taylor.freefall

That's my angle - I don't skydive anymore but I would like something to document the kids. The pov cameras now are so expensive it seems just as easy to buy a "proper" camera... especially second hand (cheap as chips). With everyone using gopro's I can only presume it is purely because of size - which is cool, but size to me doesn't matter... hmm.... that......

N/A

aaaah... that's why. Thanks guy's I totally get it. That's answered two questions in one!

This post is purely out of my own interest - but I was wondering if anybody uses the traditional type (for want of a better word) cameras, now that the really small camera's are on the market, such as gopro etc. This is not leading anywhere - it's just that I noticed a lot of older/traditional type video cameras/equipment for sale really cheap in classifieds?! just to add - I don't want this to lead into a "jump numbers before using a camera" thread, because that's not what it's about.

I heard a similar thing and also that life wouldn't exist without magnetism - whether that's true or not I have no idea...

Is this the same place, called Gliese? http://www.space.com/9247-million-questions-habitable-planet-gliese-581g-12.html

I've seen ad's from this guy before, same mo, here on dizzy. I notified mods...

Definitely scam...

LOL.. Well I can certainly appreciate what you're saying!! I think my wife would love me just to do something that would get me out of her hair!! -and me too.. ... ...and me too...

Thanks Quade, I certainly appreciate your reply (my wife is a SAG member) and I'll definitely look in that agency. Thanks again.

This is a serious question. Long story short - I'm (we're) broke - and whilst I'm looking for work my wife suggested that I should just do extra work for now. I've never done it before but would certainly like to hear from anybody that has - my wife did it years ago (which is why she suggested it to me) and said the money's not good, and it's long hours, but at least it's some money and it would get me out the house (probably more to the point...)

It's shocking how quickly that happened. It's certainly opened my eyes as to how much turbulence can affect a canopy. As a learner they told us to avoid dust devils and about the turbulence that can be created by buildings etc, but I thought if it ever affected me it would probably just buffet me around a little bit but mostly be controllable. That thing just collapsed in a second or two!! I hope the young lady concerned recovers fully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXA0u5ElcUo&feature=youtube_gdata_player You just beat me to it! Dust devil??

I think it probably wouldn't look good to be honest. What I would do is take the job with company b and (if and when) company a makes an offer reconsider then. (I've actually experienced this exact scenario). Hope it works out for you, hate it when that happens.

No they're not... (couldn't resist).

Example.

Saw this very cool registration plate today, obviously a skydiver!

USPA's "recommendations", combined with applicable FAR's, already are the "industry standard" for skydiving in the US. Well industry standard was meant more as a "legal" requirement than a recommendation. Recommendations are worthless - you know that people can get around that no problem. A legal requirement not so much. Surely there can be a way of new jumpers getting in to camera that can satisfy all of us? And wouldn't that be through doing a short camera course? It sure would make way more sense for us all to "try" and agree to something rather than argue over every little detail - there has to be a "middle ground". Newly licensed jumpers are bound to want to jump camera as they're excited about their new hobby and want to share/document it as much as possible (totally understandable) - yet at the same time they don't want to piss off other jumpers by making skydiving more dangerous than it already is (totally understandable). I don't know, nor have ever met, and don't want to kiss the ass of DSE, but he certainly seems to be the forwarding person when it comes to skydiving, and I am certainly (after this thread) going to write to USPA and recommend a requirement for jumping camera - then there can be absolutely no arguing (if they agree to it, of course).

WOOooooooo, around the world and slap back.. girlfriend..

One of the most sensible posts yet... Are you more likely to "geek" around in front of your own (self attached) camera, or are you more likely to geek around in front of an instructor held camera (or camera guy for all of you that are going to jump in and say.. "a camera doesn't just have to be held by an instructor"...). The bottom line is there needs to be an "industry standard" - only for the sole purpose of solving these ridiculous (self righteous) arguments about "who should" and "who.. should not"!

First, re-read the SIM. You're out-of-date. Here's' my take. We have the recommendations for a reason. c. A USPA C license is recommended. d. The jumper should have made at least 50 recent jumps on the same parachute equipment to be used for camera flying, ...and more Note we no longer have a number on it. What we DO have is young jumpers thinking they have Mad Skillz violating those recommendations because, as you detail, it's being left up to any Tom, Dick and Harry that elects to ignore those recommendations. If everybody adhered to the recommendations, ALL the recommendations (check the SIM), we wouldn't be having these problems to the extent we are. Take note, the recommendations are a minimum, not a cut-and-dry line in the sand....just as Bill pointed out. Having a C license does not automatically qualify you for camera flying....just as having Mad Skillz doesn't. Just because you can steer a car around the block doesn't mean that I'm going to put you into a Testarossa. Just this weekend, I had a jumper with just under 400 jumps take his camera out for the first time...unbeknownst to me. When I found out about it, I asked him, "What are you going to do if your suspension lines get caught up on your camera. He says, "Pull the cutaway chin strap!". Then I asked, "What if you can't get the cutaway chin strap undone?" He had no clue. Didn't even realize it was a horseshoe mal. You're right. Jump numbers are meaningless if you don't know what you are doing. By the same token having a C-license doesn't mean you know what you are doing. We have recommendations as a minimum...a minimum...and that's the point. Pops I don't want to get in to an argument over this - and my post wasn't meant to come across in an argumentative way. You speak to me like I'm a fucking idiot when I'm only trying to put forward suggestions to the problem of low jump numbers getting in to problems when introducing a camera. Whether a ruling is made or simply recommendations are continued is irrelevant to me. As it stands; if it remains recommendations only, a 50 jump skydiver can perfectly "legally" jump camera - so please don't complain when those people do just that. - Oh, just to add, as you say - people ARE not (and will not) always adhere to the recommendations - THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!

I didn't know that?! For newbies too? DSE does a camera course too. I think what waveoff is saying is - how can 200 jumps be a definitive number when, in reality, that's an impossible thing to judge and can only really be judged by somebody with with tons of experience both in skydiving, and skydiving with camera. DSE does a wingsuit course - wouldn't it be a good idea that there's a camera course too? I know what your'e saying when you say somebody with over 200 jumps MAYBE able to jump camera - but it's crazy to think that someone has 199 absolutely can not, but somebody with 200 might be able to. I think it's something that you can't put a number on - it has to be a case by case basis, there's no other way - of course you could say you have to have a 200 jump minimum to even be able to take the course and then do it on a case by case basis - which I think is actually what you mean to be honest, or kind of any way.

I think what waveoff is saying is - how can 200 jumps be a definitive number when, in reality, that's an impossible thing to judge and can only really be judged by somebody with with tons of experience both in skydiving, and skydiving with camera. DSE does a wingsuit course - wouldn't it be a good idea that there's a camera course too? I know what your'e saying when you say somebody with over 200 jumps MAYBE able to jump camera - but it's crazy to think that someone has 199 absolutely can not, but somebody with 200 might be able to. I think it's something that you can't put a number on - it has to be a case by case basis, there's no other way - of course you could say you have to have a 200 jump minimum to even be able to take the course and then do it on a case by case basis - which I think is actually what you mean to be honest, or kind of any way.

A recommendation could have an effect on a DZ that does not follow it. If an issue happens and the liability train starts rolling they will have to explain why it was ignored. That doesnt help the injured party though. I would be in favor of making that a BSR. I think it would be a hard one to enforce though. Maybe having to do a short (camera safety) course should be a prerequisite to jumping camera. Like the canopy course is now for people wanting a B license...

- Just wanted to add - I don't want to flame this guy if he isn't aware of the dangers of using a camera so early in his jumping career - I'm not saying ignorance is a defense but maybe his instructors/DZ could point him in the right direction.