IPC changes for cameraflyers

[ltdiver 3]

On the NSL web site, the IPC Meeting update (Florence, Italy) for FS competition teams and their cameraflyers.

http://www.skyleague.com/pages/news/showArticles.php?story=639

To summarize:

See attachments. They posted 2 of the 3 as images that wouldn't copy the text so I could put the it here.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[quade 3]

Item 4.2 is GREAT news since it doesn't penalize the team if the camera flyer falls off the plane during climb out and gives the camera flyer the option of departing the plane (rather than climbing back in) on an aborted jump run. Climbing back in may or may not be the safest decision depending on varying conditions.

It also takes the onus of the climb out decision off the camera flyer and places it with the team as a whole. Previously it was the camera flyer that decided (to be used for camera failure issues only), but that may have been a couple years back. (Although claiming a camera issue is still probably the safest scapegoat anyway!)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Item 4.2 is GREAT news since it doesn't penalize the team if the camera flyer falls off the plane during climb out and gives the camera flyer the option of departing the plane (rather than climbing back in)

Exactly!

I've done it twice during team training days (way back when) and once during a competition (SSL). Only once did I just wave 'bye and let go (the team wasn't helping me climb back in [they didn't know how!]). -Believe- me, they learned quickly after that.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[FeFe 0]

the (other than videographer) part was in the rules at least since 2002 (did not bother with the rules before that )
the changes in 4.2 only reflect the elimination of RUN IN command
I climbed back three or four times during competitions, never bother with that

[tonyhathaway 0]

if the videoperson can be replaced at any time,sounds to me a lot like they aren't part of the team. You can only replace someone ON the team with a registered alternate, or you withdraw. (airspeed, 2004 nationals I believe)

My O.C.D. has me chasing a dream my A.D.D. won't let me catch.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

if the videoperson can be replaced at any time,sounds to me a lot like they aren't part of the team. You can only replace someone ON the team with a registered alternate, or you withdraw. (airspeed, 2004 nationals I believe)

Thought so, too. Are they 'bending the rules' here? And what is their reasoning?

Remember Carl Carpenter and his pulled back? Carl got down and couldn't stand straight, after an 8-way jump with "Perris Vengeance" during Nat's 2004. If memory serves, didn't he tough it out as long as he could before having to step down? He went to a local chiropractor and it helped only a little. His back was out but good.

Then there's the story of "Johnny (Broken) Eagle". That same year. Airspeed Red tried to replace him with a Russian jumper. Got the judge's permission and went up, only to get called in by the Meet Director and told that their Russian -wasn't- even registered for the meet! Notice the zero's on the rest of their scoring sheet...

So why the difference, if the cameraflyer is part of the team? Don't know. Perhaps because they know what can happen to our necks?

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[tonyhathaway 0]

well, I'm a big fan of the camera NOT being part of the team. Only because I'm a firm believer that its about the people doing RW. We are just a way for the judges to see what the 4/8way is doing. Its also the reason MOST video people charge the team per jump while the rest are paying thousands of dollars for their training. I seem to be in the minority with this thought. But many camera people claim they are part of the team, but they still want their expensed paid and their $15 per jump. making the camera part of the team was a good way to not let the team get rejumps from a bad camera pool.
It goes both ways, if a team wants the camera to be part of the team, imagine if the team suddenly got $100,000 from a big sponsor. Would they give the camera $20,000? I doubt it. (there are exceptions to every rule of course)
But when you look at it that way, "part of the team" may take on a whole new meaning.

My O.C.D. has me chasing a dream my A.D.D. won't let me catch.

[dragon2 0]

I'm glad that during last year's Nationals (OUR Nationals) I was allowed to let someone replace me due to a severe opening that put me in the hospital for half the day, luckily I was released after that but couldn't jump for 6 weeks after due to bruised ribs and stiff neck and spine (real lucky I didn't break my back there). The judges felt sorry for me and let the guy that packed my main () replace me for the last 1 1/2 day.

I'd LIKE to be part of the team more, but, well, this way it's more fair I suppose...

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Sirob 0]

In 13 years as 4-way videographer, I always felt as equally worth team member.
Any other way was something unnatural for me and my team.

I salute this rule change as a small step against the situation that you can buy everything.
It will put some of DZ-dogs out of business but it will make room for new faces and that is good for the sport.

[quade 3]

Quote

well, I'm a big fan of the camera NOT being part of the team. Only because I'm a firm believer that its about the people doing RW. We are just a way for the judges to see what the 4/8way is doing. Its also the reason MOST video people charge the team per jump while the rest are paying thousands of dollars for their training. I seem to be in the minority with this thought. But many camera people claim they are part of the team, but they still want their expensed paid and their $15 per jump. making the camera part of the team was a good way to not let the team get rejumps from a bad camera pool.
It goes both ways, if a team wants the camera to be part of the team, imagine if the team suddenly got $100,000 from a big sponsor. Would they give the camera $20,000? I doubt it. (there are exceptions to every rule of course)
But when you look at it that way, "part of the team" may take on a whole new meaning.

As long as a camera flyer can cost a team points then you have to consider him a part of the team.

A neutral 3rd party simply couldn't do that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[FeFe 0]

what you folks are talking about? nothing has been changed from 2006 - videographer can be either a team member or not :

Quote

6.3.6.4 Videographers must be entered for each team as part of the delegation and must be a member of the Delegation’s NAC. A Videographer may be replaced at any time during the competition, (with the agreement of the FAI Controller). The evaluation process for the video evidence will be the same for any Videographer. Videographers may be one of the following:
A) One person in addition to the team composition in 6.3.6.2.This competitor is to be considered as a team member for the purposes of awards and medals.
B) Any other person (ref: 6.3.4.5) This Videographer is not eligible to receive awards and medals. This Videographer may jump only as a Videographer and is subject to the same regulations as other competitors on the team.

the only change 2007 is that the videoperson must be registered as a delegation member

[Sirob 0]

NSL commented changed rules:

Quote

The videographers will have to be of the same nationality as the other members of the delegation.

My comments were pointing to this line.
I think people from NSL are better informed than we are but I may be wrong...

[tonyhathaway 0]

(maybe the changes are about a world meet, but Paul and I have always disagreed on the "part of the team" for camera)
You have a good point about costing the team. We can ONLY cost them points, we can't put more on the baord by being good. During any competition I agree the camera is part of the team. My "not part of the team" arguement is more for most camera flyers want to charge the 4 or 8 people money to shoot them. Myself included. I'm not talking about the 10 rounds during a meet. I agree with Paul that they have to be part of the team to make everything work. Out of the 60-80 teams at a US nationals, I would be interested to find out how many cameraflyers paid their way to the meet, paid for their possibly hundreds of training jumps, and didn't take any money from the 4/8 flyers. Unless a whole team's expenses were split 5 ways, NOT 4 ways, with one coming out with a profit, only then, will I ever agree that the cameraflyer is PART of the team. Again, not counting the 10 rounds during nationals, even myself, as a hired camera last minute has to be part of the team during the event to make it work. I guess I'm talking "morally" part of the team VS. technically during the meet.
If you trained all year, but never actually made it to the meet because someone got sick, my test for part of the team still stands. (for me anyway)
1) was the whole years expenses split 5 ways?
2) or, did 4 people spend money and the 5th profit?

My O.C.D. has me chasing a dream my A.D.D. won't let me catch.