DSE

I've seen this config with buttons on the plate (both taped and drilled in) and I've seen them with the buttons mounted in the side of the helmet. I've modified my Hypeye to have a different sort of momentary SPST switch on it, as it took less room in the helmet, and I wanted to be able to fit it into an area that the HypEye wouldn't fit. In other words, there are so many possibilities, but the most flexible, IMO, is to tape down or find another means of mounting down the HypEye's to the plate itself.

I have a silly little dongle that I plug into my Android Tablet 2. It can be used to xfer files, or play files straight off the POV camera. I haven't stored much on my tab, it has 32GB but it's not my primary storage/xfer tool. This dongle/adapter you've found is really interesting! Thanks for the link.

Your issue is the third I've heard about; I'll spend some time asking the engineering crew about it. Since the review came out, they've become reasonably accessible.

Safety is my primary concern, and you of all people know this, Mark. You'd really suggest that I'm changing my view of safety because I'm defending how an organization investigates incidents? Confidentiality is very important to any organization. Always has been, always will be. Confidentiality of information is needed in order to foster a culture for good decision making. The issue (for me) isn't about Winstock's safety, or how he made a bad judgement/error. It's about protecting the integrity of a process that works for thousands of organizations (like DZ.com for example) every day. USPA isn't unique, and the cause of this issue being managed differently, goaded by an anonymous source is a huge distraction to how USPA and this community interact, operate, and achieve results. At the end of the day, Winstock is already done and over with but no one sees that because they want blood. Putting a man in the modern-day equivalent of a town square stock so that people can throw rotten vegetables at him isn't enough to satisfy the masses. I've got nothing more of value to add once it's been said that facts and truth don't matter. The diversion of a sacrificial lamb is more important. The real issue doesn't matter so long as blood is on the ground for the passers-by that would rather not see what's ahead. Meanwhile, check out the car wreck on the corner while the tornado approaches from behind.

The Grellfab product looks great for limited applications, but given that it won't work for the majority of helmet types, there is room for a wide range of products. I'd prefer the TurnedOn or similar for most of what I do, simply because proximity of view is typically out of range.

Yes, this is true that it "can" be done. Check out how that's worked out in past history at the USPA. Swatting flies with a pencil might be easier. Side note, kudos for reading the manual. That puts you at least 10 jumps ahead of most people. Would your opinions be swayed if proof existed of who sent the original "anonymous" email? Asked differently, what would it take for you to step back and take a concerned/factual vs angry/uninformed view, of the entire situation? Would you be more angry if you were to learn the situation is being manipulated? I think Normiss and Top already covered it in their replies. Truth doesn't matter because it doesn't fit the "facts" as reported by an anonymous source who created a falsified email address. Nice.

Yes, this is true that it "can" be done. Check out how that's worked out in past history at the USPA. Swatting flies with a pencil might be easier. Side note, kudos for reading the manual. That puts you at least 10 jumps ahead of most people. Would your opinions be swayed if proof existed of who sent the original "anonymous" email? Asked differently, what would it take for you to step back and take a concerned/factual vs angry/uninformed view, of the entire situation? Would you be more angry if you were to learn the situation is being manipulated?

But... why hasn't Rich resigned or the USPA not suspended him from his duties as S&TA chairman? Winstock _did_ resign. USPA doesn't have a mechanism for suspending a BOD member. If they did, there'd be a BOD member or two swinging in the wind too. [url "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V-we2FRI_ms/UdTjB2UhDyI/AAAAAAAAYi4/auqQper2wwo/s1280/game-of-thrones-chart.jpg"]Game of Thrones,[url] goes skydiving.

I don't know that you were or you weren't. I only know what I heard. But I totally trust the person I heard it from, even though I've never actually met them in person, nor have I met you in person. But it hits an emotional button when a potentially inaccurate rumor hits the web, right? (And that being said, of course I believe you weren't fired from NYPD for anything inappropriate, but it sure got your attention, didn't it?) And therein lies the point (although I do kind of enjoy your lovenotes). You have demonstrated you didn't know what investigations took place, and lack the knowledge of how USPA conducts these investigations. You made it clear you don't know how the investigation is instigated nor by whom, nor how the disciplinary group is assembled. You showed you didn't know how USPA disposes of these investigations. Now you do. And that's a good thing, right? I'd imagine you're not alone in that class. Until I was present for a negligent fatality, I didn't know how it worked either. And I was pretty pissed off at the time, because of how it worked. Now that I've seen it work for quite a few years, I understand and appreciate the thinking behind it. If people don't like the process that has been in place for decades, then it's time to ask your RD's and ND's to change the process. Believe it or not, it's already been changed up once to make it less "good ole' boy." Maybe it needs more massaging. But that's not the current issue, right? All the information is there for everyone to learn at the click of an icon on the internet, the same way you formed your "perception" of this incident. Don't you want to be informed on the very process you're demanding to know more about? A man's reputation, his livelihood, his job is at stake. Does anyone feel it's acceptable to shoot from an uninformed hip? Where roles reversed, would everyone be comfortable having a tremendously uninformed newbie skydiver named Doug_Davis championing your fate? Did Winstock truly swoop a "spectator area?" Are you sure? Where is the proof, other than what was published on the internet, based mostly on an emergency room phone call where pain killers were involved? Have you spoken with anyone other than perhaps a BOD member that has an agenda? How did separate groups come to consistent findings? Were they all paid copious amounts of money? Given a lifetime supply of RedBull? Promised free jumptickets at Winstock's dropzone? How do you suppose such a conspiracy of so many people happened? If this is the case, I feel kinda left out, because I didn't get any swag. "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on," and "it ain't what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know for sure that ain't so." Again I ask... Why is this incident being publically responded to any differently than any other investigation? That's the bigger question, and a more valid one. I have never had a reason to not have faith in the process, and I feel no less confident today. The process has always worked, why this one is different is (I suspect) quite twisted. It's USPA BOD's own very twisted Game of Thrones.

It's not a "someone" that investigates. It's a team known as a Disciplinary Group (DG). (1-6.5 PROCEDURES The procedures contained in this section will apply to all USPA regular members. A. A Disciplinary Group will be formed of: the Safety & Training Committee Chairman, the Group Member Committee Chairman, a National Director (not a member of the Executive Committee) appointed by the President, the relevant Regional Director, and the Director of Safety & Training) Incident reports aren't published (unless you're referring to the generic no-name reports Jim Crouch publishes in Parachutist). The meetings where 1-6's are discussed are also not open to the public. G. Presumption 1. Any member against whom a disciplinary action has been instituted is presumed to be innocent of the charge. This presumption remains until the member is found, in accordance with the procedures outlined herein, to have committed an offense specified in Section 1-6.4.B. 2. To protect a member who is wrongly accused and to protect the rights of all persons affected, the regional director will refrain from discussing any matter relating to the alleged offense with any person not a party to the action and shall express no opinion nor make any statement concerning the facts brought to his attention except as specifically provided in Governance Manual Section 1-6. In other words, this incident is being managed no different than when you've injured an infant on a demo or when you've damaged someone's airplane because you were stoned during a skydive. This is being managed status quo. If you want the publicity status to change, then appeal to your RD to introduce a change in the governance of USPA. Historically these proceedings are kept private. What is the specific social value of information vs how deeply the revelations intrude upon the person’s private activity and its relevance to the community? Just because "you want to know" isn't a viable answer. Since you were NYPD, I'd like to know why you were dismissed for maybe getting a blowjob from a teenager in the back of your squad car, because other guys were doing exactly the same thing. Truth is, it's none of my business because it doesn't affect my daily life nor my decision-making processes. Instead, perhaps ask yourself "why is this incident being managed quite differently than any other incident in the past, particularly by a couple BOD members vs other actions they've been involved with in the past?" At least here I've given you the courtesy of a copy/paste from the USPA Governance Manual. Maybe that'll help you understand the process better. Who wins if Winstock is publicly castrated? Who stands to gain if Winstock is destroyed in the sport? If you're reasonable and intelligent, ask yourself those questions. Specifically, why is this incident being managed differently than any previous incident in USPA history? It's far from the most heinous accusation and as far as I know, the only one that has had multiple separate investigations. In this same vein, why are USPA BOD members posting about it on Dropzone.com and other social media? Seems to me that's where things went off the rails.

You can use GoPro's software to set up profiles for the camera, and with software adjustments, you can make the camera do what you'd like it to do in terms of it's "styling." If you're not working in professional/for broadcast circles, my advice is to stay away from that part of the camera.

Old tech...there are some hacks, but the fact is...iLink and it's replacement is dead. no one really cares about skydiving in the manufacturing world. T'is one of the reasons I really like Replay, their hard vibration lets you know exactly what the camera is doing. And trunk now has the new GoPro remote. And Sony, Drift, and Garmin have wrist indicators.

The CX900 is very impressive... The AVR/D connector is now a thing of the past....those days are over, unfortunately. If you need this feature, you'll do best finding an older model.

The AS100 performed really well, due predominantly to the imager. Shooting XAVC will improve the post processing for low-noise as well.

That's about as good as it gets for a full-face. Do you have a cutaway to install?

no experience other than seeing a sample. It's another GP knockoff using the same chipset as everyone else creating the knockoffs. Very high compression, but it's cheap like everyone else taking advantage of Ambarella blowing out chipsets cheap (Ambarella makes the processing hardware that most of these cameras use)

The licensing model for Peregrine is very funky (and makes it quite expensive over time). Production Assistant (developed by me, with a lot of input from Parachutist/Chris Warnock as it evolved from being a broadcast-only tool to a skydiving tool) is a Sony product, has Sony support, and is a one-off purchase. You don't need to wait for someone to get down from a load to get support. Production Assistant is the original automation tool for Sony Vegas, all the others took their featureset from it.

If making a few phone calls is "spying" on someone, I'm guilty. Forgive me for not simply believing what I read on the internet or what inaccurate statements someone without the balls to sign their name to, sends me. Having worked with/around media most of my life, I'm not quite that color of sheeple. There was once a dude that "allegedly" stole a number of military-modified AADs and sold them into the skydiving world. A person was hurt (nearly killed, according to multiple news reports). When the story went public here, I called the arresting officer and the prosecuting attorney that issued the warrant. I also then called one of the victims. I wanted to know directly before commenting and later writing a story on the situation. I've been a victim of hearsay. I'd just as soon not participate in it, and accessing facts is quite easy these days. For example, you could just read this or you could sign up for this (it was free two years ago), or, you could simply accept everything written about it here on DZ.com (a good portion of which wasn't accurate). If one cares enough to comment on the situation, doesn't one want to be informed of the situation?

This isn't a comprehensive video but it does show Sandy Reid and the prototype Curve and how it's packed. This was a rainy day conversation with Sandy. I now wish we'd set this up better but it's a good view of "what's inside." Can't say enough good about my most comfortable Curv.

My response wasn't directed at you, you were merely the last post. I don't support the GOB, no. What I do support is making phone calls to learn answers for myself. I received an anonymous email which was vitriolic and dishonest about a couple of topics of which I had direct knowledge. Then I learned that the email was sent by a board member, and it didn't take long to connect a few dots. Contrary to popular belief, members of the board are not all buddy-buddy. So, I made some phone calls and found myself reasonably satisfied with the process as explained to me. When the USPA does nothing about an instructor that has negligently contributed to a fatality, an organizer who Photoshops a record, an organizer who has inspired two fatalities at their events even after warned of specific problems, demo jumpers dropping flag weights, battery packs, and GoPro's through roofs, windshields, and canvas awnings, demo jumpers hitting (and injuring) spectators, or when military AADs were stolen/sold into the sport realm and someone injured, I realized that the USPA really doesn't care much about what we do, but I do know that it's not appropriate to single out this particular board member primarily because an anonymous board member says we should. Did Winstock make a bad mistake? Obviously. Is it the mistake illustrated here on DZ.com? Based on several accounts from investigators and people that were actually there... Likely not. I'm satisfied with what I've been told. More than that, I'm not going to second-guess what three different investigations turned up. I do think it's a shame that the situation isn't being made more public but then again, USPA has never before let the world know about their Article 1-6 investigations and if every other tom/dick/harry is entitled to private proceedings, so should Winstock (as have other BOD members and skydivers been protected by the same policy in past investigations). Beyond that, upcoming elections will determine the final disposition of the situation.

Again I ask for those that comment from the peanut gallery; Have you directly asked the president of USPA about this incident? Have you spoken directly with anyone who was part of the multiple investigations? Have you asked your RD about the incident? Have you spoken with the people involved? It's reminiscent of This case or this one... or this one the point being, if you're going to have a trial by internet, at least familiarize yourself with the facts before serving on a jury voting in favor of conviction. Of course, there are some who benefit greatly from fanning flames...and the internet is a great place to recruit anonymous (and not-so-anonymous) pawns.

If you have an unsteady mount, then jello will happen. for example, on any helmet that has a chin strap vs a tight chincup, I'd always expect jello. I'd also always expect it on a full-face that isn't really jammed against the chin.

Thank you for the kind words!

If a camera is going on it, an open face with a cutaway system. For open face, I really love the lightweight of the Tonfly system with the cutaway, audible insert that can be accessed from outside the helmet, and the close fit with the camera inserts. If no camera is going on it, then I want a G3 on my face.

I'm flattered. I'm sure it's the helmet. It is a _very_ big helmet. Even more importantly, I _know exactly_ how to use it.