0
ntrprnr

"Check out my GoPro footage of my first solo!"

Recommended Posts

Quote



The incident at Hollister last year was not a fatality, and didn't have anything to do with the camera.



Really? Last I checked 2011 was last year, and this was a fatality.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4136506

Pay particular attention to post 137.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



The incident at Hollister last year was not a fatality, and didn't have anything to do with the camera.

The fatality was a different jumper three years ago, also didn't have anything to do with a camera.



You sir, are still sadly mistaken. The FATALITY last year was a jumper that was told it was OK to jump camera at less than 200 jumps. She had around 150. She was filming a tandem and it appears she wanted to make it back to get the landing shot even though it was a long spot.

She was just able to clear the power lines at the edge of the field and hooked it in to land into the wind. So riddle me this. Was it the fact she was under a canopy way beyond her skill set that caused the incident, or the pressure to get the shot that led to her death? I say both. Take away either, and there was a better chance she would still be amongst the living. She didn't have the time in sport to understand that the advice she was given could have such fatal consequences.

But if the DZO said it was OK, she must have had the skills, training and supervision to bolt a camera on her head and be filming a tandem. What could possibly go wrong?

Whether it be a guideline or written in the blood of those that didn't follow the guideline, she is still dead.
50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen monky, we've been down this path with sacex250 before, on several other issues.

Great at spouting 'researched' facts & figures, the conclusions drawn are obviously done so without the benefit of actual experience in the field.

My only hope is that someone who is actually wanting to learn doesn't take this 'advise' as valid or use the flawed conclusions as reasons or justification to do things not actually in the best interest of their survival.

Be real here...some of the BEST instructors and vidiots around, are arguing with this guy like anything he has to say MEANS anything! :S

The ole saying ~ Doesn't even know what he doesn't know...~ has never been more appropriately applied.

The worse part is when clearly shown to be incorrect in the conclusions drawn, sacex250 will continue to stand behind the bad science...only further showing a total lack of practical application skills.

This isn't the :D thread that this bullshit has gone on...:|


What we have is a well spoken 'armchair expert' that will disclose all kinds of information EXCEPT that which pertains to his experience level as in jump numbers, instructional ratings, home DZ...anything.

So until such time as he wishes to explain how his real world history qualifies him to make such judgements...

I'll continue to smile and say 'that's nice'...and hope any REAL skydivers take his opinions with less than the grain of salt they have shown to be worth.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



The incident at Hollister last year was not a fatality, and didn't have anything to do with the camera.



Really? Last I checked 2011 was last year, and this was a fatality.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4136506

Pay particular attention to post 137.



Alright, you got me there. All I remembered was the broken legs and facial trauma. I still stand by the point that it wasn't the camera that caused the accident.
It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



The incident at Hollister last year was not a fatality, and didn't have anything to do with the camera.



Really? Last I checked 2011 was last year, and this was a fatality.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4136506

Pay particular attention to post 137.



Alright, you got me there. All I remembered was the broken legs and facial trauma. I still stand by the point that it wasn't the camera that caused the accident.




Like I said one post above yours~ :|

The worse part is when clearly shown to be incorrect in the conclusions drawn, sacex250 will continue to stand behind the bad science...only further showing a total lack of practical application skills.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Alright, you got me there. All I remembered was the broken legs and facial trauma. I still stand by the point that it wasn't the camera that caused the accident.



You're completely right.
-The camera didn't pull low.
-The camera didn't control the canopy flight.
-The camera didn't make the bad decision to be there.

It keeps coming back to the person who inserted the camera into the chain.
Some people think they're smarter than the average person. Some of them actually are. I'd submit that a few of those in the small-format list are very heads-up and experienced, yet they got caught out.
We see the incident lists filled with people that think they are more capable, but clearly aren't.

The sad thing is that no matter how much talking, whether from a "you're a dumbass" or "how about looking at this differently" position, some people will never learn, all the while ignorant that they're also putting others lives and property at greater risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[reply
Like I said one post above yours~ :|

The worse part is when clearly shown to be incorrect in the conclusions drawn, sacex250 will continue to stand behind the bad science...only further showing a total lack of practical application skills.



He is another that deserves my well-placed:
*WHOOSH*

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

[reply
Like I said one post above yours~ :|

The worse part is when clearly shown to be incorrect in the conclusions drawn, sacex250 will continue to stand behind the bad science...only further showing a total lack of practical application skills.



He is another that deserves my well-placed:
*WHOOSH*

Time to end the thread.



Not yet! I have to place my bingo bet! Who is holding the Chart?

Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



Alright, you got me there. All I remembered was the broken legs and facial trauma. I still stand by the point that it wasn't the camera that caused the accident.



You're completely right.
-The camera didn't pull low.
-The camera didn't control the canopy flight.
-The camera didn't make the bad decision to be there.

It keeps coming back to the person who inserted the camera into the chain.
Some people think they're smarter than the average person. Some of them actually are. I'd submit that a few of those in the small-format list are very heads-up and experienced, yet they got caught out.
We see the incident lists filled with people that think they are more capable, but clearly aren't.

The sad thing is that no matter how much talking, whether from a "you're a dumbass" or "how about looking at this differently" position, some people will never learn, all the while ignorant that they're also putting others lives and property at greater risk.



I think Brian Germain said it best in "Parachute and it's Pilot" that "IPA or Incredible Physical Agony"is the best teacher for people who think they have Mad Skilz and start writing checks their Skilz can't cash. Whether it is downsizing and swooping too aggressively or strapping on a camera too soon, you don't know what you don't know.
It takes a long time and a lot of LISTENING to people with more experience than you to acquire the skilz. As soon as you say "I have all the skilz I need to do this" you are closing the door to knowledge that WILL save your life.
Don't be THAT GUY
Good luck, I think you'll need it,

Willy
growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering are these/ this DZ making any extra money or charging extra for the cams on these jumps?

I could see that "Hey, for only $20 more, we can put a camera on your helmet and you can show your friends the video". Student doesn't understand the risks and the DZ makes a profit.

I could definitely see that happening.
We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The sad thing is that no matter how much talking, whether from a "you're a dumbass" or "how about looking at this differently" position, some people will never learn, all the while ignorant that they're also putting others lives and property at greater risk.




Ever notice that everything sacex250 posts is based on info that as previously been posted on DZ.com, or 'research' he's done elsewhere online? It occurs to me that I've never read anything from him along the lines of, 'I have done xxx before, and yyy happened....', or, 'At my DZ we tend to do 123, but I've visted a DZ where they do 456'.

Just about every other poster, even the ones with 2 jumps will sooner or later reference their actual experience or situation, or comment on a brand of container, canopy, jumpsuit, helmet or altimeter. Well, every other poster that has actual jumping experience, that is.

In the end, this video should really be the begining and end of the discussion on the danger of cameras. Two jumps, both with 500-1000 jumps at the time of the incident, with at least 100 jumps freeflying together. The only difference in this video is the addition of a camera to one of the jumpers. This was many years ago, when mini-DV was first out, and they were stoked to have POV video of one of their jumps. Both of these jumpers were respected in the local community (Perris and Elsinore) at the time as experienced and skilled jumpers.

They got so wrapped up with one filming and the other being filmed, they flew head down into dual cypres fires. The camera flyer came darn close to getting a very large bird feeder up his ass.

Remember, 500-1000 jumps, respected by the locals...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoer1LmWTL4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Remember, 500-1000 jumps, respected by the locals...
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoer1LmWTL4

Yeah, but that was back then. 200 jump wonders are so much more skilled today. What are you, one of those old dinosaurs who doesn't understand that time has passed them by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Could you be a little more specific about all of these extensive problems due to people not following the recommendations in the SIM?


Do your own research. It's a great way to learn.
I'd suggest starting with camera flying, looking into wing suiting, moving on the high-performance landings and really getting deep into emergency procedures. You may discover extensive problems caused by not knowing and/or ignoring that information in the SIM.

You could short-cut a little by researching DZ.com threads. Incident forum would get you started.



I've done the research, and there is not one verifiable incident that justifies an arbitrary banning of small format cameras by jumpers with less than a C-license. By comparison, a B-License holder can be trained to be a coach to another jumper but is regarded as unqualified to jump with a camera.

Quote

What do you think those recommendations really mean and what are they for? Do you know how those recommendations came about?


The recommendation wasn't written with small format cameras used by jumpers for their personal POV recordings of their own jumps in mind; it was written with professional camera flyers using larger, heavier equipment in mind in which the main purpose of the jump would be to photograph or record other jumpers.

The requirement of a C-License to add a camera to a jump the jumper would be doing anyway is extreme, which is best evidenced by the fact that everybody misquotes the recommendation as merely 200 jumps because that sounds more reasonable.

These are the facts:

-- There is no BSR or FAA regulation that requires a C-License or 200 jumps to jump with a camera.

-- There has not been one fatality by a skydiver using a small format camera that was caused by the camera.


It's not accidents, fatalities, or injuries that's fueling this debate - it's "oh, the horror" someone posted a video on their Facebook page!



How long you been jumping?

Where you getting your info from that only one umper went in caused by a small format camera. The umper with the cameera decides when to open not the camera.

My 150 ' opening was partially cuaused by a hand held camera everyone likes to geek the camera. What would have happened to the dude at the ranch that landed on the roof if he didn't have a aad.

Good news he would have missed the roof:)

Of course whathever do whatever floats your boat:)
You want to learrn the hard way:)
You momma papa wife kids friends they night miss you Me MEH. Thats reality

Do I hate you no? Do I like you no. will I miss you no. "It don't mean nothing". Just another dumbass that wants to argue.

R/
One Jump Wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for taking the time to read through the report. A lot can be learned from it. However, your translation contains several factual errors (no offense, you admitted that you don't know Swedish. I just don't want these errors to stick in this thread.)

* The report does not talk about a spiraling turn causing a line twist. It describes how the jumper flies his canopy actively (several radical turns) but then stops turning and files the canopy in deep breaks. This is corroborated by the graphs that indicate that the decent rate suddenly decreases. This is also corroborated by eye-witnesses that confirm that the jumper had a habit of spinning for a while and then fly his canopy in deep breaks. What happens after the flight in deep breaks is unknown, but the report puts forward a theory that the jumper induces a stall/stall-turn when he is flying in deep breaks which causes the canopy to spin up. At this point, it is likely that the risers, or something else gets caught around his GoPro.

* The report never talks about the slider the way you describe. The report only talks about the collapsed slider as a sign that the jumper was flying his canopy actively. Had he had a malfunction from his initial opening, there would be no reason for him to collapse his slider and bring it down behind his neck. THAT is the only mentioning of the slider, nowhere does the report indicate that the slider got caught in the GoPro, that is your theory. Nowhere does report present any theory that the slider probably disoriented the jumper.

* You missed the important fact that the jumper had injuries in his face that were not caused by the impact. During the cutaway (probably) something hit the jumpers face hard from below. He also had serious injuries in his neck where his head had been torn upwards and to the side. The MD that did the investigation states that it might have incapacitated him temporarily. This is why I made the note about the GoPro mount acting as a very efficient hook. Something that older camera mounts usually tries to avoid.

As you pointed out yourself, that the jumper did everything correctly (not exactly as he would be alive if he did) and met all the recommendations, what do you think should be done to prevent accidents such as this?
Do you see that putting a jump number limit is a way of ensuring that the jumpers have deposited as much experience in their bank account as possible for when they need it? Jump numbers is a very blunt way of ensuring that, but it is simply not possible to set up guidelines for every single stupidity someone can come up with.

When people complain to me that "It is going to take me forever to get 200 jumps so that I can jump with a camera", I tell them: "Making 200 skydives doesn't take very long if you are serious about it. Make 200 jumps where you each jump think about things that might be useful to know for the day that you put on a camera." People usually come back to thank me after 200 jumps.

regards,
Stefan
(S&TA Skydive Stockholm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's what I figured you would see. But wouldn't a more effective video be from mounting the camera to the instructor's chest strap? Then you could actually see body position of the student. I dont see how seeing what's in front of the student would help the student from an instructional stand point or how that would be a good video for posterity even...



WAG The student wants to get ready to video tamdems. & Charge extra for video when they get to be a 100 jump coach. :S:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melissa126

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=l__-19U1YMk&NR=1


....came across this, and it scared me... I did a search and don't believe it was posted before...



It was a while back in another thread.

It reminded me of a lot of the youngster freefly videos with 9 GoPros on 6 jumpers, for multiple camera angles of black dots way off in the distance, with the occasional collision.
"If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane.

My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0