FS4 continuity plan

[RTB 0]

What are the pros and cons of the different continuity plans that the top teams use? I have been using basically the same as Majik does with all the memory in the front piece. I understand the logic of having a slot switch switch back if there are two slotswitching blocks in the dive.
What are the advantages of doing it the french way? Or the airspeed or the Golden Knights way?
Anyone with any insight?

René

[mjasantos 0]

Hi,

A continuity plan is no more than the team's strategy that will get the team ready to deal with any draw from the dive pool of formations.

This is achieved by setting up exit positions and individual tasks for building the random formations and performing the block moves.

The adequate continuity plan for a team will definitely depend on the team's preferences and each jumper's level of experience... that's why, in theory, we would have a different continuity plan, for each different team (because it's customized for each team).

Among the factors that will influence the continuity plan to choose, are the previous training in the different slots and experiences of the team members, the number of training jumps the team plans to have for their period of commitment, the period of commitment of the team members, body sizes and mental abilities of each team member, just to mention some.

The difficulties are mostly caused by the block moves. From the current 4-way IPC Dive Pool, we can find 4 different types of block moves, where some of them can fit into more than one category.

To help the visualization you can have a look in my web site, at http://www.mariosantos.com/uk_us/continuity.htm

The 4 different categories previously mentioned are:

1) Repeater blocks (blocks that bring everyone back to their original slots): 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22; this type doesn't cause dive engineering problems;

2) Mirror Image blocks (blocks that switch everyone to a mirror image of the original formation): 1, 5 and 17; these are not a serious problem if the team has learned to memorize them in the proper way;

3) Center switcher blocks (blocks that switch the 2 center positions with the 2 outside positions): 9 and 14; sometimes the teams deal with these by switching them back to the original inside positions during one of the transitions of formations that follows the block, or by starting these type of blocks with the centers facing outside (so they'll finish facing inside);

4) Non-repeater blocks (blocks that switch piece partners within each piece): 3, 10, 12, 13 and 16; these are the ones that demand the most serious brain work and where teams without a continuity plan will start to face problems to engineer the dives of a draw.

Most of the teams use the following piece partner system: the front piece (composed by the point and outside center) and the rear piece (composed by the inside center and tail).

The piece assigned to the non-repeater moves will have to memorize and perform a page of 10 or 12 points on a skydive.

The continuity plan to choose, should depend on the way each piece can handle non-repeater block moves.

Because the continuity plan is customized for each team, there should exist infinite solutions... anyway, there are three which are the most common, known as follows:

1) the front solution (when the team feels that the front piece performs best when it comes to non-repeaters, the front piece will be the only one to perform them);

2) the rear solution (when the team feels that the rear piece performs best when it comes to non-repeaters, the rear piece will be the only one to perform them);

3) the shared solution (used when both pieces perform strongly and at the same level when dealing with non-repeater blocks; then these blocks may be shared between the front and rear pieces, making the team more flexible and also guarantees the best and shortest random transitions).

Any of these solutions have advantages and disadvantages.

The main disadvantage of both the front and rear solutions is that all the brain work will fall within one of the pieces. The main advantage is, since the other piece won't deal with non-repeater blocks, both pieces will be very familiar with the way they'll perform those.

The main disadvantage of the shared solution is that, in theory, both pieces won't be as good performers as the one piece in charge of the complete cross-training. The main advantage is that the teams opting for this solution will have more flexibility on dive engineering.

Following the division mentioned previously, it should be:

1) For the front piece:

The B Slot of the Point (usually in his A Slot) is the Outside Center Slot;
The B Slot of the Outside Center (usually in his A Slot) is the Point Slot.

2) For the rear piece:

The B Slot of the Inside Center (usually in his A Slot) is the Tail Slot;
The B Slot of the Tail (usually in his A Slot) is the Inside Center Slot.

Conclusion:

There are many factors to be considered on choosing the continuity plan that will best suits to a certain team... with the training, that continuity plan will definitiely going to be adjusted (is not a static thing, but a dynamic plan).

The most the team has possibility to train, the more solutions the team will be able to test and to find which is the best for that group of individuals.

It's not right to say that "this continuity plan is better than that one", because one certain continuity plan may not work as good on another different team.

The world-class top teams are very flexible on the ways they have to perform each draw... it's common to see withinh certain of those teams, the point slot guy performing as a point on a certain page and as tail or inside center on the next one... they can do this, because they have a lot of training jumps, where those solutions are tested.

For the reamining teams, with limited resources, one of the 3 most common mentioned solutions on the way to deal with non-repeaters (front solution, back solution and shared solution), has more probabilities to help the teams achieving their goals... choosing one or another methods, depends from those factors and, most of all, should be a team's decision.

Hope have helped.

Blue Skies!

-----------------------------
Mario Santos
Portugal

[RTB 0]

Thanks for the answer,
With the shared solution do you mean that both front and back piece know the nonrepeating parts of the blocks? In that case it will be really time consuming to get there.
What I also wonder is why your team for example have the slot switch in blocks 13 and 16 in the rear piece instead of having them all in the front piece. Then if another nonrepeating block comes up in the dive it will switch back. Otherwise all 4 will be in their B slots, more confusing. I do like the idea of sharing the brainwork, that's why I am considering having a new plan.For a new team. I'm just not sure if it is worth changing from having all the nonrepeating blocks in the front to some other solution.

René

[mjasantos 0]

Not exactly...

By using the shared solution in my 4-way team I mean that the front piece will know the non-repeaters for the Blocks 3, 10 and 12 in both A and B slots (these blocks will be repeaters for the rear piece) and the rear piece will know the non-repeaters for the Blocks 13 and 16 in both A and B slots (these blocks will be repeaters for the front piece).

Let me give you an example. Imagine the following draw: A - G - 3 - P.

If this draw shows up, our team knows that the front piece (point and outside center) will have to swich slots page after page... on the 1st page the front piece will be doing the block on their A slots and on the next page the front piece will be doing it on their B slots... on the 3rd page, the front piece will be on their A slots again and so on... for the rear piece, this draw would be always a repeater sequence (always on their A slots).

Now imagine the following draw: D - K - B - 16.

If this draw shows up, our team knows that the rear piece (tail and inside center) will have to swich slots page after page... on the 1st page the rear piece will be doing the block on their A slots and on the next page the rear piece will be doing it on their B slots... on the 3rd page, the rear piece will be on their A slots again and so on... for the front piece, this draw would be always a repeater sequence (always on their A slots).

Of course, this is not like this all the times... sometimes is possible to make a transition which makes possible to avoid the slots switch... but if that is not possible, we'll apply this method.

Of course, when you have a draw you might have multiple combinations... if in a page you get randoms and one mirror block, page after page you'll have mirrored formations from the previous... but if within a page you get 2 mirror blocks, sequence after sequence you will have always the same relative positioning of team members.

The same for non-repeaters... using front or rear solution, if you get 2 non-repeater blocks, they will make that sequence after sequence you'll have the same relative positioning of team members... but if you use the shared solution, that may not happen...

Imagine this example and our team's continuity plan: H - 3 - 16.

If this draw comes, we know that page after page will happen a slot switch for both the front piece (caused by block 3) and the rear piece (caused by the block 16)...

If we get a draw like J - 10 - 3, we know the front piece and rear piece will be repeating similar pages throughout the dive, although the block 10 would be executed in front piece A slots and block 3 executed in front piece B slots... you can get similar example for the rear piece (for example, L - 16 - 13)...

This may sound complicated, but when we get used to our team's plan is not that difficult.

So, when choosing which solution best suits your team, you'll have always some sort of trade-off on something...

Hope have helped!

Blue Skies!
--------------------------------

-----------------------------
Mario Santos
Portugal