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

[tjm 0]

Quote

dont most manufacturers advise/demand 500 jumps!?

+1
I know Sigma requires 500 jumps if i'm not mistaken.

But some Tandem Masters mostly at smaller DZ will let you do it with less jumps if they feel confident in you. I've done it with far less than 500 jumps, but the pilot and TM can get into some trouble if something happens.

If you're not living on the edge; you're taking up too much room!

[riggerrob 558]

UPT's guidelines are designed to discourage casual fun jumpers who have no business chasing tandems.

IOW If you have to ask, you don't know what you are asking.

As for the business side of chasing tandems, DZOs often find themselves short of outside videographers, and hire videographers with less than TI or AFFI ratings.
However, the almighty dollar quickly weeds out incompetent outside videographers, because if they cannot keep the student in frame, they soon find themselves "priority last" on the videographer rotation.
Similalry, if clumsy outside videographers scare TIs, they soon find themselves "priority last" on the videographer rotation. There are other - more subtle - ways of eliminating clumsy outside videographers. It usually sounds like: "Ready, Set, Go, Oh! Look at that loose strap, I'll just tuck that in before I exit."
Hah!
Hah!

[billvon 2,400]

> Are the UPT rules in their own manual just being openly ignored ?

In some cases, yes.

>Can we safely say that there are more dz's that have videographers that
>don't fit into the UPT requirements ?

Most do, in my experience. Tandem video gets you a lot of experience quickly.

>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?

Get around what? I'm glad UPT has published guidelines that discourage less-capable people who want to jump with tandems. It's not just another skydive.

>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?

You are responsible for your student's safety if that's what you mean. If you let a less-skilled video guy injure your student, then yes, you bear some responsibility. You are the final line of defense when it comes to preventing bad things from happening to your student, even if the DZO tells you to do something that might lead to it.

>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 ?

Could be! Of course, that can happen whether or not they meet the minimum requirements.

>This is a pretty important topic since it could quite easily deplete the
>tandem video population significantly.

I doubt it. Most skydivers just don't care.

>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.

True. They could also dig up a negligence angle based on public perception of danger in tandems. Manual wording is not much of a defense against that.

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Bottom line is I rarely film tandems with lurkers anymore.

+1.

Even a guy I didn't know but who had 1000 jumps and had followed tandems out before screwed up by diving right under the tandem pair instead of sidesliding a few feet closer as he was asked to do. The tandem got burbled a few feet... When I confronted him about it after we landed, he said it was no problem "he only went underneath the legs". I later found out he had taken out another videoflyer (at another DZ) by ending up OVER the tandem instead of on level, barrelrolled over the TI, then fell on top of the videoflyer.



I especially dislike being put on the spot as I get told (or happen to notice) while boarding or even in the plane they're coming with. "Yeah but I'm an up jumper so you can't refuse"
Like hell I can And an up jumper IMO would KNOW that all parties involved would like to be told/asked ahead of time about a change in plan like an accompanying jumper

Some pleople can lurk me al they want as they do not distract from the video and they're so good I don't have to keep an eye out for them, while others even though they may have 500 jumps or more can go fly with the tandem if they want (and if the TI allows of course), but without me. "Up jumper" or not

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[MotherGoose 0]

Thanks for the replies. I'm really just trying to get a "feel" for how seriously the written UPT rules are interpreted and enforced. In the end, I get the ultimate say on who's in the air with my tandem and I will not hesitate to exercise that control.

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

[pchapman 261]

Quote

>Can we safely say that there are more dz's that have videographers that
>don't fit into the UPT requirements ?

Most do, in my experience. Tandem video gets you a lot of experience quickly.

Many of us will agree that 'the rules' are broken, and that there are real hazards to be avoided when it comes to 'following' tandems (including as a videographer).

But it still comes down to Bill Booth writing up a contract that is often broken because I think a large proportion of DZ's and jumpers find it unreasonably strict, and unworkable in the industry.

It makes it look like the contract is all about protecting his ass ... and that he doesn't mind exposing his customers and instructors to liability when doing so.

[petejones45 0]

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.

Actually it is up to the manufacturer if you have sub 500 jumps(according to the previous posts), the ti can say all they want and it still won't be right

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[MotherGoose 0]

If Mr. Booth does not want to be in the business of regulation, then maybe he should remove the words "not optional" and replace them with "we recommend" or something along those lines, in the Sigma manual. I just think that maybe the "Other Activities" section of the manual is too strongly worded for someone who's not interested in the regulation aspect of the sport. If I feel safe with someone, we jump and an unavoidable accident occurs, lawyer will be able to jump all over me if the person on the jump with me did not fit the exact criteria of the manufacturer. Even if said person had nothing to do with the incident, but they were in the air, there could be repercussions. I apologize if I'm completely off-base here and sounding naive, but can't equipment mfgr's just provide recommendations instead of saying things like :

"They must be followed, or the Tandem Instructor and Tandem rig owner will be in violation of the User Agreement under which Tandem jumping is operated and will consequently no longer be allowed to legally perform Tandem Jumps."

Something more appropriate would be, "We strongly recommend the following guidelines, but ultimately the DZO, rig owner and tandem instructor are responsible for their choices and actions". Why give the blood-sucking lawyers more to bite on ?

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

[billvon 2,400]

>But it still comes down to Bill Booth writing up a contract that is often
>broken because I think a large proportion of DZ's and jumpers find it
>unreasonably strict, and unworkable in the industry.

I think it comes down to Bill Booth writing a manual that gives the best advice (in his opinion) that he can to tandem masters. I would not want manufacturers to do anything else. How would you feel if your gear manufacturer thought there was something dangerous about their gear, but didn't mention it because "well, everyone ignores that information anyway" ? Should PD start saying "OK, we give up, jump a Velocity 90 at 200 jumps" just because some people do that? Should they get rid of their reserve loading limits because everyone ignores them? Should Cessna say "sure, overload our Caravans, we know you're going to do it anyway?"

>It makes it look like the contract is all about protecting his ass . . .

The way I see it, it looks like he's trying to protect the people who use his gear.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Thank a lawyer and then kick him in the nuts.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

I think it comes down to Bill Booth writing a manual that gives the best advice (in his opinion) that he can to tandem masters. I would not want manufacturers to do anything else.
[...] Should Cessna say "sure, overload our Caravans, we know you're going to do it anyway?"

Ha ha.

Bill put limitations on tandem operations that are a significant restriction on the way that tandems are done in the industry. They are rules that go far beyond the legal limits, and are hard rules and not simply an advisory on risks.

Sure, it could still be debated whether the whole industry sees it as reasonable that camera flyers must have at least 500 relative work jumps, 100 camera jumps, and 100 relative work jumps in the past year.

[sarcasm] It's nice to have a big tandem industry to sell your gear to, and then in the fine print try to leave the customers extra liability...

[zipplewrath 1]

I was lucky enough to be around in the "bad old days" when this was pretty easy to do. It usually required a short sit down with the TM. Heck, I was on a 12 way with a skydiver's wife's 2nd tandem. We had fun.

[billvon 2,400]

>Bill put limitations on tandem operations that are a significant restriction
>on the way that tandems are done in the industry.

Yes. And PD put limitations on reserve loadings that significantly restrict how they are used by heavy jumpers. And Cessna put limitations on skydiving operations that are a significant restriction on how many skydivers a DZ can put up in a day. I'm glad they did - even if it means a DZO can't make quite as much money, a 280lb jumper can't get as cool a rig as he wants, and a TM can't make as many jumps in a day without violating some rule or something. And even if most people ignore them.

>It's nice to have a big tandem industry to sell your gear to,
>and then in the fine print try to leave the customers extra liability...

You really consider that "fine print?" Given that that "fine print" can kill you, best treat it like the rest of the manual - as important information that you ignore at your own peril.

[MotherGoose 0]

Quote

Should Cessna say "sure, overload our Caravans, we know you're going to do it anyway?"

Bill, thats apples to oranges. Cessna does NOT interfere with regulating skydiving just like UPT should not interfere with regulating tandem RW. How to use the gear, I see their interest. Who should jump beside someone using the gear . . . not so much.

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

[MotherGoose 0]

"You really consider that "fine print?" Given that that "fine print" can kill you, best treat it like the rest of the manual - as important information that you ignore at your own peril. "

Just to clarify, we're having meaningful conversation, I respect you a lot Bill. I just don't see how the mfgr spelling out such specific rules is helping us? At all the DZ's I jump at, there are several vidiots that are incredibly talented and all have between 1000-2000 jumps. What they don't have is any desire to get a tandem rating or an AFF rating. Now, according to UPT, they are not qualified to jump relative to a tandem and a lawyer could use this as fuel for a lawsuit in the event of an unforeseen accident. This is where I believe the wording is TOO STRONG in the manual. Im glad UPT states their opinions on what is safe and should be practiced, but to say anyone not following that is in violation of the user agreement and will not be legally allowed to do tandems is just plain self-preservation.

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

[billvon 2,400]

> Cessna does NOT interfere with regulating skydiving . . .

They don't. You can ignore what Cessna says about takeoff weight and CG if you like. Lots of people do. Of course, your pilot may find himself losing his license if anything happens.

>just like UPT should not interfere with regulating tandem RW.

They don't. You can ignore what UPT says about tandem ops if you like. Lots of people do. Of course, your TM may find himself in hot water if he disregards the manufacturer's directions and anything happens.

> How to use the gear, I see their interest. Who should jump
>beside someone using the gear . . . not so much.

That's part of how to use their gear. Tandems, with their added complexity, wildly varying fall rates, lack of ability to translate and unpredictableness, are not generally compatible with fun jumping. Treating a tandem like "just another skydive" that anyone can be on would be a huge mistake.

[billvon 2,400]

> At all the DZ's I jump at, there are several vidiots that are incredibly
>talented and all have between 1000-2000 jumps. What they don't have is
>any desire to get a tandem rating or an AFF rating. Now, according to UPT,
>they are not qualified to jump relative to a tandem and a lawyer could use
>this as fuel for a lawsuit in the event of an unforeseen accident.

OK. So let's use another example -

Let's say you have an instructor at your DZ who is talented, has thousands of jumps with students - but who does not have a USPA membership or any instructional ratings. He refuses to get any ratings for reasons he will not explain. Would you let him jump with students?

Or let's say a potential camera man didn't meet another of the requirements. Let's say this guy was the best, most talented tunnel flyer ever born, and can fly circles around anyone on the planet. And he has 20 jumps. Would you let him do tandem video? Why not, if he's that talented?

In both the above cases, of course, you could let them do it anyway. There are no federal laws that say any instructor has to have any level of experience or certification at all, nor do cameramen have to have any level of training. In both cases it might be a mistake. In both cases the DZO might think that it's worth it to hire the underqualified person because he has lots of students that weekend, because they work cheap, or because they are friends with him. In that case, the DZO would be taking a risk. It is his decision whether or not to take that risk.

>Now, according to UPT, they are not qualified to jump relative to a
>tandem and a lawyer could use this as fuel for a lawsuit in the event of an
>unforeseen accident.

Yes. But it is far, far better to avoid lawsuits by not having student deaths or injuries to begin with. And if those guidelines help prevent such deaths/injuries - we come out ahead as a sport.

[MotherGoose 0]

I agree with you on so many levels, I'm hoping my point is not getting lost. So let's say I choose to break a UPT rule and allow a non-TI/AFFI videographer to jump with me. Let's then say that by sheer accident, the tandem student is very unstable and we shift or spin and the camera guy collides with the student and gives them a black eye or something (whatever, not important to the point). The student goes home and gets talked into suing the dz for their misfortune. The lawyer looks up the manual and then sniffs around for everyone's credentials and finds the vidiot does not meet the criteria clearly spelled out by the mfgr. Easy money. Even though the vidiot has 2000 jumps, easy money. Thats all Im saying. The wording is too cut and dry for the complexity of all of the various situations and levels of experience in this sport. I'm not even talking about the 100 jump wonder that wants to exit with their girlfriend's tandem. I'm talking about experienced people, with unfortunate "accidents" and the subsequent liability based on a few words on a paper.

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

[MotherGoose 0]

Sorry we keep posting at the same time !!

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

[MotherGoose 0]

"Yes. But it is far, far better to avoid lawsuits by not having student deaths or injuries to begin with. And if those guidelines help prevent such deaths/injuries - we come out ahead as a sport."

I'll NEVER argue that. But my point still stands. 2000 jump videographers with no TI/AFFI rating are violating UPT's rules. This, I maintain, is ridiculous.

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

[flydog 0]

UPT (also Strong and Jump Shack) should regulate tandem RW. Who has the deep pockets when you take a 100 jump wonder with you and they fuck up. It's the manufacturer. Take a look at the Ohio fatality. The TI stood with Strong but the DZ folded to reopen as a new company. In most cases that's what would happen. Actually most TI's would run too.
The rules leave the manufacturer an out. They can say these are our rules and throw the DZ and TI under the bus.

You know the RW rules live with them. Your only problem with them is you know they will increase your culpability should something happen when you break them.

[MotherGoose 0]

Thanks for your post, but it is not relevant to my point. Let's talk strictly about a videographer with 2000 jumps but no TI/AFFI rating. No one is defending the 100 jump wonders for the um-teenth time.

Edited to add UPT manual excerpt. See requirement #2. MUST be either a current TI or AFF jumpmaster. I got news for you, a large majority of video flyers are in violation (unfairly) and they have many thousands of jumps.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>2000 jump videographers with no TI/AFFI rating are violating UPT's rules.
>This, I maintain, is ridiculous.

OK. But again - if an instructor with 2000 jumps does not have an AFF rating and does AFF, they are violating USPA's rules. They could easily get busted by a lawyer if something happens to their student (even if they did nothing wrong.) Is that ridiculous?

I guess the thing I don't get is - Bill Booth thinks that you need an AFF/TM rating to do video with tandems. You may disagree, that's fine. But it's his rig; he designed and tested it. You can choose to buy a Strong or a Racer tandem rig if you really dislike his opinions on his rig. Why not take that option instead of trying to make him say something that he feels is wrong in his own manual?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

See requirement #2. MUST be either a current TI or AFF jumpmaster.

Wrong. You're ignoring the word "or" separating #1 and #2:

Quote

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.

In other words, if a tandem camera-flyer meets guidelines #s 1, 3 and 4, but not #2, the UPT manual allows him to film tandems.
(Or, FWIW, if he meets guidelines # 2, 3 and 4, but not #1, the UPT manual also allows him to film tandems.)
Or to put it another way, probably fewer vidiots violate the UPT guidelines than you have led yourself to believe.

[rhanold 0]

+1

This is how I have always interpreted this section.

500 RW jumps total plus 100 RW jumps in last year plus 100 camera jumps allows you to film a tandem.