Quote from: RiverAux on March 05, 2008, 08:01:46 PM
While I tend to agree with Dragoon on his view of how things may shape up, I am 100% positive that no one in this country is going to go to the wall about a requirement that CAP aircrews wear NOMEX.  We don't have anywhere near that amount of pull, and what pull we do have goes towards keeping the AF from chopping our funding every year. 

The local volunteer fire departments may get their senators in an uproar about something and get a few things changed, but CAP ain't going to be able to do that.  We all know the pro/con argument about whether NOMEX is helpful, but I just don't see CAP trying to get a Senator behind getting such a thing droppped. 

We probably won't, not on that one issue.  But that won't be the only issue.  There will be lots.  And LOTS of folks will complain.  CAP probably won't even have to get involved until others have raised the heat level so high that the standards are reopened for comment and correction.  Then we'll start pushing for the changes.

For example, there's a really good case to be made that NOMEX is overkill for light aircraft.  All you have to do is look at the accident statistics in General Aviation, and you'll find few cases where Nomex would have made a difference.  You'll find many more cases where helmets would have helped.

Quote from: Dragoon on March 05, 2008, 07:47:23 PM
That money was provided prior to the standards being established....

I understand. The money is still flowing every year. Most agencies already use appropriate PPE (flightsuits in this case). It should be a small matter for those other agencies, somewhat more of a problem for CAP.

Quote from: Dragoon on March 05, 2008, 07:47:23 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 03, 2008, 08:57:09 PM
4) Everyone else is compliant.

You're saying that every ES responder, from the local Sheriff's dept, to every VFD to every volunteer search dog team, is fully compliant with all standards except CAP?

Almost no one is "in compliance."  Everyone is scrambling to BE in compliance....

Ok, I said that wrong. What I meant was, virtually every responder agency in the country has been working for several years to become compliant, and are now, as you say, scrambling to meet the deadlines for the current stuff. As that's mostly completed, the next round of compliance standards (the ones I'm talking about) will become mandatory with a couple years to get it done, along with the credentialing system. This next round is a lot easier for most agencies cause almost all first-line responders already meet these min quals.

Meanwhile, many of CAPs ES standards are far below these. Aircrew is in pretty good shape, but GT is not, & a lot of mission staff need extra trng. It's not that we haven't been given adequate time, we have, but we've been in denial & procrastinated. The transition could have been made in a smoother more prudent way, but now it's going to be a really mad scramble, and will in some respects be expensive among other problems.

QuotePlus, we need to see if this thing survives into the new Presidential administration - every President has his/her own agenda and priorities, after all.  No doubt there's a lot of goodness here.  But I've seen other really good programs die a slow death due to lack of interest from the guys at the top.

McCain strongly supported all this stuff, and it was a major democratic issue to bash the president over not implementing this stuff fast enough - flowing from 9/11 commission. It's also congressionally driven. The Republican party has focused more on protecting the country thru military power abroad, while dems have favored a more isolationist approach with strong response capabilities... In other words, I can't see how it would change other than to become a higher priority.

QuoteBottom line - there is great danger in getting "out in front" of this.  It's likely to change.  And that means you might make people jump through hoops and spend money unneccesarily.  Very bad when you're dealing with volunteers.

This is subjective, but I don't think it is at all likely to change. It may be a little give or take here & there on exact details, but the big picture is undoubtedly coming.

Meanwhile, you have CAP... we got left behind in the AF relationship as they professionalized the service away from seat of the pants, and we didn't keep up. Today you have the emergency response community going through a similar professionalisation phase, and CAP again is failing to keep up. I understand our members are volunteers. I understand this isn't their career, and I understand the govt isn't going to provide teh kind of funds they would to train up a professional responder. What that means is it's going to take time & effort for CAP to stay in the business. We aren't going to be given that kind of time by the govt, cause other agencies don't need nearly as much as we do. So, I do believe we need to get moving on a lot of this stuff. Only by being out front a bit do we have a chance of getting to the goal. That doesn't mean we can't be adaptable, but procrastinating to see how things finally turn out isn't going to be helpful.

Amazing. Never meant this thing to go off on this kind of tangent. Some of the posts are an example of the stupidity that's causing CAP's problems with the Air Force in the first place.

Air Force says "CAP, you need to this." The responses? "I don't want to!", "I'm calling my Congressman!", "I don't care if it is for safety, I'm a volunteer!" and so forth. I guess it is a perfect example that you can't actually save people from themselves.

Are some people so stuck in the past that they can't even accept safety as a legitimate reason for change? I'm really starting to think so. It's amazing how deep some people are willing to bury their heads.

^ When you take a dive at 150 miles and your little Cessna is turned into something that can fit in a shoebox, your nomex won't be saving your life.  I doubt many people were saved by their nomex bags (because flashfires do not really happen all that often in what CAP flies. 

The silliness of saying "for safety sake" is well......silly.  Can anyone here say that they know people whose clothing saved them from an aircraft fire.  Better yet, lets have statistics to back up all this throwing around of stats.  I would imagine very few if any people survive the kind of fires that will take place when their A/C is in flames. 

Face it........a lot of this is just about what will make a person look cooler.  I could care less.

What's the policy on the flightsuit in the CG Auxiliary? Do they have to meet weight standards? Are they all allowed to wear the same bag as active Coasties and with almost identical cloth patches? Gosh! How do the Coasties not confuse those Auxies? Life must be hard for them with all that confusion going on.

<<end sarcasm>>

http://www.auxodept.org/airoperations.htm

Few things wrong with those bags.

Quote from: mikeylikey on March 06, 2008, 12:38:39 AM
^ When you take a dive at 150 miles and your little Cessna is turned into something that can fit in a shoebox, your nomex won't be saving your life.  I doubt many people were saved by their nomex bags (because flashfires do not really happen all that often in what CAP flies. 

The silliness of saying "for safety sake" is well......silly.  Can anyone here say that they know people whose clothing saved them from an aircraft fire.  Better yet, lets have statistics to back up all this throwing around of stats.  I would imagine very few if any people survive the kind of fires that will take place when their A/C is in flames. 

Face it........a lot of this is just about what will make a person look cooler.  I could care less.

You notice how your argument is real similar to the one people use for not wearing a seatbelt?

FYI- I do know CAP members killed because they didn't have one. There's more examples than you'd think.

And, how's your statement dif from mil aviation, taking a dive at how fast? The flight we do in CAP is quite a bit more dangerous than GA. There is no ejection seat, obviously. The point of a flt suit is to give you a few extra seconds to minute to get out on crash or to force landing in the case of an onboard fire (avionics or engine). That's it. FEMA recognizes that & states reasonable standards for doing the job.

It's not that Nomex won't help on that rare (and I do mean RARE) occasion when you're trapped in a perfectly sound cockpit that happens to be on fire.  I'm aware of a single incident in California Wing, about 10 years back.

It's a cost/benefit analysis.  It just doesn't happen often enough to be worth the money.  Impact is the killer.

We'd save more lives with Helmets.  Or retrofitting those seatbelt air bags.  Or replacing all our aircraft with ones that have parachutes.  Heck, we might even save a few lives by requiring all aircrew to WEAR parachutes.

Again, cost/benefit.  We don't have infinite money.

Nomex is a knee jerk thing.  I'm with mikeylikey on this one - I've yet to arrive at a plane wreck where the impact didn't matter but the fire did. 

It's the crumpling aluminum that does you in.

Quote from: afgeo4 on March 06, 2008, 01:01:54 AM
What's the policy on the flightsuit in the CG Auxiliary? Do they have to meet weight standards? Are they all allowed to wear the same bag as active Coasties and with almost identical cloth patches? Gosh! How do the Coasties not confuse those Auxies? Life must be hard for them with all that confusion going on.

<<end sarcasm>>

From USCG Auxiliary Aviation Training Manual

Auxiliary flight crew aboard a facility should wear identical uniforms. The following uniforms are approved while under orders in accordance with the Auxiliary Operations Policy Manual, COMDTINST M16798.3 (series):
• An Auxiliary flight suit, fire-retardant, with appropriate insignia
• Anti-exposure coveralls, as approved by a unit commander for flight use
• Any authorized Auxiliary uniform

In other words "we'd really like you to wear Nomex and dress alike, but in the end where whatever you want."

Not that much different than CAP.  Except at least they encourage an aircrew to dress alike.

I agree that impact is a much bigger deal than fire. I can't do anything about impact though. It'd cost a whole crap ton of money to do the stuff you mentioned, and we ain't got it, nor will it be a priority. On the other hand, flight suits are acquired by members, not thru our budget, and are relatively inexpensive. Yes, I know some are expensive. I also know if you look around a bit you can get them easily for $40-100 in green or blue. This to pilots who spend many times that flying.

FEMA isn't looking at CAP when they say this stuff. They don't care about CAP, and why should it ever enter their thinking. We don't make the rules here. We accept the rules that are written for funded paid professional agencies & we adapt to them (primarily over the backs of our members, unfortunately). That's what CAP is & has always been.

If it's ultimately a decision to either be part of this system that gives us meaningful missions in emergency situations or to not comply with their rules because we don't want it to be expensive for our members, what do you think is going to happen, and what is the best decision for the long-term interests of CAP?

Quote from: DNall on March 07, 2008, 03:42:30 PM
I agree that impact is a much bigger deal than fire. I can't do anything about impact though. It'd cost a whole crap ton of money to do the stuff you mentioned, and we ain't got it, nor will it be a priority. On the other hand, flight suits are acquired by members, not thru our budget, and are relatively inexpensive. Yes, I know some are expensive. I also know if you look around a bit you can get them easily for $40-100 in green or blue. This to pilots who spend many times that flying.

FEMA isn't looking at CAP when they say this stuff. They don't care about CAP, and why should it ever enter their thinking. We don't make the rules here. We accept the rules that are written for funded paid professional agencies & we adapt to them (primarily over the backs of our members, unfortunately). That's what CAP is & has always been.

If it's ultimately a decision to either be part of this system that gives us meaningful missions in emergency situations or to not comply with their rules because we don't want it to be expensive for our members, what do you think is going to happen, and what is the best decision for the long-term interests of CAP?

As I've pointed out previously, you may wish to paint it as "comply or die" but it's normally more complicated than that. 

The guys making the rules may try at first to proclaim their rules are perfect, and that they can happily do without everyone who doesn't comply, but neither assertion is true.

The rules are most likely full of issues that will only now come to light because there's a compliance issue.  This will cause lots of arguing, political pressure and changes.  Changes will occur.

They cannot do witout everyone who doesn't comply.  When the rubber meets the road, they will take what they can get.  And where unpaid volunteers are concerned (which is a heck of a lot folks than just CAP), they're gonna have to make allowances.  And they will.  Those without bucks will challenge the neccessity of any expenditure that doesn't yield enough results.  Nomex is one example of that - the costs can run into the several hundreds (especially for big guys) and don't actually provide much benefit to a GA pilot.

I'm sure there will be other, more serious cost/benefit issues that will emerge.  I've seen these kind of things before - and the result is always the same.  And while the FEMA staffer who assembled the rules will try to defend them to the death, his bosses' boss will take a less narrow view, and understand that the world is a messy place.  And that if you want volunteers to help out, you have to make allowances.  Otherwise they'll give up and volunteer elsewhere.

In the meantime, I'll save this thread and see if CAP aircrew are required to wear Nomex within 24 months.  It certainly could happen -but I doubt it.

^ We are still only looking at the Senior Member side of the issue.  What about the cadets.  Can they all afford to purchase a nomex bag? 

I say wear what you are comfortable flying in.  If you wear shorts and a t-shirt but fly better because of it, so be it. 

I wear a polo and khaki pants when I take a plane out.  I have been flying for 9 years now, (whenever I get the chance)  and to be honest, being comfortable adds to my flying ability by percentage points.

Intersting note, I have no desire to fly for CAP.  I have not figured that out yet.  Maybe it is the club mentality of the pilots in my Wing.  I have had conversations that went.... "what would you know Mike, you aren't a pilot, you do ES and Cadet programs".  My response......"actually I am a pilot but don't fly for CAP because of people like you Sir".  Weird, right?!?!

PAWG should just be renamed the "Philadelphia Pilots Club".  I digress, sorry!

Quote from: mikeylikey on March 07, 2008, 07:18:48 PM
^ We are still only looking at the Senior Member side of the issue.  What about the cadets.  Can they all afford to purchase a nomex bag? 

I say wear what you are comfortable flying in.  If you wear shorts and a t-shirt but fly better because of it, so be it. 

I wear a polo and khaki pants when I take a plane out.  I have been flying for 9 years now, (whenever I get the chance)  and to be honest, being comfortable adds to my flying ability by percentage points.

Intersting note, I have no desire to fly for CAP.  I have not figured that out yet.  Maybe it is the club mentality of the pilots in my Wing.  I have had conversations that went.... "what would you know Mike, you aren't a pilot, you do ES and Cadet programs".  My response......"actually I am a pilot but don't fly for CAP because of people like you Sir".  Weird, right?!?!

PAWG should just be renamed the "Philadelphia Pilots Club".  I digress, sorry!

If we're required nomex for O-Flights *rolls eyes* lets just have each wing have a few sets of coveralls around.

But unless the cadet had a proper name tag they would be considered out of uniform and wouldn't be covered by insurance! [/sarcasm]

Quote from: jimmydeanno on March 07, 2008, 09:12:12 PM
But unless the cadet had a proper name tag they would be considered out of uniform and wouldn't be covered by insurance! [/sarcasm]

I believe that's what ROTC does.

True story - we had two pilots deploy to Katrina to fly GA-8s.  Due to a lack of laundry facilities, they ended up flying in about every single CAP uniform combo there is ('cept mess dress, of course).  Their nomex was too stinky for wear after the first couple of days.

Real USAF guys get issued multiple sets.  Not us.

I appreciate what you're saying. I do know how govt policy tends to go into action. It's unfortunate that's the case, and generally defeats the whole purpose, but it is reality. I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that process has already occurred. It's history & we're beyond it now to the standards the community is willing to accept. I don't dispute that some deadline extensions may occur when it comes down to the wire, and that there is still some argument about what counts as equiv to what else, but for the most part this is solid.

This is not new to anyone except CAP. That's because CAP made a conscious decision to ignore this, thinking they could keep doing business as usual under a mil exemption, and that our resource is so valuable (and inexpensive to operate) that no one would oppose us. DHS didn't blink, we're a speck on the wall to them, and AF decided they'd comply, so we're stuck & now any chance to negotiate or ask for help from congress like you're talking about is over with.

Quote from: mikeylikey on March 07, 2008, 07:18:48 PM
We are still only looking at the Senior Member side of the issue.  What about the cadets.  Can they all afford to purchase a nomex bag? 

This is talking about FEMA standards for mission flying. At most it'd be similar to the no under-18 cadets rule we saw recently. So, nomex req on disaster missions for any customer. It's reasonable though to believe CAP would apply that to all mission flying, being it's the same (more dangerous) flight profile. O-flts are not really dangerous. They are the same as GA, which doesn't really justify nomex as part of the PPE.

It was asked earlier in this thread, and I'll ask again.  Where in the FEMA documentation does it say aircrews must wear Nomex flightsuits?  I can't find it.

There are seven FEMA typed resources which involve fixed wing aircraft.  None of them have a requirement for Nomex flightsuits. Three make no reference to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at all.  The others state for "Equipment," the metric is "Flightsuit" and the requirement is "Appropriate level of PPE." 

PPE is not defined in the typing documents, so one must turn to the default FEMA glossary. In it, the definition of PPE is "Equipment and clothing required to shield or isolate personnel from the chemical, physical, thermal, and biological hazards that may be encountered at a hazardous materials (HazMat) incident." FEMA took the definition from NFPA 472, which is "Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents."  A Nomex flightsuit doesn't meet this definition.  FEMA screw-up? Most likely.

The only FEMA typing document that references Nomex flightsuits is the Law Enforcement Helicopter - Patrol and Surveillance. This also requires flight crew members to wear a helmet, gloves and full leather boots. It specifically references the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide (IHOG). This is a federal land management agency document.

The IHOG requires Nomex flightsuit OR Nomex long-sleeved shirt and pants.  However, it explains that Nomex is a brand name and other types of flame retardant clothing are acceptable.  Wildland fire clothing is the most common option, but there are other choices. 

The US Department of the Interior Aviation and Life Support Equipment Manual, from which the IHOG requirement is taken, states: "The preferred material is commonly known as "Nomex." The actual material may be Nomex, polyamide, aramide, polybenzimidazole, Kevlar, or blends thereof.  Cotton materials, chemically altered and marketed as fire resistant, are acceptable." (The most common brand name for these cotton materials is Indura.)

The manual also states: "Materials with low temperature melting characteristics, such as synthetics (nylon, Dacron, polyester, and so on) and synthetic blends, are not approved for wear" under or over the flame retardant clothing. Outerwear and undergarments made from "natural fibers, such as leather, cotton, wool, or wool/cotton blends are acceptable."

The federal land management agencies require full fire retardant PPE, helmets, gloves and boots for all helicopter operations.  However, PPE is NOT required for fixed wing operations that remain above 500 feet AGL (except for landing and takeoff).

And since I've figured out the real interest on CAP Talk is, here is the Army Combat Shirt made of flame retardant material.

Mike

Quote from: sardak on March 08, 2008, 09:31:01 AM
And since I've figured out the real interest on CAP Talk is, here is the Army Combat Shirt made of flame retardant material.

As a person who has seen that shirt walking around Army Posts, I am a true hater of it.  It borders on what the guy doing purchase orders in the basement of some startup IT firm would wear on casual Friday.  I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.  I pray when it finally hits (knowing it will because it is the Army), that local Commanders can decide its wear.  That way I will make sure none of my Soldiers are caught dead in it. 

Did I mention how much I hate that.  The wreaks of everything not military about a uniform.  Sure, if they want to design a new undershirt, that will not be seen under the ACU top, fine, but I would never allow that to be worn in any unit I command.  I am one of the hard-ass don't even take your ACU shirt off, even if you are sweating guys.  I am such a Patton when it comes to uniforms.  My first Command I had a standing order that soldiers on fatigue (racking the gravel parking lot, or digging holes) would not remove their BDU shirt, no matter the amount they perspired.  In my mind it just looks bad. 

Wow.....I almost forgot all about that shirt, thanks for bringing that back into the light.  I do believe Army times said within a year (if the Chief of Staff gets his act together soon) we will have many uniform changes in the Army, far more than what we could have in CAP.