Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
#1564846
Bill McCarthy wrote:In which case - if you both end up getting drenched in fuel and there is a woof, you'll still end up getting toasted. The suit does not prevent fuel burn.

Bill
I would really be interested in just how useful you think your post is in this very interesting discussion?
#1564900
Lockhaven wrote:I aagree with wearing protect flight clothing when operating these types of aircraft as they were designed for war not for pilot/passenger comfort and safety, so don't be selective with your statements be fair.


First I should say that I fly aerobatics and don't wear protective clothing, apart from a parachute.

But... I don't get your point. Ok so Mustangs were designed with the expectation that you would be shot at, but apart from that, they are no more or less risky than anything else. Avgas burns at the same temperature in a Mustang as in a PA28 or C172. :(
#1564924
davef77 wrote:
Lockhaven wrote:I aagree with wearing protect flight clothing when operating these types of aircraft as they were designed for war not for pilot/passenger comfort and safety, so don't be selective with your statements be fair.


First I should say that I fly aerobatics and don't wear protective clothing, apart from a parachute.

But... I don't get your point. Ok so Mustangs were designed with the expectation that you would be shot at, but apart from that, they are no more or less risky than anything else. Avgas burns at the same temperature in a Mustang as in a PA28 or C172. :(


Quite true about the burning rate of Avgas, however older military aircraft were never designed to the same standards of your modern spam can, and the powers that be required the pilots to wear protective flight clothing for a very good reason, one being a cockpit fire on the ground and the time taken to escape the cockpit.

Just out of interest would you think its quicker to move back the canopy of a P51 using a possibly hot rotary handle, keeping in mind the canopy won't eject on the ground, or open a spam can door and jump ?
#1564925
Lockhaven wrote:Quite true about the burning rate of Avgas, however older military aircraft were never designed to the same standards of your modern spam can, and the powers that be required the pilots to wear protective flight clothing for a very good reason, one being a cockpit fire on the ground and the time taken to escape the cockpit.

Just out of interest would you think its quicker to move back the canopy of a P51 using a possibly hot rotary handle, keeping in mind the canopy won't eject on the ground, or open a spam can door and jump ?


I have never sat in a P51, but I don't fancy my chances getting out of a PA28.

I am not sure that I agree with you about the "design standards" though. If I had to choose an aeroplane to crash in, I think that I would probably pick something like a Tiger Moth, all that structure to absorb energy, open cockpit to make it easy to get out of and slow, so not that much energy to start with.

But any aeroplane can kill you :(

(This is a bit of a wierd conversation :? )

Ultimately it is all down to an acceptable balance of risk isn't it. We each choose a level that we deem acceptable.
#1564928
Waveflyer wrote:
Bill McCarthy wrote:In which case - if you both end up getting drenched in fuel and there is a woof, you'll still end up getting toasted. The suit does not prevent fuel burn.

Bill
I would really be interested in just how useful you think your post is in this very interesting discussion?

Because the justification from the previous poster was that they would want to wear nomex because of the fuel tank position of their aircraft.
Bill's post highlighted the large hole in that logic.
I don't know if Bill thinks it was a useful post - but I do!

This was yet another incident in which nomex might have helped. However it didn't.
There is lots of speculation of "might". Little evidence that it has.
As I said in an earlier post, if you are in the air, nomex might give you a few seconds extra to bail out. If you aren't wearing a parachute, that wont help you much. Therefore there is no point to wearing it, unless you like the pockets or want to keep other clothes clean.
#1564939
There has been much discussion in another thread about the hothouse world of the FLYER Forum and how unrepresentative the contributors here are of GA generally.

This was brought home to me yesterday in the Old Buckenham cafe where three workmen were having their lunch presumably in a break from some development work on the airfield.

After a few minutes it became clear that they were actually the occupants of a visiting 172, each still wearing their beautiful high-viz, high-flam jackets.

(Old Buckenham has no hi-viz requirement)

Rob P
Bobcro, Lockhaven, davef77 and 1 others liked this
#1564952
riverrock wrote:
Waveflyer wrote:
Bill McCarthy wrote:In which case - if you both end up getting drenched in fuel and there is a woof, you'll still end up getting toasted. The suit does not prevent fuel burn.

Bill
I would really be interested in just how useful you think your post is in this very interesting discussion?

Because the justification from the previous poster was that they would want to wear nomex because of the fuel tank position of their aircraft.
Bill's post highlighted the large hole in that logic.
I don't know if Bill thinks it was a useful post - but I do!

This was yet another incident in which nomex might have helped. However it didn't.
There is lots of speculation of "might". Little evidence that it has.
As I said in an earlier post, if you are in the air, nomex might give you a few seconds extra to bail out. If you aren't wearing a parachute, that wont help you much. Therefore there is no point to wearing it, unless you like the pockets or want to keep other clothes clean.



My comment about the location of the fuel tank was in regard to the fact that unlike many aircraft it is located within the cockpit and relatively close to the engine. Therefore I feel a fire within the cockpit is more of a possibility in many circumstances, a hard or forced landing for instance and that Aramid/Nomex might buy me vital seconds to escape before being consumed by the flames. I fully understand that fire retarded clothing will not offer any protection if I get drenched with fuel which subsequently ignites
#1564958
There are hundreds of aircraft with fuel tanks mounted above the pilots knees, behind, to the sides and overhead too. Therefore, there is a very high risk on impact of being splashed in some way by fuel. Whether it ignites or not would be purely down to luck. A mesh filled tank (such as in racing cars) to reduce flow from a ruptured tank in order to "buy time" would be a more useful addition to any aircraft design. An in flight fuel fire forward however, would be a different story and I would suggest that Nomex or any fire retardant material might not help much. Didn't some WW1 pilots leap from burning aircraft rather than stay with it to suffer the consequences ?
#1564969
AAIB report into G-EWZZ is somewhat relevant to this thread. Also has some interesting recommendations about BRS. One thing that stood out was that both pilot and passenger managed to evacuate the aircraft; pilot more quickly than passenger. The pilot survived with 40% burns, the passenger was more severely burned and sadly passed away in hospital.

There's no comment in the report about what they were wearing, but there is a comment from an aviation pathologist that:

this was a survivable accident and that while commercially available fire-resistant flying clothing might not have altered the fatal outcome, their protective benefits should be highlighted to light-aircraft pilots.
#1564977
I think it may have been said earlier. A nomex flying suit is not fireproof, nor is it heatproof. It is flameproof and will give you a few extra seconds.

For some heat proofing, it needs to be worn in combination with other layers of clothing, such as nomex underwear, to be fully effective. Even then, it remains "a few extra seconds" of protection.
RichardPearse liked this
#1565007
romille wrote:My comment about the location of the fuel tank was in regard to the fact that unlike many aircraft it is located within the cockpit and relatively close to the engine. Therefore I feel a fire within the cockpit is more of a possibility in many circumstances, a hard or forced landing for instance and that Aramid/Nomex might buy me vital seconds to escape before being consumed by the flames. I fully understand that fire retarded clothing will not offer any protection if I get drenched with fuel which subsequently ignites


...and in my aeroplane, with the main fuel tank above my knees and between my legs, there is also a nice plastic tube full of fuel that runs down the panel to show me how much I have :thumright:

This thread, and the terrible accident that prompted it has made me think more about protective clothing. Still not sure where I stand though.

I have been wondering about looking at clothing for car racers, for my kind of flying it is not entirely stupid. The sort of stuff that the Red Bull racers wear. I would feel like a stupid poser, but it would be safer.

There are competing tensions though, as well as feeling like a bit of an idiot (never had a problem wearing a grow-bag in the past), my cockpit is VERY hot in the summer. So properly protective clothing would be both very expensive and very hot. That in itself is a safety issue in my kind of flying as it can result in reduced G tolerance and heat exhaustion. I know of several pilots who have suffered when flying in international competitions.

Complicated :?
#1565012
I agree that in most situations Aramid/Nomex will buy no more than a few seconds, but we are all aware of scenarios where people have cheated death or serious injury by the smallest of margins. I fly because I enjoy the challenge, so believe in assessing and minimising risk of harm for me and my passenger wherever practical to do so.
#1565013
RichardPearse wrote:AAIB report into G-EWZZ is somewhat relevant to this thread. Also has some interesting recommendations about BRS.


The thought that in a ground accident the BRS rocket could cut the crematorium out of the journey from pilot to ashes had never occurred to me. :shock:

Rob P
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9