dorbie

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    3,980

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by dorbie

  1. lyosha

    I just so happen to have been jumping with a GoPro since roughly jump 70,
    ...conversely, I feel that camera-horny 200 jump wonders do really stupid stuff out of camera/footage hornyness.



    What's worse? A camera horny 70 jump wonder or a camera horny 200 jump wonder?

  2. JWest

    Input that is not defendable is not quality input.


    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?

    JWest

    Yes I wrote 'is' as apposed to 'can be' feel free to twist it however you want.


    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.

    JWest

    I jumped all last weekend with two guys who have cameras, they also have less than 200 jumps!:o Oh the humanity!!! But I've got a surprise! We are all still alive!


    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.

    JWest

    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.


    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.

  3. JWest


    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.



    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.

  6. In addition to the pool exercise, when I was trained by Jim Wallace he gave us a couple of hours of instruction covering years of experience of real incidents. It was amazing and difficult to capture short of video taping his course, no doubt there's more recent info in it now. It ain't in the SIM that's for damned sure.

    Makes me wonder at the loss when guys like him decide to stop teaching.

  7. JWest

    That's why I put the option for it to be approved by DZO/S&TA.

    I'll listen to my instructors/experienced persons advice before a random/experienced person because they have seen me fly and know what I may/may not be capable of.



    Sorry, this sounds like it was lifted straight from a wing loading thread. How can they assess whether you have the mad skillz to avoid getting distracted by a camera?

    I'm less dismissive than others of your point that someone who has a LOT of sport POV camera experience may be less distracted by the camera than others, it is after all the other half of the experience equation in this and it seems rather strange to be so dismissive of it. However it would then depend on difficult to anticipate factors like how the camera is used, and how much attention it is given. There is a difference between a jump with a camera incidentally filming and one where you are mugging into a camera or fixating on a target with one etc. and I don't think you can make rules that draw a meaningful distinction between the two scenarios. Can a third party a priori know what your actions and attitude would be with a camera?

    I dunno. Last person I took skydiving got the bowling talk during FJC so I sure as heck can't.

  8. JWest

    To bad there isn't said data about how many jumps are made with a POV camera compared to the number of times a bridal gets entangled with one. I'm willing to bet it's a really really small percentage.



    Small percentages matter when the consequences are large.

  9. JohnMitchell

    I just read May's incident reports in Parachutist. A jumper with 200 jumps frosted over his full face visor when breaking off at 4500'. He couldn't read his altimeter so he kept tracking until his audible sounded and his red light flashed at 1500'. He pulled his main and ended up with 2 out after his AAD fired. . .

    Shouldn't he have kept better track of time in his head or is that asking too much? I feel this jumper is too "gadget" dependent. What would he have done if his audible and warning light had not worked?

    It takes approximately 5-6 seconds to fall 1000' on your belly. If you're at 4500' and tracking, you better be pulling in 10 seconds. Going 15+ seconds? Not smart in my book. That ground is waiting for you. [:/]

    Any other thoughts out there?



    On FJC I was trained to pull if I lost altitude awareness. Student lessons aren't just for students. Whatever he was thinking turned out to be a poor strategy for him but improvising in the moment can produce some poor decisions.
    Why did he have an aversion to pulling a little higher?
    Why the heck did he track for 15 seconds? Try it, it feels like a very long time when burning altitude after break-off.
    Perhaps he was overly concerned about proximity because nothing really makes sense about his decision making. In emergencies you need to fall back on the big sky principle, wave and pull and trust that other jumpers are doing their part.

  11. akarunway

    ***Great timing on this object lesson with the recent focus on gopro safety. This is one scary video:

    https://vimeo.com/126996983

    I'd comment but... SPOILERS.

    Another reason for student ripcords. I was solo on jump 8 but hand deploy at # 13. Back when Aff was seven jumps total for AFF. None of the 25 jump crap to get an A.

    AFF can still be 7 jumps, then you need 25 jumps to get your A.

  13. skyjumpenfool


    Plus, experienced (Thousands of jumps) instructors have had an eye on you if you've earned a C license. A C license demonstrates some level of proficiency. 200 jumps....not so much? B|



    Ahh you mean the number of jumps that used to earn you a D license. Check.

  15. kallend

    Quote

    Quote

    ISome of the chemtrailers may be insulted that they are in the same category as truthers.



    And yet . . . they are precisely the same. Inventing a mythology for something they simply do not understand.



    Then, of course, "Downwinders" were assured that there was nothing to fear from the government.

    historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nucleartestingandthedownwinders.html

    And then there was the Green Run.



    You left out the best stuff:

    http://priceonomics.com/how-the-us-government-tested-biological-warfare-on/

    Germ warfare experiments on US population centers by releasing serratia marcescens over San Francisco by the Fort Deitrick biological warfare staff.

    But possibly more troubling is Judge Conti’s subsequent 1981 ruling against the grandson of a guy killed by this including finding that it is perfectly legal for the government to conduct biological experiments on the population without informed consent.

    That said, the chemtrail conspiracies are nonsense.

  16. Tasers are a good idea as an alternative to deadly force. Problems arise when they are used as an instrument of convenience and extrajudicial punishment.

    They were marketed to the public as a life saving implement to give cops options short of deadly force, but they are used without accountability as torture compliance devices in situations where deadly force would never be acceptable.

  17. Remster

    ***But I wonder, do you really want to survive the crash?

    I think I rather die than suffer from that much injury.



    I've known several people who were able to walk away from a plane crash because they had a seatbelt.

    This is a question with unknowable parameters. It boils down to do you want to be hurt more, or hurt less. Given that you cannot know all the variables there seems to be only one sensible answer.

  18. topdocker

    If you think seatbelts are really going to save you in a serious accident, read this: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0803.pdf

    Skip ahead to pages 24 and beyond.
    The seatbelts failed in a crash the FAA determined to have forces in the survivable range. The way most jumpers wear their seatbelts conforms to the letter of the law, but in reality they might as well put them around their necks.


    top



    That is a case for improved tighter restraint in some aircraft, not a case against using restraints. Claiming they might as well have put them around their necks is nonsense. There are a range of crash scenarios and outcomes. In the Canadian crash I cited, the lack of restraint use was listed as the cause of increased injuries, without even getting into load balance territory. In any case it is moot, restraint use is an FAA requirement.

  19. jclalor

    ***An object lesson in use of passenger restraints when skydiving. Given the details, someone at Lodi must have read this report:

    http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08p0242/a08p0242.asp


    Skip to:
    Crashworthiness and Survivability

    Or:
    Findings
    5. Not using the restraint devices contributed to the seriousness of injuries to some passengers.



    "The Bill Dause Beech 65-A90 King Air (United States registration N17SA, aircraft serial number LJ-164) took off from Pitt Meadows Airport"

    If you didn't know, that's the elderly gentleman with long hair that sold you your jump ticket at Lodi. I bet he read it.

    That was my point.

  20. Still others remember the shit they got up to and don't try to impose arbitrary and creeping safety criteria on others.

    200 is a completely arbitrary number based on guesswork and assumptions. No doubt there's someone somewhere saying it should be 500 or 1000. Distraction never goes away.

    You say nonsense to my $1500 course, but advocate a $250 course. + coached jumps (~$80 a pop) that's actually funny.

    Yesterday's normal is today's arrogant "mad skillz", all you have to do is move the goalposts and act holier than thou. It's an easy way to dismiss the objections of new brothers in the sport complaining about excessive restrictions. It's worth remembering that this is an arbitrary line in the sand based on fungible reasoning.

  21. riggerrob

    Sadly, some skydivers are too arrogant to learn from other peoples' mistakes.

    I was I wounded during that crash and (almost 7 years later) am grounded while waiting for a second knee surgery. I had to hold my tongue until my lawsuit concluded (almost 7 years after the accident). Since a lawsuit for another victim is still in the courts, I will limit my comments to repeating what I told TC in October 2008 and hearings for discovery in 2004.
    Beechcraft stock seat-belts were installed in the crashed airplane, however they were so short they were incompatible with the straddle bench seats installed. Stock seat-belts were too short to wrap around my waist when I wore a tandem rig. When I suggested (to the chief pilot/ aircraft owner) that he order proper seat-belts from Hooker Harness, he got angry and dismissive. He also declined my offer to sew up skydiver-compatible seat-belts.

    I wonder if seat-belts will be discussed at USPA Safety Day tomorrow??????



    Wow!

  22. You've put in bold the stuff you should have known years ago if you'd been paying attention. Yes some bullshitters conveniently ignore that Scooter was Martha Stewarted but the court and anyone paying attention knew this. It is the last paragraph if anything that is novel.

    The key reversal here is Judith Miller now saying that new information now available makes it clear to her that her testimony at trial was incorrect. Scooter's conviction hinged on her earlier recollection.

  24. billvon

    >200 is just a number, wouldn't it be better if there was a class and your first
    >jump had to be with a couch? They could then sign you off.

    That would be great. But even D-licenses, AFF ratings and PRO ratings have experience requirements you have to meet _before_ you get tested.



    Careful what you wish for, this could end with a requirement for a camera rating and a $1500 course you have to take before taking the test.

  25. Rick


    I have seen people that were having a hard time acquiring the skills to jump with others strap on a camera because they thought it would be easier to film the group than fly with it.



    Ouch, probably the worst reason to jump camera, misguided and actively dangerous.