Anachronist

Very cool

I'll leave it with the following, you can take it for what you want. I am also going to be away from my computer for a while so I won't be able to trade jabs and respond to comments for a little while. Also, I feel it necessary to clarify, we're talking about training and newer jumpers. Once you've been in for 10 years and have 1,000+ jumps, you're on your own as far as decision making goes. So I'm intentionally not talking about that demographic. Adjust your definitions of "experienced" and "new jumper" accordingly. We all know 5 years and 500 jumps is a newbie compared to a large number of other jumpers, riggers, and professionals. But at that point, the jumper's decisions are pretty much left up to them, the USPA makes no substantial recommendations or restrictions beyond that. I'm also talking about "experience" as a whole, not any individual discipline. There are some things I think we can agree on. First is that you can't fix stupid. I'm sure we've all seen 500+ jump wonders that are as dangerous (perhaps more so) than they were when they were newbies. I think we can also probably agree that "time in sport" is an important metric that is rarely measured. e.g. everything else equal, I think it is at least arguable that someone with 1,000 jumps and 10 years is going to be better equipped to make risk assessment decisions than someone who cranked out 1,000 their first 2 years. We learn a lot because of the people we are around and time spent processing information as opposed to personal experience alone. I think we can also probably agree that however you want to define "experience" as measured by jumps numbers alone, it diminishes the higher you go for any individual. e.g. the difference between 50 jumps and 100 is much greater than 500 and 550. I would argue that the relationship is not linear, and not simply represented by a percentage. i.e. the difference between 100 and 200 is more than the difference between 1000 and 2000, even though they both doubled (as an extreme example). So there are some important questions we have to ask about that "diminishing return." I'll leave that to be considered by whoever cares to read this rant. Next we have to ask what purpose does skydiving training serve. Is it practically enforced. And is it equitable. Do we make it more exclusive and more difficult to participate in non-belly camera wearing jumps, or do we try and make it more inclusive to grow the sport (because the attrition rate is extremely high) and allow people to get more out if it sooner. All of these things are a compromise. Ideally you could argue, that you need 100 jumps, with multiple canopy courses, hours of tunnel time, a rigger course, and a minimum of several years in the sport to get an A license and the privileges it currently allows. Would that make skydiving safer? Yes, I don't see how it possibly couldn't, but it would cripple the sport and I think we can all also agree is extreme overkill. But I am using extreme examples to make a point, the same principals apply to all regulations and practices. The most important question perhaps, is once we've answered all of those other questions; are regulations a "ok you did it, here is your card," or are they a "this is the bare minimum required to start x activity, and meeting the USPA regulations requirements is not a guarantee that you are or well be "qualified" to participate in x activity." I think this is one of the issues with the haphazard nature of the regulations now, in some cases they are indeed a rubber stamp, and in others they are a starting point. There is no consistent application. My personal training (inside and outside of skydiving) has been the latter of the two philosophies. As we like to say in scuba when someone gets a new certification (basic or advanced) "this is your license to learn." Picking one of the two philosophies will go a long way toward making the regulations make more sense. And talking from the two different perspectives (while assuming the person you disagree with has the same perspective that you do) is likely the crux of a lot of the disagreement in this thread. We also have to ask what is required to support either philosophy. With the rubber stamp, not much. Just the instructional outline, test, and a check off list. It is quick, easy, and economical (which is why the military uses it extensively). For the "license to learn" perspective you need continuing education. And right now that is in its infancy in our sport in the US anyway (idk about anywhere else, sorry everyone else, this isn't for you). The canopy folks are the leaders of the pack with their progressive courses, but even still they are very "complete an objective" rather than "have an enriching experience" based. On the other hand, angle camps, tunnel camps, and things like the NSL are very "enriching experience based" but lack the same sort of structure that the canopy courses that Flight-1 (and others) offer for instance. Both are good things for sure. But we lack an abundance of any of them that are easily accessible without traveling to a distant DZ or waiting months for one to come to yours. These courses basically don't exist for anything else (or are very rare) Camera, RW, Crew, Wingsuit, etc. In the meantime, I have a sweet new gopro and I want to have a video of me and my buddy holding hands in freefall, because that excites me and makes me want to jump more so that one day I can make a video that someone else who wasn't on the jump might actually want to watch. And I can show my crappy video to my girlfriend and my family so they have at least some concept of what I'm doing, etc, etc. So making this sort of "license to learn" environment is hard, and will require a change in the way a lot of skydiving operates, it will be slow, and it will have it's share of "incidents." But ultimately I think would be a positive development. Now, you are 100% allowed to say "hey hippie, that will never happen and is stupid to even talk about." And I won't fault you for that. You just have to make it clear that you are talking about a "rubber stamp" type of training and certification when you advocate for certain rules and regulations. I can produce a litany of arguments against it, but I'll leave that for another day and another thread. And ultimately, if the majority of jumpers are in favor the "rubber stamp," my rambling is pointless, and I will be happy that I got to have the experience I did before there was a camera regulation and a wingsuit regulation and when all you had to do for a D license was make 2 night jumps (a whole other can of worms that has already been beaten to death). Oh, and when paid tandem camera fliers sometimes had only 200 jumps. So, in my personal and inescapable bias, I look at camera regulations as arbitrary, as they stand now, because there is no training, there is only an arbitrary jump number, and it applies equally to gopros as it does full camera setups with multiple cameras, visual indicators, ring sights, and other specialized equipment like wings. Ironically, you can jump that same equipment as long as you don't have a camera attached, which is part of my litany of arguments against "rubber stamp" regulations. My problem with all of this is that there is no consistency. There is nothing to stop me from starting to try and fly head down with my buddy at 30 jumps other than a S&TA or DZO telling us not to, and unless very closely supervised, is impossible to enforce. But "ohhhh, cameras are scary and will get you killed." There was nothing from stopping our aforementioned deceased Mr. Bill participant from attempting it with his 168 jumps (I've seen people do it sub 100). So that inconsistency means that there is no organized train of thought, and no organized philosophy in skydiving training. It is just a hodgepodge of regulations thrown together by different people at different times with different motivations and "rubber stamp" vs "license to learn" philosophies. And that culminates into a basic lack of credibility. Perhaps the reason that I jumped a camera before I had my A and started wingsuiting with ~130 jumps, and never had any "close calls" or any problems is because I was already ingrained with "this is only a license to learn," and in doing so, I talked at length with my AFFIs about what and how to go about it. I asked the DZO if it was ok and listened to their advice, and didn't do any of it without their oversight and permission. I knew that I could only progress slowly and deliberately. My first dozen gopro jumps and wingsuit jumps were either solos or only with my instructor, and what better way to try something new and learn is there? I didn't get a gopro and try to do a 4 way VFS jump, or take a FFC one weekend and then try and do a big way with all the other wingsuiters or even a two way with someone else who was a newbie. I never jumped with another newbie wingsuiter until I wasn't a newbie anymore myself (>100 WS jumps in case you're wondering what I mean by "newbie"). So the act of letting people get just enough experience to be dangerous (~200 jumps) and think they know what they are doing without knowing what they don't know (Dunning Kruger) and then turning them loose with a gopro and a wingsuit is, I would argue, more dangerous that taking someone who is less experienced, appropriately scared, and letting them learn slowly. It is certainly not because I have mad skillz, I would say I'm average as a whole. Perhaps above average in risk mitigation (at least for myself and those I jump with; I'm the guy that says "the wind is funky today, see you all tomorrow." Or "this WS jump is a little weird and people are being a little too aggressive so I'm gonna keep my distance") and below average in athleticism. I'm chunky and have a few joint problems. So keep that in mind before throwing me in with the RedBull chugging FaceBook Athlete page having, "I'm gonna teach myself to swoop" crowd.

I don't think camera's need a number. The biggest problem is disparity in application, which indicates a lack of legitimate reason. As previously mentioned by mr crew dog (that I do not object to) they are willing to take 50 jump folks to do crew. B license can jump at night, A license can intentionally jump into water, but god forbid someone without a C puts a gopro on their helmet. If I need to argue that night jumps, crew, and intentional water landings are more dangerous than a gopro then we are so divergent in our risk assessment that I don't see a logical conclusion.

Agreed, the A6300 is overkill for skydiving stills when something else comparable (A6000) is available at half the price.

So the complaint is all about safety, so quality is irrelevant, plenty of folks jump cameras for incidental captures, kinda like having a dash cam. The other problem, try and define in a meaningful way the abilities to "shoot useful video" and "handle yourself." Good luck with that one.

Hahaha, yes the ability to reason seems rather scarce these days. Jump numbers mean a lot very early on in a pass/fail sort of way, but their usefulness quickly diminishes. Do I think 50 is good, no I do not, but abandoning jumps numbers isn't going to happen any time soon, so it is a compromise. (Basically what I'm saying is that if you go with 50, very few people are going to complain, it is advice, not a stamp of approval). What would make the most sense would be "it's up to the instructor."

I use a small rig cage on my A6300, I like it a lot, they also sell an adapter that will clamp onto the cable and hold it in place. this

As the most fervent detractor in this thread (as far as I can tell), I too would agree with having a "camera course." Keep it simple, focused on safety only, not how to make a good video, and forget about qualification jumps, let any S&TA teach it. B license/50 jump minimum is acceptable. I say that because a 50 jump minimum is acceptable for about anything, e.g. no jumps greater than a 4 way, no night jumps, no tracking jumps, etc etc, whatever. If you want to put a 50 jump restriction on anything I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. 200 is just too high for anything but serious crew and instructional stuff in my mind, (I think the 100 jump coach thing is monumentally retarded/insufficient), and I only say crew because it scares me and I don't have any experience, a crew dog might very well say otherwise, and I would defer to them.

Thanks for that Jarno. So yeah it looks doable, a rocking tail wind would certainly help. And for the point of "flying a WS across the channel" would you have to actually deploy over land, or could that last 3km be done under canopy? The general public (and most skydivers) probably wouldn't care as long as 90% of the jump is WS flight. After all, you are "flying across the Channel" not trying to "set a distance record."

So just a quick question for you riggers, I was wondering about the FAA stuff and it's application related to my experience with some law enforcement folks I'm friends with. I don't know anything about FAA regs, and quite frankly I don't care about them in relation to skydiving. But you all seem to love picking them apart. So I pose the question, do you think they are intentionally vague so that the FAA can use it's own judgement for when/how to enforce them? I ask because after talking to LEO friends about a variety of cases and complaining that "the law is so vague" they always respond "It is suppose to be, because that gives us(LEOs) and prosecutors the ability to use personal discretion and judgement." The same reason almost no judge supports "mandatory" sentences. They have also stated that traffic law is written in such a way that they can pull someone over basically at will "I've never had to follow anyone for more than a minute or two before they gave me a reason to pull them over for suspected DUI." The reasoning is that it gives them the ability to make a stop even if there isn't a glaring violation. So anyway, do you think the FAA is up to the same thing, and trying to pick apart and carefully define the rules might be without cause, at least from a legal standpoint not a "this isn't safe" standpoint? (e.g. if people are airbrushing pop tops and they(FAA) don't care, they aren't obligated to intervene, but if people start making (and jumping) rigs like UPT's artistic snake skin/leather/steam punk stuff, or take a bedazzling gun to them, they have the ability to shut it down?)

1/800 is as low as I go, 1/1000 is preferable. If it is a Sony they do well at higher ISOs, more of a low light thing anyway.

Damn, that is one heck of a rigger pissing contest. Anyway, the short answer is don't, not because of anything they said. I'm going to make an assumption, 1- you're jumping a dolphin (no offense but lol) so you'll be selling that soon. 2 - because you are interested in this at all, you are a low time jumper, so you will be selling that rig soon. Keep the resale value decent, no one wants someone else's crappy art on the rig they are buying. Also, I know a couple people who have custom rigs, and unless they are sponsored, everyone makes fun of them for it (whether they know it or not).

It's just a ballpark number, between 1 and 2 is right, and it is only a problem if you pull higher. From a Wingsuit perspective it matters more than for most others, we often pull at different altitudes even within the same group. We also fly in really really bad places relative to each other for someone to deploy. In the group it amounts to "give them some space at x altitude" or "if so and so starts drifting off it is because he is going to pull." Outside of our group we are looking for obstacles. If someone is pulling at 3k or lower we don't care, but pulling higher means some of us might be below you in freefall while you are under canopy, we don't want to hit you and it helps if we are expecting canopies above our pull altitude. Also, horizontal group separation/exit order means nothing in a wingsuit, we often are making our final (in freefall) headed on a path that will intersect with jump run. Flying over canopies (because they have had time to deviate from jump run too) is common. For hop and pops and most other jumps Alex is right, it doesn't matter. But if you have 2 similar groups and one is pulling higher than the other, a little vertical separation is a good thing too.

Yeah, it would be an impressive feat to hold that for 8-10 min. But Shin Ito made 17.8 miles absolute distance, and I think he was getting out at 30 couple thousand (Back in 2012 no less in what looks like a Vampire 3). The shortest distance across the Channel is only 3 miles longer. Also, it looks like Jhonathan Florez got out of a King Air at 37k, just fyi

I know aerodynamics isn't strict math, but mathematically speaking air density doesn't affect unpowered glide right (excluding crazy extremes of course)? Same glide ratio, same IAS, faster TAS (at high altitude that is). Because IAS is the same, wing pressure relative to the atmosphere might actually be higher? i.e. same pressure going in, but surrounding pressure a lot less? Obviously ground speed changes with TAS and wind. 3:1 is allegedly achievable nowadays (0 wind), add a strong tail wind and it might be doable from 30k (very jumpable). The big thing is the O2 and the cold, that is a special skill/equipment set, that out of the way, anyone with the physical endurance and skill to fly a big suit could do it (300-500 WS jumps). The real biggest obstacle is a plane that can fly at 30k with the door open. Pac, Skyvan, and Caravan are all out. King Air is a maybe, C130 is a hell yeah, but you probably want to do a couple test jumps with all your kit, and maybe a couple high altitude ones first, then jump through all the red tape. $50k+ later and you have yourself a spot in history

Ah...I get it....some old fart has put you in your place some time. So...If Jaques Cousteau (you know who he was, right?) came along and gave some newbie scuba diver advice that he was not ready for deep dives, then his opinion should be ignored? You realise, of course, that the reason you don't jump roundies any more, is maybe because the guys who did jump them way back then, realised that there might be a better way to do things, and adapted accordingly? That the KAP 3 and Sentinal 2000 could be improved? (You know what they are, I take it) Or shot and a half, and two shots could be retired? (You know what all those are too....Right? ) Some of who are still around, "holding things back" Those guys? You can dismiss the experience of those who have been there, done that, yet you yourself, are not prepared to put yourself in the firing line to change things for the better. But its OK sit on the side lines and take pot shots at those that do. Just because they're old dinosaurs. Thanks for clearing that up. You've been most helpful. 1 - Nope, I'm not an idiot, so never had a "talkin to." Rather I've been encouraged to do some stupid stuff by old timers. 2 - I'd ask for his autograph, then tell him to f-off because he has been out of scuba for 30 years and is not up to date on research, equipment, or industry best practices. 3 - Yeah man, it's called change and all that round experience with belly reserves and capewells is about worthless with today's sport equipment. Like asking a Roman Legionnaire the best way to deploy a M1 Abrams. 4 - No man, had to google them, before I was born, also irrelevant. 5 - No idea wtf you are talking about. 90ft of anchor chain is all I can come up with, and as a 200 ton unlimited commercial captain, we don't use that anymore, the windlesses measure meters electronically. Also I've never been on a ship where you can see the chain from the bridge and the anchor locker has to be clear of personnel before you can drop, basically, using painted chain would be very difficult. We also mostly use the metric system now. Are you like 100 years old? I don't know anything about coal boilers either. 6 - I don't understand the statement? Old guys stuck in their ways slowing progress? Yeah, kinda a societal norm. 7 - I have "been there and done that" for the topic of this discussion. 8 - Yeah man, so you mean never criticize anything, like politicians for example? Like politicians (think USPA) that make laws (think USPA guidelines) that affect our lives (think our lives). 9 - You are welcome. (I might add, if you want to get all nautical, there is a lot of dumb stuff we have to know for our licensing exams because the USCG is stuck in the 1800's, splicing 3 strand (lol I've never even touched 3 strand on a ship, everything is wire rope, 12 strand, 12 plait, or double braid, ironically you don't even have to know what those last 3 are for your license exams), how to float with our pants, (also lol, let's all pass around a knife to cut the bottoms of our coveralls off so we can make a crappy and short lived floatation device because our work vests we aren't allowed to step on deck without are 100x better) how to grease and (I shit you not) wrap with leather, standing rigging. How to deal with WIGs (only the Russians have those, and only a handful) And some other lifeboat stuff for life boats that haven't been built in 70 years and are not permitted on commercial vessels). I'm sure I've left something out but you get the idea.) Also as a treat, my favorite quote from a commercial mariner old timer. "Before HIV and drug tests this was the best job in the world."

For consumption. I welcome other non-cherry picked samples. Random sample of 10 fatalities from USPA from Aug-ish 2014 to April-ish 2015 (didn’t see more recent data). 10 in a row with only a tandem and their student removed from the sample. The immediate jumpers on both sides of the sample were 500+ jumps (low cutaway) and 6,000+ jumps (canopy collision w/low cutaway). Jump number / reason / age 2,500+ Main/Reserve entanglement Age 61 5,500 Impact under slowly spinning main (possibly unconscious, unknown) Age 73 165 Outside video of really bad Mr Bill canopy/freefall collision Age 28 (this guy is the problem). I bet his buddies doing the Mr. Bill were low timers too. 380 Malfunctioning main, no emergency procedures Age 50 1,500 AFF instructor tried to save his student (see next fatality) Age 41 8 AFF Student AAD fired too late (instructor died too trying to pull for him, same reason) Age 25 280 Low turn (not a swoop) 1.2 WL Age 36. 589 Low reserve deployment Age 54 900+ Swoop pond impact Age 50 684 Malfunctioning main, tried to land it Age 37 Average age 45.5. Average jump number 1,250. Those low time jumpers with cameras sure are the problem huh? Well, that one guy was anyway, with his two friends, doing a Mr. Bill. Did the camera contribute, sure, but I’d blame the Mr. Bill though. (They waited 7 seconds to deploy the Mr. Bill, our deceased camera flyer was above them). Looks to me like being over 40 and having 1,000+ jumps is the real problem. Should probably ban those things....

^^^ I vote for this guy as USPA director.

Garbage is relative, video from 99% of jumps is garbage. Also, if we abstained from doing things because a couple idiots messed it up, well there wouldn't be much left to do, inside or outside of skydiving.

Soooo fun update for anyone with shoulder issues. I was under canopy last weekend and while making an abrupt and aggressive left turn (at altitude, for funzies, not swooping) managed to dislocate my right shoulder while bracing my arm on the risers. Fortunately while figuring out "can I still use this arm and flare?" I made a right toggle turn and tried to shove my shoulder back in place (if you've had some dislocating experience you might know what I'm talking about, if not it is hard to describe) it went back in. Was able to make my pattern and land safely. First dislocation in years (and very unexpected), needless to say, I'm going back on the PT regime. Just wanted to put it out there that it can happen at an unexpected time and how it might be remedied if you have the altitude to play with it some. The toggle turn I used as resistence to put it back was hand out in front of my shoulder and palm down, as I felt it trying to go back I put more effort into it, both in the toggle and "in" the shoulder, took about 3 seconds, maybe less. (Also, I never dropped the toggle, I'm not sure I would have been able to reach back up and grab it with my shoulder out.)

Yep, agree with everyone else. The tiny suits aren't worth owning, if you can rent and put 10-20 jumps on then sure. Phantom series is the best first suit worth owning, period. And that is coming from someone who has only jumped SQ for a couple years now.

So I looked into the brace thing too, and the conclusion was if you did make a brace strong enough then it would have to lock your arm in that position, i.e. you wouldn't be able to put your arm down in the plane, or pull a toggle. Basically if you want any range of motion a brace won't work. Someone also mentioned kinesiology tape, in absolutely no uncertain terms, it is an absolute gimmick. I also looked into that, and read a handful (there are only a handful) of scientific articles that addressed its use. There were only two possible uses, one was for children, where it is strong enough to restrict movement, so basically is a brace, and the other was as a placebo, basically reminding people to protect a joint because they can feel the tape. Other than that there was absolutely zero evidence to support the idea that it could stabilize a joint or prevent injury. If you really want me to, I'll go dig up some of the articles for you. Thems the breaks I'm afraid, PT or surgery, that is about your only hope. Left sided pull is a temporary fix and shouldn't really be your goal. There are plenty of other instances where you might dislocate it as your skydiving progress.

To reiterate in case you don't know: You need to look up exercises that are geared toward shoulder rehab and do them until you want to cry. Pushups, curls, bench press, all that is basically worthless. Attached image are the ones that did me the best. (but I did 30 at a time, 5 reps, 3 times a day), the schedule on there is for old folks.

Hey man, similar issue here (alro right arm). I had several dislocations before I started jumping (torn labrum). I chose not to have surgery because of the recovery time, but once I started jumping and could feel my shoulder get a little weird. Looked in surgery again (decided no to again), then found a physical therapist that worked at a gym, showed me a lot of exercises (open the door, close the door, etc) with stretchy bands and made me do them until my arm was on fire. It made all the difference in the world. Pushups and stuff don't work the muscles that stabilize the joint just btw. Also I know a girl who is super scrawny and like you had her first dislocation during AFF, same deal, hard core PT and she hasn't had any issues since (3/4 years now?). Also, just for what it is worth, I found a gym/fitness physical therapist to be much better than an extremely expensive rehab facility. I guess the rehab guys are use to dealing with old broken people and just getting them to function at a basic level, the gym guy only dealt with people who wanted to be there and wanted to make people better than before they got hurt. I remember him asking "how much weight do they have you lifting at the rehab place?" I told him 10lbs, he laughed and said "ok, well we're going to start with 70."

Check this out Note the flow rates though. At lower rates the nasal cannula outperforms the simple mask because there isn't enough flushing out of the mask with O2 in between breaths. At a high flow rate you will get a high percent either way.