JWest

I dont think anyone is suggesting that it be mediatory to use a single parachute system only that it is an option. If you don't want to then don't.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The title of 105.43 was changed to distinguish it from tandem rigs, and 105.45 was added to cover tandem rigs. If there is no comparable section for a single-harness/single-parachute rig, then it is not permitted. Old (prior to permanent tandem approval) 105.43 Parachute equipment and packing requirements (a) No person may make a parachute jump, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to make a parachute jump from that aircraft, unless the person is wearing a single harness dual parachute pack, having at least one main parachute and one approved auxiliary parachute that are packed as follows: ... New(includes tandem) 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows: ... 105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems (a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless: ... They really should have left 'allowed' and 'unless' in there. With the old verbiage it's clear that you must use a dual parachute system. No were does it say it's not allowed. AKA no law against it. Unless there is a prevision that states that anything not covered is not allowed than one cannot claim that it's not permitted.

Bob Pierotti should have had you as his lawyer. Mark The form search is down and google didn't do me much good. All I could find is that he lost is rating for a year do to disciplinary action in 2004. I assume he piloted/jumped out of a plane with a base rig? I understand that the SIM and FAR have been rewritten since then. Perhaps the new verbiage could of helped him out a bit.

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. You bring up a solid point in distinguishing between the two. Indiscriminately filming is much different than being dedicated video.

Yes, but the question is should they be mandatory? It's a hypothetical discussion. It's not mandatory, everyone just thinks it is. Look at my previous posts.

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.

Interesting, with the new wording there is no regulation against it. Maybe they did it on purpose knowing/hoping few people would notice.

The sack, hahah what is this, High school? It showed me that people care more about jump numbers than ability. Amongst a few other things, I learned a lot about the community.

im not gonna tell you are right or wrong in your opinions, but I hope you understand how toolish this sounds and what it does for your argument Does it make me sound foolish? I'll reword it for you. I am fully aware that allowing a camera to distract me can end my life. This was learned from experience, research, and observation. Idiots will do idiot things because they're idiots. Granted they were under a solid canopy at a related height to someone who pulls at 3K. They remained situationally/altitude aware and handled there MAL. I would barely call this an incident. Which is why it's in the "incident" thread. Correlate- Have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another. How does being distracted by a camera correlate to a twitchy high performance canopy? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.

FAR Section 105.43 "No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:" No mention of a single harness single parachute system. The parts italicized become irrelevance because the bold conditions are not met. The wording 'single harness dual parachute' is used to separate it from tandem 'dual harness dual parachute systems'. I am fully aware that the FAA probably created an "if statement" on accident but either way there is no regulation saying someone cannot jump a single harness single parachute system, it states that if a single harness dual parachute system is used it must meet X requirements. It's one of those loopholes lawyers love.

Not relevant to skydiving that six camera array looks like it could be pretty sweet for it's intended purpose. They allow their attention to be diverted from the primary task. So yes, if they stayed focused/concentrated on the primary task they would be distracted by the camera. Yes, not all people can focus as good as other people, and some people are bad at focusing. That doesn't mean that all people are incapable of maintaining focus. Calling me inexperienced.. in what skydiving? I agree with that. Calling me inexperienced in the use of POV camera during extreme activities? I've been doing that for multiple years, with multiple cameras, and multiple camera platforms. So yes I might be an inexperienced skydiver but I am not inexperienced with the use of a POV camera. I suppose the consequences are pretty objective depending how you value 1/7,000,000,000

I answered yes to this questions for 2 main reasons. The first being heliBASE and the second being that the SIM and FAR do not actually say you can't use a single parachute system. It simply doesn't mention it at all. The language used in the SIM is ambiguous. It uses word like "for", "if" and "should". The main reg I'm referencing 5-3D "The FAA requires the harness of a dual parachute assembly to be approved." It doesn't have anything for single harness, single parachute systems. I've looked many times when I was trying to not lose an argument but found nothing. If one of you guys know where there are any regulations for single harness single parachute systems post the link. All of that being said you would still be hard pressed to find a DZO that would let you do it even if there is no regulation for/against it. P.s. To safe someone the time form making the same mistake I did when trying to dispute my claim I'll use a quick example. From the sim section 5-3C "All skydivers should use a steerable reserve canopy." Is says "should" not that it is required. I will admit the way it is wrote they want to imply that its required but no where does it say it is.

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. POV cameras are only a distraction if you let it be.

I'd bet they make it N= C license. I'd still be happy with that. To a previous comment: 100 jumps to be a coach, makes sense. 200, for wingsuit makes less sense. 200 so you don't get distracted. I don't think that has much to do with flying ability.

Don't worry. Whenever your generation gets to be our age, the fucked-up-ness of the world can then be blamed on your generation . It's kind of a natural consequence of getting older. The ability to better manage distractions while multi-tasking doesn't lend itself to greater in-depth knowledge in whatever is being done. while technology has changed dramatically over the years, people really haven't. And physics doesn't seem to have changed at all Wendy P. Cant argue with that, haha. I've suggested that there be some sort of sign off for jumping a camera. short ground school and a sign off jump.

No one is saying they should, simply that they can. I get it, jump number is more important than competence. This forum has made that clear. This is common sense in the skydiving world for anyone that can read. We are essentially telling this guy the same thing. Listen to your instructors/ experienced jumpers and read what Germain has put out there. The only difference is that I'm saying if he wants to jump a 190 then he can jump a 190. No one is around here saying it's a stellar choice, but it is an option none the less.

I would rather be clumped in with the 'mad skills' crowd than the baby boomers. At least we aren't responsible for the current government and economy but I digress. I am purely talking about the distraction aspect. I've learned long before I started skydiving that 'trying to get the shot' can result in shit going bad fast. Even when you aren't distracted as a snowmobile hillclimber a small distraction can be a $13,000 mistake. Or doing inverted aerials on skis. shit can kill you if you let the camera on your head distract you.

Basically, "You can't choose to move next to an airport then bitch about airplane noise."

We aren't the "Me" generation, that's the baby boomers -for obvious reason-. We are the "why" generation. I agree with you that the psychology of the camera is a bigger issue the the physicality of it. I agree that it can be trained, for some it was trained long before they started skydiving. Jump numbers don't give someone this training, it either needs to be formal or from experiences in other inherently dangerous activities. Skydiving has less deaths/injuries than some other extreme sports. This thought has literally never crossed my mind. The thought that has crossed my mind is " I wish I could see my positioning so I would be able to change my movements/why did this happen/what could I have done better." Being new these are the things I think about all the time. Remember you can't judge us all by a few bad apples, Idiots will do idiot things because they are idiots.

I'm all set. I won't take part in the pissing contest that happens here. My post came from logical deduction, my experience is irrelevant. It's possible that my view is skewed since my instructors have thousands of jumps, national and world medals, and a few world records between them. I would generally consider them all experts. Yoink, Check out the article by Germain, and read the canopy control articles under the safety tab of this website. There is a ton of good information and they are mostly written by 'experts'. If you have been jumping a 210 and are comfortable with it, able to do the drills suggested by Germain in his article, land safely, and the qualified people at your DZ tell you that they think you are ready for a 190 then get the 190.

Nonetheless poor decision making does not mean it the cameras fault. I understand the point you are making though. Mentality wasn't a variable I considered when starting this thread.

The article Brian Germain wrote up has a lot of good information in it. That being said I am going to be "that guy" Ask your instructors and the people who have seen you fly, not the internet. Canopy choice is important. A docile 190 can be as safe or safer than an aggressive 210. If they approve of you getting a 190 then get a 190. A docile 190 such as a specter isn't going to kill you in a no flair landing.

If your DZ has the capability to reach a decent amount of people offer the price that you would for the groupon + their cut. I've never used an actual groupon. I mention I saw that a groupon was happening and ask if I can receive the same price. They normally go for it because they make more money and get business.

I was always told to count in my head when tracking. 5s per 1000f. I am also a gadget person. I trust my audible to beep just as much as a trust my digital wrist anti to show me the correct altitude. Both are L&B. My audible beeps every .5s when tracking. makes a correct count even simpler to keep. That being said not only is waiting that long crazy, who burns through -I'm assuming- at least 1 other alarm at a higher altitude? In addition to the other topics this thread has brought up proper audible settings should be included. My "oh shit pull immediately" alarm is set 1000 feet above my cypress activation height. That way the chances of a 2 out are greatly reduced.

I have, on the ground... think I'll give it a go in the air next time I get to jump.