Nomex -- Myths and Realities of Flightsuits

[riffraff]

I've read through some of the older uniform threads as well as the current discussions on uniforms, etc. Some great ideas, some not-so-great (IMO).

I was somewhat intrigued by the (presumed) belief that the green nomex flight suit is somehow a safety item in the CAP setting. It's been known for decades that nomex is/was designed for use in short-duration, high-temperature, flash fires. The design scenario was based upon a the premise that a few seconds of protection was needed to allow the wearer to escape (eject) from a burning aircraft. These suits do not protect from heat and will not prevent heat transfer (to your skin). It was intended that a wool or cotton undergarment would be the first-line defense from the heat -- again it was assumed that the duration of protection was to be a few seconds (3 seconds, IIRC).

Current USAF flight suits are 4.5 ounce nomex fabric -- about the same as a middle-of-the-road t-shirt. In a general aviation setting (i.e. avgas fire), nomex provides provides no more protection than street clothes of similar fabric weight.

If you want to wear something to protect against a G-A fire scenario, you'll need to head down to your local fire department and look at their turnout gear. Yes, you'll see Nomex or Proban but it will have at least an inch of padding beneath it to delay heat penetration.

The reason I bring this up? First to point out that the protective properties in the CAP/G-A setting are myth insofar as fire-proof/fire-resistant properties go. While the chances of an aircraft fire are pretty remote, if you do have a fire, the you're better off in a pair of jeans and leather jacket than in a thin flightsuit.

The second reason is cost. With zero advantage in our operating setting, money spent on nomex is a waste if one thinks they're getting enhanced protection from it. A cotton flight suit made from a slightly heavier weight (6 ounce) would offer more true protection and cost considerably less.

I wish people would be more honest and just admit they like the green bags because they look cool and they get the rub-off 'coolness' factor because military aircrew wear them.

[IceNine]

Very nice assesment.

Now do all of those pockets have actual designed uses or are they just for stuffing random stuff in? 

I am just about to order my Zoom-Bag (because I think they are cool) 

[CASH172]

They're real cool.  I always get stares since I'm usually the only cadet wearing one anywhere. 

[fyrfitrmedic]

I was somewhat intrigued by the (presumed) belief that the green nomex flight suit is somehow a safety item in the CAP setting. It's been known for decades that nomex is/was designed for use in short-duration, high-temperature, flash fires. The design scenario was based upon a the premise that a few seconds of protection was needed to allow the wearer to escape (eject) from a burning aircraft. These suits do not protect from heat and will not prevent heat transfer (to your skin). It was intended that a wool or cotton undergarment would be the first-line defense from the heat -- again it was assumed that the duration of protection was to be a few seconds (3 seconds, IIRC).

Current USAF flight suits are 4.5 ounce nomex fabric -- about the same as a middle-of-the-road t-shirt. In a general aviation setting (i.e. avgas fire), nomex provides provides no more protection than street clothes of similar fabric weight.

Citation as to protection please?

In my past experience working in industrial emergency response, I've seen better results than that from 4.5 oz Nomex coveralls in subjects exposed to hydrocarbon-fuel fires for greater than three seconds. That includes an industrial accident involving an immediate family member.

[Hook]

Here are some older tests performed by the Army/Thiokol.  PDF is a link from this page.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0664122

Here is NAVAIR testing from mid-80s
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA197512

[riffraff]

Citation as to protection please?

Google "nomex" and read away. If your relative survived a flash-fire, then I would agree that nomex (Proban, etc) probably helped. However, in a prolonged low-temp fire of prolonged duration (i.e. you have no chute and your CAP airplane has a open-flame, avgas fire in the cockpit while you're cruising along at 9,000 feet), nomex will provide absolutely no additional protection factor beyond natural fiber clothing of the same fabric weight/density.

Hold your mil-spec suit up to the light and tell me how much light comes through. Those same holes are where the heat will be coming through, along with direct heat transfer across the fabric to whatever is underneath. Back in the day, long-johns and insulated top were worn underneath the suit to provide a thermal barrier. Most folks today just wear the suit over shorts and t-shirt -- i.e. nothing to stop direct heat transfer to your skin.

Take a look at what a Nascar driver wears. True it's nomex but with a pretty thick insulating layer to protect against burns -- essentially a less bulky version of the fire departments bunker pants/jackets. These padded suits have a protection rating measured in seconds.

I would agree that flight suits look cool. I wear mine for the same reason but am not under any illusions that it's a matter of safety.

Some basic info:
"Nomex® also is used in apparel worn by military pilots and combat vehicle crew; auto racing drivers, pit crew members and track officials; and industrial workers at risk from flash fire and electric arc hazards."
source: Dupont pres release celebrating 40 years of nomex

From Personal Protection report. Note the reference to flash fire:
http://personalprotection.dupont.ca/pa_pdf/H-45528-02-01NOMEX-Case.pdf

There are hundreds of articles, reports, studies all supporting the benefits of nomex in flash fires.

Edit: Fixed obnoxiously long DuPont URL -TA

[Hawk200]

Nomex by nature is fire-resistant. Cotton or most natural fiber is not. Wool is close, but not completely.

Saying that Nomex offers no protection because it's the same weight as some heavier weight t-shirts is rather ignorant. The statement doesn't even account for the properties of the two materials.

But to simplify: If you're passing through a fire wearing a cotton shirt, it's going to ignite, and you're now carrying a fire with you. Nomex will char, but will not ignite unless exposed to high temps for longer periods. In five seconds, cotton will ignite and burn. Nomex won't.

Overall, it is a safety item. Do we need that level of protection? Probably not. For what I can get flightsuits for, it's worth the money.

[riffraff]

Nomex by nature is fire-resistant. Cotton or most natural fiber is not. Wool is close, but not completely.

Saying that Nomex offers no protection because it's the same weight as some heavier weight t-shirts is rather ignorant. The statement doesn't even account for the properties of the two materials.

Obviously you can believe what you want. Nomex will not prevent heat from transferring to your body. In a G-A fire scenario, it's the thickness of the material that affords the very limited protection from being burned and it's the heat that causes tissue damage.

Nowhere did I say that nomex didn't offer fire protection because of its weight. I said it doesn't afford any protection because its properties weren't designed to protect in a long-duration, open flame type fire scenario. Nomex was meant for flash fires.  It's a very simple premise: thicker, non-combustible materials afford more protection than thinner, non-combustible materials. 4.5 ounce nomex is not very thick.

[Hawk200]

Obviously you can believe what you want. Nomex will not prevent heat from transferring to your body. In a G-A fire scenario, it's the thickness of the material that affords the very limited protection from being burned and it's the heat that causes tissue damage.

Agreed. It won't stop heat transfer. The difference is whether heat is being transferred or whether or not you have fire directly on your skin. That's where the fire resistance makes the difference. I'd rather have fabric that's hot and charring next to my skin than actual flame. There's a major difference in the temperature.

Nowhere did I say that nomex didn't offer fire protection because of its weight. I said it doesn't afford any protection because its properties weren't designed to protect in a long-duration, open flame type fire scenario. Nomex was meant for flash fires.  It's a very simple premise: thicker, non-combustible materials afford more protection than thinner, non-combustible materials. 4.5 ounce nomex is not very thick.

Your first post seemed to imply that there was no protection difference between a Nomex garment and a well made T-shirt. My mistake.

What doesn't seem to be addressed here is that fire is fire. Period. It doesn't matter if I'm a CAP 172, or a Blackhawk. Either way, the fire is going to burn you. Considering the flashpoint of JP8 compared to avgas, nomex is going to give you even more time in a GA setting than in military aircraft.

And Nomex wasn't designed for flash fires. It was designed to be fire resistant. The nature of the fire is a moot point. Avgas probably burns at lower temps than military aviation fuels. Besides, all fires start with a spark. Although, it is less likely that you will get a fireball in GA as opposed to the military. Nomex will protect you either way.

If Nomex was only used in a flash fire type of environment, then firefighters probably wouldn't wear it. Just about everyone has seen firefighters going in to a building that's already burning. Why would they wear something that wouldn't offer any protection in sustained fires?

So, do we actually need Nomex? Maybe not. But having a little extra time is always a plus.

[NIN]

I wish people would be more honest and just admit they like the green bags because they look cool and they get the rub-off 'coolness' factor because military aircrew wear them.

Argh, you caught me.

Then again, those military aircrew wings on my nametag might mean I have some knowledge.

I'd rather take my chances with my Nomex, thanks. 

[O-Rex]

simply put, at extremely high temps, Nomex chars, instead of burning or melting.

Historically, CAP wears them for the same reason it wears BDU's: because in the past, they were easy to obtain.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Citation as to protection please?

Google "nomex" and read away. If your relative survived a flash-fire, then I would agree that nomex (Proban, etc) probably helped. However, in a prolonged low-temp fire of prolonged duration (i.e. you have no chute and your CAP airplane has a open-flame, avgas fire in the cockpit while you're cruising along at 9,000 feet), nomex will provide absolutely no additional protection factor beyond natural fiber clothing of the same fabric weight/density.

That doesn't count as a citation, nor does advertising product from the manufacturer.

The fire in question was not a flash fire.

I suppose you're going to tell me next that what I've personally witnessed in industrial emergency response was hallucination?

[riffraff]

fyrfitrmedic: I'm not going to debate the particulars of an industrial accident in which no information is provided beyond an authoritative opinion by you that nomex saved the person involved. I'm happy the person survived.

I can tell you for fact that nomex was designed for protection against flash fires. In particular, it was designed to provide 3 seconds protection against rapid combustion of atomized jet fuel (JP-4) in a pressurized environment (simulated aircraft cockpit).

In a flash fire environment, Nomex fibers swell up and close up the weave of the fabric during the carbonization process (conversion/dissipation of heat) and delays the heat transfer from the outside of the garment to whatever is inside (3 seconds for mil-spec 4.5 ounce sage green nomex). The scenario presumes ignition of a fuel vapor cloud -- ie flash fire. Upon completion of the carbonization process, the remains of the fabric become very brittle and break easily.

In a G-A fire, the fire-resistant feature remains but the fibers do not swell and close up. The relatively low temperatures pass directly through the weave and transfer upon whatever is beneath.

Nomex is fire-resistant, not fire proof. Technically this means it will self-extinguish when the ignition source is removed. It's also a misleading representation. Nomex does burn. It just stops burning when removed from the ignition source. Many other materials are also fire-resistant and/or self-extinguishing including leather and some natural fibers. However, all retain heat and all will transmit that heat to any exposed underlying tissue -- i.e. you can still be severely burned.

As for ads by DuPont: They created Nomex. Their spec sheets clearly spell out the time durations of protection for their various safety garments. Their mil-spec nomex specs clearly state flash fire protection. The Navy has the earliest data on Nomex -- going back to 1965. The mil-spec was written around the DuPont test data. Write to DuPont for the specs. It's what I did. You can also look at their newest tests using Thermo-Man -- a mannequin loaded with test sensors to measure temps inside the various fabrics in flash fires.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Riffraff:

Some links to the spec sheets would be useful.

At the risk of picking nits, Nomex fabric simply doesn't go >poof< and vanish away after three seconds. I know this from industrial incidents to which I responded previously and I know this from my own experiences, including having had bunker gear I was wearing take the full brunt of a rollover.

Nomex is far from a panacea, but it certainly buys more time than would street clothes.
   

[riffraff]

I will try and scan the data sheets I have later this weekend.

I don't disagree with most of your comments. My posts were somewhat pointed to promote discussion, not be confrontational.

This is more an academic exercise than anything else but hopefully will have folks think about what they're wearing and why they're wearing it.

I'm not personally aware of any G-A accidents involving inflight fires (but have seen/been involved with several military). I'm sure there have been some, at some point, but I have no first-hand knowledge of any in the G-A setting (I've been flying since 1980). This excludes post-impact fires from catastrophic accidents (non-survivable/cause of crash was not fire related). I've not been in CAP very long but would presume that there have been very few, if any, inflight infernos?

For nomex vs street clothing, I would add that the major variable would be composition of clothing. A pair of poly-blend pants will go up in flames, regardless of thickness, etc. A pair of 100% wool trousers will provide a thermal barrier equal to nomex -- given all other factors are equal.

I would like for those reading to think about what they're wearing beneath their nomex. If you wear any blends (polypropylene long johns, cotton/poly t-shirts, etc), bear in mind that these items will ignite and nomex will do an equally good job keeping the heat inside your suit as it does keeping it out! Blaze orange nylon briefs and a black poly t-shirt with screened on logo will become permanent, baked on fixtures if you're unfortunate enough to be in a fire. Hey, I'm not judging, just making an observation 

When I was flying, we were issued nomex long johns and nomex tops. If not worn, white cotton was required. Reason: it takes longer for the heat to penetrate the additional fabric thickness and light colors reflect radiant heat while dark colors absorb it.

[fyrfitrmedic]

For nomex vs street clothing, I would add that the major variable would be composition of clothing. A pair of poly-blend pants will go up in flames, regardless of thickness, etc. A pair of 100% wool trousers will provide a thermal barrier to nomex -- given all other factors are equal.

I would like for those reading to think about what they're wearing beneath their nomex. If you wear any blends (polypropylene long johns, cotton/poly t-shirts, etc), bear in mind that these items will ignite and nomex will do an equally good job keeping the heat inside your suit as it does keeping it out! Blaze orange nylon briefs and a black poly t-shirt with screened on logo will become permanent, baked on fixtures if you're unfortunate enough to be in a fire. Hey, I'm not judging, just making an observation 

My instructors called this the "shrink-wrap effect" 

I think you're utterly spot-on about this; what's worn *under* the Nomex is equally important.

Until recently there was a dearth of flame-resistant undergarments that weren't Nomex-brand. These days brands like FlameX and XGO are available.  At a previous job we'd gotten samples of XGO; their stuff wasn't bad.

[Hawk200]

A pair of 100% wool trousers will provide a thermal barrier equal to nomex -- given all other factors are equal.

I would like for those reading to think about what they're wearing beneath their nomex. If you wear any blends (polypropylene long johns, cotton/poly t-shirts, etc), bear in mind that these items will ignite and nomex will do an equally good job keeping the heat inside your suit as it does keeping it out! Blaze orange nylon briefs and a black poly t-shirt with screened on logo will become permanent, baked on fixtures if you're unfortunate enough to be in a fire. Hey, I'm not judging, just making an observation 

When I was flying, we were issued nomex long johns and nomex tops. If not worn, white cotton was required. Reason: it takes longer for the heat to penetrate the additional fabric thickness and light colors reflect radiant heat while dark colors absorb it.

I wouldn't say wool is equal, but probably about 80 percent. Wool is close enough that the Air Force has actually been testing wool undergarments (among others) for wear with flightsuits.

While flying on Blackhawks, I wear cotton underneath. At least until I can afford some fire resistance stuff. Right now, getting a shirt in the proper color is difficult. The Army has a cotton shirt to wear under flight gear, but it's in the foliage green color. The reasoning is that the rest of the crew knows that your not wearing the polyester shirt because the green one is only made in cotton. And the old brown one is permitted. With the A2CU, the tan shirt isn't even authorized.

Any know if there's a manufacturer out there making fire resistant underwear in foliage?

[PHall]

I'm not personally aware of any G-A accidents involving inflight fires (but have seen/been involved with several military). I'm sure there have been some, at some point, but I have no first-hand knowledge of any in the G-A setting (I've been flying since 1980). This excludes post-impact fires from catastrophic accidents (non-survivable/cause of crash was not fire related). I've not been in CAP very long but would presume that there have been very few, if any, inflight infernos?

There's been more then a few. The "most famous" being being the in-flight cabin fire that killed "The Big Bopper" and Richie Valens in 1959.
Those old gasoline fueled cabin heaters used back then were an accident looking for a place to happen.

[NIN]

And the fire that killed Ricky Nelson in a DC-3...

While inflight fires do happen, the chances of them occurring in your average GA bug-smasher are pretty slim.    They don't even happen that often in military aircraft with all the CRFS and things like that. Heck, I bet the incidence of inflight fire went down a little when they banned smoking on DoD aircraft...

Honestly?  All this talk of heat transfer, 3 second flash fires and such essentially boils down to utter bull[mess] unless you've either been thru an aircraft fire or had to witness the aftermath.

I've not been thru the former, I have had to deal with the latter on more than one occasion.  Suffice to say, I'll take my chances with the protections afforded by Nomex no matter what the modality of the fire versus wearing "brand x" while flying. 

I do agree that *generally* Nomex is probably overkill for CAP ops. 

But I think back to something my helmet, leathers, boots and gloves-wearing father said to the kid on the crotch-rocket wearing nothing but thin nylon running shorts, sneakers and a pair of sunglasses  and laughing at him for being "overdressed":

"If I knew when it was I was going to need it, I'd only wear it then."

[PhotogPilot]

I'm not personally aware of any G-A accidents involving inflight fires (but have seen/been involved with several military). I'm sure there have been some, at some point, but I have no first-hand knowledge of any in the G-A setting (I've been flying since 1980). This excludes post-impact fires from catastrophic accidents (non-survivable/cause of crash was not fire related). I've not been in CAP very long but would presume that there have been very few, if any, inflight infernos?

There's been more then a few. The "most famous" being being the in-flight cabin fire that killed "The Big Bopper" and Richie Valens in 1959.
Those old gasoline fueled cabin heaters used back then were an accident looking for a place to happen.

Not to nit-pick, but....according to the CAB accident report....

The accident occurred in a sparsely inhabited area and there were not witnesses. Examination of the wreckage indicated that the first impact with the ground was made by the right wing tip when the aircraft was in a steep right bank and in a nose-low attitude. It was further determined that the aircraft was traveling at high speed on a heading of 315 degrees. Parts were scattered over a distance of 540 feet, at the end of which the main wreckage was found lying against a barbed wire fence. The three passengers were thrown clear of the wreckage, the pilot was found in the cockpit. The two front seat safety belts and the middle ones of the rear seat were torn free fro their attach points. The two rear outside belt ends remained attached to their respective fittings; the buckle of one was broken. None of the webbing was broken and no belts were about the occupants.

Although the aircraft was badly damaged, certain important facts were determined. There was no fire. All components were accounted fro at the wreckage site. There was no evidence of inflight structural failure or failure of the controls. The landing gear was retracted at the time of impact. The damaged engine was dismantled and examined; there was no evidence of engine malfunctioning or failure in flight. Both blades of the propeller were broken at the hub, giving evidence that the engine was producing power when ground impact occurred. The hub pitch-change mechanisms indicated that the blade pitch was in the cruise range.


Conclusion

At night, with an overcast sky, snow falling, no definite horizon, and a proposed flight over a sparsely settled area with an absence of ground lights, a requirement for control of the aircraft solely by reference to flight instruments can be predicated with virtual certainty.

The Board concludes that pilot Peterson, when a short distance from the airport, was confronted with this situation. Because of fluctuation of the rate instruments caused by gusty winds he would have been forced to concentrate and rely greatly on the attitude gyro, an instrument with which he was not completely familiar. The pitch display of this instrument is the reverse of the instrument he was accustomed to; therefore, he could have become confused and thought that he was making a climbing turn when in reality he was making a descending turn. The fact that the aircraft struck the ground in a steep turn but with the nose lowered only slightly, indicates that some control was being effected at the time. The weather briefing supplied to the pilot was seriously inadequate in that it failed to even mention adverse flying conditions which should have been highlighted.

Probable Cause

The Board determines that he probably cause of this accident was the pilot's unwise decision to embark on a flight which would necessitate flying solely by instruments when he was not properly certificated or qualified to do so. Contributing factors were serious deficiencies in the weather briefing, and the pilot's unfamiliarity with the instrument which determines the attitude of the aircraft.

By the Civil Aeronautics Board: James R. Dupree/ Chan Gurney/Harmar D. Denny/ G. Joseph Minetti/ Louis J. Hector

[Dragoon]

If safety was the issue, we'd be better off buying crash helmets and padding the dash.  My guess is that impact is our big killer, not fire.

But helmets look dorky in a 172, and nomex is cool!

[Smokey]

I've seen a few Vietnam era photos of FACs flying single engine aircraft like ours while wearing helmets......maybe a brain bucket might not be a bad safety idea but probably would look kinda odd.

[SJFedor]

And who's gonna shell out the major $$ for aviation rated brain buckets?

[wingnut]

Good discussion but to the naysayers of nomex I have to say that while in the Air Force and the Army (Both well respected expert organizations) we always had to wear a Nomexflight suit while on flight status in any type of Aircraft.

Several reasons are always given.
1. Standardization of clothing to avoid clothing that melts to the skin.
2. Wearing flight approved Boots (Not cheap nylon knock offs)
3. The use of Nomex underwear including tops and long bottoms as  well as nomex socks while wearing gloves gave maximum protection In a flash fire. NATO pilots are required to wear the underwear now.

The point is that the nomex with additional layers gave the Air Crew additional timeto escape from a burning aircraft.  A Helmets with a nomex  hood would be even greater.

The Army requires Nomex suits while in Armoured vehicles (Crewman Status),including gloves, and hoods. the whole deal is so crewmen can escape.

I don't think CAP members should have to buy their own safety equipment (The US Coast Guard Auxilary get theirs issued for free) I think it is a disgusting shame we have to buy these things off of EBAY or pay 250 for a suit and 250 for a Jacket .

[RiverAux]

CG Auxies do not get everything for free.  They would have to buy their own nomex just like anyone else.  Equipment is very dependent on how the CG feels and what they've got in their budget at any given time. 

Regarding NOMEX, since the AF would be the ones ultimately paying for treating injuries to our flightcrews or compensating for their deaths, if they thought it would save them any money at all, they would have forced CAP to make this a requirement a long time ago.  The fact that they don't seem to care speaks volumes about their assessment of the risks involved in our ops.

[wingnut]

TheCoast Guard Aux guys do receive the safety Gear for free, flotation, gear cold immersion suits, etc. But they buy their own regular uniforms.I think the main reason being issued safety gear is when they  serve on a coast guard vessel or Aircraft,  from reading the Coast Guard Regs they are considered regular crew, when under orders.

As for the AF caring,I think they do care,certainly on us about safety issues. We in California have lost a number Of Air Crews and I  know that the Pacific Region, Air Crews must wear nomex. I know in briefings for the shuttle landings the CAP crews fit in with the Nomex,often looking just as professional as the regular Army,Navy,and Air Force Air Crews in the Briefings.

[Slim]

TheCoast Guard Aux guys do receive the safety Gear for free, flotation, gear cold immersion suits, etc.

Negative.  I had to purchase my own PFDs, both a type III vest and a Mustang float coat, also a type III PFD.  I also had to purchase my own safety strobe, marker dye, and signalling devices (pyro and glow sticks).  One of the stations I supported offered to exchange some of it when it expired, but that's it.  The expired stuff was used for training.

The only thing that could have been considered as issued was my Mustang survival suit.  That was part of a stock of CGAux marked suits that were kept at and maintained by the station.  If we got underway for anything when the water temp was below 65 degrees, we had to draw suits from the station and return them after the patrol.

But they buy their own regular uniforms.I think the main reason being issued safety gear is when they  serve on a coast guard vessel or Aircraft,  from reading the Coast Guard Regs they are considered regular crew, when under orders.

Correct on buying uniforms and status while under orders.  But that has nothing to do with the Coast Guard supplying survival gear.  Order status pertains mostly to things like FECA coverage and replacement of items lost/damaged while on orders, plus things like reimbursement, and eligibility for rations/quarters at the station.  Also, a vessel or aircraft under orders is considered to be a government asset.  Auxies can augment an active duty crew, if they meet the same training standards as the AD crew (I've been out for a while, but I understand the boat crew training requirements have been brought closer in line with each other, if not the same, since I got out).

Nomex or not?  I'll take my chances on those 3-5 seconds needed to get out of the plane singed vs burned.  Unfortunately, that option's been taken away from me.

[RiverAux]

Whether or not the CG issues Auxies safety gear depends greatly on whether they've got extra gear laying around or the money to buy it.  So, one Aux region may get a bunch while others get nothing.  Many Auxies buy their own gear anyway just so they can call it their own. 

Personally, I've been issued an inflatable PFD and a Mustang dry suit that were provided to our flotilla by the CG.  And thats because our flotilla is probably the most actively patrolling flotilla in the District and the CG helps us out a lot because of that.

[Dustoff]

But I think you are missing some important points.

As a system Nomex is unbeatable. 

In addition to making you a chick-magnet.  It provides a climate controlled environment.

It's hot in the summer.

Cold in the winter.

And when it rains, you get wet!

What could be better?!?



Jim
If God had intended man to fly, he'd have been born with baggy green skin.

[NIN]

Dustoff

You speak the truth!

But honestly, back to the original start of the topic: WIWAFE (When I Was A Flight Engineer), a guy I had gone to AIT with was the crew chief on the CH-47 that caught fire and crashed in a field outside of Chico, Texas.  His Nomex saved his life from the in-flight fire. However, his habit of flying with his gloves rolled back caused him to be burned around the circumference of his wrists which ultimately led to his hands being amputated.  I had a habit to wear my gloves with a similar roll-back, but with my wrists still covered. When I heard about that accident and its aftermath, I never again flew with my gloves like that. Heck no.



I call shennanigans.

[SJFedor]

Shenanigans!

[pixelwonk]

I swear to God, I'll pistol whip the next guy that says shenanigans!

[SarDragon]

shenanigans

Come get me!

[pixelwonk]

^woosh^
That was an obscure Super Troopers reference whizzing over Dave's head just then.

Ok, back on topic now...

[SarDragon]

Yup, Mach 3 at FL60. That was a really st00pid movie. YMMV.

[I liked the pop culture reference better.]

[Short Field]

Nothing goes through NOMEX faster than a cup of hot coffee spilled in your lap. 

[O-Rex]

It's hot in the summer.

Cold in the winter.

And when it rains, you get wet!

What could be better?!?

Maintains odor, promotes wetness, and stays soggy in milk....

[SJFedor]

I swear to God, I'll pistol whip the next guy that says shenanigans!

shenanigans

Come get me!

[wingnut]

wearing nomex when it is 110 is no fun,as for the cold I have been able to obtain the nomex cold weather underwear. I think for the summers really hot weather we should have access to the same type of Hotweather refrigeration units that the chopper crews wear. It circulates cool air,the shuttle crew wears a unit that circulates cold water and weighs about 20 lbs .

lets just order air conditioning in the 182s

[Duke Dillio]

Just go commando in the summer.  Less clothing makes it cooler for you.  Why spend money on air conditioners when you can spend less money on new underwear.

[O-Rex]

I think for the summers really hot weather we should have access to the same type of Hotweather refrigeration units that the chopper crews wear. It circulates cool air,the shuttle crew wears a unit that circulates cold water and weighs about 20 lbs .

For that, we may as well just go with total environmental control

[NIN]

wearing nomex when it is 110 is no fun,as for the cold I have been able to obtain the nomex cold weather underwear. I think for the summers really hot weather we should have access to the same type of Hotweather refrigeration units that the chopper crews wear. It circulates cool air,the shuttle crew wears a unit that circulates cold water and weighs about 20 lbs .

lets just order air conditioning in the 182s

I never wore long underwear under my flight suit unless it was REALLY cold (like way below zero).  Not sure why, but I just didn't like it (I did, on occasion when I felt there was a mission risk need or it was cold, wear the nomex long johns. And the hood under my SPH-4..).  My lower extremities seldom got cold. My upper body did, even in an N-2B parka. (although there was definitely something to be said about putting that hood up over your flight helmet for warmth..)

In the summer time, we just sweated. Badly.

[PHall]

Just go commando in the summer.  Less clothing makes it cooler for you.  Why spend money on air conditioners when you can spend less money on new underwear.

One word - ZIPPER!

[SAR-EMT1]

Senario:
Several surplus websites sell used flightsuits. They Advertise the practice of buying an old used suit, then turning it in at the nearest Base for a brand new one. (free)  Thus saving several hundred dollars.

Question: Can CAP members do this?


(mod for spelling

[RiverAux]

If only....

[SarDragon]

Senario:
Several surplus websites sell used flightsuits. They Advertise the practice of buying an old used suit, then turning it in at the nearest Base for a brand new one. (free)  Thus saving several hundred dollars.

Question: Can CAP members do this?
(mod for spelling

That's pretty dishonest all the way around.

First of all, that action would usually only be available to a service mamber who has a need to be issued a flight suit in the execution of their duties. CAP members don't fit into that group.

Secondly, what you propose has already been done once, by the member who was originally issued the flight suit offered for sale. Turning it in again would be like taking half of a $20 bill to the bank to get a replacement, and then taking the other half to a different bank to get a second replacement.

And to conclude, having nothing to do with the dishonesty, flight suits usually go to DRMO because they are considered unserviceable - unfit for wear, in some manner. What magically makes them suitable for wear by CAP members?

[wingnut]

Good point

so why does the Wing  obtain these surplus (no longer usable) flight suits and offer them to the members?

Truth is many items surplused out are still usable, the Military must replace items or lose budgeted money. However, I think CAP should be in line with the Guard and reserve for required safety equipment being issued.

[Hawk200]

...flight suits usually go to DRMO because they are considered unserviceable - unfit for wear, in some manner. What magically makes them suitable for wear by CAP members?

I've purchased a half dozen flightsuits from DRMO before. Most of the time, the only real issue was a seam that let go. Got a hold of a roll of matching Nomex thread, and voila! a perfectly serviceable flightsuit. And even if you want to consider the cost of the thread, I had a few good flightsuits for 10 bucks or less.

[SAR-EMT1]

Senario:
Several surplus websites sell used flightsuits. They Advertise the practice of buying an old used suit, then turning it in at the nearest Base for a brand new one. (free)  Thus saving several hundred dollars.

Question: Can CAP members do this?
(mod for spelling

That's pretty dishonest all the way around.

First of all, that action would usually only be available to a service mamber who has a need to be issued a flight suit in the execution of their duties. CAP members don't fit into that group.

Secondly, what you propose has already been done once, by the member who was originally issued the flight suit offered for sale. Turning it in again would be like taking half of a $20 bill to the bank to get a replacement, and then taking the other half to a different bank to get a second replacement.

And to conclude, having nothing to do with the dishonesty, flight suits usually go to DRMO because they are considered unserviceable - unfit for wear, in some manner. What magically makes them suitable for wear by CAP members?

Truth is I never ever thought of a dishonesty factor and I just want to say that rule breaking isnt something I stand for.