DSE

I agree with a one-year coach rating, but disagree with the current 6 hours of freefall and would rather see a minimum jump number. Why? One person got his AFF rating after around 300 jumps, most of them wingsuit. He'd never once coached a student.

Just curious, by what measure would you separate FLDS and LDS with regard to this question?

Then you'll need to purchase an NLE software application. Most anything you pay for will edit MP4. Sure, you can convert to use in WMM, but two dramatic experiences take place. A-takes a while to convert, tossing the value of file-based/card based camcorders out the window. B-Significant loss in quality. Both can be avoided by using any one of a dozen NLE software apps starting at around 60.00 in cost.

Given that there are those screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling, and claiming that there WILL BE fatalities as a result of poor AFFI performance, threatening court appearances etc...then there must be a significant problem, which statistics would bear out in some form. It's not at all unreasonable to ask for at least a few instances that are documented, and can point to poor/incomplete training. If there is such a huge need for change, provide the "why" proof vs the "I've been around, dude, and it needs to change" argument. Who says they're lesser in quality? A bunch of guys on the internet who already have their rating, that's who. Is it real, or is it more of a focus on an issue that is no different than it once was? Wasn't all that long ago I had a DZO of one of the largest DZ's in the world explaining how bad some of the AFFI's were just a few years ago, and explained how one I/E would even "put in his order" for who he'd be sleeping with during the course program. I'm simply not all that impressed with some of the "old dogs" compared to the new dogs, once time in sport is removed from the discussion. Recently watched a "hot shit" old dog come back to re-certify. He musta lost a lot of talent between old program and new, because he didn't successfully complete the "new" course. And he was once a JM. I couldn't agree more. It's been discussed here, and I'm told it's been discussed by members of the BOD for the past couple of years. I'd additionally recommend a requirement for 10 coach jumps with debriefs overseen by a veteran. Require they teach at least one FJC overseen by a veteran. Can you provide proof that bringing back the JM rating will absolutely guarantee greater safety? You're gonna have to start higher than the AFFI program. Get the I/E's to do their jobs. If this was corporate structure, we'd be screaming for better management (which in this case, is the I/E's). Cost and little else. I'm mostly on your side. The histrionics become where we part ways.

Agreed. I'm not a mod in the wingsuit forum, however.

Rigging Innovations makes rig covers for tunnel use. They call it the "Tunnel Wrap." I have a photo of one somewhere, if I can find it, I'll post it. Some tunnels won't allow a cover to be used.

Give up on em' both. Install VLC. Be sure everything is shut off in the background. Report back.

Really sad to see no one has mentioned Randy Rhoads. Randy was not only a fabulous guitarist that opened doors for guys like Eddie Van Halen, he was a passionate and super nice guy both before and after fame. He was always very humble about his skill. Don't forget Segovia. Pat Metheny. Brian May...

It's not a lens "problem." A wide adapter merely widens what the camera already has as a maximum wide angle. If the camera is say...55mm (wide image becomes 26.5mm wide) and you stick a .5 on the front of it, it will be nowhere near as wide as it would be putting that same lens on a camera that has a 38mm (becomes 19mm) width. As Parachutist suggests, zooming in to get rid of the vignetting will remove any value in having a wider lens, and one might as well buy a less wide lens. No one likes vignetting but if the wider lens tells a better story...content is king.

It's still always gonna be about the story, and you're right, some stories won't lend themselves to the "in your face" 3D technology, but 3D does afford filmmakers some very cool tools for the audience. Gimmicky 3D isn't going to improve the story. I am looking forward to seeing Avatar, both for the story and the production value.

Branded correctly or no...if the theater was able to correct it by switching drives at the projector, they screwed up. I'll still prolly take my own Proview glasses.

I'm not looking for "accurate statistics," I'm interested in ANY statistics. A few examples that can be tied to the Incidents database going back four years would suffice. You know the USPA is going to ask for them too. I'm reasonably sure the number of tandem incidents outnumber AFF-related incidents at least 50:1. Is anyone suggesting the TI rating (which carries a TREMENDOUSLY greater responsibility), is "too easy?"

Decode issues are almost always tied to one of two issues; -Licensing -CPU speed CPU speed can be problematic when running antivirus, background apps, network searching for hardware, or general system resources. Or, it just might be older and slower. MPEG decoding is VERY processor intensive. It's one of the reasons Apple doesn't like MPEG much.

Point of trivia...some manufacturers make the glasses backwards in order to avoid paying licensing royalties.

Center point vs establishing points in the frame can be offset, so imagine one eyeball looking squarely at someone's face while the other eyeball is looking at something behind them. If the focal points aren't rectified on the same plane of space, it will create a sense of imbalance. "Cutting" simply refers to the edit points. Not having seen "Avatar" yet, I assume they're not properly following some "simple" rules that aren't so simple. I suspect we'll see a lot more of this in the future until stereophotography is no longer an art, but rather commonplace. Another possiblility is that they're cutting against eye-trace, which would give the brain four separate points to process at the edit. That would be a mental trainwreck.

Quicktime reader. For playback, Pro makes no difference. Anything QT Pro PLAYS, so will QT basic.

The "conditional AFFI" rating had an icon next to it because it was a joke, just as it was when the rating was recently issued. Where does the line get drawn? It's a well known fact that at least a couple I/E's will hand out a rating if the candidate is cute enough and will provide sexual favor. It's well known that this occurred under the old program and new. Is this the fault of the USPA? Fault of way the programs are set up? Fault of the I/E? Fault of the candidate? It's one thing to scream the program is broken. Even when you offer a mostly complete solution, they will be exceptionally hesitant to fix the problem you feel you've identified. Further, has a problem been truly identified? So far, all I see is a number of opinions, all of which come from those who already have their rating and have nothing to lose. Absent injury stats, fatality stats, no actual incidents that specifically can be attributed to AFFI failure, negligence, error, nor even contribution, a collection of very biased opinions is as meaningful and valuable as gum on the bottom of a shoe. C'mon...if the problem is SO bad, then at least provide an ATTEMPT at listing statistics. If there are incidents, collate them to make at least a semblance of argument not based on emotion. This is entirely a subjective topic when presented without one iota of fact to back up the position. My opinion is that the Coach rating is a stepping stone for the AFFI rating, and it would seem that a fair percentage of those that get the Coach rating do go on to earn the AFFI. 100 jumps is a fine milestone, IMO, for someone to achieve a Coach rating, assuming they can be able to teach, and are allowed/encouraged to use those skills on the ground, with perhaps a required # of coached jumps signed off by a DZO or S&TA prior to challenging the AFFI course. I believe you're wrong that this will produce "outstanding" instructors. I believe it will provide greater opportunity for "outstanding" instructors. I like the idea of a petition, even if I don't believe the problem is as deep as you suggest. Some facts might change my perspective. I can't agree with your petition in toto, but applaud the attempt. However, this still doesn't address the ethically challenged AFFI/E question. Dissatisfaction is a catalyst for change. Good luck.

I entirely agree with the concept. I do have a problem with a few of the I/E's that hand these things out regardless of qualification. Rather than considering them AFFI's in training, it could simply be said that they're "conditional AFFI's."

The choppiness isn't a Quicktime problem, it's a decode problem on your computer. My dual quad machine plays all modes of the GoProHD without issue. I don't run any antivirus, and keep all background apps closed. MovieMaker won't support the MP4 codec because Microsoft is still hoping they can get VC1 accepted as a standard. MovieMaker in Win7 won't edit the MP4 files, but at the least, Winmedia player now opens them.

I imagine that is for the "conditional student" who will do everything right. DSE- I seriously doubt that the EC is reading this or any other thread. . I was present as one member was reading it a few days ago and when same EC member had a conversation with another EC member on the phone at a later date. As mentioned previously, I had a face to face discussion with a member of the EC about the BS issuance of a so-called "conditional AFFI" rating.

Which side is the reserve side? Is it always the left side? How about on a 182, where the left-side jumpmaster starts with two grips? How about on other aircraft where the left-side jumpmaster is in a better position to control the exit? Is the idea of a "conditional rating" that if the jumpmaster screws up there won't be serious consequences? If that's the case, why not just dispense with the apprentice and make it a 1-jumpmaster jump? I don't get it. Mark There is no such "conditional rating." Why it was issued? Maybe someone here has an idea. I'm confident that her age, appearance, and personality weren't part of the rating process, because I/E's are professionals.

Greg and Eilene in Oz...jumping V3's

one thing I failed to mention. If they're Mac users, you'll need to copy the entire folder/subfolder tree intact. If they're using a PC, just the AVCHD stream folder is necessary. Log and import will often error without the BDMV files

Meh...that law has no teeth behind it.

You can just copy the .mts files. If they're using a Mac, make sure you tell them to Log/Import or use a conversion tool (several of them now, but Voltaic is popular). If they're using a PC, most any newer version of any NLE will open them, even the el-cheapo NLE's. Burn a data DVD of the files.