Cheeze Check

[Witch]

P.S. All you Robbie flyers better make sure your stuff is the real deal and serviceable:

In July 2006, the Robinson Helicopter Company issued Safety Notice SN-40, titled “Postcrash Fires”. That Safety Notice states:

 

"There have been a number of cases where helicopter or light plane occupants have survived an accident only to be severely burned by fire following the accident. To reduce the risk of injury in a postcrash fire, it is strongly recommended that a fire-retardant Nomex flight suit, gloves, and hood or helmet be worn by all occupants."

 

(Don't be a cynic...there's nothing to read in between the lines...nothing to see...)

 

But there is something to read between the lines. It's called the legal dept. These guys put out the safety notice so that their butt is covered when someone gets in a wreck and fire. This way if a suit comes, they can say "Hey, we recommended this safety equipment and the pilot ignored the recommendation. We are not at fault.".

 

That is all.

 

Later

[Vaqueroaero]

Joker -

 

Interesting scenario isn't it? Don't think that every flight I have ever done that I go out dressed to the hilt in PPE. I've done the flights in T-shirts and shorts, the ones in flight suits and the ones in 'corporate dress'. From my perspective I look at it as a matter of risk. Now before we get all excited about that statement I fully understand that a problem may occur at any point in time in any given flight. However if I'm out doing auto's to the ground is my risk level and the chance of a mishap higher than if I am in straight and level flight? In my experience yes it is. I have 're-designed' isolation mounts in a 206 after a bad full down, but have never managed to do it going from A to B.

 

So from that I have decided that depending upon what I'm doing, I would like to de dressed for the occasion. If I'm doing flight training then I consider the level of risk to be sufficient that I'll dress for the occasion. If I'm going straight and level from A to B then I'm fine wearing something else.

 

In my opinion teaching someone to fly is a dangerous occupation. Why is it then that when someone asks about wearing a flight suit / helmet or whatever they get ridiculed for it, but someone going on an EMS mission or going out to fight a fire is expected to wear it? In an interseting turn of hypocrisy, no I don't wear a helmet, as it is frowned upon by management.

 

Another factor I look at is this: the longer you are in this industry the more exposure you have to the hazards involved. You lose friends in accidents. You see other people screw up. You see mechanical failures. So you get to thinking: OK if I was in that situation what could I have done or would I have done differently?

In short you learn.

 

The guy I know in California? I learned from him that a Nomex flight suit might just give you an edge.

 

Linc -

 

First of all I see you fly 58's, so thanks for your service.

 

As for an accident number, Google this: LAX00LA172. I'm afraid that it doesn't give any detail of the injuries suffered by the pilot. If possible you'll have to take my word for it. As for the use of his hands and arms: Yes he does, but the use of his left arm is restricted by scar tissue. It's also intersting to look at his arms and see where the Nomex was doubled by his gloved over his flight suit. He has 2 bands around his wrists that are undamaged. However he doesn't have a nose and his eyelids barely function. I've seen this guy in his underwear - he likes people to learn from his accident - and I can tell you it is not a pretty sight. I'm not offended by your statements. After all I know the guy. It's up to you to decide whether or not this is a story made up to impress people or not. Doesn't matter to me one bit.

 

As for examination of his flight suit etc after the event, that I can't tell you. It was probably trashed in the hospital. I don't know.

[joker]

Vaqueroaero,

 

Hmmm.. well that sounds like a good and well thought out answer. Thanks.

 

I have no problem with your reasoning there. You don't seem to fit one of my 'stereotype' suit wearers that I talk about below!

 

Why is it then that when someone asks about wearing a flight suit / helmet or whatever they get ridiculed for it

 

Well I can only put a few possibilities to your answer, There are certain groups of pilots who wear the gear for other reasons (or with other attitude) to yours. These are the ones who cause friction:

 

1. Hard and steadfast 'I wear mine AT ALL TIMES' - without true understanding of risks

 

My own gripe are these people, hence my question. They are the ones who preached to me about not wearing my bike leathers AT ALL TIMES, but then a few months down the line they changed their own opinion (standards). Makes me wonder what knowledge they really based their opinion on.

 

2. Pompous air about them - I know better than you!

 

I entered this thread by saying, 'When in Rome...' When everyone is wearing slacks and a shirt, and a new member of the group comes in doing something completely different, that new person sends an unconcious message to the group; I know better than you all! Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Either way a group doesn't generally like to hear that from its newest member.

 

These people often believe they are somehow superiour to the rest of the crowd. I've seen them...they seem to adopt that 'I'm better than you' John Wayne swagger as they move about the ramp! They go all serious with their suit on and helemt under their arm. There is something that affects their own perception of themselves.

 

This could be the lone student who comes to lessons with his helmet and flight suit or it could just as easily be the lone instructor.

 

3. All the gear and no idea! - Cheese or Cool?

 

Then there is always that group of people who simply do it because they think it promotes an image, and because they can afford to. They don't understand at all why they are doing this thing (wearning flight suit). They just do to impress someone. The richer ones can will be wearing the proper stuff, the poorer ones will be satisfied with a cheep copy!

 

At the PADI (diving) instructor course, they tell you can tell a lot about the diver by his gear. They say to watch the diver who has all new and expensive gear with all the whistles and bells hanging off. They are your biggest risk group. Same thing?

 

Well, these are just a few of the different types of people that we might see.

 

This subject is one of the hardest to challenge, as the 'challenger' always comes out looking like an unsafe careless pilot! As I type here, it might sound like I am discouraging people from taking a 'safety-first' attitude. Of course, I am not. I suppose instead I am challenging people to think carefully about why they do stuff. To me it is a sign of weakness to do something and not give a satisfactory answer as to why it is being done.

 

Happy flying!

 

Joker

 

In the world there are reflective practitioners, or there are passive recipients. Which are you?

Edited February 6, 2007 by joker

[Linc]

Vaqueroaero,

 

I never fly without my Nomex or helmet, mainly because the Army requires me to. The helmet that the Army wears was never intended to protect you during a crash. It was to protect your head from banging against the aircraft during the mission and provide a handy spot for comms and a visor, and later, NVGs. Then, they figured out that if they improved the helmet just a little, that it might actually make minor accidents more survivable. Not survivable, just more survivable, implying that the accident already was mostly survivable except for maybe contact with the airframe during the landing/impact sequence. The current helmet is simply designed to prevent serious head injury during survivable landings.

 

I too, have lost several friends and not a single one of them benefited from wearing their PPE. They would've, however, benefitted from a little more experience on instruments, or more experience dividing crew duties, better communication with other aircraft, and some would've benefitted from protection that current PPE technology can't even afford them. A couple are just victims of flying a legacy aircraft when things go wrong. I'm not making the statement lightly at all. There are one hundred and one more things that are of a higher priority than making sure you're wearing the right clothes for an event that will happen after something goes wrong, something that happens relatively long after you've had the chance to prevent it from happening at all.

 

I will do a hundred and one other things before I ever decide that I absolutely must wear Nomex and a helmet for every possible flight. I will preflight more carefully and fly more prudently before I find such a thing necessary, because my experience and observation is that a post-crash fire is the afterglow of the real emergency. A post-crash fire is a third order event. Something happened, which caused something else to happen...and then a post-crash fire ensued. But people often feel safer addressing that hazard than other hazards that are more likely to occur. It makes them feel like they are doing "something" in the name of safety. Band-aid safety, if you will.

 

I will stress Quality Control/Assurance one last time. The availability of used flight suits exceeds the need to save and spend money on a new one. After all, you can save 50% or more by buying used. The problem is in how you ensure that the quality of the garment provides what you are hoping to get out of it. Unserviceable PPE will cause permanent disabling injuries and even allow fatal ones. What's more, improperly wearing PPE will negate the benefits of wearing it at all. It's a two-edged sword, so it behooves pilots to learn more than just basing their decision to wear or not on popular lore.

 

In the end, the odds are that I will be right and the majority of pilots will never be involved in a post-crash fire, much less a crash. I know the odds, and I'm not advocating playing the odds, although I know this is how it comes across. I'm suggesting that we focus on first- and second-order causes and their effects, because it is only through these that we experience the third-order event that is a post-crash fire.

[joker]

Linc,

 

I tend to agree with you here.

 

I too take the 'prevention before protection' view. I don't think my feelings against the wearing are as strong as yours though.

 

You sound a little like you're openly discouraging the wearing of the gear outright. Be wary of sounding like you're on a crussade against them! To me, if they want to then fine, so long as they don't come preaching to me. By our own arguements for not wearing them (chance of fire being so small, relative protection, etc..etc..), then surely we shouldn't get to fussed if someone does wear them?

 

Joker

 

 

On a different, but similar subject, just for fun!:

 

Another factor I look at is this: the longer you are in this industry the more exposure you have to the hazards involved.

 

I think we need a statistician here! Each day as I walk out to my aircraft, does my probability of having my first accident go up, or is it the same as yesterday?!!! Think of coin tossing!?

 

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Edited February 7, 2007 by joker

[brushfire21]

Linc,

 

I didn't mean to push any buttons here, and I didn't mean to make a personal attack if that is how you took it. I only posted because I felt from my background (started in the fire service in 1992) that nomex can be cleaned by the ordinary person using what they have at home if they follow directions accordingly and use some common sense as to the contaminate.

 

From where I come from, its a tool and when cared for properly gives us years of service from things that people in the aviation industry would probably never see. But we also have different guidelines and testing procedures by UL and NFPA before we can use it. Maybe this is where we run into a split in the road between nomex for fire service and aviation?

 

You made a remark about me wearing my nomex topgun flight suit and that I ought to know how to care and use it. Personally I think that comment was a little overboard as I have been using, cleaning, inspecting and having to rely on it for my personal safety in real fire situations for many years without a failure yet. As far as the topgun look, where did this come from?

 

Lets put our heads together here, and share some information about nomex contamination and why you don't feel fuel contaminants can be cleaned out of nomex. Maybe I can learn something here? They say its never to late to teach an old dog a new trick!

 

My last thought for the nite, wear nomex for its funtionality and not for its image. Since I don't own a nomex flight suit, I wear the next best thing and thats all cotton and usually with a long sleeve shirt and decent footwear to go along with my fashion statement for the day!

[Linc]

To all,

 

I'm not against wearing it, just the BS position that wearing it makes you safer than a pilot who doesn't. That you run less risk of getting burnt than the next guy who doesn't, or that you'll survive it if you do encounter it just by wearing Nomex. Most people who wear a Nomex flight suit believe that if they experience a fire that it will provide them the best chance of survival should the event occur. I would agree if that was the only factor involved. Usually there is an error that occurs while airborne that results in the aircraft striking the ground, severely enough to compromise the fuel tank/cell and present an ignition source to the leaking fuel. So, what's the crash attenuation measures on YOUR helicopter?

 

My case on the issue is similar to a story in the last Approach magazine (Navy Safety periodical) I received. An F/A-18 pilot had to make an emergency divert because of his fuel state to an alternate Air Station. During landing, he gets distracted and doesn't notice that he has experienced an anti-skid brake system failure. Once he realizes his brakes aren't working, he diverts so much attention to why the brake system has the failure that he nearly rides the aircraft off the cliff at the departure end and into the drink. He ejects just in time. Turns out, all he had to do was to turn off the anti-skid system and his brakes would've been restored. Wearing Nomex to protect oneself is like trying to figure out why the brake system failed and ignoring the bigger implications.

 

I have the same issue with the idea that teaching soldiers what to do *after* a military vehicle rolls over makes them "safer" than teaching them how to avoid the rollover in the first place. Maybe if we teach them to survive the rollover we can lower our accident rate?

 

How do some guys go through a whole career without ever experiencing any emergency and other guys repeatedly encounter them? The first guys are better pilots? The other guys are just accident prone pilots? Lemon aircraft? There is so much more to this than the band-aid, blanket statement, eyewash of, "wear Nomex, it'll save you!" It's even worse, because most guys who die in aircraft will do so by making a series of bad decisions or stupid choices (a combination of both?), and the odds are that it won't be whether or not to wear Nomex.

 

I know, this comes across as being anti-Nomex flight suits, but if that's what you come away with, then you're missing my point; the idea that you wear one does not make you any safer than anyone else. I come from a part of community that does nothing BUT wear them, and we probably have just as many accidents that have absolutely nothing to do with exposure to fire, post-crash or otherwise, as the rest of the helicopter community has. But, we have no end of safety and life support officers who will swear that Nomex will save our lives one day. Meanwhile, helicopters drop from the sky like rain (hyperbolic exaggeration) for a million other reasons.

 

I've said it before, I'm not a fatalist or a pessimist, just a realist.

 

Witch,

 

They wouldn't do that for that reason, would they?!?

You made a remark about me wearing my nomex topgun flight suit and that I ought to know how to care and use it. Personally I think that comment was a little overboard as I have been using, cleaning, inspecting and having to rely on it for my personal safety in real fire situations for many years without a failure yet. As far as the topgun look, where did this come from?

brushfire,

 

My fire service days are long behind me, since I decided to pursue the course of action that has me where I am now. My comment is regarding those who choose to wear the Sage green (or some other color, usually Navy blue) Nomex flight suit that they purchased from an Army/Navy surplus flea market/bazaar. It wasn't necessarily aimed at you since you don't own or wear a Nomex flight suit. Your Nomex is specialized and actually more rugged than what military pilots are given. In fact, most modern turnouts have a higher percentage of kevlar than when I was a firefighter. Despite DuPont's claims, my experience is that areas that are exposed to petroleum are more prone to abrasive failures. Your turnouts will probably be less prone due to the higher Kevlar content. What's more is that the single layer Nomex of the flight suit is prone to a decrease in thread diameter in high wear areas (seat, under arms, crotch). This may also be why the contaminated areas seem to wear sooner, an unseen acceleration of decreasing thread diameter that will inhibit the threads expansion during carbonization. Unfortunately, I'm not a testing lab and can't validate that with test data, just what I've seen in the field with 60-80 pilots at any one time over 6 years.