brettski74

Members
  • Content

    888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by brettski74

  1. No. The design is a technical description on paper of how the device should be built and how it should respond to various inputs. A device can work exactly as it was designed to and still do something wrong in the eyes of the user. On the systems I work on, this is usually where everyone goes running to the requirements and/or statement of work to see what was signed off, but we don't have that with a retail device. Up until the recent incident with the door opening at 400', A.A.D.'s party line was that Vigil worked exactly as designed and there was nothing to fix, and they were right. The device worked as designed. The design was inadequate for the circumstances and so it did something the user did not want.
  2. Yes, but you're not qualified to teach someone proximity, levels, taking grips, etc. You'll need your coach 2 rating for that. Be aware that coach ratings in Canada are different and a lot harder to get than the USPA coach rating - especially if you consider what's required to get your Coach 2 rating that you need for teaching RW skills. Someone from south of the border may correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, with a B licence and 100 jumps, you go and do a weekend course and voila, you're a coach with essentially the same privileges as a coach 2 under CSPA.. There's also no contact requirements like CSPA as far as I'm aware.
  3. If it would have never failed under "ordinary use" and ordinary use is all it gets, then what does it matter? It would work without fault for it's entire lifetime. On the other hand, if it does get subjected to such "extraordinary" use and the joint fails, then it becomes a problem immediately, not at the next 4-year check. I'd rather have the device visibly fail so I know it needs repair now. I've no problem with Airtec's maintenance schedule. I'd happily buy a CYPRES tomorrow if I was in need of a new AAD, but there's simply no evidence I've seen that confirms that Airtec's maintenance schedule is better or that Vigil's is inadequate. There have been Vigil misfires, however, all those I'm aware of were due to design flaws, not a fault with the device. Do you have evidence of Vigils that were faulty but provided no visible indication of this to the user?
  4. Yes. So what's your point? My point is that you start on the ground. You turn on your AAD and it begins taking measurements and deducing altitude and descent rate. Your descent rate at this point is zero. You now get in the plane and it climbs to some altitude above ground. Your descent rate during this time is negative. You can't be coming down at 30m/s unless at some point prior to that you went up. Unless you're turning your AAD on whilst in freefall, it had the opportunity to take measurements during that time prior to you descending at 30m/s.
  5. From your post. You said that you don't believe it is possible: What about satellites? How often does someone pop by to test their systems in a lab? I never said anything about inconvenience. I don't have a problem with Airtec's maintenance schedule. All I said is that you've provided no evidence to support your argument about the inadequacy of Vigil's maintenance schedule or lack thereof. It's all entirely speculative. If you have some hard evidence such as a unit that passed all of it's self tests but then failed to work as designed, then please share it. So far, all of the Vigil misfires that I'm aware of were devices working exactly as they were designed to work.
  6. From my knowledge of highly available and reliable systems. No it's not. Any device can fail over time, but it is possible to build devices that can detect failures in their components without the need for human intervention.
  7. Great. So there's no way the device can possibly save you unless you're at least 500 feet above ground and it's also not possible for us to meet the firing parameters for at least 3.5 seconds from level flight, so why does the device arm itself at 150 feet above ground and in only 5/8 of a second? A.A.D. loves to spout these things as advantages of the Vigil, but really, I see them as design flaws because it makes the device prone to misfires under anomalous conditions and does absolutely nothing to improve the device's chance of fulfilling it's function as a life-saving device.
  8. I'm pretty sure we all start on the ground before we get in the plane. If you're currently descending at 30m/s at some point prior to that, you had to be climbing and/or maintaining altitude. (ie. descent rate
  9. You've already made it clear before that you find this hard to believe, but your unwillingness and/or inability to accept the existence of technology does not mean that it doesn't exist. It is possible to build rugged electronic devices that can survive for many years in harsh environments. It is also possible to build electronic devices with comprehensive self-testing capabilities via a variety of different design techniques. It could be argued that the mandatory inspections are actually a weakness in comparing device reliability. I could suggest that Brand A needs this because their self-test has limited ability to detect faults in sensor outputs, whereas perhaps Brand B has multiple redundant or complementary sensors allowing it to validate the precision of sensor outputs. I send in my Brand A for service. I get it back with a clean bill of health. Within a week, the sensor precision starts to drift, but I don't know that until 4 years later at my next service. Meanwhile, a Brand B device has similar precision drift but it gets detected as soon as it goes outside of allowable tolerances. I don't have to wait four years to find out. You are right in that Vigil is newer in the market, so time will tell whether their faith in the device's maintenance requirements and service life are justified, but I haven't seen any evidence yet to doubt their claims yet. I do have issues with the Vigil design and if I was buying another AAD today, it's unlikely it would be a Vigil, but this has nothing to do with speculation about maintenance requirements. Besides, if you're really not comfortable without regular human testing of your AAD, you indeed can send it back to Vigil/A.A.D. for inspection, testing or service as often as you like.
  10. You're comparing a camcorder which has dozens - perhaps hundreds - of moving mechanical parts which can wear, versus an AAD which has almost no moving parts except the cutter. The cutter can be replaced. History has shown that solid state electronics can indeed be very rugged. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare something like a ContourHD or a GoPro, since they have virtually no moving parts to wear out, but they're even newer than the Vigil 2. We'll see how they last when compared to older cameras which had complicated tape transport mechanisms and zoom machinery inside them. Whether A.A.D. has gone to enough trouble to build a suitably rugged device remains to be seen, but it is certainly possible. I currently do favour the CYPRES, but it has nothing to do with 4 yearly servicing or a 12 year service life.
  11. Agreed. Vigil 1 and 2 have misfired in aircraft several times over the years. I personally consider that this is a design flaw in the device. You need to be careful here. Adrian Nicholas' CYPRES did misfire. I'm pretty sure that he didn't want it to fire and as I understand, at the time everyone had been reassured that it was not possible to meet the AAD firing parameters under a properly functioning parachute. Basically, I'm pretty sure that neither Adrian nor anyone at Airtec would have wanted the device to fire when it did, so it is a misfire. Calling this anything other than a misfire because he met the firing parameters of the device is falling into the same trap that's been the problem with A.A.D. since as far back as 2006 (see their press release on the World Team misfires...) Designs can be flawed, just as much as the components, build, installation and/or operation of the device. The questions you need to ask are whether these different types of misfires can be reasonably prevented through a better, yet practical design. There are designs which address both these types of misfires. If we consider the swoop misfires, there are at least two different design approaches to address this: Argus has a swoop mode which deactivates the device after it detects what appears to be a stable parachute deployment. Speed CYPRES increases the descent rate required for firing Each has it's own pros and cons. In the case of in plane misfires, we know that there are practical design changes which can address these, since such design differences have been demonstrated in CYPRES devices present at most of these misfires. I put this down largely to Airtec's design philosophy, which seems to be that if in doubt, the device should do nothing, and that they seem to do a lot more to try to differentiate between pressure gradients due to freefall and pressure gradients that cannot be produced by freefall in Earth's atmosphere. This is a good thing. A.A.D. on the other hand, seem to have designed the Vigil with the philosophy of "if in doubt, get it out." This makes a lot of sense for the design of a human skydiver, since the human has a lot of data on which to make such a call and can see, for example, if he/she is in freefall or not. For a device which has nothing but a barometric pressure sensor to base such a decision on, I think that's not terribly smart. After the recent incident with a Cessna door opening triggering misfires at 400 feet, it seems to me that A.A.D. is starting to question some of those design decisions - or at least I hope that they are. IMHO, that would be a good thing, but something to keep watch on. For the record, I have a Vigil 2 in my main rig, however, if I was buying a new AAD today, it would be extremely unlikely for me to buy another Vigil. I'd probably buy a CYPRES 2 or maybe an Argus. I say this mostly because I like Airtec's design philosophy better. I think it makes a lot more sense.
  12. To extend that a little further, it's really the DZO that's restricting your skydiving privileges by basically saying that he/she will not take you to altitude in his/her plane and allow you to jump unless you follow certain rules. For most dropzones in the US, the rules they adopt are those set out by the USPA, but really, as long as they comply with the FARS, they could choose any rules they want.
  13. Did you try the phone numbers and email address at the bottom of every page? http://www.gethypoxic.com/
  14. The Vector 3 is such a rig. I've not had a problem clearing my reserve ripcord, but only because the skyhook opens my reserve container way before I'll ever get the reserve ripcord out, however, if I had a total malfunction, it's unlikely I would clear my reserve ripcord from the housing, since the "9" pin would stop the end of the ripcord from disappearing into the housing. If it's not clear what I'm talking about, there are some pictures of the pin and ripcord setup in the skyhook RSL packing instructions. Note that the pin is 9 shaped and attached to the RSL, not the ripcord. The ripcord has an eye on the end of it through which the actual pin passes. Aside from that, holy thread resurrection, batman!
  15. +1. Don't try. They'll jump if they want to. Probably took me about two years to figure that out. Think of it like anything else. Just because your friend likes dogs doesn't mean that you like dogs, but somehow you can both still find a million other things to talk about and still be friends. Skydiving is the same. Just because you like it, doesn't mean they will even be interested. Find something else to talk about with them or find new friends.
  16. Where would one find such a report? I read the incident thread on here, but didn't see any official findings, just lots of speculation and wait for the official report posts.
  17. The Vigil 2 manual lists the error due to burble effects to be equivalent to as much as +260 feet. I only quickly skimmed through the CYPRES 2 manual, but I saw no similar statements about body position effects. The point of the Vigil statement is to point out that the activation altitude is actually set to 1100 feet AGL, rather than 840 so as to ensure an activation no lower than 840 feet regardless of body position.
  18. Should that be "Square 1 Parachutes"? The incident thread doesn't seem to contain any authoritative information. It's all second and third hand information or speculation. Was there ever any official incident report produced by anyone or did SSK/Airtec download and analyze the device data? Not sure what information she may be going by. Does she have the device data? Does it show a lot CYPRES fire? I wonder what else it might show, such as was there a reason for the low firing. There was some suggestion in the complaint that a lack of redundant sensors or processors may be significant. I'd also note that the manual that comes with my AAD mentions the limitations of the device with respect to air pressure measurements and how the deduced altitude therefrom can be out by a couple hundred feet plus or minus. I never saw anything in there that I interpreted as anything more than the device will do it's best according to its design to deploy the parachute at around 750' AGL, but that's all. In any case, this is exactly the kind of lawsuit I would hope to never be made in my name. I've actually left instructions to that effect with my will. I know the risks. I know I can die. I also know that my AAD is a backup device only, is subject to failure and that there is nothing that can guarantee that I will not die skydiving. If I die skydiving, it is my fault for freely engaging in this sport and/or for the choices I make on that fateful day. I never knew Brooke, so I can't know how she felt about that, but I seem to recall a thread on here some time back that gave me the impression that this is not uncommon among skydivers all over the place.
  19. You can believe what you want. I however, have data. Stable belly to earth for me is around 118-120mph vertical. In a good track, I consistently get down to high 80s to low 90s. On a good day, I'll get it as low as 85mph or so, which I've done on several occasions. That's about 20-25% reduction in descent rate, which is significant.
  20. It's one thing to concentrate on what a novice needs to work on right now. It's quite another to state to tell them that [paraphrase]just get flat because anything else is a waste of time.[/paraphrase]. I teach novices to track and just as you suggest I start something simpler and closer to body positions they can already fly (usually a delta) and we incrementally tweak it a bit at a time towards a better tracking position and the tweaks I suggest are based on observed performance, however, I never mislead them as to where the ultimate goal might be.
  21. Yes. Let's ague semantics when the guy wants to know how to track well. Lift doesn't mean I go up relative to the ground. However you want to explain it, a good track has a significantly slower descent rate than your best slowfall position. No matter what term you want to use to describe it, there is additional upward force being created by a good track when compared to other body positions and tweaking the position to give better forward speed somehow seems to also create slower descent rates. A flat body position does not give you a great track. It'll get you away, but you can do much better and in some circumstances, much better is what is expected. A really good track needs some de-arching through the body and shoulders.
  22. That's a very subjective question. What is "wrong"? Moving your arms back behind you in an upward pitch is tending more towards a delta. Thinking of a good track and a good delta as two ends of a spectrum of possibilities. A delta may increase your airspeed, but it does so by more due to increasing your descent rate than anything else. A good track actually goes up relative to a stable belly to earth position and should produce much greater horizontal speed than a delta will. A delta is most useful in getting down to a formation that is below and in front of you. A track is what you want at break off to get away from everyone quickly while maintaining altitude. While tracking, your arms will give more lift when by your side or even slightly in front (below) of your body. They should also be near your body, but not right against it. I usually suggest about a hand span away from the hips/thighs as a rough guide, but you should try tracking with someone else and experiment with how various changes in your body position affect your track.
  23. There's the problem right there. Yeah. Agree with John on that. In my first year or two in the sport, I couldn't understand how any of my friends could not like skydiving and figured that they just needed to experience it and they'd understand why it was so cool. After a couple of years, I realized that there was no point trying to convince people to go. If they want to go, they'll go. Even then, I've had probably 30 or more people over the last few years approach me saying that they want to try skydiving and asking me for advice on where to go, how much it will cost, when is good, etc. I answer their questions and tell them what they want to know, but I don't have any expectations. As yet, only one of those people has actually gone skydiving. I'll also add that the only person I've ever seen go for a tandem and not enjoy it was a girl who was coerced into trying it by her boyfriend. Don't try to convince people. If they want to jump, they'll come to you, or possibly even just go to a dropzone and do it.
  24. What are you trying to achieve? Both answers are right, given the right circumstances. Lowering your head will give you more lift, which should allow you to track further before reaching deployment altitude. That said, you should still be able to see where you are headed, which is forward and down. If lowering your head that much compromises this, then a little less may be a good idea. On a group tracking dive, it's unlikely that you'll be in anything resembling a max track and you're head will likely be in a position more appropriate for seeing the rest of the group and for providing lift.
  25. Listen and take notes. The coach workbook has a lot of free space in it to take notes from what the course facilitator tells you. There are a few things I wish I'd included more detail in in my notes, as there was some good material that was not included in the text of the handbook but that the facilitator gave us verbally during the course. Who's your facilitator?