RAF Aircrew Parachute 'Cocked' Related Question

Seat Type (Pilot) parachutes were adopted by the likes of fighter pilots.These required the pilot to sit on his parachute which was permanently connected the pilot's harness.

Bomber Command pilots tended to use the Chest Type (Observer) parachute but it was down to personal preference. However B.C pilots made their choice on the fact that a Seat Type (Pilot) was uncomfortable for the backside if one had to sit on the parachute for the usually long duration of a B.C operation.Fighter pilots preferrred the Seat Type simply because it was already available to quickly exit the aircraft and in the tight confines of a fighter cockpit there was little room for ancillary equipment such as a Chest Type parachute.Fighter sorties were of course much shorter in duration than B.C operations.

For multi crewed aircraft such as Bomber Command aircraft, the Chest Type parachute was usually stowed adjacent to the crew members operating station.Flight Engineers usually took care of the pilots parachute stowage.All crew members would wear their harness and when necessary clip their chest type parachute to the harness using two metal snap hooks which were attached to shoulder straps above the quick release box.

The above parachute does not look like the Chest Type parachute of yesteryear.If I remember correctly the rip cord was exposed on the pack making it easy to inadvertently "spring open" the parachute when negotiating a way down the fuselage past a pile of parachutes, usually left for collection after the completion of a flight and access taking place for an "after flight inspection".

 

looks real similar to modern day reserrve chutes we wear on our chest

 

Seat Type (Pilot) parachutes were adopted by the likes of fighter pilots.These required the pilot to sit on his parachute which was permanently connected the pilot's harness.

Bomber Command pilots tended to use the Chest Type (Observer) parachute but it was down to personal preference. However B.C pilots made their choice on the fact that a Seat Type (Pilot) was uncomfortable for the backside if one had to sit on the parachute for the usually long duration of a B.C operation.Fighter pilots preferrred the Seat Type simply because it was already available to quickly exit the aircraft and in the tight confines of a fighter cockpit there was little room for ancillary equipment such as a Chest Type parachute.Fighter sorties were of course much shorter in duration than B.C operations.

For multi crewed aircraft such as Bomber Command aircraft, the Chest Type parachute was usually stowed adjacent to the crew members operating station.Flight Engineers usually took care of the pilots parachute stowage.All crew members would wear their harness and when necessary clip their chest type parachute to the harness using two metal snap hooks which were attached to shoulder straps above the quick release box.

The above parachute does not look like the Chest Type parachute of yesteryear.If I remember correctly the rip cord was exposed on the pack making it easy to inadvertently "spring open" the parachute when negotiating a way down the fuselage past a pile of parachutes, usually left for collection after the completion of a flight and access taking place for an "after flight inspection".

Cheers Harry,

So would I be correct in assuming then that Fairey Battle crews would most likely use the seat parachutes due to the aircraft being relatively small compaired to the larger aircraft Bomber Command used later in the war?

I can't but think with combat being a relatively new thing for the British forces in 1940 that a lot of their personal equipment was old and very dated and rapidly and radically changed before the end of 1940.

Do you have any pictures by chance?

Cheers
Andy

 

Checked with my low-level daredevils today. They had never heard of the practise.

I however also got hold of two of our oldies parachute riggers/packers. Neither of them had heard of it either. But the one guy (93 yrs old) mentioned that Spitfire pilots had a technique of when baling out low-level, eased themselves out of the cockpit in a way so the chute was already starting to deploy when they kicked clear of a/c. But to do so I assume they had to pull the ripcord first.

But netiher provided an answer to your question, did it ? Sorry.

BTW: Thank you VERY VERY much for the book, which was patiently waiting for me. It's really an old gem!

 

sounds similer to what todays BASE jumpers use when jumping off a bridge or cliff or a bridge

 

As I said,I cannot recognise it as a Chest Type parachute.However after taking down the details,the item shown appears to be the Seat Type parachute pack 15A/96 which was part of the Mark 2 parachute used on RAF aircraft where the aircrew remained at their station.It appears that this gear was used, postwar, by such people as those whose duties involved flying RAF piston engined trainers and would be similar to the Seat Type Pilot parachutes used on WW2 fighter aircraft,although it has to be said the latter parachute appeared to be more of a baggy or bulk design.

Of course the Chest Type (Observer) type parachute allowed a pilot on a large aircraft a degree of "relaxation" and relief when situations were convenient on a long haul.One luxury was the provision of the Elsan toilet at the rear of the aircraft.There are many stories about mishaps with the Elsan chemical toilet and I have just been reading an account of such an incident.A No 51 Squadron Halifax, homeward bound to Snaith was left in the hands of the Bombe Aimer while the skipper relieved himself at the rear.Unfortunatly both engines on one side of the aircraft were shutdown inadvertently by the Flight Engineer.The Bomb Airmer had no experience of assymetric flying of the aircraft as the aircraft took a sudden dive and stability was only restored after a fight against rudder imbalance. Even then,the crew subsequently found themselves,after the struggle to stablise the aircraft,to be on a course heading back to Germany.Meanwhile the skipper, a Flight Commander, fought his way back to the cockpit in a "rather aggrieved mood" stinking of the contents of the Elsan.Apparently he was particularly upset because he was wearing his best blue,hoping to get a quick exit on leave when he arrived back at Snaith.

Now had he been wearing a Seat Type (Pilot) parachute, he may have had the choice of wearing a rubber tube/ urine bag Heath Robinson device such as those available to fighter pilots on long range escort duties into the German heartland.There are plenty of incidents related to these bags from USAAF fighter pilots when in combat roles over German territory.

Getting back to the use of the Seat Type (Pilot) parachute, there were examples of RAF Bomber Command aircraft which spring to mind,one which you mention being the Battle,the other is the Hampden where it was impossible for the pilot to leave his operating station when airborne and as such the Seat Type (Pilot) parachute was the only option.These aircraft had cramped cockpits with little room for ancillary gear.

 

LOL man we need a Former RAF pilot who is also a qualified Parachute rigger to settle this conundrum

 

Thanks again Harry.

So to summarise:

I think its reasonably safe to assume the Fairey Battle crews used seat parachutes that maybe similiar to the one I posted a picture of.

That still leaves the following though from the original post with a edit here and there:

1, Was cocking parachutes common practise in 1940 before the Battle of Britain?

2, Anyone know when Pilots/ Air Crew started doing this and how did it come about?

3, Were parachutes later modified during the war to compensate for this?

I think the answer to number 3 is most likely a yes from what has been said.

Regards
Andy

 

I think its reasonably safe to assume the Fairey Battle crews used seat parachutes that maybe similiar to the one I posted a picture of.

Possibly not, I've just found this in the Flight archive which seems to suggest that the pilot used a seat parachute and the other two crew members wore the chest type (See PDF).

This seems to be confirmed by this photo from the IWM.

Fairey Battle - IWM

It doesn't help answer the original question but hopefully it has narrowed down the type of chute we're looking at.

Nick

 

Assuming it was the chest type parachute, would these have been the strings referred to?

'cut through the strings that normally had to be broken when the rip cord was pulled after jumping out of the plane.'

 

Well Spotted that man !

I'll have a look through Battle of France for some pic's when I've finished hunting citations for Owen.

 

Nicks,

I found a similiar one in The Battle of France. I think these must be the strings the aptly named rip-cord cut through to deploy the chute.

 

These rip cords are very sensitive from my experience and the slightest mishandling would "spring" the chute so I can't see the practice of cutting the cords in the anticipation that the chute wiill deploy faster has to be weighed against the risk of the parachute becoming unmanageable in confined areas of the aircraft.

Must say,I have never heard of the practice which is being debated.

 

Like i said WE were preached at NEVER mess with a packed chute, DONT modify, FIX, Tinker, fiddle with, unless youre a rigger youd be a dumbass to mess with it

 

Like i said WE were preached at NEVER mess with a packed chute, DONT modify, FIX, Tinker, fiddle with, unless youre a rigger youd be a dumbass to mess with it

We heard you the first time.

Wouldn't it be appropriate to allow for a little consideration of the fact that these guys (the dumbasses to whom we owe our present freedom) were faced with the possibility of having to bale out with margins far more narrow than neither you nor I have encountered ?

It may also be worth a bit of thought that their equipment was far simpler and more crude than anything we are offered today. I would for example, not dare trying to compare a Hurricane pilot's chute with what is fully integrated into the current ACES II or MB seats.

 

It has to be said the Ranger 6 is reflecting what was drummed into pupils at all stages of their training in order to prevent a tragedy in the future.

One of the first rules drummed into me at a very young age when the instructors were building up our confidence in handling equipment was "Never ever point a weapon,loaded or not, at a person unless you wish to kill him".That fundamental rule still holds stead today.

There are many aspects of technology which allow little latitude in its handling. Parachute/safety equipment,the fusing, management of bombs and mines,safe handling of weapons are such examples.Whatever status we may put on past technology today, it required those using it to understand the principles of its operation,its safety and stable limits and the line not to be crossed in seeking "flexibility" Still there are some who might be over confident after the most thorough in depth technical and operational training and take "their eye of the ball with disasterous results.History records their deviation from the instructed method of operation.

As regards parachutes,all had been scientifically designed for a purpose to save individual life.There was not a design to cope with double loadings.Yet in emergency,life saving circumstances,there were instances where this specification was tested, some successful,many not on a descent when exiting a distressed aircraft.Usually when the canopy opened it created excessive shock loading on clips and parachute harness which resulted in the ad hoc attached airman falling to his death.

 

Just thought I'd add my two pennies worth on the end...
I've practiced being a "meat bomb" quite a bit in the past and the term "cocking" the chute is about preparing the small drogue chute that pulls the main clear of the bag.
So perhaps there was some string holding the drogue to the rig that would be easily snapped through by pulling the cord, but if already done the drogue might pull the main out of the rig on it's own? (hence the story about the unconscious airman?)
just a thought?

 

So skimmod its like what BASE jumpers use.. I kinda figured but im an idiot....

 

No, not an idiot. Just a different jumping experience.
They have them on all chutes not deployed by static line. Just had a look at my (Very) old rig, there is a rip cord (bit of tubing attached to a length of clothes line!) that feeds through the cord that holds the flaps down that stops the chute from falling out on it's own accord. The drogue is the first thing that falls out from here and that in turn pulls the bag containing the main out for deployment.
So if I cut the cords, it would mean as I stepped from the aircraft the drogue would catch the slipstream and start dragging the bag, rather than me having to deploy the rig myself.
As you say mate... damn dangerous if it caught the tailplane, or any part of the aircraft on the way out! However, if you weren't keen on jumping, you could just turn the aircraft upside down and just fall out?
Either way... I'm with you. Once I've packed it, I don't mess around with it!!

PS. just to say I don't jump this one anymore, it was a cheap first rig and the more I look at it, the more I'm amazed I'm alive! The modern one, you throw the drogue to open the chute!

 

Skimmod,

Would RAF 1940 chutes have a drone or would that be a post war addition?

Cheers
A