DSE

Everything created post 1989 is "legally copyrighted." Filling out an SR or GR/VA is more or less a waste of time for the average creative, but copyright is fixed the instant the work exists in a tangible form (ie; hard drive, tape, or paper).

Grr...sometimes copy/paste doesn't work the way it should. http://www.vimeo.com/11609685 Thanks for the catch.

The point is twofold. A-You suggest equipment manufacturers cannot be held liable in a tandem incident if they are not part of the rating process. That's false. B. Because of their exposure, like any manufacturer of any product, they must have the ability to do their best to limit liability, whether it's through licensing or not. I'm trying to wrap my head around a few things in this thread, the largest of which does not involve why tandem manufacturers take an interest in who is training and using their equipment. One more time in different words; _Exactly _ how are tandem equipment manufacturers less liable in the event of a tandem master's negligence that causes or contributes to an incident?

I'm saying the manufacturers are removed from repsponsability of the conduct of tandem masters if the said manufacturer plays no part in the licensing and authentication of instructors. Regardless of what country they come from. A mistake from the instructor could be the fault of the training, that puts the manufacturers at risk in the USA right now. Are you saying that tandem equipment manufacturers are not exposed to lawsuits when NZ tandem masters are negligent? It's a simple question.

You're saying that tandem equipment manufacturers aren't exposed to lawsuits when NZ tandem masters are negligent?

USPA verbatim water training here (video) Although the USPA has a doctrine, and that's what we're required to teach, I agree with Bill's assessment. No need to disconnect. ~you've got other things to be doing/worrying about ~there is no harm in leaving it connected ~USPA hasn't updated water training since the days of rounds ~if the water is moving fast enough to pull the reserve you've still got plenty of time to deal with the RSL after hitting the water. After lots of recent water entries, I've made some suggested changes to USPA that didn't make it into the 2011 SIM, but I do hope they reexamine the recommendations.

As unfortunate as it is, you're right. USPA should be more actively seeking means of reducing fatalities and serious injuries due to small canopies and rapid downsizing. Scandinavian countries have a program worth examining as a potential model. However...one "wrong" doesn't make for another right, right?

If you liked the first one, you're gonna love this one. The first Need for Speed set new viewing records for Vimeo. This one...you can only see HERE for now. Serious wingsuiting porn Happy holidays, everyone.

That's pretty clever. There is a guy here at Elsinore that uses an automotive electrical connector for his, but occasionally it will cause discomfort on the ride to altitude.

From one "dickhead/nazi/holding back your radical bad-azz mad skillz" guy to another....thank you for caring. I can think of two situations that would have possibly had different outcomes had I been more vocal.

One line of the "Read Me" covers only the USPA and the Read Me was edited to mention other countries. The other 25-plus points are relevant to everyone. By your statement, are you saying that we let students jump with cameras, with wingsuits, skyboards, freefly tubes, inflatables regardless of jump numbers? Would you explain the difference?

Do you want an audible or a logging audible? I'd choose a ProTrack over an Optima if logging is something you'd like to have available. If you already have a logging altimeter, then the Optima is a great piece of gear.

A fabrication and untrue in every sense of creative interpretation. I believe you recently used the word "delusional?"

For those that weren't aware or haven't seen, the 2011 SIM is available both online and in print. The new section 6-9 has new wingsuit recommendations and requirements. http://www.uspa.org/SIM/Read/Section6/tabid/169/Default.aspx#984

I have a couple. When do you need them by?

Nicely done, Matt!

As mentioned in my last post, the person mentioned has around 1K belly jumps, most of them with a camera on his head. New procedures should=starting back from square 1 or at least reducing the processes where possible. FWIW, for an FFC, it doesn't matter how many jumps you have or how awesome a swooper you may be, we're still going to put you on a lightly loaded, non-elliptical canopy and an AAD rig with an RSL and audible, at least for that first jump. And no camera.

I'd expect you'll find more bang (wingsuiters) for your buck @Zhills. More organizing there for sure. Had planned on spending the holidays @ Zhills but cost didn't work. You'll love it, the Zschool and flock are awesome. head west

I just rec'd a PM from someone who wore a small camera on his helmet during an FFC jump. He has just over 1000 skydives and had linetwists with excess brakeline caught on the camera. He cutaway and was grateful the camera was mounted on with velcro. Apparently the camera stayed with the main. Kinda looking forward to seeing that footage. IMO, the coach's camera is all that is necessary for any kind of a "first" jump. If there is no coach, lose the camera when adding something new to the mix.

As long as you know it's going to be constantly painful, there is nothing wrong with a netbook. Shoot in 720p and your conversion time for YT will be reasonably fast because you won't be trans-sizing and transcoding.

~~There are no "official wingsuit instructors. There used to be the Birdman program (defunct when the manufacturer went out of business) and the Phoenix-fly Coach program. These are manufacturer programs, not "official" USPA or other organizational programs. We've tried to get USPA to recognize the value behind such a program. And yes...the rapid advancement of students in a structured wingsuit program has been fairly obvious. ~~Elsinore has had a structured camera coach program for years. Norman Kent has a structured program as well. There are probably others. However, these are individual courses and not "official" by USPA endorsement. If USPA could be convinced of the value of an advanced coach rating, then wingsuit instruction and camera training programs would certainly fall under that category. I can think of a double-dozen camera pros that would help develop a syllabus.

I'm not a WSI, only self-appointed WSI#1 has that distinction, and he didn't feel having someone wait til 200 jumps was enough. Ask that guy how his jump went. If you have 200 jumps and want to fly a wingsuit (and come to me) you're likely going to do a tracking dive with me first unless we've flown together before. Then we'll do a ground school that isn't terribly different from AFF with some abbreviations (lasts about 45-60 mins). Then we'll go up and jump together assuming all things on the ground went as designed. The thing is, at 200 jumps, you barely have enough muscle memory to deal with common situations as they occur. The four states: Unconsciously Incompetent (you don't know what you don't know) Consciously Incompetent (You know what you don't know but don't know what to do about it) Consciously Competent (you know what you're doing, but you have to think about it) Unconciously Competent (You know what you know, and don't need to think about reacting/responding because it's ingrained/embedded). At 200 jumps, you might have enough muscle memory to deal with a loss of altitude awareness, spin, person near you at deployment time, or malfunction that ties up the camera/wingsuit. With very specific training, we can help people become consciously competent fairly quickly. Taking a camera course from Norman Kent when I had 70 jumps helped me grow fast. Spending a lot of time in the tunnel with various camera flyers helped me a lot too. I do believe that with specific, proper, and tightly focused training, people can be properly trained, but this isn't the "norm." Miltary jumpers are dropping bundles at jump 25, essentially tandem masters at 25 jumps. But their training is very tightly focused in a very tight, specific environment that doesn't translate well into the general skydiving world. I do not believe that learning basic muscle memory during a camera or wingsuit jump is the proper way to learn, but that's just my opinion. Obviously others disagree.

The IPC wingsuit workgroup has released their recommendations for Wingsuit Big-Way formations to be submitted to the IPC board at the next meeting. The gist of it is that there will be no FAI recognition of a judging system submitted prior to 2013. The process for creating a records category is a lengthy one, and the IPC is looking at a 3 year process. They have chosen to hold off making any recommendations for a while. The IPC specifically commented on two factors in their decision to put off a decision: ~Lack of input from the overall wingsuit community (due in part to technical/website functionality issues the IPC forum experienced) ~The tremendous divide between those that did offer input. #### Excerpted from the IPC document: Go-Forward Plan The Wingsuiting Working Group would like to make the following recommendations and timeline with regards to No-Contact Wingsuiting Big Way Formations. 5.1. 2011 Plenary: Wingsuit Definition accepted by IPC Consensus was reached on the definition and will be the starting point for the parameters. Refer to recommendations on Objective 1. 5.2. 2011 – 2012: Setup of Parameters for No-Contact Wingsuit Large Formation Records A recommendation that the Wingsuit Working Group continues next year to gather more information with regards to the parameters by having examples submitted by different NAC’s, groups etc. It was decided that the WS community started participating too late in the year in order to generate enough information. The parameters can be set and a recommendation for the inclusion of Wingsuit Large Formations into the IPC Sporting Code as an outcome. 5.3. 2012 – 2013: Judging Terms of Reference The Working Group recommends that the Judging Committee be involved to determine the best method of judging big way formations. The Working Group would like to have at least 1 member or advisor from the Judging Committee added to it. A possible outcome is the establishing of a formal IPC judging method or system. Once these objectives have been reached, the Working Group can then recommend further investigations into other events within the Wingsuiting Discipline. #### Kudos to those that offered input, solutions, ideas, definitions, etc. Hopefully over the next couple of years we’ll have some formations and measuring methods that have been tested on more than just one formation, and ideas from not only the experienced but also newer wingsuiters. Hopefully as the discipline moves forward, we’ll find a means of communicating as a community vs small “islands” of very diverse opinion. Moreover, it appears the IPC wishes to see methods actually tested on multiple formations vs using a single formation as the benchmark for which all others should be judged. It’s beneficial that the IPC has a conservative perspective vs how the USPA acted in haste based on incomplete information, input, and potential judging methods. Perhaps at some point the USPA will follow the IPC’s lead, wherever that may take us. There is so much more possible (in terms of how tight we can fly and how we can measure that performance flight isn’t terribly important) compared to figuring out what constitutes a ‘great performance." The best possible performance by the top skilled flyers in the discipline should be something that every wingsuiter can look at and say “Damn, that’s NICE!” Those 16-way performances/events put on in Lodi and Pepperell a couple of years ago set a bar that to date, nothing else has surpassed. Those formations were flown to “best possible” vs “grid/superwide” spacing that has become the US norm. I’d suggest that as a community, we work towards flying TIGHTER vs flying BIGGER. “Bigger” doesn’t equate to skill/better. I do not believe that bigger is the effort that will lead us to discovering record performance. Just as docking shows us as a community what our skill level can be, non-contact can be flown dock-tight. Isn’t this what we’re after? Quality vs quantity? If we can return to exploring a level of quality such as those 16 ways, we will likely see a record definition and judging method arise which can measure that performance....judging the constant progression....(probably in mere inches or cm) and it’ll be an event in which which everyone can feel a sense of pride. http://www.fai.org/parachuting/meetings/2011 You'll find this document in Annex 26. Lots of reading there for a rainy weekend.

The reason none of the new cams don't have built in effects are two-fold; ~they take up cycles best used for better compression ~the majority of card-based users will be editing/outputting on a computer for digital delivery. FX/effects can be more effectively applied in post (editing), and in computer editing, it's much faster (generally) than board-based/linear editing. Glad you like the blog.

The topic of whether someone should be putting a camera on their head at 50, 100, or 200 jumps isn't a "photo" topic as much as it is a general or safety conversation. The majority that want to put a camera on their head at 50 jumps are shooting video "of their jump." "Not gonna think about it being here" "just shooting my mates." That particular subject inspires little intelligent new conversation but rather volumnous amounts of noise, and has done since the days of alt.rec.skydiving. So much so that the valuable information on the topic has been lost, This being said (just as in the past) the offer is out for anyone to PM with rules, regulations, recommendations for their country and camera flying. The info will be compiled into a single resource for everyone to access. Shouting about being superior for having started early, talk of how the USPA, older/experienced jumpers are deliberately hindering the progress of new jumpers, why the tandem manufacturers have it all wrong, why everyone else is wrong...there are currently 4 active threads amongst the other 10k posts in which the OP can continue to increase the volume. The Photo forum, like other specific forums is a resource, not a soapbox. Your comment about certain aspects of flying to be based on skill and not numbers is a good one to discuss. As a *community* how do we trust that those passing on their blessing to newer jumpers, actually have *our* interests at heart? We trust Examiners to certify the safety of someone else for the benefit of _us_ and our membership organizations. If someone feels a guy with 10 jumps is camera-ready, what happens when he goes to another DZ and causes an incident? It's easy to give permissions and blessings away when there is no responsibility attached to it. Therefore, applying jump numbers based on the collective opinions of hundreds of thousands of jumps is a good means of creating a recommendation. The "incident" list in the Photo forum is another indicator of a good starting point.