Opinion on Outside Video positioning during Tandem Deployment

[Scrumpot 1]

I don't know whether this belongs here, or maybe even in the Tandem Instructors Forum. ...Maybe BOTH - for it's insight and potential input from the TM perspective as well?

In any case - while just surfing some random youtube videos to get ideas on differing possible tandem camera-flying styles/technique, I came across THIS video - which I am starting here with my link, right at the spot (5:20 into the total vid) that gave me pause.

As an outside vid flyer... Did seeing this, and putting yourself in this vid-flyers perspective right there (I tend to envision I am flying that slot, whenever I am watching vids now ...and "comparing/contrasting" ...it is a CURSE! ) - as if you were the one flying this video, just make you cringe? - Or was it/is it just me?

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[DSE 3]

It's common sense to not be directly in front of, slightly below a tandem at deployment time.
Twice have seen camera flyers kicked by a TD student at deployment.
I'd much rather be quartered and drop with them, or quartered to the side, slightly above to catch the deployment and opening, rolling over on my back to catch the flyaway.

[Scrumpot 1]

Putting myself in the position of the camera-flyer in this vid, I found myself literally cringing (not flashing a "V" sign) when I saw that drogue release from there, and the tandem pair "drop" from the "trap door" RIGHT AT ME (him/her)!! -

Was it just me?

Edit to Add:
Wish I could just "loop" that clip from right there, to only like 5:30 or so - and re-post it, to better show the affect (and my eyes widening) I am referring to. Thank goodness that tandem pair had a relatively quick "snatch" - or again.... I cringe. I'm sorry, I just cringe!!

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[DSE 3]

Like I said, have twice seen kicks to the videographer.
Also have a video of a very dear friend being hit in the back of the head by a lurker that got "sucked in" the trapdoor.
There is a pic of a tens-of-thousands of jumps skydiver caught in the TD too...somewhere here on DZ.com.

It can happen to anyone, and if you're in that "kill zone," you only have yourself to blame.

Yeah, I cringed.
I think we must all do that. Watching videographers watch other videos is like watching a bunch of puppies tracking a moth....their heads just involuntarily move to what they feel the shot should be, or at minimum, they mimic the moves of the camera guy.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Putting myself in the position of the camera-flyer in this vid, I found myself literally cringing

The mechanics of the situation might be 'cringe-worthy', with the camera flyer down low and the tandem pair falling down the trap door towrd him.

However, the reality might have been such that it wasn't a big deal. The lens might have made it look worse than it is, if you shoot a wider lens than the guy in the video, all of his stuff is going to look 'really close' to you. Additionally, you don't know if maybe the camera guy was tucking up and picking up speed as the drouge was released, falling though is own 'trap door'.

The bigger concern, I think, is if the guy was dead-nuts under the tandem. In that case, the camera guy would be taking his own 'cone of death' and flying it right in the tandem pairs face. You cannot ever be directly below a tandem when you're backflying. If you have a premature deployment of either canopy, you'll end up killing all three of you, and the tandem pax didn't sign on for that.

[cloudtramp 0]

Quote

tandem pax didn't sign on for that.

Yes they did. They accepted the risk before they jumped. They may only understand a tiny portion of the extent of the risks they take but they accept it ALL regardless. It's all spelled out in the waiver and comment's like the above bother me because I feel like it just opens us all up to lawsuits by saying that student's accepted this risk but not that one. Shit happens, people die and get injured, it's part of this sport.
[btw: I DO agree with you that a camera flyer should never ever fly below a tandem or be anywhere close to the trapdoor on opening.]

[davelepka 4]

Quote

They may only understand a tiny portion of the extent of the risks they take but they accept it ALL regardless.

No. The risk they accept, legally, is risk that occurs during the course of a jump performed within the standard industry practice. If you, as a DZO or TI or camera flyer, does everything within that standard, and an accident occurs, then you will be protected by the waiver the pax signed.

However, if you go outside of the standard, and engage in easily avoidable actions that increase the level of risk and lead to an accident, then you are negligent, and the waiver will not save you.

The risk that the pax assumes is that which is within the standard industry practice. They are there based on the idea that you (the staff) are professionals, and capable fo making the safest skydive possible, and under those conditions they are willing to accept the risk of making a jump.

If they understood before the jump that the staff intended to act in a way that added undue risk to that could easily be avoided, they might not choose to sign the waiver and make the jump, the same way a judge would nullify the waiver after-the-fact when it was determined that the staff did indeed behave in that manner.

The end result is that one way or another, they don't sign on for that sort of risk.

[cloudtramp 0]

Not to get off topic but every waiver I've seen has included negligence as a possible scenario in order to cover all bases.

One could argue that allowing an instructor who did a tandem at 15 in NZ and then started AFF on his 18th birthday in the states, completed 500 jumps in six months, got his tandem rating, and is now taking a paying passenger on a skydive would be completely negligent. Yet, the USPA allows this as standard industry practice.

Most jumpers know better but the student doesn't.

[Nigel 0]

Quote

Not to get off topic but every waiver I've seen has included negligence as a possible scenario in order to cover all bases.

One could argue that allowing an instructor who did a tandem at 15 in NZ and then started AFF on his 18th birthday in the states, completed 500 jumps in six months, got his tandem rating, and is now taking a paying passenger on a skydive would be completely negligent. Yet, the USPA allows this as standard industry practice.

Most jumpers know better but the student doesn't.

Not sure I think this is a fair analogy. If the 18 yr old demonstrated his/her competence and met the course 'Pass' standards, then he's competent, albeit inexperienced. I used to jump at a small DZ, where most of the TMs were around 20 yrs old: I was impressed by their professionalism, their willingness to say 'Too windy today, lets do it another day' to customers. The DZO always supported their decisions.

I do believe DZOs deserve to be sued/run out of town if they don't adhere to industry standards of practice, especially for tandems. And as other posters have pointed out, they're dumb if they think the waiver allows them to do whatever they like.