Forums: Skydiving Disciplines: Freeflying:
HUGE Freefly news

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

SimonBones  (D 28573)

Feb 19, 2012, 2:28 PM
Post #1 of 43 (6210 views)
Shortcut
HUGE Freefly news Can't Post

The USPA just approved OFFICIAL state and national sitfly formation records at the Board of Directors meeting. Steve Vogdes gave the presentation to the board and it was approved.

Plans for the first ever US National Sitfly Formation Record are in the works. More details to come.


Squeak  (E 1313)

Feb 20, 2012, 1:39 AM
Post #2 of 43 (6073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds good,
Didnt Amy Chemasexy already kick that arse last year in Eloy?


dqpacker  (D 32043)

Feb 20, 2012, 5:44 AM
Post #3 of 43 (6044 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

let's do something soon for the TX state record. that one jump we did that 6way no grip exit that built to 5 pretty quick. we could even go as far as getting oxygen and go higher for the attempts. we have the talent in the staff pool and the fun jumpers that we could try 12 or bigger no prob.


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Feb 20, 2012, 7:59 AM
Post #4 of 43 (6017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sounds good,
Didnt Amy Chemasexy already kick that arse last year in Eloy?

Large Sitfly formations have been done here and there for fun, but at no point was it an official category for USPA state/national record keeping. Any previous claim to a sitfly formation record could only be unofficial and arguable. There weren't any official judges to validate the record against uniform guidelines.

There's a picture up in the Bent Prop of a large sitfly round Amy organized some time ago that would probably have counted towards something at the time, but it's tough to try and claim it afterward for a few reasons.

1) The new sitfly national records are still subject to the rules of other national records in that it must be judged and certified within 90 days of completing the formation.

2) The formation is supposed to be submitted to the judge for proposal before the formation is attempted showing who is in what slot with what grips. Some judges have been lax on this rule and there are some sneaky ways people have gotten around this (ie videoing the dirt dive and/or drawn formation prior to the jump when the judge was not immediately available).

The new sitfly records also come standard with 3 classes at both state and national level:
1) General
2) Womens
3) Collegiate

I'm going to be spending some time getting copes of the new revised reporting forms and working on the first National record attempt event for mid-late August on the east coast a few weeks after the new head down world record.


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Feb 20, 2012, 1:22 PM
Post #5 of 43 (5962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Sounds good,
Didnt Amy Chemasexy already kick that arse last year in Eloy?

Large Sitfly formations have been done here and there for fun, but at no point was it an official category for USPA state/national record keeping. Any previous claim to a sitfly formation record could only be unofficial and arguable. There weren't any official judges to validate the record against uniform guidelines.

There's a picture up in the Bent Prop of a large sitfly round Amy organized some time ago that would probably have counted towards something at the time, but it's tough to try and claim it afterward for a few reasons.

1) The new sitfly national records are still subject to the rules of other national records in that it must be judged and certified within 90 days of completing the formation.

2) The formation is supposed to be submitted to the judge for proposal before the formation is attempted showing who is in what slot with what grips. Some judges have been lax on this rule and there are some sneaky ways people have gotten around this (ie videoing the dirt dive and/or drawn formation prior to the jump when the judge was not immediately available).

The new sitfly records also come standard with 3 classes at both state and national level:
1) General
2) Womens
3) Collegiate

I'm going to be spending some time getting copes of the new revised reporting forms and working on the first National record attempt event for mid-late August on the east coast a few weeks after the new head down world record.

Awesome.


stayhigh  (F 111)

Feb 20, 2012, 7:48 PM
Post #6 of 43 (5896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

it is not gonna one of those, building a belly round and sitting it out right????

people should have freedom to choose the orientation to approach the formation but need to build the formation from sit.


ebusto  (C 38493)

Feb 20, 2012, 10:27 PM
Post #7 of 43 (5874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stayhigh] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed, that would be a lot more fun.


dqpacker  (D 32043)

Feb 21, 2012, 7:13 AM
Post #8 of 43 (5835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

any word if there will be a record for biggest sit round?


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Feb 21, 2012, 8:55 AM
Post #9 of 43 (5814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stayhigh] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

The new record reporting category is titled "Freeflying/Vertical Formation Skydiving, Largest Upright Formation" and will be judged by the same guidelines held in those to respective sections of SCM. What that means is that judging doesn't care how you build the formation, so long as you obtain a judgeable snapshot of the formation built all in the defined "upright" position. In other words, building the sit formation starting from the belly would be legal and it does not matter if it is a round or some fancy formation.

The ruling judges have not yet clarified whether the formation can include both "grips" and "foot grips" as defined, still waiting on that one.

Now it's not really my place to tell any of you guys how you should build your new state record formations, that's a judges job, but I can give you my predictions on what will probably happen.

In previous events when we've messed around with experimental upright formations, we've had exit and approach rules. But there was no real record to be had, so it was all in fun. Some required launching a sit base, and some (not naming names) went as far as ALL (purity) sitfly, ie exit/dive/approach all in sit and then turn/track all feet first. Now THAT is a lot harder and the ultimate goal was simply personal challenge. There aren't many who can be last diver to a formation, get to it purely feet first, close a pod on your feet, then track off feet first. But it's possible and has been done. Should we go that far to require that of our sit records?

Sure, in the beginning, I know people will be building belly rounds, flipping a sit, getting your defined snapshot and calling it your new record. Some won't like it but now that a real record is on the line and it's legal, I guarantee you people will do it. But for how long?

There comes a point when doing that isn't feasible anymore. Sure you could belly->sit a round with 10 people, 15, 20...? But what about 30? 50? 80? At some point there is just no way doing a belly->sit flip will work anymore. That's when we will eventually separate the kids from the adults.

So I'm not worried about it. I think it's much cooler to make it more challenging and build it purely vertical, and eventually that will be the only option anymore. I think when the new SCM gets released, you'll see a wave of initial records being set of people doing belly->sit rounds, once that wave is over, the REAL action will begin. Hell if it were my world, I'd ban HD flying on sit records!

Feet first flight for the future, fantastic!


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 21, 2012, 1:01 PM
Post #10 of 43 (5780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

 
What is the "defined 'upright' position"?


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Feb 21, 2012, 1:22 PM
Post #11 of 43 (5774 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What is the "defined 'upright' position"?

Defined by USPA:

C. Orientation:
1. “Relative wind” is defined as the direction from which the air appears to be coming due to the relative speed of the competitors in freefall.
2. “Head down” orientation consists of the competitor’s head having advanced further into the relative wind than the competitor’s feet by a significant amount, i.e., the length of the competitor’s torso; all distances and lengths are in terms of what is shown on the judging screen.
3. “Upright” orientation consists of the competitor’s head trailing behind the (average) position of the competitor’s feet by more than the length of the competitor’s torso; all distances and lengths are in terms of what is shown on the judging screen.

2011 SCM 9-1.10:C

The 2012 update will be released earliest May which will include the USPA winter BOD changes.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 21, 2012, 4:18 PM
Post #12 of 43 (5748 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
What is the "defined 'upright' position"?

Defined by USPA:

C. Orientation:
1. “Relative wind” is defined as the direction from which the air appears to be coming due to the relative speed of the competitors in freefall.
2. “Head down” orientation consists of the competitor’s head having advanced further into the relative wind than the competitor’s feet by a significant amount, i.e., the length of the competitor’s torso; all distances and lengths are in terms of what is shown on the judging screen.
3. “Upright” orientation consists of the competitor’s head trailing behind the (average) position of the competitor’s feet by more than the length of the competitor’s torso; all distances and lengths are in terms of what is shown on the judging screen.

2011 SCM 9-1.10:C

The 2012 update will be released earliest May which will include the USPA winter BOD changes.

So it could include "knee flying"? I've seen video of Airspeed doing a 10-way sequential while knee flying.


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Feb 21, 2012, 11:16 PM
Post #13 of 43 (5703 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

Ultimately that is up to the judges, but I would think yes. Modern VFS has incorporated lots of knee flying, daffy flying, full/partial stand flying while upright. Quite a few of the Airspeed crew are actually extremely talented freeflyers. Some are record holders in various head down formations and medalists in VFS. I certainly wouldn't put it past them, though wearing booties can make knee flying a lot easier Wink


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Feb 24, 2012, 4:09 PM
Post #14 of 43 (5526 views)
Shortcut
Re: HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

It's official, attempts at the first major Sitfly Formation National Record are scheduled for:

August 24-26th
Skydive Crosskeys, NJ.

Contacts:
Stephen Vogdes (sedgov@yahoo.com)
Dan Ortiz (dano@ck1freefly.com)
Myself (Simon Bones) contact info linked below


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 26, 2012, 6:58 PM
Post #15 of 43 (5373 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

Glad they've finally done this! Now we see how hard it is to get a big head up record. HD is 108 right? I'd think that upright would take a while to get there.


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Mar 4, 2012, 5:14 PM
Post #16 of 43 (5228 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

The first ever sitfly formation state record has officially been set at Skydive Spaceland in Texas, now recognized as official home of the best sitfliers in the state. Picture is attached below.

We launched a 4 way base and had three stingers to make a 7 way. Record was built after two official attempts. Joe Getty was the photographer and Henry Butler was the certifying judge.

There was absolutely NO head down flying on this jump.

So which state will be the second to set their first state record? I hear Ohio is planning something soon.

I'm stoked that we got this going as a starting point to what I predict will be a lot more head up bigways in the future. This is a first stepping stone for much much more to come. I'd love to see this formation size beaten, and soon, but who will do it? We're formulating plans to break our own record within the next month and set the bar even higher. Maybe Skydive Dallas can do it? I heard none of those flailing monkeys even know how to sitfly Tongue

Skydive Crosskeys is reserving two turbine planes for the first US National Sitfly Formation record in August. I hope everyone starts practicing your head up exits and head up level slot dockings now!


(This post was edited by SimonBones on Mar 4, 2012, 5:14 PM)
Attachments: Sit Record.jpg (196 KB)


stayhigh  (F 111)

Mar 4, 2012, 9:13 PM
Post #17 of 43 (5200 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

Headdown approach should be allowed.
Even the big way belly jumps starts out as a head down and they still count.

Approach on head and transition and sting on your feet would result in bigger formation I believe.

still very interesting big way formation.

break off on bigger way sit would bring some head ache tho.
do you front flip into head and than break off??? or do you turn 180 in a sit than front flip to had than break off???

I predict nothing bigger than 60 way for a long long time.


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Mar 4, 2012, 10:13 PM
Post #18 of 43 (5196 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stayhigh] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

For a national attempt head down flying would definitely be allowed. There's nothing in the rule book that says you can't and when it boils down to a record being on the line, your job is to get to your slot as fast as you can however you can. SOME people out there don't need to approach on their heads however. I have definitely seen people on their feet pass up head downers in a dive to a formation and beat others to slots. Vertical is vertical, upright is harder, but some have those skills.

It's just fun to talk shit.

The break off thing has been the hot topic of some debates lately. There are different schools of thought as to what is best, pros and cons to each.

Some are in the camp of front loop to head and perform a normal HD bigway breakoff.
PROS: Properly clears airspace and generally results in most efficient horizontal separation from the formation.
CONS: Requires asking people to do a HD transition right next to the formation while pods are breaking up, dytters are going off, etc and the consequences for mucking up that transition even a little are pretty nasty.

Some are in the turn 180 and flock out on your feet camp.
PROS: Properly clears airspace for initial breakoff, less severe consequences for performing a little sloppy.
CONS: Feet first tracking is pretty blind in terms of what you're tracking into so eventually you'll have to transition to a head first track anyway. Doesn't achieve initial horizontal separation as efficiently.

We've been playing with both all weekend, I don't think there's really a clear winner. Some people are not rock solid with your HD transitions in tight traffic while under pressure. Some people are not very good at flocking feet first. The answer may come down to having people do whichever one they're better at (and they will take some practice on smaller ways). I can't see why both can't be out there on a jump, any configuration I can think of allows for each orientation to have clear visibility of others breaking off with a different method.

It would be really interesting to hear some other opinions, experiences, etc for the best way to break off from a sit bigway. I feel like we've debated all the scenarios and combinations, but it's hard to know what you haven't thought of.


stayhigh  (F 111)

Mar 5, 2012, 5:11 AM
Post #19 of 43 (5174 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

Has anyone thought of backsliding to begin with and do front flip into Head and get flatten out???


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Mar 5, 2012, 7:23 AM
Post #20 of 43 (5163 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stayhigh] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

We talked about it, but it doesn't clear the airspace behind you as you start sliding out. Let's say you were a first or second stinger on the base in a 5 way closed pod, there is a bridge connecting pods as well as stingers on your pod. Trying to backslide out here as a standard breakoff procedure would just run you into other people. You'd have a few dozen people around a formation just backsliding out radially without looking where they're going and a collision is going to happen.

Once the collision happens, one or more in that collision cork and the photographer above who is shooting the formation has several bullets coming at him. Don't want to be in those shoes.

At a minimum people would have to clear the airspace both above and behind (radially outward) before going anywhere.

The breakoff logistics for doing bigways head up is going to be a tricky pickle. It will probably be the most determining factor as to who has sufficient skills to participate, since it starts putting lives at risk. We'll be faced with a pretty hairy choice. Do we simply require that anyone doing large head up formations be a bad ass head down flyer so we can ensure safe break offs? Do we mandate that everyone has to be able to flock feet first like a rockstar? Both?


dqpacker  (D 32043)

Mar 5, 2012, 6:01 PM
Post #21 of 43 (5118 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

I for one, will be practicing flocking feet first like a mortherfucking rockstar!


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Mar 6, 2012, 9:06 AM
Post #22 of 43 (5060 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dqpacker] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

Feet first break off seems like a really bad idea to me, you're going exactly to the space you can't see. How is that safe? How about a simple and slow 180 in place, clear airspace all around (including looking up) and then belly track away? I've done a couple of front loops to back tracks from (small) formations and, while they're a lot of fun, the control factor is going to be an issue. Clearly I'm not the greatest skydiver in the world so I know that others are better at this stuff than me but that doesn't make anyone immune from mistakes.


78RATS  (D 25449)

Mar 6, 2012, 3:45 PM
Post #23 of 43 (5024 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

you said belly ahhahahahaha
Cool


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Mar 6, 2012, 4:28 PM
Post #24 of 43 (5020 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

Like I said above, feet first tracking can leave you pretty blind in the direction you're tracking, but as far as initial separation from the formation goes, you can turn 180, clear the air above and radially outward, then flock to achieve that initial separation from the formation. Too many commas I know. For that first initial separation you're moving into an airspace you've cleared. After the initial separation from the formation feet first, call it 30-40 feet or so, then you could continue on in a more visible head first tracking position whether that be on your back or ::gasp:: belly. I've done this on mixed orientation formations as big as mid 30's and it seemed to work just fine. But then again, we haven't really explored having dozens of people all on their feet doing this simultaneously.


stayhigh  (F 111)

Mar 6, 2012, 7:13 PM
Post #25 of 43 (5007 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] HUGE Freefly news [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Sit to Head backflip and flock than track
2. Sit to Head front flip and flock than track.

Those two seems most easiest and logical.

turn 180 feet first than what??? do the twisty thing and go forward on your head?? than sounds way more chaotic, and most will find feet first very ineffective and transition to head while in that awkward forward motion will be difficult.

A lot of people now days are proficient with backflip or front flip to head from sit, thanks to tunnel.


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving Disciplines : Freeflying

 


Search for (options)