Video camera limits and experience (and new tech)

[tkhayes 348]

http://shop.gopro.com/hero4/hero4-session/CHDHS-101.html

I predicted it years ago...what will we do when the cameras become so small that they cannot be used as an excuse for a snag hazard anymore?

When will we stop telling people that they do not have enough experience to fly a camera when the camera is the size of a quarter and sits on a glove just like an altimeter does?

I realize that there is more to it that just the physical camera, but we are running out of flimsy excuses to say 'no' to people and sooner than later, we will has to better address what it is to 'do video' and how we are going to deal with it - else we will just be seen as dicks by our customers and will become a dinosaur in the society that has technology changing by the minute.

I think we need to discuss the types of cameras/mounts and the 'types of filming' being done as well as the experience level.

I see no issue with a tandem passenger wearing a glove camera the size of this new gopro. I have no problem with a 50 jump guy wearing a small camera but perhaps not being allowed to film others.

I would have a problem with a 100 jump wonder with a full rack of video and still cameras filming a 40 Way (obviously).

We need better guidelines of what is acceptable and maybe even what simply does not need to be regulated at all. Once the camera gets small enough it is no more a snag hazard than the helmet that it is mounted on.

Suggestions for training coming from the industry. Suggestions for cameras and mounts and perhaps an A, B, C, D guideline for license levels and what they can and cannot fly with or the types of filming that should be considered.

I would consider (for example) the ability to fly 4 points on a 4 way and tracking more important that many of the technical issues with the actual filming..

I had a hockey helmet with homemade mount and a hand switch to an Olympus motor drive in 1984 or 85 when I had barely 150 jumps (probably less). never did me any harm. Distractions come in all kinds of shapes and forms on any given skydive.

I think video has been unduly singled out for undue/specific scrutiny when we still have people out there than cannot fly a parachute after 500 jumps. A License holders buy full-face helmets that restrict their peripheral vision and reduce their hearing under canopy, but we have nothing to say about that.

interested in the discussion for sure

[Bluhdow 31]

+1

That's all I have to say about that.

Apex BASE
#1816

[Trafficdiver 8]

So the worst thing about not allowing someone to fly a camera until jump 200 is being viewed as a dick and a dinosaur?

Doesn't seem that bad to me.

[Bluhdow 31]

It can bring your credibility into question (in the eyes of the student). If there's no solid rationale behind your camera opinion, why would they care to hear your position on anything else?

I'm not saying there aren't good arguments against wearing a camera on AFF level 1. But I think there's something to be said about the advancement of technology having some impact on our OLD standards.

The OPs point about full-face helmets and giant dial altimeters is well-made. What about people who jump with ski helmets and goggles? I even saw a kid jumping with a Scuba mask once (with holes cut for pressure purposes). No f*cking joke. Nobody said a word to him.

When it comes to cameras, we oftentimes can't see the forest for the trees.

Apex BASE
#1816

[gowlerk 2,198]

Trafficdiver

So the worst thing about not allowing someone to fly a camera until jump 200 is being viewed as a dick and a dinosaur?

Doesn't seem that bad to me.

Times change. We even let students jump ram air canopies now. Even though everyone knows they are far more dangerous than rounds, and that you should have 200 jumps first.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Rover 11]

Quote

I see no issue with a tandem passenger wearing a glove camera the size of this new gopro. I have no problem with a 50 jump guy wearing a small camera but perhaps not being allowed to film others.

I have a issue with this. As an active TI I want my punter to concentrate on the task at hand rather than thinking about that 'rad vid' that they intend to post on youtube!

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[DougH 270]

We did this for two seasons before switching DZO's. It worked out fine, although sometimes the product sucked.

I noticed no statistical difference in people that don't hold on to their harness until I deploy the drogue and prompt them, no difference in the amount of people who de-arched or dropped legs in weird ways.

Some percentage of tandems are going to be overloaded and perform poorly. Now I have no proof of this, but I almost think that trying to frame their shot gave them something else to focus on, and kept them from zonking out. I also think they worked harder on their arch because I would tell them it was key to a good video.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[billvon 2,995]

>Times change. We even let students jump ram air canopies now. Even though everyone
>knows they are far more dangerous than rounds, and that you should have 200 jumps
>first.

And partly as a result of that change, deaths under a good canopy are now the #1 killer in the sport. Seems like that's a good reason to not repeat that with cameras.

[Bluhdow 31]

billvon

>Times change. We even let students jump ram air canopies now. Even though everyone
>knows they are far more dangerous than rounds, and that you should have 200 jumps
>first.

And partly as a result of that change, deaths under a good canopy are now the #1 killer in the sport. Seems like that's a good reason to not repeat that with cameras.

Oh sh*t guys...HE'S RIGHT!

ALL STUDENTS ON ROUND CANOPIES NOW. IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT SWOOPING DEATHS!

Apex BASE
#1816

[Trafficdiver 8]

gowlerk

***So the worst thing about not allowing someone to fly a camera until jump 200 is being viewed as a dick and a dinosaur?

Doesn't seem that bad to me.

Times change. We even let students jump ram air canopies now. Even though everyone knows they are far more dangerous than rounds, and that you should have 200 jumps first.

do you think a camera is neccessary during the student progression?

What about a ram air parachute?

Would you suggest we have students wear cameras during AFF?

[tkhayes 348]

that is a ridiculous comparison. It's like saying that AIDs is caused by the reduction in the number of pirates in the world.....

[tkhayes 348]

I am not suggesting that students wear cameras at all. I am suggesting that 200 jumps is an unreasonable limit given the ease of technology these days.

everyone...please - try to stay within reasonable limits.....

and I do not consider a tandem to be a 'student'. regardless of what the industry might want it to be, it is a ride for the most part. If the tandem at your dropzone is a training jump, then fine, your 'students' get lumped in within the AFF student group. but i am not under any illusion that tandems are anything more than people looking to experience a thrill.

[tkhayes 348]

I agree with the follow-on post after yours.

There is little or no difference between A) your tandem being distracted by their hand cam and geeking it. or B) your tandem being distracted by the outside video professional and geeking it.

My experience in 34 years of jumping is that most people will do what you train/tell them to do. A few will be over the top overreacting and a few will simply not perform and the occasional one will try to kill you. and whatever other scenario you might dream up.

Just because you have an occasional tandem that tries to kill you anyway, are we in fact adding more risk by letting them wear a tiny wrist cam? I doubt it.

If you have a rigid training environment for your tandems, then fine, that is your program and hand cam should be excluded.

someone please, write that down as one of the 'possible changes and improvements' in the decision making process that I am hoping to address.

[Trafficdiver 8]

Again...what is bad about waiting to 200 jumps until your put on a camera? You say unreasonable...what is unreasonable about it?

Edit: I'm talking about AFF to jump 200' not tandems. I don't care so much what tandems passengers/students do as there is someone else driving the car.

[stayhigh 2]

tandem student filming themselves is a horrible idea.

you can always tell them that you are not allowed to bring your own beer to a bar, or bring your own food to a restaurant.

btw, I've let about 10 passengers to take their own handycam, I absolutely loved it at first. First of all they all paid for the Ti handycam option so I got paid extra for not doing shit, but after one dude who initiated front flips out the door while waving his camera everywhere, that is when I drew the line. Not doing it anymore. If you have 200 lbs dude who wants to continue doing front flips, you are gonna continue on with the front flips.

Most of passengers who took their own gopro didn't even point the gopro in the right direction.

Nice under canopy tho, passengers can take video of their own flight, and you never hear take picture of this or that..

as far as A-licensed people having a gopro on their head, I say go for it. Kids now days can write complete essays on their phone while driving, and texting to several people at same time.

I don't see how gopro can be distracting when acting as a logbook/flight data recorder.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[jimjumper 25]

I don't really have an opinion on cameras for newbies but it is certainly refreshing to see someone with the full respect of the jumping community broach any kind of new subject or idea. We are still using 30-40 year old training techniques and doctrines, a lot of times just because "thats the way its always been done". I remember years ago the USPA bumper sticker "Skydiving- The Space Age Sport" but I think instructional innovation has been pretty stagnant. Most innovation in this sport is coming from the new guys and sometimes in direct defiance of the "Old Guard".

[billvon 2,995]

>ALL STUDENTS ON ROUND CANOPIES NOW. IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT
>SWOOPING DEATHS!

Better education - and better canopy transition plans - would be a far better solution. Read any PARACHUTIST for more details. Or heck, read any of the canopy control articles on here.

Likewise, better training for low time jumpers who want to jump camera, and better transition plans, will do far more than some sort of silly ban on cameras.

[billvon 2,995]

>It's like saying that AIDs is caused by the reduction in the number of pirates in the
>world.....

I think it's like saying that AIDS is caused by unprotected sex. (Which is to say - not 100% accurate but a pretty utilitarian portrayal to at-risk people.)

You run a DZ. What do you think the #1 cause of death for jumpers is today, if not deaths under a good parachute?

[tkhayes 348]

I am not denying the number one causes of death, I am denying the link you drew between that and the introduction of square parachutes for students.

students under square parachutes are not the the number one or for that matter probably not the number 50 killer of skydivers.

I am trying to have a realistic discussion about the limits of VIDEO, of which I have already stated that students probably should not be shooting video.

you won that already. it's apples and oranges. drop it please and start your own thread about the dangers of canopy flight

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Again...what is bad about waiting to 200 jumps until your put on a camera?

What is bad is that 200 jumps is an arbitrary number pulled out of our asses with nothing to back that up as a demonstration of skill.

There is a difference between A) a skydiver that has 75 jumps but did 3 hours of tunnel time and took 3 professional canopy courses and B)someone with 300 jumps who grew up at 'uncle fred's DZ' with little or no instruction after solo'ing and has done mostly 10 second delays out of a C172.

The determination (at the very least) should probably include some demonstration of skills. What skills? I am all ears. I suggested as an example, tracking and ability to complete formations, demonstrating your flying skillset.

I think canopy work should also be a minimum as well

[pchapman 279]

In another thread someone (dragon2?) mentioned another country's rules (Netherlands?) that were far too non-North American for my taste, but at least tried to tie camera use to performance. If you wanted to film 4 way or CRW or whatever, you have to have a certain number of jumps in that discipline first. It wasn't just camera or no camera.

The issue hasn't been helped by people just parroting organizations' numbers, like the US "C" license and minimum 200 jumps, as if they were handed down from god.

Yet organizations haven't helped. In more than one thread, I've mentioned how Canada (CSPA) some years ago went to a B license and thus min 50 jumps -- a deliberately progressive policy one assumes.

That was in either 2007 or 2008. But to confuse the issue, out of the blue the committees just changed it back to 200 jumps (but just a B) this year. So much for what I had been saying. I don't know if that means they made a stupid rule now... or they made a stupid rule the last time.

If I were to be a totally modern skydiver, I'd say we should ban all non-student jumping until you have 200 jumps! Safety first!

[skydave238 0]

Quote

The determination (at the very least) should probably include some demonstration of skills. What skills? I am all ears.

This is exactly what PASA does. (South Africa) There is no jump number requirement. Depending on what type of camera you are doing (outside/3rd eye/ tandem aff) you must have met certain skill requirements in a discipline (FS,FF etc) and preferably have at least a B licence. See attached.

Blue skies,

Dave

Ready...Set...Go..!

SkydiveSwakop

[DanG 1]

The requirement is not 200 jumps. It is a C license, which includes formation skydiving skill requirements.

Problem solved.

- Dan G

[tred 0]

for the sake of argument, there are many jumpers who reach all the requirements for c license other than 200 jumps before 200 jumps

[kallend 2,027]

billvon

>Times change. We even let students jump ram air canopies now. Even though everyone
>knows they are far more dangerous than rounds, and that you should have 200 jumps
>first.

And partly as a result of that change, deaths under a good canopy are now the #1 killer in the sport. Seems like that's a good reason to not repeat that with cameras.

But how many of those deaths are sub-200 jump folks?

...

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