[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     C-17 PARACHUTE TESTS SUSPENDED

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the contractor wants a bailout, 
Congress wants to bailout, and now the Army cannot bail out.
  I ask that an article from the May 16, 1994, edition of Defense Week 
by Tony Capaccio entitled, ``C-17 Parachute Tests Suspended Due to Army 
Safety Concern,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The article follows:

       C-17 Parachute Tests Suspended Due to Army Safety Concern

                           (By Tony Capaccio)

       The Army's top airborne commander in late March suspended 
     live parachute test jumps from the C-17 after one trooper's 
     nylon canopy tore in two places after brushing the aft 
     fuselage, Defense Week has learned.
       The suspension order from 18th Airborne Corps Commander 
     Gen. Henry Shelton remains in effect as C-17 maker McDonnell 
     Douglas Corp., the Army and Air Force continue ``diagnostic'' 
     flights using dummies to determine both cause and prevention.
       The tears showed up during a Feb. 10 jump at Edwards AFB, 
     Calif. The eight-inch and 10-inch rips were the first 
     physical evidence that chutes were grazing against the 
     fuselage during several months of dummy and troops drops, 
     according to an Army official.
       The Air Force program office in a statement characterized 
     the contact as aresulting in ``minor damage to the 
     parachute.''
       The problems may be a serious blow to the C-17's already 
     uncertain future. The spacious aircraft would literally serve 
     as the 82nd Airborne Division's ride to war from the 
     continental U.S. in a quick deployment, for example, to 
     Panama or Saudi Arabia.
       The aircraft has been sold to Congress and the Army for the 
     purported advances it would bring to airborne operations. 
     Significantly, none of the commercial transports the Pentagon 
     is eyeing to possibly replace the C-17 can drop paratroopers.
       Aside from its operational impact, the parachute problem 
     has monetary implications. Congress has mandated as one key 
     milestone for releasing procurement funds that the aircraft 
     demonstrate it can drop 70 troopers in one mission.
       The paratroop problems are only the latest in a long series 
     of management, production and test performance woes that have 
     dogged the $21.3 billion aircraft program. News of the 
     suspended tests comes as Capitol Hill mulls the C-17's fate 
     during deliberations of the fiscal 1995 defense bill. At 
     immediate issue is whether Congress will approve a proposed 
     Pentagon plan to cap production at 40 aircraft and settle 
     outstanding financial claims with the company.
       The House Armed Services Committee two weeks ago cut two 
     aircraft from the Pentagon's six-aircraft request and 
     disapproved the settlement. It has scheduled a hearing for 
     tomorrow to discuss the settlement. Based on the physical 
     evidence, Army testers reviewed video of prior dummy and live 
     jumps. Of 124 live jumps, 27 parachute canopies hit the 
     aircraft's aft fuselage, said Lt. Col. Bud Franklin, the 
     Army's chief development test official at Edwards, in an 
     interview Thursday. Franklin, a paratrooper, has made five C-
     17 jumps. ``We found that 50 percent to 60 percent of the 
     [dummy and live jump] canopies are making contact with the C-
     17 in the regular [drop] configuration,'' at 130 knots, with 
     flaps extended 40 degrees and with a three percent to five 
     percent deck angle, he said.
       The chute snagged on a ``ramp actuator cover seal'' located 
     on the fuselage, he said. ``That was the first time the Army 
     realized canopies were touching the C-17,'' Franklin said of 
     the discovery made three months into a scheduled six months 
     of drop tests. ``It was a real concern to us.''
       The trooper whose chute tore landed without incident. He 
     was one of 40 troopers who jumped, 20 from each side of the 
     aircraft. The tear occurred during the last of six live jumps 
     and after completion of six jumps using dummies. No visible 
     damage occurred during those exercises.
       ``There appears to be some airflow problems around and 
     behind the troop doors,'' said an Army airborne officer 
     following the tests. ``There are just things about the design 
     of the airplane that are different from other airplanes that 
     make parachutes behave differently.''
       Even though only one parachute was physically damaged 
     during test jumps, it raised a red flag, the airborne 
     official said.
       11The concern is that it is repeatable,'' he said. ``That 
     was one jumper out of 20. If you extrapolate that into an 
     airborne brigade-sized assault where you've got 2,000 
     jumpers, the problem gets bigger and an eight-inch gash may 
     be a `small' tear. Depending where it is on the parachute, it 
     could spread on descent,'' he said.
       Although the rip ``got our attention,'' the Army official 
     said the service has ``had concerns for years about the 
     airflow on that airplane for air drop operations.''
       ``The airborne community said it would not commit its 
     troops to jump the C-17,'' Franklin said of the test 
     suspension. ``It didn't make any sense for me to continue 
     until I found out how much contact we were having and was 
     that contact causing damage.''
       Early flight engineering assessments indicate the chute 
     problem may stem from the highly turbulent vortex created 
     near the jump door by the C-17's unique ``blown flap'' wing 
     design, said an Army official.
       The same flaps allow the aircraft to land on small, austere 
     runways--a key Army operational requirement.
       ``It turns out that the blown flap creates one hell of a 
     vortex behind it,'' said an Army official familiar with 
     Shelton's decision. ``You can't kill the vortex because that 
     kills another key capability the Army wants. What you want to 
     do is control that vortex and move it out of the way or 
     somehow disrupt it during parachute operations.''
       ``There are all kinds of efforts being poured into this 
     trying to fix it because it's very embarrassing,'' this 
     official said.
       The Air Force C-17 program office in a statement said the 
     canopy contacts are resulting from ``aerodynamic flow which 
     `holds' the parachute close to the aircraft fuselage when the 
     chute is in the process of being deployed * * * Aircraft 
     attitude or deck angle, flap setting, etc., also influence 
     the airflow and forces applied to the jumper and deployment 
     system.''
       ``Investigations are underway to understand the direction 
     and strength of vortices which cause the canopy and 
     deployment bag separation to `hug' the aft fuselage,'' the 
     Air Force said.
       Representatives from the Army Safety Center, Natick 
     Research Development and Engineering Center and Airborne and 
     Special Operations Test Directorate visited Edwards last week 
     to review the latest test data.
       ``Under certain flight conditions we have had no impacts. 
     In other flap settings and flap conditions we've had some 
     impacts,'' McDonnell Douglas program manager Don Kozlowski 
     told Defense Week, ``We are in a diagnostic series of flight 
     tests right now to determine how do we prevent that.''
       ``We are looking at [changing] thrust setting, flap 
     setting,'' he said. ``As you come out the side door * * * as 
     you get out in the air stream and release the chute, you are 
     going to get airflow and we need to study that,'' Kozlowski 
     said.
       ``A lot of this, by the way, has been experienced with 
     dummies, not human beings,'' Kozlowski said. ``There is a 
     safety concern. This is a normal development problem. We will 
     solve. We have to convince ourselves and the Army that it is 
     a safe environment to jump from.''
       That may take a lot of convincing.
       Gen. Shelton was alerted to the airborne community's 
     concerns during a March 15 meeting at Fort Bragg, N.C.
       Before the suspension, the C-17 testers planned to drop a 
     full load of 102 82nd Airborne Division troopers.
       Based on the damaged chute and video review, Airborne and 
     Special Operations Test Directorate director Col. Jeffrey 
     White raised ``vehement'' objections to continue live 
     testing, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
       ``Shelton said, `That's not good,' recalled Franklin. `We 
     can't be jumping out of airplanes were canopies can contact 
     the fuselage and snag and endanger a guy's life.'''
       Shelton expressed his views in a March 18 message to AMC 
     and the airborne community:
       ``It's obviously a great airplane, long overdue. As you 
     recall at the [March 15 meeting] we discussed the safety 
     certification for a large scale parachute drop from the C-17. 
     I am requesting that the Army Safety Center get involved 
     immediately in the safety certification process [and] that we 
     get a thumbs up from them prior to jumping large numbers of 
     Corps troops. I am confident this can be accomplished within 
     existing timelines and milestones.''

                          ____________________