expensive day at the DZ...

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The way these things are mounted and the people using them are the worse thing that has happened to this sport in years. The shade tree engineering that is being done to secure thes things to helmets is going to kill someone. There were years spent teaching people to cleanup the snag points on camera setup only to have this piece of shit to show up on the market.

Yeh yeh.. Look at how many people have been using them in various sports for quite a while now, point me to a fatality list that's specific to these cameras..

If you're worried about these little things, maybe you shouldn't be skydiving, because it's a DANGEROUS activity and it might kill ya! Bowling anyone?

I know you are just trolling but sometimes you should just shut the fuck up. You contribute nothing here.

More to the point - how many bowling helmets does he own?
I don't see where line snags are an integral situation in any other sport he might be referencing.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

There was a time when I was doing stupid shit and at first didn't heed warnings from friends, but I came around eventually, and I appreciated their concern. Hey, I'm still kicking.

So you were like many newbies that don't listen in the beginning. But with time, many realized they don't know everything and start to listen to advice.

Sounds like you were one of "those guys".

[CSpenceFLY 1]

He still doesn't listen.

[jumpwally 0]

Time to start the over and under pool,,,,,

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[ChrisL 2]

Reading this thread about my camera kinda makes up for the monetary loss a bit.

What people know for a fact is that I have just over 300 jumps and that I lost my camera when I exited the aircraft on Saturday.

I made absolutely NO mention of how this camera was mounted, why the mount failed, or what my attitude about camera flying in general was.

I guess the fact that I'm a relative newb and the fact that it came off
tells the entire story, doesn't it? I must have a cavalier attitude about it, because it wouldn't have happened if I took camera flying seriously, right?

Internet = funny

In point of fact, the mount was my own design, was tight to the helmet, much closer to the helmet than the mount they provided.
It had no snag points, and in fact, the mount didnt fail at all.
It (as well as part of the camera body itself) was still attached to the helmet. The body of the camera itself failed when it impacted the door frame because my foot slipped when I was moving out and it clipped the door edge just right.

It was a one-in-a-million fluke, and it cost me $300.00

I take EVERYTHING in skydiving very seriously, including flying with a camera on my head. I waited until I had well over the minimum required jumps to try flying one.
I ALWAYS listen to the safety recommendations of those that know better than I do.

Did everyone simply forget that sometimes you can do everything right and shit still happens?

To those that posted about how things could be worse, that's irrelevant.

I wasn't comparing my pain and suffering to anyone one elses. I was just posting about what happened and it still sucks even though it
was only $300.00

Have a nice day

__

My mighty steed

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

It was a one-in-a-million fluke, and it cost me $300.00

Wow - kinda like a reverse lottery ticket.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jumpinguy 0]

1) What you said was "Lost my new ContourHD 1080p in freefall. " Broke would have been a better choice of words.

2) You should not be jumping camera yet.

3) It has no snag points? I highly doubt that.

4) I have a friend who lost a main and broke his leg on the same jump. You should feel lucky.

5) Funny how 1 in a million things seem to happen very often.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

1) What you said was "Lost my new ContourHD 1080p in freefall. " Broke would have been a better choice of words.

I'll remember to consult you the next time I have to choose some words.

In fact, my words were 100% accurate. They just didn't tell the entire story. They still provided more information than your profile does. Would you care to share your level of experience so that I have some idea how much weight to give your words?

Quote

2) You should not be jumping camera yet.

The consensus seems to be that 200 jumps is the minimum
recommended jumps for camera.

Billvon's advice was "I'd wait until you have 200-300 jumps, until you can do RW without worrying about whether you will get there or not, without worrying whether you can break off safely, without ever losing sight of the people on the dive. Once you can do that, then add the camera and do very simple skydives until that is second nature as well."

I meet all the skills he recommends in this quote, and I started jumping this camera on jump 307

Is your belief that I shouldn't jump a camera yet based on a general
opinion about camera flying, or about me specifically?

Quote

3) It has no snag points? I highly doubt that.

OK. I suppose my head is a snag point, if you want to look at it like that.

Quote

4) I have a friend who lost a main and broke his leg on the same jump. You should feel lucky.

In fact I do feel lucky. It could have been my head. Instead it was
a camera that can be replaced.

Your friend should feel lucky too, because no matter how shitty
a deal he got dealt, there is always someone that had it worse.

Once again, I'm not comparing my loss to anyone elses. It still sucks.

Quote

5) Funny how 1 in a million things seem to happen very often.

Indeed. Not very often to me, though. Still, I'm not immune no matter how careful I try to be.

__

My mighty steed

[DSE 3]

Quote

In fact I do feel lucky. It could have been my head. Instead it was
a camera that can be replaced.

I'd like to suggest you were lucky in that the camera didn't go through someone's windshield, head, airplane wing, cow, child, skylight, whatever...
Great that you took the time to figure it out and build a mount, but apparently something was missed.
While there are full-size regular cameras that have broken off and become bombs, there are (now 6) stories of these cameras breaking off. I'm wondering when the odds of hitting something valuable catch up to us.

Perhaps what bothers me most is the thread is in the direction of "poor me" vs "wow...this coulda done some damage."

To the guy that recommends tying the camera to the helmet with a lanyard...DON'T. Saw a moron at Elsinore do this with Spectra tied through a Gath helmet. Imagine that getting caught up in an entanglement.

And congrats to you for waiting until you had the proper time-in-sport and experience/relative work!

[topdocker 0]

We trained a new camera flier for our CRW team. He was pretty young, and new to flying camera and doing CRW.

For the first twenty jumps or so, we had him wear a wooden block on his camera helmet rather than our expensive camera. All the camera guys started to laugh and then went, "Oh, wait. I wish I had done that, I would still have my first camera."

Learning you are x inches taller takes some practice. And scrap 2x4's are cheap!

BTW, he's a darn good camera flier now!
top

Jump more, post less!

[brettski74 0]

Quote

To the guy that recommends tying the camera to the helmet with a lanyard...DON'T. Saw a moron at Elsinore do this with Spectra tied through a Gath helmet. Imagine that getting caught up in an entanglement.

That was perhaps me?

By spectra, I'm assuming that you're talking about something like 725lb suspension line type stuff. I'm curious as to whether you think the same argument applies to the leash that comes in the box? I'm assuming you're familiar with what comes in the box.

We used the leash when testing the adhesive mount provided in box specifically because we were concerned about the implications if the mount failed and it fell off. Our thought process at the time was that in the case of any non-trivial entanglement, the leash would break under a relatively low load, which would make the risk from the leash relatively low. I don't have data on the maximum load required to break that leash, although I have a spare one that I'd be happy to use for destructive testing. After several test jumps and about a 50/50 success rate for the mount failing at deployment, we abandoned the standard adhesive mount in favour of more robust options, which should not require a leash. On the downside, these now mean that in the event of a non-trivial entanglement, the camera will not break away under the entanglement load, so I have to ditch the entire helmet, which requires action on my part and is a bigger falling hazard than the camera alone. Are we missing something?

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

To the guy that recommends tying the camera to the helmet with a lanyard...DON'T. Saw a moron at Elsinore do this with Spectra tied through a Gath helmet. Imagine that getting caught up in an entanglement.

That was perhaps me?

By spectra, I'm assuming that you're talking about something like 725lb suspension line type stuff. I'm curious as to whether you think the same argument applies to the leash that comes in the box? I'm assuming you're familiar with what comes in the box.

We used the leash when testing the adhesive mount provided in box specifically because we were concerned about the implications if the mount failed and it fell off. Our thought process at the time was that in the case of any non-trivial entanglement, the leash would break under a relatively low load, which would make the risk from the leash relatively low. I don't have data on the maximum load required to break that leash, although I have a spare one that I'd be happy to use for destructive testing. After several test jumps and about a 50/50 success rate for the mount failing at deployment, we abandoned the standard adhesive mount in favour of more robust options, which should not require a leash. On the downside, these now mean that in the event of a non-trivial entanglement, the camera will not break away under the entanglement load, so I have to ditch the entire helmet, which requires action on my part and is a bigger falling hazard than the camera alone. Are we missing something?

The problem is Joe Blow with 125 jumps has not thought through all of that.

[Master_Yoda 0]

Just a thought I had. Maybe this is the dumbest thing you've ever seen. On the other hand... maybe not. Either way I'll just throw this out there and you guys can do with it what you will.

It seems to me that the best way to prevent anything from hanging on your camera gear would be to eliminate all the edges which could catch a bridle or whatever. The best way to do that MAY BE by using heavy duty spandex which covers all the cameras and snaps to the edges of the helmet.
Look at this crude photoshop image to see what I mean.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb117/Fishmonger_707/camera-helmet-with-spandex.jpg

You can see in the image on the left that I put snaps on the edge along the brow of the helmet. These would go all the way around the edges of the helmet to secure the spandex. The spandex would of course have to be sewn in a fasion that would fit your helmet and cameras. I'm sure a creative rigger could help you out with this.

Anyway, it's just a thought. But I think it would work well to prevent any hangups on your cameras. If you can find holes in my idea, great! Use 'em to modify the idea to make it safer or more functional.

[jumpwally 0]

Wow,,,how creative !! got your big girl panties on ?

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[wildcard451 0]

man, spandex like that would be like trying to fly with a pilot chute hooked onto your head. it's already a noticeable drag with something like a full flat top setup. You may be onto something though

[lippy 773]

Two main flaws with your idea:

-It'd cover up the cool stickers on my camera helmet
-It goes against my 'dudes shouldn't wear Spandex' philosophy.

Seriously, I bet the Spandex would create quite a bit of drag and make the helmet a lot harder to fly. While the spandex would probably allow any 'light' strikes from lines or risers to bounce off, it wouldn't eliminate the chance of a line getting caught under the corner of your camera/box. Also, say you take the spandex off to wash it one weekend, now you've got a helmet with additional snag hazards from the snaps.

I think your idea would create more problems than it would solve. Mounting your cameras in a manner to minimize snag points, and being aware of what's on your head at pull time will go further than trying to 'bubble-wrap' your camera setup.

*edited b/c I'm not a stronng speeler.

I got nuthin

[brettski74 0]

Anything you intend to cover entanglement hazards needs to have some rigidity if it's going to deflect a loaded line or fabric around a snag point. My guess is that a spandex or similarly flexible, elastic cover would be of minimal utility because in freefall, the wind would press the fabric against the harder surfaces underneath and even more importantly, a line with a couple hundred pounds of load on it will easily push the spandex against the harder surfaces, if not cut/burn through it, exposing it to much the same snag hazard as was there before.

I have seen flexible covers made from neoprene rubber used over cameras before, but their usefulness is primarily in keeping dust and moisture out of your camera. I'm not sure how much snag mitigation they provide.

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

Wow,,,how creative !! got your big girl panties on ?

Actually, they were your mom's. But I gave 'em back.

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

Anything you intend to cover entanglement hazards needs to have some rigidity if it's going to deflect a loaded line or fabric around a snag point. My guess is that a spandex or similarly flexible, elastic cover would be of minimal utility because in freefall, the wind would press the fabric against the harder surfaces underneath and even more importantly, a line with a couple hundred pounds of load on it will easily push the spandex against the harder surfaces, if not cut/burn through it, exposing it to much the same snag hazard as was there before.

I have seen flexible covers made from neoprene rubber used over cameras before, but their usefulness is primarily in keeping dust and moisture out of your camera. I'm not sure how much snag mitigation they provide.

OK, that makes a lot of sense. As soon as someone mentioned that spandex would create more drag I started thinking about other materials. But I guess if it could be done, it would've been done by now.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

The problem is Joe Blow with 125 jumps has not thought through all of that.

In retrospect, I guess the better post would have been to comment on how inappropriate the standard mount is for skydiving use.

[Sangi 0]

Nuff said.

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Great that you took the time to figure it out and build a mount, but apparently something was missed.

Like I said, the mount and part of the camera body were still attached to the helmet. Obviously what I missed was fashioning a decent enclosure for the camera since the camera itself is obviously
not strong enough to take a direct impact.

Quote

Perhaps what bothers me most is the thread is in the direction of "poor me" vs "wow...this coulda done some damage."

All due respect, (and I do respect your opinions, DSE) I think you are making an unfounded assumption
here. I take your point, but I would reply that you are assuming I didn't have a thought for potential damage/injury that could have resulted from the camera falling simply because I didn't mention it in my post.

In fact, initially I was quite concerned about this possibility. I looked at an aerial photo of the area below our exit point and determined it was all wooded. Even so I felt a fair bit of anxiety about it.

In the future I will take care to post ALL of my thoughts, feelings, and reactions to a given event. People are in far too big a hurry to
make assumptions about things that are left out, and the assumptions are usually negative.

__

My mighty steed

[DSE 3]

my point regarding damage to property or persons stems from the thread in general, not from your words per se.

If you took my post as a personal affront, re-read the thread. It is more about loss, experience, camera flying, and "damn this sucks" with virtually no mention of "you're lucky that nothing worse happened."

Glad to hear it was woods/fields/whatever so that it was less of an issue.
Again...sorry for your camera loss. I had a Fastex not properly connected once. Lost my helmet, audible. Found the helmet a week later in a field. Grateful that if it did hit a cow, there was no indication of it.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

If you took my post as a personal affront, re-read the thread.

I didn't actually take it that way, but I admit my response could be viewed as defensive.
Bottom line for the entire thing (for me anyway) is that I learned some valuable lessons and nobody got hurt in the process,
so its all good (except for the camera, of course)
The mistakes that I made wont happen again.

cheers

__

My mighty steed

[david3 0]

[reply
Bottom line for the entire thing (for me anyway) is that I learned some valuable lessons and nobody got hurt in the process,
so its all good (except for the camera, of course)
The mistakes that I made wont happen again.

cheers