• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

19 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Napoleon Skydiving Center
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving
  • Second Choice Discipline

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for that information! My association to "it's not just another skydive" and Bill Booth is I recall him saying that in regards to everyone who had a camera and wanted to make money filming tandems, or everyone who wanted to chase them. I was obviously mistaken lol. I believe the reason why Mr. Booth set minimum experience and currency requirements to chase or film a tandem can be derived from that statement, even if he did not actually say that exactly. Thanks for the history lesson! The kids these days seem to have no interest in how we got here, but that is important to me.
  2. 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.
  3. 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? :)
  4. 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 :)
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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..
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Yep, I thought he was referring to the Cypres. I am very surprised after reviewing the Cypres 2 manual that it only says this: If the unit is taken away from the airfield/drop-zone by vehicle or on foot and later brought back it needs to be reset. Very bold I'd say..
  11. LOL.. OK my Cypres loving friend :)… Here you go.. From the Vigil 2.0.3 user manual 2015 “To avoid an “airborne condition” (See page 23 for more detail) of your Vigil®2+ due to a difference in pressure equivalent to more than plus or minus 90 ft (27,5 m) compared to the “ground zero” reference (pressure), you must ALWAYS manually shut down your Vigil®2+ at the end of the day, and BEFORE leaving the drop-zone.” The interesting part is I very recently was asked to revise how this AAD detects a take off because of a coding conflict that would have required a bulky solution. The takeoff detection logic has provisions to handle “in car travel”, even though the user manual will clearly state to turn it off prior to driving with the rig. AADs are designed for aviation use.. Now if one were to drive a car out of the back of a plane, then that is a different story! Lol..
  12. It seems lately that there are more and more posts about AADs not performing properly when it was really a case of the user failing to either read and understand the AAD's user manual, or failed to do what the manual says to do, and as an AAD developer, this concerns me greatly. I was shocked last summer when several coach candidates said they did not know how to turn off an AAD, meaning they must all either leave their rigs at the DZ and let them time out (OK there) or they put them in their car and go home (I bet every AAD user manual states to turn off the AAD before driving with it), and in some cases doing so has put the AAD in to its plane mode (this has been the sub-topic of a recent discussion in a different thread). Of all the things that have to be accounted for and resolved, I can't think of a way to resolve the issue of a user not reading or following the instructions.
  13. That statement makes me feel proud of what we are creating.
  14. lol.. well thanks for asking :) We are in what I call the very dirty house keeping phase, so many little details... I am happy with the results, just wish things were moving faster. The forest fires and subsequent evacuations in CA have been a set back as well, but we will persevere. Some things are more important than making an AAD. I have spoken with a couple people about funding the manufacturer approval process / manufacturing / marketing phases, but have not found the right fit yet. The tests we have conducted so far have gone well and the AAD performed as expected. The larger LCD screen for the interface is in the works, and I am taking with a new pyro company for our cutters. This year has not been what I had hoped, but it was not for everyone else either lol
  15. I had heard that there were two swoop AAD fires that weekend. Were both because of a poor preflight check?