DSE

other than you and Twardo, no one is older than Spot.

An individual who has been made skillful or wise through experience. Next question ... my close friend's daughter is older than he is. Is it inappropriate for me to date her?

"What is experienced?" for 500, please?

This screenshot should show you everything you need to know to render back to the 720p60. Note at the top I've named it; you should do the same, and then click the "Save" icon after you've created the preset. Name it something familiar like "GoPro60." Keep in mind, this file will NOT play back on the GoPro. To do so would require some mods, and I don't know that the Cineform codec can be re-wrapped and played on the camera. I'll do some testing if that's really important, but not certain of positive result. The camera is not intended as a playout device.

you've got the right idea; the base is a more sturdy platform, and conforms to the camera better. It is indeed a little more clean on the mount, and it's what I prefer. The link will work fine too, but can work its way loose. Congrats on wanting to be a videographer vs a GoPro baby!

I can build you a set of presets, if you can tell me which GoPro settings you've got going on.

Last year a woman was badly injured on an R44 when the skid lifted after the other side exited and a hard point caught her arm. The typical "boogie heli" is a smaller aircraft, and you'll want some experience, particularly if it's to be your first heli exit.

you can also render it back to .mp4 in Vegas, exactly the same. You'll need to choose the template that uses the same settings/resolution as what came from the GoPro.

I dunno if it was or wasn't (not my story) but it sure appears that way.

Check this out @ 2:43 to get an idea of what is possible.

Card to slot (or use wifi cards if you're really desperate to get that footage in) Slot starts Xfer while playing over network player. Less than 1 min from walk in to playback in *optimal* circumstances. Figure 5 mins for videographer to walk in after tandem landing, but this will vary by geography (true, I didn't consider geography in my time consideration). once ingested, a fast editor using a template can cut in a couple mins. Using a tool like Production Assistant...faster.

Edited version? 10 mins. just the jump? 5 mins

Craig, FWIW, my Contours are Roams; they don't have the bluetooth interface. Same image quality, just no remote control.

I like #1. Brighter colors are easier to spot in the sky, and on the ground (in the event of a cutaway)

Craig, I have both; you're welcome to try em'. There is also the RePlay, which is more Contour-like than anything. Contour has a few ease-of-use factors that beat the GP in my opinion. GP and RePlay have the Contour significantly beat for mounts. Aiming is easy with the contour, it has a laser to show you where you're pointing, so helmet setup is very easy. Resolution is identical on the two. If resolution is your main priority, then you might look at the new Sony, although it has fewer mounting options, it has the largest native sensor of any of the action cams available, so low light is better, stabilization is better, colors are more natural.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/165725_1681172142480_8320761_n.jpg here is a deployment in a wing-open, stalled config. Many times this is referred to as "full flight" because everything is open.

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/251281_1906505535565_4654156_n.jpg Does that help?

Fatality (not a good example) Instructor-shopping (not a good example) Tailstrike (not a good example) Lack of Recovery knowledge (not a good example) Pictures of tailstrikes, near tailstrikes (not a good example) Videos of tailstrikes (not a good example) Banning of wingsuits from DZ's around the world (not a good example) According to you and a few others, every example provided (AFF, Dan's death, tailstrikes, Steve's death, other wingsuit incidents) are all "bad examples." What would constitute a "good example?" It's convenient to reject any example, but it's certainly not constructive. You titled yourself a "birdman examiner." What is the difference between you and your own birdman standards examining someone for their skills, vs USPA having a standard and USPA standards examining an instructor candidate, other than you being incentivized to sell suits/financial agenda? With USPA, that financial agenda more or less goes away. The brandwars founded at the instructional level go away. Help me to understand what makes a birdman examiner with no USPA background any better/different than a USPA-trained Examiner that already holds an Instructional rating, following USPA standards, has attended an IERC, who is required to maintain currency through the USPA process?

You're *possibly* right. But not likely. We can play shell games all day long with this, but statistics both in and out of skydiving demonstrate that cultural changes occur with standardization. A different culture would have saved Dan's life. The same can be suggested for other incidents. Get your AFFI rating or C/E rating if you can. Going through the I/E or AFFI process will help you understand why most of the people opposed to a WSI program are people with no instructional background whatsoever. It takes real work, real effort. Sure...some less-than-stellar people make it through the programs sometimes. But...they do receive their instructional rating based on a non-biased, objective standard to which they had to teach and fly. What they do with it after that...is all dependent on the person. Just because there are some bad apples doesn't mean we should throw away the programs. AFF is a resounding success. Standardized tandem and static line instruction is a resounding success. Standardization of the tunnel-coaching programs is a resounding success. And on the whole, the culture of all those facets has great integrity. Most people who worked for their instructional rating genuinely care about the quality of their instruction and those they teach. Say what you will; had standardized instructional procedures been followed, Dan Kulpa would not have died. Chuck Blue followed standardized instructional procedures. Dan surely didn't die under Chuck's care. Chuck is an instructor. A real instructor, operating under the instructor rating processes and mindset promoted by USPA, a national standards and lobby organization. Chuck didn't fail Dan, Chuck acted like an instructor. Dan didn't fail Dan; the system, Dan's "instructor" failed Dan. Perhaps only a 'real instructor' understands what that means. Existing instructors "get it." If the rest of us don't "get it" then at some point, the DZO's and FAA will help us "get it." We're just like swoopers in the early days. Had the training culture been created for swooping "back in the day," we likely wouldn't be seeing the low-turn deaths at the rate we have now. Lives would likely have been saved. Clearly, saving lives and quality of life is very important to everyone here, especially those opposed to a WSI rating pointing to failures in canopy training as a reason to not focus on wingsuits. re; tailstrikes There aren't numbers being skewed or made 'hysterical.' Tailstrikes have been on the increase since 2004, both reported and unreported. The incidents didn't materialize out of thin air. They either happened or they didn't. A wingsuit was involved. The jump numbers and suit size are either correct or not. The type of aircraft is what it was or isn't. And the costs involved in repairing those aircraft are either real or not. It just is what it is in ugly black and white. Jumping Caravans and Otters all day, we _know_ there are exit techniques that are lower risk than others. Tailstrikes may be reduced through standardized instructional methods. DZO's, S&TA's, FAA, NTSB are all interested in reducing risk. Why aren't you? IMO, your reasoning is as flawed as your opposition to the BSR. Even back in 2005, apparently you felt standardization was a good thing? Remove the personal issues and look at the core conversation. At one time, we agreed on this. Not one individual has provided a reason to not have industry-sponsored standardized training. Those that support it have provided dozens of reasons in favor. Those opposed scream "it'll kill wingsuiting, it won't make any difference, bad decisions can still be made, this is about money, blah blah blah." At the end of the day, standardized practices, mandatory FFCs for newbies _will_ change the culture, it _will_ create a better awareness of safety, it _will_promote the sport/discipline at competitive and recreational levels. The successes at wingsuiting schools using standardized methods bear this out. Non-skydiving statistics bear this out as well. You're correct; instruction based on _current_ culture will remain shoddy and haphazard. We need to change the culture. Do we really want to be standing here in 10 years saying "shit, if we'd only gotten a grip on this thing back then?" Cultural changes occur with standardization. A lot of people feel that's a good thing.

Dan Kulpa is an example of why a formalized, overseen program offers great benefit. Dan was told he could not wingsuit yet. Dan's lack of preparedness/knowledge was apparent to people in the room with him prior to his fatal jump. He instructor-shopped. Same instructor was warned that Dan didn't appear to be ready to wingsuit. Not only poor instruction, but an instructor and student warned that the student wasn't ready to take on the wingsuit. Dan died through a process that had standard instructor procedures been followed, would absolutely not have happened. Dan's death wasn't due to student screwup (we're all responsible for ourselves, yet we cannot dismiss the onus on an "instructor" who is being paid to help the student 'know what he doesn't know).

glad you found the cause, and thanks for sharing the find!

yep you can also delete .sfk files. Those files aren't "hidden..." Just look at your prefs to see where you've directed them.

Steve Harrington died presumably being fully open out of a Twin Otter, in a suit smaller and less pressurized than a couple of the suits seen in these pix. Are you suggesting that an Otter is exempt from tailstrikes unless it's faster than usual?

Who is "gearing up to travel and clean up in the mobil WS instructor examiner arena?" Are you referring to Simon's new truck? https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/250706_321479044601463_344584350_n.jpg It's pretty sweet looking, but I didn't realize Simon was a USPA Examiner?

Other than the aspects of size...we're on exactly the same page. No fruits, no veggies. Meats. I consider potatoes a meat; Skin and eyes... Food is highly personal; it's always annoying when someone tells you that "you're not eating right."