Video camera limits and experience (and new tech)

[mxk 1]

DanG

Problem solved.

What problem?

[kallend 1,623]

tkhayes

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.

Not arbitrary at all. It's (number of hands)*(number of digits on hands)^2. Clearly related to the jumper's anatomy.

...

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

[fcajump 153]

DanG

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

Maybe, as we are pulling both sides of this tug of war, the solutions is both... skills and experience/license...

What about putting in to the license, skill requirements to show that you are informed/skilled in how to safely mount, inspect, use a camera. I don't care for squat what your vid looks like, just that you know what the issues are and how to work with it safely as we do with other normal skill issues.

I can hear it now... but what about the folks that don't want to jump with a camera.... Well, some don't like night jumps, and others don't normally jump near bodies of water, but we require you go through safety training and do some minimum amount of training on these things before you are considered an 'advanced' or 'master' skydiver. Times ARE changing, cameras are becoming 'normal'... well, our training and licensing already has a model/standard-practice for teaching folks how to approach those things that are normal parts of their jumping experience.

JW

PS - my own opinion...
- none on students, none on tandem passengers (expect experienced/licensed ride-alongs) many can turn it on and forget, but many won't... they'll be trying to get the rad-shot (or compose their pic) rather than focusing on the new skills they are learning.
- training/skill sign-off as part of C license
- take off the camera when you are a 'student' of a new skill/discipline, regardless of level of experience with other disciplines.

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

What problem?

TK had a problem with the 200 jump requirement because it doesn't reflect skill level. The actual requirement is a C license, which does reflect skill level.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Adding a signoff to the C license application that the applicant has received camera training, and including camera related questions on the C license exam would seeem to address the training issue, to at least some extent. It can be up to the Instructor signing off the C license application how much camera training they require.

- Dan G

[tred 0]

again one could argue that if someone has met all the required skills and check offs why do they need to wait until they have the magic 200 jumps?

[ststorm 0]

I am a relatively new jumper who bought my GoPro at about jump 40 and didn't start jumping it until recently at almost 400 jumps.
I agree there should be more education and training for flying camera, which should include skills demonstration.
I believe there is a snag hazard, which could dramatically affect emergency procedures, especially with the tighter fitting full face helmets most of us wear. I don't believe that is the biggest risk though.
I think the distraction factor and potential emergency complications are the real issue that new camera jumpers should be more aware of, and there should be a specific training and sign off for flying camera.
Just my 2 cents as a relatively new jumper.

[riggerrob 558]

Dinosaur?
How dare you call me a dinosaur?

I'll have you know that I am a "grumpy old grey-bearded Master Rigger" who made up his mind about cameras back in 1987, and please don't waste your time telling me anything new.
Back in 1987, Robin Sutherland died after snagging alone on his ornate camera helmet. I cried when I heard about Robin's last skydive.

Most Go-Pro mounts have more snag points than Robin's home-made helmet. Most Go-Pro mounts scare me!
The short-term solution is filling those snag points with scraps of foam and duct-tape.
The medium-term solution is invented (bolt-on) mounts with fairings that encourage lines to slide off.
The long-term solution is cameras imbedded in helmets so that lenses are flush with the shell and impossible to snag

As for pre-levels before junior jumpers can start joint cameras ... big organizations like USPA, CSPA, APF, BPA, etc. tend to talk in short-hand about numbers if jumps and license levels. Sadly, few big organizations explain the logic behind their limitations. This short-hand leaves a communications/knowledge gap between administrators and junior jumpers.

May I suggest an alternative? .... similar to Bill Von's list of canopy skills before down-sizing?

[councilman24 36]

Snag hazaed is the convient, easily understood reason for newbies that can't be bothered to learn how to pack their main, don't know the difference between an AAD and an RSL and don't know how to read an analog altimeter. The more pressing reason is the same as the reason texting and driving is outlawed many places, hands free is required for phone calls in some and in some places even hands free calling is banned. Distraction.

Wondering if the camera is on, is there space on the card, is the housing closed, is it set for HD. All instead of where is the spot, is my PC handle in the right place, do I know which way to land, is the group in front of me pulling at 5000' instead of 4000'?

We can't keep AFF instructors from putting their camera based PC catchers in a students way. Why? Because of the attitude toward these camera's. Once you get past some of the distraction there is STILL the real snag hazard.

It's not only distraction from that one jump but distraction from learning the basics. You complain about 500 jump wonders who can't fly a parachute. How often have you heard a newbie turn down rw with a veteran because they just want to get some 'film' of a jump with their camera. 'Lets go get some video for facebook', not lets go practice launching a 2 way. And of course they have to look at/upload their video instead of pack their main or figure out what they did wrong on their landing. If that 50 jump wonder is allowed to jump a camera but not video someone else they're not learning.

Yes we moved from rounds to ram airs for students. Because we figured out it was SAFER. Find me one way having a camera makes a jump safer. Except they give me lots of video of what not to do for safety day. When a newbie forgets their chest strap but spends the rest of their life (except for an AAD save) trying to fasten it in free fall and is still trying to fasten it on the ground someone has spent time playing with their camera instead of figuring.out how not to die.

I sound like my instructor in the early 80's who wouldn't let TO PC's on the DZ until he heard a safety advantage. When I pointed out the PC put more force on the pin than I could he said OK.

I not only had that handmade mount for a motor drive 35mm I had a chest mount full size VHS VCR with a separate color camera on a protec. All under 200 jumps. But my mounts all were virtually snag proof. I knew enough to know I could die. Just because we got away with shit doesn't mean we can't try to save others from themselves.

And I bitch just as loud about full face helmets. I just finally found one I was willing to jump after looking for 20 years. And I still don't like it.

So I'll be a dick and a dinosaur. Guess it's a good thing I'm not a DZO.

Guess I'm done with my rant for the week.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[mxk 1]

DanG

Quote

What problem?

TK had a problem with the 200 jump requirement because it doesn't reflect skill level. The actual requirement is a C license, which does reflect skill level.

Then I'm glad to learn that my skills over the last two non-jumping weekends have improved
Seriously though, the original point was that it's a poor heuristic and one that will become more difficult to justify as technology improves. New skydivers will understandably wonder why a full face helmet with an audible on jump 26 is acceptable, but a camera that's about the same size (give it a couple more years) inserted into a similar helmet pocket is not.

Since your profile says Skydive Orange as well, what is their #1 argument against cameras ("Can I bring a GoPro" at the bottom)? As some of the current arguments become invalid, which is the premise of this thread, I think it's perfectly reasonable to re-evaluate the minimum requirements for their use.

In fact, if distraction is left as the top problem, and knowing that almost everyone will eventually put a camera on their head, perhaps there is a good argument to be made for teaching camera use as part of the AFF curriculum.

[piisfish 135]

riggerrob

The long-term solution is cameras imbedded in helmets so that lenses are flush with the shell and impossible to snag

something like this ? http://www.skyvisionpara.com/ ??

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Bluhdow 31]

councilman24

Yes we moved from rounds to ram airs for students. Because we figured out it was SAFER. Find me one way having a camera makes a jump safer.

This is a pretty solid point. I don't know that there will ever be a case to be made for cameras IMPROVING safety...but one could certainly (either now, or in the future as technology improves) make the case that they don't make it more UNSAFE. Or, at least, not more unsafe enough as to maintain the current guidelines.

To me, a camera skills checklist would be a good starting point. I think the appropriate place would be after a B license. Not as part of the B license, but a separate rating to be earned once the B level is reached.

The problem with the 200 jump requirement is that it seems ridiculous so it frequently goes ignored. Hell, I ignored it. I'm not saying it was right, or smart. But I had 100 or so jumps and just said, "F*ck that nonsense rule." I get it now, but I didn't then. I don't think I'm unique in that way.

Had the requirement been a short course or skills checklist after 50 jumps I would have both taken the required training AND been more prepared.

Apex BASE
#1816

[DSE 3]

I've felt that camera training should be part of the coaches course. Yes, it would lengthen the course, and that's OK. It distresses me anyway, to see coach courses that only last half a day. Adding a new component that has some testing of camera awareness is a good add, IMO.

As the "small camera incidents" list shows, the issue of small cameras has almost nothing to do with snag hazards. Sure...there have been a couple of deaths in the BASE community due to snags, but we're talking skydiving. Yes, there have been a couple of camera ignorance-related collisions that have caused injury, and certainly we've had multiple screwups because of altitude loss of awareness related to camera, and more than a few AAD fires (seen three of them up close and personal).

Overall, the big issue is altitude and situational awareness. Size of camera doesn't matter, trying to "get the shot" matters.

https://vimeo.com/64251059 and then there is just general "ignorance" or being unaware.

Somewhere on dz.com is a video of two jumpers with around 100 jumps each, trying to film each other and admitting on here that "we just wanted to get a dock on video."
One of them, his canopy blew up when he deployed on his back at a low altitude.
There is also one where two jumpers were trying for a "cool shot" and both had AAD fires.

Awareness comes with experience. Perhaps experiential requirements could be reduced with education, signoffs, oversight.

However, suggesting the size of the camera bears any valid relevance in this conversation is ignoring the greater issue.

[councilman24 36]

Teaching what to do or having a checklist isn't the point. It what NOT to do. Assuming you can get to a no snag mount and manage to turn it on without forgetting anything else you have to think about you asking.people to forget they have it on.
Forget you have it on until your good enough that your thinking about it doesn't make any difference to your other skills and reactions.

I maintain that you can't do that. Wearing a camera, any camera, will never be as safe as not wearing one. Just like talking on a phone while driving will never be as safe as not talking on a phone. At some point you have enough experience, knowledge and skill to decide to take that risk In my state new drivers are not allowed to talk on a phone. They need to build skills. So do skydivers without that one more distraction of is the camera on.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[78RATS 0]

Quote

Overall, the big issue is altitude and situational awareness. Size of camera doesn't matter, trying to "get the shot" matters.

This ^. Lots of money shots from the basement.

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

[Bluhdow 31]

councilman24

Wearing a camera, any camera, will never be as safe as not wearing one. Just like talking on a phone while driving will never be as safe as not talking on a phone. At some point you have enough experience, knowledge and skill to decide to take that risk In my state new drivers are not allowed to talk on a phone. They need to build skills. So do skydivers without that one more distraction of is the camera on.

I agree. But there are still new-ish drivers on the phone and new-ish jumpers with cameras. Everyone has a first camera jump eventually.

When I was learning to drive car accident carnage videos were part of the curriculum. Even my insurance company has a video for young drivers with horror stories to try and drive home (pun) the danger factor associated with driving.

If part of the camera curriculum was a compilation of camera-related incidents I think that could be impactful (pun).

Apex BASE
#1816

[riggerrob 558]

piisfish

***The long-term solution is cameras imbedded in helmets so that lenses are flush with the shell and impossible to snag

something like this ? http://www.skyvisionpara.com/ ??

..............................................................

That SkyVision Pro helmet looks as snag-free as my Sidewinder and Bonehead Full-Box helmets.

Sad thing is the old guys will lose this argument just as cameras shrink small enough to make the snag hazard disappear.

Maybe we need to start writing out a list of pre-level skills before people start jumping cameras. The pre-list should start with "X" number of minutes of video of chasing your cat around, to demonstrate basic knowledge of your camera before you allow it within a mile of your parachute.

[councilman24 36]

Bluhdow

***Wearing a camera, any camera, will never be as safe as not wearing one. Just like talking on a phone while driving will never be as safe as not talking on a phone. At some point you have enough experience, knowledge and skill to decide to take that risk In my state new drivers are not allowed to talk on a phone. They need to build skills. So do skydivers without that one more distraction of is the camera on.

I agree. ..... Everyone has a first camera jump eventually. ........

If part of the camera curriculum was a compilation of camera-related incidents I think that could be impactful (pun).

No, not everyone has to! That's part of my point. New jumpers need to know that no matter what they are using or how simple it ads risk in terms of entanglement (fixable sometimes) and distraction (only mitigated with time, but never eliminated). Not everyone has to accept that risk. It needs to be an educated decision, not just the kewl thing, and come at a time the jumper knows enough to be nervous about it. Before go pro type camera flyers had to invest money and time for skill and equipment. We accepted the risk because we thought about it for months or years, built our own mounts, learned from each other, and had enough experience to decide if the risk was acceptable.

Now TK and I were snot nosed newbies that didn't know better. And we lived. But one experienced camera jumper left the airplane with his chest mount VCR but not his rig. And he wasn't the only one to head to the airplane without a rig. The simpler cameras may not bring that much distraction but they do bring distraction. Even if the camera was built into the helmet, connected by bluetooth to download automatically, activated when the plane took off like an AAD, you still think about aiming it.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[cruelpops 0]

I think the arbitrary license/jump number isn't established with any concrete precedence other than it is deemed as some "magical" benchmark. I hear people say, "oh you need a C-license". No, you really don't. The SIM specifically states, "A USPA C license is recommended." which is only a suggestion and thus jumpers and DZs have adopted it as gospel.

The SIM seems as though it was written in the context of 25 pound camera boxes strapped to someone's helmet from 1979 and then loosely edited thereafter.

I could support something similar to this process:

- Person must obtain a B-license first and then;
- Participate in camera/jump training (hands on);
- Pass an oral test;
- Sign-off by S&TA or IE;
- Submit to USPA; and
- Receive a special designation on your license.

I could go the to the opposite extreme and require only an A-license and 100 jumps but again... it's another magical benchmark figure. I could also support no requirements as some altimeters are bigger than cameras.

[Bluhdow 31]

councilman24

No, not everyone has to! That's part of my point. New jumpers need to know that no matter what they are using or how simple it ads risk in terms of entanglement (fixable sometimes) and distraction (only mitigated with time, but never eliminated). Not everyone has to accept that risk.

I recognize that it's not compulsory. But you should also be willing to cede the fact that it's so popular might as well be. You and I are from different generations. I can't speak for all millennials, but I don't think I'm making some giant leap in suggesting that the vast majority of jumpers in my generation have a few things in common:

1. They are very comfortable with technology.
2. They carry a camera in their pocket at all times.
3. They don't intuitively understand the difference between wearing a camera on a skydive versus snowboarding versus riding a motorcycle, etc.

At some point we have to realize that there are two options:

1. We can make rules which sound nice but are followed by very few.

2. We can make rules which strike some as a compromise, but are much more likely to be followed.

I was the guy these rules were written for. I blew off the 200 jump rule. Sure the rule sounds good to you, but I didn't intuitively understand why the old guys were so stubborn about it. I think if there was a course/checklist available to people just like me at 50 jumps I would have had more training, more understanding, and maybe even more jumps before putting a camera on.

I'm past it now and don't care either way. But in my view you can keep pounding the table at cool/kewl/kool/kule kids and be ignored...or recognize that the world is changing and adapt appropriately.

With all due respect, of course.

Apex BASE
#1816

[councilman24 36]

Quote

3. They don't intuitively understand the difference between wearing a camera on a skydive versus snowboarding versus riding a motorcycle, etc.

This is the issue. Before AAD's were popular pre Cypres when we left the airplane we were dead unless we took some positive action. A rare position to be in. Widespread AAD's have changed this awareness and mindset. Don't get me wrong I'm glad we have modern AAD's but the mindset still should be your dead until you do something. This isn't skiing or even motorcycle riding. This is a 120mph impact. Maybe we ought to put those photos in the wavier.

You don't need your go pro to have fun skydiving. If there isn't an airplane for you to get on with it you can't break the rule.

As I type on my Android phone with videos of my children on it watching a live streaming video of a local meeting. I get that it's fun to have video. But 'they' need to learn you can die.

I'm done ranting, for today.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[diablopilot 2]

You're the kind of guy that doesn't see anything wrong with texting while driving, ain't cha?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,400]

>You're the kind of guy that doesn't see anything wrong with texting while driving, ain't cha?

That's something that's only a problem for old people who can't multitask as well as the new generation.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Yes, the multitask argument is real. No one can truly multitask. Either the camera, or the skydive tasks have to be largely second nature for both to be done well. This means low experience jumpers will have to choose where to put their attention. Which task will suffer? Hopefully it will be the camera work. It almost always is, we've all seen the boring pointless video shot by newbies.

TK is right. We will all need to make adjustments in how we teach and coach and make some allowances for new jumpers to figure out how best to cope with their mini cameras. It won't be a complete retreat from the current rules, but there will be change.

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

[JWest 0]

Once the snag factor is mostly eliminated, old timers will just start focusing on the distraction aspect. As DSE pointed out, distraction is the bigger issue, aka 'trying to get the shot.' Distraction should be the go to explanation to discourage camera use by new jumpers.

The discussion about new jumpers should include the differences between 'active filming' and 'passive filming.' 'Active filming' is the contributing factor to the majority of the small format camera incidences. However the physicality of the camera should not be ignored while 'passive filming.' There is always the potential to hit or snag it on something other than just a deploying parachute. Turning it on can also be a distraction from gear checks.

I believe this conversation should be had with everyone who wants to jump a camera. Weather it be formal or informal training.

Last thing I want to point out before I disappear -in fear of tanking this thread- is about the argument involving having a camera from day one of AFF. Having a camera from day one would't make turning it on distraction, it would become the new standard. Yes, in comparison to the old standard it would be a distraction. To people who learned the new standard it would be totally normal for them. It wouldn't be something new, or different. I'm not making the argument that it wouldn't still be a nonessential and the argument could be made that a nonessential=distraction. I am only saying that if that was the standard, turning on the camera would be just as standard as checking handles. I assume it is that way for some of you experienced camera flyers.