BMFin

Because tandem!

Looks like you didnt read the text in this thread and you definetly havent jumped this canopy. This canopy actually NEEDS to be given rear riser input on opening. (it even says so in the manual)

Wow, that chin mount is awesome !!

My thoughts: A)You spend a lot of time on double fronts before any rotation B)Your rotation seems to be rather fast Now Im not saying what you are doing is necessarily wrong. Im just afraid that long double fronts like that with 270 rotation might make it more difficult to hit your gates precisely. Basically your not really leaving much room for adjusting the speed of rotation any faster at the end with this technique. So in order to hit the gates AND come out of the dive at the right altitude, you would need to start the long double fronts always at the right altitude, and always know visually how much distance you are going to travel before you start rotating above the target area. IMO you dont need to make it so complex. My choice would be to use less double fronts in the beginning and slow down that rotation a bit. I personally would feel this would make my accuracy better and my setup wouldnt have to be so precisely at the right altitude to start with.

Cool ! Some other TI´s have also told me positive things about this method via PM´s. It seems they are unwilling come forward about this in public since in the previous threads some people were so hysterical about this and considered it unsafe and reckless. Now it seems more and more people are starting do it and are having positive experiences. It actually seems to be safer than TI held handcam? Perhaps soon this situation is going to be reversed? Maby after some time, even the old dinosaurs will admit it is safer if the customer holds the handcam? EDIT: I first said I couldnt find the earlier thread on this subject, but now I found it: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4395298

May I ask what exactly makes you think this happened in the US?

It seems you are mixing two totally different things together. A)Doing this stunt with a wuffo customer B)Doing this stunt with an experienced skydiver as a passanger Now I would be interested to hear about a lawsuit against a manufacturer that was filed because two experienced skydivers used a piece of tandem gear in a way it wasnt ment to be used in the first place and they accepted the risks involved. Obviously tandem gear mfgs have been sued because tandem students have been killed, but you shouldnt confuse this matter in this discussion IMO. Im sure you understand the difference

Yeah, most likely I would recieve the same kind of response if I were to ask about how manufacturers feel about doing mr.bill´s on their sport rigs. IMO it´s my gear, I paid for it, so I can do what ever I want with it. It never even occured to me how would mirage feel if I were to make a mr.bill on my own gear. To be honest, its none of their business.

Why exactly would the manufacturer not like it? Shoudnt they rather be thankful for any test pilots doing any kind of product testing on their gear? Is the manufacturer of my normal harness system going to get mad if I decide to make a mister bill on my rig?

Any more tandem operators doing this nowadays? Just out of curiosity, id be interested to hear some experiences. btw. Its funny, since I remember there was another thread about this, but I cant seem to find it no matter what I search. Did someone perhaps feel this is somehow inconvenient topic to discuss?

PD had to pay royalties to Brian Germain for every airlocked canopy they sold, so they couldnt make as much profit from selling this design.

I always use AV (aperture priority) This is because I want to have the best aperture for my lens. Every lens has an optimal aperture. For example the Canon 10-22mm performs sharpest at 5.6. Therefore I prefer to set my camera on AV and for 5.6 A few test shots on the way to altitude (through the window) to see what shutter speeds this yields. I always want to be above 1/500 sec. Anything below that often causes motion blur. If theres not enough light, then bring up the ISO value untill you get faster shutterspeeds than 1/500

I would place the still camera on the top, get rid of the sony, place a go pro on the front. The flash should have room on the top (laying flat next to the still camera)

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/09/15/camera-lens-falls-from-sky-through-roof-of-petaluma-home/

I think Lazlo shot the 70-200 from the plane. I think I have told this before, but there is however at least one guy in Finland who shoots 70-200mm + 1.4 extender in freefall. He shoots hand held and aims through the view finder. He used to be one of the old school pioneers in freefall photography but he suffered some injuries to his neck due to all the weight he was carrying. His neck is now partly titanium and he can no longer have any weight on his head and therefore he had to start shooting hand held. He has even experimented using a gyro stabilizer. http://www.ken-lab.com/stabilizers/2012-02-04-21-28-47/gyro-stabilizers/ks-10-gyro-detail I think some of the photos he gets are quite unique, but getting a good shot at this focal range in freefall doesnt only need skill, it needs a lot of luck too. I would think even Jussi admits this kind of focal range in freefall is not really suitable for freefall photography. Like many others, I have also shot sometimes with a 50mm on APS-C (equivalent to 85mm on full frame) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=115026; IMO the biggest difference on this focal lenght is the backdrop you get. Basically you could compose the subject to be the same size on a wide angle that is shot closer, but the FOV of the background would just be much wider without much bokeh. On a photo, it may look nice, but IMO most of the times the difference isnt enough to compensate the issues you are dealing with focusing and composing. However, I think the visual difference becomes much more noticable when shooting video. I would rather think the troubles with shooting a larger focal lenght are worth it on video. When the background is "moving fast" behind the subject, the visual importance of the background suddenly becomes so much more noticable in my opinion.

I think the opposite. More is more IMO. More is more overall, and in sports, that's the general attitude. IMO, Super shallow DOF doesn't really work in skydiving, and supershallow DOF annoys the hell out of me in cinematic work. Shallow DOF...great in anything. The over-the-top that is becoming popular with the f1.4 crowd... Yes, I agree. I also think shallow DOF isnt really going to work in skydiving. This is (among other things) why I prefer the smaller sensor over Full frame.

I think the opposite. More is more IMO.

Well, yeah. The 1Dx seems to be the first Full frame that can compete with the frame rates of the smaller sensors. However, it seems to be the only FF body that could really outperform a 7D in skydiving enviroment even though it makes a shallover DOF. So, yes. A 6000 dollar full frame can outperform a 1000 dollar APS-C. In a way it proves my point.

In my opionon a Full frame is inferior in skydiving enviroment because it has slower FPS and shallower DOF. Full frame is not for sports photography.

I have never flown speedriding canopies, but from the videos I have seen I recall the rear risers have been constructed so that they are made much easier to operate. Perhaps someone could tell us more about those?

I agree. Loops wouldnt work. Perhaps thats why no one has ever even suggested such a thing.

Yeah, I also thought that it is most likely Nigel Holland since the Youtube account belongs to a user called Nigel Holland. Since Im not exclusively wishing to hear one persons opinion I rather discuss this topic here, where we may also hear many different perspectives. At the moment Im especially interested to discuss these two topics: -Should we consider teaching this type of approach instead for the newer canopy pilots who yet dont master the "switch"? -Should we start developing some newer designs for rear risers that are constructed in a manner that allows better grip? I guess Matt002 pretty much answered my first question. The progression canopies arent responsive enough in terms of harness input, so I guess thats that. But how about the second question? The way I see it, is that the canopy mfg industry is doing a lot of R&D for the canopies from a swoopers perspective. They can effectively market their brand by succeeding in CP-competitions. On the otherhand, I think that other gear mfg´s like container mfg´s wont care about swoopers since at the moment, it doesnt really make a difference which type of harness container system you fly for example. At the moment they dont consider swooping as a dicipline through which they could effectively market their product. Many container mfg´s have chosen freelying as their advertizing dicipline. I brought the rear riser question to the table, because I think it is kind of strange that rear risers have still the same design as they had during the days where they were not really used for giving piloting input to the canopy. IMO its pretty strange that canopy pilots are supposed to give a substantial amount of piloting input to their canopy from a riser that offers such a poor usability. To me it seems like canopy pilots take it as given that the gear is what it is, and wont really bother to think how to improve it. AFIK, new steps like belly straps etc, were not invented by gear mfg´s. They were invented by some pioneer swoopers them selves. Perhaps if a gear mfg made some R&D, invented some solution that was pantentable, they might have substantial revenues from selling their product and licensing other manufacturers using this advancement every swooper now wants. It could be however, that the major container mfg´s in the US consider swooping as too risky and are in fear of lawsuits incase someone goes in with their gear. I dont know.

BTW. Heres the videoclip that made me think about this. I didnt want to link this in the opening post, since I wanted to talk about this on a more general level and not talk about this specific swoop. Also I wouldnt want to start judging someones swoops here on public since the guy never asked for it, and Im pretty sure he wouldnt care too much on what I think. Basically it seems like a nice and smooth 450 IMO and I have nothing negative to say about it so heres the link. http://youtu.be/SEK2NmVhVXo?t=1m33s What I gather from this video (and discussion) is that he is flying his setup rather fast in full flight, which might make it a bit harder to fly for the sweet spot for your initiation point at the right altitude. The double fornt approach with flying the setup on brakes definetly gives you more time to find your spot more composedly. On the other hand he wont have to worry about making the transition from fronts to rears since hes already there. IMO the switch from fronts to rears take practice to master 100%. When doing it during the rotations or right at the end of the rotations you have quite a lot of G-loading and getting the best possible grip on a riser that isnt really ment to be grabbed (doesnt have any loops or handles) can be difficult unless you have done it enough. This brings me towards 2 next questions: -Should we consider teaching this type of approach instead for the newer canopy pilots who yet dont master the "switch"? -Should we start developing some newer designs for rear risers that are constructed in a manner that allows better grip?

Sorry, but I still miss your point. Im still trying to figure out what exactly makes the recovery or the turn somehow less efficient when controlling the turn with harness opposed to riser. I understand that if one would do a 270 with harness only the canopy might not have as much time building speed as it would if one would first build some speed with double fronts to before starting the turn. However, if someone does a 630 turn with harness I would assume the canopy has more than enough time to reach max speeds anyways so this point would be moot when doing larger rotations.

May I ask what exactly makes this technique obsolete? The way I understand is that a lot of world class swoopers make the last rotations with harness anyways, so I cant see what makes the recovery somehow less efficient. The only difference here is that the turn doesnt start with double fronts for example. EDIT: And I also understand the previous poster saying it requires more precision with the setup. You cannot loose altitude with double fronts before the sweet spot for initiation point for your rotation so therefore you would need to be carefull to be on the right spot relative to the gates once you start the turn at your initiation altitude. This makes sense IMO So theoretically I can understand how this technique is perhaps a bit harder to hit the gates perfect. Adjusting the rotation speed with harness only isnt as responsive and accurate as risers are. However, I still have difficulties to understand how this affects the recovery.