df8m1

There are several flaps on a typical reserve container, and most of the time the grommets on each flap do not line up when packed. This results in the closeting loop zigzagging from loop to loop making close to 90 degree turns which has a lot of mechanical advantage to over come. This is very important to remember when the container is opened by cutting the loop from with in the container (bellow the flaps). The loop is attached at the back of the container and as each flap is pulled over, the loop is threaded through it’s grommet. One by one each flap is pulled and the loop threaded through each flap’s grommet and the pin is inserted in the loop to keep the container closed. When the pin is pulled, the top flap is allowed to lift off of the loop which allows the loop to move freely across to the next grommet, and when the next flap relaxes and lifts off the loop, the loop is relaxes and the process continues until the pilot chute is allowed to extend. It is important to note that when the pin is pulled, the grommets lift off of the loop and the loop is not “pulled thought” the grommets. Something to keep in mind that you should be able to relate to is when you are closing your main container, after you pull the loop through a grommet, I bet you pull the pull up cord to the side, bending the closing loop at a 90 degree angle, and put your knee on it to hold it. You probably have noticed that pulling the loop to the side makes it easer to keep it from being pulled back in while you are threading the pull up cord through the next flap. There is a mechanical advantage that is created when you pull the loop to the side, and a reserve closing loop can zigzag a couple of times on a reserve container, so that results in the mechanical advantage being multiplied with each zig and each zag. When the reserve container is opened by pin extraction, the flaps lift off of the loop, allowing the loop to un bend and align with the next grommet that lifts off of the loop and allow the loop to un bend again and align with the next grommet, etc. However, when the loop is cut bellow the flaps, the loop has to be pulled through all the grommets at the same time, and when the loop is ziged and zagged from grommet to grommet, there is a lot of resistance, just like with your main closing loop that you pull to the side. Instead of the flaps lifting off of the loop, the loop is pulled through all of them at the same time which requires a lot of power when the grommets do not line up, and because of the pin in the top flap, the force from the bottom up ward keeps the flaps tight against each other which is like you knee on your main loop. When I say “opens from the inside out”, I mean that the cut end of the loop is pulled through the bottom flap first, then the next to bottom and so forth until the it is pulled though the second to top flap’s grommet. There have been reserve containers that have not opened at all after a clean cutter fire because of the mechanical advantage from long closing loop zig zaging from grommet across to grommet, which required more power to pull the loop through all the grommets than the pilot chute spring had. Some rigs have their reserve grommets stack up inline, which IMOP is the best design regardless of whether a cutter is used or not. Perhaps another way to think about it is to imagine a flower opening. The outer petals open first and the layer by layer until it is open. Now imagine a flower opening in reverse, with the outer petals opening last. It will take more power to push through all the petals than if they opened from the outside in. Does that help you to picture what the difference is in pack opening from a pin extraction or cutting bellow the flaps? It is important to understand how your gear works, never be afraid to ask questions or challenge answers for that matter.

I did a poor job of wording the initial post. If the cutter is located bellow the free bag, if it fails to cut the loop, the reserve can still be opened by pulling the pin, however, should the cutter cut the loop, the container has to open from the inside out which is opposite of how it was TSO tested. But none the less, should the cutter pinch, the jumper can still open the reserve their self. In this configuration, the AAD has the least affect on the reserve operation should the pin be used to open the container. Now, some manufacturers have moved the cutter above the free bag to help minimize the delay of pack opening when a cutter opens the container from the inside out. In this configuration should the cutter fail to cut the loop, the reserve will be trapped in the container. My thinking is if the cutter is going to be above the free bag to begin with, why not put it right under the pin so the container opens as it was TSO tested. I am not saying that placing the cutter anywhere above the free bag is better than bellow in regards to the risk of locking the bag in the container. My thinking is, if the manufacturer has requires the cutter anywhere above the free bag, if you can take advantage of an opportunity to allow the container to open as it was tested, then why not? If the cutter is below the free bag, the cutter can not lock the bag in the container, but the pack opening most likely will be affected because it is opening from the inside out. If the cutter is located bellow the pin, the bag could be locked in the container, but the pack opening time would be the same as if the pin was pulled. In any case, making a cutter that cuts the loop is critical. Given a cutter that will cut the loop, having it just bellow the pin would allow a faster pack opening then with the cutter at the bottom, because of how the container flaps open. I still do not like how I worded what I am thinking, so if I have fallen short again, let me know. Also feel free to let me know what you think.

You are correct that the cutter cable will not be covered by the container flaps. The type of cable used is very important given that, for example, the cypres cutter would not be a good choice to use for a top mounted cutter, as the plastic tail is easily broken and the solid wire cable is brittle. The cutter that I would design would have a stranded wire cable that is better for repeated flexing, with braiding and foil shielding. Additionally there would not be a tail sticking out of the cutter to be broken. None the less, everything has a plus and a minus to it. Durability of the cutter cable located outside the container flaps would have to be tested, and the results taken into consideration for the design of the cutter and its location. Thanks for the feed back, keep it coming...

With the recent incident where the reserve failed to deploy in time, I was thinking about the issue with the location of the cutter, and the time it takes for the reserve container to open. By design they are intended to open from the out side in (initiated by pin extraction), and a cutter located below the flaps, makes the container have to open from the inside out, and that takes more energy and results in a delay in container opening. If the cutter is located anywhere else than bellow the free bag, there is a possibility of the reserve being locked in the container should the cutter fail to cut the loop and pinch it. Given that is the case, why not put the cutter on top of the reserve flap, between the pin and the flap? At first glance placing the cutter on the same side of the flap as the pin would allow a cutter initiated opening to be just as fast as if the pin was pulled because the container is allowed to open as designed regardless of the method of opening. I have been thinking about cutter design lately because I am designing one, and I am thinking of making a concept cutter that will go between the pin and the top flap. Additional benefits may be that the pin will be better protected from damage with the body of the cutter to support it and protect it, and it would help keep the pin from being pushed out from rubbing against the plane. The external cutter would allow inspection as well. Now the combination would create a little more bulk under the cover flap, but until I make one, I don’t know how bulky it would be. I thought I would mention this idea to get some feed back from riggers, and if any manufacturers want to weigh in, that would be great to. The idea of a reserve not deploying in time after an AAD firing is totally unacceptable and defeats the reason for having an AAD in the first place. If moving the cutter to the where the pin is takes some delay out of the equation, I think it is worth looking at.

The equation is; fall rate X max reserve deployment time = a Min activation altitude. It is simple math and hard to argue with IMOP. Also IMOP, no one should still be in free fall bellow 1500ft. Every electronic AAD has the capability of being intelligent, but a computer is only as intelligent as the programmer allows it to be. The military AADs that I am currently working on are intelligent, and capable of identifying the situation in it is in, and making adjustments accordingly to maximize the possibility of a successful out come. It is not hard to make an electronic AAD able to adjust its activation altitude according to the free fall speed at the time the jumper reaches the altitude threshold. There is no reason to push the error margin to the bottom of the scale, that is where the planet is, it makes more sense to shove the error to the upper end and leave a cushion on the bottom. Personally, I would like more than 1.5 seconds to set up my landing. Just a thought, which is worse, being a dumb ass & pulling low, and get two out with altitude left to deal with it, or being a dumb ass and not having enough time for the reserve to deploy? I bet at some point as the planet comes rushing up, one would be wishing they had two out.

You bet, I have been encouraging investigators to do a test. You really don't need a dummy, just tape the rig up and throw it out. This has been going on for about 20 years. Before AAD's they were reported as "low pull" on the reserve. As AAD's came into service we started seeing events as we do today. It was slow at first as the installed base grew. We will see even more as we go along if we don't fix it. There should be a data base created that has; 1) the type of container and it's pack volume, 2) the pack volume of the canopies, 3) the reserve pilot chute that was used, 4) the configuration at the time of the reserve ripcord being pulled or AAD firing, (main deployed or not) 5) was the reserve handle pulled or was an AAD the primary method to open the reserve 6) What AAD was installed if any. I would think that after 10+ instances, there should be enough data to start to identify what they all had in common, and if the individual commonalities could have contributed to the reserve not inflating in time to slow the jumper to a survivable speed. If for example they all had an AAD fire, and they all had the same AAD, then that would be a starting point for an investigation to determine if the AAD fired low, or there was a compatibility issue with the configuration of the AAD and container. Or, if they all had the same reserve pilot chute, that would direct attention to the amount of drag it is capable of producing in the burble of a jumper, and is it sufficient to extract a reserve free bag from a container. This is a very troubling situation, as how can the skydiving community encourage the use of AADs if they can not get a reserve over head in time when they are working properly? I mean, you can’t say anyone who doesn’t have an AAD is less safe, if an AAD can’t get a reserve out in time anyway.

I think you misunderstand how PIA works. There is no "big picture" to see. PIA is not a regulatory body. It does not approve or disapprove designs or products. In particular, PIA never banned Argus AADs. Some PIA-member manufacturers choose not to allow Argus AADs in their rigs. Other PIA-member manufacturers are okay with Argus AADs, or take an agnostic position with respect to AADs in general. If you want to sell an after-market cutter, you need to convince individual AAD manufacturers (Airtec, AAD, FXC, MarS, and/or Aviacom, etc.) and individual harness/container manufacturers (UPT, Sunpath, Mirage, Aerodyne, etc.). You don't need to involve PIA. Mark Thank you for your response Mark, I totally agree that PIA has no power in reality. However PIA has a law suit against it by Aviacom, and it was presented to me in the words "this could be the end of PIA". I am very grateful for the incite, and did not take anything said as a threat, but when you have a political body, who’s very existence is in jeopardy, then things can get exciting. The only concern I have about PIA is a nuisance law suit from PIA based on the thinking that I am partnering with Aviacom, or some such nonsense, and that putting the Arguses that are already in the field back in the air would some how add funds to the Aviacom legal fund, and as such, dragging me into the BS would be an effective way to stop that. I have had that happen before, nuisance law suits are a quick and dirty way to buy time and possibly collapse a company. The manufacturers IMOP reacted properly to the original cutter issue, and given there wasn't any solution offered to the cutter problem, then really what else could they have done. Every manufacturer we have spoken to about making a cutter for the Argus units that are already in the field, responded very positively to the idea. The big picture I was referring to is that I am not, in any way shape or form, partnered or associated with Aviacom. I started the process of designing a new cutter for my military AADs long before Aviacom contacted me about making a replacement cutter for the Argus, so that jumpers who do not have the funds to buy another AAD can use the one they bought and presently can not because of reasons beyond their control. I will have to spend my own money to pay for the cutters that the manufacturer will use for their tests, and there are only so many Argus units out there, so I will not get rich in the process, but I feel at this point that there is enough to justify my investment and it would be a good thing to do for other jumpers. There is a lot of emotion on all sides of that law suit, clarity is very important, I just wanted to be sure that I am not walking into a mine field. I am interested in your, or anyone’s thoughts.

Well the Symposium was fun, but I am gland to be home. We received a lot of positive response from Argus owners about the possibility of a new, manufacturer approved, cutter that they could buy, so they could use their Argus AADs again. We talked with people from several countries and everyone supported the idea.... until.... The manufacturers that were approached with the concept supported the idea, stating that if the new cutter passed their compatibility tests, they couldn’t see a reason why not to reinstate the Argus AAD. My concern stems from political mumblings relating to a legal battle between PIA and Aviacom. I have spoken to Vigil, (also involved in litigation with Aviacom) about the idea of marketing a cutter for the Argus AADs already in the field, and I was very pleased with their response, (now I am using my words, and am not in any way quoting, or implying a quote of any kind, or even paraphrasing anything said for that matter). The jist of it was that the issue is with Aviacom, not their customers, and the goal is to save lives. If a new cutter was to be made available to the customers who already have an Argus AAD, then that would support the effort to save lives. I have not spoken with PIA yet, and will set tight until I get an idea where they stand. I have no interest in getting pulled into that mess, this is about jumpers, and if there is an opportunity to provide a product that is in need to them, then we all win, unless we get pulled into a legal battle. I have confidence that PIA will see the big picture here, but... this is business, and doing a proper due diligence is a must. If anyone has any thoughts on the political side and risks of marketing a cutter for the Argus, I would be very interested in hearing them. The Argus cutter market is fixed and small, plus, we are going to have to spend several thousand dollars (of our own money) on cutters in order to conduct each manufacturers tests. This is not a get rich market, but I think there is enough to justify the hurdles, but not any legal action against us. I am interested in any thoughts.

Thanks, that is exactly the kind in incite that I am looking for. I equate swoopers to Kamikazes lol…..Probibly should not have said that

If you are out of control/unconcious your fallrate would be signigicantly higher (than "normal" flight) I do not recall ever hearing about a Wing Suit flyer going in because of an AAD not firing, but I see posts expressing concern that with a current AAD, a flyer could fly to the ground and the AAD would never fire. I find it hard to imagine that, given the slow vertical speed, a flyer would not notice they are low, but again, I am not a flyer. This is a prefect example of the difference between a need and a desire. If the only concern is a loss of consciousness, then the current AADs will do the trick, no need to put the effort into a new unit. Is the only concern loss of consciousness?

I have been trying to get a feel for the different disciplines desires for an AAD other than what is already on the market. I have poked around here and see that there might be a need for an AAD that is just for wing suit flyers, and I thought I would ask. I am working on Military AADs that are intelligent which is what is really needed with a wing suit due to the very slow vertical speeds you can achieve. I am not a wing suit flyer so I thought I would put it out there and see how much of a real need there is as apposed to just a desire. Open to all feed back.

I have nightmares of the reserve pin braking, ( and I currently do not have an AAD in any of my rigs lol). So the idea of a totally separate method of pack opening is appealing, but everything has its potential draw backs. If I look at the pin pusher ides as described and I have seen, I can see a scenario where the pin gets seized in the pusher housing, or the pusher gets twisted from a hit on exit, and the rip cord can’t be pulled, or the pusher fires and the pin gets cocked and is bent inside the pusher rendering the rip cord in-pullable. A cutter that is designed based on 20 ish years of electronic AAD with cutters, taking into consideration some of their failures, and the configuration the different containers are arranged, would be a refinement of a proven method of pack opening. As I said previously, AAD manufacturers have relied on the cutter companies to supply them with a cutter, and they have industrial cutters that were designed to cut everything but 300 lb Spectra, while being packed tightly in a container with the loop being pulled several different ways. In the instance of the Argus cutters pinching loop, that failure can be reproduced, so, I will have a comparison test to see how my design performs in the same configuration that the Argus cutter pinches. IMOP, a properly designed cutter has “head room” designed into it, and what I mean by that is, all the AAD manufacturers require a min closing loop tension, this tension is to help the cutter cut the loop, or for the loop to overcome any pinching created by the cutter during or after the cut. One of my design objectives is a no tension requirement, the cutter should be able to cleanly cut the loop with ½ the power charge, and no tension, while arranged in the failure mode configuration. There is an advantage of designing something with some history to reflect on. The pusher concept is different, and there is a reason why there are more than one rig manufacturer, different people like different things. It may be attractive to some as a cutter is attractive to others. Heck, there are still experienced jumpers that use a spring loaded main pilot chute lol. The failures of the past can provide direction in the future. The proof is in the pudding… tell you what…. Ill build my cutter, and will even build you some pushers if the details can be worked out, and, may the best win lol.

I believe I can speak for everyone when I say thank you for taking the time to provide some incite regarding the AAD and TSO contradiction so to speak. I think that too little is known by the masses about the gear they are jumping, and knowledge is power. Your history of participant in the process lends credibility to your position, which is part of the basis no doubt, for your decision to design and build your own containers. I am, in a similar fashion, going in that direction in regards to the cutters that will be used by my military AADs. I received your PM and will respond directly, but also I wanted to post this, in the effort to tap into the wealth of opinions out there, which are valuable in evaluating an effort or concept such as a pusher vrs a cutter. I will be manufacturing cutters for my own “in house” use, and it looks like I will be building some cutters for the Argus AADs that are in the field as well, once the cutter is approved by the manufacturers of course. Aviacom has already done exactly what you are talking about, I have videos, but I will not post or share them with out permission from Aviacom first. I do not know if Aviacom has taken any action to legally protect their concept of an additional pin on the rip cord, being pushed out of the cutter housing or not. I can ask though. Should there be no legal issues associated with producing the Aviacom style “pin pusher”, given that I will have the necessary parts and QC to build such a thing, if you were to generate a design speck, I would be interested in building them for you, if for nothing else, use with your tandem rigs, however, you will need to find an AAD to use to fire them, as I am pretty confident that Airtec and Vigil would not approve of the use of anything other than their cutters with their respective AADs. Now on that note, I happen to know of an AAD that would support exactly what you are talking about, and the details of which I will include in an e-mail to you in response to your PM. There may be an opportunity here to see if you are on to something here.

Additionally, The Racer Tandem is not prone to the "Side Spin" problem due to the drogue suspension system. Every video of a tandem side spin, (the donut of death), is pre-drogue deployment. I have seen videos of the TM dumping the drogue while in the beginning of a side spin in an effort to stabilize, and it is never a clean deployment. Perhaps we are talking about two different things, but the videos I have seen of the tandem side spins that went in never had the drogue out, nor did they have an AAD. No! It is far more complicated than that. First let me say that I know exactly to whom I am chatting with, and I mean no disrespect with my approach to my thinking, to the contrary, you are one of the few who can possibly provides some incite. Now that being said; Can you elaborate a little more on that. Again, this is just my understanding, but as such, it is that the TSO tests are to validate that a container / harness system (regardless of its design), functions with in standardized specs. The design of the container can be what ever as long as it passes the tests, and it is the configuration of the rig that is awarded the TSO, so as a result, several different size container and canopy combinations can be produced under the umbrella of the original TSO. Now I may be totally wet, but that is my understanding. Now, continuing on that train of thought, given that the concern is if an AAD will affect the ability of the reserve to operate properly (will the cutter affect the pack opening), I am thinking, why not pick the best AAD, (as odds are the end user will be putting one in) and put the rig through the TSO tests and see if it still passes. If it does, then the combination of the rig and AAD would be harmonious with the TSO. Now, just thinking out loud, is it the situation where the reserve its self is TSOed, the container design using the TSOed reserve is TSOed, and it is that the AAD its self is not TSOed that is the concern, rather than will it interfere with the operation with the container? I would think that if the US required AADs, then to get a TSO, a rig would have to be tested with an AAD packed in it, no? I get that a rig manufacturer does not want to be liable for a cutter locking a rig shut, nor does an AAD manufacture want to be liable for a container / canopy combination that is built under the umbrella of a TSO, when the actual rig would not pass the same TSO if its life depended on it. My approach with my cutter is to try to work with the container manufacturers in an effort to produce a cutter that the manufacturers are comfortable with. I am also good with the thinking that AADs need to meet a standard of some kind.

So Racer tandems do not have AADs? If so, are the passengers informed as such? I would think the side spin risk would be grater than the AAD. Also, I had a thought, what if a reserve container went through the TSO testing with my AAD in it. If it passed the testing, would my AAD be considered TSO approved for use in that container?

I have seen some videos from Aviacom using the cutter piston to push out an extra pin on the rip cord. I have also seen a patent that uses a thruster linked to the pin that does the same thing, I do not recall how old it was. I am currently designing a cutter for my military AADs and was contacted my Aviacom about the possibility of supplying cutters to the Argus AADs in the field so they could be put back into service. Traditionally, AAD manufacturers have relied on standard cutter designs provided by a cutter company, but the cutters were designed to cut different material that the 300lb Spectra, let alone packed up in a container, so a cutter that performs well in the open tends to fail in this application, the good news is the pinched loop failure can be reproduced, so I will be able to put my cutter in the same configuration and see how it does. I think there is a definite advantage to a cutter that is designed specifically for parachute deployment. Tandem rigs are big enough and not concerned about appearance, so there might be a chance that a puller or pusher could be accepted, but with the smaller rigs, even a cutter has an effect on the look of a pack job. IMOP the reserve pins are too week, and I would feel better with a pin the size of what is used on the main. Everything has it’s drawbacks.

I say Universal Cutter or Free Agent Cutter meaning a cutter has been approved for use in certain containers, and could be built to meat a particular AAD manufacturers requirements, (interface and no/all fire power). This would only be done with the cooperation of the AAD manufacturer. I think this model would fit well with the Argus, and the cost of the cutters may not be much more than the other AADs, certainly cheaper than buying a new AAD. But there are some hurtles that need to be cleared with Avaicom and the container manufacturers. I have two different cutter design concepts; one I would say is based on a conventional cutter, and the other is more complicated where after the cutter fired, should the loop not have been cut, it would be free to be extracted as if the cutter never fired. It is hard to explain and is a reach in design to say the least, so I am going to make the conventional one first. It will be a single blade concept, but not like the Cypres V and Wedge. Any cutter would require the approval of the AAD manufacturer and the container Manufacturer before it could be installed for use.

You bring up some good points, they say nothing worth while is easy... lol. Let me take a stab at the SDA ban... just thinking out loud again.. First a DZ is a privately owned business, and as far as I am aware they have the right to say only X container can be jumped there, and everyone else is ban, if people don't like that, there are other places in AZ to jump. I am OK with that, as it is part of their business model and I am sure they would have a reason of some sort. Now in the case of the Argus, "how would they know which cutter it has?", how do they know the Cypres in a rig has had its 4 year and is airworthy?, that is a rigger’s responsibility, to verify that anything that is packed up in the reserve container is airworthy by manufacturer standards, and visual inspection. If the Argus was approved for flight with the new cutter and a rigger penciled the cutter change, and it was discovered that the cutter was not changed, then the rigger is in deep poop. Now, even with a clean bill of health, SDA may continue to never allow an Argus onto its planes, and that is their call to make, and possibly fallout from a situation that could have been handled better on a lot of levels, (but that is easy to say from where I am) I think I can safely say that Aviacom is permanently out of the AAD business, with the exception of it's service centers that conduct the 4 year checks supporting the units in the field. Even with available cutters, they will not be producing Argus AADs again. To that point; I have been approached to take the Argus, and with my cutter, reintroduce it to the sport market, possibly with a new name if I thought that would help overcome some of the political fallout associated with the Argus name. However given our current developmental commitments on my plate, I would basically have to take them to the cleaners or rob them blind to make it even an option worth considering, and that doesn’t sit right with me in the least. The only thing that has me actually thinking about it is that there are still a good number of Agrus AADs in the air, and I bet a good portion of the latest generation of jumpers have never heard the name before, or they think it is an audible of some kind, and I am pretty sure if there was any problems with the ones being jumped we all would have heard about it in a thread dedicated to it. This thread suddenly took a turn, but after reading some messages when I logged on, I am thinking about the idea again, that is an emotional response, and emotion has no place in a business decision. However…. I have no doubt that there is at least one person out there that will have an apposing viewpoint and will rip me a new one, bringing me be back into balance… lol In other words, apposing viewpoints welcome….

My thought is that you have it backwards. I would suggest that you work with the Argus folks and have them do the testing to determine if they feel that the cutter meets their req'ments. Then it is on to the mfrs for their input. JerryBaumchen Aviacom was actually the first to contact me about the new cutters. My thinking is to have a cutter that has been approved by as many manufacturers as possible, regardless it there is a sport AAD to attach them to or not. My reasoning is, (and feel free to tell me I have drank too much bath water), many of the manufacturers produce military versions of sport containers, and having their blessing to use my cutter in their container could be a marketing plus for my military AADs, second, with an approved “free agent” cutter ready to go, should there be any AADs with cutter issues in the future, I think there may be an advantage in having a good cutter that could be used in place of the problem one very quickly. This is just thinking out loud of course. The design area is in regards to the cutting portion of the cutter, the power side is very well established, and we will be using a US supplier that makes the power units by hand, and has a very stringent QC program. We will use X-ray final inspection just as Airtec and my military cutter manufacturer does. We are in the process of getting an explosives handling and storage license which is required to possess the power cartridges in raw form. This alone is will take 90 days or so. I do not think the container manufacturers will be too reluctant to test the cutters, after all they manufacture a product that a growing number of people who buy their product put an AAD in them, and the more AAD choices the customer has, the more attractive the product is to the customer. It may be a PIA, but it is part of the business they are in, it is a PIA for me as well.. lol. I won’t even think of bothering them until I am confident that the problems are solved. The pinched loop failure can be reproduced, so we will be able recreate the conditions where the other cutter(s) trap loop and see how my design does. Once the cutting portion is finished, then it is a matter of matching the power side to the AAD, and getting the proper connectors and AAD manufacturers approval. I have also been contacted by some Argus owners wanting to know if they could use my cutter with their Argus. It is this interest that prompted me to start this thread to see if there is much of a cutter market in regards to Argus AADs in the USA.

As I mentioned in a different thread, we are in the process of designing and testing a new loop cutter, specifically designed to work with reserve parachute configurations. After we conclude our testing, we intend to seek approval from the container manufacturers for the use of this cutter in their containers. The primary application for these new cutters will be our military AADs, however, I have received several inquires as to the possibility of this new cutter being used with the Argus AADs, so much so that I thought I would start a new thread about the possibility. It is my understanding that it was the cutter that caused a couple of manufacturers to be cautious and ban the use of the Agrus in their containers until the cutter issue was resolved. This is a chance for Argus owners to voice their thoughts about the possibility of a new cutter for their unit. Getting the cutters approved by the manufacturers will be a costly endeavor, so I am attempting to get an idea of the market interest, to see if this will be worth while. All feedback is welcome.

I have received a good amount of positive response privately about designing a cutter and having it approved by the container manufacturers. The good thing is that the pinched loop failure with a cylindrical cutter can be induced pretty consistently, so the new cutters can be put in the same configuration to see if the new design allows a clean separation of the loop every time. I think this is a worth while direction, I think there is something to he said for a part that is designed by someone who not only understands the significance of its operation, but will be putting it on their own back as well.

To my genuine surprise, I have been contacted by a couple of people asking if we had any cutters, or will be producing and selling cutters. We will be building and testing cutters in house during the R&D phase, and the production process will include X-Ray inspection, as Airtec, and our own manufacturer for our military cutters use, as part of their quality control process. We will be building cutters in house continually for internal use and continued testing of our AAD systems, so once we are happy with a cutter design, it is not out of the question that we could produce cutters for an end user if the numbers made sense. 100% reliability is a must first. Once we are happy with a cutter design, we will consider putting the cutter through the TS-112 v1.0 test protocol in cooperation with container manufacturers, to obtain approval for our cutter with their container configuration. However, we will have to balance the cost of such a process against the potential return, as with out an AAD to market, it will be difficult to justify the cost for each container test. We welcome requests and are open to talk about any potential applications that an approved cutter can benefit. I would like to have something to show at PIA, however we have a lot going on at the present, and the paperwork needs to be in place prior to any showing or demonstration. I am open to questions from everyone, however, again, I respectfully request that anyone associated with a manufacturer of any kind identify themselves accordingly.

Peter, I agree that it is the software and electronics that are most likely to fail. That said, if someone came into the market with a Class 3 medical device background, or specific areas of safety critical design in a mainstream regulated industry, or specific aspects of military design (not all military design is hi-reliability). Personal experience is that everyone is an expert UNTIL they have to actually do it. Then they discover all the tradeoffs and just how difficult it actually is. Both of the above posts make good points, and the quality systems that address those concerns, account for a large portion of the cost to produce an AAD. The best designed board can fall victim to a poor production process, and if the quality control and validation process is not up to the challenge, some of those low quality boards could make it to theater. There are advantages for designing an AAD now as apposed to 20 years ago, as, circuit board design is not as new as it was then, and, with the introduction of safety systems like airbag systems in cars, that level of hardware safety feature design, as well as the approach to safety system software design, are standard concepts that are used on all the time, and the production houses that are capable of that high level quality production and validation are plentiful. However, that level of quality and the extensive validation systems that each AAD has to, (should), go through is very time consuming, and that equates into cost, but that is the cost for a quality product. It would take at least 40 hours of validation testing for each unit prior to it being shipped, (that includes climate controlled vacuum chambers, vibratory cycles at different temperatures with altitude cycles, static discharge, RF, etc.), and that requires specialized test equipment and techs to over see the process, and that = cost that has to be carried by the product. If the new AAD can only capture 10% or less of the market, then that results in each AAD costing more to cover the costs of development and production. This is where I see, from a business stand point, there is not enough market potential to justify introducing an AAD to the Sport Market. Also, any military unit that involves a service member, either directly or indirectly, is required to be of the highest quality and reliability. If it is thought that making an AAD for the Sport Market is tuff, can you imagine designing one for the USA Military!? That has been our primary focus, only looking at if it would be profitable to reconfigure one of our military units for the Sport Market. Airtec has the majority of the Sport market solidly locked up to the point where it does not make sense to try to brake in. As for any cutter designs that we have for our military units, we would be open to talk with other AAD manufactures about a licensing deal, however I am not expecting to get any interest.

Why?? MONEY... “If” the market can support the return requirement, then all the drawbacks with dealing with the public are compensated for. It does however look like a licensing deal with another manufacturer would be a better business decision. There is another thread with a pole for the best AAD and that also supports my interpretation of the posts in this thread. So to answer your second question; No, I don’t think there is enough gain to for the pain.

This thread is open to all manufacturers to post information in, however, I do respectfully request that posters identify themselves and the manufacturer they represent or are promoting. ____________________ I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night about how to decide if it is worth the investment to introduce another widget to a market where there are already competing widgets. He fancies himself as a business guy and was all for me making the investment to compete the AAD market, (he is not a jumper, but does invest in other markets). Even after the liability aspect, small market, yada yada, he was still insistent that it was the right move, no risk, no gain, he said. Well that was until I said that he would obviously be interested in covering the majority of the investment, as, this was a "no brainier". Needless to say he quickly had an excuse why he couldn’t invest at this stage, and excused him self from the table. It is interesting to see the different attitudes regarding reoccurring maintance requirements, price point, etc, depending on a consumers perspective, or from an investment / manufacturer qualty control side. Also, like a previous poster said, the market always has an eye out for a bus to through you under. Regardless of weather or not I decide to “produce” an AAD for the Sport Market, I can always license the cutter to another manufacture if the design efforts show worth while results. I know of at least one off hand that needs a cutter…..