Rob O'Connor

Hi All,

My neighbour told me the following story which you may find
interesting. He is also very interested in what would have happened if
he hadnt have removed the belt when he did. I said I'd post on here to
see if any experts knew, or could offer a best guess. If you need any
more information I can get it for you.

What follows is my neighbour's account.

-------------------------

In 1945, during army (Airborne) manoeuvres, I did a routine parachute
jump over Salisbury Plain. Opening procedure was automatic, as our
chute static lines were attached to a cable inside the plane.

I had foolishly fitted a belt around my waist after connecting up my
chute, not realising that I had trapped the static line, with the
result that the tightening of the static line could only attempt to
pull the canopy out of the pack, down between my belt and my body. Not
the way it was supposed to go. In the event, I was just able to
release the belt in time, with the result that my chute opened
correctly.

I am very keen to know exactly what would have happened if I had
failed to release the belt? Clearly, the canopy would have tried to
feed itself in between my body and the belt, and this would have been
impossible.

My recollection of the parachute operating procedure is that, in
addition to First Ties, (or Primary Ties? I don't remember the proper
name) which would snap at the first pull, thereby opening the envelope
of the pack, there was a "Final Tie" attaching the very tip of the
canopy to the end of the static line. This Final Tie was only intended
to break at the point when the canopy had left the pack, followed by
the rigging-lines, and only when the whole length of canopy and
rigging lines were extended and taut, that is when the final tie was
intended to snap, at which point the canopy would open..

I have heard tell of parachutes of that type which did not release,
(although I don't understand how this could happen, since the final
tie had a breaking-point measured only in pounds) and the jumper
dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled back aboard the
plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having the static line
cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst passing over a lake. I
never came across this first hand, but I understand that survival rate
in this sort of incident is extremely low.

I really want to ascertain just what WOULD have happened, step by
step, if I had been unable to release the belt in time.

Is there anybody out there who knows?

oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com

Rob O'Connor wrote:
[snip]
> I had foolishly fitted a belt around my waist after connecting up my
> chute, not realising that I had trapped the static line, with the
> result that the tightening of the static line could only attempt to
> pull the canopy out of the pack, down between my belt and my body. Not
> the way it was supposed to go. In the event, I was just able to
> release the belt in time, with the result that my chute opened
> correctly.
>
> I am very keen to know exactly what would have happened if I had
> failed to release the belt? Clearly, the canopy would have tried to
> feed itself in between my body and the belt, and this would have been
> impossible.

One of the following, with possible combinations.

1) The belt buckle would have broken, the chute deployed.

2) The static line would have disconnected from the
canopy, before the canopy got to the belt and then would
have fallen out of the rig. You probably get a rough opening,
but everything works out fine.

3) The canopy gets pulled partially through the belt, then
the static line disconnects. You get a classic horse shoe
malfunction. If you're smart and quick, you disconnect the
belt and the canopy is released and you have a rough opening.
If you're slow, you die. If you're unaware, you dump your
reserve, possibly having a entanglement with the main and die.

4) The static line fouls in the belt, you become a parachutist
in tow. The jump master waits for you to acknowledge it,
then cuts the static line. You deploy your reserve. If you
are unaware, he slides down the static line, cuts the line
and dumps your reserve.

I'd bet on #3

Mick Cooper

<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1162216254.769098.194860@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>
> 1) The belt buckle would have broken, the chute deployed.
>
> 2) The static line would have disconnected from the
> canopy, before the canopy got to the belt and then would
> have fallen out of the rig. You probably get a rough opening,
> but everything works out fine.
>
> 3) The canopy gets pulled partially through the belt, then
> the static line disconnects. You get a classic horse shoe
> malfunction. If you're smart and quick, you disconnect the
> belt and the canopy is released and you have a rough opening.
> If you're slow, you die. If you're unaware, you dump your
> reserve, possibly having a entanglement with the main and die.
>
> 4) The static line fouls in the belt, you become a parachutist
> in tow. The jump master waits for you to acknowledge it,
> then cuts the static line. You deploy your reserve. If you
> are unaware, he slides down the static line, cuts the line
> and dumps your reserve.
>
> I'd bet on #3
>

I wouldn't bet on 4

they didn't have reserves

oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com

Mick Cooper wrote:
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1162216254.769098.194860@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > 1) The belt buckle would have broken, the chute deployed.
> >
> > 2) The static line would have disconnected from the
> > canopy, before the canopy got to the belt and then would
> > have fallen out of the rig. You probably get a rough opening,
> > but everything works out fine.
> >
> > 3) The canopy gets pulled partially through the belt, then
> > the static line disconnects. You get a classic horse shoe
> > malfunction. If you're smart and quick, you disconnect the
> > belt and the canopy is released and you have a rough opening.
> > If you're slow, you die. If you're unaware, you dump your
> > reserve, possibly having a entanglement with the main and die.
> >
> > 4) The static line fouls in the belt, you become a parachutist
> > in tow. The jump master waits for you to acknowledge it,
> > then cuts the static line. You deploy your reserve. If you
> > are unaware, he slides down the static line, cuts the line
> > and dumps your reserve.
> >
> > I'd bet on #3
> >
>
> I wouldn't bet on 4
>
> they didn't have reserves

I dunno. I'm looking at alot of pictures of WWII paratroopers
and they all have reserves on their bellies.

PeterL

"oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in
news:1162476780.858497.114560@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com:

>
> Mick Cooper wrote:
>> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162216254.769098.194860@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>> >
>> > 1) The belt buckle would have broken, the chute deployed.
>> >
>> > 2) The static line would have disconnected from the
>> > canopy, before the canopy got to the belt and then would
>> > have fallen out of the rig. You probably get a rough opening,
>> > but everything works out fine.
>> >
>> > 3) The canopy gets pulled partially through the belt, then
>> > the static line disconnects. You get a classic horse shoe
>> > malfunction. If you're smart and quick, you disconnect the
>> > belt and the canopy is released and you have a rough opening.
>> > If you're slow, you die. If you're unaware, you dump your
>> > reserve, possibly having a entanglement with the main and die.
>> >
>> > 4) The static line fouls in the belt, you become a parachutist
>> > in tow. The jump master waits for you to acknowledge it,
>> > then cuts the static line. You deploy your reserve. If you
>> > are unaware, he slides down the static line, cuts the line
>> > and dumps your reserve.
>> >
>> > I'd bet on #3
>> >
>>
>> I wouldn't bet on 4
>>
>> they didn't have reserves
>
> I dunno. I'm looking at alot of pictures of WWII paratroopers
> and they all have reserves on their bellies.
>
>


No-one jumped *without* a reserve.

#2 Law for a (Military) Dope Roper is to make sure that they have a 6-7kg
bundle siting on their gut.

[Escape gear!!]



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

'Enjoy today, it was paid for by a veteran'

Mick Cooper

<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1162476780.858497.114560@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> they didn't have reserves
>
> I dunno. I'm looking at alot of pictures of WWII paratroopers
> and they all have reserves on their bellies.
>

it will be their personal gear

they didn't have reserves

oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com

Mick Cooper wrote:
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1162476780.858497.114560@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> >>
> >> they didn't have reserves
> >
> > I dunno. I'm looking at alot of pictures of WWII paratroopers
> > and they all have reserves on their bellies.
> >
>
> it will be their personal gear

Um..... As one who's jumped a belly wart, I recognize
one when I sees one.

>
> they didn't have reserves

Paul Moore

WW2 British paras did'nt use reserves but the US Airborne did. Reserves
only became common in the UK airborne slightly after WW2.

Paul

"Mick Cooper" <keepth@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ApudnauopIbZhtfYRVnyrA@bt.com...
>
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1162476780.858497.114560@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>>>
>>> they didn't have reserves
>>
>> I dunno. I'm looking at alot of pictures of WWII paratroopers
>> and they all have reserves on their bellies.
>>
>
> it will be their personal gear
>
> they didn't have reserves
>

luugnutes

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:11:48 -0000, "Mick Cooper" <keepth@spam.com>
wrote:

> they didn't have reserves

The OP's neighbor who told the story about which the thread
originated, would be the best judge of that, don't you think?

Of course, Mick Cooper usually doesn't think before posting, but let's
hear from the OP instead, please.

Ivan Peters

luugnutes wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:11:48 -0000, "Mick Cooper" <keepth@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> they didn't have reserves
>
> The OP's neighbor who told the story about which the thread
> originated, would be the best judge of that, don't you think?
>
> Of course, Mick Cooper usually doesn't think before posting, but let's
> hear from the OP instead, please.
>

Or you could just go back and read the original message properly
yourself. the following is from the original post:

==========================
....and the jumper dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled
back aboard the plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having the
static line cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst passing over
a lake. I never came across this first hand, but I understand that
survival rate in this sort of incident is extremely low.
==========================

Seems consistent with not having a reserve to me.

Ivan

luugnutes

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:52:43 +1300, Ivan Peters <ivan@no.spam.com>
wrote:

>> The OP's neighbor who told the story about which the thread
>> originated, would be the best judge of that, don't you think?
....
>
> Or you could just go back and read the original message properly
> yourself. the following is from the original post:
>
> ==========================
> ...and the jumper dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled
> back aboard the plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having the
> static line cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst passing over
> a lake. I never came across this first hand, but I understand that
> survival rate in this sort of incident is extremely low.
> ==========================
>
> Seems consistent with not having a reserve to me.

Why is that? Do you think the "neighbor" had the option of pulling his
reserve while in tow? What "seems consistent" _to you_ doesn't
necessarily answer the question.

OP, please answer: Was your "neighbor" (as you called him) wearing a
reserve canopy of any kind at the time of the story? A simple yes, no,
or "I don't know, and neither does he" will suffice.

Mike Spurgeon

Ivan Peters wrote:
> Or you could just go back and read the original message properly
> yourself. the following is from the original post:
>
> ==========================
> ...and the jumper dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled
> back aboard the plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having the
> static line cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst passing over
> a lake. I never came across this first hand, but I understand that
> survival rate in this sort of incident is extremely low.
> ==========================
>
> Seems consistent with not having a reserve to me.

Your comprehension sucks.

First, he was pulled back aboard. No parachute used.

Second: *or* the static line was cut.

Are you saying they would purposely kill someone by cutting their static
line when they don't have a reserve?

Alan Wilkinson

Mike Read the post!! Why do you think they would do it over a lake???
To maximise the chance of survival!!

Now to quote from text:

"The Sky People" By Peter Hearn ISBN 1 85310 869 3

Page 108 Description of picture on adjacent page: "British Paratroopers
drop ontp Salisbury Plain from a formation of Whitleys in 1942. In the
left centre of the picture. one of the 'chutes has "candled": there was
NO reserve parachute" (

Page, paragraph 2 "in 1956 British Paratroopers jumped into action for
the first time since 1945, for the assault on Suez they used the same
equipment, techniques and weapons with which they had crossed the Rhine
eleven years before. .......The only major ADDITION to the British
Paratroopers kit since 1945 had been a RESERVE parachute, and now at
Suez, he was leaving it behind in favour of more ammunition"

So its pretty clear that Mick and Paul we quite correct.

And yes, I know I'm a spotter, the book just fell open at that page
honest!

Alan )


Mike Spurgeon wrote:
> Ivan Peters wrote:
> > Or you could just go back and read the original message properly
> > yourself. the following is from the original post:
> >
> > ==========================
> > ...and the jumper dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled
> > back aboard the plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having the
> > static line cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst passing over
> > a lake. I never came across this first hand, but I understand that
> > survival rate in this sort of incident is extremely low.
> > ==========================
> >
> > Seems consistent with not having a reserve to me.
>
> Your comprehension sucks.
>
> First, he was pulled back aboard. No parachute used.
>
> Second: *or* the static line was cut.
>
> Are you saying they would purposely kill someone by cutting their static
> line when they don't have a reserve?

Mick Cooper

"Alan Wilkinson" <Alan@skydivers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1162547100.052388.50440@f16g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Mike Read the post!! Why do you think they would do it over a lake???
> To maximise the chance of survival!!
>
> Now to quote from text:
>
> "The Sky People" By Peter Hearn ISBN 1 85310 869 3
>
> Page 108 Description of picture on adjacent page: "British Paratroopers
> drop ontp Salisbury Plain from a formation of Whitleys in 1942. In the
> left centre of the picture. one of the 'chutes has "candled": there was
> NO reserve parachute" (
>
> Page, paragraph 2 "in 1956 British Paratroopers jumped into action for
> the first time since 1945, for the assault on Suez they used the same
> equipment, techniques and weapons with which they had crossed the Rhine
> eleven years before. .......The only major ADDITION to the British
> Paratroopers kit since 1945 had been a RESERVE parachute, and now at
> Suez, he was leaving it behind in favour of more ammunition"
>
> So its pretty clear that Mick and Paul we quite correct.
>
> And yes, I know I'm a spotter, the book just fell open at that page
> honest!
>
> Alan )
>
Thanks Alan

I knew it to be the case - as when they filmed A bridge too Far, the only
error was that the paras in the film actually wore reserves

Over to you Mr Ferree.

Ivan Peters

Mike Spurgeon wrote:
> Ivan Peters wrote:
>> Or you could just go back and read the original message properly
>> yourself. the following is from the original post:
>>
>> ==========================
>> ...and the jumper dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled
>> back aboard the plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having
>> the static line cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst
>> passing over a lake. I never came across this first hand, but I
>> understand that survival rate in this sort of incident is extremely low.
>> ==========================
>>
>> Seems consistent with not having a reserve to me.
>
> Your comprehension sucks.
>
> First, he was pulled back aboard. No parachute used.
>
> Second: *or* the static line was cut.
>
> Are you saying they would purposely kill someone by cutting their static
> line when they don't have a reserve?

And you are mis-quoting. There was no full stop after cut. The
important bit at the end was "whilst passing over a lake." Sounds to me
like something you might try if you've got a guy on the end of a static
line, with no reserve, who you can't get back in the plane. Add to that
the reference to the low survival rate and I think I my comprehension is
just fine thank you.

PeterL

"Alan Wilkinson" <Alan@skydivers.co.uk> wrote in
news:1162547100.052388.50440@f16g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com:

> Mike Read the post!! Why do you think they would do it over a lake???
> To maximise the chance of survival!!
>
> Now to quote from text:
>
> "The Sky People" By Peter Hearn ISBN 1 85310 869 3
>
> Page 108 Description of picture on adjacent page: "British
> Paratroopers drop ontp Salisbury Plain from a formation of Whitleys in
> 1942. In the left centre of the picture. one of the 'chutes has
> "candled": there was NO reserve parachute" (
>
> Page, paragraph 2 "in 1956 British Paratroopers jumped into action for
> the first time since 1945, for the assault on Suez they used the same
> equipment, techniques and weapons with which they had crossed the
> Rhine eleven years before. .......The only major ADDITION to the
> British Paratroopers kit since 1945 had been a RESERVE parachute, and
> now at Suez, he was leaving it behind in favour of more ammunition"
>



I rest *my* case.





--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

'Enjoy today, it was paid for by a veteran'

Mike Spurgeon

Alan Wilkinson wrote:
> Mike Read the post!! Why do you think they would do it over a lake???
> To maximise the chance of survival!!

You think water doesn't have the consistancy of concrete?

I was commenting on your previous quote. It wasn't exactly the one you
should have used.

Mike Spurgeon

Ivan Peters wrote:
> Mike Spurgeon wrote:
>> Ivan Peters wrote:
>>> Or you could just go back and read the original message properly
>>> yourself. the following is from the original post:
>>>
>>> ==========================
>>> ...and the jumper dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled
>>> back aboard the plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having
>>> the static line cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst
>>> passing over a lake. I never came across this first hand, but I
>>> understand that survival rate in this sort of incident is extremely low.
>>> ==========================
>>>
>>> Seems consistent with not having a reserve to me.
>>
>> Your comprehension sucks.
>>
>> First, he was pulled back aboard. No parachute used.
>>
>> Second: *or* the static line was cut.
>>
>> Are you saying they would purposely kill someone by cutting their
>> static line when they don't have a reserve?
>
> And you are mis-quoting. There was no full stop after cut. The
> important bit at the end was "whilst passing over a lake." Sounds to me
> like something you might try if you've got a guy on the end of a static
> line, with no reserve, who you can't get back in the plane. Add to that
> the reference to the low survival rate and I think I my comprehension is
> just fine thank you.

I personally know of someone who was dragged through the grass till the
plane could come to a stop. He broke a thumb.

You can play iffy-maybe all you want, but I've been playing this game
longer, and know more of the possibilities...
>

luugnutes

On 3 Nov 2006 01:45:00 -0800, "Alan Wilkinson" <Alan@skydivers.co.uk>
wrote:

> Mike Read the post!! Why do you think they would do it over a lake???
> To maximise the chance of survival!!

Is that a joke? The only benefit to jumping over a lake would be
reducing hazard to those on the ground.

I'd like to see _you_ jump over a lake without a parachute. Seriously,
I would enjoy that ... SPLAT!!!

luugnutes

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:05:49 -0000, "Mick Cooper" <keepth@spam.com>
wrote:

> I knew it to be the case - as when they filmed A bridge too Far, the only
> error was that the paras in the film actually wore reserves

Your not the OP's neighbor who told the story, so your guess is as
good as anybody else's.

Mick Cooper

"luugnutes" <dferree@privy.much> wrote in message
news:iscnk2t1mp4sjhv48i58moroj9hi3vanaj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:05:49 -0000, "Mick Cooper" <keepth@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I knew it to be the case - as when they filmed A bridge too Far, the only
>> error was that the paras in the film actually wore reserves
>
> Your not the OP's neighbor who told the story, so your guess is as
> good as anybody else's.

oh yeah

whatever

lucky guess on my part then

loser!

Mick Cooper

"Mike Spurgeon" <mike@spurgeon.net> wrote in message
news:454B7E24.7020708@spurgeon.net...
> You can play iffy-maybe all you want, but I've been playing this game
> longer, and know more of the possibilities...
>>

You think!

When Ivan first jumped his jump pilot was one of the Montgolfier brothers.

luugnutes

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:38:16 -0000, "Mick Cooper" <keepth@spam.com>
wrote:

> lucky guess on my part then

Your guess is that the life of a British paratrooper wasn't worth the
cost of a reserve parachute, and that they were were completely
dispensable. No one is surprised that you feel that way.

Mick Cooper

"luugnutes" <dferree@privy.much> wrote in message
news:ls1sk2lrhismomt1o0mc63f18hj6epg2vo@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:38:16 -0000, "Mick Cooper" <keepth@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> lucky guess on my part then
>
> Your guess is that the life of a British paratrooper wasn't worth the
> cost of a reserve parachute, and that they were were completely
> dispensable. No one is surprised that you feel that way.

do me a favour!

I did not say anything of the sort.

Its just that that was the mentality at the time - it was a war - and the
british felt that there was no reason to give the paras reserves.

i din't make the choice - I simply said that - that was the way things were.

I know that you are a plonker - but don't castigate me for the mentality of
the time.

Is it my fault that WW1 pilots were not given parachutes because it was felt
that they might abandon aircraft before they were truly incapable of flying
anymore?

grow up

Rob O'Connor

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:13:44 -0800, luugnutes <dferree@privy.much>
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:52:43 +1300, Ivan Peters <ivan@no.spam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> The OP's neighbor who told the story about which the thread
>>> originated, would be the best judge of that, don't you think?
>...
>>
>> Or you could just go back and read the original message properly
>> yourself. the following is from the original post:
>>
>> ==========================
>> ...and the jumper dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled
>> back aboard the plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having the
>> static line cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst passing over
>> a lake. I never came across this first hand, but I understand that
>> survival rate in this sort of incident is extremely low.
>> ==========================
>>
>> Seems consistent with not having a reserve to me.
>
>Why is that? Do you think the "neighbor" had the option of pulling his
>reserve while in tow? What "seems consistent" _to you_ doesn't
>necessarily answer the question.
>
>OP, please answer: Was your "neighbor" (as you called him) wearing a
>reserve canopy of any kind at the time of the story? A simple yes, no,
>or "I don't know, and neither does he" will suffice.

Hi,

Sorry for the delay responding. No - my neighbour did not have a
reserve. Hence why he is so anxious to know what might have happened
if he didnt remove the best in time.

He has also sent me some more information which better describes the
'belt' and how it was released copied below. Thanks for all the
responses by the way.

I was taking part in a mass jump over Salisbury Plains. I was number 2
in a Dakota, and the plane had done almost an hour of cruising, before
approaching the D.Z., and I had been wandering about the plane, even
laying on the floor with my head virtually out of the open door,
taking photographs, and waving to any farm girls we passed over.

To give me freedom, I had undone the waist belt and ankle strap which
had strapped my rifle valise to my right leg, and left the rifle gear
at my seat. When we approached the DZ, I returned to my seat, and
strapped my rifle valise back on, including my small-pack (with water
bottle and rations etc.) which I had also attached to the valise. When
the order came, with everyone else, I hooked up, and queued for the
door, with no suspicions that anything might be wrong. Approaching the
drop, we got the command: "Tell off for Equipment Check!" from the
dispatcher (RSM Dusty Miller) and I dutifully checked, and hollered
"Number 1 OK" The fellow behind me shouted out: "Number 2 er.er..."
and began tugging at my static line. Meanwhile, the shouts went back
"Number 3 OK, Number 4 OK " etc. etc. whilst I was trying (and
failing!) to establish what number 3 had found amiss. The numbers
completed, the green light came on, Dusty Miller shouted "GO", and
number 1 went, with a pat on the back from Dusty Miller. I put my
hands on the door frame, and tried shouting to Dusty Miller that
something was wrong, and I think he must have thought that I was
shouting "I have got one of my headaches!" because he knocked my hand
away from the door and pushed me out!




Now, this is where it gets interesting! I had never jumped with a
rifle valise before, and had had only a couple of short lessons on use
of the quick release pull, which was somewhere near my right hip. But
even at that point, when I actually left the plane, it had not dawned
on me what was wrong. But in the very split second after I left the
door, I had a dramatically clear mental picture of my khaki rifle
valise strap going over my white static line. (In other words, I had
trapped the static line under the valise strap) I grabbed and pulled
the quick release and my chute opened as normal. My timing must have
been phenomenal! My rifle valise had of course been instantly released
and was dangling below me in the way it should have done much nearer
the ground! Looking down at it, I saw my small pack hurtling downward,
missing by inches, it seemed, at least a half a dozen of the hundreds
of other chutes which had gone before me.

chungmuk@yahoo.com

Mike Spurgeon wrote:
> Ivan Peters wrote:
> > Or you could just go back and read the original message properly
> > yourself. the following is from the original post:
> >
> > ==========================
> > ...and the jumper dangled behind the plane until he was either pulled
> > back aboard the plane (by at least two very strong guys!) or having the
> > static line cut with a knife, from inside the plane, whilst passing over
> > a lake. I never came across this first hand, but I understand that
> > survival rate in this sort of incident is extremely low.
> > ==========================
> >
> > Seems consistent with not having a reserve to me.
>
> Your comprehension sucks.
>
> First, he was pulled back aboard. No parachute used.
>
> Second: *or* the static line was cut.
>
> Are you saying they would purposely kill someone by cutting their static
> line when they don't have a reserve?

depends on where he was at in the stick, at the front? Hell yeah kill
him. If it was a combat jump those guys were taking German flack most
of the time, freaking goony bird lights up their all dead. No one man
is more important than unit integrity in war time. Although Officers &
NCO's like to save a life if they can. you do what you have to do to
save the majority. Besides some of those jumps were under one grand, as
low as 400' in some cases. Loaded with a combat load at those altitudes
ain't no old T4 or reserve going to save you. Yeah, they jumped T-7
mains right up through the Korean Police action. Not to mention where
was the jump aircraft
in the drop formation? Better to pull him in if its in the rear of the
formation or a training jump I guess. Might look bad on a NCO's service
jacket killing a perfectly good paratrooper on training jumps. You know
in the bad old days each individual packed his own. Guess he learned a
lesson from at least one jump! ;->

luugnutes

On 20 Nov 2006 10:23:02 -0800, "escaped_prisoner@hotmail.com"
<escaped_prisoner@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You also mention The Queen we had in 1945.... for your info we didn't have a
> queen in 1945.

So you looked around for another one? You people are indeed idiots and
gluttons for punishment.

PeterD

the unknown flailer <thuythu@iwon.com> wrote:

> hell their lucky not to have an American President by now

That's so true - very lucky indeed.
Too bad you lot are unlucky enough to have an American President,
especially one of such representative calibre.

--
Pd

the unknown flailer

PeterD wrote:
> the unknown flailer <thuythu@iwon.com> wrote:
>
> > hell their lucky not to have an American President by now
>
> That's so true - very lucky indeed.
> Too bad you lot are unlucky enough to have an American President,
> especially one of such representative calibre.
>
> --
> Pd


Yes, like I said---lucky not to have, care to trade Tony Blair for the
dumbass?

luugnutes

On 21 Nov 2006 05:48:52 -0800, "the unknown flailer"
<thuythu@iwon.com> wrote:

> I think not.

That's a given, and always has been.

the unknown flailer

PeterD wrote:
> the unknown flailer <thuythu@iwon.com> wrote:
>
> > hell their lucky not to have an American President by now
>
> That's so true - very lucky indeed.
> Too bad you lot are unlucky enough to have an American President,
> especially one of such representative calibre.
>
> --
> Pd

That's Lodi Mike's President he campaigned hard for Bush over Kerry,
being a old Teamsters union goon I'm Labor Party all the way so Blair
is more my type. GW Bush is more a damn Tory you bloody ignorant Brit!
Looks like they will both be out of office about the same time, so its
a moot point. VOTE LABOR PARTY so we can keep England involved in at
least Afghanistan, the Royal Marines need the combat experience you
dumb BPA NANCY BOY, really you people not only speak unintelligible
English but you appear to be suffer poor breeding also. Pip Pip Carry
on churl !!! 0~ ;-*