Site ratings....

[imported_mknutson]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-00 AT 04:10 PM (PST)[/font][p]Wouldn't it help to know how difficult the approach/jump/landing was on a given BASE Jump before you attempted it? Wouldn't it help you better prepare the equipment and knoledge needed to perform the jump successfully?

You can view the current work of rating jump sites at:
http://www.baselogic.com/ibf/

I have Still been making modifications to the site ratings. I am still entertaining all comments to help further this progress.
--
Thanks

Mick Knutson
BLiNC Magazine

"Everything you ever wanted to know about BASE Jumping, but didn't know who to ask."
--

[imported_mknutson]

Some coments from Johnny Utah:
________________________________
Hi there,
I have sent you a letter that I sent to Dwain(from A.B.A.) while he was
considering how to rate sites down there. These are just some thoughts I
had concerning site ratings. Please have a look and let me know what you
think.

Thanks,
Johnny Utah

*************************************

Gainer Boy,

I have read a bit about your ideas concerning site ratings. You have some
good ideas. I agree that the rating system needs to be user friendly.
Meaning, during casual conversation, while talking about this site and its
rating or that site and its rating, one can simply mention the one number
difficulty and all those who are listening in on the conversation can expect
at least that much difficulty somewhere along the way when jumping that
site. Now if a person wants to know more specifically where this difficulty
may be encountered, he or she can look it up or ask someone who knows, at
what part of the BASE mission will that level of difficulty be encountered
and how difficult are the other two aspects of the site. By this, I am
suggesting that there be three areas of a BASE site rated: 1)Access, 2)the
Jump, 3)Landing. After all, when talking to each other, aren't these the
three things we want to know about in educating each other and ourselves
about different sites and their dangers. To be able to give each site a one
number rating, simply use the highest rating of the three areas listed
above. Also record in the site rating book, or listing, where ever it may
reside, all three ratings - one number for each area. That way a BASE
jumper can research that site further and find out what area it had its
highest rating in and what the other aspects of the mission will be like.
By using the rating number of the element which is most difficult as the
common rating for that particular site, then Joe Blow will know that at some
point he will encounter at least that much difficulty, whether it be during
the Access of the site, the Jump itself, or the Landing. If he is prepared
to encounter that much difficulty, then the lesser difficulty of the other
two areas should not be as much of a danger or suprise. You could even just
include one word with the one number of the common rating for a site to
indicate why that site has that high of a rating. For example:

A cliff called "Sport Death" has a rating of 9 Landing (for now lets say on
a scale from 1-10, 10 being the most difficult, but numbers can go above 10
in the future if they need to for super sick stuff)

Well, hearing this as a BASE jumper, I am of course going to be cautous
about this object and will probably scope out the landing before I jump.
Now if I want to know more about it, I could go to the site directory, or
whatever it ends up being, and find out what the Access and Jump itself is
like. For example:

Sport Death: 9 Landing, 8 Jump, 2 Access

Now I have a reasonable picture of the kind of difficulty I will be dealing
with.


Another example:

In conversation one could say that the Perine Bridge has a rating of 5 or
5 Jump.

The site ratings would look something like

Perine Bridge: 5 Jump, 4 Landing, 1 Access

another site

Auburn: 6 Landing, 5 Access(catwalk), 2 Jump

another

Cat Rock: 9 Jump, 4 Landing, 3 Access

I guess difficulty should really be related to danger since the main purpose
would be to reduce accidents.

So if you were to ask me, "Hey Johnny, what's that Cat Rock like?" I
would say, "Well gee Dwaine, I'd give the jump a 9." Then you might ask,
"What's the landing like and whats it like getting to it?" To that I would
reply, "The landing's a 4 and the access is a 3." Then perhaps you would
inquire, "Why's the jump a 9?" I'd then explain, "The cliff is actually a
bit underhung and it keeps protruding outword all the way down. So a hard
launch is a must and since it's only 300' you probably don't want to be
doing a gainer from it." But you being the gainer boy that you are, might
actually find that to be an interesting challenge.

Anyway, these were just some common sense thoughts that came to mind when I
was reading about your discussions with Mick. Take it for what it's worth.

Thanks for offering a sound word of advice to the BASE community.

See ya on the flipside,
Johnny Utah
___________________________________________

Thanks

Mick Knutson
BLiNC Magazine

"Everything you ever wanted to know about BASE Jumping, but didn't know who to ask."
--

[imported_mknutson]

This is serious!
You should go and view this information!

--
Thanks

Mick Knutson
BLiNC Magazine

"Everything you ever wanted to know about BASE Jumping, but didn't know who to ask."
--

[guest]

I read it with interest! I think your site analysis form is very well thought out. The three catagory rating system is also a good one. In climbing the British system comes closest in ones ability to interpret by the rating the level of danger and difficulty.
For example, a climb rated E2/6B would be about 5.10 but the crux is probably very hard. One would interpret this as a well protected climb (only E2) but a hard move (6B).
By rating sites with */*/* approach/launch/landing one could easily tell whether it is feasible for the ability level of the party interested.
Whereas I am a 5.11 climber off the sofa and easily boulder 5.7 in approach shoes I wouldn't shy away from a technical approach but would be more cautious of a low or difficult launch. By the same token as I am jumping a new canopy that I don't have accurate landings dialed in yet I would want to avoid the site where I have to land on a car hood and not dent it.
The challenge I see is where would the repository of this data be maintained so as not to divulge the less than legal sites to the general public?
good effort mick!! thx

[guest]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-00 AT 05:18 PM (PST)[/font][p]Here's a couple of things I thought of:

1)There ought to be some kind of central database of the site information. The security precautions that would need to be taken boggle the mind, but I think it would save some lives in the long run if we knew more about sites we were considering.

2) Should there be number of object requirements for various levels (not just number of jump requirements)? I think that you learn far more by jumping new objects than by making another five jumps off a familiar object. Also, do we really want to call people Advanced who might only have jumped two or three objects (but made a huge number of jumps off of them)?

3) What about requirements for types of objects? If you have only jumped spans, for example, it is difficult to evaluate a cliff. Perhaps there ought be some kind of requirement like "two of four B,A,S or E to be intermediate, all four to be advanced" or some such. I think that jumping different kinds of objects is important to learning about the sport.

4) Should we rate each object for bust factor? In terms of how likely you are to get busted and what the penalties are? This is very valuable information to us, but it would look bad to most people on the outside. This kind of info would definitely have to be kept in a very secure database (of course, if there is no database, it becomes much easier to keep this info).

5) At what point are people allowed into IPBC events? Will different IPBC events require different levels of expertise? I know Avery has a basic 50 jump minimum. Does that mean that it'd be intermediate for IPBC events (or at least for Moab, if not Bridge Day)? The only mention of competition in the document is in the Pro section, but people far below that level compete in the IPBC. Also, I think that selling this to the IPBC would definitely be the best way to get a widespread buy in. (For Example, if Avery said "you must have an IBF intermediate rating to compete," you'd see a ton of new people getting ratings, taking exams, etc. It might also simplify Avery's tasks by letting him farm out the job of judging ability levels. On the other hand, he might not feel comfortable letting other people make those judgments).

I've also found some typo's etc. If you want I can email you a list of them (I'm not sure what editing stage you are at). Let me know if that would be useful.

I've got some other thoughts percolating. I'll post them when they're fully formed.

Thanks for all the work you're doing for us and our sport!

--Tom Aiello

[imported_mknutson]

>1)There ought to be some kind
>of central database of the
>site information. The security
>precautions that would need to
>be taken boggle the mind,
>but I think it would
>save some lives in the
>long run if we knew
>more about sites we were
>considering.
>

This database can be in one central location and accessible world-wide. This sounds idealistic, but implementation needs thought.




>2) Should there be number
>of object requirements for various
>levels (not just number of
>jump requirements)?

This goes back to the license not the site ratings but....This is a relevant point and is going to be addressed closely to currency of jumping.
Just because you made 200 BASE jumps 10 years ago but havn't jumped in 5 years, you are not going to be at the same competency level as you where when you were current.




>I think
>that you learn far more
>by jumping new objects than
>by making another five jumps
>off a familiar object.
>Also, do we really want
>to call people Advanced who
>might only have jumped two
>or three objects (but made
>a huge number of jumps
>off of them)?
>

This referes to the diversity of objects a jumper has. This is very relevent to a jumpers currency. Say a jumper jumps 75 different objects in his first 200 jumps. He is current and shows that they have a great deal of knowledge in the sport. But then for the next 100 jumps, they take another 4 years to get those jumps and they are all from a bridge at that point. That jumper has lots of experience in the past, but would not be ready for a PRO rated jump, and *MAY* not be current enough for a cliff jump.
This is all relative to the site, the jumper and the conditions involved.




>3) What about requirements for
>types of objects? If
>you have only jumped spans,
>for example, it is difficult
>to evaluate a cliff.
>Perhaps there ought be some
>kind of requirement like "two
>of four B,A,S or E
>to be intermediate, all four
>to be advanced" or some
>such. I think that
>jumping different kinds of objects
>is important to learning about
>the sport.
>

This is true to an extent. Buildings and antennas are going to be illegal 90% of the time. So requiring this is just not feasible. Bridges and cliffs pose enough diversity, that I feel they can be excellent at progressing all levels of jumpers.




>4) Should we rate each
>object for bust factor?
>In terms of how likely
>you are to get busted
>and what the penalties are?
> This is very valuable
>information to us, but it
>would look bad to most
>people on the outside.
>This kind of info would
>definitely have to be kept
>in a very secure database
>(of course, if there is
>no database, it becomes much
>easier to keep this info).
>

NO! This would be promoting the illegal aspect of the jump. I think a general outline of other considerations can be posed for a imaginary illegal jump. That way, a jumper can understand that there are a ton of things to consider and use extreme caution in the jump. But not advocate that everyone go make illegal jumps.




>5) At what point are
>people allowed into IPBC events?
> Will different IPBC events
>require different levels of expertise?
> I know Avery has
>a basic 50 jump minimum.
> Does that mean that
>it'd be intermediate for IPBC
>events (or at least for
>Moab, if not Bridge Day)?
> The only mention of
>competition in the document is
>in the Pro section, but
>people far below that level
>compete in the IPBC.
>Also, I think that selling
>this to the IPBC would
>definitely be the best way
>to get a widespread buy
>in. (For Example, if
>Avery said "you must have
>an IBF intermediate rating to
>compete," you'd see a ton
>of new people getting ratings,
>taking exams, etc. It
>might also simplify Avery's tasks
>by letting him farm out
>the job of judging ability
>levels. On the other
>hand, he might not feel
>comfortable letting other people make
>those judgments).
>

Avery would have to comment on some of this.
But Avery has already said in the "IPBC Rules" that there are requirements similiar to IBF. Our outlook on these requirements may be different at this time, I am not 100% sure of that.

IPBC is also not even 50% of the world population of BASE Jumpers. This system needs to be a universal language that can translate wherever you are jumping. This is why my focus is also on helping the Norwegians, Australians, French and everyone else work toward a common system.

DOn't get supprised if you go to Norway this year, and have to pre-qualify for a universal license. Then understand the site rating card for the specific exit point in Norway you are going to attempt.




This is just information people! The more you have and the more you pay attention to, the better of an athlete you will become. The better you are, the funner jumping becomes!


--
Thanks

Mick Knutson :-)
BLiNC Magazine

"Everything you ever wanted to know about BASE Jumping, but didn't know who to ask."
--

[guest]

Hey Mick,

Have you posted the license tests on the certification proposal?

I'm trying to look at them, but I can't seem to access them. I was just wondering what the practical skills for each level looked like.

Thanks,

--Tom Aiello

[imported_mknutson]

Not yet.
--
Thanks

Mick Knutson
BLiNC Magazine

"Everything you ever wanted to know about BASE Jumping, but didn't know who to ask."
--

[guest]

A site database is a very good idea and it would be very interesting to list malfunctions related to each site. This may highlight and illustrate the difficulties of a site. Specially hidden dangers like special air flows etc...

I know it's a lot of work but it must be a common work.