Camera Incident Reporting

[Anachronist 2]

I propose a sticky thread (admins necessary of course) for reporting camera incidents to try and determine if jump number has any mitigating effect on camera "incidents." This would serve to aid in supporting or not supporting the current 200 jump camera rule. It will also help to shape "best practices" for experienced camera flyers. The format should be consistent to help in tabulating the data as it is collected.

I propose:

1 - Date and Location.
2 - Jump Number.
3 - Equipment and Type of Jump (e.g. "4 way RW, GoPro on Full Face
Helmet)
3 - Result: Cutaway/Injury/Fatality/Gear Damage/or "Resolved" for
"they had a problem but fixed it." e.g. camera entangled but was
cleared.
4 - Description: Brief but adequately explains what happened. Quotes
and eyewitness info appreciated. Facts only.
5 - Supporting info and/or assessment (Personal Opinions/
Pictures/Videos/Links/Etc).

If jump number is not reported or cannot be reasonably estimated or there is at least no general location (at least a state) and no general date (month and year) the report cannot be considered reliable and should not be posted.

Furthermore, this should be for new data only, as current practices reflect. No incidents that occurred prior to July 2017 should be reported. This is because getting a consistent frequency of incidents would not be accurate.

And last, please do not report "non-incidents" such as someone had a bad exit because they bumped their camera, took too long in the door, or forgot their SD card, as are mentioned in DSE's famous list.

Maybe this becomes a thing, maybe not, at least I tried

[yoink 321]

While I have no issue with a standard for incident reporting, I do have a problem with some of your suggestions:

Anachronist

And last, please do not report "non-incidents" such as someone had a bad exit because they bumped their camera, took too long in the door

Why not?


If someone hoses my spot because they spent too long messing around with their cameras resulting in me taking an off landing that is an increase in the risk on my jump directly because of the camera fixation.

Your methodology of disregarding any previous incidents is also transparently biased. A literature review of previous data is absolutely standard for any scientific study - you don't just get to pretend that it didn't happen.

If you really want to do this you take into account all issues, and then maybe classify them into direct and indirect risks.

[sammielu 3]

This proposed list/thread is going to have a whole lot of missing data in the "resolved" category - asking jumpers to self report issues they had that others don't notice will likely give you few results and skew the numbers.

Plus, aren't all jumps camera jumps these days?

[GoneCodFishing 24]

yoink

If someone hoses my spot because they spent too long messing around with their cameras resulting in me taking an off landing that is an increase in the risk on my jump directly because of the camera fixation.

Don't you just hate it when these guys with their fancy gopros physically force you off the plane in the wrong spot making you take an off landing... It's even worse when they hold your hands in freefall meaning you can't pull a bit higher to ensure making the PLA!

[mik 2]

Just trying to understand how this would work... The low time jumper I saw at the boarding point playing with his shiny new camera but who had forgotten to put on his rig would not be reported as evidence of camera distraction because it was picked up before boarding? Is this correct?

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

[akarunway 1]

Do you work for the camera police? Let's start a database so the FFA can get involved. Just what we need.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[KayYoss 0]

akarunway

Do you work for the camera police? Let's start a database so the FFA can get involved. Just what we need.

Yeah, those future farmers can mess up anything.

[yoink 321]

akarunway

Do you work for the camera police? Let's start a database so the FFA can get involved. Just what we need.

Lets keep a database so we can responsibly police ourselves... you know, like we say we do.

[Ron 10]

Here is one, the jumper is me. The camera was 100% responsible for me being stupid and pulling below 1,000 feet.

https://youtu.be/zGUkvl8HpQk

Details are in the description.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Anachronist 2]

Welp, I tried...

[dorbie 0]

DSE once maintained an incident list in a sticky thread in the Photography and Video forum. Its focus is on small form factor cameras. I think the reasoning is vidiots tend to slap one of these on their helmet without too much thought or training, often with no cutaway system and inadequate jump numbers. It seems a bit inactive now but how much repetition do you need to get the message?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3894693

[Ron 10]

Anachronist

Welp, I tried...

Yep, and I provided a first hand account with my admittance that the distraction almost killed me.... With video

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[yoink 321]

Your submission doesn't fall into the agenda that the OP has.

[tred 0]

and your description in your video says you had over 200 jumps, your just backing up his point

[DanG 1]

Um, no.

- Dan G

[Ron 10]

tred

and your description in your video says you had over 200 jumps, your just backing up his point

If anything, it is saying 200 jumps is not enough.

See if the argument is that 200 jumps is 'too much' to ask, then a guy that had a handful more having an issue actually strengthens the argument against his position.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[tred 0]

fair enough, or just that jump numbers is a useless way to determine this, but no need to go through all this over again in a different place

[obelixtim 127]

tred

fair enough, or just that jump numbers is a useless way to determine this, but no need to go through all this over again in a different place

What then would be a better way to determine readiness?

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[yoink 321]

obelixtim

***fair enough, or just that jump numbers is a useless way to determine this, but no need to go through all this over again in a different place

What then would be a better way to determine readiness?

An official camera flying qualification - something akin to an AFFI qualification with in air evaluation as well as a written exam... You could put yourself forward for it with 50 or 100 jumps AND a recommendation from your ST&A.

The course would need to be something that tests in-air skills and awareness, as well as camera skills to actually get a decent shot. You're teaching someone to be a camera flyer. It's not just a couple of jumps with a coach to get the rating.

Have 2 levels, one that qualifies you for fun jumping with a small form factor video camera, and another for professional tandem photography that involves a stills camera. I think the technical differences might require that.

I'd get rid of the idea of 'just putting a camera on for me' being different to 'proper videography', and lump it all into a serious 'camera work' qualification. Either you do it right or you don't fly camera, but when you DO have it, then you should be good to fly with freefall teams, CRW dogs or tandems (other prerequisites not withstanding)


I'd do it in this formal manner so that the training syllabus would be consistent across dropzones and steer away for the 'mentoring' way of doing it which could lead to massively variable results.

[obelixtim 127]

yoink

******fair enough, or just that jump numbers is a useless way to determine this, but no need to go through all this over again in a different place

What then would be a better way to determine readiness?

An official camera flying qualification - something akin to an AFFI qualification with in air evaluation as well as a written exam... You could put yourself forward for it with 50 or 100 jumps AND a recommendation from your ST&A.

The course would need to be something that tests in-air skills and awareness, as well as camera skills to actually get a decent shot. You're teaching someone to be a camera flyer. It's not just a couple of jumps with a coach to get the rating.

Have 2 levels, one that qualifies you for fun jumping with a small form factor video camera, and another for professional tandem photography that involves a stills camera. I think the technical differences might require that.

I'd get rid of the idea of 'just putting a camera on for me' being different to 'proper videography', and lump it all into a serious 'camera work' qualification. Either you do it right or you don't fly camera, but when you DO have it, then you should be good to fly with freefall teams, CRW dogs or tandems (other prerequisites not withstanding)


I'd do it in this formal manner so that the training syllabus would be consistent across dropzones and steer away for the 'mentoring' way of doing it which could lead to massively variable results.

Yeah, I had that in mind, but I was really looking for an answer from the perspective of someone like Tred who has a relatively low number of jumps.

That cohort seems to be the one with a problem about jump numbers.

A bit quick on the trigger mate!

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[yoink 321]

obelixtim

A bit quick on the trigger mate!

I've been proposing this idea since 2014.

[Bob_Church 7]

Would we we get to wear a yellow sash?

[fcajump 157]

Bob_Church

Would we we get to wear a yellow sash?

OK, now you're just showing off your age...

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...