Parachutes- Wonderous Devices!
by Jim Bates
INTRODUCTION-The history of parachuting includes many ideas intended to make the unordinary act of
parachuting acceptable to people in the aviation community.
But gaining that acceptance was a long time coming. It took a long and widespread war to accelerate
acceptanceof parachuting to save lives-and then only reluctantly by both Allied and German military aviation planners of the"Great War" of 1914-1918 (many years laterknownas "WorldWarOne").
Even after grudging approval of parachutes for airplane pilots, and despite more than adequate proof of parachute value and usefulness demonstrated by balloon-borne observers of both sides of the conflict, getting production orders in the works was slow, actual production was sluggish, and delivery to front-line units lagged.
For Germany, it was not until October 23, 1918 (shortly before the Armistice of November 11) that a
Fokker pilot used a parachute when he was shot down right after having destroyed an American kite-balloon, forcing two officer to themselves bail out and use their own parachutes. When the German pilot bailed out it was the first known time, based on American records of the time, that an aviator-of either side-had made an emergency parachute jump from an engine-powered heavier-tban-air flying machine in aerial combat.
When WW One ended, and airplanes were eagerly seen as a wonderful weapon of commerce, and
parachutes had proved greatly useful in saving lives, ideas for both devices were rampant, but with parachute development to a far lesser degree. Despite the need, parachutes, still being in early developmental stages and in limited supply and use, were not yet readily trusted.
However, stalwart visionaries and innovators steadily plugged away at trying to change the minds of
aviation skeptics. One innovator was a British military officer who wrote the following article.
His concept, published (just over a year after the Great War ended) in the December 31, 1919 issue of the British periodical, The Aeroplane, appearing in a supplement titled "Aeronautical
Engineering."
How to Practise Parachuting
by Lt. Col. H.S. Holt, C.B.E.
A TRAINING MACHINE
Since the writer's last article appeared it has been officially stated in the Press that the
authorities have decided to make life-saving parachutes an integral part of the equipment of their
Service machines. The carrying out of this decision not only entails a large expenditure, but
greatly affects the safety of aviators in the future. It becomes, then of great interest to know what
general
principles are guiding the Technical Committee in their selection of the type of parachute to be
adopted.
Some months ago a curious article appeared in the Technical Press. Published
anonymously, the writer happens to know that it actually emanated from official quarters.
Purporting to be advice to parachute inventors as to what direction their activities should take
and as to what was or was not likely to be acceptable to the Parachute Committee, it opens with
this remarkable dictum:
'The principal object in equipping aircraft with parachutes is to inspire confidence in
those who use aircraft."
Some simple-minded persons, like this present writer, have hitherto been under the
impression that the principal object of a life-saving parachute was to save life and that its value
was proportionate to its ability to do this under any conceivable conditions. Apparently it doesn't
matter what the parachute is or does if only the authorities can camouflage it to an appearance of
safety and reliability. If this article really represents the considered opinion of the Parachute
Committee, it will hardly tend to "inspire confidence" in the judgment of that body.
Once upon a time a lofty factory was erected with two wings. Each was equipped with
a different type of fire escape.
No. 1 was a regular iron staircase with balustrade and all. Everyone was delighted with
the iron staircase, and when the company ordained a weekly fire-drill the employees voted it
good fun running down the staircase. No. 2 was merely a seemingly rickety iron ladder which
swayed and shook in the wind, and only one or two venturesome spirits would trust themselves
on it.
Then one day the factory caught fire. The iron staircase proved too heavy; the heat
quickly loosened the cement fixings, and when the employees crowded onto it the whole crashed
to the ground. In the other wing there was only the iron ladder, and the employees had to choose
between this and being burnt alive. No one bothered their heads as to whether it shook or
swayed; they clambered down it and all escaped.
Just so, there are two general types of life-saving parachutes:
No. 1 type is apparently simple and certain in action when used from aircraft flying
normally and under complete control and doubtless inspired confidence in those who make
descents for pleasure or practice or advertisement, but which, in the opinion of some of us, will
merely prove a broken reed in the hour of need.
No. 2 type may seem less positive and certain action, and parachutists would very likely
feel less confidence in using it for practice descents. But if No. 1 would prove useless in the
majority of peace-time accidents, while No. 2 would afford at least a sporting chance of escape
in almost any conceivable circumstances, it seem obvious that No. 2 type should be given
exhaustive trials instead of being condemned off-hand merely because it does not "inspire
confidence.''
The writer is very far from wishing to minimise the importance of passengers feeling
confidence in their parachutes, but surely the right way to obtain this confidence is by making
practice descents. A Service airman undergoes a severe training in everything affecting his
duties with the single exception of parachuting. Then when disaster comes to his machine, he is
expected to make his escape by parachute necessarily hurriedly and possibly under difficult
conditions without previous training and experience.
It may be objected that parachute practice involves risk and it is for this reason that the
writer ventures to describe a machine he has devised for practising parachute descents with little,
if any, more risk than attends the use of an ordinary lift. Any derelict factory chimney of
sufficient height, such, for instance, as the destructor chimney at Aldershot, could be easily and
inexpensively adapted for the purpose.
The machine consists essentially of a carriage travelling freely on a vertical or nearly
vertical cable. In the first instance the writer proposed to employ a balloon to support the upper
end of the cable, the lower end being secured to the ground, but though this would have been a
cheap and simple way of carrying out his purpose, the writer came to the conclusion that there
were too many practical obstacles to its successful working. In its present simplest form the
cable may be attached by means of brackets to any sufficiently lofty building. But for obvious
reasons a tall factory chimney is the most suitable and convenient erection for the purpose.
The diagrammatic drawing shows the general arrangement. The main cable "D" is
secured at one end to one of the rings "S" set into cement, thence it travels over pulleys attached
to the arm "C" and descends again to another of the rings "S." Means are provided for straining
this cable. The arm "C" is a light lattice steel frame, pivoted at its centre and capable of being
rotated in a horizontal plane by means of the cord "M" passing over the pulley "N."
The object of this rotating arm and series of rings "S" is to allow the position of the
main cable "D" being varied according to the direction of the wind at the time.
A light bamboo carriage "F" is mounted to run freely on the cable "D." It is fitted with a
long arm carrying an adjustable counter weight "I" to balance the weight of the passenger.
The passenger stands on the platform "A," an arm being provided for him to hold on to.
The carriage "F" is hoisted by means of the elevating cable "F" and the windlass "K." The latter
is fitted with a brake so that the descent of the carriage can be checked or stopped
instantaneously; and as an additional precaution a screw or lever brake "H" is attached to the
carriage which may be further fitted with an automatic check brake which comes into action
only when the carriage is nearing the ground. A pneumatic buffer "J" may also be employed, but
the need for it is doubtful.
The modus operandi is as follows:
The arm must first be rotated into such a position that the main cable is on the lee side
of the chimney, and the two ends of the cable are then made fast to opposite rings "S.S."
If one of the ordinary single parachute systems such as the Spencer or Calthrop is to be
used, the passenger will take this with him on the carriage. He will then be hoisted up to the top
of the main cable, in which position he can attach the parachute receptacle to the arm "C." The
parachute cord will be attached to his harness in the ordinary way. As soon as all is ready he
signals to the operator at the windlass who takes off the brake allowing the carriage to fall.
As the passenger falls with the carriage the parachute is withdrawn from its case, and
the cable, being on the lee side of the parachute, is blown away from the chimney. As soon as
the parachute is sufficiently inflated, but not before, it lifts the passenger from the carriage.
Should the parachute fail to inflate, the operator at the windlass will check the fall of
the carriage, or it may be checked by the automatic check brake, so that the passenger and
carriage reach the ground at a safe speed.
When a passenger is having his first lesson, it will be well on the first two or three trials
to reduce the rate of fall of the carriage to such a slow speed that the parachute does not open or
not enough to lift the passenger off the carriage.
If one of the parachute systems is used in which the parachute is carried on the
passenger's back, the modus operandi will be essentially the same; the cord for
withdrawing the parachute being attached to the rotating arm. If the Autochute or any similar
compound system is being used, the passenger will hold the pilot parachute in his hand and
release it the instant the carriage begins to fall. When the passenger has made a few descents and
acquired confidence in his parachute, he need not wait to be pulled off the carriage, but he can
jump off as soon as he sees the parachute commencing to inflate.
Anyone practising occasionally on this machine must acquire a coolness and
confidence in his parachute which may stand him in good stead when the hour of need comes. If
this appliance was used for testing parachutes with dummies, it would mean a great saving of
time compared with the usual method of employing kite balloons or aeroplanes as well as saving
of petrol or hydrogen.
Given the necessary chimney, such, for instance, as the old destructor chimney at
Aldershot already referred to, the actual apparatus need not cost more than £200 or £300.
When will the Air Council, and more especially the Civil Aviation Department, come
down from the clouds and realise basic facts?
So far their propaganda activities mostly take the form of glowing accounts describing
official aircraft trips. But the man-in-the-street, even the problematic "business-man-in-a-hurry"
who was to fly from London to Manchester for ten minutes' business talk, remains cold.
It is, of course, pleasing and gratifying to read of luxurious trips (at the public expense)
made by distinguished officers, with printing presses and brass bedsteads, chefs and hot dinners
as accessories in the picture, but the civilian of ordinary intelligence knows that one spark from a
boot heel might send the whole bag of tricks crashing to earth, bedsteads and all.
This form of propaganda must be very costly, and the same amount of money spent on
subsdising the P.O. to initiate one or two express letter and parcel services from London to the
north of England would do much more to impress the business man. Meanwhile, for want of
other work, aircraft manufacturers are turning out bootjacks and milking stools and such like.
But when the shortage in these articles, due to the war, is made up the trade will naturally revert
to pre-war markets.Then the trouble will come. Pioneers always suffer, as witness the fate of
early electrical engineering, safety bicycle, tyre and motor-car companies. but it will be as
nothing to the casualties that await aerial enterprises. Let us look facts in the face. Airships and
aeroplanes are now made as safe and reliable as they are likely to be for some time, unless some
epoch-making invention appears. Still the public remains cold. Why? Because aviation is too
uncertain, too risky, and too costly. But, first, and all the time, too risky.
"Accidents will happen"-and do happen every month. What is the remedy? The great
Atlantic liners, immeasurably safer than any aircraft, carry lifeboats for all. Similarly, every
airship or plane should carry lifeboats for all occupants. The only aerial lifeboat known up to
now is the parachute. But it is not enough merely to to make parachutes compulsory and to
inform passengers that they are carried. The public, or, at any rate, the potential flying public,
must have facilities for seeing them in actual use and for trying and practising widh them
themselves. This means public demonstration grounds and some device to enable practice
descents to be made widhout any risk. The writer has thought it worthwhile to describe his own
device; but there will no doubt be better ones forthcoming soon.
Convince the civilian that he has a really reliable means of escape, even in case of The
worst accident to his machine, and you will go far towards making him regard aviation in a new
light.
* * *
Colonel Holt's concept certainly had merit-and similar conceptual progress
continued.
In the early 1920s an American named Stanley Switlik was beginning to make
parachutes in New Jersey. His Canvas-Leather Specialty Company became the Swidik
Manufacturing Company in November 1928, then became the Switlik Parachute and Equipment
Company on March 13, 1930.
More than four years later-on November 15, 1934-Stanley Switlik simultaneously
became a partner in another corporation called "Parachute Jumps, Inc." in New York City. His
partner was George Palmer Putnam, husband of the renowned Amelia Earhart.
She had suggested "parachute jump" towers to her husband after having seen them
extensively used in Russia while on her famous round-the-world flight. Putnam had written to
Switlik on August 22, 1934:
"My wife, Amelia Earhart, and I find ourselves extremely interested in a possibility
that has just turned up involving the use of a special parachute in a rather different field of
activity....if it develops [it] may offer something of a real practical commercial interest to a
parachute maker...."
Parachute Jumps, Inc. went forward and got into the business of building parachute
training towers. By December 21, Switlik reported:
"We ran quite a few tests and the preliminary tests were very successful. In fact, way
beyond my expectations and the proposition is working out much better than I expected. We
have run quite a few dummy tests experimenting with different sizes of parachutes and have also
made a few live drops and although there are a lot of bugs to be taken out yet, we are on the
right track."
Switlik had a rocky time getting permission of authorities in New Jersey to erect his
training device, but finally succeeded. On June 2, 1935, a month after Amelia Earhart ended her
nonstop 2,125-mile flight from Mexico City to New York she helped demonstrate Switlik's
tower. A fully inflated 32-foot-diameter canopy was used to make either a "captive descent," the
parachute lowering along guy wires, or in a free-flight descent for advanced users.
A newspaper article described descents of captive parachutes:
"Amelia Earhart, transoceanic flier, and Margaret Perry, stage star, as well as Fay
Gillis, another woman flier, were included in nearly a score of persons who tested the captive
chute and praised its safety and fitness for training purposes as well as a thrill device."
At the time negotiations for similar towers were under way with four U.S. Navy
stations and with amusement centers at Atlantic City and Coney Island.
The firm name was later changed to "Safe Parachute Jump Co." and Switlik, due to the
press of parachute manufacturing, subsequentdy widhdrew from the tower business.
Such towers were widely used for training Thousands of U.S. Army paratroopers and
jumpers of other U.S. service branches, as well as parachutists of World War Two Allied
nations. (The Hightstown, New Jersey tower was used to train the first group of infantry officer
parachute instructors in the summer of 1940.) More than 50 years after 250-foot-high towers
were constructed at Fort Benning, Georgia, they continue to be used to train military
parachutists.
And amusement centers and theme parks across the U.S., capitalizing on the great
interest in sport parachuting/skydiving, feature captive "parachute jump" thrill rides.
So-to reiterate: CoLHolt's concept certainly had merit.
The author can be contacted via e-mail: ParaHistry@aol.com
Copyright (c) 1995 Aero.com. All rights reserved.
We want to hear from you!
This section is meant as an educational tool. If there are any topics of interest you wish to
see here or are learning in school/college or wish to comment on the content please email
either the author, Jim Bates, or Aero.com with your input.
Parachutes
Home
