Us airdrop drops out of the air
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,841 Likes
on
1,213 Posts
Us airdrop drops out of the air
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USAAF has been in existence since 1941, they have been carrying out air-drops since 1943 - and they still can't get it right?? 
It would appear that the lowest-ranking, least-trained members of the service are the ones involved in the parachute packing. But, hey, it's only taxpayers money, right?
It would appear that the lowest-ranking, least-trained members of the service are the ones involved in the parachute packing. But, hey, it's only taxpayers money, right?
To be fair, at least on the first two the parachutes opened just fine - it would appear someone neglected to properly attach the 'chutes to the payload (hard tell what went wrong on the third since it's out of frame prior to impact).
There is certainly blame to be assigned but I don't think it belongs to the chute packers.
There is certainly blame to be assigned but I don't think it belongs to the chute packers.
The USAAF has been in existence since 1941, they have been carrying out air-drops since 1943 - and they still can't get it right??
It would appear that the lowest-ranking, least-trained members of the service are the ones involved in the parachute packing. But, hey, it's only taxpayers money, right?
It would appear that the lowest-ranking, least-trained members of the service are the ones involved in the parachute packing. But, hey, it's only taxpayers money, right?
Course they're only Humvees; had they been Jeeps they would have survived the drop.
The vehicles separated from the platforms so the blame rests with who ever rigged the load, whoever checked it, those who loaded it and the Loadmasters who accepted it on their manifest. I'm allowed to throw stones because I've been there, done that, learnt the lessons.
I too have had my fair share of 'whistlers'. Given the large number of airdrops I participated in it would be surprising if I had not. Apart from parachute malfunctions material failures spring to mind as the cause on several. I have never had a drop where the load freed itself from the platform. Not even when on JATE. I have had several premature drops where the parachute disconnects did not work 'as it says on the tin' and allowed the parachutes to part company with the load before the load reached terra firma. All in all my recollection is that the whole system was pretty reliable.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of stories doing the rounds of the RAF doing exactly the same trick with Land Rovers.
Lets face it, airdropping vehicles is never going to be a 100% guaranteed delivery.
But the top brass need to know what percentage will work, so they need to find out.
In the greater plan, the cost of a few Humvee's or Land Rovers ain't a lot. Less that the fuel bill for the flying thinggies.
Lets face it, airdropping vehicles is never going to be a 100% guaranteed delivery.
But the top brass need to know what percentage will work, so they need to find out.
In the greater plan, the cost of a few Humvee's or Land Rovers ain't a lot. Less that the fuel bill for the flying thinggies.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
It's happened before, and it'll happy again. Probably a very small percentage in the big picture. It happens with helicopters too; I've seen a brand-new Landrover part company with the hook on a chopper.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the USAAF disappeared in 1947 when the USAF came into being.
I still feel that these losses are completely unacceptable. I understand that some losses in parachuting must be inevitable - but the fact remains that if the apparently sizeable percentage of vehicles lost in this drop happened in a real-war scenario, it could mean lives lost on the ground.
it could mean lives lost on the ground.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
I've seen a few wobbly loads released from helicopters and one MSP (complete with ADFARP equipment) hit the ground rather quicker than intended.
The latter one required a fair old amount of earth being dug up and double bagged, thankfully the Army were on hand for that task.
The latter one required a fair old amount of earth being dug up and double bagged, thankfully the Army were on hand for that task.
I have mentioned on the Hercules thread the tale of our triple ULLA (42000 lbs total) which went AWOL on the approach to Knighton down. We did high level para the next day and the scar was very visible.
When dropping the MSP from the very low heights which we did the system relied not only on the main chutes operating correctly but on the anti swing parachute doing the designed job.
When dropping the MSP from the very low heights which we did the system relied not only on the main chutes operating correctly but on the anti swing parachute doing the designed job.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: M4 Corridor
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSP Land Rover v DZSOs Jeep
I think that it's worth trotting this one out again. The Brit load landed on the DZ safely but on top of the DZSO's jeep which he parked on the "Point of Impact" for safety. The land rover drove off its platform undamaged.
Doug,
worked as advertised ! And well worth seeing again. According to my log book it was XV 187 on May 7 1987, Does this tally ?
worked as advertised ! And well worth seeing again. According to my log book it was XV 187 on May 7 1987, Does this tally ?
Coff,
not guilty m'lud. Definitely Dougie's fault for being so accurate as usual.
If I recall the USAF were more concerned about the expensive comms kit in the vehicle than the vehicle itself.
not guilty m'lud. Definitely Dougie's fault for being so accurate as usual.
If I recall the USAF were more concerned about the expensive comms kit in the vehicle than the vehicle itself.
I found this list of Laws applicable to air drop during my time at Boscombe Down testing aerial delivery systems. Whilst written as a joke, I can confirm that, like the originator, I've either proved them or seen others prove them to be correct.
Butlers Laws of Parachute Trials
1. The descending parachute and test item will not weathercock; they will,however, home on to the most expensive object on the drop zone.
2. The quality of the photographic coverage, telemetry data and all otherinstrumentation recordings will be inversely proportional to the value of theinformation obtained.
3. The tighter the budget or the time constraints become, the more likelythe parachute will malfunction or the instrumentation will fail.
4. The higher the rank of a visiting observer, the greater the probabilityof a catastrophic failure or malfunction. To ensure the maximum damage to theproject, have them park their new Mercedes on or near the drop zone (see law1).
5. The personnel recovering the equipment under test will exert maximumeffort to obscure any valid conclusions that may be drawn from an examinationof the equipment.
6. The manufacture of the parachute or load will exert maximum effort toobscure any design errors they have incorporated; they will also exert maximumto make subtle changes to their design or test conditions in order to maximisethe perceived benefits of their design.
7. All personnel involved will exert maximum effort to blame someone elsein the event of a cock-up; in the case of a massive cock-up, the degree of creativityexhibited by the explanation is exponentially related to the cost of thecock-up. This creativity is wasted because the cause of a massive cock-up isobvious even to senior management.
8. The schedule and budget will depart from the projected values at an everincreasing rate as the project progresses; the only way to prevent this is toavoid making a schedule and budget in the first place.
9. The probability of aircraft support, range time, and support personnelall being available is very high; however, the probability of all these beingavailable at the same time is approximately zero for any given date more than30 minutes in the future.
Butlers Laws of Parachute Trials
1. The descending parachute and test item will not weathercock; they will,however, home on to the most expensive object on the drop zone.
2. The quality of the photographic coverage, telemetry data and all otherinstrumentation recordings will be inversely proportional to the value of theinformation obtained.
3. The tighter the budget or the time constraints become, the more likelythe parachute will malfunction or the instrumentation will fail.
4. The higher the rank of a visiting observer, the greater the probabilityof a catastrophic failure or malfunction. To ensure the maximum damage to theproject, have them park their new Mercedes on or near the drop zone (see law1).
5. The personnel recovering the equipment under test will exert maximumeffort to obscure any valid conclusions that may be drawn from an examinationof the equipment.
6. The manufacture of the parachute or load will exert maximum effort toobscure any design errors they have incorporated; they will also exert maximumto make subtle changes to their design or test conditions in order to maximisethe perceived benefits of their design.
7. All personnel involved will exert maximum effort to blame someone elsein the event of a cock-up; in the case of a massive cock-up, the degree of creativityexhibited by the explanation is exponentially related to the cost of thecock-up. This creativity is wasted because the cause of a massive cock-up isobvious even to senior management.
8. The schedule and budget will depart from the projected values at an everincreasing rate as the project progresses; the only way to prevent this is toavoid making a schedule and budget in the first place.
9. The probability of aircraft support, range time, and support personnelall being available is very high; however, the probability of all these beingavailable at the same time is approximately zero for any given date more than30 minutes in the future.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: M4 Corridor
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA62 the MSP drop was from XV291 on the 7th. The para was from XV 187 on the 14th which was when we were given a score of 9 o'clock at 300 yards. Our bloke landed with his feet in the smoke but the score made sure that the USAF won on their 40th anniversary.
The MT section wasn't too miffed about the jeep because we were presented with a collage of bits of it as a memento.
The MT section wasn't too miffed about the jeep because we were presented with a collage of bits of it as a memento.