DSE

On a solo jump, you don't have anyone else to look at/film as they break off or do something you "wish you had a camera for." On a solo jump, there is still yourself (as evidenced in this guy's video where he's making hand signs in front of the camera lens) that can distract you from seeing other canopy traffic or choosing your outs should you find yourself landing off (as this guy did). On a solo or group jump, it's easy to accidentally smoke it low while trying to get a shot, even if all you're doing is "recording your skydive." Then there are the emergency situations. There is one person who was so distracted by his camera that he spent time cutting away a helmet before going for silver (and he didn't go for the cutaway at all). The second(s) spend losing the helmet could have easily been the difference between a good and very bad day for someone. Yes, anything *can* be a distraction. Why deliberately add a distraction to the skydive when there isn't enough experience to back it up when things go wrong?

Not only are they relevant, they are related. While I don't have the statistics in front of me, I would guess that people are seldom colliding under canopy after having jumped from a C182. (Someone correct me if they have statistics that show otherwise.) As a number of previous posters have pointed out, canopies have changed. In general they are faster now. The way loads are flown has changed too, but in a way that results in less safety, not more. I remember the days of multiple passes, but we don't seem to do that anymore. Combine the two changes and it is no wonder that there are more canopy collisions. So, ~we have a more broad access to single-load lift capacity than we did when the training was created. ~We have faster canopies and arguably higher wingloadings. ~We have fewer passes in those larger planes (presumably due in part to the fact that canopies can now fly further, in addition to fuel savings) ~Swooping/high performance turns are a greater component than they were 10 years ago. As a USPA BOD member, can you offer a reason that the USPA doesn't appear to see a valid path to better canopy training, standardized instruction for all skydivers as either part of a license progression or as part of a general learning program sponsored by USPA?

Somewhere on here in my thousands of posts, there is a link to lens comparisons on a CX. you'll be happy with the Century .55, .5, Raynox 3032, Century BAby Death, Opteka .3...I'm forgetting a few. Most of them will need a 30-37 stepup, but a couple will need 30-43 step up.

There are few things in this sport that are 100% anything.... but I'd say that camera is reasonably snag-free. I'm not worried about the "snag-free" in this instance. It's a camera, cameras are distractions. There is a guy that came to Chicks Rock. One of a handful of new jumps on a new rig. Demo canopy (Pulse, so it's docile and has a very long glide). Heli jump. Borrowed a helmet and GoPro from another skydiver. In his YouTube video, you can see him dicking around from the low exit. You can hear his audible go off, and see him realize how low he is. Then after he does deploy, he nearly pulls his risers into line twists and then screws around with the canopy for a bit, giving himself cool hand signs in the camera lens (first camera and first heli jump). He left at the same altitude as others, but couldn't make it to the DZ. Would the same have occurred without the camera? Perhaps. Hopefully someday he'll look back at the YouTube vid and realize "I wasn't thinking too well in this jump..."

I agree. When I see the training that is more or less requisite in Australia, the canopy control processes they have in the Scandinavian countries... USPA could do a lot to look at their methods. Ed Scott handed me a line of thought regarding insurance, litigation concerns, and manufacturer concerns if we had a progression chart like they use in Scandinavia. I don't know that I buy it, but one thing is for certain; We have more canopy collisions here than other countries do. We have more lift capacity too, and perhaps those numbers are relevant. I've attended a canopy control course in Australia, and it was very well done with a great deal more focus on collision avoidance, clouds, etc. I wish we had something from USPA like the APF offers. Curiously enough, I feel PIA offers better information, access to information, and manufacturer-sponsored presentations at the conference than the USPA offers its membership. But...it's not that deeply attended. USPA has access to the Chris Gay Canopy Control training DVD that covers a huge amount of information as well. Perhaps they could do something with that.

now you're twisting words, Chuck. Or, are you advocating that a 200 jump skydiver should be taking the AFFI pre-course so that he learns canopy control? USPA does not believe in advanced training for non-instructional skydivers might be a different way of saying what I said earlier. USPA does not believe in creating instructional ratings intended for teaching advanced/experienced skydivers. When someone has 200 jumps, what USPA-endorsed program is out there to learn Freefly, Canopy Piloting, Wingsuiting, Camera Flying, CRW? Not one. What if that same person doesn't want to become an instructor? Does that mean USPA doesn't care about them? It's people in that range that are killing themselves and each other. Maybe USPA needs to think more about the actuarial curve of incident + experience and provide a clear path to better informing, training, and monitoring. I believe some members of the BOD would like to do that?

The CX series are more wide at full width than their PC counterparts were (generally speaking). So no...you're not doing anything "wrong." You're just using a wider focal width and the stepup ring is gonna extend the FOV to include the edges of the lens. not much you can do about it save it be to go to a proper lens or zoom past the ring.

Premiere on the Mac makes this so easy... It's all about Apple wanting the world their way.

BD supports MPEG2 in the spec. Problem is, iMovie doesn't like MPEG2 either. and iMovie doesn't support BD nor 1080 export. If there was no transcode, scaling, nor recompression, MPEG2 would be a good option, but in most cases a re-comp is required at low bitrates. HDV is MPEG2, FWIW. Revolver is a great tool, but it costs $$. If you're gonna have to spend $$, then Cineform is the better answer, IMO.

It's been clear for many years that this is not 'advanced' training. This is training that should be considered remedial, and required for every jumper looking to earn a license and self-jumpmaster. Scream? How about die? How many people have to die for something before the USPA takes notice? Easy option? Easy, hard, or close to impossible, they should be (and should have been) doing someting. We're entirely on the same page, Dave. Except that I do believe the BOD is going to see any training that doesn't involve pre-A licence instruction as being "advanced" training.

no, that doesn't make sense, AIC is what iMovie likes to eat. Maybe Howard can shed some light on this convo, because he's using iMovie and Toast as part of his workflow.

They don't have to. It's been developed. By very active, articulate, and passionate skydivers. However, the USPA has made clear on mulitple occasions that they do not believe in being involved in advanced training. They want to make new skydivers, and make rules and training to keep those new skydivers safe. Everything else is not much of an afterthought in the whole of the USPA's direction. BOD members (as individuals) seem to agree that additional training options should be created, with some sort of advanced path. I proposed something not terribly different than the Coach 1/Coach 2 system that Canada uses, and it was thought to be too complex. The USPA has several options here. ~"Buy" an existing canopy control course and modify it for general distribution (somewhat like what has happened with the Skydive U content). ~Promote/produce a canopy control course tour that went from DZ to DZ based on regional sensibilities. Use the team from Flight 1 as instructors/coaches, and set a fee scale commensurate with their normal fees /X factor (more people attending, promotional costs paid by USPA, therefore canopy coach is paid less per head). I suspect that if there were enough dates/stops in the region, a successful fee scale could be negotiated. ~ Use the course already submitted to the USPA and give the authors a pat on the back. Require that all group members/DZ's host this event or co-locate this training event by "X" date in 2011. ~Revisit the "Advanced Coach Rating" discussion and use a blend of the options available above. Advanced coach rating system could be applied to every discipline in skydiving, but that would also require some modifications to the way that the USPA views training. The focus has only been on students, never on advanced/experienced skydivers. Students aren't colliding with others all that often, students aren't pounding in under hook turns. The folks at USPA generally mean well, and most of the BOD (IMO) are really great people but many are out of touch with what's going on in the "real world." They're just too damn busy running their DZ's to take the time to fly around to boogies, funjump at bigger DZs, or see how others are managing things. But...if they can't see the value in changing up the safety culture and opportunities for safety then they need to shut up about rising Workman's Comp and insurance costs. The USPA BOD vote is coming up soon. Have a hard look at the candidates that vote down working processes such as an advanced coach course or vote against taking disciplinary action when there is a fatality that involves negligent actions and surviving skydivers. Look at who is actively involved in skydiving as a skydiver vs being a DZO. I truly believe the USPA board would implement a program if enough people scream for it and an easy option is placed before them. The option is there. Now folks need to scream.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3881657#3881657 Let's keep this one going instead of a new one on the same camera. Thanks!

Vegas Premiere Canopus Pinnacle Speedrazor all work with the HV30

If my iPod makes me appear aloof and unfriendly to someone, then they have a problem. It doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone who wishes to have conversation. One ear is generally open. We did have a dialog; perhaps lack of memory plagues you. And my iPod was in my ear. 100 wingsuit jumps=just getting started, IMO. And yes...wingsuit jumps generally are different. Last out, 3 min flights, last to land, no traffic to worry about (most of the time).

If perhaps you're hinting I missed an exit changeup, identify exactly when and where. I've only ever been on a couple loads with you, and that was when you first began wingsuiting. If you feel my iPod is a deterrent to a conversation during the skydive...that's a different discussion.

And that's kinda the point of this discussion, isn't it? Most of us "old fogeys" would rather you not go before us.

One would think so, but if I need to have a reality check...here we are. As mentioned, saw MANY FFCs with cameras. And commented on it to two of them. If nothing else, it demonstrates a lack of instructor/coach awareness.

I suspect most deaf people will tell you that this is more or less a myth. I would think even moreso under canopy. No touch, taste, smell, under canopy. I can't disagree that an irresponsible user of a PLD could increase the odds of a canopy collision. So could a tinted faceshield, and any number of other potential issues. Agreed that on the whole, the idea of increased collision is probably accurate; how many of the canopy collisions in the past 5 years have involved a PLD and an experienced skydiver or deaf person?

I'd forgotten that Howard was using Titanium for conversions. thanks for the reminder.

Two of my best friends that skydive are deaf. There is little difference between their deafness and my wearing my iPod in one ear. Except that I can hear in both ears. Even with the iPod. I do not ever wear an iPod except on wingsuit flights. I do not advocate anyone with fewer than 500 or more skydives consider it. I don't see the value of an iPod on anything but wingsuit jumps where it's quiet and the flight is lengthy. YMMV.

Read through some of my posts. I'm not at all anti-GoPro. I have several. Use them regularly, especially for AFF and wingsuit FFCs. Fast, filebased, lightweight, and can get multiple angles. The rubberband is a safety feature to hold the housing closed because GoPro hasn't yet sent me a replacement latch. I even have a chest mount, mudflap mount, wrist mount....for the GP. :-)

Jeff, your story must not be true, because every one knows GoPro mounts and nylon nuts will shear when placed under a load. Except...an archery scale says 200lbs of force below the base on a GP mount, almost 50lbs on the plastic before it shears. Never tested nylon nuts, but your story indicates that they won't always shear as expected. So many of the younger jumpers seem to think they've got it all figured out but the truth is, many have not yet figured out what questions to ask, let alone the answers. Your story is one I frequently use; the video is scary to watch and hear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmpt4T8Hyic A short training piece.

You must have had a setting off in Handbrake, because it's pretty darn good. Revolver is another tool that works well. So does Cineform.