df8m1

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.

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..

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..

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.

That statement makes me feel proud of what we are creating.

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

I had heard that there were two swoop AAD fires that weekend. Were both because of a poor preflight check?

I am looking for information on the two Swoop AAD fires that occurred very recently. From the video I saw of one of them, it is obvious that it is not the pilot's first day so I would be very surprised if it was a matter of the AAD not being in the right mode. And with two I am thinking the odds of it being an operator error would be less. I am surprised there is not any posts about them... or am I not looking in the right places?

Of all the things that have been considered during the development of this AAD, an apocalypse was not one of them. However, despite the many changes on all fronts, progress continues to be made. I am expecting to start performing the flight testing of the Phase 1 Alfa program for the Sport AAD by the end of June, followed by the Phase 2 software by mid-August. If all goes to plan, the Phase 2 Alpha will become the Rev-A Beta software. Very excited to have that within sight! I have been thinking about if / how to compare some of the features of this AAD to the current AADs without calling out specific brands. Differences range from selftest / system awareness, to what is considered when making the decision to fire or not. I like the idea of just focusing on our product, but sometimes it is hard to answer a question about this AAD without comparing it to the current ones. But at that point, that is a good problem to have lol. Things are coming together nicely. Looking forward to going live!

I have made an effort not to bring up any manufacturer by name. Those who are hard core, die hard supporters for one manufacturer tend to stand out from the statements or arguments they make, and nothing I or anyone else for that matter, will ever say anything that will change that. (Not that there is anything wrong with lobbying for one manufacturer or another as long as there is not direct evidence of the AAD they are supporting is deadly for lack of a better term). That being said... you nailed it lol..

Respectfully, the conditions that you described regarding "mimicking a main deployment" is based on a very narrow section of what is really going on, and is not what a deployment looks like data wise. I get asked this question all the time and I have not been able to figure out a way to answer it to any satisfaction without providing direction to the other manufactures, who as you pointed out, are struggling with that capability. This is why my power consumption is higher then a "standard AAD" or altimeter. As Sundevil777 pointed out, I am measuring more aspects then the standard AADs or altimeters currently do. Sundevil777 and I have chatted about when I was at his DZ testing a while ago. Like I said before, "if it was easy, everyone would be doing it". I get challenged all the time about this aspect. The standard response I get is "I will never trust it unless I can see the code to judge for myself", and I reply, "I am sorry to hear that. Good thing there are three other AADs you can chose from" . The algorithms that determine if the jumper is in the plane or has exited, the canopy and wingsuit detection, main deployment detection, good canopy detection, and cutaway detection are very complex and rely on a lot of data. The actual firing command is pretty basic, as one would imagine, as it is still just speed and altitude, it is the situationall justification conformation and authorization to fire that is so demanding processing wise. It has been stated in this thread several time “that it is more important that it does not fire when it should not, then fire when it should”. My programmer has made the firing software stand-alone so I can be ported to another hardware platform that has the necessary instrumentation and processing horsepower. Hypothetically, one of the current AAD manufacturers could buy it from us, but the current AAD hardware platforms are not capable of running it, so they would have to build a new hardware platform, or buy ours. We have even joked about making it run in an I-Phone lol. It is not fair to the current AADs or Altimeters to compare how well they handle the very challenging task of identifying the flight mode progressions that skydivers go through to this AAD because they really are very different devices, which use different approaches.

Thank you for your encouraging comments! I too am excited about this AAD lol. The manufacture shelf life speck is 10 years for reference.

Yes they do lol. Jumpers and brand loyalty go hand in hand :) And I will admit I got a little "ruffled" by that one lol. That kind of challenge is actually good for me though, as it gives me a chance to practice addressing the concerns, (in this instance doubts) regarding the technical aspects of this AAD from a technical and marketing position which is something that I will have to be able to do on the spot and without hesitation. I am a lot better at building things then selling them lol. Keep the challenges coming!!

I was not sure if I would catch hell for specking it that way, but then again, that is how it will work in reality, and you can't make everyone happy . The only "hard replacement" speck I will require (regardless of how many jumps are on the batteries) is time related because of what an AAD does, and I just do not like old batteries lol. I look at it like changing the oil in a car, only is a rigger changing batteries during a repack. It is cheep insurance in my opinion, and I do not believe that marketing should influence the engineering aspects of a device like an AAD that has a very specific job to do. There will be a low battery warning before they get to the point where the capacity level will trigger a fault and auto shutdown when the AAD is turned on. It is powered by three ER18505M cells in parallel and each cell's capacity is checked while under a 150mA load during the start up self test. The lowest battery will set the fault requiring them all to be changed. Only one cell (any of the three) is required to run the AAD and fire the cutter, there are three strictly for capacity packaging, and I like that there is some redundancy. If we were to run this AAD like a “Standard AAD” does the battery life would be comparable to the AADs currently on the market. However I feel that the resistance to firing in an airplane regardless of the aircraft’s altitude and descent rate is important. This AAD is also a black box flight data recorder that will record enough data to create 3D model of the jumper’s mass from 10 seconds before exit to landing. I realize that most people do not think that the risk of an AAD firing in a plane is a problem, and I bet the ability to recover enough data to be able to tell what happened up there during an incident investigation is of even less value to the average jumper, but I happen to think those things are important. A thought just occurred to me. If the cell phone companies only manufactured the first flip phones that only call and text, then I bet after 25 years of refinement of that (now basic) functionality I bet the batteries would last for years too lol. What most people don’t realize is that the smart phone designers have been able to maintain the same size case because they were able to make the electronics smaller so there is more room for a larger capacity battery lol. I will admit I was expecting some blow back, but not this much

Thank you for your comments and concerns regarding the marketability of this AAD. First, this is NOT, by any means, a "standard" AAD, of which the details have pretty well been explained and discussed in this thread. Second, this AAD is designed to use commercially available batteries which are inexpensive and actually can be changed by a rigger "in the field" during a repack, eliminating the need to send it in for service just to have the batteries changed. For the majority of traditional skydivers, the "Standard AADs with 10+ year old batteries" will serve them well. This AAD is not intended to compete with that demographic, however it does offer the traditional jumper some performance features (which have been discussed in detail in this thread) that the "Standard AADs" do not . This AAD is, however, being developed with Wingsuit pilots, High Performance Canopy Pilots, or those that do both types of piloting on the same jump, who do not want to compromise the effectiveness of having an AAD because the "Standard AAD" technology is maxed out, and sacrifices effectiveness/coverage during one phase of a jump in order to try and perform at the extremes that Wingsuit pilots and HP Canopy Pilots can routinely operate in and the “Standard AAD” technology was just not designed to handle. There are many threads that discuss the potential risks associated with Wingsuite Pilots putting their AADs in Student mode in order to crutch their AAD to work predictably should they have a problem while they are wingsuiting. Yes there is a “Wingsuit AAD” that is available… and it has an audible alarm that tells you if it has worked properly or not.. The owner’s manual states that it is possible for it to be tricked and switch from “Wingsuit Mode” into “Expert Mode” while the jumper is still in the aircraft; one of the reasons the audible is there is to alert the jumper that their “Wingsuit AAD” is not a “Wingsuit AAD” anymore should that happen. (Note: I only commented on the currently available Wingsuit AAD in order to compare it to the one my team has been developing. I am not aware of any instances where the currently available Wingsuit AAD has not performed as advertised or noted in its owner’s manual.) There are also discussions about the effectiveness of the “Swoop Mode” AADs because the activation speeds are raised to a point in an effort to avoid firing during a HP landing, that they are almost rendered useless in very possible scenarios where an AAD could make a difference. Now forget about swooping the pond after a wingsuit jump lol. This AAD is designed to identify the flight mode of the jumper and adjust the firing requirements automatically, in real time, and without the need for a “Wingsuit Mode” or a “Swoop Mode” as has been discussed in detail previously. Additionally it offers a feature to help counter the unidentified cause of the delayed reserve deployments which has resulted in several fatalities where the jumpers impacted at reserve line stretch after an AAD fire, as well a feature to help prevent a 2-out situation, both of which have been discussed in detail. I could go on but it all has been discussed in previous posts and I have been pleased by the discussions and overall encouragement that I have received thus far. This advanced performance however, does not come without a cost. The amount of data that this AAD is collecting, processing, evaluating, reacting to, and recording is unprecedented for an AAD to date. That additional work requires additional power; just like as cell phone technology has advanced, so has the need to increase cell phone battery capacity because of the increased power demands. Personally the last thing I want to be thinking, should I find myself in the situation where my life is reliant on an AAD is, “Boy.. I sure am glad my battery is only 13 years old” lol.. That is my personal perspective, batteries are cheep. To your point, yes, there is a segment of jumpers who feel the standard AADs cover their type of skydiving and like the idea of a 13+ year old battery, and that is fine, nothing wrong with that. Equally, there are segments of jumpers who feel they currently do not have a good option for an AAD, and this AAD is being designed for them. However, should they additionally feel that having to have their rigger replace their AAD batteries every 2 years because of the power demands of the increased performance and coverage capability is worse than their current AAD performance /coverage options, then there are three AADs currently to choose from. :) I welcome opposing viewpoints,