0
AlexV

Is there an 100% realible AAD?

Recommended Posts

After all this heated debate started by the Argus ban I'm beginning to wonder if any of the current AAD are 100% safe. The manufacturer of the two AADs I own claims 100% reliability but I highly doubt it.
Just to be clear, by 100% reliable I mean an AAD which completely severs the closing loop IF AND ONLY IF you are falling with more then 35m/s at an altitude of 225m or similar parameter set by various manufactures for different jump types: Swoop, Speed, Standard, Expert, PRO, Student, Novice, Tandem etc.
Lets ignore for now the errors in rigging (long closing loop) and errors in judgment (low pull).

The current AADs on the market are: Argus, Cypres 1 and 2, Vigil 1 and 2, Astra FXC, Mars AAD and soon MARS M2.
I do not have any financial interest in any of them.

So what do you think, is any of the above AADs 100% reliable? (see the reliability definition above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion is NO.
The only time I went through 225m at over 35m/s mine did work though.
None should be considered 100% reliable, they are only there as a backup in case the jumper fails (voluntarily or not) to save his own butt.
Still in my opinion, some devices seem more reliable (or less unreliable) than others. I consider the device as a whole, be it the control unit, the measure/calculation unit and the cutter.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason I ask is because I did read the manual of most AAD out there and the manual of my AAD states the same thing piisfish said: it's a backup device. But at the same time the manufacturer vigorously claims 100% reliability.
For me, these are conflicting statements and for the uninformed skydivers these adds can make the difference between life and death. I hear of cases were students performed a clean cutaway and then wait for the AAD activation due to their low altitude.
How can you make skydivers understand what a "backup device" really means if you keep advertising 100% reliability in huge fonts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The reason I ask is because I did read the manual of most AAD out there and the manual of my AAD states the same thing piisfish said: it's a backup device. But at the same time the manufacturer vigorously claims 100% reliability.
For me, these are conflicting statements and for the uninformed skydivers these adds can make the difference between life and death. I hear of cases were students performed a clean cutaway and then wait for the AAD activation due to their low altitude.
How can you make skydivers understand what a "backup device" really means if you keep advertising 100% reliability in huge fonts?



Bolding mine.

Where do you see "100% reliability" advertised?

Airtec has an an in the last issue of Parachutist that says something like - "In the last 20 years, no CYPRES cutter has failed to cut the loop when commanded to".

All that says it that the cutters have always worked up to now. Considering what's going on with the others on the market, I think it's a good bit of ad copy. No more no less.

No claims about the accuracy of the command (or lack of it) to the cutter.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>
I think most people understand the concept of advertising vs. reality.

the multi BILLION $$$ marketing industry would argue that with you.
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most reliable AAD is probably yourself.

You constantly monitor altitude, speed and circumstance.

In response to the above factors, you choose to pull your main, or your reserve, depending on which you perceive to give you the highest chance of survival.

In the event of a main malfunction, you choose to first cutaway your main, then deploy your reserve.

Your firing altitudes can be altered in seconds on the ground, or in mid-air, and there is no necessity to turn you on at the beginning of the day.

Maintenance is minimal, and you have a lifetime guarantee.

Sure, sometimes you fail, but more often than not, that's either due to a hard impact, or user error.

I challenge anyone to develop an electronic device that reliable.

But even you aren't foolproof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can have 100% safety by design, but not 100% reliability.

All electronic systems have an inherent degree of unreliability (even with redundant/voting measures in place).

You are "safer" with an AAD than without on the average skydive. The risk is worth it.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not say who is the manufacture of my AADs ;)
I think the 100% was on the homepage a few weeks ago but it has been removed.
To answer your comment wolfriverjoe, here is the link to the advertisement:

http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=190&Itemid=91&lang=en

The "Our Goal" part of the statement does not appear in most advertisments:

http://www.precisionrigging.com.au/info/Airtec_Cypres_Electronic_Openning_Device_AAD.aspx

I have seen this type of add many times before on the official site and brochures. They are referring to the whole unit, not just the cutter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't mistake 'hasn't happened yet' for 'will never happen'.

Not my idea but:

Quote

'Each day the turkey wakes up he is well fed and cared for by the farmer. Then, on the 800th day, he arose for breakfast and was decapitated'



Happy early thanksgiving,

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The reason I ask is because I did read the manual of most AAD out there and the manual of my AAD states the same thing piisfish said: it's a backup device. But at the same time the manufacturer vigorously claims 100% reliability.
For me, these are conflicting statements and for the uninformed skydivers these adds can make the difference between life and death. I hear of cases were students performed a clean cutaway and then wait for the AAD activation due to their low altitude.
How can you make skydivers understand what a "backup device" really means if you keep advertising 100% reliability in huge fonts?



I am never going to trust any AAD... anything made by man will break. Especially if its electronic and runs on batteries :)
The question about advertising claims is interesting. I went and looked at the Airtec site expecting to see something worded basically saying that no AAD can guarantee anything. I was surprised to read the following statement. Yes its marketing, and if you read it carefully its not saying that the device will 100% save your life, but it does stretch the line a little.

---
OUR GOAL: 100% RELIABILITY AND 100% SAFETY
Guaranteed for 12.5 Years.

Benefit from our comprehensive experience and the competence of the unprecedented leader of modern electronic opening devices, the CYPRES. Only the original CYPRES quality guarantees the safety you are looking for - for 12.5 years. This also includes our unique and free worldwide repair services (with the exception of shipping), as long as there are no signs of intentional damage, and maintenance has been completed properly within the recommended intervals.

CYPRES - maximum Reliability that you can trust.
---

http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82&Itemid=103&lang=en
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

the manufacturer vigorously claims 100% reliability.

OUR GOAL: 100% RELIABILITY AND 100% SAFETY

they do not claim 100% reliability and safety... they claim it is their goal.. They could have 27.5% reliabilty and 14% safety... and still have a 100% goal...
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

the manufacturer vigorously claims 100% reliability.

OUR GOAL: 100% RELIABILITY AND 100% SAFETY
they do not claim 100% reliability and safety... they claim it is their goal.. They could have 27.5% reliability and 14% safety... and still have a 100% goal...




It's 100% reliable... 90% of the time! ;)










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

the manufacturer vigorously claims 100% reliability.

OUR GOAL: 100% RELIABILITY AND 100% SAFETY

they do not claim 100% reliability and safety... they claim it is their goal.. They could have 27.5% reliabilty and 14% safety... and still have a 100% goal...



Sorry, I should have highlighted the line that causes me to think that some might read it as guaranteeing safety. Yes I know it really means, but newbies might read more into this line.

"Only the original CYPRES quality guarantees the safety you are looking for - for 12.5 years."
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The only thing that is 100% reliable is death and taxes. I was relieved after voting that no one voted yes:)



I voted 'Yes'.

For the bottle-opener mounted on the side of the tiki-bar. Operate that one a few times - then you can go relieve yourself. :ph34r:
Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal

Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sorry, I should have highlighted the line that causes me to think that some might read it as guaranteeing safety. Yes I know it really means, but newbies might read more into this line.



Pretty sure that misunderstanding was the intent of the manufacturer.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Sorry, I should have highlighted the line that causes me to think that some might read it as guaranteeing safety. Yes I know it really means, but newbies might read more into this line.



Pretty sure that misunderstanding was the intent of the manufacturer.



I agree: it was deliberately deceptive, phrased to give it "plausible deniability" if challenged. Very unethical, IMO.

By way of illustration/example: There's a standard in certain US law called the "Least sophisticated consumer" standard. (It's what has, for example, resulted in loan or consumer credit contracts being worded in more "plain language" in recent years.) Basically, it means that if a hypothetical "least sophisticated consumer" would tend to not understand - or misunderstand - certain language in a document, then that language is presumed to give inadequate disclosure, and sometimes even be deemed deceptive.

I think this ad fails that smell test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

After all this heated debate started by the Argus ban I'm beginning to wonder if any of the current AAD are 100% safe. The manufacturer of the two AADs I own claims 100% reliability but I highly doubt it.
Just to be clear, by 100% reliable I mean an AAD which completely severs the closing loop IF AND ONLY IF you are falling with more then 35m/s at an altitude of 225m or similar parameter set by various manufactures for different jump types: Swoop, Speed, Standard, Expert, PRO, Student, Novice, Tandem etc.
Lets ignore for now the errors in rigging (long closing loop) and errors in judgment (low pull).

The current AADs on the market are: Argus, Cypres 1 and 2, Vigil 1 and 2, Astra FXC, Mars AAD and soon MARS M2.
I do not have any financial interest in any of them.

So what do you think, is any of the above AADs 100% reliable? (see the reliability definition above).





Please kill me now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry, I should have highlighted the line that causes me to think that some might read it as guaranteeing safety. Yes I know it really means, but newbies might read more into this line.



Pretty sure that misunderstanding was the intent of the manufacturer.



I agree: it was deliberately deceptive, phrased to give it "plausible deniability" if challenged. Very unethical, IMO.

By way of illustration/example: There's a standard in certain US law called the "Least sophisticated consumer" standard. (It's what has, for example, resulted in loan or consumer credit contracts being worded in more "plain language" in recent years.) Basically, it means that if a hypothetical "least sophisticated consumer" would tend to not understand - or misunderstand - certain language in a document, then that language is presumed to give inadequate disclosure, and sometimes even be deemed deceptive.

I think this ad fails that smell test.



While you are picking over their wording the claim "only the ..." would fall short of UK advertising standards if challenged. They would need to provide proof that they are the ONLY product that is safe.

What I find interesting is the sudden spate of peculiar AAD failure modes being reported. I can't figure out if it is something that has been in the background all along but awareness is heightened, people hoaxing (or blaming their screwups on the AAD), or just simply odd timing. It is good to see people questioning their gear though.
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

Quote

Quote

the manufacturer vigorously claims 100% reliability.

OUR GOAL: 100% RELIABILITY AND 100% SAFETY

they do not claim 100% reliability and safety... they claim it is their goal.. They could have 27.5% reliabilty and 14% safety... and still have a 100% goal...



Please read my post again. They do claim 100% reliability. Their website might be "clean" now after the Argus incident but it wasn't always the case. As I said, in advertisements they often skip the "our goal" part and leave it like this: "100% RELIABILITY AND 100% SAFETY". A simple google search came with this ad:
http://www.precisionrigging.com.au/info/Airtec_Cypres_Electronic_Openning_Device_AAD.aspx

"100% Reliability for
100% Safety, and
Guaranteed for 12½ years"

In the past (2 moths ago??) I've seen something similar on their website and in their emails. I think the website was cleaned after the Argus incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

the manufacturer vigorously claims 100% reliability.

OUR GOAL: 100% RELIABILITY AND 100% SAFETY

they do not claim 100% reliability and safety... they claim it is their goal.. They could have 27.5% reliability and 14% safety... and still have a 100% goal...



Please read my post again. They do claim 100% reliability. Their website might be "clean" now after the Argus incident but it wasn't always the case. As I said, in advertisements they often skip the "our goal" part and leave it like this: "100% RELIABILITY AND 100% SAFETY". A simple google search came with this ad:
http://www.precisionrigging.com.au/info/Airtec_Cypres_Electronic_Openning_Device_AAD.aspx

"100% Reliability for
100% Safety, and
Guaranteed for 12½ years"

In the past (2 moths ago??) I've seen something similar on their website and in their emails. I think the website was cleaned after the Argus incident.





On the other hand I saw an AAD ad/sticker at the DZ yesterday that said simply 'use of greatly reduces the risk of death or injury'...doesn't say prevents.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't find the claims in the ads hard to believe, it's a simple, simple piece of computer hardware and software, (how often does your pocket calculator bluescreen, come to think about it?), coupled with a cutter that fires a sharp object at your reserve container closing loop. If it's well designed and in good working order, then it will work in close to 100% of the cases, which experience and statistics tells us it does.

But a cut reserve container closing loop is not enough to save your life.

No, I don't like the ads either, but I don't like the purple color they're using either. I did like the "cow sniffing the freebag" ad they did some years back.
Relax, you can die if you mess up, but it will probably not be by bullet.

I'm a BIG, TOUGH BIGWAY FORMATION SKYDIVER! What are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The only thing that is 100% reliable is death and taxes. I was relieved after voting that no one voted yes:)



I voted 'Yes'.

For the bottle-opener mounted on the side of the tiki-bar. Operate that one a few times - then you can go relieve yourself. :ph34r:


So who are the other to people of questionable intelligence that voted yes? Come on lets hear your defense.

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.

0