USPA BOD meeting

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for bringing this photo up Matt. This is a photo of a nine way diamond that we completed at Flock and Dock in March 2007. At the time, I don't believe that a more perfect nine way diamond had been completed. I think that this photo looks great and should pass the record test. Can anyone confirm that it does or does not pass?

I don't know exactly how the new criteria works, but assuming it requires a photo from directly above, you can't test the photo in question using that criteria.

Which, along with spherical distortion, is another flaw that will NEVER go away from any grid-type solution. There is no way to center yourself perfectly as a photographer, and no way for the photo viewer to verify precisely where it was taken from.

I agree that camera position is a difficult one, but lens distortion is quite quantifiable and therefore correctable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I know the summerfest one does not for sure and that was the cleanest one out there

it dosen't??

The 2nd black line was added at the 27%, and what I confirmed my measurements of jeff on...(head to foot - not tail wing)

25way2 is to confirm my scaling
25way3 is the successful grid placement.

So while it worked really well with the 25% (less sliding), on the arguable best formation to date, we still see that it does work (albeit more sliding) at 27%.

I was thinking the same thing, Phil. Mark's picture of the Summerfest jump sure looks to me like it fits the tightened criterion.

UNFORTUNATELY the revised rules still require all record-eligible formations to be designed to fit a square lattice (those diamonds are, of course, square). This is a quite unnecessary restriction on formation design.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Buried 0]

so i guess it does.. i was wanting closer to 30% since it was positive that doesn't work with any of them and yes, this was the nicest old record that we agreed to work with.
Besides it's barely if you look at using a higher res pic. I guess you just pointed out a fault of the system. The green grid is the new one. Measurements are 1.647 and .45ish for the spacing.

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[kallend 1,623]

I'm unclear exactly how the new "grid" is to work.

Does it still have the double (inner and outer) box?

What is the "27%" 27% of? The box edge or box diagonal? If a double box, is it 27% of the inner or outer box?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Birdman_Mike 0]

I have a couple of questions concerning the new 27% grid rule. I understand that this topic is politically sensitive, and I do not wish to offend anyone. I appreciate the time and effort that several people have put into the various measurement systems. I make this post purely from a neutral, mathematical perspective:

1. What criteria were used to come up with 27%?
2. Why use the base for scaling rather than the tallest person, or perhaps the median height?

For question number two, consider the Lodi sixteen way diamond from May, 2008. Many of the people at Lodi are very tall. In fact, six feet is probably short at Lodi. I am 5’ 9’’ (176 cm) and flew base on this formation. I am curious to see if this formation fits the new 27% grid rule. If not, then does it fit the 27% grid rule using the tallest person for scaling purposes? What if the median height is used? Unfortunately, I do not have a photo of this formation.

The Lodi sixteen way shows a dramatic case where several of the flyers are significantly taller than the base. However, using the tallest person or the median height on the Summerfest 25 way or the Elsinore 68 way may also be enlightening. These alternatives depend on the heights of all flyers in the formation rather than one particular flyer.

Thanks,

Purple Mike

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I do not wish to offend anyone.

What kind of attitude is that for a skydiver?

Quote

I appreciate the time and effort that several people have put into the various measurement systems. I make this post purely from a neutral, mathematical perspective:

1. What criteria were used to come up with 27%?
2. Why use the base for scaling rather than the tallest person, or perhaps the median height?


Thanks,

Purple Mike

Excellent questions. Presumably someone must have made the proposal, it didn't materialize out of thin air.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Taz 0]

Good questions.

I put a little bit of the rationale behind the two rule changes in my presentation to the USPA Comp Committee, which is still online here.

There were two substantive and clear criticisms of the judging system the way we were using it.

1. The margin of error is too high
2. The grid has unlimited scalability

For #1, this was a simple change of putting into the rulebook what we had tried to practice during our 6 months of implementation; having every flier 100% within their assigned flying space (grid square). The previous rule allowed a flier to have only a part of their body inside the space, which led to a very messy "worst case scenario".

For #2, we needed to find a way to put a constraint on the ratio of the flier to the grid square. This problem is mostly found in small formations; i.e. you could have a 4-way where the people were tiny dots in relatively huge grid squares.

Height is being used because it is easily measurable (vs. area). Height is defined as "from head to foot". The percentage is of a corner-to-corner measurement of the allowable flying space (the grid is composed of overlapping squares, each of which comprises an allowable flying space).

My original proposal was to use 25% as a constraint, which fit the largest record formation (68-way) and was originally suggested by a wingsuit jumper in Georgia. The 27% arose in a negotiation/conversation between Zach Schroedel (Buried), Andreea Olea (SuperGirl), Phil Peggs (Peggs82), and me at the USPA meeting. It tightens up the worst case scenario even more. It is still based on formations we have accomplished in the last year, but also encourages us to get even better.

We use the base for scaling because the base sets the correct altitude for the formation. So far, no judging system can account for vertical movement within a formation. A person other than the base could, technically, be high or low on the formation, skewing the perspective of their height from the camera's point of view.

Does this mean that it would be beneficial to get a relatively tall person as base vs. a relatively short person? Sure. It's not a perfect system. But hopefully we will keep getting inspired to develop better ways of doing things.

Blue Skies, -T

It's the Year of the Dragon.

[Taz 0]

Quote

UNFORTUNATELY the revised rules still require all record-eligible formations to be designed to fit a square lattice (those diamonds are, of course, square). This is a quite unnecessary restriction on formation design.

This is part of a bigger question that I'm wrestling with: What elements of an unlinked formation need to be held constant so that we can compare different formations under the same record category? One reason for the "lattice restriction" is that it holds the tolerance/margin of error constant on a percentage basis for all formations. If we "squish" the grid, it reduces the margin of error in allowable flying area, thus changing one of the parameters.

It's the Year of the Dragon.

[pms07 3]

T,

Thanks for all your hard work, along with Andreea, Phil, Zach, Scott, Scotty B, Spot, or any others I may have missed that were at the the USPA BoD meeting to work wingsuit issues. All this is progress and those of us on the sidelines will benefit from your effort.

In addition to improving how we judge wingsuit records, the approved changes indicate a couple of things worth noting. First, we continue grow and learn as a skydiving discipline. Second, we, and the USPA, can adapt as we learn. Third, the USPA continues to support wingsuiting as the discipline evolves and is willing to adopt new rules. All that is worth noting IMO.

I'm looking forward to the dives as we apply the evolving standard to what we can do in the sky! Thanks again for all your hard work moving the wingsuit discipline forward!

Pat

[Zeemax 0]

Quote

I understand that this topic is politically sensitive, and I do not wish to offend anyone.

This to me says everything. We as a community should not afraid of offending anyone, just because we question the methods being dictated.

Phoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE
Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies