moschops

Hiya folks.

Having recently decided to get myself in gear and progress my mad skillz
a bit, I picked up the BPA canopy handling manual, as read now by n00bs
eager to get their CH1/CH2/FAA a/FAA b and probably lots of other people.

To my horror, I found it repeated the oft cited mistake that the
principal lift is provided via the Bernoulli principle. My fear is that
skydivers trusting in this could ultimately expect a lifting force
significantly different to that they actually get, with the resulting
safety hazard.

Before I start a crusade on this, I'd welcome people's thoughts on the
matter. The CHM is available on the BPA website for those of you yet to
peruse it.

Moschops

Andy Scott

Hi Moschops - i suspect that your best and most appreciated action
could be to email your findings on any suspected factual discrepencies
direct to tony butler at the BPA ( details on the website and in the
mag ). Any changes to further print runs can be included. Any updated
info bulletins can be evaluated and promulgated as required.

As a skydiver of a few years myself i suspect the name of the
phenomenom may only be absolutley vital to that complete minority who
have that level of physics understanding or those wishing to find
documentary anomolies in order to succesfully sue the association -

what i mean is its absolutley right that we must be 100% in the
literature that goes out and will work to resolve this - but that you
can probably realistically reduce your alert state from "absolute
Horror" to " mild amusement at a physics mis-qoute ".

moschops

Andy Scott wrote:
> Hi Moschops - i suspect that your best and most appreciated action
> could be to email your findings on any suspected factual discrepencies
> direct to tony butler at the BPA ( details on the website and in the
> mag ). Any changes to further print runs can be included. Any updated
> info bulletins can be evaluated and promulgated as required.
>
> As a skydiver of a few years myself i suspect the name of the
> phenomenom may only be absolutley vital to that complete minority who
> have that level of physics understanding or those wishing to find
> documentary anomolies in order to succesfully sue the association -
>
> what i mean is its absolutley right that we must be 100% in the
> literature that goes out and will work to resolve this - but that you
> can probably realistically reduce your alert state from "absolute
> Horror" to " mild amusement at a physics mis-qoute ".
>

I put my hands up to having a degree in physics and reacting like this
every time. I can't watch Star Trek anymore because I usually have a
stroke by the second advert break.

Chops

Mick Cooper

>
> I put my hands up to having a degree in physics and reacting like this
> every time. I can't watch Star Trek anymore because I usually have a
> stroke by the second advert break.
>
> Chops

Star trek turns you on that much?

moschops

Mick Cooper wrote:
>> I put my hands up to having a degree in physics and reacting like this
>> every time. I can't watch Star Trek anymore because I usually have a
>> stroke by the second advert break.
>>
>> Chops
>
> Star trek turns you on that much?
>
>

I can't hear you over the sound of how short Troi's miniskirt was in the
first series.

ynotssor

In news:y--dndiBeKzNGD_YRVnyjQA@brightview.com,
moschops <moschop@madasafish.com> wrote:

> I can't watch Star Trek anymore because I usually have a
> stroke by the second advert break.

"Captain! The toilets 'r' overflowing on decks 5 'n' 6! The ships gonna blow
in aboot fiiiive minutes!"

Mick Cooper

"moschops" <moschop@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:ePadncdPBNx1Tj_YRVnyuQA@brightview.co.uk...
> Mick Cooper wrote:
>>> I put my hands up to having a degree in physics and reacting like this
>>> every time. I can't watch Star Trek anymore because I usually have a
>>> stroke by the second advert break.
>>>
>>> Chops
>>
>> Star trek turns you on that much?
>
> I can't hear you over the sound of how short Troi's miniskirt was in the
> first series.

enjoy your stroke then..........