WS specific AAD?

[hackish 8]

First let me say I'm technical in nature. I understand some of the aerodynamics and physics but I'm not a wingsuit flyer and it's unlikely that I will be for years. However...

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2965379;page=4;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Here is a link about a WS flyer not equipped with an AAD who died with a no-deploy. Some comments were made by wingsuit flyers that the descent rate could be much too low for an AAD activation.

My AAD experience is limited to reading the manuals of the vigil and the cypress as well as looking at a fired cutter to understand how they work. As I understand the logic they decide based on a descent rate and altitude if you're going down too fast and at a certain altitude they will fire if the criteria is met.

The vigil is switchable between student, expert and tandem which adjusts the fall rate for activation and the activation altitude. The cypress is purchased specific to it's final use. Same idea.

As an option I suggest the following which would be suitable for the lower descent rates experienced by WS flyers.

The AAD should always deploy if the wearer has not activated their main canopy by a given altitude regardless of their fall rate. Riding the plane down would therefore make it 100% imperative that the AAD be deactivated.

So add an option to detect deployment of the main. There are a few options I considered - thinking on the fly here. Pick one or more - they're just ideas with some shortcomings.

a) have a metallic patch on one or both of the risers and have a small metal detector sewn on the closing flaps. I'd like magnetic with a reed switch but I know some of the new containers are using magnets instead of velcro. The idea here is that it would require no different procedure for the packer and the main risers leaving the container would then deactivate the AAD.

b) Have a means of determining that the PC is still stowed. Being away from the flaps you could use something magnetic. This still does not account for a PC in tow but using the descent rate feature of the AAD may overcome that situation.

c) Have a pressure sensitive ring for attaching the main closing loop. On deployment the closing loop will no longer have tension and therefore the descent rate "ignore" feature would be disabled as soon as the main pin is pulled.

d) Have a small tab that is attached to the risers and disconnects a small switch on deployment to disable the "ignore" feature. I don't like this because it requires the packers to know about it and do something different.

So basically the WS AAD would function as follows.

If the altitude is below X and the main has not been deployed then fire.
If the descent rate is above Y and the altitude below X then fire despite the main deployment (they may have cut it away).

So maybe I'm way off here but it's just an idea. Maybe an AAD manufacturer will want to do it - go ahead if it ever saves a life I'm happy. If it's a dumb idea I'm sure I'll hear about it.

-Michael

[jakee 1,536]

IMHO?

They're all just way too complicated. Waytoo complicated. Think through each of your suggestions and make a list of all the extra 'fail' scenarios that they make possible. I'm thinking it'd be a long list.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gjhdiver 0]

The Argus has a Swoop mode that detects an open canopy and goes into standby mode to avoid an situation where a canopy pilot exceeds activation criteria during an agressive approach. It re-arms itself on ascent on the next jump to protect the jumper in freefall. Therefore, it is possible to have a unit know when there is a canopy deployment or not.

As for the idea that an AAD should have a firing altitude regardless of descent rate, there was one such AAD. It was called the Sentinel, and a huge sigh of relief was breathed when they were finally phased out. That idea comes around every now and then, and it should be reminded that it's an idea that kills people.

As for the WS jumper that was recently killed. Apparently he was also an active BASE jumper. He made an informed decision to not use an AAD. BASE jumpers tend not to have them in their sport rigs. It's an informed choice which I respect.

Any AAD is an add-on to good emergency procedures, good judgment, and sound practice. The system you proposed is so complex that any jumper would be insane to get into a plane with it on their backs. In an emergency, you'd be fighting that system for control. What we have now is quite complex enough.

[tr027 0]

Totally unnecessary. An unconcious WS pilot will fall fast enough for AAD deployment, and a concious one can tell approximate altitude and therefore if the main should be out (if they cannot they should not even start flying WS).

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

[kelpdiver 2]

there have been prior threads on engineering AADs to detect canopy out, along with other scenarios.

they're all KISS violations to me. Inappropriate fires are very dangerous. The simpler the device logic, the easier for us to know how to use it, and how not to.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

So maybe I'm way off here but it's just an idea. Maybe an AAD manufacturer will want to do it - go ahead if it ever saves a life I'm happy. If it's a dumb idea I'm sure I'll hear about it.

This is almost as bright than having a GPS based AAD or you may call it RAD as Random Activation Device.

Why do you want to fix something that is not really broken?

[dragon2 2]

There has been talk about wingsuit-specific AAD's for a while now, not sure how far along the project(s) is (are?).

It will take a lot to convince me to jump one in that mode as I can see a lot of potential problems with such a mode.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Why do you want to fix something that is not really broken?

Why not think about new or different ways of saving lives? If people hadn't done so in the past we wouldn't have the RSL, the skyhook, AAD's, audibles or square reserves.

Instead of bashing someone for what may not be a workable idea, how about encouraging them to continue thinking?

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Instead of bashing someone for what may not be a workable idea, how about encouraging them to continue thinking? Crazy

He has got an excellent advice already from tr027 :

Quote

Totally unnecessary. An unconcious WS pilot will fall fast enough for AAD deployment, and a concious one can tell approximate altitude and therefore if the main should be out (if they cannot they should not even start flying WS).

There is no cure for human stupidity. So, what is broken here?

[Fledgling 0]

Quote

BASE jumpers tend not to have them in their sport rigs.

I'm not sure exactly what you are basing this on but I know of many BASE jumpers that do use AADs and actually advocate their use. Sorry for the thread drift.

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

Quote

BASE jumpers tend not to have them in their sport rigs.

I'm not sure exactly what you are basing this on but I know of many BASE jumpers that do use AADs and actually advocate their use. Sorry for the thread drift.

No problem. Just personal experience. I know a lot of BASE jumpers, and a lot of them don't have AADs.

[The111 1]

As somebody else has said, if you are unconscious in a wingsuit, you will most likely be falling very fast.

To me, the ONLY reason I have an AAD is for when I am unconscious. If you need an AAD in case you "forget" to pull, you should not be jumping.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[hackish 8]

The whole idea was based on wingsuit flight and I don't really know anything about that, I just looked at what people were saying on that incident thread about an AAD may not have fired anyway. I have heard of AAD saves because of loss of altitude awareness. I have no interest in designing and marketing AADs so I just tossed the idea out to the public.

-Michael

[tdog 0]

Quote

Totally unnecessary. An unconcious WS pilot will fall fast enough for AAD deployment, and a concious one can tell approximate altitude and therefore if the main should be out (if they cannot they should not even start flying WS).

Do you have proof that an unconscious wingsuit will fall faster than 79 MPH? I have seen video and been in my own flat spin that went slower than that. The G forces tend to cause your body parts to extend out from the center, the exact opposite that is needed to get out of the spin.

I bet you are right, but where is the proof for that comment?

[sraja 0]

Maybe a side track - but didn't some famous canopy pilot from Tennessee flying a VX 29 also induce tremendous G spins "under a canopy" that he was unconscious and also slow down to a speed that his AAD did not fire? Not sure of the exact facts but I thought this was the gist of the incident. Point I am trying to make is, it isn't only wing suit pilots who can experience such problems but also people under canopy.

[Derekbox 0]

When we are done with wingsuit AAD's can we make an canopy flare device too... you know just in case.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

didn't some famous canopy pilot from Tennessee flying a VX 29 also induce tremendous G spins "under a canopy" that he was unconscious and also slow down to a speed that his AAD did not fire?

I believe you are refering to Chris Martin who was under a XAOS-21, 21 sq ft canopy. I was on that jump and based off of George Galloways and others professional analysis of the film footage an AAD would not have fired had it been used in that case.

I have spoken with 2 AAD mfgrs about a WS specific AAD extensively and it is a very difficult nut to crack. Given the current constraints and variables encountered in a typical and non typical WS dive, to include the limited number of people jumping a WS, I don't think that we will see one anytime soon.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[d123 3]

Quote

When we are done with wingsuit AAD's can we make an canopy flare device too... you know just in case.

It has to be with a radar altimeter.

Lock, Dock and Two Smoking Barrelrolls!

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

When we are done with wingsuit AAD's can we make an canopy flare device too... you know just in case.

It has to be with a radar altimeter.

Why? Couldn't a system similar to the Woomba be used to identify key marking/transmitter points on the DZ, signaling the canopy hydraulic control system to flare the canopy?

[d123 3]

Quote

Why? Couldn't a system similar to the Woomba be used to identify key marking/transmitter points on the DZ, signaling the canopy hydraulic control system to flare the canopy?

That could work too but if you have to do a delivery outside the "known" area it might be trickier.
And for "feeling the flare" I suggest we use a Super Netto Variometer with readings in both modes to exclude the air rising/sinking effect. This way our system can detect where the flare sweet spot is and we don't have to care about the WL.If UPS peaks this idea we might have trigger (without knowing) a revolutionary break throw in the delivery system. Quick let's patent this shit.

Lock, Dock and Two Smoking Barrelrolls!

[Erroll 80]

Quote

When we are done with wingsuit AAD's can we make an canopy flare device too... you know just in case.

Were you as sarcastic when a 'swoop-mode' for AADs was first mooted?
I agree with Lisa: encourage the lad to think rather than just showing how sharp you are.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

The Argus has a Swoop mode that detects an open canopy

The Argus also has a "Spam mode" that detects e-mail addresses and then spams them with Argus stuff - and then has a disabled "Unsubscribe me" link. Karel is good with stuff like that.

To the OP, what you really need, is an AAD/gear interface, with a pair of eyeballs, some hands and a brain capable of making a few desisions based on wanting to live.

Your suggestions offer some scary side effects, like an open riser cover disabling your AAD, and a bunch of others I'm not even going to get into.

I'm pre AAD generation, and although I went through a phase of wearing one, will only wear one now if it's a requirement of the event I'm attending.

The problem with AAD's, is that they don't learn, and they don't grow with the sport.

WAY back in the day, people went in, and the AAD (Then the AOD) was invented. As people began to jump in larger and larger groups, senior jumpers grew leery of these techincal devices that sometimes randomly deployed canopies placing others at risk. This anti AAD predjudice was so prevalent that the Cypres was designed to be invisible to other jumpers.

The cypres did great in the early 90's, before wingsuits went too slow to fire them, or canopies swooped too fast and did fire them. These disiplines are post modern AAD era, and being fringe activities within a fringe sport, will never get the attention they deserve.

New AAD's, like the Vigil and the Argus, have simply mimicked the Cypres, right down to activation speeds and have simply offered a few "bells and whistles" like software updates and mode switching.
Mode switching has already accounted for several 2 outs. (Vigil in Tandem mode instead of expert mode, if I recall correctly.)

The true value of an AAD is in the freefall lost altitude awareness realm. The "in case I get knocked unconsious" argument is statistically insignificant, and often compromised with reserves that would be unsurvivable without pilot input.

1. Pull
2. At the correct altitude
3. Preferably stable

If people practiced that as often as they said "AAD" we'd be a lot better off, I think.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[hackish 8]

The idea of having the canopy out detection system disable the lower descent rate deployment feature is that it would have a failure mode no worse than using a normal AAD. An open flap making it think the canopy was already out would merely make it behave like every other AAD on the market.

The concerns I can see are:
a) landing with the plane without disabling the feature or the AAD would cause a false fire 100% of the time.
b) the deactivation feature would have to be reliable enough that main deployment would always cause deactivation.
c) integrated enough into the rig that the user does not need to perform any more steps - thus it adds no more complexity for the user.

Finally I believe the automatic flare device proposed above has been made totally unnecessary by a new and radical reserve parachute that does not require any flaring. I believe a picture of it can be found on 6.2.14 of the poynter manual. I believe this new invention was named the Piglet XL-30. You should go ahead and try it.

-Michael

[Tonto 1]

Ah. Silly me. Here I was being serious.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[LouDiamond 1]

I don't condemn your ideas, as it is ideas that eventually lead to new innovations. However, I suggest you educate yourself more on how an AAD works beyond turning it on. Contact the mfgrs and ask about the inner workings of the device.Beter yet, if you can met them in person at an event,do so. I have sat with the presidents of 2 AAD companies and had discussions about making them better and how they do what they do. They can best explain to you some of the limitations and challenges that an AAD is faced with doing while turned on. It's an eye opening and educational experience.


As for the flaring device, it already exists and is being used on cargo drops for military applications, check out Airborne systems(para-flite),Strong's web site or google JPADS.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING