dorbie 0 #51 September 28, 2005 Quote If so, changing activation speed adds unnecessary complexity; just raise the activation speed throughout the dive. If the higher activation speed is higher than freefall terminal, the whole point is defeated. Not necessarily, there may be additional protection for example with a spinning mals with a descent rate that falls in the in the range between the two speeds. But you could choose to leave the switch in the higher speed position on exit. Quote Personally, it seems like an awful lot of work to keep from jumping an Astra, which is already well designed for swooping tiny canopies. Probably Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #52 September 28, 2005 QuoteNot necessarily, there may be additional protection for example with a spinning mals with a descent rate that falls in the in the range between the two speeds. Which brings us right back to the nasty two out we are trying to avoid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #53 September 28, 2005 No, that is a scenario where the alternative is a bounce (more like a crater), so an AAD activation is desirable. If you think different you should have voted with your handles already. The scenario we're trying to avoid is a swoop two out and during the swoop the AAD would be on the higher speed setting (thanks to the canopy pilot) and so would not deploy until the higher speed threshold. If you manage to induce a malfunction or have a canopy collision etc. after you activate the high speed setting then you could be SOL (better get your EPs right). But you're SOL under many more scenarios without an AAD or with an on/off setting on your AAD. It's just an imperfect compromise to give some protection where none exists with alternatives. The biggest issue I have with the idea is the reliability of the pilot toggling the switch. That's the REAL downside and the unknown risk factor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #54 September 28, 2005 QuoteNo, that is a scenario where the alternative is a bounce (more like a crater), so an AAD activation is desirable. If you think different you should have voted with your handles already. I'll buy that logic. In today's litigous society I'm not sure Airtec could be convinced as easily, though. considering how fast the main is likely spinning to reach such a high vertical speed, coupled with the probable small size of the about to be deployed reserve. They already disarm the CYPRES at 150? ft to avoid a near certain bounce after an AAD firing low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #55 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo, that is a scenario where the alternative is a bounce (more like a crater), so an AAD activation is desirable. If you think different you should have voted with your handles already. I'll buy that logic. In today's litigous society I'm not sure Airtec could be convinced as easily, though. considering how fast the main is likely spinning to reach such a high vertical speed, coupled with the probable small size of the about to be deployed reserve. I think the point is getting confused a bit, nobody is suggesting the AAD be made more likely to fire with a spinning malfunction. It was just a possible scenario to illustrate that in some situations the original activation speed is safer than a higher one for parts of the skydive. Others exist, like dealing with a ball of crap and burning through 750ft AGL. The AAD will behave the same as it does today under these scenarios until instructed otherwise, and once instructed it will be LESS likely to fire not more. The only reason for the speed switch proposal is to preserve as much of the current behavior and benefit of existing AAD designs for as much of the skydive as possible, as a better alternative to going without an AAD for all or part of a skydive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,105 #56 September 28, 2005 On the whole I'd prefer it left just as it is and leave it to the individual jumper to determine whether or not its use is appropriate for the kind of jump planned.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mattjw916 2 #57 September 28, 2005 That makes a lot more sense than the knee-jerk, "we had an incident involving X, so lets completely redesign it" attitude which seems to coincide with most of the incidents around here. Seems pretty simple to me, if you even think you are approaching the activation parameters during your approaches, either shut it off, or remove/sell it. Chances are that you will be more likely to be killed by a botched swoop than an "accidental" AAD activation anyway. Personally, I'll keep one in my rig for the time being and my next several canopies.NSCR-2376, SCR-15080 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #58 September 28, 2005 Quote On the whole I'd prefer it left just as it is and leave it to the individual jumper to determine whether or not its use is appropriate for the kind of jump planned. Most AADs would be left exactly as they are. In fact the only AADs that would be redesigned effectively don't exist (i.e. it's the lack of an AAD on a swoop jump that get's redesigned), and there will be a few more of those after this incident. I was unconvinced about this given that it would be dangerous to rely on a jumper to switch the AAD mode as an additional procedure but I have an idea for a rig mounted switch that has changed my mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,105 #59 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuote On the whole I'd prefer it left just as it is and leave it to the individual jumper to determine whether or not its use is appropriate for the kind of jump planned. Most AADs would be left exactly as they are. In fact the only AADs that would be redesigned effectively don't exist (i.e. it's the lack of an AAD on a swoop jump that get's redesigned), and there will be a few more of those after this incident. I was unconvinced about this given that it would be dangerous to rely on a jumper to switch the AAD mode as an additional procedure but I have an idea for a rig mounted switch that has changed my mind. Competition is a great thing, so go ahead and produce one. Maybe you'll get rich.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RogerRamjet 0 #60 October 5, 2005 QuoteNo, that is a scenario where the alternative is a bounce (more like a crater), so an AAD activation is desirable. If you think different you should have voted with your handles already. The scenario we're trying to avoid is a swoop two out and during the swoop the AAD would be on the higher speed setting (thanks to the canopy pilot) and so would not deploy until the higher speed threshold. If you manage to induce a malfunction or have a canopy collision etc. after you activate the high speed setting then you could be SOL (better get your EPs right). But you're SOL under many more scenarios without an AAD or with an on/off setting on your AAD. It's just an imperfect compromise to give some protection where none exists with alternatives. The biggest issue I have with the idea is the reliability of the pilot toggling the switch. That's the REAL downside and the unknown risk factor. I've read through the fatality thread and now this one. What do all of you think of something like this modification to the AAD: 1) Add an interrupt button that the jumper can press after doing their controllability tests. 2) In the electronics, have a timer circuit that disables the firing circuit when the button is pressed (but nothing else) for X number of minutes. 3) When X minutes elapses, re-arm automatically. If I were a swooper attaining the speeds we are talking about but still wanted the usual AAD protection, this is an option I would like. X could = say 5 minutes, more than enough time to land, but the re-arm would take place before the next skydive without intervention from me. Perhaps X could be a tunable parameter. The rest of the device could remain as is. The only downside I see besides the already discussed added complexity is if you induce a mal after pressing the button and are slow on your EPs. A downside I could live with. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #61 October 5, 2005 It has the same basic problem as earlier suggestions, i.e. remembering to press the button before you enter a swoop. How do you quantify that risk? One other relevant point is you don't need a timer to rearm, the AAD already infers when it's on the ground and when it's ascending for a jump and already arms itself during each ascent. The point is there are existing heuristics that make the timer idea pointless. So effectively this is the same basic idea as the swoop mode switch (edit: actually it's better, since it's a swoop mode trigger, you just don't need the timer to implement the rearm) I've been informed that multiple AAD makers are already testing AAD modifications to allow swooping that make the whole thing a bit of a foregone conclusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
tso-d_chris 0 #52 September 28, 2005 QuoteNot necessarily, there may be additional protection for example with a spinning mals with a descent rate that falls in the in the range between the two speeds. Which brings us right back to the nasty two out we are trying to avoid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #53 September 28, 2005 No, that is a scenario where the alternative is a bounce (more like a crater), so an AAD activation is desirable. If you think different you should have voted with your handles already. The scenario we're trying to avoid is a swoop two out and during the swoop the AAD would be on the higher speed setting (thanks to the canopy pilot) and so would not deploy until the higher speed threshold. If you manage to induce a malfunction or have a canopy collision etc. after you activate the high speed setting then you could be SOL (better get your EPs right). But you're SOL under many more scenarios without an AAD or with an on/off setting on your AAD. It's just an imperfect compromise to give some protection where none exists with alternatives. The biggest issue I have with the idea is the reliability of the pilot toggling the switch. That's the REAL downside and the unknown risk factor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #54 September 28, 2005 QuoteNo, that is a scenario where the alternative is a bounce (more like a crater), so an AAD activation is desirable. If you think different you should have voted with your handles already. I'll buy that logic. In today's litigous society I'm not sure Airtec could be convinced as easily, though. considering how fast the main is likely spinning to reach such a high vertical speed, coupled with the probable small size of the about to be deployed reserve. They already disarm the CYPRES at 150? ft to avoid a near certain bounce after an AAD firing low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #55 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo, that is a scenario where the alternative is a bounce (more like a crater), so an AAD activation is desirable. If you think different you should have voted with your handles already. I'll buy that logic. In today's litigous society I'm not sure Airtec could be convinced as easily, though. considering how fast the main is likely spinning to reach such a high vertical speed, coupled with the probable small size of the about to be deployed reserve. I think the point is getting confused a bit, nobody is suggesting the AAD be made more likely to fire with a spinning malfunction. It was just a possible scenario to illustrate that in some situations the original activation speed is safer than a higher one for parts of the skydive. Others exist, like dealing with a ball of crap and burning through 750ft AGL. The AAD will behave the same as it does today under these scenarios until instructed otherwise, and once instructed it will be LESS likely to fire not more. The only reason for the speed switch proposal is to preserve as much of the current behavior and benefit of existing AAD designs for as much of the skydive as possible, as a better alternative to going without an AAD for all or part of a skydive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #56 September 28, 2005 On the whole I'd prefer it left just as it is and leave it to the individual jumper to determine whether or not its use is appropriate for the kind of jump planned.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattjw916 2 #57 September 28, 2005 That makes a lot more sense than the knee-jerk, "we had an incident involving X, so lets completely redesign it" attitude which seems to coincide with most of the incidents around here. Seems pretty simple to me, if you even think you are approaching the activation parameters during your approaches, either shut it off, or remove/sell it. Chances are that you will be more likely to be killed by a botched swoop than an "accidental" AAD activation anyway. Personally, I'll keep one in my rig for the time being and my next several canopies.NSCR-2376, SCR-15080 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #58 September 28, 2005 Quote On the whole I'd prefer it left just as it is and leave it to the individual jumper to determine whether or not its use is appropriate for the kind of jump planned. Most AADs would be left exactly as they are. In fact the only AADs that would be redesigned effectively don't exist (i.e. it's the lack of an AAD on a swoop jump that get's redesigned), and there will be a few more of those after this incident. I was unconvinced about this given that it would be dangerous to rely on a jumper to switch the AAD mode as an additional procedure but I have an idea for a rig mounted switch that has changed my mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #59 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuote On the whole I'd prefer it left just as it is and leave it to the individual jumper to determine whether or not its use is appropriate for the kind of jump planned. Most AADs would be left exactly as they are. In fact the only AADs that would be redesigned effectively don't exist (i.e. it's the lack of an AAD on a swoop jump that get's redesigned), and there will be a few more of those after this incident. I was unconvinced about this given that it would be dangerous to rely on a jumper to switch the AAD mode as an additional procedure but I have an idea for a rig mounted switch that has changed my mind. Competition is a great thing, so go ahead and produce one. Maybe you'll get rich.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RogerRamjet 0 #60 October 5, 2005 QuoteNo, that is a scenario where the alternative is a bounce (more like a crater), so an AAD activation is desirable. If you think different you should have voted with your handles already. The scenario we're trying to avoid is a swoop two out and during the swoop the AAD would be on the higher speed setting (thanks to the canopy pilot) and so would not deploy until the higher speed threshold. If you manage to induce a malfunction or have a canopy collision etc. after you activate the high speed setting then you could be SOL (better get your EPs right). But you're SOL under many more scenarios without an AAD or with an on/off setting on your AAD. It's just an imperfect compromise to give some protection where none exists with alternatives. The biggest issue I have with the idea is the reliability of the pilot toggling the switch. That's the REAL downside and the unknown risk factor. I've read through the fatality thread and now this one. What do all of you think of something like this modification to the AAD: 1) Add an interrupt button that the jumper can press after doing their controllability tests. 2) In the electronics, have a timer circuit that disables the firing circuit when the button is pressed (but nothing else) for X number of minutes. 3) When X minutes elapses, re-arm automatically. If I were a swooper attaining the speeds we are talking about but still wanted the usual AAD protection, this is an option I would like. X could = say 5 minutes, more than enough time to land, but the re-arm would take place before the next skydive without intervention from me. Perhaps X could be a tunable parameter. The rest of the device could remain as is. The only downside I see besides the already discussed added complexity is if you induce a mal after pressing the button and are slow on your EPs. A downside I could live with. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #61 October 5, 2005 It has the same basic problem as earlier suggestions, i.e. remembering to press the button before you enter a swoop. How do you quantify that risk? One other relevant point is you don't need a timer to rearm, the AAD already infers when it's on the ground and when it's ascending for a jump and already arms itself during each ascent. The point is there are existing heuristics that make the timer idea pointless. So effectively this is the same basic idea as the swoop mode switch (edit: actually it's better, since it's a swoop mode trigger, you just don't need the timer to implement the rearm) I've been informed that multiple AAD makers are already testing AAD modifications to allow swooping that make the whole thing a bit of a foregone conclusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
