raymod2

Hi, Daniel. The error message "could not detect pattern entry" means that gSwoop could not detect a point in the GPS track that is above 2500 feet. If you see this error it usually means that you did not get a good GPS track. Did you turn on the GPS at least 30 seconds before boarding the plane? By the way, if you processed the GPS file from the command line it will leave a kml file in the current directory when it encounters an error like this. You can look at the kml file in Google Earth to see if the swoop was captured by the GPS. You can also send me your CSV file and I can take a look.

I really hesitate to say "the lower canopy always has the right of way". The vast majority of canopy collisions occur when the higher canopy fails to see the lower canopy. In that case "right of way" has no meaning other than assigning blame after the collision.

Have the dates for the 3rd Annual Sunpath Open been determined yet? And why isn't this thread a sticky?

One of the metrics that canopy pilots have been using to evaluate their swoops is the time it takes to transition from vertical flight to horizontal flight (the rollout phase). This can be measured with a video camera but there are advantages to using GPS: 1) ease of use - A video camera requires you to use a stopwatch or to manually step through frames. Your GPS can measure the rollout automatically. 2) accuracy - Determining the start and end of the rollout is not as trivial as it might seem. Using a camera you would typically wait until the canopy is on final heading before starting the stopwatch. But the rollout sometimes starts before that. With GPS you can look at vertical deceleration to more reliably detect the start of the rollout. 3) repeatability - Using a camera there are several sources of human error when measuring the rollout time. With GPS you can use a well defined algorithm that makes comparisons more meaningful. Starting with gSwoop 2.10 (released yesterday) there have been improvements to the algorithm used to detect the start and end of the rollout. The start is defined as the point where vertical speed begins to monotonically decrease (which occurs near the time of your final snap). The end is defined as 1 meter above where level flight is achieved. The 1 meter offset is necessary to isolate the rollout from the slightly sinking phase that can go on for quite some time even after successfully scoring the entry gate. It is a somewhat arbitrary offset but when applied consistently it is possible to make meaningful comparisons between swoops. Here is an example from my first round of speed at Nationals this year: exited airplane: 6396 ft AGL initiated turn: 1600 ft AGL, 810 ft back, -382 ft offset max vertical speed: 383 ft AGL, 264 ft back, 192 ft offset (96.3 mph) started rollout: 315 ft AGL, 270 ft back, 179 ft offset (91.7 mph) finished rollout: 13 ft AGL, 40 ft back, 23 ft offset max total speed: 723 ft AGL, 297 ft back, 116 ft offset (100.4 mph) max horizontal speed: 30 ft AGL, 101 ft back, 44 ft offset (80.2 mph) degrees of rotation: 652 deg (right-hand) time to execute turn: 13.90 sec time during rollout: 3.35 sec time aloft during swoop: 7.65 sec entry gate speed: 73.7 mph distance to stop: 270 ft touchdown estimate: 270 ft (2.0 mph) speed carve time: 2.56 sec (47.8 mph) During this run I started my rollout at 315 feet AGL and it took 3.35 seconds to complete. I was 270 feet behind the gate at the start of the rollout (324 feet away when you consider the offset) and 40 feet back at the finish. You can see a video of this run here (thanks to Keith Creedy for the footage): https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ecqp7ywqqa9ve2d/AAAxrlUUavJIN7mw6udaC4tKa/Speed%20Round%201/Speed_Rd_1_Shot16_kc.mp4?dl=0

You can generally get a good idea how "clean" your GPS data is by looking at the flight path plots and the dive speeds plot. There should not be a lot of missing samples and they should look fairly smooth with the rollout finishing at ground level. Any discontinuities, particularly in the dive speeds plot, should be regarded with suspicion. There is also a plot of GPS accuracy that you can look at. It shows the number of satellites, horizontal position accuracy, vertical position accuracy, and speed accuracy during the dive and swoop. The accuracy figures are just estimates provided by the GPS and are not reliable indications of error. However, lower values are associated with better data. I usually see horz/vert position accuracy of around 2 feet and speed accuracy of around 0.5 mph. The number of satellites varies between jumps but I have seen it as high as 14.

gSwoop 2.09 has been uploaded to the website. This is a minor update and includes improvements to the File Chooser Dialog: - directory icons are fixed and directories are placed at the top of listings - Recent bookmark is fixed - Downloads bookmark is fixed on OSX - default location is the directory of the last file opened

It's the same question asked time and again. Does one man have the right to force his opinions regarding personal safety on another? 1) seat belts in cars 2) helmets on motorcycles 3) vaccines 4) AADs For every one of these topics there are arguments for and against. For every one of these topics people have strong opinions one way or another and believe their position is the right one. For every one of these topics there is a majority and minority opinion (and history proves the majority opinion is not always correct). Personal safety and risk assessment is a complex and individual topic. People have different strengths and weaknesses and they are exposed to different dangers. Those who are most successful in avoiding injury and death are those who identify those dangers and weaknesses and address them accordingly. People also have limited resources. They must choose where to allocate those resources. Purchasing an AAD will deplete resources that might be better spent elsewhere such as a bicycle helmet, new tires, or a safer car. What bothers me most about the "mandate AADs" discussion is the fact that skydivers are generally people who take full responsibility for their own lives. Jumping out of an airplane is an act that says "I and I alone am responsible for getting myself safely to the ground." That's what makes this such an exceptional sport and why skydiving gives people a sense of freedom and control over their own lives. Let's not spoil it.

The canopy collisions you are hearing about generally occur over one of the landing areas when there is a conflict during final landing maneuvers. If you would like to do canopy drills all you need to do is find your own airspace away from the landing area (preferably upwind so you can make it back when you need to). You should always be on the lookout for other canopies though.

@jacketsdb23 - I agree with you. If you want a safety device to ensure reserve deployment after a cutaway the RSL is the right choice, not an AAD. I don't think a manual disarm switch is the best solution, though. It will be too easy for the canopy pilot to forget to disarm it (and that would actually qualify as "user error"). It would be better for the AAD to disarm itself after main deployment. I think that can be done very reliably. 1) arm when freefall is detected above 2000 feet 2) disarm when exiting freefall at any altitude

gSwoop 2.08 has been uploaded to the website. Changes include the following: - improved gate location - support for older OS X versions (back to 10.7 "Lion") - fix for OS X issues mentioned above - fix for bug triggered by German locale - miscellaneous improvements

That's a great theory and may be correct but it doesn't invalidate the point that the current crop of AADs are not nearly as reliable as people seem to think. The industry seems content to blame all misfires on "user error" but I don't think that's good enough. Imagine if a car manufacturer had airbags that deployed when the driver took a turn too fast. Do you think they could get away with blaming "user error"?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4656432

Here are some more speed time comparisons taken during FLCPA meet #3 in Raeford over the weekend. The times calculated by gSwoop have been compared to the official scores generated by the gate sensors. gps = 2.65, sensor = 2.64, error = 0.01 (0.4%) gps = 2.46, sensor = 2.46, error = 0.00 (0.0%) gps = 2.39, sensor = 2.40, error = -0.01 (0.4%) gps = 2.67, sensor = 2.59, error = 0.08 (3.1%) gps = 2.66, sensor = 2.63, error = 0.03 (1.1%)

I've identified a fix that handles all three scenarios. I'll include it in the next release.

1) The keyboard accelerator to quit the application is Ctrl+Q, not Cmd+Q. The accelerator is displayed next to the "Exit" option in the "File" menu. 2) The gSwoop GUI is not currently aware of the application menu on OS X (that is the menu at the top of the screen that corresponds to whichever window is in focus). I'll look into what it would take to handle actions from there. 3) I'm guessing this causes an event to be sent to the application and I will just need to add the logic to handle it. This should be pretty easy to fix. Thanks for the bug report.

Here are the distance/accuracy and speed gates in Raeford, NC for use with gSwoop.

I suspect the metal mount might interfere with the GPS signal and cause degraded data. I've been using gaffer's tape for over 4 years with no problems.

gSwoop 2.07 is now available at gswoop.com. The newest feature is a time scale (enabled via "View->Time scale"). When using the time scale synchronized markers will be drawn on every plot. When you move one marker all the other markers will move with it. The time scale also enables real-time playback of the swoop. This works with overlays so that you can compare two or more swoops during playback. There have also been improvements to the heading plot. The plot no longer wraps at 0 and 360 degrees (which made it difficult to interpret). Interpolated regions (during snaps) are drawn with dashed lines to make them easier to identify.

What is an ideal turn? Reaching maximum velocity with minimum rotation from the lowest possible height? You can hit peak vertical speed with a well executed 450 degree turn from as low as 1200 feet. So why do some pilots use a 630 or 810 degree turn from as high as 2000 feet? There are other considerations when choosing a turn besides building speed most efficiently. I disagree that bigger turns make it harder to hit gates. To the contrary a bigger turn allows more opportunity to adjust and can be more accurate than a smaller turn.

I think people are questioning Charlie's technique because it is unfamiliar. I don't see any reason why reversing your turn direction would be especially counterproductive. There may or may not be a dip in vertical speed during the reversal but even if there is that doesn't mean the technique is disadvantageous. Most GPS data I have seen of turns larger than 450 degrees the vertical speed plateaus well before the rollout or there is a phase where the vertical speed drops and is rebuilt before the rollout. Regarding your questions about front riser input: I submit that riser length and arm length have nothing to do with how much riser input you can generate. You are not pulling the riser down to you - you are pulling yourself up to the riser. Once you have put all your weight on your front risers you are accomplishing nothing by pulling yourself higher other than getting into a tucked body position to reduce drag. At any rate some pilots use front riser input and some don't. There doesn't appear to be a distinct advantage one way or the other. Modern canopies will dive very hard with just a little harness input.

There are several concerns regarding selection of the US team with regard to the timing of Nationals and the World event: 1) We want all competitors to have time to train before Nationals. 2) We want all competitors to have the opportunity to go to the World event every year. 3) After the team members are selected they need time to make travel arrangements for the World event. Factor (3) was a hot topic a few years back and I believe there was a rule proposed that if there wasn't enough time between Nationals and Worlds then we would send the team that was selected the year prior. This is not an ideal situation because it conflicts with factor (2). It seems like there has been an attempt to avoid that situation by moving Nationals earlier every year but that conflicts with factor (1). I personally think too much weight is given to factor (3). 6 to 8 weeks is a reasonable amount of time to make travel arrangements. If the World event is August 21 next year then we could still have Nationals in late June or early July.

Gary, the USPA doesn't give recommendations or guidelines to the bidders regarding appropriate dates? What happens if we get a bid one year in December and the next year in January?

Attached are my competition distance runs from the 2014 Nationals in Z-Hills last year. I scored two runs (plotted in grey) which means I touched water before passing the entry gate. The third run (plotted in red) I did not score. I got the default result which means I did not touch water but I did fly below the 5 foot entry gate (barely). As you can see from the side view plots you can get a good idea whether you scored the gate but if it is close it is hard to tell.

Do you mean a vertical extension on the entry gate? The GPS data isn't accurate enough to determine that. Under the best conditions with a properly calibrated Flysight and a good gate location you can still expect a few feet of error. Also, keep in mind that the GPS is usually mounted on your helmet but a vertical extension is judged by the lowest part of your body. However, if you look at the side view plot you can get a good idea about how close you were to missing the entry gate. When overlaying multiple plots in the overhead view the red line is the currently selected swoop and the grey lines are the overlays (chosen using the checkbox to the left of each swoop filename).

gSwoop 2.06 is now available on the website. Major changes are: 1) The "carving course" and "reverse gate" options have been removed because gSwoop now determines these options automatically based on analysis of the swoop. 2) You can now open multiple swoop files simultaneously and scroll between them in the UI. 3) You can now overlay plots from multiple swoops to more easily compare them. 4) The acceleration plot has been removed (it did not provide meaningful data due to filtering in the GPS). It has been replaced with a plot of GPS accuracy. The ability to overlay plots is an incredibly useful feature when comparing swoops. Attached is an example from an overhead plot.