Uniform poll-- Aircrew Uniforms

[Eclipse]

I think that the Flight suit should be a National requirement. I flew in the USAF and I always (and I mean Always) had to wear a Flt suit.

And I would imagine that you were >issued< yours (certainly as least the first one), not to mention you were getting paid for your service and likely had a clothing allowance.

Requiring a $150+ piece of clothing to get into an airplane will just become one more barrier to being on aircrew at all.  Yes, you can get them used cheap, but if we wind up requiring them, you'll have units with one stinky shared one - just great.

Not to mention the fact that in order to be effective, you have to require a fire retardant jacket as well - and at last check, those start in the $150 range as well.  It does no good to wear an accelerant (Nylon) over a retardant (Nomex).

So now we're up to $300 entry cost to fly in our planes - and what about cadets?  Its hard enough to get them in any uniform sometimes.

Until CAP starts issuing uniforms, requiring anything other than the golf shirt is an uphill climb and just not reasonable.

[Eclipse]

Im not an aviation expert. But since when did our aircraft not come with cool ventilation?

Sit on a ramp for 45 minutes in mid-August while base ops tries to figure out whether you are cleared.
We lose a lot of lunches because of the heat, fumes and noise.

[SAR-EMT1]

Im not an aviation expert. But since when did our aircraft not come with cool ventilation?

Sit on a ramp for 45 minutes in mid-August while base ops tries to figure out whether you are cleared.
We lose a lot of lunches because of the heat, fumes and noise.

Midway, O'Hare, or DuPaige?

Ah.... the joy that is purgatory that is the Chicago metroplex.

Here is a thought... order your takeoff takeout, that way when you are ready to leave so is your flight. That way hopefully you wont lose your lunch. Because if you lose your lunch... it just ends up in the bag that is your flightsuit. The smell of which is enough to convince your crewmates to SET you on fire. 

[RiverAux]

I'm very surprised by the results of the poll so far.  Either we've got a lot of lurkers from Pacific Region (where everybody is in one) or the Air Force green flight suit is still being chosen by most flightcrews everywhere.  Interesting...

[Eclipse]

Im not an aviation expert. But since when did our aircraft not come with cool ventilation?

Sit on a ramp for 45 minutes in mid-August while base ops tries to figure out whether you are cleared.
We lose a lot of lunches because of the heat, fumes and noise.

Midway, O'Hare, or DuPaige?

Ah.... the joy that is purgatory that is the Chicago metroplex.

Here is a thought... order your takeoff takeout, that way when you are ready to leave so is your flight. That way hopefully you wont lose your lunch. Because if you lose your lunch... it just ends up in the bag that is your flightsuit. The smell of which is enough to convince your crewmates to SET you on fire. 

Nope - try Frankfort, sat there the longest, and you can't sit on the ramp very long at Midway without having a heavy blow you off the runway doing a Full Engine Run-up!

[ddelaney103]

Frankly, we just don't have the risk exposure the AF types do.  They're dealing with lots of JP-8 and people who are actively trying to cause a flash fire with missiles and guns.

Based on anecdotal evidence we have one, maybe two people whose lives have been saved by aramid fibers.  If CAP aircrew get hurt in a crash, the usual cause is blunt force trauma.

There's probably a much stronger case to be made for flight helmets than flight suits.

[Mustang]

I think that the Flight suit should be a National requirement. I flew in the USAF and I always (and I mean Always) had to wear a Flt suit.

That'd be an awfully expensive unfunded mandate, don't you think?  Sage green bags can be had from eBay cheaply enough, but good luck if you need a dark blue one -- for which you'll shell out on the order of $200 from either Aureus Intl or Flight Suits Ltd. (I'd never consider buying one from CAP/Vanguard--the quality is poor, poor, poor and at $268, the cost is outrageous!

[lordmonar]

There's probably a much stronger case to be made for flight helmets than flight suits.

I wonder how many people who swear that we have to wear Nomex to save our lives also say we should all be wearing Survival Vests and Flotation collars?

We have the same chance of drowning and dieing of exposure as we do of dieing in a flash fire.

[Smokey]

I for one wear an SRU-21 survival vest packed with goodies and have a small survival bag I bring with on flights.   Plus for those flights near/over water I do have  an inflatable life vest.   Guess those days of being a Boy Scout (Be prepared) along with having flown  in military aircraft make me one of those strange folks.

[ddelaney103]

There's probably a much stronger case to be made for flight helmets than flight suits.

I wonder how many people who swear that we have to wear Nomex to save our lives also say we should all be wearing Survival Vests and Flotation collars?

We have the same chance of drowning and dieing of exposure as we do of dieing in a flash fire.

Even though we fly high enough to get to the edge, we do wear PFD's when we patrol the Chesapeake Bay.  We also have a raft and kit in the back.

Fortunately, the PFD's were blue, so they didn't clash with the Mess Dress...

[CFI_Ed]

I for one wear an SRU-21 survival vest packed with goodies and have a small survival bag I bring with on flights.   Plus for those flights near/over water I do have  an inflatable life vest.   Guess those days of being a Boy Scout (Be prepared) along with having flown  in military aircraft make me one of those strange folks.

But consider how much of a useful load the C172S/C182T/C182TNavIII have with three "adult"  CAP aircrew and fuel at the tabs.   If everyone wore the SRU-21 with survival goodies, along with the pilot/observer/scanner's pubs and gear, the aircraft  probably exceeds is close to max gross weight. 

[wingnut]

ahh yes crasshopper, very true, to save weight, to please don't carry basic survival  gear, all one needs is sharp knife and eat the other fat CAP pilot next to you if crash, if he cooked all the better.

[Hawk200]

And I would imagine that you were >issued< yours (certainly as least the first one), not to mention you were getting paid for your service and likely had a clothing allowance.

Military aircrews are issued the Nomex, it's not a clothing bag item. And Air Force officers don't recieve a clothing allowance. Don't know about other branches, but would imagine that it's the same.

But consider how much of a useful load the C172S/C182T/C182TNavIII have with three "adult"  CAP aircrew and fuel at the tabs.   If everyone wore the SRU-21 with survival goodies, along with the pilot/observer/scanner's pubs and gear, the aircraft  probably exceeds is close to max gross weight. 

In a 182? A 172, I would agree, but a 182? Your aircrew would have to be pretty large to start pushing the weight limit.  Using FAA standard weight per person (170 pounds), and assuming 80 gallons (an approximation, it's actually higher), you'd still be well within within weight limits. If you're only flying 2 hour sorties, then you can reduce fuel load. I don't think weight limit is a valid argument against carrying survival gear. Old adage: "carry an umbrella, it will never rain."

[Pylon]

Fortunately, the PFD's were blue, so they didn't clash with the Mess Dress...

I know there's a story there...   

[CFI_Ed]

And I would imagine that you were >issued< yours (certainly as least the first one), not to mention you were getting paid for your service and likely had a clothing allowance.

Military aircrews are issued the Nomex, it's not a clothing bag item. And Air Force officers don't recieve a clothing allowance. Don't know about other branches, but would imagine that it's the same.

But consider how much of a useful load the C172S/C182T/C182TNavIII have with three "adult"  CAP aircrew and fuel at the tabs.   If everyone wore the SRU-21 with survival goodies, along with the pilot/observer/scanner's pubs and gear, the aircraft  probably exceeds is close to max gross weight. 

In a 182? A 172, I would agree, but a 182? Your aircrew would have to be pretty large to start pushing the weight limit.  Using FAA standard weight per person (170 pounds), and assuming 80 gallons (an approximation, it's actually higher), you'd still be well within within weight limits. If you're only flying 2 hour sorties, then you can reduce fuel load. I don't think weight limit is a valid argument against carrying survival gear. Old adage: "carry an umbrella, it will never rain."

For the NAV III's we've got the useful load is an average 1050 lbs.  Fuel load is normally 64 gallons (@ tabs 384 lbs) which leaves 666 lbs.  And if we go with the two front seaters weighing 200 and 220, and 200 in the back (a pilot on his first scanner mission  ) this will leave you with 46 pounds to spare for survival gear and pubs.  And then the max landing weight is 2950 so you'll have to stay airborne until you burn off 150 pounds of fuel.   Downloading fuel prior to a mission usually can't be accomplished since most G.A. airfields don't have a defuel truck.  So, in that case someone will have to let the fuel truck driver how much fuel to pump in based on who the next crew will be.

The 172S models we have are also in the same situation.  The new airplanes are just heavy when they come out of the factory now.  The only new 182T that we that have that isn't "porky" is a round dial bird without an autopilot.

[RiverAux]

I don't have the figures but it seems we have more problems (weight-wise) with 182s than the 172s. 

[Hawk200]

I don't have the figures but it seems we have more problems (weight-wise) with 182s than the 172s. 

I pretty much looked up the specs for a 182T. It was the first links that came up on Yahoo! . From what I saw it had a 1140 lb useful load. With three people on board at 200 lbs each, there is still plenty of load left for fuel and survival gear if necessary. The specs indicated 88 gallons of fuel capacity.

Now, balance is a different story. I'm not a pilot, my father is (he's got almost 4000 hrs), I've had six hours in my logbook for almost 22 years (yeah, I know, I'm a little slow on the hours). He may be able to tell me if the balance would be a problem. But from the info I'm seeing, weight wouldn't really be an issue.

[lordmonar]

Using FAA standard weight per person (170 pounds),

Well there's your problem....the FAA standard is only about 30 years out of date.  Our pilots usually use 190 or 200 as a standard when you consider people&gear.

[RiverAux]

If you fill up the tanks on the 182 you are more likely to have problems.  We usually only fill to the tabs but if the ramp guy goes all the way we're sometimes screwed on weight. 

[jimmydeanno]

Using FAA standard weight per person (170 pounds),

Well there's your problem....the FAA standard is only about 30 years out of date.  Our pilots usually use 190 or 200 as a standard when you consider people&gear.

must be nice...I can't remember the last time we were able to have a scanner in the back seat because the pilot and the observer used up the weight...