JWest

When I was a student one of my AFF-I wore a camera. They were usually on the reserve side. -if my memory serves me correctly- After the jump we would look over the footage and they would ask me how I felt/what I believed I was doing. They would then show me what I was really doing. It was a valuable tool so I could correlate my actions to the responses in the air. I hope that AFF-I can come up with a safe way to continue using inside video because to me it was a useful learning tool.

I have thought about that and I cannot disagree with your opinion. It might be a mistake to forget about it. In that case if people believe that the camera should be minded during the jump than it would be bad to mind the camera before you have the basics of skydiving ingrained. However that is not what I am currently contesting. I'm contesting that "turning it on and forgetting about it" is not possible. This is due to incidents from people claiming they got distracted by trying to film something.

Fair enough. I also didn't mention safty. The quote you used was in reply to you saying that "I will just turn it on and forget about it" is not true. I myself have be "turning it on and forgetting about it" for years. So yes it is possible.

That is a terrible comparison. Comparing someones ability to forget about a POV camera and the safety of driving under the influence. That's impressive.

You guys are impressive. Apparently I'm incapable on knowing what I wrote. I didn't know I said anything besides a way to reduce distortion. Stop reading into things that are not there. I did not say it would work as a head mount, I did not say it would work at a chest mount, I didn't say anything about getting instructional video, I didn't mention any of that. I literary said nothing more than how to minimize the distortion. There should be two responses to my comment, you either agree that reducing the field of view reduces distortion, or you disagree. However since I provided proof from GoPro there is really only one response that makes sense. But since you guys apparently like to over analyze every comment I'll make it easy for you. Yes or no, does reducing field of view on a GoPro minimize distortion? If you are replying to me I expect one word and nothing more. Yes, I know I'm being condescending and that if you respond to me in will be lengthy about "not knowing what I dont know" and while you are at it why don't you tell me "What I don't know, about what I don't know" so maybe I could learn a thing or two. Unfortunately that probably won't happen but if it does I will gladly answer confirming the things I've never thought about, read about, heard, discussed, or seen. Or best yet you could just ignore me and continue the meaningful discussion that was happening before I commented. Thank you, and have a nice day.

That all makes sense. I kind of get the impression that you think a camera flyer (of any kind) should be minding their gear and "forgetting" about it is a bad idea. Due to the snags and such. If you think they should be actively thinking about their gear during the jump, is that your reason behind not wanting low time jumpers using them? Because they shouldn't be focused on anything besides the dive?

I say this pretty often, said it yesterday while whitewater rafting. I have thought about this before. I have the idea that we put the "probably" in there just so we aren't wrong when something does happen. In the Context of skydiving if an experienced jumper told a new jumper that they "would be fine" and something goes wrong chances are the new jumper will point and say " they said I would be fine!" When you add the probably it lets the new jumper know that there is some risk involved. So if something does go wrong there won't be finger pointing. Also as a scientifically trained person I try not to speak in absolutes.

You said that and I provided a way to minimize the the distortion so it gives a more accurate depiction of body position. I am not contesting that putting anything on your chest strap/mudflap as an AFF-I is a bad idea.

Yes, you may indeed get away with it for 20 times in a row. But if you do the math you'd find out that the probability of that is not in your faviour. It is just 36%. (i.e. there's 74% probability something will go wrong in at least one of the attempts). (If you wonder how I came up with these numbers: https://goo.gl/5Ypq5b) I was only pointing out that OP was compounding percentages in an incorrect way. You are correct that the odds would not be in your favor doing 20 in a row, mathematically of course.

Ah that makes sense. I've always beed instructed that if I'm low to get my reserve out. If by chance it clears the main and is inflating/inflated cut the main after. If not the more drag the better.

You need to reword your post. You can deploy a reserve regardless of the condition of your main by pulling "silver."

I just wanted to throw out a quick correction. I see this mistake a lot and try to help out when I can. If the risk is 5% than it is 5% every time, it does not compound. Just because there is a 5% chance that something will go wrong on a Mr. Bill does not mean that if you do 20, something will go wrong on 1 of them. On to the topic. I say this pretty often, said it yesterday while whitewater rafting. I have thought about this before. I have the idea that we put the "probably" in there just so we aren't wrong when something does happen. In the Context of skydiving if an experienced jumper told a new jumper that they "would be fine" and something goes wrong chances are the new jumper will point and say " they said I would be fine!" When you add the probably it lets the new jumper know that there is some risk involved. So if something does go wrong there won't be finger pointing. Also as a scientifically trained person I try not to speak in absolutes.

And in this one sentence, you've offered a good demonstration of "not knowing what you don't know." Related to your other thread...how much else is there that you don't know that you don't know (yet)? Every person who skydives for a while eventually goes through a "damn, that was really stupid of me" phase. It usually hits around 1000 jumps, and again at 3000 or so jumps. Maybe you'll be the lucky guy that never has that moment. From GoPros website. "The reason GoPro videos have a slight fish-eye effect, is due to the wide angle lens on the camera. It's actually called a barrel distortion, which is a result of having the 170 degree lens. This curve/barrel distortion allows for the 170 degree ultra wide angle shots that GoPro is known for. You can slightly reduce this effect on the HD HERO Original camera by filming in 1080p (30 FPS) mode, which brings the Field Of View (FOV) down to 127 degrees. With the HD HERO2, HERO3, HERO3+, and HERO4 camera, you also have the option at 1080p to switch to a medium (127 degrees) or narrow (90 degrees) FOV. The HERO3 White Edition camera only films video and takes photos in the WIDE FOV. If you want to get rid of the barrel distortion or "fisheye" look of your GoPro videos, you can use GoPro Studio to import the footage and check the "Remove Fisheye" checkbox. This will allow you to export the videos without a barrel distortion or "fisheye" look." It took 1000 jumps for some people? I guess I'm just lucky that it happen to me back before I had 100 jumps.

I don't think many people disagree with any of those statements. Certainly I don't. But I think you are missing the point/s: -The jump limits are not set thinking in the best skydivers, they are set thinking in the average. -People are pretty bad at assessing their own capacities. How do you know that you can handle a camera (and its distraction and what comes with it) better than the average skydiver? The answer is you can't. Experience in other situations do not fully translates to the sky. -You don't know what you don't know. I agree that other experiences do not fully translate into the sky. They could however give you a basis to start your analysis. Since the limits are set thinking of the average the DZO/S&TA should be able to give above average people the permission to jump a camera and prevent below average people from jumping one. It also helps us learn and get better. One thing I didn't mention before one of my buddies is a dedicated camera flyer so he films quite a lot of our jumps for practice until he can do tandems. That's extremely valuable. Years huh. In all those years you apparently haven't made enough jumps for this not to be an issue for you. Your actual problem here is that you don't (yet) know what you don't know. This is fine and completely normal. The problem people putting jump number limits have is that they don't know what you don't know. But before 200 jumps, they have a pretty damn good idea. FWIW, I have a reasonable number of jumps and I occasionally jump with a camera. I know my own game well enough, skydiving-wise, that I can tell it's a distraction. A small one, but real. Super talented though you may be, you do not have this sensitivity to your own state of mind while jumping yet. It will develop - and you will look back on this thread and go "ah ha". In the meantime, you're clearly going to do what you're going to do. You will probably not get hurt, so there will be a time where you continue to think we are all idiots. Maybe it will be another 500 jumps? Maybe less. One way or another, it won't last forever. Years of POV camera use not skydiving. You are correct I do not personally know how wearing a POV camera in skydiving will compare to wearing one during other activities. I only have the observations of others who use them for multiple sports. I am aware that my particular skydiving knowledge is very limited and I look forward to learning as much as I can. When the input from experience jumpers is near unanimous and backs up club recommendations and is backed by sound reasoning and video and many other threads it's time to listen. Where is the well reasoned rebuttal that merits a new defense? I quoted you exactly and fairly, I twisted nothing. I quoted this because of the apparent contradiction. You might have been onto something back when you wrote that. You've since rationalized away that inconvenient moment of clarity. This should be a red flag to you about how you're approaching this decision. The only shocking thing is what this implies about your knowledge of statistics. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is simply rhetorical nonsense because you're feeling defensive. The Dunning–Kruger effect tells us that the less we know about a topic the more likely we are to overestimate our abilities in it. You are not qualified to make such a determination and there is a big difference between rationalizing what you desire to do and reasoning whether you should. I don't consider constantly repeating part of the recommendation from the SIM to be considered quality input. "It's 200 jumps because the SIM is written in blood. Cameras are a snag hazard and a distraction." that is not sound reasoning against letting DZO/S&TA give people the go ahead to jump a camera. You didn't twist it, I was just expecting you to in your reply. I went back and read the context of that comment. I understand my thought process now. Official standpoint, A camera is a distraction but some people can prevent it from distracting them during the jump. You have to turn it on. That is a distraction, or just part of your preparations such as zipping up booties and checking handles, depends how you look at it. Lets just go with distraction because its's a "non- essential." I actually know quite a lot about statistics. Part of my math minor was statists and part of my engineering curriculum was engineering statistics. If you were trying to use statistics to show nothing bad happen because it is very unlikely according to the numbers I would agree. That's more for my argument than against it. Anyway I included that part to be a smart ass. That is not the Dunning–Kruger effect. Some people are better at handling stress than others. Some people are capable of learning faster than others. Some people understand things naturally while others do not. These are all proven, it's why an average exists. This is not something you can argue against. I don't desire to jump a camera. If I wanted to I would. My DZ has told me they are ok with it. I've said this before, I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

This is going to be a long post. Well I started with considerable sympathy for your position but.... At some point you should listen. Reading you rationalize against input you are given as you ask for more input is a bit much. Nobody with under 200 jumps would/should be doing outside camera but that's not the only reason it is safer but implicit in this is a "qualified" experienced camera flyer who takes it seriously. Here's a poll just for you: Did you start this thread for affirmation, for an argument or for advice that might save your life? Have you changed your mind on this: "I will probably wear a camera before 200 jumps and I will do it safely" Do you remember writing this: "I will do it by recognizing that the camera is a distraction" I think you've managed to change my mind on this issue, I was wrong AGAIN. Nobody should be jumping camera with less than 200 jumps. New jumpers are just too green and full of dumb ideas, I've been there and know the feeling, and still suffer from the malady in many respects. Input that is not defendable is not quality input. I agree that nobody with under 200 jumps should be doing outside camera work. You said dedicated, not experienced thus me asking for a clarification. Dedicated could just mean someone filming outside video. Doesn't matter, we are on the same page with that. I didn't start this thread for any of those reasons. I started this thread to find out why people believed what they do, what are the real hazard with cameras, to see if it was one of those things that no one questioned anymore, and to see if people really cared more about jump number than ability. I received those answers awhile back and even commented that this thread had served it's purpose. Have I changed my mind? In a way yes. If I don't wear a camera before 200 jumps it won't be because of safety reasons. If I do and something goes wrong on a jump, say I mess up a landing 100% do to bad timing or winds someone will make the comment that I shouldn't have had a camera on because I have less than 200 jumps. Even if the camera had no play in the incident at all, herd mentality will follow. I don't want that mentality to be spread because of me. Yes, inner defiant me wants to "show them" but that's the wrong reason to do it. Concerning the safety aspect, a camera is a snag hazard -some large and some minimal-, there is no denying that. The number of reported incidences due to a camera snag is very low compared to "incidences" due to distraction. When I do jump a camera doesn't mater if it is before or after 200 I will be aware of this. Once you become informed about risks you can take actions to mitigate those risks. I do remember writing that. Yes I wrote 'is' as apposed to 'can be' feel free to twist it however you want. It could be extremely distracting to one person while essentially being non-existant to another. I should have wrote that it is another element to be considered but oh well I wrote what I wrote. I jumped all last weekend with two guys who have cameras, they also have less than 200 jumps! Oh the humanity!!! But I've got a surprise! We are all still alive! Granted they are in the 180s, 190s, and we basically just did three way belly stuff if anyone was curious. Now that I'm thinking about it during these jumps not once did I think about their cameras. They were non eventful jumps so I didn't even think about it after the jump either. Now I will state this again and again. Some people are better at staying focused and handling stressful situations than others, regardless of jump number. There are people capable of safley flying a camera before 200 jumps and their are people incapable of safely flying a camera with more than 200 jumps. One of those statements people will disagree with and one they will agree with. Why? Because thats just the way it is.

Or you could just take it off wide mode so it isn't distorted anymore.

Do you have any idea how many ski, mountain bike, surfer, and other sport fatalities are related to people who "just turn it on and let it record?" It's a very high, and frightening number. Skydiving is actually quite a bit lower, but that has nothing to do with skillsets, it's that objects to hit are a bit farther away and there is a lot of luck involved. So in other sports there are people who get distracted by their POV camera, and there are people who do not. Saying that using a POV camera in skydiving is safer then some other activities might not be received well in this thread. Yes, IMO in many ways the dedicated videoflyer is safer. Because they are generally more experienced flyers and have dedicated camera setups? I would agree there. However assuming the same low number of jumps/camera setup for the everyone involved. I would think that dedicated video would be less safe. I'm interested to hear your reasoning on this.

Nope, rocking the canopy is just as effective.

But it is true because myself and others have been doing it for years.

My Apologies.

Cool, it makes it fun for you. That doesn't make it any more/less skydiving than someone who doesn't find that fun.

I am also OK with dying. I'm not ok with the "real" term being used to manipulate people into a stereotype. It has been too many years, it's 2015 now people can be whatever they want and it doesn't effect the realness. Chances are you have never even considered it. By using "real" you imply there is "less" so if you are a "real" skydiver everyone else that doesn't conform to your ideals is "less".

***...... Parachutes for pilots? There are almost no federal rules on them, which surprises many. You can go fly aerobatics with something packed 20 years ago. (Although maybe not in a contest because the organization involved won't allow it). ....*** There is here in the US. Assuming you are in Canada. They are in FAR 91

You made an entire post around the term "real" as I've already pointed out how historically manipulative and shitty it is?. Why don't you just call it 'more dangerous'? I use an AAD and guess what, I'm a skydiver. The random guy who did a tandem last weekend, he's a skydiver and his girlfriend is too. You are either a skydiver or you aren't. There is no levels of "realness". You probably use the terms "real men", "real women", "real american". I wouldn't be surprised if you are a sexist/bigot because using "real" is the primary word they use to put down and control people. This thread is a joke. You simply accept more risk than other people and in no way does it make you more of a skydiver than them.

I don't think so. First, if you only have one parachute, then it's also your emergency chute and 91.307(a) kicks in: "No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger." Second, part 105 has specific definitions of a "parachute operation" and "parachutist," which is "a person who intends to exit an aircraft while in flight using a single-harness, dual parachute system to descend to the surface." If you don't meet that definition, then you're not doing a part 105 jump, which puts you in violation of 91.307(b): "Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter." But hey, if you can find a pilot who is willing to risk his certificate on this supposed loophole, have fun