Talk:High-altitude military parachuting

Acronym

HALO stands for "High Altitude Low Opening"

HALO into water?

Question- have read in certain fictions that a High altitude parachutist might have scuba equipment, allowing them to land in the water, cut off parachute equipment, and thus continue insertaion submerged. Is the even possible? Wouldn't the Double change in pressure (low pressure from high altitude, to increased preassure submerged) present EXTRA health risks TOO risky

well they had it in James Bond Tomorrow Never DiesDappled Sage 04:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Navy lost a SEAL team during Grenada on a HALO jump into water. The equipment worked OK, but they were dropped at the wrong location, and hence "swam off into the sunset" rather than reach the island. Rklawton 15:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How do they know the equipment worked alright they were lost at sea? Were their bodies later found?

It's possible, the pressure change issues are the other direction with a number of possible decompression related illnesses as one moves from the compressed air under pressure environment sub-surface into a reduced air pressure environment at altitude. Generally one would not fly in commercial airliners for 24 hours after a dive. In the military environment a diver insertion wouldn't normallly be at a depth where DCI is a significant risk, normally around 8 to 10 metres. SF operators normally dive on rebreathers anyway which carry even lower DCI risk. SCUBA gear isn't normally used in a military context.ALR 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that the jumpers will be pre-breathing O2 before the jump because DCI is a risk at those altitudes. Rklawton 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Essentially that reduces the risk of DCI on surfacing yet further. 'tis not a big problem although the amount of kit one jumps with does lead to an entanglement and or sinking risk. Going onto a turtle needs to be done on the suface, if you get salt water in the circuit then you end up with a lungful of ascorbic acid.ALR 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup it is dangerous to go scuba diving (higher pressure) and then go skydiving (low pressure) soon after. But that was not the question asked.

The bit about entanglement was very relevant though. That leads to the novice wet HALO jumper temptation to release from harness before actually touching the water, but if you wrongly guess the height or your current speed of descent.... Which is connected to the other issue: you need to enter the water near dead slow with tanks or other heavy equipment or the slapping jar when body stops gear can stun, break bones, or outright kill.

But as mentioned wet HALO jumps are for long swims in to beach (too much population to be unobserved for dry landing or too many physical obstructions). There just aren't many deep water military targets that covert SCUBA teams can handle to start with. Those that exist are better handled by submarine inserted engineering Navy teams (mining removal etc). If it is deep enough for scuba it is deep enough for smaller subs. Most deep water targets are targets for submarine, aircraft dropped charges or even surface fleets. Unlike in 007 movies, submarines are usually moving too fast for divers to catch or too on alert to be approached. And there isn't a 007 underwater battle yet were the villian would not have been better off approaching in light surface craft (never a defended target and about 10 times faster). But it looked cool.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lower pressure to higher pressure. First a jumper is not going to immediately plunge deep enough to experience much pressure above normal sea level. Any speed that plunges you more than 2-4 meters during landing is an IMPACT that will break every bone in your body. They will need to swim down to experience multiple atmospheric pressures and normal scuba procedures apply. So there is no hazard due to pressure change except the normal eardrum rupture. Any sudden dive can have that if ears are exposed to open water. The pressure change health dangers only occur when pressure is released (high to low pressure) and gas bubbles form and expand in blood.

For jumpers just being at very high altitude low pressure (and not the rate of change from ground level) is a problem because our bodies can't absorb enough oxygen no matter how long they are given to adjust and eventually your capillary blood vessels start to break from pressure of your own heart beat. Well actually you can adjust to altitudes between 5000-18000 but it takes weeks at the lower end of that and a lifetime at the upper to adjust. And adjustments are limited in that even Andeas mountain dwellers get short winded quick at 18000 feet. They just don't pass out and die as often (heart related problems are high over lifetime).69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To Do

1. the method is atributted to USAF Col. Joe Kittinger [1] but perfected by U.S. special forces
2. add background information in which Kittinger's experiment and USAF's needs are explained
3. HALO is really a form of skydiving, as civilians practice the free-fall method as a hobby [2] (information regarding the military should remain on the article anyway)
4. [3] StratoQuest: a record-setting high altitude skydive from 130,000 feet, dedicated to scientific research, education, and space exploration. See also: [4]
5. Add WHY somebody would do a HALO or HAHO techniques, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of them.

HANO jumps -- newer technique in gel filled bag that never has a chute opening. Sometimes referred to as SPLAT insertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Time correction

In a typical HALO exercise, the parachuter will jump from the aircraft, free-fall for a few seconds and open his parachute at a low altitude. Doesn't it take a couple of minutes to drop from 20,000ft to HALO chute opening altitude? DJ Clayworth 04:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say couple of minutes in HALO.. but neither a few seconds. I was trying to express that it can go from 30 seconds to 1 minute+ or something like that. Feel free to change it so that it expresses it better. :)

I jumped at 15,000 feet once and opened at 5,000 and the freefall was just over a minute. I think if you jumped at 27,000 feet and opened at a couple thousand, it would easily be two minutes. --Jkonrath 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Freefall for military purposes is usually in the 60-65 second range for HALO. Jumps can be as high as the mission dictates if oxygen is used, and the normal opening altitude is around 4,000 feet. HAHO jumps vary greatly based on the mission because of the navigational concerns. There is very little freefall, but the time in the chute until landing can routinely exceed 20 minutes. Great book on the subject is Code Name: Copperhead, Sgt. Maj. Joe R. Garner's autobio with Avrum M. Fine. The birth of MFF and the formation of the Golden Knights are also discussed in it. ConciergeMike 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)ConciergeMike

Here's the standard way to determine time in freefall. It will take you 10 seconds to fall your first 1,000 ft and 5 sec thereafter. It's in the SIM (skydivers information manual) which is put out by the USPA (United States Parachute Association). There's also standardised charts in the back of most skydiving logbooks. Of course, this is just a starting point. Altitude density affects such things as does the weight/ surface area ratio.RWgirl 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes terminal velocity in civilian manual is wrong for HALO. First because the air is exponentially thinner at higher altitudes above 10000 ft and second because the manual assumes standard akimbo stability posture. Even in civilian acrobatic sport diving terminal velocity can vary between 90 and 150 mph. Plus HALO divers have a ton of heavy equipment to alter the mass to drag equation. So in a HALO jump from truly high altitude with the jumpers intentionally assume a streamlined vertical posture with tight limbs for most the fall to minimize time exposed, so fall speeds are often well above 200 mph. (Remember the world record dive from above 100,000 ft approached local speed of sound at altitude. But during the last 6000-8000 feet they do follow more normal diving attitudes in order to slow and stabilize for opening. Depending on mission a small drogue chute may be needed to stabilize and eventually slow them to normal diving speeds for primary chute opening.

That might be the source of the 60-65 seconds quoted above as a HALO jumper would not consider it free fall once his drogue was deployed and oxygen wasn't needed...even if he was still at 14,000 feet without his main chute open. Or it might be the regular Army view of what HALO is (where "the few" means company or battalion strength drops) ...a view not shared by their own in Special Ops (where "the few" means squad or fire team sized drops often from joint forces of AF, Navy, Marine, Army). But in no way does the bulk of regular Army paratroops (division or multi-battlion sized drops) do anything resembling HALO. Just too many klutzes to risk it.

It should be noted that while HALO training dives open at 4000 feet, more or less the same as ordinary military parachute jumps, for safety reasons...operationally HALO openings are just a "wee bit" lower. Enough lower that operationally reserve chutes are pretty much useless. In that case the somewhat risky lower opening is better than long exposure to discovery and consequent ground fire. But on the other hand the risk is high enough that HALO training normally avoids opening at that altitude -- especially since most HALO drops are night drops. So yeah you can backtrack from the lowest altitude where a reserve chute might help to how high you need to be to detect bad main chute and get rid of it.

---

As with all skydiving, participants run the risk of parachute failure, resulting in instantaneous death upon contact with the ground. That's somewhat... obvious. Although I have heard of some cases where people lived falls from planes, but perhaps at a lower altitude that a HA type jump. --68.13.59.58 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what altitude you fall from really, you'll still hit terminal velocity before you hit the ground. Those that have survived were VERY VERY lucky.

Recruiting Attempt

In response to the request for expert assistance I emailed the POC for this site: http://www.batnet.com/mfwright/miljump.html to see if he would be interested in assisting with this article. Unfortunately he checked the site after it had been vandalized (12:10, 1 June 2006). Because of the persistant vandalism, I don't believe he's interested in editing the site, but there may be some information from his site that may be of use in developing the article, if corroborated. 71.113.73.83 08:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

HELO the same thing?

Original text:

"HALO and HAHO are acronyms that describe methods of delivering personnel, equipment, and supplies from a transport aircraft at a high altitude via free-fall parachute insertion. HALO stands for High Altitude-Low Opening, and is also known as Military Free Fall (MFF). HAHO stands for High Altitude-High Opening."

Would this be untrue?

"HALO describes methods of delivering personnel, equipment, and supplies from a transport aircraft at a high altitude via free-fall parachute insertion. HALO stands for High Altitude-Low Opening, and is also known as Military Free Fall (MFF). HALO is synonymous with HAHO, High Altitude-High Opening, and HELO, High Extraction, Low Opening."

HELO is a little different in that it normally uses a small drogue chute to assist in extracting any good sized payload from the rear of airlift and often that stays attached all the way down to stabilize and orient cargo for main chute opening. Heavy tumbling payloads can easily foul main chutes before they "inflate" or at moment of full inflation shock. So HELO is normally limited or controlled free fall of cargo. But the idea of minimizing drift, reducing visibility and time exposed to fire in transit is the same. (And yes HALO may use small drogue chutes for stabilization and control AFTER jump but BEFORE main chute deployment. It all depends on total mission parameters like awkward symmetries of personal equipment and extreme initial height of jump.)

If not, then would someone familiar with the topic clarify the military line in the HELO disambig page? MrZaius^talk 03:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up Of Equipment Section and Syntax

I also cleaned up the section on AAD's. The maximum vertical speed differs greatly depending on AAD manufacturer and model. I also took the Cypres reference out. I don't think it's fair to name a specific brand when they aren't the only (or even most popular) AAD manufacturer out there.

Boots that offer ankle support are no longer used. They were used in the days of round parachutes. Military personnel wear boots because it is a uniform requirement

I changed the oxygen requirements. They were just plain wrong.

Also, as a matter of syntax. It it not "chute" it's a canopy. It can also be called just a "main" or a "reserve." No one in the skydiving world calls their canopy a "chute." RWgirl 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, parachutist is correct. HAHO jumpers don't freefall, they deploy their canopies at high altitude. Please don't confuse HALO and HAHO with sport parachuting. It isn't. It's a military application. Rklawton 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I got over zealous changing parachutist. HALO jumpers were baing called parachutists as well. "Find and Replace" works too well.

"Skydiving" is a sport. The military doesn't refer to what they do as "skydiving" - except when it involves their sport or demo skydiving teams. Rklawton 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How about jumpers for the HALO sections? Again why'd you change my oxygen requriements? The original is wrong.RWgirl 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jumpers" is OK. That's what the pilots call

Start of restored text

them. I removed the altitude reference because it's misleading (per my edit summary). These are HALO/HAHO jumps - they're all high altitude. By listing these lower altitudes, readers might get the wrong impression. You've got to separate yourself from what the USPA puts out. The USPA has nothing to do with military operations. Rklawton 22:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The O2 requirements are in the FAR's concerning altitude. I just don't have one with me to properly cite and it probably varies from country to country. I'm okay as long as the "12,000 ft" mention stays gone. That was my original reason for editing.RWgirl 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

FARs don't apply to military applications, and this is a military application. And in the military, jumpers go on O2 at 12k. Rklawton 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked on that. They do follow FAR's unless they are in military airspace. When they are flying in there, they can follow whatever rules they want. Civilian aircraft aren't allowed in those areas while they are active. I verified with Cascade Approach. You can call your local tower, they'll tell you the same thing.RWgirl 17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are in civilian airspace, then it isn't a "military operation" per se. And the FARs don't prevent the military from following a higher standard - that is, starting O2 at lower altitudes then otherwise required. Remember, at the higher jump altitudes, these guys need to be pre-breathing O2 to prevent DCI. Rklawton 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On civillian Halo jumps you start pre-breathing O2 30 min before you even get on the plane. I still say the definitive source is going to be the military regulations or field manuals.RWgirl 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to think about context, and not just about the gas in use, on an insertion the team might be in the air for an hour or two before they exit the aircraft, rather than going straight to jump height. About the only thing you're going to get from manuals is the training environment, because tactical instructions will be classified, in fact training manuals are classified as well. I'd also be cautious about global applicability, I note that you're preaching a US gospel here, different countries may use different guidance, particularly in the military environment where tactical doctrines are different.

I'd also suggest that you need to recognise that operational jumps probably aren't going to happen in CONUS, so the military/ civilian airspace distinction is moot.

Incidentally, boots are worn with combat equipment because they're appropriate for the ground combat environment, uniform regulations don't count for much in the operational environment. Many military personnel have their own combat boots, in preference to the issued equipment.

ALR 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But you'd agree the boots they aren't used for ankle support. I don't think they should included in the gear at all as they aren't specific to HALO jumps. Sorry if my explanation wasn't adequate.

...As for the airspace. I was simply making the point that it isn't accurate to say that 100% of the time military jumpers start breathing O2 at 12K. BTW I'm not preaching a US anything. I was quoting the FAR's to prove the point.

I was bringing up all of these regs because of the gas use that was in the article that I disagreed with.

This article is about military HALO/HAHO jumps. The military has different standards. You have no military basis for removing the 12k reference. You haven't a clue what the military does or does not do, and you can't base your edits on your FAA or USPA experience. I've noted this before, and now I'm puzzled at why you don't understand that military and civilian jumping are two different worlds. Only the physics are the same. Any other similarities are purely coincidental. Would you also remove references to military student jumpers making static line jumps at 1,200 feet because its a violation of the BSRs? You'd be wrong if you did. My fourth jump was a night jump. Where in the USPA's SIM is that allowed? Please, before you do anything else with this article, please get your facts from reliable, verifiable sources. That's the standard we use in all our articles, and this one is no exception. Please learn from this. For your sake, I hope you don't jump with this "I already know it all" attitude. Skydivers with far more experience than you have already made this deadly mistake. Rklawton 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone from another country who's perhaps versed in their contries rules make the additions. I'm a freaking pilot student in America, I'm not a scholar on world wide airspace laws. And I haven't added anything of the like to the article so I don't see where it's relevant. And I already discussed why I brought it up to begin with. I didn't need regulations for every single county on the entire planet to prove my point which was "jumpers go on o2 at 12K"(to paraphrase) isn't accurate.RWgirl 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I really never thought I'd have to work so hard to defend one small point. Editing wikipedia just isn't worth it.RWgirl 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the term "civilian HALO jumps" is an oxymoron. Civilians don't make HALO jumps. HALO is a military acronym used to describe a military activity. Sport jumpers jump for sport. Occassionally, civilians will jump from 35,000 feet and deploy at 2,500 feet, but the similarity between that and a HALO jump ends there. Rklawton 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's what the civillian world calls them. Like it or not, the term has been stolen. I'd say it's not slang, because I can't find another term for the jump. The USPA calls the high altitude jumps halo jumps, the FAA even used the term in their hearings last year. I think it should be included in the article, but as a sub point with the main article remaning about the military application.

Or at least have a redirect to a sport jumping page that refrences the civillan jumps.RWgirl 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

End of restored text

I don't know what happened to the bottom of this, but allow me to respond. i have only cited the far's here for this one matter. and all i'm saying is the o2 thing which you've long since agreed to let stay changed i wanted changed because it isn't true all the time. this is by your admission. i don't know why you keep acting like i'm the one that doesn't undertand that. I wanted it changed because it wasn't 100% true, at least until proven and cited.RWgirl 06:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Very little if anything is 100% true all the time. If we went around deleting all such material, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. The proper way to handle sections or information that isn't sourced and that you think might be incorrect would be to tag the end of the statement with this: {{facts}}. Even better, just look up the information you self, re-edit the article to reflect your findings, and provide the source. Simply deleting stuff you think might not be right - especially when you have no experience in the matter, isn't advised. By now, I think you can see why. Rklawton 16:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You agreed to the change!!!!! I don't see why I have to perpetually defend myself about this one thing.RWgirl 16:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't sound right the way it was you admitted that! You or someone else has since erased that section of the discussion. You agreed it made it sound like halo jumps were from 12K. Why are we still talking about something you agreed to change?RWgirl 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you have a standard list, and then add additional paragraphs for military equipment and civilian euipment that might differ? Would that satisfy both parties? Ng.j 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should separate these items, but here's how and why I think we should do it. Military and civilian skydiving are so significantly different that references to civilian "HALO/HAHO" jumping simply isn't appropriate in this article. Why? The term HALO/HAHO originated with the military and is still in active use. Sport skydivers simply borrowed the term, but they only occassionally use it. Instead, they use temrs like "sport jump" "fun jump" "high altitude jump (HALO)" and "cross country (maybe HAHO, though rarely made at high altitudes)". I recommend the following:

1. place This article is about military jumps. For information about non-military skydiving, see Parachuting at the top of this article.
2. add a section in the Parachuting article about high altitude jumps that also includes a "see also" pointing back here.
3. remove all references to civilian-related activities from this article. Rklawton 17:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't erase parts of the discussion

Please don't erase parts of the discussion, as it makes it harder for the rest of us to follow along. Instead, separate the discussion into sections for readability.

Also, please don't delete statements made by others. It has the appearance of being underhanded. Ng.j 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know, I noticed half of this discussion on equipment was erased last night. It was erased mid comment, so I don't think it was intentional. Someone has been erasing my comments on the discussion pages of several wikipedia articles. I have no idea how to safeguard against that. I've gone back and edited my comments for spelling, or because I've repeated myself one too many times in the same comment, but I've left my own comments intact. I've never erased anyone else's.RWgirl 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a diff showing an instance where you deleted part of a discussion: [5]. Rklawton 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What about you erasing my comments selectively?RWgirl 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your comment Ng.j. I replied on my talk page and i'll cut and paste it here too. Guess I have something new and exciting to be attacked about.

No I did not. If I did it it wasn't intentional. I have a problem with someone selectively erasing my comments though. I update by cell phone, so it's entirely possible that I'm not seeing the entire discussion page. I'm not saying it's him, but I think he is the one who's been deleting my comments. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being attacked. RWgirl 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I'd rather the comments stay up. It saves me the time of repeatedly rebutting personal attacks. But then again if someone would have left up the part of the discussion whre the eight character change was agreed to, maybe I wouldn't have to repeatedly justify the change that was already agreed to.

Besides, isn't the discussion page for discussion? I don't see why I'm being vehemently attacked for comments made here. I'm not defacing anything, nor vandalizing. It is not right for you people to get so personal and so mean. You people are making it personal and I don't understand why. I've never said anything rude or out of sorts to any of you. I've had my comments edited twisting their meaning. I've had to defend myself daily here. I've had attacks on my personal character. All over eight characters. RWgirl 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take it as a personal attack! You're very passionate about the subject, and I think that's great. It's just Wikipedia works on consensus, and just because I think something is important doesn't mean that others will as well. You can't take it personally!Ng.j 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted was a grammatically correct sentance not a fragment with new information. I just wanted the article to be arranged logically.RWgirl 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Having my comments edited therefore twisting their meaning and having judgements made on my character is an attack. Like I said, I wish RK's comments hadn't been erased, the last ones were scathing and attacked me as a person. You'd see what I mean. The funny thing is, I really don't care that much. I'm a grammar nazi with technical writing (not so much here in discussion) and the syntax of the original list sounded strange. That was all. RK agreed to the changes, agreed it sounded wierd, but has for reasons unknown felt the need to continually discuss it back here. He's made rude statements about me, I highly believe he's the one who's edited MY comments... This is why I feel attacked.RWgirl 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The only person seeing any of this as a personal attack is you, and fwiw I'm not impressed by you deleting a large chunk of discussion then attacking me on my own talk page. I'm sorry that you choose to interpret my words as a personal attack on you, they're not intended to be and tbh on review I really don't understand why you choose to see them as so.

You did delete the chunk of text, and you've been shown the diff that demonstrates that. Unless you're suggesting that someone else is using your account. However I do note that something has changed to the mediawiki backbone recently and it does make it very easy to inadvertently delete huge chunks of text, nearly did it myself justnow.

I'll deal with the points of the content debate above, but I'd advise you calm down about the whole attack thing and stop accusing others, which can be reasonably interpreted as an attack in its own right.

ALR 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, if I deated anything it was a mistake. I use a browser on my phone most of the time. I apologise, I really didn't mean tp. I had issue with you jumping into the middle of a discussion that wasn't relevant to begin with. You didn't understand what the original edit was about. If you would have looked, what you were criticising me for you were agreeing to my changes. I replied to those points after your post (deated too unfortunately). I made a comment on your page because I wanted you to be aware you were jumping into this without finding out all the details of my change.

Once again I take great offense to MY comments being edited. btw I'm not accusing you ALR I'm just saying it's someone.RWgirl 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's your edits which are causing the deletions, and I appreciate the issues with Opera mini, it leaves a lot to be desired for serious work.

Anyway, the point of dropping into the discussion, and I had looked at the edit, was to reinforce RJLawtons point that this article is about military parachuting, not sport jumping. Whilst I'm not a sport jumper I do have a very good knowledge of military operations and how a commander might make use of the kind of assets which are trained in MFF. There is clearly a need to make that clear in the article though, and I think the suggestions made above are very valid.

ALR 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise until just this morning that Opera was doing that. Again I apologise. [On Opera Mini, I'd like to point out that until one uses it for day to day applications, the bugs will never be fully worked out. I'm using it to help with the improvement process, therefore it needs to be used for serious business.] I responded on your talk page, partly becuase I didn't want you to see my original comment as an attack. It was simply a matter that I didn't think the uncited O2 refrence had any business on the equipment list. The list should just be a list, not giving any new off topic information. Just like I deated the "(for ankle support)" refrence to the boots. That belongs in the hows and why's part of the article. That's why I changed what I changed. It read wierd, it makes sense for alt refrences to be in the main article, that's all.RWgirl 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a limitation of the cell phone she is using that is causing problems. I DO NOT THINK SHE IS DOING THIS INTENTIONALLY. Please see the following links:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHALO%2FHAHO&diff=111774547&oldid=111723094
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHALO%2FHAHO&diff=111775197&oldid=111774639

All changes made are logged. It is easier to view if you are using a computer. Click on the "history" link at the top and you will be able to see DEFINITIVELY who made the changes.

Ng.j 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Opera Mini is what I'm using. It does have it's hiccups, I'm finding them as I use it.RWgirl 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

HALO = High Altitude Long Operations

Usually in my experience HALO refers to a high altitude aircraft in a tight circular pattern performing recon or communications relay.

Some disambiguation is needed on this page.

71.141.235.64 00:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Steve P.

Fair use rationale for Image:JB HALO.png

Image:JB HALO.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JB HALO.png

Image:JB HALO.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the normal altitude?

As this article is about high altitude parachuting, it would be interesting to give a ballpark figure for a normal parachuting height (used by conventional military parachutists) in the introduction. Thanks. Maikel 11:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, would it be possible to include information about what is considered "Low Opening" - earlier on the talk page I see that someone referenced 4,000 feet as the average, but I'm reticent to add it to the page, since I have no knowledge or references for that number. Thanks! 65.169.151.18 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction!

I have found a contradiction in the article:
HAHO is used for delivering equipment, supplies, or personnel, while HALO is generally used only for personnel.
... and ...
For military cargo airdrops, the rigged load is pulled from the aircraft by a stabilizing parachute. The load then proceeds to free-fall to a low altitude where a cargo parachute opens to allow a low-velocity landing.
Please fix, thanks. Maikel 11:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

important questions on the velocity one would be fallign at during a HALO jump

A dispute between my brother and i pertaining to the subject of falling speeds during a HALO jump, especially the one performed by the world record holder for highest HALO jump(forgot his name).

What is the velocity of a person falling from such a height?

and how long does it take from maximum height before the deployment of the parachute?

Actually how fast they fall above 14,000 is largely a matter of mission design (streamlining of jump packages, use of small drogue chutes, etc). Speeds well above 200 mph are common. But once they hit the denser atmosphere at 10000 feet, they need to be slowed to near normal parachuting speeds. (High speed in normal air density introduces the danger of small movements resulting in catastrophic tumbling. Of course drag will eventually reduce airspeed to normal range no matter what they try to do. It is just a matter of when and how violently it happens.)

Maximum height is the same issue. It depends on mission and resource availability. "Rumor" is that jumps have been made from aircraft able to fly above 100,000 feet in Cold War days to avoid advanced SAMs. But common sense says that such special aircraft are not always available or required. As maximum height varies so does potential fall times.

But for records seek the story of the test pilot jump that holds the world record for public record maximums (123,000 feet or so). Even there speeds are only estimated and where definitely not constant throughout the jump. Peak speeds were estimated as in the high subsonic range (just below speed of sound at that altitude) and at least nearly 500 mph. And I don't know that the jump would be considered HALO. It was certainly high altitude start - but I think he opened his chute as soon as practical around 12000-10000 feet (need to review again to remember). He had a different purpose and wasn't trying to avoid detection or ground fire. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Boss?

The link for Big Boss itself leads to a disambiguation page with no information about this, and footnote #2 doesn't seem to mention this individual, either. Was this just some Metal Gear fan being silly? If not, somebody please supply some info regarding Big Boss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.54.117 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No word in the article on the O.

Given that this article is supposed to be about HALO jumps, it nevertheless focuses entirely on the HA, and not at all on the LO. All altitudes refer to the altitude of departure, and marvel at how high they can get. Nowhere in the article does it even hint at a typical opening altitude. Reading this discussion page, apparently "below 4000 feet" is as specific as anyone can get. This is information too important to the scope of the article to be excluded. --76.203.23.23 (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I should add that "below 4000 feet" is not at all informative, since even civilian jumps are known to open as low as 2000 feet in some cases. --76.203.23.23 (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of this article - Why Halo Jump and not HALO or HALO jump/

I'm a bit baffled as to why the word jump in this article title is capitalised. I'm also baffled as to why 'HALO' isn't capitalised in the title or why 'HAHO' isn't part of the title. Wouldn't 'HALO/HAHO' be a better name for the article?Big Mac (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal Of Honor: Airborne reference inaccurate

The article claims that in the video game Medal of Honor: Airborne, the player starts the game off with a HALO jump. This statement is entirely inaccurate, as HALO jumps did not even exist during World War 2, when the game takes place. World War 2 insertions by US Paratroops involve virtually no free fall as the static line will open the parachute within the first few seconds of leaving the aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.86.183 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:CHUTEURCPA10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CHUTEURCPA10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Altitude

Regarding second paragraph "In typical HALO/HAHO insertions, the troops are dispatched from altitudes between 65,000 feet (20,000 m) and 75,000 feet (23,000 m)".... Where in the world does this come from??? Unless something is cited soon to verify this, which is highly dubious, it should be set to 25-35 thousand feet maximum altitude. Make sure you cite the type of plane used for this also, and it's service ceiling, such as B-1 (Lancer) bomber, service ceiling 60,000 feet. IF this is not changed or verified soon, Someone please do it. This is kind of a joke right now....

Msjayhawk (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference for Altitude

I inserted a reference for the typical altitude from Global Security... Msjayhawk (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 3

Does the use of the HALO jump in a video game deserve to be mentioned?

If so then shouldn't we take it upon ourselves to list the times it has happened in every video game? 174.78.204.49 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Two Questions

Quoting the article: "For military cargo airdrops, the rigged load is cut free and rolls out of the plane as a result of aircraft deck angle (AOA). The load then proceeds to fall under canopy to a designated drop zone. In a typical HALO exercise, the parachutist will jump from the aircraft, free-fall for a period of time at terminal velocity, and open his parachute at a low altitude. The combination of high downward speed, minimal metal and forward air-speed serves to defeat radar, enabling a stealthy insertion."

1) based on much earlier comments on this page (2007) I gather that among people who actually jump from aircraft and live to talk about it the term "canopy" is used rather than chute or parachute. But I think that laypeople (which includes me) will overwhelmingly recognize the terms parachute and chute, not canopy. Using the term canopy without introducing it makes it Jargon IMO.

2) In the last sentence quoted above, does "forward air-speed" refer to the aircraft (i.e., that the aircraft very quickly leaves the parachutist behind) OR to the parachutist (i.e., that the parachutist maintains "significant" forward air-speed before opening the canopy)?

Intriguing topic. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Origins

Quoting our article:

"The origins of the HALO technique date back to 1960 when the U.S. Air Force was conducting experiments that followed earlier work by Colonel John Stapp in the late 1940s through early 1950s on survivability factors for high-flying pilots needing to eject at high altitudes.[1] Stapp, a research biophysicist and medical doctor, used himself as a human guinea pig in rocket sled tests to study the effects of very high g-forces. Stapp also resolved many of the issues involved in high altitude flight in his earliest work for the Air Force, and subjected himself to exposure to altitudes of 45,000 feet (14,000 m)."

Given this brief history, couldn't one say that the "origins" date back to the late 1940s? Wanderer57 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The British SAS were using HALO insertions as early as the Malayan Emergency and the Borneo Conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-altitude military parachuting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040215025436/http://www.specialoperations.com/Specialties/halo.html to http://www.specialoperations.com/Specialties/halo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on High-altitude military parachuting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070623225200/http://archives.navyseals.com/community/navyseals/equipment_air.cfm to http://archives.navyseals.com/community/navyseals/equipment_air.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927043005/http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/dk.jsp?doi=10.1221%2F0789499738 to http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/dk.jsp?doi=10.1221%2F0789499738
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://hosta.atsc.eustis.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/accp/in0758/lsn3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

MFF (Military Free Fall) Addition

As HALO and HAHO is generalized under MFF (Military Free-Fall). I feel like a generlized header under this category would be a good addition to this wiki. Currently In progress. (CataPike (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC))

Added bytes about terminal velocity (CataPike (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC))