Should AADs be redesigned for swoopers?

[riddler 0]

Recent events make me think that AADs should be redesigned to accommodate swoopers. Swooping is not going to go away and AAD manufacturers cannot ignore this important market segment. Swoopers are continuing to push limits - going faster and further - possibly too fast for current AAD algorithms. My guess is there are plenty of swoopers that refuse to use AADs, as well as plenty more that prefer to use them. Some dropzones require the use of AADs for all jumpers.

How could swoopers be accommodated in AAD usage without compromising safety for non-swoopers? There's probably no perfect answer, but here's some ideas (feel free to add your own):

1. Special AAD configurations for swoopers. Seems like Vigil would have the least amount of redesign effort here. Their AADs can be configured via the software interface to accommodate Pro, Student or Tandem, so they could add a "HPL" setting that disables the AAD below a desired altitude. Airtec might have a little more work to do, but might accommodate with a special controller - make a new button (maybe a black one with a cool "X" in it, for you extreme junkies ). Or Airtec might just add the ability to deactivate below a certain altitude - they already have a way to reset the ground elevation for different LZs; adding a new function for swoopers to disarm below a certain altitude should be possible.

2. Automatically disable the activator below a certain altitude for all "expert" AADs. The CYPRES already does this; from the original CYPRES manual "Below 130 feet AGL opening is no longer useful. For this reason, CYPRES ceases operation below apx 130 feet AGL." The Vigil manual makes no mention of low-altitude deactivation. If the Airtec determined that it would be safe to raise this altitude from 130 feet to something higher for "experts", it might accommodate swoopers. It also might compromise safety for non-swoopers. If the Vigil does not already deactivate a low altitudes, they would have to redesign the firmware. Having a high deactivation altitude seems less safe, but easier for jumpers (since there is no product selection and no manual switching).

It's tempting to say something like redesign the technology, using GPS or something else, but that effort might take too long to bring to market.

I am not a swooper, so I am probably not the best person to start this thread. But that's also the reason I'm asking. What do swoopers think? Should AADs be redesigned or not?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Skyolker 0]

It,s interesting idea, but I guess it's a little bit difficult to do.
I can't exactly say is AAD necessary for swoopers or not. I think we need ADD only when we unconscious or after low cutavay (but not too low). Most popular malfunctions in swoop are partialy malfunctions (linetwists, overline and others...). And AAd will not help you if you'll not cut away your main. And I don't know what can you do to be unconscious during swoop jump, only if you hit the ground or water
Jonathan Tagle once told me, that he had cypres fire during swoop landing after final turn. It's very dangerous! And we can remember that cypres activates when vertical speed is more than 78mph and Jay's speed during his world record jump at entry gate was 91mph. So, it means that creators of new AAD will have to change speed of activation value. And it means that this AAD will be not valid for usual jumps.
So, the new AAD must be also waterproof and antishock.
Maybe I missed something...

[riddler 0]

Quote

I can't exactly say is AAD necessary for swoopers or not.

I'm going to try to keep the thread about redesigning AADs. There are other threads to discuss whether AADs are necessary, even for swoopers. I think if AADs were redesigned with swoopers in mind, then the reason to use them might change. So if the AAD were redesigned for swoopers, would you use it?

Good point about the waterproof. The CYPRES-2 has water protection to 10 feet, and the CYPRES 1 has a waterproofing kit. The Vigil is not waterproof. Any swooper's AAD would need that

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I don't know the internal workings of the AADs but yes I would like to see something change. I jump with my AADs turned off when I'm doing hop n' pops and swooping the pond (I don't need an AAD on these jumps) but it's the other jumps where I may need the protection of the AAD for freefall collisions. The AAD may save me for that rare freefall collision but turn around and it MAY kill me when I start my turn? Doesn't sound like a very safe device right now.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[RMURRAY 1]

the new Argus does have a swoop mode. not sure if it is for sale quite yet.

I jump without an AAD - not too many of us left...

rm

[rehmwa 2]

If the market makes that change worthwhile then yes. If not, no. Better to ask swoopers how much they'd pay for that feature. It makes it a real question, rather than a parallel of that one post where someone thought the Relative Workshop should be giving away their inventions to everybody for the good of the 'collective'.

Regardless, all skydivers need to understand the equipment they are using in relation to how they are flying so they don't make a mistake and mix incompatible actions and equipment - and end up hurting or killing themselves. We see it enough with low skill people biting off too hard manuvers or buying too hot canopies.

I'd think a manual disable capability would be easy enough though hard on batteries. (open, clear, pull down slider, open chest strap, check location, 'shut off AAD' or at least disable the firing function, get in the pattern,.....). The AAD can reenable during climb.

I wonder what percentage of jumpers with an AAD know what conditions (by design) will fire their unit?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tr027 0]

I turn off my AAD as part of my post-opening sequence, so it will never be any issue at all. I'd imagine swoopers would want the same type of control located on the MLW somewhere, in order to completely eliminate this issue.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[Spizzzarko 0]

What AAD do you have, an FXC?

[tr027 0]

FXC Expert, also known as Astra. And no, I've never had a single problem with it (I get asked that sometimes). The switch is mounted on my right MLW, so I choose which jumps I need it for (which is most) and turn it on accordingly when getting in the plane and then off after opening. Sure it's not fashionable anymore to have an AAD in view, but I don't care.
Of course, anything's possible, so presumably it's possible a jumper in freefall could fall through my canopy and possibly knock me U/C and it would also be an unrecoverable entanglement... guess that's just an inherent risk?
So with this in mind I would probably not turn it off right away on a big-way, but then again I wouldn't be swooping if there's that much canopy traffic.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[kelpdiver 2]

it seems a tad early to make conclusions. But if you accept that in this incident it fired at 300ft for falling too fast, how do you really fix the AAD so it doesn't do that, but also doesn't fail to work when you really need it? That would be a major KISS violation.

[Spizzzarko 0]

We all need to look at who this is happening to . These dudes are pushing the limits of greatness, and it isn't happening to those of us who are doing 270 degree turns and loading less than 2.5. Most people do not have to worry about this happening. It sucks that Adrian was killed, but this happens in this sport. It has in the past, and it will in the future. When you press the edge sometimes bad things happen.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

So, it means that creators of new AAD will have to change speed of activation value. And it means that this AAD will be not valid for usual jumps.

Why not? How was the speed of 78MPH decided upon? Don't most people freefall at around 110/120MPH in a belly to earth position? Why not raise the activation speed to 105 or 110MPH? That seems simply, though I'll admit that I don't know what the downside is, or more importantly, how significant it is.

Another idea might be to have a Cypres or other modern AAD recognize the tell-tale characteristics of a high performance landing. A pilot under control of his wing is going to deploy at a reasonable altitude (slow down), then fly for a few seconds or minutes, then initiate the turn. It seems that any modern electronic AAD could be programmed to recognize this chain of events as a swoop and shut down. Possible? Probably. Reasonable? I don't know.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhreeZone 15]

Issue with the second part is that sounds incredibly like... Open, fight with a Mal till 1200 feet and then chop it. The body accelerates for a time and then you'd want the AAD to fire since its clear to the device that you are accelerating towards impact right?

As a side note ARGUS is having a Swoop mode in their production model that my understanding is disarms once it reads you are under canopy for X amount of time.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[skydiverek 60]

Quote

How was the speed of 78MPH decided upon? Don't most people freefall at around 110/120MPH in a belly to earth position? Why not raise the activation speed to 105 or 110MPH?

Airtec said they chose the 78 figure since thay want the Cypres to activate even if it is a "very lightweigh female skydiver with a PC in tow, falling below 750 feet". I remeber reading it somewhere.

BTW, since the lower you get the denser the air is (and the slower you fall), anyone knows what a terminal velocity 750 feet above sea level (DeLand, for instance) is?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Why not? How was the speed of 78MPH decided upon? Don't most people freefall at around 110/120MPH in a belly to earth position? Why not raise the activation speed to 105 or 110MPH?

I'm a big guy and have recorded an average of 104 in flat wearing an FF suit. With a PC in tow I might go slow enough to not fire an AAD set to go off at 105mph. If I have a baglock slow enough to stand me up I bet I'm going too slow to fire it.

Also note the speed quoted on entry to the competition gates as being 91mph in a post above. 91mph is close enough to 105 mph to worry me if I were going that fast. Besides, how soon will swoopers be hitting the gates at 105mph? It only took a couple of years for things to go from Airtec telling people it won't happen to us seeing a fatality from it.

I don't think this is the route to go down. I think your other idea however about having an algorithm which can recognize the characteristics of a parachute opening or descent is perhaps better... although there are many hurdles to overcome such as it being able to recognize a mal as a mal and a swoop as a swoop.

Perhaps the other idea about a deactivation button is the best all-round, putting control back into the jumper's hands. At least then if their AAD doesn't save them it'll be their fault for switching it off rather than the AAD's fault for thinking they were swooping.

[Skyolker 0]

Quote

Why not? How was the speed of 78MPH decided upon? Don't most people freefall at around 110/120MPH in a belly to earth position? Why not raise the activation speed to 105 or 110MPH? That seems simply, though I'll admit that I don't know what the downside is, or more importantly, how significant it is.

In Airtec they explained this choice in the following way:Cypres will fire even if light-weight skydiver in big freefly suit will fall with his pilot chute in tow. I guess when they decide it they didn't think about possible problems with crossbraced canopies landings. But now it's important! In Airtec they investigated this problem. In october 2000 they tested Cypres with Luigi Cani using his VX60 ft². Luigi couldn't reach the speed enough for Cypres fire. But they didn't say, that it was impossible to reach this speed under canopy and they would continue to observe, what was happen in small canopies world . I guess, the time has come. Maybe they'll invent something new.
But now, before they did it and test it, I see only one way for me: do not turn my canopy more than 270 degrees during regular jumps with Cypres, during swoop jump switch it off or take it out from my rig.

[Travman 6]

Quote

[ If I have a baglock slow enough to stand me up I bet I'm going too slow to fire it.

We were taught that a bag lock that stands you up will speed up your freefall speed because you are now presenting less surface area to the relative wind.

[Skyolker 0]

Here is original Airtec article about small canopies landing:
http://cypres.cc/Sites/englisch/Frameset_engl_skydiving.htm

[Brains 2]

Quote

Also note the speed quoted on entry to the competition gates as being 91mph in a post above. 91mph is close enough to 105 mph to worry me if I were going that fast. Besides, how soon will swoopers be hitting the gates at 105mph? It only took a couple of years for things to go from Airtec telling people it won't happen to us seeing a fatality from it.

Just a note, that speed of 91 would be forward speed through the gates, not a descent rate. I believe it does make a difference.

Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Yes that does make a difference to the AAD... but then again... how do you end up going 91mph horizontally? Does this not involve going 91mph vertically then pulling out of the dive?

(seriously - I'm guessing there)

[AdD 1]

Quote

If I have a baglock slow enough to stand me up I bet I'm going too slow to fire it.

In stand there's no way you're doing under 78 mph with a baglock. More like 150+ I'd bet.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[Brains 2]

Quote

Yes that does make a difference to the AAD... but then again... how do you end up going 91mph horizontally? Does this not involve going 91mph vertically then pulling out of the dive?

(seriously - I'm guessing there)

You might, i would GUESS though that you gain that extra forward speed from the pendulum effect of planing out. i.e. bumping your rear risers to level off. That is when i notice the speed more than during the dive. I am sure someone on here with MUCH more experience can answer better.

Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you.

[skydiverek 60]

Quote

Here is original Airtec article about small canopies landing:
http://cypres.cc/Sites/englisch/Frameset_engl_skydiving.htm

Here is the direct link: http://cypres.cc/Sites/englisch/Skydiving_Small_Canopies.htm

Interesting fact at the end of an article: "Even when reaching 78 mph for a moment, the Expert CYPRES would not activate. The reason is that CYPRES does much more than trigger based on measured descent rate and altitude, as it analyses the situation the skydiver is in."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why not? How was the speed of 78MPH decided upon? Don't most people freefall at around 110/120MPH in a belly to earth position? Why not raise the activation speed to 105 or 110MPH? That seems simply, though I'll admit that I don't know what the downside is, or more importantly, how significant it is.

Using 100mph and assuming perfect 32ft/s^2 acceleration, the signficance is one extra second and 130ft of altitude to activate, if one were to cutaway from a low speed malfuction. And perhaps more altitude lost in the reserve opening?

[raymod2 1]

Quote

how do you end up going 91mph horizontally? Does this not involve going 91mph vertically then pulling out of the dive?

That's a good question. Stated more formally:

For any given path to the ground can your peak horizontal speed exceed your peak vertical speed?

Instinctively I would say no but the correct answer is yes. Consider a straight slide that is 10 feet tall and 20 feet long. When you reach the bottom of the slide you have gone twice as far horizontally as you have gone vertically in the same amount of time. Therefore your average horizontal speed is twice as fast as your average vertical speed. By using differential calculus it follows that at any given point your instantaneous horizontal speed is also twice as fast as your instantaneous vertical speed. It also follows that your peak horizontal speed is twice as fast as your peak vertical speed.

Did Jay Moledski go faster than 91mph in the vertical direction during his world record distance run? I don't know but it is possible that he didn't.