pilatus_p

Hi all Really interesting thread. I just took an AFF course and had two instructors who were in a relationship with each other. She was blonde, slim and very attractive. Of course, she got an awful lot of attention from guys there, including students. I think she handled it very well - she would very rarely react to obvious flirting and would usually stick to the topic of skydiving. She was personable, but the way she spoke professionally about the sport and the way her enthusiasm came across, meant that distance was maintained. The fact that her man was there made no difference - she created the distance herself and she set that up from the beginning. She never really pretended to be 'friends', though she was amicable. I agree that 'having a man there' is not an effective deterrent. Many guys would actually find it more thrilling to have 'competition' in the way as having a girl respond to you in front of her man can be a buzz if he gets miffed When a guy hits on a girl, he's expecting either reciprocation, embarrassment (from her) or outright rejection (hostile). The first two will definitely encourage further attempts, the last will either harden a guys resolve, or totally shame him (which may make teaching harder) - depending on the ego involved. Give a reaction and its likely he will carry on. What REALLY deflates a man is the complete lack of reaction to the sexual content of his language and a turn towards topics thoroughly unsexy. Almost pretend that you don't know what flirting is, or make him feel like he's hitting on his sternest maths teacher. So when he looks at your chest strap and says "would you like me to loosen it for you" (nudge wink) you maintain eye contact, no smile, pause and ask "so, what were the weak points of your jump last time?" or "OK - talk me through your equipment safety checks". Keep doing this repeatedly and it simply will not be fun for him to flirt - unrewarded behaviour does not continue. Don't give him any rewards - no smiling, nothing - unless its skydiving related. All conversation remains professional. You sound like a naturally bubbly person, and no-one likes being rude to others. I don't think you need to be rude, just don't give anything they can bite on. That said, some nationalities have very different attitudes towards women - they have the "see it and go for it" attitude when they're near a beeyootifull laydeeee. In this case I recommend looking as ugly as poss, burping, laughing like a horse and blowing your nose a lot. The odd proud fart could help too. And of course - maintain the right to substitute another instructor. Ross http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

LOL http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Hi Kelpdiver. Turns out my lines were Dacron - so back to the drawingboard ... Ross http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Aha right found some more geekiness - a bit of research on opening shocks for those with a penchant for nerdiness, snipped from the Parks College Parachute Research Group: http://www.pcprg.com/s01out.htm Key quote being "Interestingly ... instant openings should give higher opening shocks on large parachutes than small ones (at the same jumper weight and fall rate). The reason is that bigger parachutes have a bigger surface area and thereby produce more drag than smaller parachutes at the same rate of descent. A parachute that is twice as big (i.e. span, chord, suspension line etc. twice as long) would open twice as hard during line dumps. On the other hand the opening time would be about twice as short... The figure shows that for most [differences in size], smaller parachutes actually open harder [under normal conditions] than the larger ones, a trend which is opposite to that of instant openings." So the research suggests that small canopes open harder under normal operation than big canopies, but under instant opening conditions, big canopies give far higher opening shock than small ones. I think what I would want to see is a mechanism for ENSURING correct opening speed, as opposed to slowing it any further. And hey! You need engineers - they're the guys designing your canopies http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Agreed - I would like to see this too, as experience is important. Jumper physiology plays a large part too. A very fit person with lots of muscle and good bone density is less likely to be hurt than someone not so well endowed under the same canopy -so my interest as an engineer and in safety applied to all body types would be in measurements of actual opening shock force - as you say - test droppers out there anywhere? Ross http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Hi Chutem I agree with you completely - student canopies SHOULD open slower and when this happens it is a good thing, and I am sure they are excellently designed just like most canopies. All the parts of the rig affect this I am sure. From a book perspective the time it becomes a problem for me is when you have an instant opening. In this situation the design has essentially failed and all the factors - slider, pilot chute design and size etc - become irrelevant. The canopy has functioned incorrectly and opened straight away at full freefall speed, as in my incident which you can see on video. That is a given in my argument. In a comparison between an instant opening big rig, and an instant opening small one, you will naturally have more opening shock on the larger than the small one. So my concern is accidentally fast opening big rigs, the added braking force and their apparent greater capacity for spinal damage, rather than the speed with which they are MEANT to open. If all goes well, which in 99% of situations it does, then you are right - the bigger rig will open slower. Thank you for bringing your experience to the thread. I agree that the solution to the problem lies in the construction of the parachute. RossL http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

I recently had a hard opening, believed to be caused by line dump. I sustained two broken ribs and two fractured vertebrae at t6 and 7. You can read the discussion here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2433292;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Thanks Ronaldo Yes that is the view expressed by many. I would rather have had my first slammer further down the line though, when I'm jumping smaller rigs. Hopefully not teaching you to suck eggs - If you look at the engineering of parachutes / wings etc you will see that pressure drag (the dominant braking force caused by the downward movement of the canopy) is directly proportional to surface area presented to the air flow. For those as geeky as me, its given by braking force due to pressure drag = 1/2 x air density x air speed squared x surface area x coefficient of drag. At the moment of opening, the important surface area is the full lower surface of the canopy (due to the premature full inflation) - which at this stage is barrelling directly downwards at 120 mph. The last term, coefficient of drag, is unique to the canopy but varies only very slightly from one canopy to the next. As all the other elements are essentially constant, the surface area is the defining factor in the braking power, and hence opening shock, transmitted to the body in the event of rapid opening. Most people progress rapidly to around a 190 from big sizes such as the 270 I was jumping. If you do the engineering equations you see that a 270 has 40% more area and hence 40% more pressure drag (braking power) than a 190. This may explain why there is a seeming greater history (at least as far as this board is concerned) of student jumpers sustaining large injuries from hard openings than experienced jumpers. Its also part of the reason why BASE rigs dont give such a big whack despite rarely having a slider - the speeds invloved are often slower (eg if the jumer does not reach terminal) and the canopies smaller. For this reason it would seem that some sort of fool-proofing for sliders on student canopies would provide a distinct benefit, though I am unsure as to what form this would take - perhaps pilot chute controlled sliders? Purists may also point out the skin friction and induced drag present in the above calculations, which will be very small compared with the pressure drag and so are not as important. Lift induced by the aerofoil section of the canopy cannot be considered until the motion of the canopy changes to forwards. I'm STILL learning to pack like a pro though. RossL PS link to discussion on hard opening prevention on these boards http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2418093;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Hi jheadley No im not put off by the canopies - just the fact that I can't currently jump because my spine is fractured! Once I'm back in the air I want to know I'm doing everything in all safety spheres, including minimising hard openings. I like your suggestions - is it bouncy when you have springy lines? That sounds like fun. Arch, reach, throw, boiiiing .... Ross http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Hi Jerry Thank you for your suggestions. As I will not be jumping for a while I am going to get myself to a local DZ and take a packing course with your tips in mind. It sounds liek you have had a few whacks in your time from canopies - do you find that a hard opening on a smaller canopy is kinder or worse than a big one? Thanks again Ross http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Hello Rob! Doing ok apart from the sore back and ribs. I'm starting to get the impression that hard openings are one of those necessary evils. I think i'll invest in something with a bit less braking power than a 270 though - at least if I get another hard opening, a more zippy little canopy will fall a bit further first what with the lower drag. Send me a PM as would be good to see how your coaching got on

I have been posting in 'incidents' recently about a hard opening I had that caused two discs in my spine and two ribs to fracture. Two knowledgable guys on the forum suggested that it may be to do with 'losing control of the slider or the bottom of the canopy' during packing. Please can you provide detail of how one can pack to avoid such a situation and how easy it is to have a hard opening of this type? You can watch the opening here http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=4782 and read the threads in 'incidents' which may help to answer the question. Thanks Ross http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm