POV cameras and Jump number.

[JWest 0]

GoHuskers

***Once stable I did have the thought that my head down coach with the scenery in the background would look pretty cool if the camera got it.

Show the video. The one from your coach's camera.

No thanks.

Don't worry I won't start trolling this thread again.

[The111 1]

JWest

once I left the plane filming was not on my mind. Once stable I did have the thought that my head down coach with the scenery in the background would look pretty cool if the camera got it.

Sentence one: filming was not on my mind after exit.
Sentence two: here is a thought I had about filming while in freefall.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[dorbie 0]

Not to worry, we have outside camera footage of JWest's first camera jump. It went well:

https://jointheteem.com/v/friday-freakout-scary-bridle-wrap-gopro-camera

[JWest 0]

The111

***once I left the plane filming was not on my mind. Once stable I did have the thought that my head down coach with the scenery in the background would look pretty cool if the camera got it.

Sentence one: filming was not on my mind after exit.
Sentence two: here is a thought I had about filming while in freefall.



Context, but nice try. You even added words I never wrote.

To keep Billvon happy I will even explain.

Someone does not have to actively participate in something to acknowledge it's happening.

To make it even easier to understand, acknowledging the camera is recording something is different than actively trying to film something. At no point did I focus on completing a task that was not jump specific.

[DSE 5]

Guys I did it I finally ran across the freeway blindfolded and I didn't die. OK, that was sarcasm, but I did run across the freeway blindfolded and figured I would report back now that I have experienced my first blind-folded freeway crossing on foot. I know many of you will be disappointed...

I now believe I'm capable of running across the freeway with a blindfold on, whether it's rush hour, midnight, under construction, or whatever else is going on when I run across the freeway wearing a blindfold.

I ran across the freeway blindfolded, don't really have a reason to do it again and it won't matter anyway because I'll take off the blindfold before winter comes. Distracted by the thought of being "that idiot" not the actual stain on the concrete.

Are you proud of me now?

[lyosha 50]

Come now. That's hardly the same.

Statistics exist for a reason. In spite of all the outcry, GoPros on low time jumpers are hardly the biggest threat to their safety. As a matter of fact, instances of inexperienced jumpers getting hurt due to specifically a GoPro are extremely rare.

I know more 200-jump jumpers that have fucked up nice and proper on their 200th jump (I know several, I'm engaged to one lol) thanks to "OMG YAY I CAN JUMP A GOPRO!!!111" than jumpers that started wearing a GoPro at <150 jumps that screwed up at any point in their careers as a result of a GoPro, before 200 jumps or after.

That having been said, improper canopy choice for location (either too low a wingloading or too high a wingloading) and engaging in jumps beyond the ability of the individuals to understand the risk in seems to be a much greater threat. Perhaps it would be pertinent to pivot focus.

Just to remind the peanut gallery, I've been wearing a GoPro since jump ~70, just after my first cutaway. And to re-iterate, I feel it should be up to the S&TA of a DZ how these things are handled.

*runs and hides*

[Amazon 7]

See Spot Run
Run Spot Run

[DSE 5]

lyosha

Come now. That's hardly the same.

Statistics exist for a reason. In spite of all the outcry, GoPros on low time jumpers are hardly the biggest threat to their safety. As a matter of fact, instances of inexperienced jumpers getting hurt due to specifically a GoPro are extremely rare.

I know more 200-jump jumpers that have fucked up nice and proper on their 200th jump (I know several, I'm engaged to one lol) thanks to "OMG YAY I CAN JUMP A GOPRO!!!111" than jumpers that started wearing a GoPro at <150 jumps that screwed up at any point in their careers as a result of a GoPro, before 200 jumps or after.

That having been said, improper canopy choice for location (either too low a wingloading or too high a wingloading) and engaging in jumps beyond the ability of the individuals to understand the risk in seems to be a much greater threat. Perhaps it would be pertinent to pivot focus.

Just to remind the peanut gallery, I've been wearing a GoPro since jump ~70, just after my first cutaway. And to re-iterate, I feel it should be up to the S&TA of a DZ how these things are handled.

*runs and hides*

No, it's not the same, and if that's the message you took from my words, then I communicated poorly (using someone else' words).

It's the braggadocious child that needs to tell the world "I broke the rules and I got away with it." As some have said, the worst thing is to get away with breaking a rule/ignoring a recommendation and thinking you're OK for having done so. Eventually, that attitude will catch up. Whether it's downsizing, putting on a wingsuit too early, jumping a camera, attempting particular maneuvers in a group without the training/skill, whatever.

Consider the approach, not the action.

[78RATS 0]

Quote

By only doing it once I keep the risk lower

that is some fucked up logic right there

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[JWest 0]

78RATS

Quote

By only doing it once I keep the risk lower

that is some fucked up logic right there

It's actually math. If you have a 5% chance of something going wrong and do it once. You have a 95% chance of getting away with it. If you do the same thing 10 times while maintaining the 5% risk you have a 60% change of getting away with it every time. If you do it 100 times while remaining at a 5% risk factor you have a .5% change of getting away with it every time. But the more you jump the risk factor goes down because the experience factor goes up. I have no clue what the statistic is for 'camera incidents/camera jumps' is so I can't give you detailed numbers but I can safely say that it is far less than 5%.

[JohnnyMarko 1]

JWest

***

Quote

By only doing it once I keep the risk lower

that is some fucked up logic right there

It's actually math. If you have a 5% chance of something going wrong and do it once. You have a 95% chance of getting away with it. If you do the same thing 10 times while maintaining the 5% risk you have a 60% change of getting away with it every time. If you do it 100 times while remaining at a 5% risk factor you have a .5% change of getting away with it every time. But the more you jump the risk factor goes down because the experience factor goes op. I have no clue what the statistic is for camera incidents/camera jumps is so I can't give you detailed numbers but I can safely say that it is far less than 5%.

Oh boy.

[tred 0]

JWest

***

Quote

By only doing it once I keep the risk lower

that is some fucked up logic right there

It's actually math. If you have a 5% chance of something going wrong and do it once. You have a 95% chance of getting away with it. If you do the same thing 10 times while maintaining the 5% risk you have a 60% change of getting away with it every time. If you do it 100 times while remaining at a 5% risk factor you have a .5% change of getting away with it every time. But the more you jump the risk factor goes down because the experience factor goes up. I have no clue what the statistic is for 'camera incidents/camera jumps' is so I can't give you detailed numbers but I can safely say that it is far less than 5%. this makes me laugh

[millertime24 8]

JWest

***

Quote

By only doing it once I keep the risk lower

that is some fucked up logic right there

It's actually math. If you have a 5% chance of something going wrong and do it once. You have a 95% chance of getting away with it. If you do the same thing 10 times while maintaining the 5% risk you have a 60% change of getting away with it every time. If you do it 100 times while remaining at a 5% risk factor you have a .5% change of getting away with it every time. But the more you jump the risk factor goes down because the experience factor goes up. I have no clue what the statistic is for 'camera incidents/camera jumps' is so I can't give you detailed numbers but I can safely say that it is far less than 5%.


You haven't by chance taken college statistics have you? You do realize each event is its own set of odds. It isn't cumulative otherwise people would be raping a roulette wheel.

Muff #5048

[mark 107]

millertime24

******

Quote

By only doing it once I keep the risk lower

that is some fucked up logic right there

It's actually math. If you have a 5% chance of something going wrong and do it once. You have a 95% chance of getting away with it. If you do the same thing 10 times while maintaining the 5% risk you have a 60% change of getting away with it every time. If you do it 100 times while remaining at a 5% risk factor you have a .5% change of getting away with it every time. But the more you jump the risk factor goes down because the experience factor goes up. I have no clue what the statistic is for 'camera incidents/camera jumps' is so I can't give you detailed numbers but I can safely say that it is far less than 5%.


You haven't by chance taken college statistics have you? You do realize each event is its own set of odds. It isn't cumulative otherwise people would be raping a roulette wheel.

I never thought I'd be writing this: I agree with JWest.

Simple version, coin toss with a fair coin. What are the odds of going some number of tosses before getting heads?

With 1 toss, the chance of getting heads is 50%.
With 2 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-H is 50% x 50% = 50%^2 = 25%.
With 3 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-T-H is 50%^3 = 12.5%
With 4 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-T-T-H is 50%^4 = 6.25%

JWest's example: the chance of success (the equivalent of tossing heads in the simple example above) on any one event is 95%. The chance of success on each of 10 events is 95%^10, approximately 60%. The chance of success on each of 100 events is 95%^100, about 0.6%. The calculation assumes the events are independent, that success on one does not affect success on others. However, as JWest correctly points out, the events are not truly independent, and the chance of success probably increases with experience.

BTW, some unrelated fun with statistics: Mr. Poisson says the chance of you having a malfunction on your next jump is greater than going any number of jumps and then having a malfunction.

Mark

[The111 1]

millertime24

You haven't by chance taken college statistics have you?

Have you?

His math is correct. However, his logic is still fucked.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[millertime24 8]

The111

***You haven't by chance taken college statistics have you?

Have you?

His math is correct. However, his logic is still fucked.

I have. Take the coin toss for example. Regardless of the outcome of the prior toss the odds of any given outcome are still 50/50. Am I wrong here? Perhaps I'll dig back into my text book when I get home, and do further research.

Muff #5048

[Nicknero1405 0]

mark

*********

Quote

By only doing it once I keep the risk lower

that is some fucked up logic right there

It's actually math. If you have a 5% chance of something going wrong and do it once. You have a 95% chance of getting away with it. If you do the same thing 10 times while maintaining the 5% risk you have a 60% change of getting away with it every time. If you do it 100 times while remaining at a 5% risk factor you have a .5% change of getting away with it every time. But the more you jump the risk factor goes down because the experience factor goes up. I have no clue what the statistic is for 'camera incidents/camera jumps' is so I can't give you detailed numbers but I can safely say that it is far less than 5%.


You haven't by chance taken college statistics have you? You do realize each event is its own set of odds. It isn't cumulative otherwise people would be raping a roulette wheel.

I never thought I'd be writing this: I agree with JWest.

Simple version, coin toss with a fair coin. What are the odds of going some number of tosses before getting heads?

With 1 toss, the chance of getting heads is 50%.
With 2 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-H is 50% x 50% = 50%^2 = 25%.
With 3 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-T-H is 50%^3 = 12.5%
With 4 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-T-T-H is 50%^4 = 6.25%

JWest's example: the chance of success (the equivalent of tossing heads in the simple example above) on any one event is 95%. The chance of success on each of 10 events is 95%^10, approximately 60%. The chance of success on each of 100 events is 95%^100, about 0.6%. The calculation assumes the events are independent, that success on one does not affect success on others. However, as JWest correctly points out, the events are not truly independent, and the chance of success probably increases with experience.

BTW, some unrelated fun with statistics: Mr. Poisson says the chance of you having a malfunction on your next jump is greater than going any number of jumps and then having a malfunction.

Mark

The problem with JWest's logic is, that he reduced the positive odds but kept the negative odds the same. He continued to subtract 5% from the "total odds". But that's not how it works.
With one jump being 5-95%, 2 jumps would remain 5-95% of which each jump is 2.5-45%. Not 5-45%.

So yes, in a sequence of a coin toss in your example, the odds of getting the exact sequence T-T-T-H is only 6.25%. But so is the sequence T-T-T-T. So overall, no matter how many times you jump or how you look at things, the odds of safety always remain the same.

And this ladies and gentlemen, is why people's "doubling at red-black" tactic at the roulette table never pays out as well.

[grantunderland 0]

I believe everyone is looking for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

[tred 0]

bingo

[virgin-burner 1]

Nicknero1405

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

Quote

By only doing it once I keep the risk lower

that is some fucked up logic right there

It's actually math. If you have a 5% chance of something going wrong and do it once. You have a 95% chance of getting away with it. If you do the same thing 10 times while maintaining the 5% risk you have a 60% change of getting away with it every time. If you do it 100 times while remaining at a 5% risk factor you have a .5% change of getting away with it every time. But the more you jump the risk factor goes down because the experience factor goes up. I have no clue what the statistic is for 'camera incidents/camera jumps' is so I can't give you detailed numbers but I can safely say that it is far less than 5%.


You haven't by chance taken college statistics have you? You do realize each event is its own set of odds. It isn't cumulative otherwise people would be raping a roulette wheel.

I never thought I'd be writing this: I agree with JWest.

Simple version, coin toss with a fair coin. What are the odds of going some number of tosses before getting heads?

With 1 toss, the chance of getting heads is 50%.
With 2 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-H is 50% x 50% = 50%^2 = 25%.
With 3 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-T-H is 50%^3 = 12.5%
With 4 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-T-T-H is 50%^4 = 6.25%

JWest's example: the chance of success (the equivalent of tossing heads in the simple example above) on any one event is 95%. The chance of success on each of 10 events is 95%^10, approximately 60%. The chance of success on each of 100 events is 95%^100, about 0.6%. The calculation assumes the events are independent, that success on one does not affect success on others. However, as JWest correctly points out, the events are not truly independent, and the chance of success probably increases with experience.

BTW, some unrelated fun with statistics: Mr. Poisson says the chance of you having a malfunction on your next jump is greater than going any number of jumps and then having a malfunction.

Mark

The problem with JWest's logic is, that he reduced the positive odds but kept the negative odds the same. He continued to subtract 5% from the "total odds". But that's not how it works.
With one jump being 5-95%, 2 jumps would remain 5-95% of which each jump is 2.5-45%. Not 5-45%.

So yes, in a sequence of a coin toss in your example, the odds of getting the exact sequence T-T-T-H is only 6.25%. But so is the sequence T-T-T-T. So overall, no matter how many times you jump or how you look at things, the odds of safety always remain the same.

And this ladies and gentlemen, is why people's "doubling at red-black" tactic at the roulette table never pays out as well.

so what you're saying is that the guy's a douche!?

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[billvon 2,991]

>It isn't cumulative otherwise people would be raping a roulette wheel.

It is cumulative.

If you do a jump one day and your odds of death are 10%, then you have a 10% chance of being dead by the end of the day.

If you do two jumps that day and your odds of death are 10% on each jump, then you have a 19% chance of being dead by the end of the day.

If you do three jumps that day and your odds of death are 10% on each jump, then you have a 27% chance of being dead by the end of the day.

Etc etc. The odds of you dying accumulate. The odds of you dying on any ONE jump don't change, but your odds of being dead at the end of the day do. And the goal of most skydivers at the end of the day is to survive and avoid injury.

The error that many people make in this sort of thing is that they assume the odds stay the same. They don't. As people gain experience with anything they do (camera, wingsuit, small canopy, whatever) their odds of dying due to not being able to handle the new thing go down. That's why it's important to not even start until you are really ready, because the first few jumps are much MORE dangerous than later jumps. That's why his math fails, and his statement "by only doing it once I keep the odds much lower" is exactly backwards.

[GoHuskers 0]

JWest

***

Show the video. The one from your coach's camera.

No thanks.

Don't worry I won't start trolling this thread again.

You have carried this thread and its now at 472 posts about a very relevant issue in skydiving. It had finally died when you declared that you did a camera jump at 180 something jumps. (which is kind of like bragging about speeding by 4 mph) So it the interest of keeping this thread going, show the video. I think the vast majority of us are probably tuning into this thread out of general boredom so why don't you continue to entertain us.

[dorbie 0]

GoHuskers

So it the interest of keeping this thread going, show the video. I think the vast majority of us are probably tuning into this thread out of general boredom so why don't you continue to entertain us.

LOL, in all the kerfuffle I never even thought about the product :-)
Go on JWest, let's see it.

Here's mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEZRvZCC14U

Now show me yours.

[stayhigh 2]

How did this solo video on youtube got over 30000+ view?

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[dorbie 0]

stayhigh

How did this solo video on youtube got over 30000+ view?

It's been up there for 9 years, it'd be lost in the noise these days. An early article link I couldn't track back might have helped too.

If you want hits then screw up and upload the accident, make sure you hint at carnage and mayhem in the title.

All this distracts from the point though. JWest where's your video? Time to put up.