No parachutes on heavies

[sky_king]

Discuss here.

[Azimuth]

Good luck bailing out of a KC-135 through the crew entry chute and living.

[LockheedFix]

The assumption that was made that started this whole discussion is that the plane broke up in flight. That is usually a very sudden and violent event, not one that allows you to go get a parachute on. Even if you happened to be wearing one, an in-flight break up at .94 Mach would not be survivable, with or without a chute.

So wear them for a few missions when the war kicks off just to make you feel cool like somebody's gonna shoot at you, then pack them away and save AFE 5,000 man hours a year.

[FUSEPLUG]

Even if the opportunity to bail out presented itself, I'd still ride it in. My landings are better than my PLFs.

[HerkFE]

If you know anything about flying heavies, parachutes, like sky_kings small dick, have no useful purpose.

I wish I had that emoticon of the dude eating popcorn so I could post it now.

[Cliff Clavin]

I wish I had that emoticon of the dude eating popcorn so I could post it now.

2.

[Breckey]

[Lord Ratner]

There has only been one crash landing in the KC-135 where the crew lived, IIRC. So that's the scenario where they would be useful. Not the incident in Kryg. I'm hardly an expert on the plane, but anyone who has flown it knows its already a pain to land when fully functional.

But that was before butters pointed out that all heavies have passengers on them on every flight. Oops.

[Whitman]

I always viewed the 4 engines on my wing as a pretty good life insurance policy. Never cared for a parachute but that's just me.

[jazzdude]

I'd say the bailout decision is terrain dependent. Nice and flat-sure, consider staying with the jet. Mountainous forced landing, or night ditch into rough seas, or an uncontrollable fire-no way I'm staying on the jet unless I have a very good reason to stay (pax, below min safe bailout altitude).

[Jughead]

no way I'm staying on the jet unless I have a very good reason to stay (pax, below min safe bailout altitude, no parachute available...).

FIFY

Only reason bailout procedures are still in the -135 Dash-1 is for post-depot FCFs--where the escape spoiler is charged & the crew is (theoretically) wearing their 'chutes.

[Mark1]

The mentality that nothing could ever happen to make bailing out either viable, or preferable to riding it in, is usually just due to a lack of imagination.

In my community the notion of bailing out was laugable to many, particularly those whose crew stations are on the flight deck. It was a, "sure, give it the old college try, but you're just going to die halfway through the cargo compartment, as opposed to your crew station seat" kind of proposition. Granted it's not a heavy (AC-130), and is based on a platform that was designed to airdrop personnel and thus is configured to make exiting the aircraft in flight safe, but it was usually assumed that in any situation where you'd want to bail out the aircraft would be uncontrollable, dark, and for those who are familiar with the AC-130, full of obstructions in your way.

Then one day a crew found themselves over central Afghanistan (good luck finding a viable crash landing location) at a relatively low altitude (typical for the gunship) with a perfectly controllable aircraft that wasn't producing adequate thrust to maintain altitude. The crew was in the process of prepping for bailout when the issue was resolved, but had it not been, bailing out would have absolutely been the best option. Crash landing onto an 70% slope with a sheer cliff face at its end with no power isn't a highly survivable situation. I get that bailing out of a heavy is a much different proposition, but defending the stance that parachutes are worthless in a heavy is going to be a shitty one to have to own for the 5 minutes that you glide down to certain death when that one situation that you couldn't ever have imagined crops up.

The probability that they ever save a life being incredibly low, it's still easy insurance for a few hundred pounds.

[Spaceballs]

Even if the opportunity to bail out presented itself, I'd still ride it in. My landings are better than my PLFs.

Landings at the wrong runway don't count.

Sorry...saw the c-17 sig. Couldn't help myself.

The mentality that nothing could ever happen to make bailing out either viable, or preferable to riding it in, is usually just due to a lack of imagination.

In my community the notion of bailing out was laugable to many, particularly those whose crew stations are on the flight deck. It was a, "sure, give it the old college try, but you're just going to die halfway through the cargo compartment, as opposed to your crew station seat" kind of proposition. Granted it's not a heavy (AC-130), and is based on a platform that was designed to airdrop personnel and thus is configured to make exiting the aircraft in flight safe, but it was usually assumed that in any situation where you'd want to bail out the aircraft would be uncontrollable, dark, and for those who are familiar with the AC-130, full of obstructions in your way.

Then one day a crew found themselves over central Afghanistan (good luck finding a viable crash landing location) at a relatively low altitude (typical for the gunship) with a perfectly controllable aircraft that wasn't producing adequate thrust to maintain altitude. The crew was in the process of prepping for bailout when the issue was resolved, but had it not been, bailing out would have absolutely been the best option. Crash landing onto an 70% slope with a sheer cliff face at its end with no power isn't a highly survivable situation. I get that bailing out of a heavy is a much different proposition, but defending the stance that parachutes are worthless in a heavy is going to be a shitty one to have to own for the 5 minutes that you glide down to certain death when that one situation that you couldn't ever have imagined crops up.

The probability that they ever save a life being incredibly low, it's still easy insurance for a few hundred pounds.

I completely agree. The chances that we would ever use our chutes in the 130 community is extremely slim, but they're nice to have. For true heavies that fly much faster though, I'm not sure they are as useful.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Cgjohnst

[Guest CannonCrashPad]

Like I said in my deleted posts... The fist of which was "quit talking about parachutes"! If you know anything about flying heavies, parachutes, like sky_kings small dick, have no useful purpose.

Butters. You edited this post above. How can you edit a post, and still not identify and correct "fist" versus "first?" You are very bad at the internet. You are very bad at the English language.

[sky_king]

Like I said in my deleted posts... The fist of which was "quit talking about parachutes"! If you know anything about flying heavies, parachutes, like sky_kings small dick, have no useful purpose.

The pitter patter of two sets of feet have proven it quite useful enough. State your worldly accomplishments.

[Danny Noonin]

Butters. You edited this post above. How can you edit a post, and still not identify and correct "fist" versus "first?" You are very bad at the internet. You are very bad at the English language.

^^^ this guy is awesome

[lloyd christmas]

They took off 500lbs of life support and loading equipment on the Herc to save weight. Why not fly with 500lbs less in gas? You don't need 38K to fly a 4.0. 37.5 would do just fine and I could have all my other crap back.

Edited May 6, 2013 by lloyd christmas

[Jughead]

Everyone's talking about the weight savings. In the KC-135 at least, it was done for man-hours purposes. I suspect the same is true for other airframes that formerly carried 'chutes. Given the metric shit ton of other life support gear we carried around with only a very limited set of useful scenarios, the "save weight" aspect is a fringe benefit at most....

[Toasty]

Still carry chutes in the Herk overseas, but you'd have to strap it on in front of the 60+ armed Army guys sitting in back who don't get to leave. Good luck with that.

We're taught that jumping is more survivable than a water landing in a Herk, since the wings are above the cockpit. That being said, I'm not sure how you're gonna deploy those life rafts anywhere near where you jumped out, so it may be a moot point anyways.

Early in the war guys would wear the vests every mission too- but I can almost guarantee the #1 reason no one wears chutes is comfort, and extremely low likelihood of ever needing it.

[afnav]

One of the older E-3s still had the parachute racks installed when I was there. All of the aircraft still have the bailout chutes installed.

No one thought jumping out of the plane was feasible.

In my second plane, ejecting was an option, but only if you can make the decision before you leave the limits of the seat, which is why the last successful downward ejection was in the mid 80s.

[TacAirCoug]

500lbs in gas = two average Navs.

...or about 1.3 navs in the average Guard unit.

[ExBoneOSO]

In my second plane, ejecting was an option, but only if you can make the decision before you leave the limits of the seat, which is why the last successful downward ejection was in the mid 80s.

I knew the Nav and RN who survived that crash - they were able to only because when the wingtip hit the mesa, it rolled enough so that they didn't go straight down, but out to the side. I'd take that kind of luck anyday.

[LockheedFix]

There has only been one crash landing in the KC-135 where the crew lived, IIRC.

How many attempted bailouts have there been? My guess is zero, but I could be wrong.

[TrainerModel]

AC-130 had a mixed bailout/ditch back in the 90's. If i remember right only one of the bailout guys ended up being killed however a few of the crew that rode to the ditch were killed. Not comparing one is "safer" to the other, but no ones brought this actual bailout and ditching mishap yet

[HiFlyer]

How many attempted bailouts have there been? My guess is zero, but I could be wrong.

At least one that I heard of. It was on a local training sortie several decades ago (70s?) between Wurtsmith and K.I. Sawyer. The IP screwed up and ran out of gas on the way home. The crew didn't think they'd make the runway and bailed out 10 or 15 miles short of landing as the engines began flaming out, except for the IP, who glided it in almost undamaged as the last engine ran (or was running) dry. The AF tried to hammer him for damage to AF property, but the only "damage" was the lost crew escape hatch door. The IP searched back along the flight path on final and found the door in a marshy area basically undamaged, and brought it back, which eliminated the charge. Of course, his career was finished, but at least he didn't have to finish it in jail. I wasn't there...could be urban legend, I suppose...but that's what the tanker guys at Beale told me when I was flying with them in the 80s.