# Some changes to Airborne School



## tweeder (Oct 28, 2013)

Hello everyone, 

I'm currently in week two of the BAC, and today we were notified of some changes to the course effective immediately. A few weeks ago tragedy struck when a student was killed in training, and as a result the Army has implemented these changes:

1st change- all students must weigh a minimum of 110lbs. This is because the T-11 parachute that the Army is transitioning to was meant for carrying larger loads, it requires more strength and mass to operate it.

2nd change- to start the class you must execute a 30 second flexed arm hang. This is done immediately after the PT test and failure to complete this exercise will result in your immediate removal from the course. In my opinion, this is much more difficult than the traditional 6 pull-ups and we lost a lot of females over this.

Last major change- there will be no mass exits during jump week! We were told by Sergeant Major to prepare for longer days during jump week and to stay motivated, which we all are!


----------



## Muppet (Oct 28, 2013)

tweeder said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I'm currently in week two of the BAC, and today we were notified of some changes to the course effective immediately. A few weeks ago tragedy struck when a student was killed in training, and as a result the Army has implemented these changes:
> 
> ...


 
No mass tacs? W.T.F.? What happens when you get to Division or Batt.?

F.M.


----------



## tweeder (Oct 28, 2013)

Firemedic said:


> No mass tacs? W.T.F.? What happens when you get to Division or Batt.?
> 
> F.M.



We trained for them all day and will continue to train for a mass exit, but we were told we won't be doing any of them with the T-11. Now who's to say we don't add a Mass Tac with a T-10D? This is just what was put out at formation this morning.


----------



## tweeder (Oct 28, 2013)

tweeder said:


> but we were told we won't be doing any of them with the T-11. Now who's to say we don't add a Mass Tac with a T-10D?



I can see where this conflicts with my original post...  What was put out was no mass tacs with the T-11 and ORIGINALLY we were only doing a Hollywood fam jump with the T-10D. More than likely we will not be doing a Mass Tac UNLESS they decide to throw one in with the T-10D.

Hope this clears things up a bit.


----------



## Muppet (Oct 28, 2013)

Shit. I never heard of those chutes. I jumped the T-10C and MC1-1B in the 90's.

F.M.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 28, 2013)

Interesting that a lot of females washed out on the flexed arm hang. Starting in grade school with the President's fitness test, that's always been the alternate event for females instead of a pull up. Of course, I'm older now. Things change, and people aren't in the same physical shape they once were growing up.


----------



## AWP (Oct 28, 2013)

We didn't even take a PT test at jump school and they made us jump with these ridiculous ankle braces.

Give it a few months and they'll have new standards.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> We didn't even take a PT test at jump school and they made us jump with these ridiculous ankle braces.
> 
> Give it a few months and they'll have new standards.


Back off dude, I helped test those things   (and logged a equipment test jump as a result).


----------



## AWP (Oct 28, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Back off dude, I helped tet those things   (and logged a equipment test jump as a result).


 
At the time they seemed like a good idea, and maybe they are, but I later thought of them as a good way to acquire a tib/ fib fracture. I hated running off the DZ in them and never saw them after the schoolhouse. By JM school in 98 they were dead like Bambi's mom.


----------



## Muppet (Oct 28, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> We didn't even take a PT test at jump school and they made us jump with these ridiculous ankle braces.
> 
> Give it a few months and they'll have new standards.


 
What are these ankle braces you speak of? Never heard of them. We had to jump the leather black boots in jump school but never had ankle braces. This was in 95. After that we jumped jungle boots all the time.

F.M.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 28, 2013)

Yours truly in them. Full battle rattle.

PJM w/ my AJM.





Pic was taken by a DA photographer. Didn't even know it existed until some years later when a buddy of mine saw it in a museum.....


----------



## Lycurgus (Oct 29, 2013)

Do you still get smoked in the gravel pits?  The other students HATED us...we would get in trouble on purpose to get our chalks smoked :)  I think it was 2005 or 2006 when we stopped sending our guys there.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 29, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> At the time they seemed like a good idea, and maybe they are, but I later thought of them as a good way to acquire a tib/ fib fracture. I hated running off the DZ in them and never saw them after the schoolhouse. By JM school in 98 they were dead like Bambi's mom.



They were standard issue for us, mandatory for some jumps and optional for others depending on terrain encounterable on landing.  They are a good way to acquire a tib/fib fracture. That's the point, just like ski boots. It's easier to get someone to heal up from a tib/fib than trying to reconstruct a destroyed ankle. Same thing with ski boots, they take your ankles out of the equation where you'd blow them out otherwise.

Takes 2 seconds to take them off when you do your after-jump weapons charging, piss, and ruck packup.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 29, 2013)

I see the Army is trying to out-do itself with a whole new level of risk aversion... no mas-tac? Yeah... that makes a lot of sense. 

Also, until a few years ago, men had to complete a certain amount of pull ups and women had to do a flexed arm hang as part of the PT test. Hmm... I guess all that "gender norming" isn't working out too hot?


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 29, 2013)

I don't remember even doing a PT test when I went to Airborne School.  As long as you could keep up with the runs, no drama.  And I'm not sure I could have done 6 pullups when I went (summer after Freshman year of college).


----------



## tweeder (Oct 29, 2013)

Lycurgus said:


> Do you still get smoked in the gravel pits?  The other students HATED us...we would get in trouble on purpose to get our chalks smoked :)  I think it was 2005 or 2006 when we stopped sending our guys there.



They are beyond smoking us. If you do anything you aren't supposed to you are instantly counseled... 3 counseling statements or 2 for the same offense and you're gone. 

Big boy rules apply, the cadre make it fun and easy to learn but heaven help you if you fall asleep during a lesson.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2013)

Centermass said:


> Yours truly in them. Full battle rattle.
> 
> PJM w/ my AJM.
> 
> ...



The first thing I thought of when I saw your pic was the "Cartoon Bubble" I imagined above your heads:
"Dude, what the fuck are on your feet?"
"Fuck if I know, they were'nt there this morning!"


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2013)

I went in '06 and we had to to a pT text and six pull-ups females had to do the flex arm hang.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 29, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> They were standard issue for us, mandatory for some jumps and optional for others depending on terrain encounterable on landing.


 
The only time I recall wearing them was on airfield seizures



goon175 said:


> I see the Army is trying to out-do itself with a whole new level of risk aversion... no mas-tac? Yeah... that makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Also, until a few years ago, men had to complete a certain amount of pull ups and women had to do a flexed arm hang as part of the PT test. Hmm... I guess all that "gender norming" isn't working out too hot?


 
Yeah, it would be interesting to see how they plan on putting jumpers out the door.  I can see pushing a max amount of jumpers for safety sake, but by the end they should be capable of maintaining a 1 or so second interval and still being "safe."

As to the standards, same old song and dance.  If people can make the standard, do away with it.


----------



## reed11b (Oct 29, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't remember even doing a PT test when I went to Airborne School.  As long as you could keep up with the runs, no drama.  And I'm not sure I could have done 6 pullups when I went (summer after Freshman year of college).


 I'm pretty sure I did not have them either, I went in '93.
Reed


----------



## AWP (Oct 29, 2013)

reed11b said:


> I'm pretty sure I did not have them either, I went in '93.
> Reed


 
I went in Sep. 93. but have no idea how long they were used.


----------



## Muppet (Oct 29, 2013)

Yep. Never saw them before. I did however break my lt. ankle on a jump @ Bragg / Sicily D.Z. and needed recon. surgery. (5 ruptured ligaments and 2 avulsion f/x's of distal tib / fib). I healed and jumped again.

F.M.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 29, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> The only time I recall wearing them was on airfield seizures
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Race track, only do one door at a time.

I had a PT test in 83, plus we were required to do 10 pull ups after the morning run.


----------



## reed11b (Oct 29, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I went in Sep. 93. but have no idea how long they were used.


 BAHAHAHAHA You are old!, wait, that makes me....damnit! You went a month before me.
Reed


----------



## AWP (Oct 29, 2013)

reed11b said:


> BAHAHAHAHA You are old!, wait, that makes me....damnit! You went a month before me.
> Reed


 
Ha!

We graduated Sep. 24, 1993. I believe I was in D Co. and I know I was immortal at that point in my life.


----------



## Muppet (Oct 29, 2013)

I graduated in june of 95.

F.M.


----------



## Johca (Oct 29, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> but by the end they should be capable of maintaining a 1 or so second interval and still being "safe."


The one second interval is dependent on the descent rate under canopy being roughly similar for all the jumpers exiting the aircraft on the pass and the drop zone being capable of handling both the number of jumpers landing on it and numbers of aircraft in the formation putting the jumpers out.
The mass tactical parachute assault has limited requirement for steerable maneuverable parachute canopy for a reason. Suspended weight/mass does influence canopy opening, but the primary mass/weight concern pertinent to mass tactical parachute operations is fall/decent rates of the jumpers under canopy.

The constraints for the feasible airborne mass tactical airborne assault has always been density limits on aircraft simultaneously making a single formation jump pass over the drop zone or consecutive rapid multiple single or small formation jump pass over the drop zone.

Even bomber has a bomb drop salvo delay to prevent bombs striking on release and blowing up either the bomber that dropped the bombs or from taking out other bombers in the formation.

The context being the interval delay on the mass tactical jump is determined by the drop altitude (500 feet, 800 feet, 100 feet, 1,500 above the ground) fall rate of the jumpers under canopy and to limit jumpers being too spread out or strung out on the ground.

The “must weigh a minimum of 110lbs” has as much to do with rate of descent in the interval more so than with strength and weight and mass to operate the parachute.  Weight and mass can be compensated for by putting more equipment on the jumper (ie., give the lighter jumpers the heavy M-50s, mortars, and radios to jump).

Rate of descent being uniform is important in the sequenced multi-pass or large formation multi pass jump pass as the sequence and formation interval is dependent on first out not having such a slow rate of decent that the aircraft following the lead aircraft are not putting jumpers having a higher rate of decedent falling into the slower descending parachutists.


----------



## Johca (Oct 29, 2013)

BTW, I graduated the US Army Basic Airborne Course when it still had "male" only standards.





  See timeline from 4:35 to 5:47.  Gives the proper jumpmaster duties of making sure the too underweight jumper has sufficient fall rate to participate in the mass tactical combat assault jump.  Added: probably not work place suitable.


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2013)

I read that everyone is going to MFF since it's safer anyway.


----------



## Johca (Oct 29, 2013)

lindy said:


> I read that everyone is going to MFF since it's safer anyway.


I've read a lot of MFF qualifications speculations, but never any speculation of using High Glide Ratio Parachutes to do mass tactical parachute jumps having purpose of putting hundreds of jumpers on the tactical airborne assault drop zone.

Large scale (airborne division level) airborne assaults are fading into history as an ineffective and inefficient tactic for the same casual reasons gliders were done away with and subsequently the C-123 (had wing designed to break away when it hit the trees) went away.  Current and future airborne combat operations and capability is focusing on small scale over the horizon light ground forces to be employed for a short time for particular types of missions (ground reconnaissance, special operations type raids, personnel recovery, etc).

The 82nd large conventional infantry airborne assault to capture and hold ground that is opposed by the presence of significant enemy forces in proximity of the drop zone is, if not already, fading into history.  The downsizing after WWII left the 82nd as the only remaining active airborne division. But the 82nd organization also changed in concept and mission set towards a conventional infantry unit with a large support forces footprint. 

Organizations such as US Army Ranger Battalions are picking up the airborne leading the way  standards and guidons. Of every military service member assigned the 75th Ranger Regiment organization is a rifleman combatant even the support troops.

You do realize the U.S. Army was seriously considering converting both the 82nd and 101st from Airborne Divisions to Air Assault Divisions but the two successful airborne assaults accomplished during the Korean War where heavy equipment was also air dropped put a stop to such ideas?  However the reasoning for why everybody is going to MFF has less to with being safer and more to do with mass tactical airborne assault of hundreds of parachutists is less likely to be a combat fight objective winning necessity.


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2013)

Johca said:


> You do realize...



That I was referencing one of @goon175 's "articles".


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2013)

@Johca we have got to get you a sarcasm decoder ring or something.


----------



## Johca (Oct 29, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> @Johca we have got to get you a sarcasm decoder ring or something.


LOL, it's a public thread likely to have many people having no military parachutist training or qualifications reading it.   MFF in what was initially a basic airborne course/school thread, IMO, deserved a serious response as many who are not military parachutist lack awareness that MFF canopies are highly maneuverable high glide ratio air foils and canopies used for mass tactical airborne assaults are generally not very maneuverable.   The logistics and tactical necessities of a large scale mass tactical airborne assault differ significantly from the typical MFF operation.  I thought some readers lacking military parachutist training and qualifications might appreciate some additional serious information.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 29, 2013)

It's Sheldon with jump wings and a tab!


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 29, 2013)

Johca said:


> I've read a lot of MFF qualifications speculations, but never any speculation of using High Glide Ratio Parachutes to do mass tactical parachute jumps having purpose of putting hundreds of jumpers on the tactical airborne assault drop zone.
> 
> Large scale (airborne division level) airborne assaults are fading into history as an ineffective and inefficient tactic for the same casual reasons gliders were done away with and subsequently the C-123 (had wing designed to break away when it hit the trees) went away.  Current and future airborne combat operations and capability is focusing on small scale over the horizon light ground forces to be employed for a short time for particular types of missions (ground reconnaissance, special operations type raids, personnel recovery, etc).
> 
> ...


Take and hold ground, probably not (we agree)

Take and hold an airstrip or small valley, ya still relevant.


----------



## Johca (Oct 29, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Take and hold ground, probably not (we agree)
> Take and hold an airstrip or small valley, ya still relevant.


Some what. The last actual large scale combat airborne assault where troops were exposed to enemy ground fire hasn't happened very often after WWII. Being still relevant needs connection to political resolve or courage to use such capability to do such operations.

Assaulting an airstrip to hold it has purpose of seizing and holding in conjunction with or pending arrival of other military forces.  It differs from take and holding a small valley as the airstrip, if taken, provides means to withdrawal the airborne forces on mission termination unless it’s a planned sacrifice mission (the airborne forces are considered 100% expendable).  There is no political tolerance for deliberately planned sacrifice missions and a military strategic or tactical importance to seize the airfield/airstrip is still needed.

Taking and seizing a small valley still needs a withdrawal capability or a reinforcement and resupply capability.  Otherwise it is also a deliberately planned sacrifice mission.

I truly enjoy listening to the talking head military strategists and talking heads on cable news and broadcast TV news.  The strategic purpose of having airfields and other support infrastructure in Iraq before putting significant numbers of ground forces on the ground in Afghanistan has never once been mentioned.  Neither is it mentioned that stating this as a reason to invade Iraq was politically unacceptable to the American public, most politicians and the news media. Has anyone considered what would have happened in to US boots on the ground in Afghanistan had Iran decided to get involved. (Hints: Chosin Reservoir Campaign or the Changjin Lake Campaign during the Korean War and Battle of the Imjin River during the Korean War).



> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-13180851
> 
> The Battle of Imjin River saw 866 soldiers hold off 27,000 Chinese soldiers for three days in April 1951.
> It remains the bloodiest battle fought by British Forces since World War II.
> ...


 
I was attracted to this discussion by the disclosure of the implementation of  the new fitness standard of to start the Basic Airborne Course  "all students must execute a 30 second flexed arm hang" and if this was a permanent change or a temporary change particularly because it was disclosed this requirement eliminated many female students from the course.    Any how if I'm getting peoples' panties in a wad by discussing the MFF and mass tactical jump tangents introduced into the conversation  I am willing to disengage from the topic.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 30, 2013)

Nobody's panties are in a wad, dude. The whole MFF topic you're discussing would be best served with its own thread. It is interesting.


Not that it wouldn't get hijacked or anything... (just kidding  )


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 30, 2013)

Johca said:


> The “must weigh a minimum of 110lbs” has as much to do with rate of descent in the interval more so than with strength and weight and mass to operate the parachute.  Weight and mass can be compensated for by putting more equipment on the jumper (ie., give the lighter jumpers the heavy M-50s, mortars, and radios to jump).
> 
> Rate of descent being uniform is important in the sequenced multi-pass or large formation multi pass jump pass as the sequence and formation interval is dependent on first out not having such a slow rate of decent that the aircraft following the lead aircraft are not putting jumpers having a higher rate of decedent falling into the slower descending parachutists.


 
Anyone rememeber in late summer of 2000 when they came out with weight limits for what the individual jumper could weigh (max weight)?  I cannot remember the weight limit but it was terrible for those of us in the 150-180 pound range.  I was just back from Ranger school and was accordingly 25 lbs or so lighter than normal.  One week back and we get one of those EDRE recalls, end up jumping into FCKY in the wee hours of the morning, in August.  I think I had all of weapons squad water and ammo so everyone could make weight, not to mention it was hot and humid as hell.  That was some dumb shit and was accordingly dubbed the FCKY phase of Ranger school by a few of us freshly tabbed bastards.


----------



## Muppet (Oct 30, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> It's Sheldon with jump wings and a tab!


 
Laughing my fucking ass off! It's better than LMFAO. Had to be written out.

F.M.


----------



## Johca (Oct 30, 2013)

There was also a maximum jumper and equipment weight limit for every military parachute put into the system.  In fact the 1970s era T.O. 14 D1-2-396, AF tech Order for the S-17/18 (MC-1C) actually had maximum weight limits for drop zones up to 10,000 feet of elevation.  I do not recall the Army Basic Airborne Course imposing a maximum parachutist weight during my period of service (1973-1996), but the Military Free Fall qualification course has had a personnel will mot exceed 240 pounds standard since the MC-4 was put into service.

Current ATRRS Course Catalog info.

Airborne---
Officer, Warrant Officer, enlisted personnel, and cadet volunteers less than 36 years of age on the date of application. General Officers, Field Grade Officers, Warrant Officers in grade W-3, W-4, and W-5 and enlisted personnel in pay grade of E-5 and above may be considered for a waiver of age when the examining medical officer recommends to the unit commander that such a waiver be granted.
Must meet the physical qualification for parachute duty established in AR 40-501.
Male/Female must pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) with a score of 180 points (60 points in each event using the 17-21 year age group scale) and meet the height and weight standard IAW AR 600-9. APFT will be administered to the students on the first day of the airborne couse.
Failure of the APFT constitutes a failure of the entrance exam. Students are afforded ten minutes of rest before being retested on push-ups or sit-ups an twenty minutes of rest is afforded before retaking the run option of the APFT. Soldiers who fail to meet the established standard will be outprocessed from the unit. MOS reclassification will occur as appropriate for initial entry Soldiers.

MFF---
Army Active Component or Reserve Component Special Operations Forces Commissioned Officers (LT-CPT), Warrant Officers (WO1-CW3) or enlisted personnel (PFC-MSG), assigned to or on orders for assignment to a military free fall coded position.
Other Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers, or enlisted personnel of the Active or Reserve Components, selected DoD civilian personnel or allied personnel must be assigned to or on orders for assignment to a MFF coded position
Requests for exceptions to the above must be endorsed in writing by the first O-5 commander in the chain of command.

Must be a qualified military static line parachutist. Must have a current Class III flight physical examination IAW AR 40-501 dated within two years of course completion date. Must report with a current Physiological Training Record, High-Altitude Parachutist Initial (HAP INT) (AF Form 1274; AF Form 702, Navy Form 1550/28-NP-6 card; or USAAMC AA Form 484.)

Personnel cannot exceed 240 pounds.

Any variation from the above standards requires a waiver from the Commanding General, USAJFKSWCS.


----------



## Johca (Oct 30, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> The whole MFF topic you're discussing would be best served with its own thread. It is interesting.


A MFF topic thread would get boring quickly as there is only so much that can be discussed in an open forum.   However, I am considering starting a Origins of and Development of US Airborne and MFF topic in the military history topic forum.   There is a lot of interesting origins and development history that isn't easily found on the various generic US Airborne and USSOCOM history pages from the 1949s forward.  Hijacking to emphasize service and unit unique history would even be encouraged and welcomed as being a former/retired PJ I would be more knowledgeable of PJ history and less knowledgeable of other unit and service history.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 30, 2013)

Johca said:


> A MFF topic thread would get boring quickly as there is only so much that can be discussed in an open forum.   *snip*  Hijacking *snip* would even be encouraged and welcomed *snip*



I doubt it would get boring.  We've got some of the geekiest shooters around on here, and (thanks to my selective editing) since hijacking is okay, that's like giving the green flag at a NASCAR short track.


----------



## Johca (Oct 30, 2013)

Well I started the topic at http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/origins-of-and-development-of-us-airborne-and-mff.19299/  tangents, hijacking about U.S Armed forces airborne and MFF history, training, operations, utilization is welcomed and in fact encouraged as otherwise the thread would just be me eventually out of boredom making posts about PJ jump missions.  All the airborne and MFF jump units have some interesting history and historically significant to put out, so the topic thread has significant being interesting potential.  Hopefully there are some other history buffs on these forums besides me that can contribute.


----------



## reed11b (Oct 30, 2013)

Johca said:


> Hopefully there are some other history buffs NERDS on these forums besides me that can contribute.


Fixed it for ya.
Reed


----------



## Johca (Oct 30, 2013)

reed11b said:


> Fixed it for ya.
> Reed


   Well I do have a scar or two and have you ever dated a cosplay gal, or a gamer gal, or geek gal.   Unfortunately I didn't and now I feel like I missed out on an exciting date night or two.

http://thechive.com/2013/04/19/bless-the-god-of-geeks-for-beautiful-cosplay-girls-42-photos/   However maybe one or two will knock on my door this Halloween.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 30, 2013)

Centermass said:


> Yours truly in them. Full battle rattle.
> 
> PJM w/ my AJM.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the flash back.....pmask in the worse possible location...:wall:


I am new here, but it sounds like the Army messed up, went to a shitty parachutte and then decided to change decade old tactics to cover their mistake.

Was it really that bad to fall 6 ft per sec faster...or was it 3.......


----------



## pardus (Oct 31, 2013)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Thanks for the flash back.....pmask in the worse possible location...:wall:
> 
> 
> I am new here, but it sounds like the Army messed up, went to a shitty parachutte and then decided to change decade old tactics to cover their mistake.
> ...



Are you para qual'd? I'm not, im just curios about your position on this topic.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 31, 2013)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Was it really that bad to fall 6 ft per sec faster...or was it 3.......



Been watching The Salton Sea again, haven't you?  Or are you channeling your inner Harry Callahan?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 31, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> Been watching The Salton Sea again, haven't you?  Or are you channeling your inner Harry Callahan?




Army Times article:


> The T-11 has seen a rate of 1.2 injuries every 1,000 jumps, while the T-10 averages three, according to Army data. The new design also results in 49 percent less landing force when soldiers hit the ground.
> 
> The T-11's three-phase deployment uses aids and a drogue parachute attached to a bridle line. There is no lift until jumpers are 275 feet from the aircraft, so two seconds must be added to the T-10's traditional four-second count. The larger canopy also provides a smoother rate of descent while accommodating more weight.
> 
> ...



24 fps - 18 fps = 6 fps

Fayetnam Observer article:


> The T-11 was the first major modification to the Army parachute since the 1950s. It was designed to replace the T-10, which has a circular design.
> Army officials say the new parachute is safer because it can handle more weight and allows paratroopers to descend slower.
> When the T-10 was designed in 1955, the paratrooper and the equipment he carried during a jump weighed less than 300 pounds, Army records show. In 2001, that weight was nearing 400 pounds.
> The T-11 is designed to handle more than 400 pounds.
> ...



22 fps - 19 fps = 3 fps



The math is strong in this one.....


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 31, 2013)

pardus said:


> Are you para qual'd? I'm not, im just curios about your position on this topic.




yes......the juice is not worth the squeeze!


----------



## AWP (Oct 31, 2013)

The fact remains that a better chute was needed. Was the T-11 the "right" answer? I don't know.


----------



## Johca (Oct 31, 2013)

The rate of descent being used for the T-10 canopy types is for sea level.   The Technical Order Specifications (it's actually a chart from sea level to 20,000 feet with 150 pounds, 250 pounds, 300 pounds.  It's 12 to  2o feet per second rate of descent for the weight range for a DZ at from sea level to 2000 feet in elevation.   For a DZ at 8,000 feet of elevation the rate of descent is 15 to 23 feet per second for the weight range.  For DZs at 14,ooo feet of elevation the rate of descent is 17 to 25 feet per second for the weight range.  The chart goes up to 20,000 feet and the published policy from 1947-1996 imposed operational limitation for static line jumps on PJs to DZs no higher than 12,000 feet.

What is the typical elevations of high deserts and plateaus in regions like Afghanistan and most potential asymmetric battlefield tactical combat drop zones these days?


----------



## x SF med (Apr 5, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Yours truly in them. Full battle rattle.
> 
> PJM w/ my AJM.
> 
> ...



all I can think of is.................... Run, Forrest... Run!!!


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Apr 5, 2014)

Johca said:


> What is the typical elevations of high deserts and plateaus in regions like Afghanistan and most potential asymmetric battlefield tactical combat drop zones these days?



Earth's average elevation is 840 m above sea level (2750 ft).....this is only taking into account the 29% of the Earth's surface that is dry land.....
In fact almost 20% is between 0-800 m, give or take.

So....the math says we have a greater chance to drop into a Low Altitude DZ (0-2500 ft) then we do a High Altitude DZ....
But it is just math....:blkeye:


----------



## goon175 (Apr 5, 2014)

But all air drop operations are based on AGL - Above Ground Level, not on what sea level is.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Apr 5, 2014)

goon175 said:


> But all air drop operations are based on AGL - Above Ground Level, not on what sea level is.



NEG...Pathfinder 101..... jumps can be given in MSL (mean sea level)
MSL = Elevation (in my example above 2750 ft)(rounded up to 50 ft) + Drop Altitude (500 ft)(this is the AGL)



Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that Elevation plays a role into how the chutte performs.


----------



## Johca (Apr 6, 2014)

The math certainly supports your conclusion, but the 82nd Airborne's potential to do a combat airborne assault is not equal globally.   Thus its specific most likely O-plan scenarios in most likely countries that must be   considered.   Unfortunately this global map is lacking in elevation detail for each color, but it is sufficient enough as you can zoom into areas of interest.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Apr 6, 2014)

Yepp, I think it is safe to say TURDs live in all elevations....

Sick map by the way.....thanks for the linkage!


----------

