistake? That's not going to fly.

 

 

Sort of like making cops use body cams. Or trucks having dash cams and driver facing cams. Everyone hates accountability whenever it it applied to them. Me too. 

[df8m1 19]

14 hours ago, NickDG said:

The Ten Million Dollar Broken Leg . . .

Judge: Mr. Shyster, you may begin your closing argument.

Plantiff's Lawyer: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. My client sits before you with a badly broken leg. And we have shown by direct evidence my client's injury can be traced directly to an initial low main canopy deployment on the part of the TI, the ongoing disregard of the DZO to ensure their TIs follow the rules, and the USPA which has a record of being laissez faire when it comes to regulating tandem jumping. We have presented indisputable evidence from the 'Snitch-O-Meter' that shows without a doubt the defendant in this case initiated main parachute deployment at 4,700-feet. And that is a full 300-feet below the prescribed 'safe' altitude. How far, ladies and gentleman, is 300-feet? It's the equivalent length of a football field closer to the ground than permitted by the rules. (The jury gasps.) And we offer this very late main deployment left too little time to set up a proper landing pattern and therefor my client is maimed for life. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously folks, there is no issue with having too much information in this sport. But, that information in the wrong hands, like a sharp lawyer in front of a whuffo jury, may be a can of worms best left unopened. When it's video of a mistake we say the video malfunctioned. Are we going to start saying the AAD failed when it records a mistake? That's not going to fly.

 

 

I don't think you are going to like to hear this, but every AAD currently on the market records altitude data, at least of the last jump, and the main deployment altitude, as well as the altitude that a cutaway was performed can be determined based on that altitude data if one knows how to read the data. Nothing new about that and electronic AADs have been around for 25+ years.

We as skydivers are "currently" a self regulating body, and as you pointed out, there is room for improvement. USPA published an accounting of incidents last year,  and there were at least 3 tandem students (correct me if I am wrong as I do not have the publication in front of me at the moment) that were either severely injured or out right killed due to low turns that were in violation of a USPA BSR.  We as a sport need to do better. How we do that is something that we as a collective sport need to talk about and come up with better ways, even if it is just enforcing the current BSRs.. As long as we maintain a civil and open minded exchange, I am very willing to discuss different ways we as jumpers can improve the tools at our disposal and the over all safety culture that I have been hearing a lot about lately.

We as jumpers are / should be in, the risk mitigation business as what we do is dangerous despite what the brochures may say. Any action, or lack there of, that adds additional / unnecessary risk to something that is already inherently risky enough should be strongly discouraged, especially when civilians who think they are going on a carnival ride are involved.

Yes, there are times when a low pull or even a properly executed low turn has to be performed based on the situation at that moment. In my opinion, the more these situations are identified as "not normal" we can look at why they occurred and make changes in an attempt to avoid them in the future.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        "A tandem is not just another skydive"      ~ Bill Booth                                                                                                                                                                                     

The best defense is doing it right, and if you can't do it right, do it wrong well.

If we as jumpers are not interested in learning as much as we can when things go wrong, then we will continue to repeat the very behavior that you are concerned we as jumpers are held accountable for.  The only difference in what I am suggesting / thinking about is an AAD that would / could alert the DZ management of the BSR violation, should a violation occur, which would then give them an opportunity to talk with the TI, see what the issue was, and possibly implement a change to avoid that issue in the future and better mitigate the risk which will only better their safety record. Just look at Lodi as an example of the exact opposite of what I just suggested... Which is a better philosophy?... Well that is up to everyone to decide. I am just thinking about using something that is currently recorded and utilizing it before an incident as apposed to strictly during an investigation after an incident.

Apposing viewpoints welcome :)

Edited May 20, 2023 by df8m1

[lippy 771]

1 hour ago, df8m1 said:

I don't think you are going to like to hear this, but every AAD currently on the market records altitude data, at least of the last jump, and the main deployment altitude, as well as the altitude that a cutaway was performed can be determined based on that altitude data if one knows how to read the data. Nothing new about that and electronic AADs have been around for 25+ years.

We as skydivers are "currently" a self regulating body, and as you pointed out, there is room for improvement. USPA published an accounting of incidents last year,  and there were at least 3 tandem students (correct me if I am wrong as I do not have the publication in front of me at the moment) that were either severely injured or out right killed due to low turns that were in violation of a USPA BSR.  We as a sport need to do better. How we do that is something that we as a collective sport need to talk about and come up with a better ways, even if it is just enforcing the current BSRs.. As long as we maintain a civil and open minded exchange, I am very willing to discuss different ways we as jumpers can improve the tools at our disposal and the over all safety culture that I have been hearing a lot about lately.

We as jumpers are / should be in, the risk mitigation business as what we do is dangerous despite what the brochures may say. Any action, or lack there of, that adds additional / unnecessary risk to something that is already inherently risky enough should be strongly discouraged, especially when civilians who think they are going on a carnival ride are involved.

Yes, there are times when a low pull or even a properly executed low turn has to be performed based on the situation at that moment. In my opinion, the more these situations are identified as "not normal" we can look at why they occurred and make changes in an attempt to avoid them in the future.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        "A tandem is not just another skydive"      ~ Bill Booth                                                                                                                                                                                     

The best defense is doing it right, and if you can't do it right, do it wrong well.

If we as jumpers are not interested in learning as much as we can when things go wrong, then we will continue to repeat the very behavior that you are concerned we as jumpers are held accountable for.  The only difference in what I am suggesting / thinking about is an AAD that would / could alert the DZ management of the BSR violation, should a violation occur, which would then give them an opportunity to talk with the TI, see what the issue was, and possibly implement a change to avoid that issue in the future and better mitigate the risk which will only better their safety record. Just look at Lodi as an example of the exact opposite of what I just suggested... Which is a better philosophy?... Well that is up to everyone to decide. I am just thinking about using something that is currently recorded and utilizing it before an incident as apposed to strictly during an investigation after an incident.

Apposing viewpoints welcome :)

I'm just curious about the geek shit side of things.  What protocol would you be considering using to send that data back home, and would the added benefit (the debate on the value of that benefit being alive and well above) be worth the penalty in battery life?

[dudeman17 270]

Just as an isolated bit of historical trivia...

And pardon me if I'm having a senior moment, but I remember something differently.

 

3 hours ago, df8m1 said:

"A tandem is not just another skydive"      ~ Bill Booth  

I believe that is not correct. As I remember it, Mr. Booth said, "It's just another skydive", as in it IS just another skydive. It was someone else who said "It's NOT just another skydive". So the trivia question is, who was it that made the other quote, and which one of them was right. (Hint - it's sort of a trick question.)

And if Mr. Booth (or the other person) happens to read this, no fair your answering, unless I have this wrong.

[mark 102]

2 hours ago, lippy said:

. . . would the added benefit (the debate on the value of that benefit being alive and well above) be worth the penalty in battery life?

Battery life is not an issue if there is an accessible charging port.

[sfzombie13 307]

13 hours ago, df8m1 said:

Just look at Lodi as an example of the exact opposite of what I just suggested...

if i recall correctly they have yet to have a tandem fatality at lodi.  at least that is what i heard someone in one of these discussions say, but they had some issues with the tandem instructors though.  maybe it was no student fatalities there. 

[gowlerk 1,911]

1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

if i recall correctly they have yet to have a tandem fatality at lodi.  at least that is what i heard someone in one of these discussions say, but they had some issues with the tandem instructors though.  maybe it was no student fatalities there. 

You did not try very hard to research that one. 

[df8m1 19]

12 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Just as an isolated bit of historical trivia...

And pardon me if I'm having a senior moment, but I remember something differently.

 

I believe that is not correct. As I remember it, Mr. Booth said, "It's just another skydive", as in it IS just another skydive. It was someone else who said "It's NOT just another skydive". So the trivia question is, who was it that made the other quote, and which one of them was right. (Hint - it's sort of a trick question.)

And if Mr. Booth (or the other person) happens to read this, no fair your answering, unless I have this wrong.

HHmmm.. that is interesting! Then it is I that may be suffering from a senior moment as I would swear I have actually heard Bill Booth say that quote before, but then again, that was a long time ago lol... 

Anyone care to break the stalemate? :)

 

[df8m1 19]

14 hours ago, lippy said:

I'm just curious about the geek shit side of things.  What protocol would you be considering using to send that data back home, and would the added benefit (the debate on the value of that benefit being alive and well above) be worth the penalty in battery life?

Thanks for the great question! I don't want to put out technical specks at that level quite yet as there are "others reading this" lol... but I will say that the protocol is tried and true, and an industry standard.

Regarding the effect on battery life... I selected a Blue Tooth Low Energy IC that was designed to be used with battery powered mobile devices and uses very little power.

The US. Army required wireless access to the Enhanced Electronic Automatic Activation Device (EEAAD) and I too was concerned about battery life, but the technology has advanced so much that battery impact is really in significant, even when transferring a full jump data file (in the case of the Army AAD). The two real power hogs are the processor and memory.

The AAD would only turn on the BLE and transmit an alert when there was an issue detected on the jump that just took place, so ideally it would never turn on. The alert Data packet would be tiny regardless.

Also, the batteries are commercially available, are inexpensive and are field replaceable.

 

 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

You did not try very hard to research that one. 

Hi Ken,

But, it is what he 'heard.'

Jerry Baumchen

[sfzombie13 307]

11 hours ago, gowlerk said:

You did not try very hard to research that one. 

not at all actually.  i recalled something i thought i had read.  i am also pretty sure i said that, right after i made the statement.  maybe i should have put that part first.  or was it just recently that someone said they hadn't had a student fatality at lodi?  i didn't bother to look that up either. 

edit:  i did just scroll up and see that i also put the part about student fatalities in there too.  was i being that hard to understand when i wrote the comment? 

Edited May 21, 2023 by sfzombie13
clarification