With how many jumps is it ok to follow out tandems?

[fizzbuzz99 0]

(First post/poll, been lurking for a while but only just created an account, please be nice!!!)

As above.

I've not put an option for <100 jumps, as I have never heard anyone say that it is a good idea to have someone with such little experience follow a tandem, but please if you disagree (or have any view on this)post below.

A couple weeks ago I was witness to DZ-chick-syndrome, where the "special friend" of those way higher up the food chain was accorded special permissions regardless of her experience level. It worries me that someone with well under 200 jumps, IRRESPECTIVE of currency, or the experience level of the TI, was allowed to follow out her buddy on his first ever tandem.

I'm a relatively low-time jumper though, and I don't know the first thing about tandems/filming tandems/following tandems/any hard and fast rules surrounding this scenario.
Thoughts?

[virgin-burner 1]

dont most manufacturers advise/demand 500 jumps!?

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Travman 6]

When I went to Hawaii with my girlfriend she wanted to do a tandem. So I called the DZ 3 months before we went and told them I would have about 350 jumps by then, would I be able to follow her out and they said "Yeah, that'll be fine".
When I got to Hawaii, I called the DZ a few days before we went down and again said I have 350 jumps (though of that 350 I had almost 300 training/competition 4way and 8way), can I follow her out and again they said "Yeah, that'll be fine."
When I got there they said I that it was manufacturer's requirements that I needed 500 jumps. So the best I could do was go out before her.
Now fair enough if thats the rules, but it was annoying that I had twice called them and was told it would be fine. I'd also previously followed out a tandem in Australia and had that in my log book.
When I got back to Australia, my first jump was following out a friends tandem at my home DZ. Afterwards the TM came up to me and said "Man its great jumping with a relworker, you were just there the whole time."

Again, I can appreciate that rules are rules and they don't know my skill level having never met me before and I was surprised when they told me it would be fine on the phone. But I wouldn't have been annoyed if they had told me the first or even the second time I called what the requirements were.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I am not a fan of letting people jump with me on tandems unless I have jumped with them a bunch before and know how they will perform. If the jumper does not know the tandem passenger my general feeling is about 1000 jumps or so. Really a jumper has no right to impose themselves on someone else's first jump experience, but the imposition can be positive so I am ok with it if they are a senior jumper and I know them.
If they are friends with the student my number is 500 jumps although I have bent that rule for jumpers that I have jumped with and trust. I am much more lenient for a bellyflyer than a freeflyer.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

There is a reason for most rules. Having said that, My 100th jump was with my wife on her first tandem.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

There is a reason for most rules. Having said that, My 100th jump was with my wife on her first tandem.

How'd ya do?
Vskydiver has swooped maybe 100 tandems, many of them mine. She likes to stand in the door, critique the exit, and then follow. Makes for a pretty good swoop.

A bad job of swooping a tandem can turn into a tragedy very quickly. It's not something for under skilled people to be doing.

[BillyVance 34]

Like someone said, it depends on how well the TI knows your skills.

I had one hell of a learning curve from 150 jumps to 500 jumps, going almost every weekend. I think the first time I jumped with a tandem was when I had 300 jumps, and the TI was my S/L instructor. All told, I have jumped with probably 20 tandems, most of them deaf passengers.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[drdive 0]

WHAT???

"We saved your gear. Now you can sell it when you get out of the hospital and upsize!!" "K-Dub"

"

[popsjumper 2]

Doesn't matter what any rules say...the go/no-go decision is totally up to the TI.

If he wants to bust the "rules", that's on his head.
No matter what happens, it's on his head.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Doesn't matter what any rules say...the go/no-go decision is totally up to the TI.

If he wants to bust the "rules", that's on his head.
No matter what happens, it's on his head.

I'd suggest it's on the head of everyone likely to be sued if something goes wrong.

...

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

[Para5-0 0]

I have brought this topic up with USPA, and the information I received was that is is completely up to the Tandem Instructor. Although with a law suit youwould have to explain your thought process.

[VideoFly 0]

As a videographer, I have seen some real screwed-up flying with tandems. Some screw-ups were with low-jump individuals and some with lots of jumps. Similarly, I have seen some good flyers with tandems, some with medium jump numbers and some with lots of jumps. Bottom line is I rarely film tandems with lurkers anymore. If there is a chance for a screw-up, regardless of jump numbers, I feel it may place a student at risk. However, I agree that it is up to the TI. I have given jumps to another videographer because a TI has invited a lurker. That’s my choice.

[mircan 0]

Quote

I have given jumps to another videographer because a TI has invited a lurker. That’s my choice.

+1
But I never thought that my judgement call is going to be better than TIs (and in the end it was).

dudeist skydiver #42

[MotherGoose 0]

I'll use UPT as an example for my question. So, is the section in the UPT manual that states the minimums for any RW jump with a tandem just openly ignored ? I am curious since this topic came up recently at our instructor review. From a liability perspective, it would appear that an incident inquiry would compare the UPT mandatory requirements to the experience level of the people involved and negligence could easily be proved. Does anyone have any further insight on this ?

You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

[jimmytavino 16]

just going from memory i thought that one needed to have a Tandem Instructor rating, an AFF instructor rating, or else be a proven tandem videographer with an established track record...in order to chase a tandem..

Also , a specialty form needs to be read, reviewed and signed,, by all parties involved...

A lurker who approches from behind, or who gets out of the line of sight of the cameraperson, and T I , or who over dives the team,, and gets UNDER the skydive,,, or who NEVER gets TO the team,,,, is unnerving, at best.. and a hazard, at worst... Any such jump should be dirt dived with all parties involved, should include a specific direction of approach , if the jump will include docking, and should adhere to specified break off and tracking away criteria for the lurker...
i know that the temptation to 'join a friend' who is making a jump is great...but some are able and some are not...
it's a case by case thing.
but in the end,, whatever the tandem maufacturer(s) stipulate, is what should be honored...
It should never be an ego thing.... for the lurker...since it CAN be a distraction...
imho

jmy

[Squeak 17]

I have lurked on 2 tandems both my wife was passenger.
On my 500th jump i came in and docked on my wife, I knew the TI and Camera flyer very well and they knew me.
On my 1000th, i lurked off to the side betweeen the Camera flyer and TI, (they could both see me and so could my wife) i did not attempt to come in and dock. I did not know the TI well or camra flyer at all and they did not know me. So i chose descretion, it was not my jump it was hers.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[VideoFly 0]

From UPT manual:
A. Participants qualifications
For any relative worker to accompany a Tandem
pair, the following criteria must be met:
1) Relative worker must have a minimum of 500
relative work skydives; or
2) Relative worker must be either a current Tandem
Instructor or a current AFF jumpmaster.
3) Relative worker must have made at least 100
relative work jumps in the last year.
4) Cameramen must meet all the above guidelines,
and in addition, must have at least 100 camera jumps.

[jimmytavino 16]

excellent.......

good deal to point out,,,, the apect of "being seen" by the TI AND the cameraperson.....that is sooo important...

jt

[JohnDeere 0]

I have lurked friends on a couple of tandems. Another great thin to do as the lurker is to track off just before tandem deployment. But track behind tandem. So video guy sees you leave and looks good on the video also!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[douwanto 22]

Never Track behind the TI you need to be in the TI's sight at all times after exit. the n
TI needs to watch you Track and have you in their sight as they deploy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



It is the TI's Decision but the TI should never disregard the video persons safety and the same goes for allowing unsafe video person to shoot tandems......

Uncle/GrandPapa Whit
Unico Rodriguez # 245
Muff Brother # 2421

[riggerrob 558]

UPT's guidelines are just a diplomatic way of saying "don't ask!"

The majority of people - who ask to chase my tandem - are not nearly smooth enough in the air to ask.
For example, twenty-some-odd years ago, a young German skydiver asked if he could chase me while his (first-timer) buddy was strapped to my chest. I never saw him after exit and a few hours later I heard that he broke his foot landing on the runway ... with hundreds of acres of grass surrounding the runway!

That incident taught me a valuable lesson. The last two people - I allowed to chase me while doing tandems - had recently participated in the World Record 333-way.

[billvon 2,434]

An AFF rating is a good 'bar' if you don't know them. The best case is someone you've jumped with, and whose skills you are familiar with.

[feuergnom 22]

i guess it boils down to the flying skills and if you know the person who's willing to join you. if i find myself inthe situation where i am not sure, the "chaser" (isn't there another term???) exits first as a back-floater/video slot - this will give me the advantage of timing the exit to my needs and i don't have to worry of someone living on my back

usually additional jumpers are handpicked and thoroughly briefed - so i handle things in exact the same way how i was treated

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[MotherGoose 0]

I realize this is a touchy subject, but could anyone comment on my question? Are the UPT rules in their own manual just being openly ignored ? Can we safely say that there are more dz's that have videographers that don't fit into the UPT requirements ? Is there a way around this, for instance I read on here that Bill Booth does not want to be on the regulation side of the sport and that USPA should handle that, yet there is still strong wording in the UPT manual that dictates minimums that MUST be followed? From a legal standpoint, if I jump with my tandem student and the dz assigns me a video guy that has 502 jumps, and no tandem or AFF rating, and somewhere in freefall we collide and the student gets a kick in the nose (OR WORSE), am I in the wrong? If that student goes home and calls his lawyer, will they be after me and the rig owner for allowing that videographer to jump with me when they did not meet the minimum requirements ? This is a pretty important topic since it could quite easily deplete the tandem video population significantly. Lots of skilled flyers out there, but if something happens by sheer accident, any half-assed lawyer could dig up a negligence angle based on the wording in the manual. Is anyone else concerned about this ? Or...business as usual?

You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

[feuergnom 22]

are you shopping for an answer that you already have?

yes, there is a strong wording from UPT - but -IMHO- one has to do the reading between the lines. with recommendations being so high it would be hard to generate upcomming video folks. I think they simply stand for one thing: don't take any other jerk you have no idea who he is and what he is capable of along

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666