skydog

Bang on the money.......... 99% of camermen need not do anything else, especially if filming tandems/AFF etc. For specialist shoots then some in depth knowledge is required. Auto everything saves a lot of hassle, its there, it works, so use it and don't feel embarrassed to say loud and proud "I USE AUTOFOCUS"........... Journey not destination.....

Obviously someone doesn't think this is a good idea.........hopefully the DZO!!! Journey not destination.....

As an aside, it also makes for a poor video, for the paying customer. The TI spends most of the time looking for the jumper and pays scant attention to his priority, the customer..............or is that just me??? Journey not destination.....

Why would you let yourself be used as a target? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWHXU-7Hn1I Can anyone justify this??? Journey not destination.....

Statistically I would be more worried about an aircraft emergency than being incapacitated...........BTW does it happen a lot in general or just to you Aggiedave? I know of 1 crash where the hooked up student probably killed the TI, but inside a small A/C, unless fully restrained, isnt this always going to be a possibility?? Using the Americanism, it is easy to armchair quarterback this, but if an incident causes us to think what we do and how we do it, then it is a good thing. Journey not destination.....

I understand the take-off emergencies. However, UK rules also dictate that restraints are used on take off. And the BPA mandates that all tandems are fully hooked up on take off. So in the UK there is no choice but I have no real issue with it. As for overloading a 172. All weights and balances etc were checked and we weren't on the MAUW. Journey not destination.....

Those figures were for tandems......stop trying to be pedantic!! The procedure used is simple......TI with back to pilot, student fully hooked up sat in between TI's legs. Camera next to pilot, back to the control stick. (assuming 3 on load). If 4 then the someone occupies the space rearward of the door. Isn't an issue to rotate the tandem pair (unless the TI is very fat) to a kneeling position and do the final tighten of the side laterals. In the 172 (in NZ) with 2 pairs of tandem, one TI was sat back to rear firewall and the other sat facing the control panel next to the pilot (very tight) but again both hooked up. No CofG issues............ However, the point is simple, why not hook up prior to take off? I am open to any valid safety suggestions making this a bad idea!!! Journey not destination.....

And that's where you assume too much. Have done about 600 from a 182 and about 100 from a 172 (even smaller) and always been fully hooked up, and no CofG issues, go figure! So instead of playing the "you have never" game, open your mind to consider anything that looks at safety.............. Journey not destination.....

I don't understand why tandem students aren't fully hooked up (not necessarily fully tightened side laterals) on take off? Surely an aircraft emergency isn't the time to hook up? This is one area where the British system may be safer than the US??? Journey not destination.....

Maimed is another. BOLLOX Then post a summary of what has changed on this airfoil along with a manufacturer statement that the new and improved version is as safe in turbulence as any other canopy. "Injury, death, and maimed" are my only personal association with a HOP but I understand that they're very good canopies for wide open DZs.[/r] Can you detail where they have specifically "killed and maimed"? I have jumped one around 2000 times and have not encountered any problem that would stop me using one. All I know is that out of the 7 different tandem canopies I have jumped I would go with the HOP first off.......... That's why I say BOLLOX to your statement. Prove the canopy is a killer and I may change my mind. Journey not destination.....

Maimed is another. BOLLOX Journey not destination.....

Seems like an exclusive club your in then Where else would you put it?? Journey not destination.....

Looks like just you then!! I have used the secondary on a few occasions with no issue, and cutaway with the secondary in place with no issue. Have you jumped one? Journey not destination.....

Looks like swimming with sharks!!!! Journey not destination.....

There is no way I am climbing anything, I do have a fear of fixed heights.............but the shark diving I can do...........so long as you are the one with the meat strapped to you!!!! The filming was a blast, especially because of, in spite, of all those people who said it couldn't be done....... Journey not destination.....

Especially after the lanyard trapped Marks twig and berries!!! burn baby burn, disco inferno!!!!!! Journey not destination.....

That's a lie.........the chair survived freefall, thanks to some marvellous rigging work and the awesome skills of Mark...... But it didn't survive the petrol and match!!!! Journey not destination.....

Yeah but they didn't do it in a barbers chair!!!! Journey not destination.....

Check this: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=11980062071 Awesome..... Journey not destination.....

But can it be done with "normal" skydiving camcorders? If it can, I would buy one!!! Journey not destination.....

In order: 1, Naming the examiners you spoke to. 2, Nothing. 3, Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Journey not destination.....

Could always use the Force.........as a Jedi Knight myself I find it works better than any electrogizmo... Journey not destination.....

Not touchy.........but it does seem your bluff has been called. What makes you think this has not been brought up already??? Very bad assumption on your behalf. So what your saying is the USPA system produces lower quality instructors? If it is, then just come out and say it.............. Otherwise I am outta here...and still recommend Jay as an excellent course director. Journey not destination.....

Mirror on the altimeter..............like back in the days before cam-eye Journey not destination.....

Sorry, but where are you? and who have you been talking too? I have hard video evidence showing what can only be descibed as "outrageous" manoeuvres. I have to say it has been only a couple of examiners, but 2 is too many, don't you agree?? Also, I been sat listening to conversations during a course about who was going to do what to who adn how much practice it has taken to perfect the manoeuvre............calling me a liar? I haven't failed the course, so have no axe to grind on that count. But I know which examiners I would rather be examined by and those I wouldn't. How many current UK examiners do you know and have regular contact with? and who are they? PM me if you don't want to publicly say. I would very much doubt that any examiner would admit to it. So why would they tell you? BUT what your also doing is calling into question my motivation for posting what I wrote, which is a bit cheeky, as you have no idea who I am. From your previous posts you seem to have an axe to grind reference AFF instruction other than BPA, which is strange because your not even a BPA member? Just becuse you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist................Do you know categorically that it has never happened?? So try and whale on someone else's ass........ And if your calling into question my skills then what your doing is questioning the course director, Jay Stokes, who passed me. Is that what your saying?? PM me to discuss further if you have any hard evidence otherwise. Journey not destination.....