GoPros right off of student status?

[billvon 2,400]

>The fact that after 7 pages, no statistical data validating the camera paranoia
>has yet to be provided

1) November 27 2009-NorCal Area - low opening caused by camera ('shooting her friend from below')

2) December 17, 2009 –SoCal Area - injury due to filming landing

3) January 1 2010 Southeastern Region - injury - videoing friend under canopy resulting in out landing

4) February (day unknown) SoCal - no cutaway after canopy damage due to jumper capturing "cool looking video"

5)March 2010 - tandem master does not pull reserve due to desire to video the cutaway

6) April 13 2010 Western Region - cutaway with no reserve pull due to camera worries

7) April 21, 2010 Southeast Region - forgot chest strap due to camera distraction

8) June 7, 2010 South East area- tandem master does not pull reserve due to desire to video the cutaway

9) June 20, 2010 SoCal area - low pull due to geeking camera

10) June 21, 2010 - misrouted chest strap due to camera distraction

11) Date unknown, Southeastern Region - broken wrist due to inattention while talking to camera

12) July 4, 2010 - videoed landing, did not flare, broken wrists

13) Western Region (Chicks Rock) Oct 1 - low deployment due to attempting to video jump partner, landed out

14)South Eastern Region PM rec'd Nov 4 2010 - camera entanglement causes cutaway

15) Western Region Dec 13 2010 - camera entanglement causes cutaway.

16) 8-22-2011: Location unknown. - Gopro pulls jumper's reserve handle on exit

17) Western Region 10-8-2011 - entanglement under canopy, sprained wrist

18) North East Region 11-6-2011 - guy tries to film deployment, goes low, cypres fire, 2 out

19) Western Region Jan 2011 - guy tries to backfly to get his friend on video. Out of sequence deployment, premature opening.

20) Mid-Atlantic Region Feb 25, 2012 - entanglement with camera, cutaway

21) Western Region Oct, 2012 - entanglement, cutaway

22)March 2013 Western Region - filmed friend, got low, cypres fire

[peek 20]

Quote

... how many videos are there on YouTube of student [pilots] videoing their training and their solo flights? Are they being unreasonably distracted by the camera?

Maybe or maybe not. It depends on many things, just like when skydivers use cameras. Everyone is different.

Quote

.. most pilots agree that using the radio is usually the most difficult and intimidating thing to learn during pre-solo training...

And one of the most distracting, at least for some people.

(I have already seen a post in this thread suggesting that using a camera to record flight in an airplane is much different/less distracting than a skydiver recording their jump.) Maybe or maybe not.

For those who are not familiar with aircraft flight instruction, there are fortunately some things that an instructor (and an examiner come checkride time) can do to test to see if a student pilot can be distracted. I think some of these things are even listed in the FAA Practical Test Standards.

I recall during my Private Pilot check ride (many years ago!) that the Examiner tested my susceptibility to distraction by asking me to tell him the outside air temperature read from the pull-out vent, while climbing out of the pattern.

It is a good test, and unfortunately one that cannot be easily used on a skydiver to see if they can be distracted by wearing a camera. Or can it?

Perhaps we can develop some types of tests that are similar, to add to industry recommendations for camera flying. Anyone?

[Fast 0]

-Joey-

Technology won't come and go; technology is here to stay :)
Best to embrace it, and not fear it.

It's all fun and games 'til you or one of your friends dies or you kill someone else.

After that it's just sad - fortunately for you it's not something you have to worry about until it happens. Then you'll understand and likely not until then.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[skycatcher68 7]

Quote

More like not letting them fly complex aircraft until they have 200 hours flight time.

That's ridiculous! Many pilots actually learn to fly in complex and high performance aircraft, including multi-engine aircraft. In fact, lets compare two 100 hour private pilots, one did all their flying in a 172 and the other's only flown a Seneca, who do you think is the more qualified pilot? It's really no contest!

But let's just make up stupid exclusionary rules instead.

What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King?

[billvon 2,400]

>That's ridiculous!

Really? What do you need to legally fly a complex aircraft in the US?

[skycatcher68 7]

An instructor's endorsement: Part 61.31

Quote

(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane, unless the person has—

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.

(f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower), unless the person has—

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a high-performance airplane.

What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King?

[billvon 2,400]

Excellent!

And if we applied similar standards to video (i.e. no one could do video until they had done ground training, then done X training jumps under supervision and then got a signoff from an instructor) we'd solve most of the problem. You wouldn't need a 200 jump limit - because you'd have the training requirement and a final check from an instructor.

[skycatcher68 7]

billvon

Excellent!

And if we applied similar standards to video (i.e. no one could do video until they had done ground training, then done X training jumps under supervision and then got a signoff from an instructor) we'd solve most of the problem. You wouldn't need a 200 jump limit - because you'd have the training requirement and a final check from an instructor.

Whoa! Does this mean you agree with me now? I'm know for a fact that you're not the first person to offer up the concept of a camera endorsement on this board.

The problem is that the C-License recommendation (it's not a 200 jump requirement) doesn't actually address any camera training, while being overly burdensome and restrictive for personal camera use.

Perhaps DSE efforts on a wingsuit instructor rating would be better spent creating a camera endorsement syllabus.

What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King?

[billvon 2,400]

>Whoa! Does this mean you agree with me now?

If you advocate camera training and checkouts as an alternative to the 200 jump thing, then yes, I agree - that would be a better way to do it. The 200 jump minimum is a replacement for a training program/checkout method since it's possible to absorb enough to learn to do camera on your own after 200 jumps. However it is in no way a guarantee, and a training program/checkout would be a much more structured way to do it.

>Perhaps DSE efforts on a wingsuit instructor rating would be better spent creating a
>camera endorsement syllabus.

After what he endured for suggesting a wingsuit instructor rating - I don't think he's going to be willing to take the same amount of shit to try to create a camera rating.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Whoa! Does this mean you agree with me now?

For me,. nope. You're all-frred focused on jump numbers.

Quote

The problem is that the C-License recommendation (it's not a 200 jump requirement) doesn't actually address any camera training, while being overly burdensome and restrictive for personal camera use.

What's the problem? Oh yeah....jump numbers.

What the recommendation unarguably does is:
-provide for some jump experience,
-provide for some in-air time for your sphere of awareness to open up more,
-hopefully allow for the benefits of some more time-in-sport,
-increase the opportunity for exposure to events that are not part of camera recommendations,
-give you some time for you to get some first-hand observations of what can go wrong,
-generate an opportunity for some additional learning on what NOT to do
-.....need I go on?

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

[DSE 3]

skycatcher68

Perhaps DSE efforts on a wingsuit instructor rating would be better spent creating a camera endorsement syllabus.

Already done, but USPA wasn't interested. In today's environment where every new skydiver is of the "video myself for Facebook," I'd expect even more resistance.

[linebckr83 3]

skycatcher68

[Quote]Can we get an idea of your skydiving experience so we know if you have actual merit to your opinions that cameras are harmless, or are you just another Joey?

Here we go with the personal attacks! What's the problem, can't have a rational debate based on the argument?

Asking if you know what the hell you are talking about is a personal attack? Boy, you must have had a rough childhood

I think it's funny that the only two people on this thread with "common sense" are the two guys who have basically zero experience, and all the "asinine idiots" are anybody with actual experience. That logic is brilliant!

I don't necessarily agree with a strict 200 jump limit requirement either, but I think something should be in place. Maybe a training course and instructor endorsement, like you suggested, or 200 jumps. Whichever comes first.

At some point you gotta realize that some people will do what they want regardless of warnings presented to them. So Joey and skycatcher, just try to remember that the camera isn't priority 1. If everything is going well, aiming and shooting is fine sure, but if shit hits the fan, forget it's there and focus on fixing your problem. Those who are victims of incidents relating to cameras tend to forget this. Time is already short up there, no need to waste it on something else like a camera.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[-Joey- 0]

LMAO... writing "due to camera" after a bunch of incidents doesn't make them due to the camera, that is just your speculation.

None of those are even serious incidents. If every single cutaway, line twist, or off-landing were considered an "incident" then the incidents forum would fill up so rapidly that the owners of this site would need to buy their own data center. The very worst thing in your entire collection of 22 "incidents" was a sprained wrist.

Remove the ones of questionable causation and you have maybe a grand total of 15 very minor events in which a camera could have been a contributing factor, in the last what 10 years? Compare that with the new fatalities we see every week due to low pulls, failed swoops, and mere bad luck and, well it's pretty clear there is no real legitimate basis for the anti-camera propaganda.

Skydiving is serious business

[Ron 7]

Quote

I think it's funny that the only two people on this thread with "common sense" are the two guys who have basically zero experience, and all the "asinine idiots" are anybody with actual experience.

Caught that did ya??????

And a point that I hope is not missed by most people.

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

[linebckr83 3]

Do you know how bad a reserve deployment on exit can be? Do you know how close to death someone is when their cypres saves their life? Do you know how ugly a misrouted chest strap can be?

Oh who am I kidding, of course you don't.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[DSE 3]

-Joey-

LMAO... writing "due to camera" after a bunch of incidents doesn't make them due to the camera, that is just your speculation.

None of those are even serious incidents. If every single cutaway, line twist, or off-landing were considered an "incident" then the incidents forum would fill up so rapidly that the owners of this site would need to buy their own data center. The very worst thing in your entire collection of 22 "incidents" was a sprained wrist.

Remove the ones of questionable causation and you have maybe a grand total of 15 very minor events in which a camera could have been a contributing factor, in the last what 10 years? Compare that with the new fatalities we see every week due to low pulls, failed swoops, and mere bad luck and, well it's pretty clear there is no real legitimate basis for the anti-camera propaganda.

In _your_ mind, perhaps they're minor. In the four related fatalities, the several femur, and the smattering of other situations, they were life-altering to the person that experienced them. That aside, every major incident is a chain of minor incidents.

Questioning authority is a good thing to do from time to time. Defying it when you have zero knowledgebase or experiential base falls into a category of "stupid."
Are you next going to argue that it's not stupid to jump with a camera and no cutaway system on the helmet?

[-Joey- 0]

linebckr83

I don't necessarily agree with a strict 200 jump limit requirement either, but I think something should be in place. Maybe a training course and instructor endorsement, like you suggested, or 200 jumps. Whichever comes first.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to a training course, as long as the jumper could take it at any time. I don't believe in restriction, but I believe in education.

Skydiving is serious business

[-Joey- 0]

linebckr83

Do you know how bad a reserve deployment on exit can be? Do you know how close to death someone is when their cypres saves their life? Do you know how ugly a misrouted chest strap can be?

Oh who am I kidding, of course you don't.

A misrouted chest strap???? Oh man, call in the fire department!

Skydiving is serious business

[linebckr83 3]

-Joey-

***Do you know how bad a reserve deployment on exit can be? Do you know how close to death someone is when their cypres saves their life? Do you know how ugly a misrouted chest strap can be?

Oh who am I kidding, of course you don't.

A misrouted chest strap???? Oh man, call in the fire department!

What do you think the chest strap is there for? To look pretty?

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[topdocker 0]

-Joey-

***
I don't necessarily agree with a strict 200 jump limit requirement either, but I think something should be in place. Maybe a training course and instructor endorsement, like you suggested, or 200 jumps. Whichever comes first.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to a training course, as long as the jumper could take it at any time. I don't believe in restriction, but I believe in education.

You can "take" it at any time. Doesn't mean you will pass! You talk a lot about wanting to be educated, but don't seem to want to listen......

Attitude determines aptitude.

top

Jump more, post less!

[Ron 7]

Quote

A misrouted chest strap???? Oh man, call in the fire department!

Almost killed the DeLand jumper.... Thank god he got good video!

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

[-Joey- 0]

Ron

Quote

A misrouted chest strap???? Oh man, call in the fire department!

Almost killed the DeLand jumper.... Thank god he got good video!

No, he almost got killed trying to re-fasten it when he should have just let it be. What almost killed him was thinking it was necessary.

Skydiving is serious business

[BigMikeH77 0]

I think I found the statistical data you've been droning on about.. proof positive that small format cameras are a distraction hazard and also proving the "chain of events" idea that folks are trying to get through to you. Remember this guy?

Why is jumping a camera so important to you? My guess is that, assuming that you are in fact a skydiver, you are more interested in impressing others with stories and pictures of how amazing you are than in seriously pursuing this sport. If you want to impress someone, be humble. Then when it comes out in general conversation that you jump (if you in fact do), impress them with your knowledge of EP's, calculated risk, how a 3-ring release system works, and how you can turn an event (jumping out of an airplane) that will certainly result in death into an enjoyable, safe, and fun experience.

Or you can join the Army. Or you can volunteer at an animal rescue. Or you can donate blood. You can be an organ donor, pick up trash along a trail, organize a fundraiser for breast cancer... Any of these are noble and impressive. Whining about the right to endanger yourself and others when otherwise unnecessary is not.

[Ron 7]

Quote

What almost killed him was thinking it was necessary

Ah, so now you are an expert on gear as well? People have fallen out of their gear due to not having the chest strap in place. I guess gear manufactures are just wasting time putting them on gear then?

BTW, still waiting for you to provide your data:
"How many US DZ's allow a GoPro at 50 jumps vs how many make you wait till 100 or 200?"

You claim to like data.... But you have not brought any.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>writing "due to camera" after a bunch of incidents doesn't make them due to the camera

Right. But when the jumper says "I got distracted filming my landing" then it makes it due to the camera. When the jumper purposely gets under another jumper to film their opening, and then opens low, that's due to the camera. When the jumper gets lines snagged on his camera, that's due to the camera.

>None of those are even serious incidents.

If you don't think Cypres firings are serious incidents then we're having two different discussions. If your argument devolves to "what's the worst that can happen - a cypres firing?" then you don't get it. Period.

Give it a few years. Your outlook will change. And in five years, if you are lucky, you'll be one of those "old fossil safety nazis" who "hate newer jumpers." If you're not lucky we will be reading about you in the Incidents forum. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.