df8m1

On 2/7/2024 at 3:43 PM, BasicOne said:

The reason for the research is the beginning of the development of our own devices due to the refusal to supply existing devices to Russia.

Is it a matter of AAD manufacturers refusing to ship AADs to Russia? Or is it that shipping a technology item like this to Russia is not allowed due to the current exporting restrictions? 

On 5/23/2023 at 9:05 PM, dudeman17 said:

 

 

 

I gave this a couple days to see if anyone else remembered this. I thought Rob might chime in, as he generally remembers the details of early developments like this.

And we all know what time and aging brains can do to memories, so as always, if I'm wrong somebody can correct me. But this is how I seem to remember it...

The quick answers are that Bill Booth said "It's just another skydive", and it was Don Balch who said 'It's NOT just another skydive". Who was right? Well that's the 'trick' part of the question. They both were. The difference was in the timing and context. To flesh that out...

As with many things in our sport, there were earlier precursors to tandems. I think some of those have been described in these forums, and wasn't there an article in Parachutist not long ago? One that I don't recall seeing mentioned was, sometime in the 70's Jim Handbury made a tandem rig. He wasn't trying to invent anything or revolutionize student training, he just had a young handicapped family member that he wanted to take up, so he built a rig and did that.

Anyway, when modern tandems were being developed, it was Ted Strong and Bill Booth who were designing, testing and refining, discovering the need for drogues, and what-not. They got it dialed in, and it was time to build rigs, issue TM ratings, and bring it on-line. Well, there was some hesitancy among jumpers. That's when Mr. Booth said, "It's just another skydive". He wasn't promoting complacency or downplaying the need for training and diligence, he was just saying that there was no reason that tandems should not become a common occurrence and mainstay of student training. And he was right. Well, build rigs and issue ratings they did. And tandems quickly became popular with the customers, and it took off. Well, jumpers started noticing that their TM buddies were making lots of student jumps and making decent money, not to mention 'the Lois Lane effect', and there came a surge of interest in the TM rating. That's when Don Balch said, "It's NOT just another skydive". He was not just reiterating the need for proper training and due diligence, but also noting that the proper motivation was required to make an appropriate TM. And he, too, was correct.

 

It would not surprise me if Mr. Booth updated to the newer saying, because clearly it became the correct view.

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.

14 hours ago, lippy said:

I'm just curious about the geek shit side of things.  What protocol would you be considering using to send that data back home, and would the added benefit (the debate on the value of that benefit being alive and well above) be worth the penalty in battery life?

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.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Just as an isolated bit of historical trivia...

And pardon me if I'm having a senior moment, but I remember something differently.

 

I believe that is not correct. As I remember it, Mr. Booth said, "It's just another skydive", as in it IS just another skydive. It was someone else who said "It's NOT just another skydive". So the trivia question is, who was it that made the other quote, and which one of them was right. (Hint - it's sort of a trick question.)

And if Mr. Booth (or the other person) happens to read this, no fair your answering, unless I have this wrong.

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? :)

 

14 hours ago, NickDG said:

The Ten Million Dollar Broken Leg . . .

Judge: Mr. Shyster, you may begin your closing argument.

Plantiff's Lawyer: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. My client sits before you with a badly broken leg. And we have shown by direct evidence my client's injury can be traced directly to an initial low main canopy deployment on the part of the TI, the ongoing disregard of the DZO to ensure their TIs follow the rules, and the USPA which has a record of being laissez faire when it comes to regulating tandem jumping. We have presented indisputable evidence from the 'Snitch-O-Meter' that shows without a doubt the defendant in this case initiated main parachute deployment at 4,700-feet. And that is a full 300-feet below the prescribed 'safe' altitude. How far, ladies and gentleman, is 300-feet? It's the equivalent length of a football field closer to the ground than permitted by the rules. (The jury gasps.) And we offer this very late main deployment left too little time to set up a proper landing pattern and therefor my client is maimed for life. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously folks, there is no issue with having too much information in this sport. But, that information in the wrong hands, like a sharp lawyer in front of a whuffo jury, may be a can of worms best left unopened. When it's video of a mistake we say the video malfunctioned. Are we going to start saying the AAD failed when it records a mistake? That's not going to fly.

 

 

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 :)

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Already the push back has started! But seriously I'm not sure that the extra expense of the capabilities you are speaking of will be of much interest in the tandem industry. The needs there are quite simple and already being well met.

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.

On 5/12/2023 at 1:01 PM, BrianM said:

Two years since the last update - any news?

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.

On 5/13/2023 at 9:35 PM, timski said:

Yeah, buy CYPRES! 

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..

On 4/11/2021 at 10:43 PM, df8m1 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

7 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Why is it 'bold'?

I would think it very hard, if not impossible to meet the firing parameters for a CYPRES in a car.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Dave,

I think Nic means this:   

(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).

AAD is the maker of the Vigil; Advanced Aerospace Design ( I think ).

Jerry Baumchen

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..

2 hours ago, piisfish said:

How much are you willing to bet ? To my knowledge only one does. Hint: you stated the manufacturer 3 times in the above quoted paragraph. 

 

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.

On 10/6/2020 at 11:51 AM, gowlerk said:

IDK anything beyond what I saw on FB. But I would assume that nearly all swoop initiated 2 outs are caused by either using the wrong AAD or setting the AAD incorrectly.

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

On 10/5/2020 at 5:26 AM, Binary93 said:

 I guess you'd already post an update if you wanted to share something, but I have to ask regardless. Any updates?

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

 

 

On 10/4/2020 at 10:47 PM, gowlerk said:

There is a recent FB post in the rigger forum about a low AAD fire due to a miss set CYPRES. It said something about blaming the rigger because it was not set to swoop mode after being re-installed post servicing. It went like this:

 

 

 

Kamuran Bayrasli

SSntesSpoptgeutoonmboesrrtch 25uofr ato gmg10u:u19megt AMud  ·

 

SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!

If you get your Cypres serviced, when you get it back, make sure it is in the proper mode. Just had a jumper have this happen and he and his rigger forgot to set it to 'Speed' and his unit fired while performing a high performance turn. He ended up having a Bi-Plane and landed uneventfully, thank god. WHEN YOU TURN YOUR AAD ON, MAKE SURE IT'S IN THE PROPER MODE PEOPLE. DON'T JUST HIT THE BUTTON 3 TIMES AND NOT WATCH IT COUNT DOWN!!!!

Public announcement from The Ranch PROshop!!

 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Do you ask those folks if they trust the CYPRES or Vigil? 
And if they've seen the code for those?

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.. 

21 hours ago, 20kN said:

How are you going to differentiate between a canopy opening and wingsuit operation that looks like a canopy opening? It is entirely possible, and not even that hard honestly, to replicate what appears to be an opening canopy using a wingsuit. I can dive my wingsuit to a vertical speed of 120 MPH and then over the course of 600' flare up to a 20 MPH decent rate and hold at that rate for several seconds. On a graph annotating only decent rate, the two scenarios would look quite similar. That's why altimeter manufacturers struggle with correctly identifying when the canopy opens with wingsuit use. Many of the digital altimeters out there have a wingsuit mode, but with a large wingsuit they still dont work and they misjudge the opening altitude all of the time because there is no way for them to differentiate between a canopy and a wingsuit when flying a wingsuit that has the ability to gain altitude. With only one sensor indicating only air pressure, the device has no way to determine anything other than fall rate. The only company out there that has had success with this issue that I know of is the AON X2 because it uses GPS to determine canopy opening info so it can measure on all three axis. However, even at that the altimeter misjudges opening altitude sometimes. Even my own AAD sometimes misjudges opening altitude. It does a much better job than most digital altimeters do, but even it gets tricked on rare occasion if I am flying a large race suit and doing flares.

 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.

On 1/25/2020 at 5:34 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

They still make basic flip phones. I use one. 

And yes, the battery lasts and lasts (not years, but still a long time). 

 

This is a fascinating product. 
I'm not in the market for an AAD for a while, but I think this one would be worth considering when the time comes. 
How would the 'shelf life' on the batteries be? 
1000 jumps would last me a long, long time (longer than current AADs last). 

Thank you for your encouraging comments! I too am excited about this AAD lol. 

The manufacture shelf life speck is 10 years for reference.  

15 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Skydivers get very emotional about AADs.

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!!

 

1 hour ago, ChrisHoward said:

1000 jumps is many many years for some jumpers. To claim his product won't "Cut It" because it can't achieve some random number is just silly. What Df8m1 should do is say that his unit will require battery changes when "prompted" by the control unit. That way he won't be judged against some arbitrary metrics no one else is held to.

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

1 hour ago, 20kN said:

The standard for batteries in an AAD is around 10,000 jumps. 1k will not cut it. For some people that means sending the AAD in for service every year or two which wont fly. Pretty much all the current brands offer some 10+ years of use with no mandatory service so that's what you're competing against.

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,

On 12/26/2019 at 1:25 PM, df8m1 said:

 

I had a moment and some good news (well I think it is good news anyway lol) so I thought I would post an update.

As previously mentioned, I have been tweaking the electronic design to try and reduce the power consumption of the Sport model.

The good news is preliminary testing indicates that the hardware changes to the Sport model will reduce peak power consumption by over 70% compared to the Military model. That "should" double the number of jumps on a set of batteries to get us in the 1000 jump range. Actual field testing will have the final say, but I am very pleased with the results of the changes.

The bad news is the new “lower power” components are super expensive!!!! Noting is free I guess lol.

Really looking forward to testing this year!