Hand Cams, "Only" ?

[Ron 7]

Quote

Wingsuit pilots most likely won't injure or kill innocent, uninformed, helpless people due to an error.
Tandem instructors most certainly can and have.

Ok then to you:

How many fatalities have been caused by a handicam?

How many have been caused by an outside video flyer?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DSE 3]

Quote

Ok then to you:

How many fatalities have been caused by a handicam?

How many have been caused by an outside video flyer?

Earlier you said:

Quote

I have only heard of the one case.

You were informed there are more.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

It is more important for a student to see another person in freefall during the skydive than it is to see anything a handi cam can produce.

?!?!?!?!??!!?!? ?!?!?!?!?!?

Hundreds of thousands of Tandems have been done with NO video guy.

Those folks got the experience of the "moment"

Lets not forget that many OV people are more busy doing what THEY want than giving the student a package they will remember.

http://www.dropzone.com/forum/Skydiving_Disciplines_C3/Photography_and_Video_F7/Tandem_Video_Exits_-_inspiration_wanted_!_P1581742

Any camera person doing "what they want" Instead of what the customer deserves, needs to be FIRED...Just like TI's that try to become the "star" of a video...It isn't about "Us" it is about the Customer, we should be no more than shadows in the video!

[rhys 0]

Quote

You're baiting the wrong person.

Wingsuit pilots most likely won't injure or kill innocent, uninformed, helpless people due to an error.
Tandem instructors most certainly can and have.

Not out to bait, just clarification and continuity.

There has been at least a million hand cam jumps, and you go on about one or 2 incidents incidents of human error to make a point about the safety or lack thereof with hand cam.

Yet you are a strong advocate of wing suit jumps which have contributed to a plethora of incidents including deaths by adding an extra element to a skydive.

Continuity is my point.

We all have different opinions and are entitled to them, I am not against wing suits either, but both wing suits and hand cam add an extra element to a skydive that some are more than capable of and some are not.

We cannot focus on those that are not capable to determine the feasibility of any activity, we just need adequate systems in place to make sure these people that are not ready or suitable for such activities are somehow restricted from doing so.

It is called balance.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[DSE 3]

Quote

Yet you are a strong advocate of wing suit jumps which have contributed to a plethora of incidents including deaths by adding an extra element to a skydive.

I'd appreciate seeing what a "plethora" looks like.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Earlier you said:
Quote: I have only heard of the one case.

Read the question again, you didn't pay attention:

Quote

How many fatalities have been caused by a handicam?

No one has shown me a single Tandem *fatality* due to a HC (I have not even seen evidence of an accident, just TI's doing the same stupid thing that TI's have done before HC's).

If you would like, please be the first to provide the details of a fatality, or even an accident.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[TheCaptain 2]

I think both outside video and handy cam have there place. Handy cam gets one very important shot that can never be captured on outside video and that is the first reaction under canopy. Also I have seen very few vidiots that can get a close up of the facial expression right off the plane a shot that is always there with handy cam. I do think outside video offers a field of depth in free fall that handy cam truely lacks. My wife has never went skydiving but has edited several hundred tandem videos (mostly outside video but some handy cam video) from her perspective she thought handy cam offered a more true point of view (from a students perspective) of the skydive. I think both offer something different and I think given a choice you would still have a market for both. I can understand at a 182 dropzone the reason to just offer handycam but I think at any dropzone with bigger aircraft both types of video should be available.

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Earlier you said:
Quote: I have only heard of the one case.

Read the question again, you didn't pay attention:

Quote

How many fatalities have been caused by a handicam?

No one has shown me a single Tandem *fatality* due to a HC (I have not even seen evidence of an accident, just TI's doing the same stupid thing that TI's have done before HC's).

If you would like, please be the first to provide the details of a fatality, or even an accident.

I suggest it is you that needs to read the specific post to which I specifically responded.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4006706#4006706
You're a big boy; dig into Incidents and find the answer to your other questions for yourself.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I suggest it is you that needs to read the specific post to which I specifically responded.

Except, I asked YOU a follow up question since you answered that one so well.

I asked YOU since you have compiled data and started a thread about the incidents.

I asked YOU since you seem to think HC are dangerous for Tandems.

Quote

You're a big boy; dig into Incidents and find the answer to your other questions for yourself.

And you are a big boy. Admit you are unable to defend your position, or just unwilling to answer a simple question for personal reasons.....

I mean you created a post that documents all the incidents, so you kinda started acting as the SME on the topic.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[skydiverek 54]

I don't see the problem with Tandems and handi-cams :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oml71o0RHUk

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

This move will increase their productivity and in the long run will allow the metamorphosis into a turbine DZ's.

I don't think it's mandatory. During the season we're constantly turning two 182's and a Beech 18. There's all likelyhood that another good season will make us a turbine dz, yet HC is a novelty thing here.

Now I'm not saying that it's the best way, but neither is the argument as binary as you seem to be making it out to be.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[Para5-0 0]

Hey Ron,
I think we are getting a bit derailed in the thread here. It is safe to say that both H/C and O/V can be done safely. It is also safe to say that small cesna dropzones tend to start out with H/C and it is economically smarter. Further, O/V is more prevalent at larger turbine dropzones.

I backup and agree with DSE on several issues, first that in order to perform H/C a tandem Instructor should be soundly proficient with doing tandems. I believe that USPA and the manufacturers should again be on the same page with the requirements. And yes DSE has experience in this area based on his willingness and dedication to standardize wingsuit training. I like the Australian model above.
I understand your points but we are all advocating mature, intelligent, educated, proficient instructors.
Now how do we get that so no incidents do occur?
You are correct there may be no concrete incidents to point to H?c being a direct cause but lets be smart and try to do something proactive instead of reactive. If we do nothing about the topic then when something does happen and is attributed to the H/C for whatever reason, the first thing that will be said is "Why didnt USPA or the manufacturers have recommendations or guidelines to follow?" IE: lawsuit.
I would much rather see us discuss what recomendations would be suitable for a new tandem instructor to jump with a H/C as opposed to arguing about statistics that may or may not prove shit. or even worse which method is better.
Glad to see you are pasionate about it though.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I'd appreciate seeing what a "plethora" looks like.

You can start by looking here

Nice attempt to avoid the point though, 8 points.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

I don't think it's mandatory. During the season we're constantly turning two 182's and a Beech 18.

Can you show me a photo of your beach 18, they look cool as!

Are you doing single tandem loads (when there is video) in those Cessna?

Quote

There's all likelyhood that another good season will make us a turbine dz, yet HC is a novelty thing here.

You watch, that will change.

Quote

Now I'm not saying that it's the best way, but neither is the argument as binary as you seem to be making it out to be.

No way is the best way, there is always room for improvement, whichever way you do it.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Ron 7]

Quote

I backup and agree with DSE on several issues, first that in order to perform H/C a tandem Instructor should be soundly proficient with doing tandems. I believe that USPA and the manufacturers should again be on the same page with the requirements. And yes DSE has experience in this area based on his willingness and dedication to standardize wingsuit training. I like the Australian model above.

I mentioned 200 tandems as a requirement to jump a HC before the Aus recommendations were brought up.

I also agree we should be looking at the potential dangers... Which is why I have repeatedly asked for information on any incidents. Thus far, the only incidents have been the same type of thing that has happened without the HC.

But some seem to think the HC itself causes an additional threat... And no one has been able to show a case yet.

So far, all I have seen, is three cases of a TI not using both hands to get the shot... And I have already mentioned that if I was the S&TA I would ground them... But (and this has been my point all along) these type of incidents have happened WITHOUT the HC. So it was not the HC that caused the incident. If it were a case if the lines wrapping around the tandem HC... That would indicate a HC issue.

This far all we have is TI's modifying their behavior in a dumb way. Bad, yes, but that really has nothing to do with the HC setup.

That has been my point

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Para5-0 0]

The problem I have noticed with many agencies, especially DZ's and to some extend USPA is that they debate issues after incidents occur. It has always been my stance to seek out areas that may be a concern or safety issue. If from the very beginning we waited for something to happen before addressing it I imagine thae stats would be a hell of alot worse.
With that being said:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1211149#1211149

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2809077#2809077

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3683263#3683263

Here are some that are interesting. I hope this doesnt turn into a defense of each one, because like I said it doesnt matter all that much. What matters is there is a potential for problems if the TI is not educated a bit and has a good sound grasp of his tandem responsibilities before adding this extra burden.

I always wondered why do we need statistics to address a potential safety issue? I have read board minutes where it seems they were hesitant to initiate change because there didnt seem to be statistical data to point to. It appears almost as a scapegoat, just in case someone asks why they changed or voted for something. Why cant we say, Hey we are experienced instructors who think this might be a issue can we implement some positive change so that it does not happen.
S&TA's should be doing this across the country with daily operations. An example is an uneven spot or hole in the landing area. Well, nobody has broken an ankle or leg in that hole so why change it. My stance is hey fill in the hole so nobody has to be the example used for why we should fill in the hole.
I am not arguing just venting a bit, sorry.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I always wondered why do we need statistics to address a potential safety issue? I have read board minutes where it seems they were hesitant to initiate change because there didnt seem to be statistical data to point to...

...Why cant we say, Hey we are experienced instructors who think this might be a issue can we implement some positive change so that it does not happen.

This is why,

Quote

A letter from Dave Emerson went out with the agenda proposing that a ‘hand cam’ arm/wrist mounted video camera be accepted for use by Tandem Instructors with a minimum of 500 Tandem jumps and CCI’s approval. At the last meeting Dave handed out a number of CD’s containing video footage of the ‘hand cam’ in use. Dave was present at the meeting and was able to provide further details of his request to the Committee.

Following some discussion on this request, a counter proposal was tabled by Phil Cavanagh and seconded by Paul Hollow a ‘hand cam’ may not be accepted for use by Tandem Instructors.

For: 9 Against: 7 Abstentions: 2
Carried

This meeting made the rules for the BPA to not allow handcam, it was in 2004.

I am not too sure whether it still stands, but once you make a rule, it it difficult to change.

I can see your point with the whole;

Quote

An example is an uneven spot or hole in the landing area. Well, nobody has broken an ankle or leg in that hole so why change it. My stance is hey fill in the hole so nobody has to be the example used for why we should fill in the hole.
I am not arguing just venting a bit, sorry.

Analogy, but that model does not work for everything.

As we see here in this conversation, there are those that strongly oppose hand cam as it effects their income, they will likely vote it out on safety pretenses (if the bandwagon appears) when the true reason for their vote is financial.

I'm more of a statistics man myself, I hate to see people hurt but skydiving rules are generally written in blood.

Too many rules can be as damaging to the sport as too few.

Quote

I am not arguing just venting a bit, sorry.

Don't be sorry, you speak intelligently, bring up relevant points and make good conversation to learn from.

I like your posts.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 2,380]

>As we see here in this conversation, there are those that strongly oppose
>hand cam as it effects their income, they will likely vote it out on safety
>pretenses (if the bandwagon appears) when the true reason for their vote
>is financial.

And we have also seen DZO's who strongly support hand cam as it improves their income. They will likely support it no matter what the safety issues, since the true reason for their vote is financial.

[rhys 0]

Quote

And we have also seen DZO's who strongly support hand cam as it improves their income. They will likely support it no matter what the safety issues, since the true reason for their vote is financial.

and in between we have reality, and the reality is that hand cam has proven itself.

There has been less incidents with handicam than;

Wingsuits
Small cameras (go pro etc)
High performance parachutes
The use of AAD's
RSL's
...

These continue to be used by people with less than 500 jumps and some are mandatory pieces of equipment.

I propose that there be an absolute minimum of 1100 jumps for hand cam use, as there is here, and that is assuming the instructor began his/her tandem rating on their 1000th jump (what I believe should be the minimum) and did only tandems from there to jump 1100.

You probably think it is OK to take tandems at 500 jumps like most here will, that is your prerogative.

500 jumps is WAYYYYYYYYYYY too green IMHO, and that may be where the problem lies with this subject. having said that I still see TM's with 1000's of jumps having difficulty getting stable.

But the rules are the rules and I respect them, personally I had 2200 jumps when I got my rating.

When I see people with 489 jumps talking about getting a tandem rating (OZ, USA...) it makes me feel uneasy.

There is no perfect world, but hand cams have surely proven their place as a (relatively) safe and appropriate piece of equipment (depending on who is using them), much like the tandem systems themselves.

Humans have proven themselves to be unreliable and unsafe on many occasions....

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

Can you show me a photo of your beach 18, they look cool as!

www.skyranch.com has one at the very bottom and two or three in the slide show at top.

Quote

Are you doing single tandem loads (when there is video) in those Cessna?

yes

Quote

You watch, that will change.

Maybe. Our dz's density altitude will jump up 700+ meters on a normal day in the busy season and we're already at almost 400 meters msl. That means that a ride to the top for two tandems takes forever. Taking a single tandem with OV is still profitable and the cycle time is much shorter so it tends to even out for us.

I think the next big change for us will be the move from sd DV cams to HD card-based ones to take better advantage of the NLE concession I just started. That's going to alleviate our worst bottleneck right now.

Quote

No way is the best way, there is always room for improvement, whichever way you do it.

So very true.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[rhys 0]

Quote

http://www.skyranch.com has one at the very bottom and two or three in the slide show at top.

Dang that is a cool plane...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Ron 7]

Quote

Here are some that are interesting.

Yes, thank you for the data. But #1 seems to not to have anything to do with the HC.

Post 106 from Jump shack:
The TI had a hand-cam on his left hand. The hand cam glove does not appear to have hindered wrist flexibility. I tried the hand cam on to test this.

#2 does not seem to involve the HC either.

Post #21: The tandem pair were on their LHS in a sidespin and rotating fast. Unable to control the situation Henry set the drogue. It seems that the drogue got entangled on him, her or the harness and could not inflate.... Handy cam footage shows that he activated the reserve

So it was not wrapped on the HC

#3 post # 71 The drogue's bridle wasn't entangled with anything, and its canopy was collapsed by its kill-line.
Except for entangling with the reserve, there was no indication that any part of the main had snagged on the jumpers or their equipment....

And post #73 : The main parachute deployment resulted in a bag-lock malfunction with one outerline stow still intact with its stow band holding it to the deployment bag. The reserve handle was pulled before Cypres firing altitude and the 3ring risers had released. The reserve static line was still connected in its normal position on the right shoulder and wsa still connected to the main riser. Evidence indicates that the cutaway handle was pulled after reserve deployment ; the 3ring release had been activated. The reserve deployed into the trailing malfunction and the reserve suspension lines above and below the reserve deployment bag

So, none of them seem to have had anything to do with a HC.

Quote

What matters is there is a potential for problems if the TI is not educated a bit and has a good sound grasp of his tandem responsibilities before adding this extra burden.

True, but so far the only thing we have seen is a TI being stupid and letting the RSL do its job instead of him pulling. And I think that is a big deal, but that was happening before HC's

Quote

I always wondered why do we need statistics to address a potential safety issue?

Without data you have no idea what is actually a problem, or what the problem actually is.

Quote

Why cant we say, Hey we are experienced instructors who think this might be a issue can we implement some positive change so that it does not happen.

And we have.... But some are claiming that HC's are *dangerous* and so far, no one has been able to provide anything that shows the HC being a problem.

Quote

n example is an uneven spot or hole in the landing area. Well, nobody has broken an ankle or leg in that hole so why change it.

Because in your example, I can find data where a hole in the landing area HAS caused problems. Maybe not the exact hole you are bringing up, but holes on on other DZ's have caused an issue.

Without data there is too big of a chance that we try to "fix" something that is not broken or we "fix" something for the wrong reasons (like claiming HC's are dangerous so we can try to keep OV guys employed).

When HC's first came out... I didn't like them. Of Beezy was using one and I thought it was a snag hazard. Beezy told me that he never had a problem (and back then it was with a BIG camera with a lens).

But the "X is dangerous" was said about AFF when it came out (now people claim SL is dangerous), hand deploy PC's for students (now the standard)... Hell, even cutting away a malfunction was considered a stupid idea at one point.

But the data has shown that AFF can be done safely, students do fine with hand deploys, and that cutting away before firing the reserve is the better idea.

I remain open to the thought that HC's might be fine OR that they might be dangerous. But I am going to make my mind up based on more than just hearsay and speculation from people who might have an agenda... *either way*.

I have not jumped a HC yet.... But I did buy a go pro and will be ordering a glove soon (I wanted to be really familiar with the GP before I jumped it).

So, while I agree that OV has many good points... I also think HC video has some good points.

But I don't agree that HC is dangerous as long as the TI does not have his head up his ass.... but I am more than willing to look at any data presented.

For example..... What possible issue could the HC present? We know that it may alter the TI's actions. But what if the TI does not alter his actions? What if the TI still does his handles checks, still pulls the reserve, still flys the canopy the way he should?

What potential physical dangers does the HC create?

This would be a good discussion.... And the recommendations on min exp levels is also a great discussion.

I think:
* A TI should have 200 jumps before being allowed to jump a HC. It fits into the requirements that we propose for new people to jump camera.

* They should have a briefing before jumping a HC.

* They should still do handle checks.

* They should not trust an RSL.

And I think any TI caught not doing handle checks and not pulling the reserve should have their rating yanked.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[skyrider 0]

And I haven't seen a single hand cam vid yet where there "was" a handle check!

[rhys 0]

Quote

And I haven't seen a single hand cam vid yet where there "was" a handle check!

why do you think sigmas have a clear window on the reserve pin?

You don't have to touch something to check something.

the only handle that cannt be checked without comprimising the footage is the blue/bottom drogue release, but we all know what happens if that is dislodged.

Doe you expect we check;

After exit and prior to drogue deployment?

Just because you don't touch something, does not mean you do not know whether it is in place or not.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 2,380]

>>And I haven't seen a single hand cam vid yet where there "was" a
>>handle check!

>why do you think sigmas have a clear window on the reserve pin?

>You don't have to touch something to check something.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that you no longer touch the handles because of the handycam? If so you are sacrificing safety for cheap video, and there's no excuse for that.