Guana 0 #26 February 27, 2010 Yes they were exceptional and I was glad to be part of them as well. Just hope I can be involved in more in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #27 March 1, 2010 Quote I am proposing a newer way of looking at formations 1) Plan a dive 2) Do it 3) Prove it It's not "newer", that was the old way of doing it. But no one would agree on the "prove it" part once you already did it. So today we're trying: 1> Come up with a standardized method to prove it. 2> Plan the dive around #1. 3> Do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,883 #28 March 1, 2010 QuoteQuote I am proposing a newer way of looking at formations 1) Plan a dive 2) Do it 3) Prove it It's not "newer", that was the old way of doing it. But no one would agree on the "prove it" part once you already did it. So today we're trying: 1> Come up with a standardized method to prove it. 2> Plan the dive around #1. 3> Do it. We are, but I think that is wrong because we shouldn't have to plan a skydive around an assessment method that constrains the kind of formation designs it can evaluate. It should be: 1. Come up with a standard way of evaluating any preplanned dive. 2. Plan a dive 3. Do it 4. Prove it using #1. Example - if I wanted to fly a 52 way that formed the Olympic Rings when seen from the ground, it couldn't be judged by the current method because the Olympic rings don't fit a square grid.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #29 March 1, 2010 Quote We are, but I think that is wrong because we shouldn't have to plan a skydive around an assessment method that constrains the kind of formation designs it can evaluate. I think that's pretty much what will come to play out over the next few years. One of two things can really happen: 1> We come up with a great super system that covers all types of wingsuit formation flying. 2> We end up with several systems, each one designed to cover one or more formation types. What I don't get is why it's such a big deal to have a system today we can use at the Flock and Dock three weeks from now. I don't think anyone is saying that this is the end all be all of formation judging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #30 March 1, 2010 Quote What I don't get is why it's such a big deal to have a system today we can use at the Flock and Dock three weeks from now. I don't think anyone is saying that this is the end all be all of formation judging. Changing things up inside the USPA is a bitch. Changing them at the international level is significantly more difficult. Playing around is what I do for a living. The hard part (for which I am paid) is organizing the results of the playing around. We need to play around with all the various methods, and should have been playing around with them this whole time. No one knew it was a race until the race was over. Fooled once, shame on you and all that. Einstein found his relativity theory by thinking of what light would do if beaming through a moving elevator in space at the speed of light. He wasn't thinking of relativity, he was playing "what-if?"? We need much more "what iffing" if we're going to find the answer to what will work, and being forced into a box so early on precludes and ignores the myriad (and so far, better) options that are available to us. "The Grid" was a stepping stone, one that we're already to move past, but by it's acceptance as a USPA standard and the political structure behind it, everyone and every sub-discipline of wingsuiting is hamstrung. We want to fly tight and want to develop other aspects, but the threat of being discluded from this or that event, or the threat of being stuck with an unimaginative system makes it difficult to have a rational discussion about any of it. And as a result of that, it's no wonder the USPA and the rest of the skydiving world view wingsuiters on the whole, as being immature brats. Between the wholesale lies, half-truths, and truth...it's kinda hard to see through the blur. So, you ask what is "wrong?" Nothing, if we're all able to recognize we need growth and advancement. Everything, if you believe we should be adhering to a standard that wasn't supposed to be anything but recognition in the first place, and not challenging enough for "records" in the second. I think everyone wants the discipline to grow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jasdcarter 0 #31 March 2, 2010 Is there a picture or video of that very nice jump you're talking about that Scott Calentine lead after the 68-way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fmmobley 0 #32 March 2, 2010 QuoteIs there a picture or video of that very nice jump you're talking about that Scott Calentine lead after the 68-way? I was on that jump and it was pretty amazing. I know Mark Harris did the video. He may still have something. I would love to have video of it too.... Marion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pms07 3 #33 March 3, 2010 QuoteQuote What I don't get is why it's such a big deal to have a system today we can use at the Flock and Dock three weeks from now. I don't think anyone is saying that this is the end all be all of formation judging. Changing things up inside the USPA is a bitch. Changing them at the international level is significantly more difficult. Playing around is what I do for a living. The hard part (for which I am paid) is organizing the results of the playing around. We need to play around with all the various methods, and should have been playing around with them this whole time. No one knew it was a race until the race was over. Fooled once, shame on you and all that. Einstein found his relativity theory by thinking of what light would do if beaming through a moving elevator in space at the speed of light. He wasn't thinking of relativity, he was playing "what-if?"? We need much more "what iffing" if we're going to find the answer to what will work, and being forced into a box so early on precludes and ignores the myriad (and so far, better) options that are available to us. "The Grid" was a stepping stone, one that we're already to move past, but by it's acceptance as a USPA standard and the political structure behind it, everyone and every sub-discipline of wingsuiting is hamstrung. We want to fly tight and want to develop other aspects, but the threat of being discluded from this or that event, or the threat of being stuck with an unimaginative system makes it difficult to have a rational discussion about any of it. And as a result of that, it's no wonder the USPA and the rest of the skydiving world view wingsuiters on the whole, as being immature brats. Between the wholesale lies, half-truths, and truth...it's kinda hard to see through the blur. So, you ask what is "wrong?" Nothing, if we're all able to recognize we need growth and advancement. Everything, if you believe we should be adhering to a standard that wasn't supposed to be anything but recognition in the first place, and not challenging enough for "records" in the second. I think everyone wants the discipline to grow. DSE, I think all agree we need growth and advancement but you seem a bit frustrated with how wingsuit issues have evolved with USPA. But let me offer some encouragement. First, let me say thanks for the work you and others have done with USPA on behalf of the wingsuit community. Although it’s been challenging, we are moving forward because of those efforts. Now, I’ll admit I don't know much about the race you mention, wholesale lies nor Einstein, but I know changing things inside the USPA is actually kind of simple. Think about it; all you really have to do is convince 11 skydivers you have a good proposal. That's it! A motion is proposed at a board meeting and 11 skydivers (BoD members of course...) support the proposal by raising their hand and saying "aye" at the appropriate time. In fact, change is almost constant in USPA. Competition, judging and records have been around since the sport began and the rules are still evolving. Even changes were made to disciplines that have been around for decades at the most recent USPA and FAI meetings. So, I don’t think we are forced into any box or are hamstrung. We can fly "tight" formations, 3-D, grips or try any dive we can imagine…and nothing the USPA has done limits rational discussion. I also don’t understand why anything that’s been accomplished would preclude an event from being organized, say using the Kallend or Jarno method of judging we’ve heard about. I have no experience with those proposals yet but would like to be there to learn, wherever the event takes place. Perhaps it’s not perfect but we currently have a proven method for judging 2-D ungripped formations. Prior to July last year we had nothing “official” but now there are two US national and at least 5 or 6 state records. And the most recent changes to judging standards at the BoD meeting seem to address vocal concerns with the grid. All that looks like progress to me. It also appears we have support from USPA BoD members for continuing to move forward and other judging methods will be considered. At least that’s what I hear from board members I’ve had an opportunity to talk with recently. Thanks again for all your work on behalf the wingsuit community. Pat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jasdcarter 0 #34 March 3, 2010 I was luckly enough to join in also, too bad we didn't get any kind of de-brief on it. I know that everyone was busy at the time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #35 March 3, 2010 Quote Changing things up inside the USPA is a bitch. Changing them at the international level is significantly more difficult. Anything you implement is going to change. Wingsuiting as a discipline has barely begun and the stuff we're doing today is going to look like a joke in 10 years. Technology will also be a game changer at some point. We're using camera and eyeballing it to judge right now, how long til every wingsuiter is flying with a $10 GPS? How is that going to impact records when we can plug exact hard data into a computer and run the geometry? But all anyone has to do is put up their own better system the community can peer review and test. So why hasn't that happened? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #36 March 3, 2010 QuoteWingsuiting as a discipline has barely begun and the stuff we're doing today is going to look like a joke in 10 years. We're in our infancy ... if we want to see what lies ahead of us, all we have to do is look behind us."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fmmobley 0 #37 March 3, 2010 Quote I was luckly enough to join in also, too bad we didn't get any kind of de-brief on it. I know that everyone was busy at the time Maybe you missed it but we did get a debrief and viewed the video. As you said, there was a lot going on with Steve's accident, and you must have missed out on that.... Marion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #38 March 3, 2010 Quote But all anyone has to do is put up their own better system the community can peer review and test. So why hasn't that happened? Mark, Other photos and "dummy formations" have been used to suss out the viability of other systems. They are superior, IMO; several USPA board members thought so to.... The systems are up for peer review if you merely look. But with everyone looking in one direction, there is a lot happening in the background. The process of what it should have been will hopefully begin anew. I don't suggest I have a better answer. I thought i did, until I saw what Kallend, Jarno, Andreea, and Zach put up as alternatives. Anyone can see that they're superior alternatives, and certainly require the skills that *most* would deem record-worthy. And yes, technology will play into this. And it's already accounted for in one of the methods that has been proposed. The best wingsuiting resource in the world is, well....the wingsuiting world/community. You know the best way to discover a GREAT idea, right? Start out with lots of good ones.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,883 #39 March 4, 2010 Quote But all anyone has to do is put up their own better system the community can peer review and test. So why hasn't that happened? At least two serious alternatives HAVE been put up for discussion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pms07 3 #40 March 5, 2010 QuoteQuote But all anyone has to do is put up their own better system the community can peer review and test. So why hasn't that happened? At least two serious alternatives HAVE been put up for discussion. John, I appreciate the effort you have put into an alternative..thanks! Discussion is good but I think, perhaps, what some are waiting for is to see the alternatives put into use at a live, real world event. Pat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites