df8m1

Yes, it will, many videos of that on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXq39D8ACTA . That video is interesting in that the cutter does not have the plastic tube in it that crushes up on the loop before the cutter cuts the loop. Attached is a pic, (it is the best I can get with my camera skills) that shows the plastic tube squeezing out of the cutter after it was fired. When the cutters in the video were fired the blade could clearly be seen after which is not the case for Cypres cutters in the field, at least all the ones I have seen fired, and that goes for pre and post water proof versions. On page 47 of the Cypres-2 users guide it states "The reserve container closing loop must be under tension, caused by the pilot chute spring, of at least 10 pounds (approx. 5 kg)." I am breaking my "no pictures of a competitor's product" rule because i think there is a difference between the cutter in the video and the ones in the field. It is my belief that this is the reason for the minimum loop tension requirement and why we were seeing a slight but noticeable hesitation that was eliminated when we switched to a stronger "reserve" pilot chute which had a much stronger spring. Just food for thought..

See the attached for some other examples. Jerry Baumchen PS) This is just something that I have cut & pasted for future reference. PPS) Oopsie, had the wrong attachment; this one has a number of entries. Jerry, Is my understanding correct that the container manufacturers are really only approving the cutter and not the AAD as a whole? Don't they do their cutter fire tests and make a judgment as to if the cutter being tested for compatibility interferes with the TSOed operation of the reserve? Strong Enterprises is the only exception that I am aware of, as I know they actually drop tested tandem vigils and the first bunch went in. As I recall Vigil said the cutter AF speck was too high and the firing circuit was not able to fire them. Vigil resolved the issue. Does anyone know if any other container manufacturer actually tests the ability of an AAD that is applying for approval, to fire as advertised?

I would rather not comment on "existing" competitor's products. I take exception to Argus as they have exited the market without addressing the well established cutter issue. I do not recall any Argus AAD malfunction problems, and some are still being used. I will say that I would be pleased if all the AADs went to single edge blades in their cutters. Lee brings up some good points regarding the potential trend for "hobby" AAD engineers playing with AADs and causing some potential catastrophic results, and with that regulation that the end user will ultimately have to pay for. Not to say that some standards would not necessarily be a bad thing, but most regulations are written by people who do not know, or understand anything about what they are regulating and are usually emotionally motivated... Not a good combination... I think that the liability has a self regulating effect as if a manufacturer puts out a bad product, it will cost them in court. To the OP... Of all the AADs that are currently available to play with... Why the hell would you use an Astra??? couldn't find anything older or more out of date?? lol (that was sarcasm)... That explains you asking about up grading components.. My first thought is to hack an Argus, or cypress perhaps which would be a better platform IMO.. My second thought is you mention that you are a programmer, and if you have enough hardware background to be "up grading" out dated components on someone else's platform, then as Lee mentioned, why not just make your own AAD? I am curious as to what you are trying to do? Are you trying to do something better than Airtec and Vigil are doing? Again keep in mind that the AAD that you have chosen to use was designed and built decades ago. Don't get me wrong, if all you intend to do is dummy drops with it, and you have a static line safety so the container can not open until the static line pin has been removed, then have at it, just be careful, dropping something from a plane is not as easy as one would think. You don't want the dummy going through a roof of a house or a car, or on a road, etc... Additionally, as Lee pointed out, one's ability to author good code does not an AAD logic expert make lol.. It all comes down to what you are trying to do I guess. I started the "open source AAD" thread because I was tired of hearing from all the coders out there saying how easy it would be to build a better AAD lol... Need less to say it did not go anywhere :) I have two professional and well seasoned programmers, one works with the operating system and firing code, and the other handles the mass data transfer, storage, and analytics. The systems programmer has experience with autonomous vehicles and missile guidance systems and he said that our AAD firing algorithms are more complex than anything he has worked on. Failure modes will keep you up at night lol... What ifs will give you nightmares.. Does FXC no longer support the Astra? Can you not get cutters for it?

Do we know that the voltages for self-test are the same for different cutters? -Mark As a "budding manufacturer" lol... I think I might be able to provide some information on this subject. Disclosure: My team and I are developing an advanced AAD for military and sport applications. I can only speak for my company's philosophies on design, functionality, and standards. Also forgive any spelling or grammar as I am in my mom's hospital room trying to be distracted from the reality of the moment. OK... Lets start with AADs and a TSO. Unlike aircraft auto pilot computers and the like, there is no TSO that "directly" relates to a skydiving AAD. I stress "directly" as if one was to consider an AAD as a flight computer, then there are some design and manufacturing standards what could be applied, but to be clear, as of today, there is no correlation between any aviation electronics and an AAD. If an AAD were to be TSOed in a manner consistent with aircraft flight computers, there would be component qualification requirements, redundancy requirements, software qualifications and requirements etc.. that would most likely triple if not quad droopel the cost of an AAD. Personally, I am in favor of some kind of AAD standard, but in regards to performance assurance rather than hardware/software design, but that is a different topic from the OP's question.. A Cutter's NO-FIRE (hence forth NF), and ALL-FIRE (hence forth AF), power specs: All of the pyro cartridge initiators used for parachute loop cutters use a bridge wire to initiate ignition of the propellant. There are many different bridge wire resistance and AF/NF power combinations, such as the standard 1.2 to 1.8 ohm, 1A/1W NF bridge wires that usually have 3W AF ratings. AADs do not have enough battery to last 4+ years and fire a 1A/1W NF at end of life and lower temperatures. Some special purpose cartridges have bridge wire resistances bellow 1 ohm and AF currents bellow 200mA. The cartridge will not fire at or bellow the NF speck and they will fire at or above the AF speck. However it is possible for the initiator to fire between the NF and AF current ranges. Although AAD manufactures tend to keep their specks secret (and I will respect that as I know want some of them are so no names), the ones I am aware of have bridge wire resistance between 1.2 and 1.8 ohms off the top of my head that has had very little sleep in the past 36 hours lol. One may be .8 Ohms. NF currents range from 100mA to around 180mA/200mA and AF currents from 500mA to 800mA. In addition to the NF current speck, our hardware design has a NF safety so to speak that provides an additional level of protection against unintended firing. The NF speck is relates to how sensitive the cartridge is to RF, Static, etc.. The AF speck relates to how much battery power is needed to fire the cartridge. Each AAD has a cutter detect method that checks the circuit from the AAD, through the cutter, and back to the AAD. This check usually passes a slight amount of current through the cutter to check the circuit continuity. All of the AADs that I am aware of have only one firing circuit and simply tie two cutters together. The potential problem with doing that is if one cutter of the pair is damaged, or even cut off, the presence of the other cutter will result in a test pass. Or, if the circuit was designed for one cutter, using two cutters from a different AAD could burn the firing circuit out. As a comparison, our AAD design has two separate cutter circuits, which when used with a single cutter, are tied together creating some what of a redundancy (except they both use the same power source) and with a dual cutter configuration, each cutter has it's own firing circuit and cutter detection so if one cutter is damaged, it will detect that and fail the self test. I would not expect any combination of AADs and AAD cutters to result in a cutter fire during the self test, but when one mix matching parts, anything can happen. Blade design: Everyone knows that Airtec uses a single edge blade cutter, were as Vigil uses a cylindrical blade, as did Argus until they went out of business because their cutters failed to cleanly cut the loop. M2 had a unique piston type cylindrical blade (hard to describe) but at PIA I believe that I heard M2 switched to a single edge blade like Airtec. We are also using a single edge blade in our cutters. The material that AAD closing loops are made out of is very difficult to cut, and in addition, the metal grommets can drop down into the saddle that is created when a hole is drilled perpendicular to a radioused surface, which can result in the grommet contacting a circular blade. A single edge blade has proven to be the best so far at cutting reserve closing loop material IMO. Mix and Match: I can only assume that the OP has an Argus and is thinking about using an available cutter instead of the Argus cutter. If that is the case (regardless of the AAD/cutter combination) keep in mind why one puts an AAD in their container. Now think about the AAD firing circuit design specks, and cutter cartridge specks that one does not have. Just because an AAD will fire a cutter from a different manufacturer in a test chamber, it does not mean it will do that when the batteries are at the end of their life and/or are cold. In reality, the firing circuit design and cartridge design go hand in hand to create the greatest chance of successful operation when called upon in worst case conditions. Without truly knowing the design specks of both the cutter and AAD, one can not know where that specific combination of parts falls in the tolerance range. It may be way over in the "over kill" side, but it can just as easily be in the "barley operational in ideal conditions" side. In regards to a rigger packing a "home built" AAD/cutter combo in someone else's rig... If your rigger says "sure no problem".. find another rigger.. just my opinion... Over All Cutter Design: Although I believe over 25 years of performance has proven that a singe edge blade loop cutter is better than a circular blade loop cutter, the over all cutter design differences have plusses and minuses associated with them respectively.. Most if not all AAD manufactures have a minimum closing loop tension speck, meaning they require a minimum amount of tension to assist the cutter in severing and releasing the loop. I have witnessed this effect first hand when we were testing the main deployment system on a spring loaded main rig we use for AAD testing. We use two AAD closing loops, one going through the cutter and regular rip cord, and the other one is a safety that has a ripcord that is mounted on the left hand side. The safety prevents the main from opening if the AAD were to fire un expectedly during a test. Safety is a must.... When we used a standard main spring loaded pilot chute, we noticed a hesitation after firing the cutter (no named), so we switched to a newer reserve pilot chute (which had a more powerful spring) it popped as it should when the cutter was fired. IMO, a cutter should not require any loop tension under any circumstances, in order to cleanly separate the loop. Design Evolution: As was pointed out, there have been many changes to cutter designs over the years, some relating to the pyro cartridges and some to the cutting portion. Also there are different materials used for cutter bodies and blades, as well as hardness levels. Even Blade piston diameters vary as do piston seals that are used. I really caution anyone who is thinking about using parts for an AAD that are not authorized by the OEM.

True... My interest was in regards to if Wingsuit Pilots saw any benefit to having their AAD be able to fire at the lower speed in the event of a cut away (RSL or not). A canopy collision or any other reason to cut away would "potentially" put the jumper in free fall and they may not reach the "Expert" firing speed because of the suit. Granted it is low in probability, but from a design perspective it is interesting. Just as there is a balance between capability and complexity, there is an equal balance between simplicity and reliability / predictability.. Its all good. Thanks for answering my question

Than is what I thought, thank you... It also says it is possible for it to switch to canopy mode in the plane...

First, full disclosure, I am working on an AAD that has a thread in the Gear and Rigging section and have a genuine question about the Wingsiut Cypres. So as I understand it, the Wingsuit Cypres has a slower vertical descent rate threshold so it will be more compatible with Wingsuit flight conditions, both normal, and not lets say lol.. Then after main deployment it switches into Canopy mode and alerts the jumper of the switch. I assume it goes back to a higher speed vertical descent rate threshold so it doesn't fire under canopy. I was thinking about Wingsuit scenarios and how my AAD would handle them, and one made me think of what would the Wingsuit Cypres do in the following scenario; A Wingsuit pilot exits the plane, flies their pattern, and deploys successfully above the firing altitude, all is well and good... But what if it was a brutally hard opening that caused canopy damage? Damage that allowed the canopy to fly fairly well on its own, perhaps with a slow turn, or cell damage, broken lines etc.. the point being that as far as the Wingsuit Cypres thinks, all is well and it switches into canopy mode, (presumably with a higher decent rate threshold). So the pilot decides to cut away, does so, but for what ever reason, cannot find the reserve or cannot pull it and goes into free fall. I am wondering, if, sense at this point in the jump, the Wingsuit Cypres is canopy mode, but, the jumper is still wearing a wing suit in a varied state of configuration, what firing speed is the Wingsuit Cypres currently set to and will the jumper be able to reach that speed? My question is, if the Wingsuit Cypres needs a separate mode for Wingsuit flight and Canopy Flight, then I have to assume that the firing speeds are different. What happens if a wingsuit pilot goes back into free fall after presumably good main canopy deployment and mode change alert?

Not all containers use the CYPRES pouch. UPT for one uses a Vigil pouch and it is not the same dimensions. MarS also makes pouches. While your design does not seen to be larger than existing ones in overall size, it is larger in the worst possible way, width. This could become an issue in some smaller rigs. Sticking out the end a little should not be too much problem. But being so wide that it fills the available space could make it vulnerable to physical damage when Joe cool small rig skydiver drops it on the packing mat. The Black Box is less than ¼ inch wider than the Cypres 1 (.200 inches wider to be exact) The dimensions of the box are the result of many revisions in an effort to maximize operational capability and keep the size to a minimum. As the saying goes, “it is what it is”.. lol.. This is one area where I am ok with it possibly not being compatible with a certain percentile of containers, but I think it will be fine as long as they do not have to shoe horn the reserve in there because they want the smallest rig. The box is made from 2024 aluminum so it is pretty darn tough, but that is not to say it is indestructible. Jerry doesn’t like the corners, he wanted them more rounded, and I do not disagree that that would be nicer, but they are necessary and serve the function of allowing area for the battery cap screws to thread into, and it gives me more usable room in the ECM cavity. It is the batteries that are controlling the width. There are three ER18505M cells in there side by side. If we have to have our own pouch then that is not the end of the world. To the point that some cutter piping and elastics are a PIA to change, I backed off of the cutter design that I really would prefer, but I do not have any room to move on the black box. This is a Military AAD, designed to withstand the requirements of the military, now that is not to say that someone some where has so little respect for their live saving equipment that they will drag it across the tarmac and throw it to the ground as hard as they can. That is the kind of thing that we are looking for in the Beta testing lol. Your concern is valid, but do you think that a difference of just over 3/16 of an inch are going to make that much of a difference? And our box is tuff aluminum, not plastic. But to your point, the new wingsuit rigs did look thin…. Small steps.. Skydiverek, The blade in our cutter is made from 440C Stainless Steel hardened to 56-58 Rc. The body is made from annealed 17-4 Stainless Steel. We also are using quad ring seals instead of O-Rings as they seal better under pressure than an O-Ring. They offer the performance of an O-Ring and a Lip Seal, where the seal quality increases as the pressure goes up.

I will reply in order of posts. Jerry, That is a thought… I spent some time playing with different ways to get the flats I want while maintaining the max diameter comparable to the other cutters and I think this is one battle that I can not win lol… Skydiverek, When we were testing the deployment set up on the test rig we used an Argus cutter that I got when I picked up an Argus to look at. It did not cut the loop clean. The reason I went with a single edge blade is after 20+ years, it has proven to work the best with the material that is used for reserve closing loops. Deimain, My mantra is better living through modification lol… If I don’t like how something is, I take it apart and modify it. The flats are addressing my personal concerns, not an identified problem, and based on the feed back (which I am grateful for), and my responsibility to my investors, I will yield my position and fall back to a traditional and compatible design. I made a quick mock up and took a pic of it amongst the other cutters. I found a Vigil cutter so I added it to the line up. One of the attached pics is the cutters, the top is a Argus cutter, the second is my first concept with flats, the third is the new mock up that is comparable to the traditional cutter design, the fourth is an Airtec cutter and the fifth is a Vigil cutter. My new mock up cutter body diameter is the same as the largest diameter on all the other cutters. They all have a diameter of .345 +- .005 inches at some point along the length of the body. The entire length of the new body is .345 inches in diameter. I reduced the loophole diameter to .150 inches, which is consistent with the Airtec cutter. A smaller hole reduces the ability of a grommet to lock into the hole. I also have attached some pics of the control box next to a Cypres 1. It is a little wider than a Cypres 1, about the same length as a Vigil II and about half the height of a Cypres 1. I have a shorter antenna coming and I think I am going to bring the connectors in closer to the body. This is as compact as I could get it and still have the battery capacity and board space needed to do the job. It does fit in a Cypres pouch but it sticks out just a touch. MXK, My connector is an M-8 so it is bigger than a Vigil connector so that is one more reason to fall back to a more traditional and more importantly, proven design.

May I ask, how do you get around the Airtec cutter patent? But it has been a while so is it still in force? I haven't tried to read up on the issue but as skydivers we always were used to the Airtec single blade while 'everyone else ended up using a circular cutter'. Thanks for the pic!! All the early Airtec patents have expired. Even M2 has abandoned their version of a cylindrical blade in favor of a single edge V-blade. Although there are single edge blades used in commercially produced cutters, most use a cylindrical blade. They mostly are cutting wires or other material that sheers well. The problem is the material that is used for AAD closing loops does not sheer well at all. I decided to control the cylinder and blade assembly in house and have the pyro cartridge made by a commercial cutter company. The cutter is very special to our application and so much depends on it working properly that I do not want to risk outsourcing it. I had mentioned turning down the diameter of the head that makes up the corners in an effort to see if it would pass through the elastic, but I really want to maintain as much of the flat face as possible. I think feeding it through backwards will be the way it will have to be installed. But as I said, lets modify it and see what we get. I will post a pic after I get it cut down.

Attached are two pics. The cutter on the top is an Argus cutter, the center one is my initial concept cutter, and the bottom one is Airtec's. Gowlerk and MXK, The cutter design has no relation to the AAD operational functions; it is strictly what I would like to see in a cutter. I will put it back on the lathe and turn down the corners a bit more and see what it looks like. The reason for the flat on top is that, 1, it is easy to machine a nice radius around the hole, and 2, I do not like how a hole through a cylinder creates a saddle of sorts that a grommet can be pushed down into and wedging the loop against the cutter body. I imagine that the flat also will tend to keep the cutter’s projected loophole centerline parallel with the closing loop if that makes any sense lol… This cutter has a larger loop hole than the Airtec cutter as well as a larger blade piston (single edge V). I need some wall thickness at the end for a blade locating pin that will keep the blade in place until the cutter is fired. An alternative practice to locate the blade is to pinch it by compressing dimples into the sides of the cutter body and I do not like that idea. There is no way to test the amount of pinch. I like a shear pin much better. I will take some off of the corners and see what that looks like, The main stem diameter is the same as the Airtec brass section so that is not problem, it is the corners that cause an issue. One work around would be to feed the cable through the elastic and piping connector first. There could be some kind of pointed cap that screws on the connector and a pull up cord could be pushed through the piping with a gun cleaner and then the connector pulled through?.. Noting is set in stone and if I can retain the features I want and improve compatibility with existing containers then that is a no brainier.. And if Airtec or anyone else for that matter wants our secret recipe we are open to selling it. This has all been funded by private investment and if it makes business sense to sell out to the competition, the so be it. The US government wants to own the next generation of AADs that are fielded so if we win the Static Line AAD contract, we will be selling them rights to the design as well. Same goes for the free fall AAD, the Gov wants to be able to control the quality and get competitive bids on building them.. How that will work out in the end is anyone’s guess but that is the plan. There is no doubt that the others are looking at how they can implement what we are doing, and that is a win for everyone really. There are some aspects that they cannot do with the hardware they currently have. And depending on how they determine the actual altitude of the jumper in free fall, it might be more of an effort than they really want to put into a design that is in realty close to the end of its run IMO. I am not sure if it is ok to attach the power point presentations to this thread or not. I imagine this is walking a fine line between advertising and a technical discussion as it is lol…

Several people asked me if I was going to keep posting in this thread because they really have enjoyed the quality of the discussion, which is a complement to everyone. I was very pleased with the feedback we received at PIA regarding the AADs we are working on. We are departing from the limitations of the 20 + year old designs that have had every drop of performance squeezed out of them. Every AAD manufacturer sent someone, (sometimes more than once lol) over to look at what we have, and some actually asked questions lol… It will be interesting to see if any of them start to adopt some of the operational features that the AADvance AAD is based on. There are some platform limitations that they have which limit what they can do, so at some point, they will need to design a new platform in order to offer most of the functionality that the AADvance AAD will. We put on two seminars, one on the SLAAD the Static Line AAD, and the other was on the AADvance AAD, which is the free fall AAD. There were problems with the scheduling that were beyond our control and I thank Travis for making the rescheduling arrangements as quickly as possible. In the end both seminars took place, and although a speaker I am not, I was told that I was able to get the information across to the audience, and I truly hope that no one left with an incorrect understanding because of how I presented the information. If anyone has any questions or would like me to clarify anything they heard, please do not hesitate to ask. We are about two months behind the schedule that I set because I looked at the designs and said to myself, this is nice, but I think it can be simpler, so I started over…. After the second design was done, there were improvements to the original design in some areas, and I went off into the weeds in others, so I took the best of the first and second designs, which is now the third design. Designing a system like this is a very challenging process. The “what if this happens?” thoughts will keep you up at night lol… This process can not be rushed, and I am glad I have the freedom to say, “ya know… lets see what this would look like if we did …” , yes it delays the product release, but when it is released, we can say that we took the time and explored every reasonable possibility, not to say that it will be the “perfect AAD”, as anyone who has build anything knows, there is always room for improvement lol.. Our new target schedule is to get the Beta units out to the test jumpers this summer and depending on how things go, a soft release could happen around a year from now. My immediate focus is on getting the ECU assembly to the programmers so they can start testing, then I can get back to working on the cutter. I do have something that I would like to ask the readers…. Although I have been trying to keep the design as compatible with the 25 year old AAD box and cutter retainer elastics, as well as the Interface window, I do not limit the design to them. The first thing that Todd (our rigger) said when he saw the head of the cutter body is “that wont fit through a cutter elastic”… and I said then change the elastic.. lol.. During the AADvance seminar a rigging question was asked and Todd answered that at one time no container was set up for an AAD and that the pockets and windows had to be installed by a master rigger. The AADvance AAD is designed to perform in all the flight modes from exit to landing on every jump. If in order to benefit from that level of performance, an elastic pocket or loop needs to be changed, then I think that is a small one time incontinence that at an earlier time was just the way it was if you wanted an AAD in your rig. I know I tend to come off arrogant when I say that, and I am curious as to what every else thinks about it. We will work with the container manufactures on any changes that “may” be required, but I am trying to keep that possibility to a minimum. I just do not think that the advancement of new technology should be dictated by the carryovers of the old. Thoughts?

Unfortunately I can't say In this sport the lesser of two evils often comes into play. Something to keep in mind our original focus was strictly on Military AAD Applications and requirements. I was “talked into” a Sport AAD at the last PIA lol. A major requirement for new military AADs is that they will not fire in the aircraft. Not to long ago there was a C-130 full of jumpers in theater (meaning they were on a real mission), and shortly after take off every AAD on board fired. The ability to identify the situation the AAD is in, is key to allowing it to confidently be a “stand alone unit”, meaning it does not have any additional or external components that either interact with the jumper, or are referenced by the AAD. It is a difference in design philosophy I would say. It would most certainly be easer and cheaper to build a standard AAD, but the military requirements have surpassed what a standard AAD can deliver. Our efforts have been focused on tailoring the AAD technology we have been working on for 10 years, to applications that can benefit from it. Applications such as Military Static Line AADs, Military Enhanced AADs, Wingsuit AADs, High Performance Canopy AADs, which all demand performance that is beyond the traditional AAD, that still to this day operate very well in the performance envelope that they were designed to operate in. It is when the jumper pushes beyond the limits of that envelope that problems start to become evident, and that is the area where our design philosophy is based.

You are correct that a pilot under normal circumstances would need to be mindful of the aircraft descent rate because standard AADs could fire bellow their hard deck. That being said, Turbine aircraft can climb to the arming altitude very quickly and an engine out shortly after take off happens now and then. Depending on the aircraft engine configuration, the pilot may very well have their hands full feathering props, and adjusting for the loss of an engine on one side. If this happens just above the arming altitude and the aircraft is difficult to get control of, it is very possible that the plane could exceed the firing descent rate. Some DZs allow the doors of their super otters to remain open on take off, and if some poor jumper in the back has an AAD fire as the plane dives due to a pilots recovery process, then that could make a bad situation worse. Is it a huge problem.. no… is it worth addressing if it is within the capability of an advanced AAD, IMO yes.. Is the auto braking and lane departure alert capability in new cars necessary, IMO no, but there are instances where that could make the difference so I can see why they have taken advantage of the technology and implemented those features. Technology is constantly evolving, I think AADs should too where appropriate.. That it an excellent Question: The answer is a solid NO. In this scenario, YES, if the jumper hit the tail, they would have exited the aircraft, and an Exit would have been Confirmed. If the jumper did not slow their descent rate, the AAD would fire at the appropriate altitude.

MXK First let me say that I am not and will never say that this AAD will be "better" than any other AAD, they all have to meet the same high standards. What I will say is that this AAD will be compatible with all flight modes, from wingsuit to swooping, without sacrificing performance on one end for another. I will meet you half way and say that it will be better suited for the extreme disciplines. The SL testing is strictly for our Militay Static Line AAD. One might think that C-130 or UH-1 static line exits would be consistent, but in reality, the only consistent thing about a military exit is at some during the jump, the jumper has to fall out the door lol…. I mean no disrespect to Paratroopers, have you seen how much stuff they are carrying?? It is impressive.. The SL tests do validate our exit detection and malfunction detection ability, which was the reason for the mention. Software: An AAD is really not a good application for machine learning IMO due every jump is different. There are some sliding scales that do vary some values depending on other values, but all the decision-making is programmed in. The algorithms define condition constraints and look at 10 channels of data in real time for those conditions. That is the simple explanation… Your scenario of a mid air collision (I’m assuming aircraft to aircraft) would not generate the conditions consistent with what our algorithms are looking for that would qualify as an exit, but getting yanked from the door by a deploying canopy would. Have we recorded data of those two events? NNNOOO lol, but I can and have generated artificial data to find the range limits of algorithms. I can create just about any situation with some effort.. This AAD is actually made of two main components, one being the Black Box (flight data recorder) and the second part being a traditional AAD that uses altitude and descent rate. The Black Box commands, confirms, or denies a fire condition. Even though the AAD does not need to be told what type of jump is taking place via selecting a MODE using the interface, such as Wingsuit Mode, it will have modes that can be selected. If a wingsuiter puts the AAD into Wingsuit Mode, it will work just like if it were in Normal Mode, but, since the AAD knows that the jumper is flying a wingsuit, if the Black Box should shut down mid flight in response to a problem, then the AAD will become the master and finish out the flight based on a more traditional speed vrs altitude decision tree, but tailored for a wingsuit. There are fault detection processes constantly running that look for communication errors or bad values, and fault codes are set and stored. Should a fault be detected mid flight, depending on the nature of the fault, the program will either disregard that channel during the remainder of the flight, or revert command to the AAD portion which has it’s own pressure transducer. Should a fault be set mid flight, once on the ground, the AAD will shut down. When the user turns it back on, they will be notified of the fault and the AAD will shut down. The Failure Mode side of this process is intense for sure. And will no doubt be an ongoing process.

I only have a moment so I have time to address this one lol.. The others I will address later tonight. We have an appointment with a Pitts when we have the new platform up and running. We are going to put in the nose and let the pilot go to town. We will have a cutter simulator that lights up when the AAD fires and a Go-Pro focused on it in the nose as well. The pilot will be exceeding the firing descent rate well bellow firing altitude. Exit identification is a tricky thing, I totally understand questioning that ability. More to come tonight..

I will address the comments starting with mxk I will be videoing both of them and will be putting them on my website even if PIA does not. You are not alone in your thinking. I have had conversations with engineers who, short of me providing them with the source code and algorithm legacy, will forever be leery, if not straight up challenging as to the capability of a black box doing what is clamed and performance testing has shown to work. And that is OK. Unfortunately to satisfy this perspective, the level of disclosure would be beyond what I can provide. We are protecting our algorithms as Trade Secrets and as such, disclosure at any level that could undermine the IP security is prohibited. This is a frustrating part of all this because I really would like to explain in great detail how all the algorithms work, I am very proud of them! It truly is amazing to work with the simulation version and run jump data through it. Watching it come to conclusions is really cool. Please know that although I am a creator, I am also responsible for the business aspects of this technology, which is being considered by the US Government, and potentially other companies who what to have this kind of capability. If I can not careful, I could very easily let a key philosophical aspect get out that could allow a competitor to be one step closer to doing the same. Case in point, Jan 3rd Army Research will be testing our Military Static Line AAD at YPG, along with 3 others from competing companies. I will really try my best to answer questions as thoroughly as possible, but there will be some simple questions that I will not be allowed to answer to anyone’s satisfaction. Please do not hesitate to ask anything. uer16, The normally question I get is how will it tell the difference between a wingsuit in flight and a jumper under canopy lol… In an attempt to “carefully” answer your question about sit flying in an airplane… There is a major difference between descending in an aircraft and sit-flying, and that difference is an exit. The first task any electronic AAD has to do is identify if it is on the ground or climbing to altitude, then it looks for the arming altitude, the checks the descent rate against altitude. Our Advanced AAD identifies that is is climbing to altitude as well, and it does look for an arming altitude, but it does not arm until the jumper exits the plane. Without an exit, the AAD is passive. Unlike other Static Line AADs that use a RF signal as a Virtual Static line, or use a physical static line to identify when a jumper has exited, our Static Line AAD is completely stand alone and does not use any other external device in order for it to determine when a jumper has exited. Our Static Line AAD min exit altitude is 525Ft AGL, and in a total malfunction scenario, will fire the reserve 4 seconds after exit. In this application timely identification of the actual point of exit is critical. The free fall AADs exit identification timing will be more relaxed lol… Regarding design standards: Our process is consistent with DO-254 for hardware and DO-178B for Software. Software is not one of my areas of strength, I have learned a lot about it through this process and I can decipher code to an extent if I have to, but I leave that aspect to my software engineer, to whom I will inquire about MISRA. The last thing I want to do is try to pretend I am more knowledgeable in an area than I am. In regards to Flight Mode Modeling and Algorithm design process… We have been working on AAD algorithms for 10 years on and off , maturing, morphing, and creating new ones on a per project basis so we have quite pool to draw from. My basic process is to take data recorded from a known flight, identify what I want the device to do and when. Identify the algorithm(s) that best fit the sequence(s), and rerun the previously recorded data through them and check the result. I have a pool of “Gold Standard” data that we use for QA every time we make a change, be it a logic change or a conditional setting. I really do enjoy that aspect of this process. It can be very frustrating and satisfying, and sometimes both at the same time lol.. Also keep in mind that the US Military is currently vetting our Static Line AAD and we will be putting our Military Free Fall AAD up to their tests as well when it is ready. They have put our Gen-I SLAAD through component reviews, Environmental testing, and Drop testing. The AAD fires into a data recorder so they have an independent record of exactly when it fired. They also have a complex visual positioning system that will provide additional reference to the location of the drop at any given point in time. If our AAD does not identify the exit and fire or not fire in time, they are going to know it. Bob Church: The funny thing is Reusable and Reliable are very closely related. I do not know if it is still available, but there was a hot wire AAD for a while. I believe it was a one-time use kind of thing. The problem is the nature of the application and the volume of production. Another aspect to consider is the legal defense aspect, which is also part of this application.

I thought I would update this thread as it has been a while… My focus has been on the platform design and build and I have a bad habit of taking a step back and thinking, “this is nice, but it could be a simpler” , which is what happened and facilitated 2 design revisions.. well one total revision, and a partial regression lol.. My goal was to have airworthy units by Jan 1, but the reworking set that schedule back, I am hoping to have units by PIA. I am not thrilled about the delay, but I am glad I explored the different possibilities, and took the best of them all where I could. I really do not like designing to a schedule as time dictates when the design is done, as apposed to the design being done when it is right. As if the new platform work and PIA preparations were not enough, we are going to Yuma to test our Military Static Line AAD right after the first of the year. This is going to be an exciting new year.. I have applied for 2 seminars at PIA, one on the Military Static Line AAD and the other one on advanced AADs which will be about the Sport and Military free fall AAD that we will be introducing. These AADs are the Next Generation of AADs which will be situationally aware, and able to identify and complement the flight mode of the jumper regardless of whether they are at terminal, flying a wingsuit, swooping, or any combination there of, and without compromising functionality on one end of the jump for another. The AAD will also be able to determine if the jumper is descending at a high rate while still in a plane or if the jumper has exited the plane. This capability is what will prevent the AAD from firing in a plane, regardless of the descent rate or altitude. I am very curious as to how our operational philosophy is received. I have been test jumping our guni-pig when I can and I am very pleased with its capabilities so far. I welcome all comments, friend or foe

Thank you for your support!! I think an AAD should be functional in every phase of a jump, not just in one phase because it can not handle another. I also think that we as a manufacturer need to be confident enough in the our AADs ability to correctly identify the flight mode that the jumper is in, that we do not need an audible indicator to inform the jumper that the AAD failed to correctly identify a change in flight mode. Of course it is easy to talk about reaching a high level of performance confidence.... Just food for thought... We are working on the Beta designs now for both the Static Line and Sport AADs. Once those are build and tested in house, we will be sending them to a few jumpers in all the disciplines to collect data that we will use to test our algorithms in simulation. Once the algorithms check out, we will upload them on the Beta units and have them jumped in a passive configuration. Then, after we have enough passive jumps logged, we will rig them live. This will be an exciting process!! I have set some bold objectives to meet and at very high standards.

I am going to a CRW boogie in Hastings MI this weekend to collect some data and talk to some jumpers so I can see if there is anything that we can do to address their special needs. Sounds like taking a downplane low is the most challenging aspect, but until I get some feedback and data I can't say for sure.

I'm sure this is one that you probably can't answer yet, but do you have an idea of what price point it'll be coming in at? And the life of the unit? Apologies if these are things already asked somewhere in this thread. As of now, the target price is projected to be in the $1200 USD range, but that is subject to change given where we are now as you mentioned. At the very least it will be close to if not a touch higher than a Cypres, but given the advanced technology and capability, the value proposition is much better even at a higher price point. We also will be employing a different maintenance process that will increase user confidence while minimizing the inconvenience of having to go without an AAD while it is in for service. There is no since in sending in a unit that is working just fine. As far as lifespan of this unit… The only component that has somewhat of a hard live span is the cutter cartridge, and the manufacturer sets that. The issue is not that an older cartridge will not fire; it is that they can only speck the firing reaction time within a window of time, as the older it gets, the slower the reaction time is. Keep in mind we are talking milliseconds here, but a speck is a speck. The AAD is a modular design, meaning that if we found that after 15 or 20 years, an instrument’s drift was beyond the correction capability, we could basically swap out one of the mother boards at a lesser cost than a brand new unit. The mechanicals will be good for ever, so the only issues are the solder joints, traces cracking for heating and cooling over the years, and instrument drift / over all accuracy, and we can monitor for that as time goes on. If, for example, one of the data busses has a cracked trace that causes intermittent loss of communication, it might very well pass the self test, but have issues up top, and if that happens, a fault code will be displayed and stored in memory, and we will see that fault code. I can defiantly see offering jumpers something to send us their unit during the down season, so we can inspect it to see how the construction and boards are doing in different environments around the world. The goal is to always stay ahead of any issues and be as proactive as possible. Our philosophy is defiantly not “set it and forget it” and we will never say that we have “created the perfect AAD”. We encourage that the jumper be heads up about their gear on every jump, not just during the first jump gear check in the morning. Jumpers should check every aspect of their gear before every jump, and that includes checking that which ever AAD they are using is on and functioning properly. We are putting a tremendous amount of thought into how we can maximize the value of our AAD. The advanced performance, heads up maintenance, and possible life extension through serviceability all add to the value of every dollar the user spends on this unit. Current AADs have hit a wall with their technology and they are forced to compromise functionality on one end to cover the other. Our technology will not have that problem because with the hardware in place, it is just a matter of a software adjustment. Current AADs just do not have the hardware to perform at our level. Sorry for rambling on when you asked such straightforward question. We want to be different in that we are accessible, and are willing to tell you what we are thinking when it comes to price and lifespan.. I could have answered in two sentences, but were is the fun in that lol… Does that answer your question? If not let me know and I will try to remain focused lol, if you or anyone else has any questions regarding anything, if I can answer then I will try my best.

My target goal is to be in Beta by this fall / winter. I have had some custom component samples made that need to be tested before I will order quantities needed for a production run, and to get the best price on some of these parts, the lead time is quite long, which dictates some of the timing. Many of the algorithms we will be using for the Sport AAD, are being used for the military AAD, so the bulk of the logic has been in testing for some time which puts us a little ahead of the game. Once I have a couple of prototypes built, things will start to progress faster. I am just trying to be conservative with my timing estimates. The bottom line is, the AAD will determine when it is ready; quality dictates the release date, as apposed to the release date dictating the quality. We would like to be taking orders at PIA for summer of 2017 and based on where we are now, I do not foresee any reason why we can not meat that target at the quality level we require. I welcome questions that anyone may have.

Good Catch!...Get it? lol I must have subconsciously not wanted to say a bad word on this here internet lol.. this is a family forum you know At least I know that someone is following this lol...

Hi everyone, Sorry for being away for so long. We have been focused on a Static Line AAD with a min exit altitude of 525ft AGL, amongst other requirements. We just completed a contract and will be getting to the free fall AAD this summer. AAD housings are in the process of being made as I type. To address the Modes question; Yes it will have modes, if for no other reason than marketing, but there are some advantages with using discipline specific modes, just not in the general way most people think. For an AAD to be worth anything for a Wingsuiter, it must be able to tell the difference between suit flight, unstable suit flight, and canopy flight. The easiest way to address the descent rate problem when switching from suit flight to canopy flight is to have the AAD turn off once a good canopy is detected, which should happen several thousand feet above the ground. The problem with turning off once under the main canopy is there is still a lot of opportunity to get into trouble where an AAD “might” be beneficial. I have no idea what Airtec is doing to handle the descent rate difference, but I have seen many wing suiters swoop the pond, so going from a wingsuiter to a swooper in the same jump is just something that any new AAD must be able to do…Oh and not have the firing descent rate so high that it is useless under a ball of carp. Situational Awareness is the foundation to our approach. Our algorithms can tell if a jumper is flying a wingsuit, is under canopy (even swooping), or is not constructively participating in their stability during free fall. The use of modes can help us optimize performance for a specific discipline, while allowing proper functionality should the conditions that the jumper is in stray from the primary “mode” discipline, such as swoop the pond at end of the day. We are very excited by how well and adaptable our technology has performed in testing, and we are looking forward to contacting the jumpers that have volunteered to help with discipline specific testing.

The cost of development of that canopy from napkin sketch to production product needs to be paid back as well. Then there is the legal defense costs that are part of the business. I would love to sit down with some of the major manufacturers in the USA and ask them what their annual legal fees to defend themselves when some one goes in or is hurt. The bottom line is the market will dictate the highest price that something will sell for. I like the philosophy of higher margins and lower volume. It is very possible that when you add up the original development investment, legal, and overhead, $2500 may not be a bad deal. I know what I have to pay back from the AAD project and it is going to take a few years to do even with modest sales. Every one in the financial chain wants a piece, sometimes the pie just is not big enough and a business goes under.