Survival Vests for Aircrews

Started by Hawk200, February 04, 2007, 09:15:08 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Do you wear a survival vests when flying?

Yes, I wear a survival vest.
No, I do NOT wear a survival vest.

A.Member

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 07, 2007, 05:23:30 AM
One of the things I do whenever possible when I have a new officer member is take them up for an airplane ride, even if I have to use one of my club planes at my own expense.  I've done this maybe a dozen times or so, mostly when I commanded a squadron.

I have the officer tell me where he lives.  If it is not in controlled airspace, I have him call his wife/mom/dad/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever.  I tell him that we are going to fly over his house, and that they should be alert  for the sound of a light plane engine, and come out and wave.

Then I circle his house at 1000 feet agl.  Sure enough, they come out and wave.

But most of the time, you can't see them unless you make several passes or know exactly where they are.  You also can't tell what they're doing.  Waving, dancing, or standing still.  Literally, they look like ants at 1000 feet.

After we land I make this a teaching point.  What if that had been a lost hiker waving?  They are easy to miss, and you KNEW that your companion would be there.  When you're an observer, don't forget that...
I kind of like that.  I may start using that little exercise too.  <thumbsup>
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

SAR-EMT1

IF you dont mind a question from the peanut gallery - Im not a pilot-
I once saw an article in Popular Mechanics about an emergency safety system for G/A aircraft.  Seems like it incorporated an emergency parachute that deployed from the tail area of the plane itself, it also talked of airbags that deployed both in the cockpit, but also on the exterior to cushion the blow of impact.

I expect this system would cost more then our annual budget, but I was jsut wondering if anyone else had heard of such a system... And if something other then a helmet / survival kit is worth looking into in regards to safety.
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

Al Sayre

There are some light aircraft that use a Ballistic Parachute Recovery System.  Cirrus comes immediately to mind, and the company BRS makes an STC aftermarket version for installation on several different GA airframes.  Cockpit airbags are also available on many newer GA aircraft, and can be retrofitted to several older models.  The airbag is actually incorporated into the shoulder harness.
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

lordmonar

Well we are back to the old cost benifit analysis for safety equipment.

Are personal survival vests worth the cost?  Are helmets? Are Nomex flight suits? Parachutes or BRSs?

All comes down to personal tastes and peace of mind.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Al Sayre

I'd say vests are worth the cost simply because the cost is low.  You can buy one on Ebay for about $35.00.  put your stuff in it and be good to go.  Whether you wear it or toss it in the back seat is another issue.  I've got one, but I use it for GT stuff, primarily because I fly 172's and it gets in the way when I wear it. 

I have a bright orange backpack with my survival gear (spare hand held radio, gps, signalling equipment, etc.) in it that I take when flying, I make sure it is on top of the pile of stuff in the back, and my breifing includes "in case of a crash grab the orange bag". Everyone else seems to favor black bags, so the orange one stands out...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Hawk200

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 07, 2007, 03:54:22 PM
I'd say vests are worth the cost simply because the cost is low.  You can buy one on Ebay for about $35.00.  put your stuff in it and be good to go.  Whether you wear it or toss it in the back seat is another issue.  I've got one, but I use it for GT stuff, primarily because I fly 172's and it gets in the way when I wear it. 

On a lark, I bought an AIRSAVE off eBay a few days ago. $42, and includes five pockets. I'll probably put it all together when I get back from school. May come in handy, time will tell.

RiverAux

Regarding helmets, it probably doesn't matter that a much higher percentage of our flying is done at low levels when compared to GA...you're still going to hit the ground pretty darn hard.  Also, we're fogetting that most accidents happen during takeoff and landing phases of flight so excluding o-rides from helmet wear wouldn't make any sense. 

However, I will wear a helmet inside a CAP van before I will wear one in a CAP aircraft.  It is all about risk vs benefit -- you're stiill at much greater risk of having blunt force trauma to the head while in an auto than when in a plane. 

aveighter

suppose from the definitive tone of your input there River that you too have some experience as a  mission pilot (with actual experience in day, night, rain, turbulence, mountainous terrain, etc., real world/not sarex kind of experience) along with considerable experience in the analysis of post crash morbidity/mortality data. 

Please tell me that you are such that a discussion of your faulty interpretation of these data can be had between two people that actually know what they are talking about.   Otherwise this is nothing more than rebuttal to idle postulations and non-stop bloviation.

Don't like helmets, vests, whatever?  No probelm.  Try "I've got a really poor self image and no stones and someone might laugh at me so I don't want a helmet, vest, whatever".  Or how about something like "Man, in my opinion, it's just not something I believe I need to fool with".  Thats actually pretty good.  Really, if you don't like it just say so and leave it at that.

Opinion, everyones got one.  Differs from a reasoned analysis of the specific facts of the matter.  One of the advantages of being somewhat older is a sense of history.  I remember a time before seatbelts.  I remember the time seatbelts were introduced and the moaning and handwringing when it seemed the use thereof would become mandated. Very similar to the opining on this matter.

"I never wore them and I did fine" they blubbered.  "It doesn't make any difference because in a side impact crash you'll still get killed" they howled.  "Also we're forgetting that most crashes happen within 5 miles of home so why wear them while highway driving" they wailed.  Now, of course, anyone making such an argument is immediately written off (and rightfully so) as a moron.  Now, you can always count on some genius, with great pride and obnoxious puffery, point out the poor slob that burned up in his car because his seatbelt trapped him inside as an indictment of galactic proportion against the wearing of seatbelts while completely ignoring the massive numbers of lives saved and otherwise fatal injuries that became survivable.  Now theres some reasoned analysis for you.

RA, with all due respect, you make some pretty interesting posts on almost every topic available but really,  to say
it probably doesn't matter that a much higher percentage of our flying is done at low levels when compared to GA...you're still going to hit the ground pretty darn hard.  confirms a complete lack of understanding of the flying we do and the dynamics of forced landings controlled or not.  It's just a silly statement.

Being able to surf the internet and produce some factoidal do-dads on this or that subject does not constitute actual knowledge based on real study and direct experience.  If you do have the actual stuff, great, so state and carry on so that we might all potentially learn something of real value.  If it's just something you think based on something you read or heard somewhere than say so and don't pontificate in such a definitive manner.  It's most annoying.


RiverAux

Whether you're flying at 1000 feet and crash or flying at 10000 feet and crash it won't make any significant difference whether you had a helmet or not.  IF we were going to require helmet wear, it would need to be for all flights all the time to have any chance of being effective. 

As to when crashes occur, refer to any AOPA Nall report....Taking cadets on an o-ride at 5000 is going to be just about as dangerous as our normal mission flying. 

aveighter

Quote from: RiverAux on February 08, 2007, 01:27:39 AM
Whether you're flying at 1000 feet and crash or flying at 10000 feet and crash it won't make any significant difference whether you had a helmet or not.  IF we were going to require helmet wear, it would need to be for all flights all the time to have any chance of being effective. 

As to when crashes occur, refer to any AOPA Nall report....Taking cadets on an o-ride at 5000 is going to be just about as dangerous as our normal mission flying. 

For the love of pete, man, this is precisely what I'm talking about.  The initial cruising altitude has nothing to do with the dynamics or specific nature of the unscheduled landing and the mitigation of injury protective equipment may or may not have.  It's just a silly thing to say.  Its nothing more than the incessant need something about anything

Heres the real eye-popper though.  Do you honestly think something you read equates the risk levels of cruising flight at 5000 feet with low altitude maneuvering flight under the conditions I have cited?  Come on now, do you really want to make that assertion?  I am going to surmise you are not a pilot because I can't imagine that even the most inexperienced pilot would make such a silly statement and attempt to present any data purporting to support the conclusion as being even remotely serious.  As I indicated before, the ability to read information does not equate with the ability to comprehend what you have read.  Please, no more nanny nanny boo boo retorts.

RiverAux

Please refer to the Nall reports.  Aerial observation flights (most of which are conducted at even lower levels than standard CAP mission profiles) actually have fewer total accidents and fewer fatal accidents than you would expect based on how many hours are flown.  Heck, even aerial application flights have a lower percentage of fatal accidents than you would expect. 

Yes, I realize that the Maneuvering phase has a relatively high percentage of accidents, but check their definition: "Includes the following: aerobatics, low
pass, buzzing, pull-up, aerial application maneuver, turn to reverse direction (box-canyon-type maneuver), or engine failure after takeoff and pilot tries to return to
runway."  --- most of which CAP isn't doing.

I'm not saying that there isn't some increased risk from CAP's flying, but we've obviously addressed that pretty darn well already since our accident rate is usually lower than GA in general.  If it was significantly more dangerous our rate would be much, much higher.

You've got to assess the risks here.  What you need to show to us is that requiring helmet wear in C-172s or C-182s would significantly reduce the number of injuries or deaths suffered during CAP flights.  Show us some data on that. 


Hawk200

I didn't mind a little drift, but a few of the latest posts are exactly what I didn't want to see. Can we just knock it off, or should I request a mod lock?

O-Rex

I speak with authority and conviction on this subject because I have an extensive background in this sort of thing. 

I don't need to give anyone my bio, or chest-thump on a public forum: who and what I am permeates in every post I write.  Anyone too obtuse to see that couldn't possibly grasp where it was coming from.  The curious or skeptical can PM me: you show me yours, I'll show you mine.

As for the poseurs, it's not that hard to sniff them out: they know who they are.

If there's one thing I've learned in this organization, is watch who you "call out:" I've been humbled by what some CAP members have accomplished, achieved or experienced in other facets of their lives.  While our "least common denomiator" members get a lot of attention (albeit unwanted) some of our other compatriots are pretty amazing, rather than "annoying."

Now that we got that out of the way....

My statement regarding mission profiles reflects CAP policy, and not individual preferences: I don't recall any mention of CAP-sanctioned wearing of helmets mentioned in 60-1, and it was never a discussion topic at NCPSC's.  CAP doesn't address it because its not a General Aviation requirement, and doesn't appear in any of the FAR's. . .

If a safety-conscious individual wants a helmet, David Clark makes one that is worn over the headset-it's not quite as sexy as  "Top Gun," but it's practical, low maint, and I would bet that a the CAP member wearing that one is actually into safety rather than aesthetics (as opposed to the latter, who are probably wearing something that's unsafe, as per my last.)

I'm not trying to dissuade conscientious aircrew from prudent honest pursuits: more power to them.  Saving the flamboyant, misguided & uninformed from themselves is another matter entirely.

Flying cross-country over wide-open spaces of swamp, tundra, mountains, etc?  Pack accordingly, be it vest, fanny-pack, or Gucci Valise.  Helmets?  Entirely optional, but if compelled to, wear the right one for the right reason. 

AlaskanCFI

1. I teach floats and therefore I am in the water most of the time.

2. We live on the Alaskan coast and most of our CAP flying is over sea water or lakes.

I own a Stearns Nomex pilot vest.  Inlfaltable type that I have modified with extra gear.
I have another for my Float rating customers.
A couple of my fellow CAP pilots are now wearing them as well.

My web site may have a photo of that vest and my survival gear box.

If not, send me an E-mail and I will send photos of both.

dragonfly@alaska.net




xx
Major, Squadron Commander Stan-Eval..Instructor Pilot- Alaska Wing CAP
Retired Alaska Air Guard
Retired State of Alaska Law Dawg, Retired Vol Firefighter and EMT
Ex-Navy, Ex-Army,
Firearms Instructor
Alaskan Tailwheel and Floatplane CFI
http://www.floatplanealaska.com