BMFin

No one is "bulletproof". We just seem to have a very different view on how likely this scenario is. There are many things that add risk to a tandem skydive. One example is hand cam. It definetly does add some risk, but most of us nowadays see the level of risk being acceptable. Now where things get interesting is when someone would give the handcam to the customer. There are many of us that think this would actually be the safer way to operate opposed to the TM using the hand cam. Then again, there are those conservative TM´s that refuse to accept this idea. They think the student has no bisnes operating a hand cam. This is a perfect example in demonstrating how differently people asses different risks involved in the sport. There are many things that get overlooked in our sport, and there are things that get make people paranoid. Often the logic behind it is not based on a rational risk assesment analysis.

IMO its exactly this type of irrationality that is often involved in these views.

I think you are over estimating the risk involved. In a way it is similar to the debate on whether jumping with a hoodie exposes you to a risk on some kind of entanglement. Some really think so – others dont. Having experience over 1000 jumps doesnt really make ones analytical skills on asessing the risk involved any better, so I dont think it matters how much jumps someone has as long as they have a reasonable understanding on the enviroment were dealing with. So far you have not provided anything that would make me reconsider my view on this, so Im still going to trust my own judgement on this issue. However, perhaps you would feel better knowing that I have nowadays more less given up filming tandems and in the future I will mostly doing fun jumping and flying on my back underneath other skydivers that dare to defy the odds of premature deployments.

You overestimate the risk involved. Its no where near to be worried about.

Sure I have. I take care of my gear. Sometimes I fly underneath other during a freefly jump (just like everyone else). Tandem jump is no different. Flying underneath is no big deal. I dont really understand where this double standard is coming from.

Thats BS. I always do it, and there is no reason why it would be a bad idea.

I suppose they are unlucky yes, but I would guess most transmissions came from anal sex, that has higher propability? It is also the reason why gays were infected so much back in the day.

I guess we see this a little differently. IMO narrow FOV camera demands you fly at the right distance AND you are able to aim the camera perfectly all the time. With a wide FOV camera you only need to fly at close distance, but dont need to really worry about aiming that much. One less thing to worry about. I think if I was given a narrow FOV camera to shoot tandems, I would most likely screw up my videos in the beginning. I definetly would have to pay attention much more than I usually do with a go pro.

And many poor outside videos have been shot with GoPros. Very few videographers are good enough to maintain the 3 foot distance required between them and the subject. That's what's required to use a GoPro in its native wide angle mode. Otherwise the student takes up only 10% of the screen, and you get a poor video IMO. So there's the option of using Med setting to eliminate the need for being right on top of the subject... but all the shots I've seen in Med setting looked unsmooth. People are texting in this thread about possibilities of smoothing that out, but I'd like to see a good freefall video shot in Med on any GoPro. Maybe the ND filter can help. Any presenters? Chris Here is a sample video shot with go pro2. Dont mind the shitty music. Our DZO was very strict on copy right issues. http://youtu.be/IKzJ7adXz7A?t=1m16s

I think its much easier to shoot a decent video with a wide angle such as go pro than with a narrower FOV camera. IMO Narrow FOV takes much more skill than wide. If one does not have the skills to stay close enough a tandem to shoot go pro, then he shouldnt be filming tandems to begin with. Narrow FOV for such a person is only going to make things worse in my opinion.

Obviously they should refer to a scientific study that supports this statement. However this statement is very plausible. Circumcision will cause the skin of the glans to become thicker. This obviously does reduce the chances of blood to blood contact. Therefore I would consider this claim very plausible. Actually the odds of HIV transmission between HIV infected person and non-infected person in vaginal sex is somewhere between 0,04% - 0,08% (on other words, the odds are somewhere between 1:1250 to 1:2500) It is very unlikely that you will get infected in normal vaginal sex anyways. (EDIT: http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv ) IMO this is irrelevant to the topic in hand. You could argue that cutting the whole penis off, would reduce the chaces by 100%. The other safe option would be to use a condom. This HIV argument supporting circumsision is one of the weakest arguments I can think of..

One could argue that silicone tits are more aesthetically pleasing. However, that doesnt mean parents should decide if a child is to have them or not. Studies have shown circumcision leads to a worse sex life. More so in the mans perspective, but also in womens perspective. http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life BTW. The public attorney in Finland did make a criminal case of circumcision a few years back and it went to the supreme court and was made a Precedent. The parents were accused of instigation into maltreatment, when they had a muslim doctor operate their son, even though there was no medical need for this procedure. The parents were however found not guilty in the end. Legally it is a very challenging issue. Personally I wouldnt want to accept any sort of child genital mutilation. Be it a boy or a girl, they should be able to decide themselves once they are old enough.

I think the go pro hero 2 already surpassed the CX line of cameras in terms of image quality. The go pro hero 4 is an excellent choice for tandems.

It will not be sharp, but it will appear reasonably sharp. There is always a difference with something being as sharp as possible and something appearing to be reasonably sharp. If you are satisfied with something being reasonably sharp then manual is ok.

You know its weird how 90% of the students in our university library have Mac laptops. I was thinking how could this be possible, since the percentage should be the other way around. But I quickly realized the reason, after all Im a mac user my self: Our student library is accompanied by a large learning centre with IT facilities for hundreds of students. The computers in the IT facilities are windows machines. The people who own windows laptops, leave their laptops at home and rather use the desktop machines, since after all desktop beats a laptop in many ways. However, the people who have mac´s rather use their own computers. I personally couldnt even think about using a windows machine nowadays. Once you go mac, you never go back!

The person who made that photo obviously doesnt know what PC stands for. Quote from Wiki: "A personal computer (PC) is a general-purpose computer, whose size, capabilities and original sale price makes it useful for individuals, and is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator." 1) Mac is a PC 2) The large hadron is the opposite of a PC

I actually think that OSX is much easier to use than windows. I only needed to learn how to use the touchpad and some other things like how to take a screenshot and so on. After that I had no trouble adapting to OSX. Never felt like cursing. On the contrary, I was in awe how well designed the OS is. Everything just works. No need to install add ons and drivers, like in windows.

I have the 13 inch pro retina I think its perhaps the best laptop in the market right now. I highly recommend. Theres no way I would go back to windows machines. I like the 13 inch over the 15 inch because its easy to carry. At home or work you may add 2x 4k displays if you wish.

Cant really tell much about the rears. I didnt really know what to expect from this canopy + harness and only wanted to try it out, so I wanted to go with the brakes to play it safe. Took the initiation altitude quite a bit higher than I would with a crossfire2 or a Xaos at the same WL and felt like I was right on the money. IMO it flew more like a velocity.

Its more like a katana than an xfire. The neos actually has a suprisingly steep trim for an icarus canopy. I only made a few jumps, but the openings were sketchy and personally I couldnt accept those types of openings from my canopy.

I would assume that a lot of people were concious in freefall when MH17 was shot down. I think I might try to turn my iphone on videorecord, turn on the front camera and try to make one hell of a freestyle routine while filming my self.

Why do you ask?

IMO it doesnt look like a tension knot. I cant see any twists on the steering line. It seems like there is some sort of entaglement from the cascade of the brakeline, but its hard to see specificly.

Its been a while since I went there, but I have always had such a great time. IMO Zhills has the best overall vibe out of the DZ´s I have visited. Lots of other dropzones quiet down after jumping, but at Zhills people stay at the DZ to enjoy the evening. Great people and really good weather during xmas. I suppose there might be RV´s for rent at the DZ if you book in advance. That would be my choice of accomodation in Zhills. Theres only a few taxis in the area, but at least one of them used to accept weed for payment. (old hippie looking fellow ) The only negative thing is that if you jump at midnight on new years eve, you better watch out for those rockets under canopy. (i kid you not)

I dont know what images you have been compairing, but I think you should google the concept of depth of field. Shooting on AF or MF has nothing to do with depth of field. The thing is that using manual focus in theory could provide very accurate focus, IF you know the distance in beforehand. Most of the times its very hard to know the exact distance in beforehand and also most times we are shooting from different distances during the same dive. If I would want all of the photos to be in perfect focus, I would have to manually adjust the focus ring in freefall. Not possible. The canon AF system is very good and the DOF with wide angles is very deep. Even though I like to use rather large apertures (f 5.6 usually because it is the sharpest for my particular lens) Im still getting 99% of my photos in the best possible focus. There is no way manual could do that.