# Strange pic



## VALENGO (Aug 18, 2010)

Not exactly an aircaft picture but, what do you mean about this one?. I downloaded it from a "general purpose" site (not dedicated) and there are is no details about it. That guy must have had an headache all of the day...


----------



## davparlr (Aug 18, 2010)

Looks like a German paratrooper landing head first in a poppy field in East Europe somewhere, probably Soviet Union.


----------



## VALENGO (Aug 18, 2010)

Yes, the shack at foreground looks like an isba.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 18, 2010)

pretty hard to land head first unless you lost the chute or your feet get tangled in the risers. details are difficult to make out but it looks like a strong ground wind kept the chute inflated dragging him (dust cloud) along the ground head first. there appears to be something sticking out of the ground that he then struck with his head, his momentum then his feet came up and over, kinda like a sport bike doing a "stoppie"


----------



## VALENGO (Aug 18, 2010)

Did he crashed with head against some obstacle?. Now that you point it, looks like there was something in the head´s trajectory.


----------



## Kingscoy (Aug 18, 2010)

It is actually quit right what the man does. If you are airborne, upon touchdown you make a so called para role. Apparently the photographer made his photo during this role. I have included a photo of my own airborne unit were the photo was taken just a fraction of a second later. 
And I don't think it is a German paratrooper, looking at the four risers. The German parachute had their risers attached in a single point.

Cheers,
Sander


----------



## mikewint (Aug 18, 2010)

spent many happy hours learning the PLF but you end up on your back not head as in the pic. you can't see his head, there is something curved in the way. the dust behind him suggests he was being draggged by the chute at the time


----------



## Kingscoy (Aug 18, 2010)

mikewint said:


> spent many happy hours learning the PLF but you end up on your back not head as in the pic. you can't see his head, there is something curved in the way. the dust behind him suggests he was being draggged by the chute at the time



I have seen more of these, presumed head first, landing pics.There is even a RAF news reel regarding Market Garden showing a paratrooper landing the same way as this photo. Anyway if it is head first than he wasn't a happy fellow. But I don't think it is.
But the dust you mention....I looked at it, could it be that that's his reserve chute somehow deploying. It seems to me that it is so white to be dust.

Cheers,
Sander


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2010)

I agree with Kingscoy, I think he just had a really bad role. But then again I never had the desire to go airborne. As a crew chief I had no desire to jump out of my perfectly good flying aircraft.


----------



## VALENGO (Aug 18, 2010)

So, crash or para role?.
I agree about the dust, too white, perhaps another parachute.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 18, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with Kingscoy, I think he just had a really bad roll


True enough
it doesn't take much of a draught to get you going sideways quickly. All you can do then is rotate your chute and come in sideways to the line of travel with a fistful of lift web. Touchdown in these circumstances is rarely pretty.


----------



## Airframes (Aug 18, 2010)

I think this is a shot, possibly a 'still' from film footage, of British Paras (the canopies seem to be 'X' Type) in the 1950s, possibly in Greece, possibly the UK (Isba might be a hay stack).
The landing looks perfectly normal to me, and there is little wind, judging by the angles and oscillation of the other canopies. It looks like possibly his reserve has deployed, and it also seems he has landed on, or close to, at least two other canopies, or possibly the 'Alpha' marker on the DZ (would explain the location of the camera).
The para is half way through his PLF, with the canopy just beginning to collapse. The lift webs (risers) are still under tension, and the rigging lines are visible. He is not on his head, and there is no ground projection. What you are seeing is his left arm, still in the 'parachute position', with his shoulders rounded, and his chin on his chest, the standard position for landing. It also appears that the flaps of the back-pack, which enclose the static line bag when the 'chute is packed, are visible, partly obscuring his head. He will have walked away from that one without problem, the only criticism would have been from a P.J.I., that he didn't have feet and knees together !


----------



## Wayne Little (Aug 19, 2010)

Good shot of the 'landing' none the less, not something one would normally see though?


----------



## Kingscoy (Aug 19, 2010)

Wayne Little said:


> Good shot of the 'landing' none the less, not something one would normally see though?



Hmmm. Every landing I have made was like this. Especially backward landings with a few knots of wind. And like airframes said you walk away unharmed because if you don't execute your landing good you will be.

Cheers,
Sander


----------



## Airframes (Aug 19, 2010)

Agreed. Most people today are used to seeing 'stand up' landings on sport rigs, or might see film footage of military drops. In the latter, the roll is over before you can blink, so the attitude of the soldier on the deck is not noticed.
Know what you mean about the backward landings - if you walk away in one piece, it was a good one !!


----------



## VALENGO (Aug 19, 2010)

So, the normal landing in military jumps is backwards and not over the feet?.


----------



## Kingscoy (Aug 19, 2010)

You can land in every direction...frontal, rightside, leftside and backwards. That depends of your exit and is in limited ways changable. Backward landings are very disliked because you don't see that well were you are going giving a sence of not being in controll. It is difficult to explain...every landing is carried out using your role....feet and knees tightly together and full tension to the body. Upon touchdown you role in your "flight" direction because the chute will pull you there. And most of the times your role will be perfect and sometimes less perfect...or just bad beacuse of the wind speed, knees not together etc etc. 

Cheers,
Sander


----------



## Airframes (Aug 19, 2010)

And the ground is invariably less than smooth and flat. Plus, your weapons container, hanging below you on a twelve foot (3.6m) rope, hits first, and can sometimes slightly 'arrest' the final part of your arrival, resulting in a landing resembling a dropped sack of potatoes (that's the polite description !).
The parachute canopy shown in Sander's landing is the current LLPC, a parachute designed for low level drops, and semi steerable. Previous canopies, such as the WW2 'X' type, and the later 'PXNS', used up until the late 1980's, are only semi-controllable by pulling down on the lift webs (risers) to spill air fom, for example, the rear of the canopy, partially decreasing forward drift, and likewise front and side drift. This only reduces forward movement by approximately 25%, so any wind at or over 10 knots is likely to introduce an 'interesting' landing !!


----------



## Wayne Little (Aug 19, 2010)

never gave it a lot of thought before as the normal person would see straight forward sort of sanitised 'perfect' landings rather than what you are describing..Thanks for the info Guys...


----------



## VALENGO (Aug 19, 2010)

We, civilians, are used to see those funny jumps with perfect landings on TV. Military jumps looks a little more rough. Why keeps still the parachute and is not used parapente (the flat one with mattress shape)?


----------



## Barrakooda (Aug 19, 2010)

Having done many PLF's landings, agree that the jumper has been dragged back by the wind on landing. Due to whatever the photo taken has captured a "moment in time" that we see, that is out of the ordinary and no more.

Must of hurt though


----------



## Airframes (Aug 19, 2010)

Valengo, the 'square' airfoil section parachutes were originally developed for military use, but not for mass drops. They are used mainly for specialist insertions, by small teams, for example the S.A.S., where accuracy and range are required. They may be used for HALO jumps, where the parachutist exits at high altitude, but deploys the canopy at perhaps 1,500 feet (450 m), or perhaps HAHO, high altitude, high opening, where a team may leave an aircraft at, say, 30,000 feet (9,000 m), and then 'fly' for up to perhaps 25 - 30 miles (40 - 48 km) to land on or near their objective. This might involve exiting the aircraft in 'friendly' airspace, allowing incursion into enemy territory without detection, most probably at night.
The main reason these canopies are not used for normal, static-line mass drops is the level of training required, and the low altitudes used in this type of drop, possibly as low as 500 feet (150 m) where the risk of collision and injuries is quite high, therefore negating part of the assault force.
I doubt if the para in the B&W pic even felt any discomfort, as that DZ looks very good, compared to some I've 'arrived' on !


----------



## VALENGO (Aug 19, 2010)

Well, gentlemen, I´ve learned alot. Thanks to all, especially Airframes for clarifying the last point.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 19, 2010)

OK, the white stuff could be the reserve, seems to be coming from the right spot. now look at that right hand riser. does not seem to be attached to him. if it is his head should be between them. all i see is some thin grayish stuff i'm taking for dust.
i'm para qualified but just did my 5 plus 2 combat jumps in vietnam mostly into trees


----------



## hawkeye2an (Aug 19, 2010)

Terry, You're an aviation GOD !!! Your posts have so much knowlegable information. I appreciate your willingness to share it with us.

This lowly human stands in awe.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 20, 2010)

Airframes said:


> The main reason these canopies are not used for normal, static-line mass drops is the level of training required, and the low altitudes used in this type of drop, possibly as low as 500 feet (150 m) where the risk of collision and injuries is quite high, therefore negating part of the assault force.


Another
equally good reason is that there has never been a fatality in British forces using the PX4 and its predecessors(s) for static line deployment, or at least there wasn't up until the time I went through. The same cannot be said of the GQ360 in its own method of deployment; used for static line, there'd probably be one every stick...


----------

