Rules for jumping with a camera

[brucet7 0]

Quote

It is, however, my very humble opinion that . . .

History be damned. Lessons go unlearned. Many a fool has begun a sentence with those words. And no more untrue words have ever been penned. To write them proves we are not humble.

{I am not saying you are a fool, I don't know you. I just know the words so often spoken by them.}

POPS #10623; SOS #1672

[jimmytavino 16]

since i concluded my post with
imho....

i must disagree with your comment Sir....

why would you feel that a person who humbly expresses their opinion is a fool????

Perhaps those who go around Blasting their own philosophies in a braggish beligerant preachy (non humble ) way ,
could very well be the more foolish...

no?????
which would you say ?? is the better approach???

(no p.a intended...)


jt
A 3914
D 12122
POPS 3935
nscr1817

[yeyo 1]

Quote

The snag issues from a camera the size of a key-chain secured to the back of ones right hand are almost non-existent

eewwwwww

HISPA #93
DS #419.5

[xtheowl 0]

OK, lets drop the temperature down a bit.

Regarding snags:
Yes, I am sure about the snag hazard of the camera I was thinking of jumping. It is NOT a boxy gopro, it is a keychain camera with a width less than a quarter of an inch. I had actually thought of mounting it inside the glove with a pinhole to peer though, so that it would be nearly invisible save for a 1/4 inch bump.
But again, I think the primary concern here is people getting distracted, based on that being the key issue of the overwhelming majority of the stories DSE posted.

Regarding distractions:
Having 200 jumps (or 2000) does not instantly impart you with the ability to multitask, cooly deal with the uexpected, and perhaps most importantly, to know your limits. This has a great deal to do with the temperament and mental faculties of the person. (I do not know a lot of camera jumpers, but I'm betting there are many of you who have met some with much more than 200 jumps who you do not feel safe around.)

Bottom line, I do not feel that "number of jumps" is the appropriate criteria for deciding who is responsible enough to have a camera on.

Now, to address Mr. Lepka,
My own personal abilities are not the issue in this discussion, rather the manner by which one decides if someone should be allowed to use a camera.

But since you brought this up:
I do not profess to have the skill and experience of a professional camera jumper. I am well aware of my lack of experience, and never would argue that I have 16 years of experience. (Why you brought that up I have no idea.)
I do profess that I have the ability to know my limits, and that jumping with a small camera does not exceed them.
In response to your question, "What's to stop you from looking into your little camera and smoking right through your pull altitude?": My reply is, the same thing that saved me from smoking through my pull altitude when my altimeter failed and when my helmet strap once broke. The same thing that keeps me from getting distracted when doing formation flight, trying to sitfly, and watching the sun set as I fall. PRESENCE OF MIND. Again, most people have it, some don't. Regardless of number of jumps. (If having a camera on is all it takes to make someone unsafe, than they probably shouldn't be jumping in the first place.)
No, I was not going to "shit can" my canopy flight. I was going to attempt to fly safely to the ground while the camera silently rolled. I do not suffer from the urge to put on a show and geek for the camera. (Maybe that should be in the USPA recommendations.)

Sorry if I came off as "a guy who's been jumping 'for years'". Let me say for the third time, I will NOT violate rules just because I disagree with them. So please calm down. Rational back and forth arguments are a good thing.

As a final note, I noticed when reading over the SIM that there is an established procedure for waivering BSR's. Are recommendations waiverable as well?

Thanks again to all,
(even Dave)
xto

[DSE 3]

Quote

Regarding snags:
Yes, I am sure about the snag hazard of the camera I was thinking of jumping. It is NOT a boxy gopro, it is a keychain camera with a width less than a quarter of an inch.

So you don't feel there is a problem having something attached to your right hand (or do you deploy with your left?)
Perhaps a glove with a hidden "bump" wouldn't be an issue. I don't think I'd want anything on that hand should there be a bridle wrap or other deployment issue.

Quote

Regarding distractions:
Having 200 jumps (or 2000) does not instantly impart you with the ability to multitask, cooly deal with the uexpected, and perhaps most importantly, to know your limits. This has a great deal to do with the temperament and mental faculties of the person.

You're exactly right. However, a skydiver with 200 jumps has at the least developed enough muscle memory that certain tasks should be without thought and therefore those "thought reserves" might go into dealing with difficult situations. Sure...some folks have the acumen and awareness to deal with these situations earlier than others, but history has shown that somewhere around 200 jumps, the average person can begin to consider adding more tasks to the skydive.
As far as "knowing our own limits..." the Incidents forum is filled with people that thought they knew their limits. You can bet big money that none of them thought they were going beyond their limits when they broke that femur, pelvis, or worse.

Quote

Regardless of number of jumps. (If having a camera on is all it takes to make someone unsafe, than they probably shouldn't be jumping in the first place.)

Tell that to Norman Kent, Joe Jennings, Tom Sanders, Bruno, etc. Did you read Billvon's paragraphs in the "README" for the camera forum? Would you suggest he shouldn't be jumping?
Glad to hear you recognize the implications of the recommendations. They're not rules; they're recommendations. You're a big boy, you can do what you want unless your DZO has specific rules.

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

As a final note, I noticed when reading over the SIM that there is an established procedure for waivering BSR's. Are recommendations waiverable as well?

You don't need a waiver to bust a recommendation. Just need a DZO that will let you.

I agree with your logic that jump numbers alone don't make you able to handle a camera, but they give you more time to get used to the things that are going to happen and give you a few screwballs along the way, so you know how to manage them when they do present themselves.

Believe it or not, you will start focusing on the camera, after a funneled formation, rough exit, hard dock... you'll look at it to make sure it's still there and not jacked up, taking your focus away from what's going on around you, even for a few seconds could really screw you or someone else up.

IMHO, the 200 jump recommendation is more to get someone to the point that they can fly their body almost by instinct. You need to be able to get the fuck out of dodge when the shit hits the fan, and not have to think 'legs in, hands forward' to backslide out, or 'drop shoulder and same side knee' to sideslide away from someone who went low and is about to get under you.

I've got just over 200 jumps, and about 2-3 hours in the tunnel, and I'm getting there myself. Are you better than me? Maybe, but I doubt it.


ETA: what are you thinking you're going to record with a hand camera in a sit fly?

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[bqmassey 0]

The following isn't in regards to being a videographer, "camera flyer", or any jumps in which filming/photographing is the purpose of the jump.

A person can, after falling out of an airplane seven times, go from never having even SEEN a skydiving rig to someone who's capable of jumping out of an airplane COMPLETELY solo. Seven jumps from complete whuffo to a skydiver who understands how the equipment works, is capable of exiting an aircraft at 14,000 ft, maintaining a stable freefall position, deploying a canopy at a predetermined altitude, handling malfunctions that might occur, and piloting that canopy down to the ground—all completely unassisted. AFF has shown us that with proper instruction, humans can learn new tasks at an incredible rate.

It's mind boggling to think that with seven jumps you have adequate experience to skydive with zero supervision, while it takes 193 jumps to be able to do the exact same thing while wearing a camera (one not much larger than some altimeters).

Certainly, with proper mentorship and instruction, a person can be taught to safely bring a camera along for the ride, and can be taught this in fewer than 193 jumps.

[jrjny 0]

in a general reply all - this is such a STUPID discussion. If you want to jump camera put in on your head, read the SIM and f'n jump. Try to minimize snag risk, don't pull upside down and get an audible altimeter.

IF the DZO tells you not to jump it, go elsewhere or take it off.

It's naive to discuss small probabilities. It makes an ass out of the one asking the question and bigger asses out of those replying. Skydiving can kill you, no shit LOL. Half of you wouldn't be jumping if the case were otherwise, all you crazy daredevils.

You can BASE at 100 jumps....talk about more dangerous, shit. But I digress ;-)

Jeff

[xtheowl 0]

Thanks jrjny! That was my misunderstanding. I had thought that DZ membership in the USPA required adherance to "recomendations" to maintain good standing, (despite the meaning of the word) and that no DZ would allow it soley for fear of losing membership rights. (If they still don't think I should, id respect that decision fully, no hard feelings.)
Ill shut up now.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I do not feel that "number of jumps" is the appropriate criteria for deciding who is responsible enough to have a camera on.

Based on what? Your first hand knowledge of camera flying? Wouldn't you think that an experiecned camera flyer would have a better perspective on the issue, and be better equipped to make that call? How about a community of camera flyers falling back on tens of thousands of collective camera jumps to their credit? Might they be able to make that call?

I hate to break it to you, but that's where the USPA got their number from. Members of the BOD called on their own camera jumping expereince, and the opinions of the experiecned camera jumpers they know, and this is what they came up with.

40-some jumps total, and you can't recognize that there might be more to it than the limit of your current understanding? Do you share this opinion of other areas of skydiving in which you have no experience?

Quote

I do profess that I have the ability to know my limits, and that jumping with a small camera does not exceed them.

I'll revert to my question from above - Based on what? 20 or 40 incident-free camera jumps?

I'd venture that it takes between 20 and 40 jumps to really 'try' anything in skydiving and see if it's for you. That's between 4 and 8 full jumping days dedicated to the new activity, and that seems about right before you really 'know' one way or the other.

That what you got? 20 camera jumps, all went well, and you feel good about it?

[jrjny 0]

It's a basic safety recommendation. In a world where everyone has advice....but don't forget that no one who died jumping expected to.

you're welcome.


Jeff

[xtheowl 0]

OK, I lied. But only because I'm still getting flak for wanting to assume personal responsibility for my own safety.
Once again, I did NOT want this discussion to have anything to do with my own personal qualifications/abilities or lack of thereof. But again people keep asking...

Once again I will state in no uncertain terms:

Everyone here knows more about skydiving than me. I am not saying I am some kind of expert on skydiving. I am saying this:

I will not get distracted by a camera.

I know my limits because I have participated in and am licensed in several activities in which my life depends directly upon my ability to think fast and not get distracted. Skydiving is not the only dangerous or mentally demanding activity out there.

So dave knows far more than I do about skydiving. Granted.

I know FAR MORE than dave as to my own limitations.

(The degrees in physics and engineering help a little too.)

I don't think I can say anything more to argue my point, and since I've been made aware that it actually is up to the DZ operator to let me have a camera or not, I now agree with Jeff that this is a stupid discussion.
(If anyone else would like to express what a maniac I am, please PM me so this thread can sink off the front page.)

Sincere thanks again,

xto

[billvon 2,380]

>don't y'all think there is a difference between a "camera flyer" and
>someone who's jumping for POV footage?

There's definitely a difference. In my experience the guy "just jumping for POV footage" is a lot more dangerous. He's trying to do two things at once without the training or (usually) the experience. He's like the guy driving a car on a cellphone. He's more distracted no matter how many times he claims it's exactly the same as talking to someone in the passenger seat.

A dedicated camera flyer, on the other hand, has only one task, and will prepare for that task without being distracted by turning points, setting a fall rate etc etc.

>or do y'all really think that as soon as a person is competent enough to
>wear a GoPro to get some POV footage, they're also fully prepared to start
>flying around and below tandems and AFF students while wearing an HD
>cam and a digital SLR on their head.

Not at all. You need experience and training to be able to do either one.

[billvon 2,380]

>It's mind boggling to think that with seven jumps you have adequate
>experience to skydive with zero supervision, while it takes 193 jumps to be
>able to do the exact same thing while wearing a camera (one not much
>larger than some altimeters).

I think you both overestimate the skill set a recent AFF grad has and underestimate the skill set required to jump with a camera. Someone with seven jumps cannot jump without supervision; it takes 25 jumps to get to the point where you can jump without any supervision at all. (And yes, there's a reason for that.)

And even at that point (your A license) you only have a license to learn. You are not automatically competent in anything. It takes experience, training and good judgment to continue to advance through the sport.

[curmudgeon 0]

It's mind boggling to think that with seven jumps you have adequate experience to skydive with zero supervision,

I'm not sure what DZ you jump at, but where I work, unlicensed people are not allowed to jump with "zero supervision" instead we follow the guidelines in the SIM regarding their supervision.

Even so, if you found that to be 'mind boggling' then you probably would have shit yourself to see me leave an a/c on a s/l....solo....without a flippin' radio on the very first jump....

[bqmassey 0]

Quote

In my experience the guy "just jumping for POV footage" is a lot more dangerous.

Alright, let me get this straight. Take two guys who have never flown any camera before and have no training on it. They have the exact same level of experience (or lack thereof).

On their very first jump with a camera...

... one guy, instantly a "camera flyer", gets asked to fly camera for a tandem or to get some good shots of a VRW team for their promo video. He's flying around the sky, sidestepping, adjusting fall rate to get interesting angles, backsliding and then swooping in for a close-up. He's a "camera flyer" and, by agreeing to be the camera flyer for that jump, feels an obligation to get good footage. He's focused intently on framing, and doesn't want to look away from the people he's filming. The sole purpose of his jump is to get good footage.

... a different guy, a "POVer", has been practicing sitflying with a friend. The purpose of his jump is to improve his sitfly. He'd be doing that jump whether or not he has the camera. He's not wearing a camera to serve as a videographer. Getting awesome shots is not the purpose of his jump. He has no obligation to get good footage.

Again, these are two guys who have the exact same level of jumping experience and no special training on flying a camera.

You're telling me that the POVer, whose camera is incidental to the jump, is the more dangerous of the two?

Quote

I think you both overestimate the skill set a recent AFF grad has and underestimate the skill set required to jump with a camera. Someone with seven jumps cannot jump without supervision; it takes 25 jumps to get to the point where you can jump without any supervision at all. (And yes, there's a reason for that.)

I'm not overestimating an AFF student's skillset. I know that someone right off of AFF isn't a fully competent skydiver. I never claimed that.

I'm talking about a student completing AFF and being signed off for "self-supervision". USPA's definition of self-supervision:

The point within a student’s training when he has been cleared by a USPA Instructor to jump without instructor supervision but has not yet completed all of the requirements for the USPA A license.

Quote

Even so, if you found that to be 'mind boggling' then you probably would have shit yourself to see me leave an a/c on a s/l....solo....without a flippin' radio on the very first jump....

I don't find it mind-boggling that you can be self-supervised on your eighth jump (or one your first jump with S/L). You misread my post.

I find it mind-boggling that you can go from complete wuffo to self-supervised skydiver in seven jumps, but that it takes an additional 193 to learn to do it with a camera.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I'm talking about a student completing AFF and being signed off for "self-supervision". USPA's definition of self-supervision:

Let's be clear about 'self supervision'. You are still held to the same standard as a 'student' jumper with regards to equipment requirements and wind limitations. You are also from from 'unsupervised' even if you don't realize it. The instructional staff at the DZ is still keeping a close eye on you as you proceed to 'self supervise'.

To suggest that you are considered 'all set' to skydive at will anytime, anyplace, and any way you want is incorrect.

Quote

Alright, let me get this straight. Take two guys who have never flown any camera before and have no training on it. They have the exact same level of experience (or lack thereof).

On their very first jump with a camera...

... one guy, instantly a "camera flyer", gets asked to fly camera for a tandem or to get some good shots of a VRW team for their promo video.

Your fundamental mistake with this argument is that it doesn't work that way. You don't get to film a tandem or hot VRW team with zero camera jumps under your belt because you're counting on the other players in the jump to agree to have in the video slot. Any instructor or team member who works with a video guy realizes that the video guy is very much a member of the 'team', even if it's just for that one jump. The performance of the camera guy is key to the success and safety of the jump, and as such, they do not take the filling of that slot lightly.

A more accurate comparison would to two jumpers, both of limited experience, and both 'trying' to jump a camera for the fist time. The one does a POV thing on a sit fly jump, and the other picks up an outside video slot on a 3 way RW dive with some low-to-average time jumpers.

Even in that case, the POV guy is what I would be more worried about. Regardless of the intention of the jumper beforehand, you cannot deny that strapping a camera on your head is going to use up a portion of your brainpower, and going to be 'on your mind' throughout the entire process, from gear up to landing. When you combine that with trying to also fly inside of a skydive and interact with another jumper, you have added significantly to the workload.

The guy flying the outside slot is another story. Aside from coordinating the climbout/exit and the breal off procedure, the outside camera flyer is flying his own skydive, with the single goal of keeping the formation in frame. Nothing more, nothing less, one single job.

Quote

... one guy, instantly a "camera flyer", gets asked to fly camera for a tandem or to get some good shots of a VRW team for their promo video. He's flying around the sky, sidestepping, adjusting fall rate to get interesting angles, backsliding and then swooping in for a close-up

This description of a possible 'first time' camera flyer is probably the most telling of your lack of understanding of camera flying. It's not a knock against you, there's no way or expectation for you to know, but this is so far off base it's not even funny.

The jump you have described above is not the jump of a first time, or 50th time camera flyer. The jump you have described is the result of hard work and dedication, developing the skill, the eye, and the confidence to be able to string together that series of manuvers.

You're going to have trust those that have come before you, it's harder than you think, there are more things to go wrong than you realize, and that everyone (you included) will be better off in the end when you put some jumps between getting off student status, and getting on camera flyer status (and that number is at least 150).

[hackish 8]

Most people thought they were sh*t hot as the ink was drying on their driver's license too. Was that 10+ years of experience driving useful? Think you're a better driver? Better able to react to situations? Skydiving is a lot harder than driving so what makes you think experience isn't relevant here?

Don't try to tell that 16 year old that he/she has a lot to learn about driving. We were all 16 once too.

-Michael

[bqmassey 0]

Quote

To suggest that you are considered 'all set' to skydive at will anytime, anyplace, and any way you want is incorrect.

I'm not saying that. Not even close.

The point I'm trying to make is that AFF is a good example of just how much you can learn in seven jumps, when those seven jumps are paired with thorough instruction.

Quote

Quote

... one guy, instantly a "camera flyer", gets asked to fly camera for a tandem or to get some good shots of a VRW team for their promo video.

Your fundamental mistake with this argument is that it doesn't work that way.

Lol. I know it doesn't, but this is a hypothetical. I'm trying to break this down for argument's sake. When discussing this, everyone compares a 50 jump POVer to a XXXX jump camera flyer, and that's not a valid comparison to make.

So tell me, which is going to be more dangerous to himself and others.

Someone doing the same jump they were planning making, but doing it with a camera. Someone who doesn't care if the video includes them looking at their alti, or checking for traffic. Someone who's just using the video to see how the jump went.

OR

Someone with the exact same level of experience (none), being a dedicated camera flyer for a jump. Someone jumping solely for the purpose of getting cool and dynamic footage. Someone who feels an obligation to produce quality video and photos. Someone who KNOWS that many people will be watching their video.

Call it inexperience, but I have a REALLY hard time believing that the latter is safer, considering two jumpers with the exact same level of experience and no training.

Quote

The jump you have described above is not the jump of a first time, or 50th time camera flyer. The jump you have described is the result of hard work and dedication, developing the skill, the eye, and the confidence to be able to string together that series of manuvers.

Exactly! Doing a jump like that safely requires a very high proficiency in flying your body. That's exactly why I feel that it is more dangerous for someone to attempt it without a lot of experience and skill. This is why I'm saying that there is clearly a difference between someone jumping to get to POV footage to document their jump, and someone doing a jump with the purpose of getting cool, fun, dynamic shots.

To mitigate a majority of the risks, I think that being a camera flyer should have a very well-developed ability to fly, along with proper mentorship and training, and due consideration given to gear and snag points. I don't disagree with anyone on this. I don't question the 200 jump recommendation for this.

Ultimately, what I'm trying to get across is that being a safe POVer doesn't require superhuman flying skills like being a safe camera flyer does. You can do it on any skydive you're already making. It does, however, share the necessity for proper mentorship and advice, and the need to consider gear, snag points, and EPs.

I'd like to see classes or coaching available where even low-jump license holders can learn, from a vetted source, what's required to safely jump a POV camera. This instruction about the dangers of jumping POV cameras should include mental aspects (such as the added layer of distraction, fighting the urge to say "yes" when someone asks you to do a jump dedicated to filming them).

I brought up the AFF thing just to give an example of how far a student can go in only seven jumps, when the jumps are paired with proper instruction. I think a person, even one with fewer than 200 jumps, could learn to be a safe POVer WITH proper instruction, advice, and mentorship. Obviously they wouldn't have the skill to fly around the sky getting shots for James Bond movie, but they could learn to be safe.

[wgpcocker09 0]

When you wear a camera even before you jump with it you try to see what you have to do in order for it to be pointing in the area you want and not just pointing to open sky. So no matter if it just a pov it will be on your mind.

hopes this makes sense.

[airtwardo 6]

Here's the problem, and I'm not being condescending in anyway...

You think you understand all the intricacies but you don't...you wouldn't have made the comments you have, if you had the experience others are telling you that you need.

And you won't see that UNTIL you gain that expierence.


You can certainly jump a camera with 20 jumps and survive, I know this because I did...but it wasn't until 1000 jumps later I realized how lucky I actually was that nothing went wrong, that I was pushing the limits in ways I couldn't even fathom at the time...never count on luck in this game.

If you have it on, at some point it will become a factor either in unplanned thought or action...that is adding a link in the chain of disaster.

It's cliche I know, to say you don't know what you don't know...but there IS truth to that. Your experience in other 'dangerous' activities should have taught you to respect that.

200 jumps isn't really all that much in the overall scheme of things, it IS a good base point in that around that time you start to realize you may not be as good as you think you are, and tend to start doing things and learning things in a different manner than before.

Any arguments regarding trying to reinvent the wheel fall on deaf ears, trust those that have gone before you...nobody wants to hold anyone back, they just want to give you the best odds for survival.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[billvon 2,380]

>You're telling me that the POVer, whose camera is incidental to the jump,
>is the more dangerous of the two?

That's a stupid comparison if you don't mind me saying so. You might have well have said "so you're saying that if I jump a camera, I'm more dangerous than someone who has had seven beers and is skydiving without a camera?" In that case, yes, you are safer - but that means nothing.

Let's take a more reasonable analogy. Take two guys who have never flown any camera before and have no training on it.

First guy wants to do 4-way video. He talks to a local video flyer who gives him some pointers and helps him set up his helmet. He says "jump with that team over there; they're good and they will give you something stable to film." He prepares for the jump, makes a plan and intends to follow it.

Second guy wants to improve his sitfly. He's just learning sitflying, and he decides to add a camera but not change any other part of his skydive. He's just going to "turn it on and forget about it."

In that case, yes, the second jumper is the more dangerous of the two - because he is doing something that he is unprepared for. In fact he has made the decision that he will NOT be prepared for it.

[bqmassey 0]

Quote

That's a stupid comparison if you don't mind me saying so.

Quote

Let's take a more reasonable analogy. Take two guys who have never flown any camera before and have no training on it.

First guy wants to do 4-way video. He talks to a local video flyer who gives him some pointers and helps him set up his helmet. He says "jump with that team over there; they're good and they will give you something stable to film." He prepares for the jump, makes a plan and intends to follow it.

Second guy wants to improve his sitfly. He's just learning sitflying, and he decides to add a camera but not change any other part of his skydive. He's just going to "turn it on and forget about it."

In that case, yes, the second jumper is the more dangerous of the two - because he is doing something that he is unprepared for. In fact he has made the decision that he will NOT be prepared for it.

The first guy is taking it seriously and preparing for it. The second guy isn't. You're loading the scenario, based on what you feel the typical jumpers are.

I'm trying to compare the inherent skill and experience required for each activity.

So again, a fair comparison:

Two jumpers with exactly the same experience One, the POVer, does it just to document his jump. The other, a camera flyer, jumps with an inherent obligation to get good footage. Both take the addition of the camera very seriously. Both seek out advice and instruction. Both prepare accordingly.

The POVer has a higher potential to hurt himself or others? You can honestly, without assuming there are personality differences in the two, allege that?

[xtheowl 0]

I may of course be completely off base, but I think what’s going on is this:
The people who are objecting most strenuously to <200 jump POV'ers seem to be deliberately ignoring and misinterpreting any valid argument against their position.
I believe they are doing this in the hopes of dissuading any and all low-experience readers from trying to get away with strapping on a camera, even though many could do it safely.

I guess I can respect their intentions as others who might read this probably would end up with a great action shot of their smiling faces as they wrap themselves up around some high tension wires.
I still am of the opinion that personal safety, for better or worse, is best left in the hands of the individual.
Yes a possible increase in accidents hurts the whole community through bad publicity.

But we still let people hook turn.

So you tell me, which resulted in more fatalities last year: Expert skydivers swooping? Or newbies with small cameras?

[billvon 2,380]

>The first guy is taking it seriously and preparing for it. The second guy
>isn't. You're loading the scenario, based on what you feel the typical
>jumpers are.

I'm loading it based on what you said. You said the second guy is _not_ making the purpose of the jump anything about video. He's just going to "turn it on and forget it" and concentrate on learning some OTHER discipline. That means he's not preparing for it; he's preparing for a sitfly jump.

>Two jumpers with exactly the same experience One, the POVer, does it
>just to document his jump. The other, a camera flyer, jumps with an
>inherent obligation to get good footage. Both take the addition of the
>camera very seriously. Both seek out advice and instruction. Both prepare
>accordingly.

If both do that. and both dive with the camera in mind, and both are taking it seriously AS A VIDEO JUMP, then both are as safe, everything else being equal.

If one person is just "tacking on" video to a jump where he's paying attention to something else, then he is less safe.

>The POVer has a higher potential to hurt himself or others?

If he is really trying to also do something else, yes. It's happened to me, and it's happened to several people I know. You can't just "turn it on and forget it."

>You can honestly, without assuming there are personality differences
>in the two, allege that?

Yes. I've seen it happen. I'm sorry if I'm telling you something you don't want to hear, but that's been my experience,