0
JWest

POV cameras and Jump number.

Recommended Posts

JohnnyMarko

***
So I'd argue that there is a safety/review aspect of flying a camera that offsets at least some of the disadvantages of wearing one.



I'd argue no

On what grounds would you argue that the camera does not have at least some positive aspects, including this one? I've put forward a real-life example in which a safety violation was detected after reviewing video, one for which a newer jumper was being unfairly scapegoated. It may not outweigh all of the negatives for flying camera, but it is something that goes in the + column.

Cameras on skydivers can function much like the dashboard cam on a car might, in the sense that they can collect evidence from unexpected incidents that might prove useful later to help determine what happened.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JeffCa

******
So I'd argue that there is a safety/review aspect of flying a camera that offsets at least some of the disadvantages of wearing one.



I'd argue no

On what grounds would you argue that the camera does not have at least some positive aspects, including this one? I've put forward a real-life example in which a safety violation was detected after reviewing video, one for which a newer jumper was being unfairly scapegoated. It may not outweigh all of the negatives for flying camera, but it is something that goes in the + column.

Cameras on skydivers can function much like the dashboard cam on a car might, in the sense that they can collect evidence from unexpected incidents that might prove useful later to help determine what happened.

I would agree that having it "offests some of the disadvantages."

Having it as a "Flight Data Recorder" gives unbiased, unarguable proof of what happened (assuming whatever happened was "on camera").

But I don't see that being the case often enough to make it a valid argument.
I don't think it offsets enough of the risks to make it worthwhile.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would agree that having it "offests some of the disadvantages."

Having it as a "Flight Data Recorder" gives unbiased, unarguable proof of what happened (assuming whatever happened was "on camera").

But I don't see that being the case often enough to make it a valid argument.
I don't think it offsets enough of the risks to make it worthwhile.

Of course it's a valid argument, because what you wrote is exactly what I wrote. Nowhere did I write anything different. Some people may be so hung up on dissing cameras that they would refuse to admit that there are any pros to it at all. I put forward a pro, stated that it was a pro, also mentioned that there are cons. So my argument is that the dashboard cam factor is something for the + column.

I'm hardly a "strap a camera on all newbies" proponent. I don't even fly a camera, because I think the cons outweigh the pros. I even have a GoPro 3+ Black right now, but only use it for scuba.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Having it as a "Flight Data Recorder" gives unbiased, unarguable proof of what happened (assuming whatever happened was "on camera").


Unfortunately, in the spirit of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, taking a camera on the jump alters the jump you wish to document, i.e. people tend to fly and act different in front of a camera (myself included).
NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JeffCa


Cameras on skydivers can function much like the dashboard cam on a car might, in the sense that they can collect evidence from unexpected incidents that might prove useful later to help determine what happened.



I absolutely agree with this 110%!!! Unfortunately, you still need to wait until (under USPA rules) 200 jumps. Yes! There is an upside to small format cameras. Just wait till you have the experience to wear one.

The attached graph is from years of studying safety data...
Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool

***
Cameras on skydivers can function much like the dashboard cam on a car might, in the sense that they can collect evidence from unexpected incidents that might prove useful later to help determine what happened.



I absolutely agree with this 110%!!! Unfortunately, you still need to wait until (under USPA rules) 200 jumps. Yes! There is an upside to small format cameras. Just wait till you have the experience to wear one.

The attached graph is from years of studying safety data...

Time is working against you. The day when students starts skydiving with helmet or goggle integrated camera is getting closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phoenixlpr



Time is working against you. The day when students starts skydiving with helmet or goggle integrated camera is getting closer.



I don't see it.

As long as safety is the primary concern of teaching then there is no good reason that a student should ever require a camera, and students generally expect to do what instructors tell them...

As soon as they get released into the wild however, the 'Mad Skillz Principle' is in effect and some students immediately think they know everything and think they have the experience and skill to make their own decisions. (You only have 10,000 jumps, but I have an A licence. You don't know me. I can make my own decisions etc etc..)

I agree that the gap in application of the 'MS Principle' is getting shorter, but don't believe it will ever apply to pre-A license. At least not as long as we have any half decent instructors around.

I wouldn't be surprised however, to start seeing integrated cameras popping up on people with less than 25 jumps.

Edit:
Now that I think about it (and playing devils advocate), there's probably an interesting discussion to be had about including cameras from day 1 training and demystifying the kudos that is attached to jumping with a camera.

For the instructors out there, if you could completely remove any mechanical interference the camera added, so it was just like wearing a normal pair of goggles, do you think it would be detrimental to the teaching process?

There's a part of me that thinks students are so overwhelmed with being strapped to strange bits of kit on their first jump that you might well be able to teach around it. It wouldn't even be worth a mention... 'Put these goggles on. There's a camera built in so that we can see where your focus is on exit and at key points in the dive'.


For me, the most dangerous time for a new camera jumper is when they are including that in their planning of the typical (non-camera focused) dive. Even people who say they will forget it know that their first jump with a camera is a milestone in the sport and behave differently as a result. Remove that milestone and you may well have a different uptake and different result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phoenixlpr

The day when students starts skydiving with helmet or goggle integrated camera is getting closer.



It certainly is, and I am already laughing to myself at the people who are in denial of this.

I mean, after all, what kind of idiot tandem instructor would put a big scary dangerous snag hazard on their wrist just to get a mediocre video? But we are there. Today. Who would have ever thunk it years ago?

And what kind of DZ would have a student rig with a throw-out pilot chute that could tangle on the student if deployed poorly? Oh, the horrors.

POV cameras on students will eventually become marketing tools. No one will even mention the instructional use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You put that pretty well. I remember when DZ's started going to square reserves and when Roger started putting students on Sabres! The arguments between the old and the new was quite the show. Gear and training constantly evolves and we are already seeing the next generation challenge the current.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may be a bit off topic, but there is a piece of equipment that can be very hazardous for students and many times, people seem oblivious towards it, the Radio!

I've seen several times students not giving the appropriate attention on canopy navigation because "I don't need to pay attention, the instrcutor will tell me what to do". Most of the times the radio works, but when it doesn't, you are in for a surprise, students landing on churches, roadways, fences, houses, runways, rocks, trees and eventually on the landing area.

I'd agree that maybe a camera on a student (on the principal that it is a dash cam) can be something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I'd agree that maybe a camera on a student (on the principal that it is a dash cam)
>can be something to think about.

Have you ever seen the video from someone jumping with a camera for the first time? It's not that useful (to put it mildly.) It might be useful after a fatality to try to deflect blame, but of course that can work in both directions.

I think Gary's right. They will come eventually, but will have nothing to do with education. They will come because DZO's want to make an extra $5 per AFF level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcordell

It seems to me it would be better to have a requirement or recommendation that camera jumping is generally prohibited until signed off by a local S&TA or I.



First rational thing I've seen in this thread in a while. It's funny to see how quickly some people abandon their beliefs that self regulation works best for skydiving when it comes to gopros.

In other countries you have to get an S&TA (or equivalent) to sign off on not just cameras but every downsize, wingsuits, track suits, etc. While beaurocratic, it's certainly better than the "21 to drink for everyone" equivalent in place at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyosha

In other countries you have to get an S&TA (or equivalent) to sign off on not just cameras but every downsize, wingsuits, track suits, etc. While beaurocratic, it's certainly better than the "21 to drink for everyone" equivalent in place at the moment.



Are there actually any places where S&TA signature replaces a jumper number minimum? I'm willing to bet that in most cases it is just an added requirement on top of a jumper number requirement.

A 5 year old should not be drinking no matter who signs what. ;)
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The111

Are there actually any places where S&TA signature replaces a jumper number minimum? I'm willing to bet that in most cases it is just an added requirement on top of a jumper number requirement.



I'll gladly take your money.

Yes, there are places where your local DZ senior safety official determines whether or not you are mature enough to handle ________ (insert common source of risk i.e. cameras, downsizing, etc.) and there is no mandatory laws from a common regulatory body.

Because, you know, your local canopy coach that's seen you fly will know best how far away you are from downsizing. That sort of reasoning, only applied to also gopros and wingsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyosha



First rational thing I've seen in this thread in a while. It's funny to see how quickly some people abandon their beliefs that self regulation works best for skydiving when it comes to gopros.



Historically we SUCK at 'self regulation'. Deaths under functional canopies have been the most common cause of death since I've been jumping and as an industry we've done basically fuck all about it.

Just throwing that into the mix.


and in any case,the very argument for self-regulation you're making doesn't stand up. We ARE suggesting self regulation. You may not agree on what those numbers / quantifiers are, but I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that it should be an FAA mandate. THAT would be an example of non self-regulation.
What is being discussed here is no different than the regulations for canopy downsizing or wingsuiting - standards set within the sport which forms the basis for a best practice. That IS self regulation... :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyosha


Because, you know, your local canopy coach that's seen you fly will know best how far away you are from downsizing. That sort of reasoning, only applied to also gopros and wingsuits.



Tell that to Shayna.
"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and yet an instructor cannot sign off on a b license canopy proficiency card or a D license but an S&TA can. Obviously USPA puts a lot of faith in them, even beyond that of a rated instructor. Why should cameras be any different?
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcordell

and yet an instructor cannot sign off on a b license canopy proficiency card or a D license but an S&TA can. Obviously USPA puts a lot of faith in them, even beyond that of a rated instructor. Why should cameras be any different?



The two examples you gave have minimum jump numbers plus S&TA approval. If you want to make cameras no different, then we need to add S&TA approval to the current jump number limits. :)
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The111


The two examples you gave have minimum jump numbers plus S&TA approval. If you want to make cameras no different, then we need to add S&TA approval to the current jump number limits. :)



I wouldn't have a problem with that. My response was more in relation to the idea S&TAs aren't qualified for anything. I don't have a problem with more stringent requirements for cameras as long as those requirements result in a rating, otherwise jumpers going from dz to dz can do whatever they want and nobody knows if they are qualified. Remember, there is no requirement right now for a camera. The SIM says a C license is recommended, not required.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piisfish

This is how cameras are different



I think any jumper that wants to stick a camera on their head should have to watch your video of when a camera jump goes bad.

They might just wait for a while longer.
50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0