Am I correct in what I am seeing re pallets hitting the ground ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I correct in what I am seeing re pallets hitting the ground ?
Was reading about the air drops by US C-130's in Iraq and was watching the video and right at the end, from about 4.45 onwards, it looks like two pallets come out the back and hit the ground, breaking open and spraying the contents everywhere.
The first bit is from high and to the rear of the C-130, the video a few seconds later is from in front and above
and shows a more dramatic impact.
Am I correct in what I am seeing re pallets hitting the ground and breaking open or is it just dirt etc
being thrown forward as the pallet impacts the ground ?
Previously to this earlier in the video, they showed two pallets of water leaving the aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrdkqGKLccg#t=173
The first bit is from high and to the rear of the C-130, the video a few seconds later is from in front and above
and shows a more dramatic impact.
Am I correct in what I am seeing re pallets hitting the ground and breaking open or is it just dirt etc
being thrown forward as the pallet impacts the ground ?
Previously to this earlier in the video, they showed two pallets of water leaving the aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrdkqGKLccg#t=173
Last edited by 500N; 11th Aug 2014 at 01:39.
I am sure the clip is of USAF Hercules. Normally free drop ( i.e no parachutes) goes out at 50 feet, at least in the RAF. If you look at the a/c and it's shadow I think you will find they are low enough especially given the terrain. A lot of dust etc does get generated on those types of DZ. Respect to those crews doing a very difficult job very well. And yes I have the tee shirt !
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When we were free-dropping in Ethiopia the pallets were triple bagged and shrink wrapped. We dropped (ME) from about 10 (ten) feet RADALT (I called the heights) with 50% flap and gear down to minimise the impact.
That water packaging doesn't look too robust to me, but difficult to judge. The impact looks like it was into some soft(ish) material (sand?), but not sure what the supplies 'survival' rate would be. Judging by the aircraft's shadow, they are not THAT low.
But the cynic in me says the political gesture has been made in front of the world's press.
That water packaging doesn't look too robust to me, but difficult to judge. The impact looks like it was into some soft(ish) material (sand?), but not sure what the supplies 'survival' rate would be. Judging by the aircraft's shadow, they are not THAT low.
But the cynic in me says the political gesture has been made in front of the world's press.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall seeing something many years ago about low altitude drops like this, in which the question was 'why don't they land and offload". The explanation was along the lines that landing was costing them a fortune in tyres and associated damage when they hit somethning, meanwhile dropping at low altitude like that may have spread the load around the ground a bit but was not that destructive as far as the load was concerned.
Denge Dude,
the free drop regulations were relaxed for Op Bushell as the 'normal' SOP for free drop was 50 feet and gear up. The USAF may have a different modus operandi. But whatever fits the scenario and is safe for the crews to get the job done. You are probably right to be a mite cynical as to have any effect the airdrops need to be continued as long as possible and in greater strength.
the free drop regulations were relaxed for Op Bushell as the 'normal' SOP for free drop was 50 feet and gear up. The USAF may have a different modus operandi. But whatever fits the scenario and is safe for the crews to get the job done. You are probably right to be a mite cynical as to have any effect the airdrops need to be continued as long as possible and in greater strength.
Ogre,
Don't know the truth of the "not landing" SOP,but in Ethiopia on Op Bushell,the strips used, beat the living 5hite out of the airframes,even with all the additional protection we fitted.
Don't know the truth of the "not landing" SOP,but in Ethiopia on Op Bushell,the strips used, beat the living 5hite out of the airframes,even with all the additional protection we fitted.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your replies.
I did notice slightly earlier in the video some footage of people picking up things from the ground and that gave an idea of the spread on impact.
I did notice slightly earlier in the video some footage of people picking up things from the ground and that gave an idea of the spread on impact.
I might be wrong but this is possible what I heard an aid worker talking about on radio 4 a couple of days ago. I am paraphrasing but I think she said that all the aid got smashed up on landing and criticised the USAF for not dropping it by parachute.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sky
I just did a search and yes, you seem to be correct in what you heard.
An article or two stated the milk cartons broke as did a fair amount of the water bottles.
I just did a search and yes, you seem to be correct in what you heard.
An article or two stated the milk cartons broke as did a fair amount of the water bottles.
Last edited by 500N; 11th Aug 2014 at 11:34.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,537
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes
on
17 Posts
Would it not be better to do all these drops by parachute, and the folk on the ground could use these as makeshift shelters? I recall a post in the C130 thread saying this is what happened on a previous humanitarian crisis.
Back last century I remember a previous conversation about the airdrop of water bottles for humaniatrian relief. The concensus was it was better for them to be dropped frozen solid as more would survive, even with a damaged bottle it would take some time for it to melt away. However, keeping it frozen in the aircraft was seen to be the problem.
As to free drop from height, remember the US drops to Kosovo. Some of these were high altitude drops where the container of MRE was ripped open (by a static line) on exit and the MRE sachets allowed to free fall.
When you're starving even an MRE is welcome and can't kill you if it hits you on the head from 12000 ft. But maybe dropping Pork and Beans to Muslims is a tad thoughtless.
As to free drop from height, remember the US drops to Kosovo. Some of these were high altitude drops where the container of MRE was ripped open (by a static line) on exit and the MRE sachets allowed to free fall.
When you're starving even an MRE is welcome and can't kill you if it hits you on the head from 12000 ft. But maybe dropping Pork and Beans to Muslims is a tad thoughtless.
Is not the problem with a parachute drop into an uncontrolled zone that those on the ground might well find themselves rushing to stand underneath the descending pallets in a bid to be the 'first in line'?
I guess that, despite the disadvantages of some broken produce, the free-fall method might well be safer all round. If I'm not mistaken, this was also the method used by the RAF in Ethopia in the 1980s. Perhaps for the same reason?
I guess that, despite the disadvantages of some broken produce, the free-fall method might well be safer all round. If I'm not mistaken, this was also the method used by the RAF in Ethopia in the 1980s. Perhaps for the same reason?
It was not the intention to allow those on the ground to use the 'chutes as 'makeshift shelters' on Op Agila (Rhodesia/Zimbabwe). The low return of the 'chutes very quickly depleted the UK stock of 18 and 28 foot parachutes. I doubt that we could sustain any prolonged airdrop commitment given the parlous state of the UK airdrop stores.
The Ethiopia airdrop was mainly grain in sacks for which free drop was by far the best method.
The Ethiopia airdrop was mainly grain in sacks for which free drop was by far the best method.
As if on cue from the BBC:
LATEST:RAF aborted airdrop over mountain in Northern Iraq overnight amid fears people may be injured by it, Downing St say
Edited to add: It's my understanding that only the USAF is using free-fall, and that the RAF is using parachutes (at least they were on the footage I saw on Sky).
LATEST:RAF aborted airdrop over mountain in Northern Iraq overnight amid fears people may be injured by it, Downing St say
The low return of the 'chutes very quickly depleted the UK stock of 18 and 28 foot parachutes. I doubt that we could sustain any prolonged airdrop commitment given the parlous state of the UK airdrop stores.
In addition to AA62's post, a long time ago in a ground tour far away I was given the job of preparing a point brief for AO Plans on parachute losses as part of rationalising all of MOD's parachute packing and transportation activities. The loss figures were fairly eye-watering even in those days of a less stringent budget, so that may well be a legacy factor. I am not sure how much was allocated for airdrop in Afghanistan or what our stocks are now but I would imagine that somewhere, a niche group of beancounters are sharpening their pencils...
Mal Drop,
nicely put. Anyone interested in airdrop could do worse than to look at some of the pics on the Hercules thread of PPRuNe. As regards the people on the DZ causing the drop to be aborted I do not think some of you realise at what speed even under a parachute these loads descend. To give an extreme example the energy absorbing systems on the RAF heavy drop loads could be required to deal with up to 19G ! It would not be the first time a drop has had to be aborted for similar reasons.
The RAF crew had no choice IMHO. You can just imagine the headlines and the pictures 'RAF kill refugees in botched mercy drop'. They seem to be dammed if they do and dammed if they do not whilst attempting a very tricky operation !
nicely put. Anyone interested in airdrop could do worse than to look at some of the pics on the Hercules thread of PPRuNe. As regards the people on the DZ causing the drop to be aborted I do not think some of you realise at what speed even under a parachute these loads descend. To give an extreme example the energy absorbing systems on the RAF heavy drop loads could be required to deal with up to 19G ! It would not be the first time a drop has had to be aborted for similar reasons.
The RAF crew had no choice IMHO. You can just imagine the headlines and the pictures 'RAF kill refugees in botched mercy drop'. They seem to be dammed if they do and dammed if they do not whilst attempting a very tricky operation !
Last edited by ancientaviator62; 11th Aug 2014 at 14:18. Reason: expand