loch1957 0 #76 February 10, 2012 Why look up? My instructor wont let me use a camera. I'm not an expert by any means but lot of people refer to the instructor may have been lacking, some of his first words were "you should have went to reserve" Assuming that was his instructor.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpsalot-2 2 #77 February 10, 2012 Quote Quote Good chance it would have, yes. He might have looked at his canopy instead of staying focused on what he was shooting, and that might have made him realize the damage to it. He may have been looking around more before he pulled had he not been staring straight down at the DZ. I don't believe for a second he was actually concentrating on what he was shooting. Not only do I think he should not have been wearing a camera, I'm thinking he shouldn't have been on a 4 way. Quote I'm thinking he was not part of the 4-way, just a solo jumper who got excited (anxious) about the cloud cover issue and spaced off on any seperation from the other group. I think that, because there in no attempt to video the 4-way. He then opened at his deployment alt..........right next to the other group. The other guy did go "right" to try to avoid him, but he did nothing, or maybe alittle left. Big ways first, then solos, tandems, wingsuits (trackers). Nobody here seems to know, but that's my opinion. Seperation, seperation, seperation.... Life is short ... jump often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnay 0 #78 February 10, 2012 QuoteWhy look up? My instructor wont let me use a camera. I'm not an expert by any means but lot of people refer to the instructor may have been lacking, some of his first words were "you should have went to reserve" Assuming that was his instructor. Why look up? Probably to make sure your canopy isnt torn in half. If people on the ground tell you "there's no fucking way you should land that canopy", there's no fucking way you should ever try to land that canopy. He was flying a deformed canopy with broken lines, and didnt even look up once to check the condition of it after someone sailed right through it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
demoknite 0 #79 February 10, 2012 Quote ~Bit of a rant here but: Is it just me... or is everybody pissed off at everything for some reason ? Lotta responses lately to a lotta threads that seem to be calling people making errors, asking questions, having differing opinions ... everything from a DGIT, to a crater in the making, to a shit-house mouse!? Everybody makes mistakes...we really need to put the jackboots into the ribcage EVERYTIME?? Is it ALWAYS like this and I'm just now noticing it or is it that everybody just got the grumps...We trying to 'teach' people how to grow in the sport, or 'shame' them into quitting? "...any of you guys calls me Francis...and I'll KILL YA!" Thats why I rarely come here anymore. Anyone with less than 10,000 jumps is a n00b and go pros are the devil. Multiply that times whatever and thats what this forum has become. People start their posts with "im just a newb" because they are afraid of getting flamed on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #80 February 10, 2012 QuoteQuote~Bit of a rant here but: Is it just me... or is everybody pissed off at everything for some reason ? Thats why I rarely come here anymore. Anyone with less than 10,000 jumps is a n00b and go pros are the devil. Multiply that times whatever and thats what this forum has become. People start their posts with "im just a newb" because they are afraid of getting flamed on. Yeah, I agree! Here's a thought: Anyone who is complaining about this guy wearing a camera should not be allowed to comment on the video because to them the video shouldn't exist, so therefore, they don't believe they should have anything to comment on! I'm seriously starting to believe that the camera debate should be moved to SC with all the other irrational, emotional issues like gun control and abortion.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 143 #81 February 10, 2012 QuoteWhy look up? My instructor wont let me use a camera. I'm not an expert by any means but lot of people refer to the instructor may have been lacking, some of his first words were "you should have went to reserve" Assuming that was his instructor. Hopefully someone like popsjumper will step in and answer more completely. Part of check canopy is to physically look at it. Just because something is flying correctly NOW doesn't mean it isn't hanging on by a thread - quite literally. As this person is jumping with a camera it is safe to assume they have their A license. Technically this means that they are no longer under the supervision of an instructor. So when people in the thread refer to deficient instruction, it is normally with regards to their early training prior to self supervision. The person who told them you should have cut-away could be anyone, not necessarily an instructor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hellis 0 #82 February 10, 2012 Why is this discussion turning in to a GoPro discussion? This video is clearly NOT a GoPro video. There is not much wideangle on the video. The camera has autofocus. When he passes trough the cloud you can see water, indicating a"large" lens. Under canopy it apears he has a sidemount camera. The sound on the video is clearly not GoPro sound. It does not matter to the incident, but for Eff sake stop saying GoPro and other smal cameras are the biggest problem ever. This incident is a canopycollision with a big format camera. Maybe we should have a thread for those incidents too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #83 February 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteI really wish he'd have looked up...I'd like to have seen exactly how bad the canopy was. probably not as bad as this one after a premature followed by collision in free fall... https://vimeo.com/36065919what collosion in freefall ? sorry I didn't see thatscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #84 February 10, 2012 QuoteI'm seriously starting to believe that the camera debate should be moved to SC with all the other irrational, emotional issues like gun control and abortion. I still believe you have no jump experience, and just hang out here parroting shit you read from other posts, but I don't try to banish you to SC, do I? The fact that this jumper was wearing a camera could have been a contributing factor, and as such, it will be discussed. Even if it wasn't a contributing factor, it doesn't appear to be a good equipment choice, and as such, it will be discussed. You tell me, what's the better scenario - We ignore a possible aspect and confirmed poor equipment choice because we don't want to offend 'some' posters who don't like to hear about it, or we confront the reality of the situation, and call it what it is? I don't expect you to know this, but you don't make it very far in this sport by ignoring things that aren't right. Not every 'possibility' actually manifests itself into an incident or injury, but sometimes they do, so the plan is to eliminate as many of them as you can beforehand. and leave yourself only to deal with situations you have no control over. For the record, I believe that's exactly what happened here. The way the jumper paid zero attention to anything but staring straight ahead, at least to me, smacks of straight up fear and denial. There's no question that there was a problem due to the broken suspension lines visible on the video. If you notice, it's not that he doesn't check the canopy, but he doesn't look around at all or check for traffic or anything, so I get the impression that the guy is just ignoring the problem and hoping for the best. So to all those who think we should ignore problems and hope for the best, this is what happens. I'm sorry if we offend your delicate sensibilites (I'm really not), but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....it's probably a guy with no jumps who likes to post on DZ.com and pretend he's a skydiver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jrjny 0 #85 February 10, 2012 Yeah I'd bet that kinda low FEELS really low after nearly dying in a collision. Can't overstate the importance of EP's -- not just what to do, but unmistakable parameters that you'll obey unflinchingly. Like a switch on a machine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #86 February 10, 2012 Just another comment about the guy not looking up at his canopy--he was judging apparently that it was flying correctly by how it felt--IMHO that is not a great procedure anyway. It is tricky to figure out something like descent rate based on feel. If can feel landable up high and suddenly you discover that it is moving much faster than you expected (due to damage) when you are on final and it is too late to do anything about it."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3mpire 0 #87 February 10, 2012 Quotewhat collosion in freefall ? sorry I didn't see that I was assuming high dude went through low dudes canopy after premature deployment...? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #88 February 10, 2012 Quote You tell me, what's the better scenario - We ignore a possible aspect and confirmed poor equipment choice because we don't want to offend 'some' posters who don't like to hear about it, or we confront the reality of the situation, and call it what it is? Okay, let's call it what it is! 1) A planned jump run into a cloud layer, in violation of the FARs, in which the first jumper spotting at the door says he "can't see shit," probably referring to the DZ. Issue #1 - Cloud Cover/FAR Violation 2) The first two jumpers go and the second two go immediately afterwards without spotting for themselves. At some point it got labeled a 4-way. Watching the video again, it looks to me like there's one 2-way and then two solo jumpers doing their own thing. Issue #2 - Poor spotting/clearing and not enough exit separation. 3) It's difficult to tell how much tracking took place before the jumper deployed, and the cloud cover may have had something to do with it. Issue #3 - Not enough separation at deployment altitude. 4) A canopy collision immediately after deployment. Due to the presence of the camera, it's pretty clear that the jumper immediately spotted the other canopy coming at him and had virtually no time to react. The camera proves that he wasn't distracted by the camera; he wasn't watching his canopy open, he wasn't doing anything other than what he should've been doing anyway. Unfortunately, as soon as he was under canopy the other jumper flew into his canopy apparently causing some pretty severe damage to both the canopy and lines. Issue #4 - Canopy Collision. 5) After the collision, the canopy recovers into basically controlled flight even though severely damaged. The jumper apparently fails to see the situation as an "EMERGENCY" and no significant action is taken to begin emergency procedures, i.e. controllability check. Issue #5 - Failure to test the canopy. 6) Following from #5, the jumper continues flying towards the DZ and commits to landing with a damaged main. This is probably the crux of the incident right here. Why didn't he cut away? The only real risk in a cutaway was that he had several loose lines draped around him, although it's hard to see where they are, or if he made any attempt to clear them, but the risk was likely minimal. Issue #6 - For whatever reason, the jumper misses the chance to exchange his damaged main canopy for his reserve. 7) The jumper has a hard landing, but is uninjured and had he needed any assistance it would have been immediately available. The jumper still seems to be stuck on #5 in that he still doesn't have a full grasp of what just happened because he doesn't even mention to the staff that the canopy was damaged in a collision. He only tells the first guy in the truck that he has "some broken lines." The other staff seems to be under the impression that the canopy was spontaneously damaged during opening. I'll bet the tone of the conversation changed a bit when they saw/heard what really happened. So, in the end, the fact that this jumper was wearing a camera played no role in causing the incident, and the jump and outcome would've likely been no different if he hadn't been wearing a camera. It wasn't the jumper's lack of experience towards wearing a camera that's the issue here, it was his general lack of preparedness in handling a skydiving emergency. Fortunately, he managed to survive a close call, and got a heaping helping of experience to boot, you know, that stuff you need to jump with a camera. What "offends" me here is the witchhunt that is going on to make cameras the scapegoat for every incident when most of the time it doesn't even involve an "incident." Posting a video of a "first solo" on Facebook is not an incident. Standing in line to board an aircraft is not an incident. If this incident wasn't on video and if it happened to make it to the Incidents board, what would it have said? Canopy Collision - San Diego (non-fatal) : After deployment two jumpers collided with each other when one jumper flew through the other's canopy head-on. Fortunately, there was no wrap or entanglement and both jumpers were able to land safely on their mains even though one of the canopies did sustain some damage and had some broken lines. 1st Post - What equipment? How high? 2nd Post - How much experience? 3rd Post - Were they wearing cameras? Just imagine, in ten years no one will care if anyone jumps with a camera because it will be included in the AFF program right from the start. And to think, that it's the inexperienced newbies of today that are the pioneers of the future of sport! By the way, I'm pretty sure I've never pretended to be a skydiver.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #89 February 10, 2012 >Fortunately, he managed to survive a close call, and got a heaping helping of >experience to boot, you know, that stuff you need to jump with a camera. Yes. And if every person who wanted to jump a camera had a serious incident or a fatality _using_ a camera, then they'd be better prepared to jump them. However, nowadays we tend towards learning progressions that try to avoid serious incidents or fatalities. Reminds me of a quote from Douglas Adams: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #90 February 10, 2012 QuoteBy the way, I'm pretty sure I've never pretended to be a skydiver I'll admit that I cannot recall you specifically claiming to be a skydver, so you may correct on that point. That does not, however, eliminate the possibility that you are not indeed a skydiver, just that you have never claimed to be one. Please, for the record, let's put this issue to bed - Have you ever completed a skydive of any kind? If so, have you ever completed a solo skydive? If so, have you ever earned a USPA (or equivilant) skydiving license? Simple, basic questions, and simple, basic answers will help to establish your credibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #91 February 10, 2012 Quote Yes. And if every person who wanted to jump a camera had a serious incident or a fatality _using_ a camera, then they'd be better prepared to jump them. Now you want to add a fatality to the progression? I think your standards are a bit high!It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #92 February 10, 2012 >Now you want to add a fatality to the progression? I'm thinking making 200 jumps (and surviving them all) might be a better way to gain some experience . . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #93 February 10, 2012 QuoteSimple, basic questions, and simple, basic answers will help to establish your credibility. Seriously, you can't tell from my posts whether or not they're credible. That's probably the best reason to keep you guessing. The possibilities: A) I'm a skydiver. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, if I ever need my reserve to open it would be better if I kept a low profile. B) I'm considering taking up skydiving. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, if I don't want to be kicked off every DZ or have to do every AFF level twelve times it would be better if I kept a low profile. C) I've never skydived, and never will. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, it would be better if I didn't put my life in the hands of such maniacs.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #94 February 10, 2012 Put up or shut up. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ghost47 18 #95 February 10, 2012 QuoteSeriously, you can't tell from my posts whether or not they're credible. That's probably the best reason to keep you guessing. If a plumber looks at me and says, man, you should stop eating potato chips, they're gonna give you a heart attack, I'm going to nod, smile, and say please fix my sink. If a doctor examines me and says, man, you should stop eating potato chips, they're gonna give you a heart attack, I'm going to seriously consider stop eating potato chips. If you're not a skydiver, your posts on whether things on a skydive are distracting, and how easy or hard it is to do certain things on a skydive, are much less credible. Prior to actually making a skydive, I couldn't understand what was so hard about arching. I knew the sequence of events I was supposed to complete in AFF-1 after 15 minutes. I have to repeat and practice this HOW many times? For HOW many hours? After the first jump, I understood why the FJC was so long. Quote The possibilities: A) I'm a skydiver. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, if I ever need my reserve to open it would be better if I kept a low profile. B) I'm considering taking up skydiving. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, if I don't want to be kicked off every DZ or have to do every AFF level twelve times it would be better if I kept a low profile. C) I've never skydived, and never will. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, it would be better if I didn't put my life in the hands of such maniacs. This list indicates to me that you are not a skydiver, or at least have never spent any time at a drop zone. But ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think. There are new people out there who are reading your opinions on what is safe and not safe on a skydive. If the person stating these opinions has never skydived, that is a very relevant piece of information that the readers should know, in order to place the appropriate weight on your opinion. No one is asking your name, or where you jump, if you do. If you're seriously worried about your rigger not packing your rig correctly, or being forced to repeat AFF 12 times, then don't give out your name or DZ or potential DZ. Answering whether you have actually skydived, and if so, how many jumps you've done, will not compromise your anonymity. So, are you a skydiver? If so, are you licensed? How many jumps have you done? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ridestrong 1 #96 February 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteHang on, is there any evidence that the camera had anything to do with it, that he was distracted by it? If not, then the stupidity could have occurred in the same way any time over the last 30+ years. The only difference would be that we get to see a lot more of it on youtube now. +1 funny how in 5 or 6 posts it goes to a camera witch hunt, and by the end, the guy hasn't got the basic skills to skydive. +1 I see nothings changed with those camera witch hunts.... only gotten worse. Oh well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzdXoFJbQ0c&feature=g-upl&context=G2748bbbAUAAAAAAADAA*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.* ----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #97 February 10, 2012 Trolling post deleted. If you want to post here on skydiving topics, feel free. If you're not a skydiver and just want to taunt people, or play games, then go to Bonfire and do it there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 143 #98 February 10, 2012 I think your post is a fair description with points 1 through 7. But you missed out the whole deployment "check canopy" step. I don't think he ever bothered to. I also wonder whether the guy even KNEW he'd had a collision at the time. Honestly though, people like that should not be jumping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ridestrong 1 #99 February 10, 2012 QuoteThats why I rarely come here anymore. Anyone with less than 10,000 jumps is a n00b and go pros are the devil. Multiply that times whatever and thats what this forum has become. People start their posts with "im just a newb" because they are afraid of getting flamed on. Again +1*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.* ----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
decompresion 2 #100 February 10, 2012 Quote Thats why I rarely come here anymore. Anyone with less than 10,000 jumps is a n00b and go pros are the devil. Multiply that times whatever and thats what this forum has become. People start their posts with "im just a newb" because they are afraid of getting flamed on. +1 GoPros are not the problem http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=132739;guest=84028038There are no dangerous dives Only dangerous divers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
