3 3
df8m1

New AAD made in USA

Recommended Posts

Quote

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?



I would love to see something like that if someone has a video or some links to some material that dives deeper in this kind of stuff feel free to send it my way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skydivesg

The events to which you are referring happened almost 9 years ago. It is my understanding that both companies have since updated their firmware.

As I stated, I'm glad to see and welcome more evolution in our sport, be it EPs, flying techniques or gear. But I believe we more experienced jumpers owe it to our newer younger jumpers, to be more careful when we post on public forums.

I do a lot of load organizing around the country which means I often hang and jump with newer jumpers at grass roots DZs - many of these people started jumping in the last 3-5 years. It is shocking to hear them talk about things they "heard from someone". It is often stuff that is totally false or something that happened years ago, even decades ago, (especially gear related) and has since been resolved.

I encourage intelligent civil debate but let's not forget the many newer jumpers who read this stuff, may not realize or can't differentiate the context, and then suddenly start questioning the reliability of their chosen gear.

For everyone with less experience or knowledge; I suggest you read these forums with a grain of salt and choose your mentors carefully. And don't be afraid to question their advice. If they are a decent mentor they will not take offense but instead be willing and able to convey how the came to their conclusions.



You are very correct. I am looking at this at technically fundamental level in regards to design and operation, and that can get me into trouble depending on the audience as you correctly pointed out.

I think it is important for new jumpers to know the full history of their equipment, but as you pointed out, how that history is delivered is important for context.

As far as I know, there has not been an in aircraft firing in the sport side for some time, but on the military side there have been a couple in incidents were plane loads of jumpers on mission, in theater have had their AADs fire in aircraft.

The incident reports are generally public in time and it takes the government a long time to conclude them, but when they are done, I believe they are available on line. I only know that they occurred, and that the militarily immediately demanded to see my Static Line AAD operational logic.

I know it is pretty edgy for me to make that statement with out supplying proof of the "claim", but it is important that jumpers do not get complacent from the marketing of "ALL" AAD manufacturers, and that includes me.

My advice to "all" jumpers is to do their own unbiased research, and if they do not understand something, I encourage them to seek out someone who does.

Thank you for your comments. I am always open to correction, somethings I'm even wrong lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Situationaly Aware throughout the entire jump.




Be careful with your goals here. A device can never be situationaly aware not matter how hard you work at it. It can only simulate awareness. I really like your clear goal of reducing the burble error to +-70 feet. That would be a real and measurable improvement.

You will in the end be faced with choosing compromises in the behavior of the device precisely because it can never be truly aware. That is the realm of AI, and we are not there yet. Especially with a small low power device.

As far as firing directly after a cutaway goes, I agree with you for two reasons. First I would never buy such a unit because it would then require a new cutter after every cutaway. And secondly, that`s what an RSL does. If I want that feature it is already easily and cheaply available to me.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds intriguing. Are you using any statistical techniques like Kalman filters to characterize your sensors and to do the integration?

I like the idea of detecting the start of deployment and holding off, I agree the jumper has shown that they realize the skydive is over, and are trying to stop it. You could have a jumper that gets a bag lock and rides it to the ground wondering what to do, so at some point the AAD may want to step in.

I do believe that an AAD should not completely "deactivate" on main deployment. I use an RSL, so I don't ever anticipate needing an AAD after main deployment, but in case I had it disconnected, (CReW, some other reason) and I cut away and ended up in freefall without the ability to pull the reserve, I would like my AAD to fire, if my cutaway was high enough.

Experienced people without RSLs and AADs cutway and go in every so often, it is the primary argument for wearing an RSL, but sometimes you need a backup.

This smart AAD may also be better about detecting a swoop vs. freefall, and not fire based on the situation, rather than the fact that the canopy was already deployed.
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***
I wonder though about the last bit. It's one thing to take objective data and plot a course of action that is easy to infer like the sniveling past hard deck example.

But in the case of the AAD needing to take or not take action based on whether the jumper has "consciously" decided to take some kind of action that deviates from a "plan a" scenario, I wonder how accurately software could divine intention from raw data?

You have the data so you know what the sensor data would look like for these scenearious far better than I would.

But from a strictly code point of view, there is a danger in programming your way into a scenario labyrinth where the increasing number of facets in a tree create a logical problem big enough that your code is going to have to account for a LOT of things.

Perhaps given proper test cases and a large enough data set you could in fact reliably diving "intention" from data, but that seems like it would require very reliable data.

SO the question to you would be: How confident are you that the program could tell the difference between someone who is intending to do something and someone who is not? That could be a slippery slope....?

edited to add: thinking about it a little more, perhaps focusing on the data patterns that indicate a certain thing is happening and not caring about the "scenario" that caused it to happen would simplify things quite a bit. But the sticky bit of deciding whether that pattern of sensor data implies intent is still problematic in my mind.

We are thinking a lot alike, and we have these debates internally all the time. Keep it simple is the requirement, and just because we can do something to a relatively high degree of confidence it does not mean that we should.

I like the idea that the AAD is there to “potentially” take action only after the jumper has demonstrated that they are un able or willing to do so, but only after a given point that will be adjustable. In other words, the jumper only authorizes the AAD to “potentially” take command, bellow X altitude, in the absence of pilot in command action. In that case, lack of intent can be assumed to a pretty high degree of certainty. However, once the pilot in command takes action, regardless of that action, intent can not be predicted to a high enough degree, (IMOP), with out choking on code as you pointed out. Now that being said, if a pilot in command has taken action, and he/she, is descending at a unserviceable rate bellow an end all be all altitude, then I can see the AAD taking action, which the pilot may have already done…

Short on time, but I would love to go deeper into this thinking later..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few thoughts on sensors and software, though hopefully you've already considered some of these issues:

Your collections of sensors is good, and pretty much what I would expect from a newly developed AAD. What I don't like is that there is only one of each type (yea, battery/processing power and all that...). There is a reason why airplane autoland systems have three computers that are constantly voting for the right answer. A broken sensor can still be giving you data, but you have no way of measuring the quality of that data and nothing to cross-check it with. What does the AAD do if it suddenly starts getting bad or no data from the magnetometer? Your software is already complicated, but now you have to handle every possible combination of one or more failed sensors, which you may not even be able to detect without having more than one.

This is especially true for the pressure sensor. I don't get why manufacturers do not put a second sensor in the control unit, or even better, route a small probe next to the cutaway housing to the front of the harness. Measuring the difference in pressures between two separate location, ideally one in the front and one in the back, can go a long way toward eliminating that 200+ ft error. It would also provide you with some information about the orientation of the jumper.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Vigil, and probably CYPRES, are using very primitive (to put it mildly) algorithms for filtering and analyzing the data from the pressure sensor. Looking at the last five data points, if Lee's description is correct, is not the right way to do this. A Kalman filter should be the starting point for any such computations and there are other techniques for figuring out the "true" value from noisy measurements. Furthermore, you have to employ statistical tests to estimate the error for each calculated data point. It makes no sense to feed raw sensor readings directly into the algorithm that makes the firing decision. Going back to my autoland analogy, it's like building a system that tells you where the airplane is in relation to the runway, but doesn't bother figuring out whether the error on that answer is 5 ft or 50... That might be important.

As for the firing algorithm, it's awesome that you're using "canopy over head" as your target. I've thought about this problem myself a while ago and came to the same conclusion. However, it's a well-known fact that some reserves open faster than others. Now your AAD needs to know whether it's making calculations for a PDR, which should open in ~2 sec, or an Optimum that will take closer to 3 sec (getting these numbers from UPT's BPA 2015 presentation). Size is another factor, as is the relationship between the rate of descent and canopy inflation time. On top of this, it sounds like you're not arming the AAD until it detects the exit from the airplane, trying to figure out the actual "mode" of flight, feeding it more data at a higher sampling rate, and greatly complicating the firing logic. At least for the mode of flight problem, I know I would be looking at machine learning algorithms, assuming there is enough processing power. Get enough examples of free fall, normal canopy flight, swoop, cutaway, etc., and train a neural net or to decide what is happening. The trouble with all of this - an absolute nightmare to validate and prove correct operation in the general case. That might be a problem when you try to convince people that your AAD will do the Right Thing(TM) more often than the (much simpler) existing products.

Good luck! I, for one, am really interested in seeing what you come up with :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just have a moment and do not have the time to edit your post and respond to each point like I want to, but I wanted to touch on what I can.

In regards to redundant instrumentation, the first Cargo AAD we worked on, the ADAPT, had redundant instrumentation. This created its own set of problems as it can be argued, "how do you know which one is correct?".. Three sets are really needed as your airplane example points out.

Reliability of the instrumentation... That is one key reason for scheduled check ups, to insure everything is reading with in parameters. Instruments usually have a known "drift" rate, (as I am sure you know, but others may not), and part of the check up is to see if any of the instruments need to be fine tuned.

I wish I could go into how to "manage" the instrumentation as well as the problems with it that you have mentioned, but that involves getting into the secret sauce and that is a trade secret.

And unfortunately, how we manage the data, and make decisions is also a trade secret. Keep in mind that the US Military is vetting our process as part of vetting the Static Line AAD. They are petty sharp too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From your discription this thing could kill the RSL debate dead.

It would know not only if you're at deployment altitude but body orientation and whether you are spinning, thus giving you the option to get stable if you had altitude to trade for time or just fire if there's not enough altitude to wait. Why ever have a mechanical RSL? This thing could fire right away if nesc per a traditional RSL or wait and give you time to get stable per the anti-RSL crowd. The only thing an RSL could add would be the option of a MARD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr2mk1g

From your discription this thing could kill the RSL debate dead.

It would know not only if you're at deployment altitude but body orientation and whether you are spinning, thus giving you the option to get stable if you had altitude to trade for time or just fire if there's not enough altitude to wait. Why ever have a mechanical RSL? This thing could fire right away if nesc per a traditional RSL or wait and give you time to get stable per the anti-RSL crowd. The only thing an RSL could add would be the option of a MARD.



That is a large portion of the, sometimes headed discussions, we have had, and will continue to have, internally...

Yes, it is possible, in time, for this device to "potentially" initiate reserve pack opening immediately or soon after a cut away, but that does not mean that it should. ( I think you were saying this another way).. the only way I, as a pilot, would be comfortable with a computer taking action on my behalf is if, after that "point", (altitude), if I did not take action to slow my self down, I was dead anyway.

For example, if I had a super brutal main opening and it rendered me unconscious and shredded the main. In that case, the proper EPs would be to cut away the main and deploy the reserve, but because I was unconscious, that is not going to happen.

Now lets say that I deployed my main at 3K, and the fast opening gave me instant canopy, and the wad of crap above my head is slowing me down some, but not enough. Even so, it is giving me some additional time to deal with the situation before it is too late, provided I come to in time.

Given that scenario, if the AAD initiated Reserve pack opening on its own, (before I released the main), it would be firing a good reserve into a wad of crap at an altitude that was not life threatening, (that would be premature action, and not good IMOP). Now if the AAD waited until the end all be all altitude, where in, if the reserve did not get out at this point, it will not get out period, then, I am ok with it dumping the reserve into what ever is above my unconscious head, as I have not taken action, I am dead after I cross this line in the sky. We all know that a bigger ball of crap will slow me down better than a smaller ball of crap.

In the event of a cutaway, I may decide that it is better to hold off reserve deployment for what ever reason, and provided I am above the point of no return, I do not want the AAD to take action. Should I get to the point of no return, and are still in free fall, then by all means the AAD is at that point trying to save its self lol.. Not funny, but as was pointed out, even though we are a long way away, we are getting closer to some fundamental aspects of AI, and the problem in the movies always is based on the AI trying to protect its self.

Again I am very sensitive to when an AAD will take action. I am a firm believer that the pilot is responsible for taking the proper action and pulling handles in the proper sequence. That sequence may differ depending on what the pilot is dealing with, but if the pilot looses track of altitude, then I am OK with an AAD taking action in a "last chance ditch effort" to allow the pilot a chance to find a new hobby. (that is assuming the pilot was psychically able to perform the proper EPs, and just did not).

I probably should not say that publicly, but I have become very frustrated with the growing dependence of gear to overcome the pilots lack of willingness to take action and fight till they can grab the grass in a last ditch effort.:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

You don't realize what goes into that statement.



You shouldn't make that assumption. I was aware how Vigil's firing logic works when I commented on its simplicity.

Quote

This is the back ground that it comes from and the extremely demanding environment that it was designed for.



Extremely demanding but extremely cornered and extremely simplified. Skydiving, as a class of activities, is extremely variable. On one end you have people swooping and at the other you have wingsuiting. And then you have something like XRW - where someone under a fully functional canopy will have the exact same profile as someone in a wingsuit.

I wish these guys the best of luck and hope they succeed, but for me to trust something that wants to make all the decisions for me with 10x the complexity of anything that already exists and probably 100x the complexity of what I use, I would need a VERY detailed decision tree and to be able to read data from it to gain confidence in its sensors and logic, and have the capacity to turn off features that don't apply to me. If I'm wingsuitting, I'm probably not swooping, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr2mk1g

From your discription this thing could kill the RSL debate dead.

It would know not only if you're at deployment altitude but body orientation and whether you are spinning, thus giving you the option to get stable if you had altitude to trade for time or just fire if there's not enough altitude to wait. Why ever have a mechanical RSL? This thing could fire right away if nesc per a traditional RSL or wait and give you time to get stable per the anti-RSL crowd. The only thing an RSL could add would be the option of a MARD.




To anyone reading this: If you don't get the myriad of failure modes just described, or why an AAD does not in any way substitute for either an RSL or HUMAN REACTION TO A PROBLEM, please go learn more about gear before you jump again.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
diablopilot

***From your discription this thing could kill the RSL debate dead.

It would know not only if you're at deployment altitude but body orientation and whether you are spinning, thus giving you the option to get stable if you had altitude to trade for time or just fire if there's not enough altitude to wait. Why ever have a mechanical RSL? This thing could fire right away if nesc per a traditional RSL or wait and give you time to get stable per the anti-RSL crowd. The only thing an RSL could add would be the option of a MARD.




To anyone reading this: If you don't get the myriad of failure modes just described, or why an AAD does not in any way substitute for either an RSL or HUMAN REACTION TO A PROBLEM, please go learn more about gear before you jump again.

I agree with your thought, and I think the poster was thinking out loud at the possibilities given the capability being discussed for the first time.

I have said several times that I am not in favor of a device that replaces pilot input above the point of no return (altitude speaking), but there is a natural curiosity that a free thinking mind can’t help from indulging, and I think this forum is a good place to do that. However… a lower time jumper, or just someone who is technically naive, who can not discern the difference between theoretical discussion vrs literal fact, can take away the wrong thing from these kinds of discussions.

It is hard to balance content to the audience with out stunting discussion, as the kids need to learn, but they may not be ready for some levels of discussion given a lack of a solid foundation of informed experience.

It is important that open thought be allowed to be expressed, and at the same time, it is also important for experienced jumpers to step in when it is wanted to advise newer jumpers, and put into perspective, some of the thoughts that are being discussed.

This will allow open thought that can be of great learning potential for higher experienced jumpers, and at the same time, a good teaching moment that lower time jumpers can benefit from. When I was a "kid", I learned more on the porch in front of the fire than I realized at the time, and only when I was in trouble did I realize that what so and so said was about to save my butt.. These days there tend to be less fires to gather around, and these forums have replaced that learning environment for the new generations.

The natural urge to make something dangerous more safe is hard to keep in check sometimes, and that can lead to good things sometimes, and sometimes not.. It is important to always to take every argument back to the basic truth, which is, every jumper is responsible for saving their own live. That ability to do so results from vigilant and proper training, proper gear selection and complete and correct understanding of how the gear operates, and how it will react in the environments that “can” exist between the plane and the ground. Any equipment, in addition to the two parachutes and three handles, is not, under any circumstances, there to replace the pilot’s responsibility to act in accordance to the situations that they, “can/could”, find themselves in between the plane and the ground. The concept of, “I can do X now because I have an AAD or any other piece of equipment”, says that the jumper acknowledges that they are not prepared to handle what could happen, and are relying on said equipment to make up for their “acknowledged” lack of ability.

This is an extreme example for sure, as many jumpers, including myself, only started using an AAD because they were working with students and they/we, are trying to hedge against the consequences of being knocked silly by a student. The difference in that scenario is that we do not rely on the AAD in order to jump with a student, but it is nice to have just in case, and it is still no guarantee that we will be alive after we meet the ground.

The trend of “gear dependence” is growing, and I think it is replacing jumper responsibility to react properly and timely… “Why should I worry about finding my reserve handle? I have an RSL and an AAD” … I only hope anyone who has thought anything close to that lives to rethink that thought…

It is easer to berate than to educate, and I think everyone has done a good job staying on the educating side of the line. We who have a closet full of t-shirts (and you know what I mean), have a responsibility to at least try to educate those behind us, and sometimes right next to us.. Some, we will not be able to get through to, and Darwin will have the last word in that effort. It is just as important to take tragedy and make it a teaching moment, as it is to try to prevent the tragedy from happening in the first place. We are all only human and we have all found ourselves in situations that we should not have been in, but we managed to live to play another day. Let’s keep it safe, lead by example, step in when it is warranted, and offer help when it is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While trying to make some room in my mail box, I accidentally deleted all of the messages >:(. There were several messages regarding this thread, so if I do not respond to the message you sent, that is why, please resend it and I will respond as best I can.

Lets shift gears for a little bit and talk about liability.. I keep thinking of Mr. Booths "uninsured< insert company name>", and I remember him saying that after he did that, the lawsuits really were reduced... It is also my understanding that the wavers that DZs use have stood up in court to a pretty solid degree as well.

It would seem to me that a waver, similar in nature to what a DZ uses, could be applied to this item.

The idea that the lawsuit against Airtec, based on the rigger that did not put the loop through the cutter, ever made it to court is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.

My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the law suit is claiming that Airtec should have foreseen the potential for a rigger installing the AAD, to not put the loop through the cutter, and there for, Airtec is negligent for not incorporating a method for the AAD to detect that the loop was not through the cutter, and indicate as such during self test...

Is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



It seems to me like the value of the proposed system is the raw data only has value with the right software, so one without the other might not be of much value. Though it is an interesting question: should one go into actual production or look to license out the technology to any manufacturers that wanted it.

I don't think that would do anything to address liability but there may be more profit in the venture if someone else is having to run the production line you're just providing the specs and the software which you can negotiate on a contract of some kind.

Not sure if the scale of the potential market would really support something like that. There are only so many of these things that would sell.

However, selling just the control unit sans cutter for strictly collecting data for the end user's own use (flysight on steroids) might be a cool secondary product that could leverage the same R&D work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

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



LOL... I'll keep you in mind :)
There has to be a way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3mpire


It seems to me like the value of the proposed system is the raw data only has value with the right software, so one without the other might not be of much value. Though it is an interesting question: should one go into actual production or look to license out the technology to any manufacturers that wanted it.

I don't think that would do anything to address liability but there may be more profit in the venture if someone else is having to run the production line you're just providing the specs and the software which you can negotiate on a contract of some kind.

Not sure if the scale of the potential market would really support something like that. There are only so many of these things that would sell.



I had the "licencing" conversation in the diner across the street from the exhibit hall during PIA.

Couple of issues with that concept; it requires a company, ideally in the industry and market, or desiring to be as such, to see value in our "operating system" for lack of a better description. And any such interest, beyond keeping this from reaching the market, could imply that their way of doing it is wrong, or at the very least, not the best...

Then there is the volume problem as you pointed out, the math just does not add up to the risk in a licencing play. At least given a standard royalty rate of 4% or even 7%.

Granted there would not be any production related investment, but the potential legal costs would be nearly the same. Just thinking now, one of the terms would be that the purchasing company covers all legal costs related to the IP.

3mpire


However, selling just the control unit sans cutter for strictly collecting data for the end user's own use (flysight on steroids) might be a cool secondary product that could leverage the same R&D work?



We already have data collectors for parachute flight data, and free fall data. Personally, I am not a fan of, shall I say, "non professional" jumpers trying to "collect data". A test jumper has to have a lot of discipline. By the very nature of such an activity, that is not manufacturer based, someone is trying to impress themselves or someone else by pushing the limits of either their own, or their equipment's capability, and that, more often than not, eventually results in someone getting hurt. "Hold my beer", or , "everyone watch this" comes to mind when I hear of someone wanting to be able to "collect data"..

I imagine that I am a fuddy duddy lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you guys are missing the point. It's about limiting exposure. Nothing stopping a business from successfully licensing its product to a single client ;)
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We already have data collectors for parachute flight data, and free fall data. Personally, I am not a fan of, shall I say, "non professional" jumpers trying to "collect data". A test jumper has to have a lot of discipline. By the very nature of such an activity, that is not manufacturer based, someone is trying to impress themselves or someone else by pushing the limits of either their own, or their equipment's capability, and that, more often than not, eventually results in someone getting hurt. "Hold my beer", or , "everyone watch this" comes to mind when I hear of someone wanting to be able to "collect data"..



You know in my early twenties someone showed up at our regular drinking hole with a pocket brethalyzer -- first time anyone from my crew had seen one that wasn't attached to a police officers arm. The result was a casual night of beers and pool turned into a competition to see who could "win" with the highest score. Needless to say if the idea of the pocket brethalyzer was to help you make responsible decisions it fell a little short that night :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nigel99

I think you guys are missing the point. It's about limiting exposure. Nothing stopping a business from successfully licensing its product to a single client ;)



And I/we would not be apposed to a licencing deal as long as the numbers made sense to us. The issue is what makes sense to one, may not make sense to another lol...

Of course, first someone has to want to licence it from us ;)

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.

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.

3 3