kkeenan 14 #1 July 13, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43738840/ns/us_news-life/ http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2011/07/12/1107896?sac=Home Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #2 July 13, 2011 Quote The memo warns that jumps of 1,250 feet and higher carry the "realistic chance that several paratroopers will land off the drop zone or be dragged across the ground after landing." I don't see how they say that jumping higher is going to cause you to be dragged across the ground after landing... Interesting stuff, said that a reserve failled a pull test... these things are NEW "I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vanair 0 #3 July 14, 2011 I think it's cause in the case of off DZ landings there are no ground personnel to assist in collapsing canopies or pickups to drive in front of the canopies when being dragged faster than ground personnel can run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpsalot-2 3 #4 July 14, 2011 No cut away handles ?Life is short ... jump often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoHuskers 0 #5 July 14, 2011 I don't see how they say that jumping higher is going to cause you to be dragged across the ground after landing... What is really funny is that the new "technologically superior" CARP system is complete BS. The Air Force generally requires CARP for all operations they fly. GMRS turns the green light on 2 minutes from the DZ. The JM spots the panels and releases the troops. CARP turns the green light on at the release point. CARP is simply the Point of Impact 300 meters from the leading edge of the DZ. They don't calculate winds and adjust the release point. They just fly to the PI and turn on the green light. GMRS requires trained jumpers. CARP requires trained pilots. Trained pilots who never enter the winds into the computer as far as I've seen. Units like the 82nd rarely ever jump higher than 1,000 feet so the stern warning of the memo above 1250 feet is ridiculous. So you're saying that a parachute with a slower rate of descent from a higher altitude on a spot that was chosen without respect to the wind conditions leads to soldiers landing off the DZ? The increased risk of being dragged is likewise ridiculous. All they are saying is that a bigger parachute which by design delivers bigger jumpers with bigger loads has a propensity to drag soldiers across the ground. Conscious soldiers simply activate their canopy release assemblies and stop the drag. There's something about safety officers that really upsets me. Soldiers don't typically like to become safety officers. Units don't typically like to assign up and coming soldiers into the safety officer assignment... Then they release a memo saying that obvious flaws are obvious without pointing out the causing factors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #6 July 14, 2011 QuoteI think it's cause in the case of off DZ landings there are no ground personnel to assist in collapsing canopies or pickups to drive in front of the canopies when being dragged faster than ground personnel can run. Who is ever out there to help them collapse the canopies? I know I've had my dumbass dragged a hundred feet because I couldn't activate my canopy release assembly correctly... Nobody came to help me. YOU stop the drag, if you're being dragged, you simply activate a canopy release assembly and the canopy will deform and stop dragging you."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreenLight 8 #7 July 14, 2011 Those parachutes look like they were made by someone who couldn't make up their mind.Green Light "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #8 July 14, 2011 I was around when some of the initial testing was done by ParaFlite. This was before Airborne Systems bought them. The T-11 is just a modified cruciform canopy. From what I recall you could pack it with your boot and it would open fine. I think they are looking a wide spread rigging problem that won’t be fixed by modifying the canopy. Sparky A little background. ParaFlite was competing with Irivn for the ATPS contract in the late 90’s. There were some pretty tight specs that need to be met. Before all the testing was completed Airborne Systems bought both companies for less than the contract was worth. Thus insuring they would win the competition.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #9 July 15, 2011 QuoteNo cut away handles ?For some unknown reason, the Army refused to use a single point release, such as the three-ring, on the T-11 system, and opted for Capewell releases, even though the T-11 has a slider. This means that releasing a single side (a problem common on single side releases such as Capewells) will not stop a soldier from being dragged. However, for the reports I read, this had nothing to do with this accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #10 July 15, 2011 QuoteThis means that releasing a single side (a problem common on single side releases such as Capewells) will not stop a soldier from being dragged. Interesting, do you know if there has been any testing on this? I would think that the released side would kind of pull the slider back up the non released as it changed its form."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #11 July 16, 2011 Quote Quote I think it's cause in the case of off DZ landings there are no ground personnel to assist in collapsing canopies or pickups to drive in front of the canopies when being dragged faster than ground personnel can run. Who is ever out there to help them collapse the canopies? I know I've had my dumbass dragged a hundred feet because I couldn't activate my canopy release assembly correctly... Nobody came to help me. YOU stop the drag, if you're being dragged, you simply activate a canopy release assembly and the canopy will deform and stop dragging you. In the USAF SERE training..we used to teach the college boys how to release their Capewells... we reinforced that at the time by draqgging them or trolling for sharks with them until they managed to release themselves. Capewells just ain't that hard to releaseJust neeed a good truck or a nice little boat as an appropriate training device ( I suppose you Army guys could just cheap out and have 4 or six fellow trainees do the towing by running and dragging the troop) GOD I loved that job Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #12 July 16, 2011 Quote Just neeed a good truck or a nice little boat as an appropriate training device ( I suppose you Army guys could just cheap out and have 4 or six fellow trainees do the towing by running and dragging the troop) GOD I loved that job That's what we did at airborne school, but it was only 2 guys doing the dragging."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
