ccowden

Nice to know it's still possible for me to be enticing in my winter skydiving gear! It absolutely is!! It may be because I am getting older, but I find myself being attracted to the fully covered women as much as the more revealing ones. Don't get me wrong, I still drool over the ones showing lots of skin, but I seem to have a much greater appreciation lately for a woman's body that is fully covered too. As a matter of fact, I am almost more attracted to it. It is like the "I am not supposed to see what is underneath" thing.

My problem is, "revealing enough to entice" is wearing a padded bra, 3 layers of shirts, and then the turtleneck!

It is hard for me to imagine too, but I have witnessed that very thing first hand. I watched guys talking to young, topless, hot girls and not so much as glancing at their naked boobies. So yes, it does become that way. I personally have to take glances even when they are wearing a turtleneck! But that is the way I like it!

This not my experience at all. Sure some women who "shouldn't" go topless, do. But just like in this country, MOST women who "shouldn't" wear revealing clothes, don't. They are more modest than the ones who "should." I SAID MOST. When I have visited a "topless accepted" country's beach, most women who "should" be modest, were, and the downright beautiful, young girls were the ones topless and it was no big deal to the locals. To me, well lets just say I had to sunbathe on my stomach. But that is how I want it to be. I don't want it to be no big deal. It used to be a big deal to see a woman's ankles. Granted, I don't want to go back to that, but I certainly don't want boobies to become any less AWESOME to see than they are now.

I was just thinking about how, in some countries, women go topless in public, and I am glad it is not like that in the US. Granted, at first it would be pretty cool, although probably dangerous to the women, after we grew accustomed to it I think the way we view boobies here would lose it's luster. And I for one, like the way boobies are revered here. When you are lucky enough to see naked boobies, it is the best thing in the world and it is like a gift becuase you don't normally get to see them. Especially from a girl you wouldn't usually have the opportunity to. I think it would suck if it was the norm.

Exactly right. Holy shit, I am agreeing with Mark! Even if you opened at 5,000 feet, you would not have enough timeto do all these tests AND fly back to the dz, enter a safe pattern and land where you wanted to. And chances are, you wouldn't be at 5,000 feet. Probably more like 3,500 feet, which is where I am on a normal basis. At that altitude, I pretty much have to immediately begin my flight back to the landing area and start accessing the pattern, traffic, conditions and situation. And I have 2,800 jumps and about 1,000 on this type of canopy. You may have time to do a controllability check, but certainly not enough time to do enought tests to assess that you can fly and land this canopy safely. Let alone the fact that during this time you still need to be getting back to the landing area safely from your opening spot amongst the other traffic.

edited to remove my opinion on this because it was being viewed as me not caring if this fell into the hands of a newbie. That wasn't my point.

Yeah, yeah! Fire! FIRE!

Wiz on it.

In reply to you directly, I apologize for all the arguing crap I was doing. That is mostly because I am bored and got caught up with it. And I am an idiot. I didn't mean to water down this thread with it. I also in no way meant to say that you are "just a student" or couldn't land something smaller if you tried. I originally just wanted to point out that there was much more to consider than whether or not you could do a controllability check. I didn't mean to come across in a condesending way about your level, jump numbers or skill. If I did, I apologize. To try and answer your question, A 190 "student" canopy and a 96 HP canopy are two completely different animals. It is unlikely that you would do a control check on a 96 and feel comfortable enough with it to land it. A 96 HP will feel very fast even in brakes, and ridiculously fast in full flight. It will feel small and twitchy to the point of turning quite a bit with just movement in the harness. Turns will feel like they are out of control, probably to the point of thinking there is something wrong with it. A full flare, like you are taught, would probably be downright scary. Again, this is all from the perspective of coming from flying a 190 to a 96. Once you build your skill and experience, things that once scared you will become what you are comfortable with. Someday, that same 96 may "feel" just like you did under the 190. Hope that helps.

Alright, I am tired of this and I don't want to argue about it anymore. My only point is that it would not have to read VELOCITY 96 under it for a 22 jump student to determine that this canopy was really small and scary. I never said anything about automatically cuttng away a smaller canopy. Just to be clear. Certainly not a 240 to a 210. I said to cutaway if you look up and see a very small canopy that feels VERY fast and twitchy and you are unsure about landing it. Because that would definitely be the case if the situation in the original post were to happen. Heck, a student would probably cutaway a perfectly good opening on my Velocity!

I wish people would just take it for what it is. It is when it is viewed as a negative thing that people have issues with it. Having a womens class in anything is great. It simply give more women the platform in which to compete. Otherwise, let's take away all womens classes and only have one class, one league, one world record. Instead of the PGA and LPGA, we will just have a Pro Golf Circuit. Instead of having an NBA and a WNBA, just one Basketball Association. Only one World Record, not a men's and women's. If this was the case, very few women would have a chance to compete and participate in these things. Could some? Sure. But what we are talking about here is having classes and such that give more women a chance to participate. Having a womens class is a GOOD thing. If women want to compete inthe open, then by all means. But having a seperate class is a step forward, not a step back or discrimination.

And your "going from a 240 to a 210" argument is really not what we are talking about here. The original post was a 190 to a 96. There is no way someone would look up and go, "Hmmm, it is a little smaller and a different color and turns a little quicker." So let's not get too cute here. No, let's NOT take a "real world" example here. Let's take the example in the original post.

I am disagreeing because even if someone in this situation could do a controllability check and not scare themselves, which I guess is possible, they are not afforded the time to do some turns, flares, decide they can land it, fly back to the dz, pick a good spot, face into the wind and land. That is why i say cutaway as soon as you determine this is a very small HP canopy that you are unsure about. That much will be clear. Going from what they are used to, a student would be hard pressed to do all those tests and even remotely come close to hitting the dz. Let alone picking a nice soft area into the wind. Not to mention that when a student does their "student flare," on a 96 HP canopy, they are going to be taking a ride in an ambulance. There is just no way that a student with 22 jumps could determine that they could land this canopy safely until they actually tried to LAND it. Doing a controllability check and a couple turns are quite a bit different than flying it back to the target and flaring it close to the ground. If you look up and see an extremely small canopy that is very twitchy and aggressive and you have only landed a 190 or bigger, cutaway. It is a waste of time to go beyond that because you can, in no way, be prepared for flying it back to the landing area and flaring it. A seven cell reserve is a better option regardless os size.

She called me "sweetie!" Ok, I won't bother you again until Dublin.

Jeesh, I said I was sorry and would make it up to you for not recognizing you in Atlanta!

Ohhhhh. The ol' bait & switch eh?

Whens a good boogie to visit?

VERY, VERY, VERY different. About the only thing similar is that they are both canopies. I liken it to being used to renting skis and going down the bunny slope and then suddenly and without warning finding yourself on downhill racing skis on a double black diamond run. You knew how to stop on your other skis, but if you try the same technique now, you are going for a ride.

I disagree. If somone with 22 jumps somehow opened and discovered they were under a 96 HP instead of their normal 190, it would be quite apparent that they had a canopy that was really scary to them. If they even as much as released the brakes on it, they would probably crap their pants. When I think of the difference my 190 was (2,000 jumps ago) compared to my 96 Velo (now), I know for a FACT that I would be quite aware that I was in a very scary situation. I would recommend cutting away immediately upon recognizing that you were under a canopy that was way above your skill level. There is no way someone could do a contollabilty check, set up over a nice landing area AND be 100% sure they were into the wind. After all, they are used to flying their pattern and landing a 190. When are they going to figure all of this out? Are they going to learn how to fly a 96 HP canopy safely and conservatively on one flight? Bottom line, YES it is dangerous to land. It is dangerous to even try turns beyond realizing you are under a canopy you are scared of. You would have no clue of what amount of altitude you would be losing or how quickly you will be too low and screwed when you are doing this controllability check.

It's no use. No one can hear you.

Maybe I will! pbbbbbbbbbt!

Don't you EVER dare lock a thread again! Skymama's postwhoring!! Skymama's postwhoring!! I am telling!!

In a wingsuit.

Everyone send me a dollar via PayPal and I will buy that number of tickets. No really, I swear!