Non-Nomex Gree Flight Suit

[LSThiker]

Does any one know of any sources that sell the green flight suit that is not Nomex but is of quality with no obvious differences?  I am thinking about getting back into Aircrews but have since long ago sold my flight suit.  I do not want to spend money on buying a Nomex suit when really we do not need it in a Cessna.  Otherwise I think I will just buy the corporate version, if I do choose to get back into the aircrew side.

[a2capt]

Check for any uniform supplements.

You can also find "issued" but never used items on eBay.

At prices in the $40 range, easily. No reason to buy Rotcho garbage.

[Eclipse]

Only Nomex is authorized for in green, needed or not.

See Table 2-4, Page 64 of 39-1.

If Nomex is too pricey, you'll need to go to blue.

[Huey Driver]

Even though many people find the flight suit unnecessary for flying GA, CAPM 39-1 Table 2-4, Line 1 specifies that the Green Flight Suit must be NOMEX. Same with the Blue Flight Suit.

and Eclipse beats me by 10 seconds.

[LSThiker]

Even though many people find the flight suit unnecessary for flying GA, CAPM 39-1 Table 2-4, Line 1 specifies that the Green Flight Suit must be NOMEX. Same with the Blue Flight Suit.

and Eclipse beats me by 10 seconds.

Well I should have been more specific, but rather the Corporate Utility Uniform, which is for all intents and purposes, the same thing (minus not wearing the flight cap and not being made of Nomex). 

Only Nomex is authorized for in green, needed or not.

See Table 2-4, Page 64 of 39-1.

If Nomex is too pricey, you'll need to go to blue.

Thanks.  I missed that.

[Storm Chaser]

Even though many people find the flight suit unnecessary for flying GA, CAPM 39-1 Table 2-4, Line 1 specifies that the Green Flight Suit must be NOMEX. Same with the Blue Flight Suit. (emphasis mine)

Yes and no. Technically, the CAP blue flight suit described in Table 4-5 is NOMEX. However, Table 4-6 describes a CAP utility uniform, which is practically identical to the flight suit, but it's not NOMEX. Both uniforms can be worn for flying and are practically indistinguishable, except for the material.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

I do not want to spend money on buying a Nomex suit when really we do not need it in a Cessna. 

Probably a non-issue here, but, Nomex is required in CAWG.

[LSThiker]

I do not want to spend money on buying a Nomex suit when really we do not need it in a Cessna. 

Probably a non-issue here, but, Nomex is required in CAWG.

Why?  How many flash fires have occurred in a Cessna?

[SarDragon]

I do not want to spend money on buying a Nomex suit when really we do not need it in a Cessna. 

Probably a non-issue here, but, Nomex is required in CAWG.

Why?  How many flash fires have occurred in a Cessna?

Don't ask us. It's been handed down from on high, and it's not a battle worth fighting. If you are patient enough, serviceable flight suits, in both colors are available on eBay.

As for utility uniforms, they may only be in blue. There's no green version authorized for wear, just in case that's what you were really looking for.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

Why?  How many flash fires have occurred in a Cessna?

It's not while flying, it's more after a potential off-field landing.  I recall reading a small memorial in a Squadron in the south section of my Group eulogizing an aircrew with such poor fortunes.  As I recall, burns were a major factor and could have been prevented with the appropriate Nomex flightsuit and gloves.

I actually subscribe to the notion, since the bulk of our 'real' searches are in some pretty forbidding territory (I know, we're more likely to become an ink-spot in an 'event'), but - why leave things to chance?

[PHall]

I do not want to spend money on buying a Nomex suit when really we do not need it in a Cessna. 

Probably a non-issue here, but, Nomex is required in CAWG.

Why?  How many flash fires have occurred in a Cessna?

We've had three crashes of CAP aircraft in the past 20 years in CAWG. All three were during actual search missions.
All three had survivors who were burned badly from the post crash fires.
And the areas they were burned the most was the areas that were NOT covered by a NOMEX garmet.

PPE does work, but only if you wear ALL of it. Which means Flight Suit with the sleeves rolled all the way down, collar turned up and you're wearing the NOMEX/Leather flight gloves.

[LSThiker]

We've had three crashes of CAP aircraft in the past 20 years in CAWG. All three were during actual search missions.
All three had survivors who were burned badly from the post crash fires.
And the areas they were burned the most was the areas that were NOT covered by a NOMEX garmet.

PPE does work, but only if you wear ALL of it. Which means Flight Suit with the sleeves rolled all the way down, collar turned up and you're wearing the NOMEX/Leather flight gloves.

We have nothing that protects the face.  Besides, 3 crashes out of 20 years, how many people died of blunt force trauma?  I would say that if it were really about safety, then the use of a helmet is probably far more practical in most scenarios. 

[Eclipse]

+1 - I'd have to look but those crashes were also probably ones of the few in all of CAP.

Nomex is an affectation.  Also, wearing a fire resistant flight suit with a nylon jacket over it is useless.

The statistical probability of ever needing Nomex, which is zero, does not justify its cost, especially when you consider
that cost is borne by the membership, and that their counterparts in the GA community, flying the same
aircraft, routinely fly in shorts and t-shirts vs. Nomex anything.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Agreed that the Nomex is just an affectation, though I am not discounting those Wings who require it.

I have a green Nomex bag hanging in the closet, though I could not tell the last time I actually wore it.  It was one of the few short-lived ones made with epaulettes.

The blue "flight suit" and blue "utility uniform" are one and the same, except for the fabric (at least 39-1 got over the flight cap being able to be worn with one but not the other).

In cold weather I wear the blue utility uniform (and there are tons out there of better quality than what VG sells; look on EvilBay) with the black A-2 jacket.  In warm weather just the bag.  However, I am trying to find a lightweight blue flight jacket (L2B) for the times in between.

[Walkman]

I've bought two green Nomex bags from e-bay for less than $40 each. No rips or tears, but used in good quality.

[SARDOC]

For those Wings that require Nomex.  Do they have an inspection program for those suits or a replacement program since the manufacturer guidelines indicate a four year service life?

I would think that if they felt it important enough to require nomex that they would find it important enough to make sure that nomex was going to serve in the manner in which it's intended.

[HGjunkie]

I got a used flightsuit for $35 which was practically brand new off evilbay, and another one for $25 which has a missing zipper. Both prior air force issue garments. Good stuff.

[bosshawk]

LSThiker: PM me, I have two NOMEX flight suits that I will gladly sell.  I think that they are both size 46.  BTW: I was in the sq in CAWG that had two fatal crashes in three years and I knew all those guys.

[Eclipse]

^ No one is saying CAP aircraft don't crash, but unless they were survivable crashes where the occupants were
killed or seriously injured by fire, they are irrelevant to the discussion of Nomex.

And if certain wings have a demonstrable higher fire risk then others, and the Wing CC is inclined to
have an equipment supplement because of that, so be it, but one thing "humorous" about the
all-important CAWG uniform supplements, is that even though they are "important", they
don't seem to be "important" enough to be properly maintained and approved without lapse
during command and regulatory transition.

[lordmonar]

I do not want to spend money on buying a Nomex suit when really we do not need it in a Cessna. 

Probably a non-issue here, but, Nomex is required in CAWG.

Not wanting to start are fight here.....but does CAWG "require" nomex?   If not it is not in a 60-1 supp or a 39-1 supp.

I know that PCR used to.....used to have a 60-1 supp that required it....but it has been gone for a long time.

[lordmonar]

Why?  How many flash fires have occurred in a Cessna?

It's not while flying, it's more after a potential off-field landing.  I recall reading a small memorial in a Squadron in the south section of my Group eulogizing an aircrew with such poor fortunes.  As I recall, burns were a major factor and could have been prevented with the appropriate Nomex flightsuit and gloves.

I actually subscribe to the notion, since the bulk of our 'real' searches are in some pretty forbidding territory (I know, we're more likely to become an ink-spot in an 'event'), but - why leave things to chance?

Just asking...but do you wear a flight helmet, and carry a survival vest?

a) Most death and injuries are caused by blunt force trauma to the head.
b) Assuming you survive the crash, and then ensuing fire do you have the equipment to survive until rescue?

Yes....fire is a....one of many....hazards that you can encounter while flying a CAP aircraft.   But if you got $200 to spend.....a cheap motor cycle helmet would save more lives then a Nomex Flight Suit.

YMMV.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

In response to the last two posts in reverse order (and I understand the spirit of the questions):

-  No on the flight helmet, but yes on the survival vest.  I attended CAWGs mission pilot school a while back, and they heavily recommend the survival vest approach.  I too agree with this as it does make sense to have at least something to egress that is on you, and to hope to recover what is in the plane at a later time. 
-  You are absolutely correct about published versus non-published rules.  In fact, I brought this up in a recent CLC class that was being taught by our former State Director.  In the class he was teaching, he was reinforcing the need to follow regulations because of the standardized approach to doing our work.  Having unwritten rules being a pet peeve of mine - I then asked him about the CAWG 'requirement' for aircrews to wear Nomex (I also threw the unwritten rule of the 60 HP per person requirement that all our ICs seem to follow).  He just sheepishly looked at me, stated "well, that's the way that it is" and quickly moved on.

The original reason I brought the Nomex requirement for CAWG up was quite simply that Wings may have either official, or unofficial requirements for aircrew.  For CAWG - if you want to play, you will have to pay...

[PHall]

The NOMEX requirement in CAWG came from the old PACR Sup to 60-1.
PACR's current Supplement dropped the requirement a couple of years ago and CAWG was supposed to put it in the CAWG Supplement to 60-1.
I don't know if it's in the current CAWG Supplement, but, if you show up at a SAREX or a Search Base intending to fly in anything other then a NOMEX flight suit, you won't be flying.

Questions, comments and complaints can be directed to the CAWG/CC via the CAWG/DO.

Good luck...

[Eclipse]

Neither of the CAWG supplements are enforceable as currently published as both
pre-date the reg to which they applied.

The wing could not restrict flying based on anything within those documents, and if they tried to,
the complaint would be easily sustained.

The CAWG supplement to 60-1 indicates no such requirement, nor does it mention uniforms in any way.
http://www.cawgcap.org/old/files/supplements/cawg60-1.pdf

The CAWG 60-3 supplement only does so in an indirect way, and, at a minimum, will need to be updated
as the draft 39-1 indicates that the non-Nomex blue jumpsuit will be considered a flight suit:
http://www.cawgcap.org/old/files/supplements/cawg60-3.pdf

"Added. All members participating as aircrew on training or actual missions will wear a
CAP approved flight suit in accordance with CAPM 39-1. Wear of NOMEX gloves is also
strongly recommended."

This brings up another interesting point.  What about proficiency flying and orientation rides?
Technically all CAP flying is a "mission" since every flight has a sortie attached to a mission number,
but what about the cadets?  It's OK for them to be crispy critters but we need to protect the pilot?

The flight suit is not mentioned in the CAWG 39-1 supplement, however it does define
a "sailplane uniform" with no specification that it is restricted to only the glider.

"1-5.d Added. Special Uniform for Sailplane Operations. Members may wear a CAP
distinctive shirt (Squadron shirt, activity shirt, or any approved knit golf shirt) with dark blue or
khaki shorts (hemmed) or BDU pants and tennis shoes while participating in sailplane
operations. "

A tow pilot and crew are certainly "participating in sailplane operations" when they are towing
a glider, so by the letter of this, not only is Nomex not required, but shorts and t-shirt are.

[SarDragon]

The 60-hp rule went away quite a while ago. Anyone in CAWG pushing that rule is way behind the times.

A tow pilot and crew are certainly "participating in sailplane operations" when they are towing
a glider, so by the letter of this, not only is Nomex not required, but shorts and t-shirt are.

That's playing pretty loose with the rule. BTW, not all sailplanes are launched by aircraft tow.

[Eclipse]

^ Agreed, but the rule itself is silly, and at the least, if a wing is going to drop stuff like this
on its members, it should do the full math and eliminate the loops holes and make sure the
rules are followed about updates and publishing.

i.e.
"A Nomex flight suit will be worn by all personnel aboard CAP aircraft."

[PHall]

Bob, you're most welcome to tell the CAWG/CC how messed up his Wing is.

And what do you want on your Tombstone?

[Eclipse]

Funny. Given the need or opportunity I'm sure we both know I'd have no reluctance to make my feelings known,
and if nothing else, were I on OPS staff I would at least insure the supps in my OPR were clear and current.

[PHall]

And the Tombstone is as in Tombstone pizza.  I figure you as a sausage and mushroom kind of guy!

[a2capt]

"unofficial requirements " are just bovine fecal matter.

In writing, approved through the proper methods and channels, or stick it.

"unofficial requirements" tend to be used inconsistently across the board, mostly as items of retribution as the GoB Network lets their own slide on it, but holds others in contempt on them.

[Eclipse]

And the Tombstone is as in Tombstone pizza.  I figure you as a sausage and mushroom kind of guy!

Mushrooms? On pizza? Eww...

Pepperoni please!

[Flying Pig]

The issue of flight suits has always been an interesting one.  I always wore on when I flew in CAP along with Nomex gloves.  No, I didn't wear a helmet.  The cockpit of a 182 or a 206 wasn't very supportive of one.   When I flew my work 206 I wore a helmet because of my NVGs.   There really isn't much room for it.   Depending on size obviously.

At work, again, Nomex suit, gloves and helmet.  Where I worked before in CA, that also included a full survival vest with PFDs.  Where I am now in FL, we wear PFDs.  No real need for a remote area type survival vest.   But when we fly the airplane its usually just the flight suit and a head set.   If the Sheriff himself is being transported somewhere, its treated more like a VIP op, and its slacks and polo shirts.   I really cant tell you why we go full bore with the helicopters and basic with the airplanes.  I would wear the flight suit with the VIP transports, but for whatever reason the boss wants the pilots in dress clothes. 

My thought for CAP is nomex suit and gloves at minimum.  Yes, the suits do get old and worn, but I unless CAP wants to start issuing them, members do what they can when they have an extra $200 laying around (yeah OK)    And be careful of the cheap knock offs.... like the Tru Spec 80% cotton jump suit.   If you are going to buy a cheap cotton mix suit just to look like you have one, you are going to be miserable. 

[VNY]

My thought for CAP is nomex suit and gloves at minimum.  Yes, the suits do get old and worn, but I unless CAP wants to start issuing them, members do what they can when they have an extra $200 laying around (yeah OK)    And be careful of the cheap knock offs.... like the Tru Spec 80% cotton jump suit.   If you are going to buy a cheap cotton mix suit just to look like you have one, you are going to be miserable.

The only reason for not wearing real nomex would be cost - and sage green flight suits can be had on Ebay for like $20, so its not an issue.  You will pay more to put the insignia on it than you will for the suit itself.

For those who have to wear blue it is.

[jayleswo]

Suggested reading by DuPoint, the manufacturer of Nomex:

http://www.dupont.com/products-and-services/personal-protective-equipment/thermal-protective/brands/nomex/faqs/nomex-industrial.html

The reasons I wear a Nomex flight suit
1. CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3 requires it
2. The safety benefit the Nomex material provides for an inflight or post crash fire where every second counts (ref DuPont link). Inflight fires are rare. Postcrash fires are not and if the crash is otherwise survivable, I want any protection I can get. Like Boss Hawk, I knew the guys who lost their lives in two of the CAWG crashes.  Joe Lawrence survived the crash but with serious burns to unprotected areas. He was actually wearing BDU's underneath his flight suit since he wasn't really planning on flying that day. This was his very first flight as a Mission Scanner Trainee.
3. Synthetic fabrics can melt to your skin in a fire which only makes a bad situation much worse. Most (all?) other CAP uniforms (BDU's, polo, service dress, etc.) include synthetic fabrics such as polyester or nylon.
4. Pockets to put stuff in
5. I don't mind getting my flight suit dirty.  Other clothing is not as amenable to surviving the abuse I put my flight suit through.
6. It is all about safety, ORM and reducing/managing risks. That's what pilots and aircrew in CAP are trained to do. Some may argue the cost/benefit question, others the need. Yet, I see people willingly spend $200 on boots or a tactical vest or their favorite doo dad. And yes, for 'mission flying' I wear a Nomex CWU-45/P flight jacket, Nomex gloves, good black leather boots, survival vest and cotton everything else if you must know.

So, lots of opinions on this. This is mine and the reasons for it.

John

[JeffDG]

The reasons I wear a Nomex flight suit
1. CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3 requires it

CAWG has no currently operative supplement to 60-3

http://capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/approved-supplements-waivers-ois-etc-to-capr-60-3/

[Flying Pig]

The thing that irritates me the most with people wearing flight suits is when they treat them like work coveralls instead of a uniform.   Ive worn flight suits for 10+ years on a daily basis and there is no reason whatsoever to look like a sack of trash.  Just a reminder. 

[Panache]

[SarDragon]

All of the above!

[PHall]

They're called "Jet Jammies" for a reason!

[Mitchell 1969]

  I would wear the flight suit with the VIP transports, but for whatever reason the boss wants the pilots in dress clothes.   

FWIW, I was a "police boss" for quite a while and did my share of riding in LE aircraft. Had I seen a LE flight crew wearing anything other than a flight suit I would have thought "Wow! How exceedingly odd!" (Or something closely related thereto).

I wonder, though - in your case, is it REALLY the boss's preference? Or some staff weenie guessing how things oughta be?

[Flying Pig]

Good point.   There is a lot of brass at my current department.  People tend to do a lot of speaking "for him"    I would have to imagine he doesn't even care. 

[Private Investigator]

We've had three crashes of CAP aircraft in the past 20 years in CAWG. All three were during actual search missions.
All three had survivors who were burned badly from the post crash fires.
And the areas they were burned the most was the areas that were NOT covered by a NOMEX garmet.

PPE does work, but only if you wear ALL of it. Which means Flight Suit with the sleeves rolled all the way down, collar turned up and you're wearing the NOMEX/Leather flight gloves.

We have nothing that protects the face.  Besides, 3 crashes out of 20 years, how many people died of blunt force trauma?  I would say that if it were really about safety, then the use of a helmet is probably far more practical in most scenarios.

Well how about a parachute?

It is all about "Risk Management". After 30 years as a lawman, I know lots of people who wore body armor and then I know a few that should have, but I went to their funerals instead of their weddings, anniversaries, birthday parties, etc, etc. 

[Private Investigator]

  I would wear the flight suit with the VIP transports, but for whatever reason the boss wants the pilots in dress clothes.   

FWIW, I was a "police boss" for quite a while and did my share of riding in LE aircraft. Had I seen a LE flight crew wearing anything other than a flight suit I would have thought "Wow! How exceedingly odd!" (Or something closely related thereto).

I wonder, though - in your case, is it REALLY the boss's preference? Or some staff weenie guessing how things oughta be?

Interesting observations. Top cops vary, the MBA guy/gal wants "dress clothes" and most likely the guy/gal who came up thru the ranks prefer the "operational look". JMHO, YMMV. 

[Eclipse]

We've had three crashes of CAP aircraft in the past 20 years in CAWG. All three were during actual search missions.
All three had survivors who were burned badly from the post crash fires.
And the areas they were burned the most was the areas that were NOT covered by a NOMEX garmet.

PPE does work, but only if you wear ALL of it. Which means Flight Suit with the sleeves rolled all the way down, collar turned up and you're wearing the NOMEX/Leather flight gloves.

We have nothing that protects the face.  Besides, 3 crashes out of 20 years, how many people died of blunt force trauma?  I would say that if it were really about safety, then the use of a helmet is probably far more practical in most scenarios.

Well how about a parachute?

It is all about "Risk Management". After 30 years as a lawman, I know lots of people who wore body armor and then I know a few that should have, but I went to their funerals instead of their weddings, anniversaries, birthday parties, etc, etc. 

A good point, but the "M" is management, meaning factoring in all the variables and making smart decisions based
on the likelihood of the risk versus the cost. Cost being not only money but time, effort, etc.

When I teach new motorcycle riders, the topic of safety gear is part of the curriculum.  I'm from one of the
only two states that does not require a helmet, however statistically, motorcycle riders are fairly likely
to have an accident at some point in their riding career.  Anecdotally it's near impossible to find a rider who
hasn't dumped pretty good once or twice, and statistically, the odds of being in a bike accident are in the
neighborhood of 35% higher then if you are in a car.  And on a bike, just falling over in the driveway can be fatal if you hit your
head.  That's demonstrable risk based on decades of crash data.

In the Nomex case, the likelihood is statistically zero.  I'd even go so far as to saying it's probably statistically zero if we
factored in all GA-type flying and not just limited it to CAP.  You're far more likely to trip and fall on the tarmac
or get into a vehicular accident on the way to the airport then having an aircraft incident that involves fire.

The other issue is the point that CAWG apparently feels "special".  NHQ has not addressed this in any way,
there's no verbiage anywhere which speaks to Nomex one way or another, except to authorize it for a small
percentage of the membership, so what's going on in CAWG that their risk of aircraft fire is so much higher
that it warrants requiring special, expensive clothing, yet that same risk doesn't apply to everyone who
flies in those same aircraft?

[JeffDG]

The other issue is the point that CAWG apparently feels "special". 

Not anymore.

There is no regulatory basis at the present time for CAWG to demand that flight crew-members wear nomex flightsuits.  Apparently, it such a crucial issue that the Wing didn't have the time to renew the supplements after the revisions to the underlying regulations.

[Eclipse]

The other issue is the point that CAWG apparently feels "special". 

Not anymore.

There is no regulatory basis at the present time for CAWG to demand that flight crew-members wear nomex flightsuits.  Apparently, it such a crucial issue that the Wing didn't have the time to renew the supplements after the revisions to the underlying regulations.

I know, that's what puts such an awesome and sadly typical CAP period at the end of this.

[PHall]

Per CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3, Aug 2012.

1-11.  Operational Risk Management.

c. Added.  All members participating as aircrew on training or actual missions will wear a CAP approved flight suit in accordance with CAPM 39-1.  Wear of NOMEX gloves is also strongly recommended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's what the supplement says and as far as I can tell all CAP approved Flight Suits are made from NOMEX.

[wacapgh]

http://capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/approved-supplements-waivers-ois-etc-to-capr-60-3/

Shows:

California Wing CAPR 60-3 Supplement - 24 August 2012 - Expired 26 June 2013

[Storm Chaser]

Per CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3, Aug 2012.

1-11.  Operational Risk Management.

c. Added.  All members participating as aircrew on training or actual missions will wear a CAP approved flight suit in accordance with CAPM 39-1.  Wear of NOMEX gloves is also strongly recommended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's what the supplement says and as far as I can tell all CAP approved Flight Suits are made from NOMEX.

The problem with that supplement, as mentioned earlier, is that it's expired and no longer valid. CAWG needs to submit a new supplement for NHQ approval.

That said, flight suits are expensive. Unless CAWG is issuing flight suits to all its aircrew, that's a huge burden to impose on its members.

[vento]

Per CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3, Aug 2012.

1-11.  Operational Risk Management.

c. Added.  All members participating as aircrew on training or actual missions will wear a CAP approved flight suit in accordance with CAPM 39-1.  Wear of NOMEX gloves is also strongly recommended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's what the supplement says and as far as I can tell all CAP approved Flight Suits are made from NOMEX.

The problem with that supplement, as mentioned earlier, is that it's expired and no longer valid. CAWG needs to submit a new supplement for NHQ approval.

That said, flight suits are expensive. Unless CAWG is issuing flight suits to all its aircrew, that's a huge burden to impose on its members.

I agree it is not cheap if a member is looking for a new one, but it hadn't stopped most people from becoming aircrew. Respectfully, CAWG not issuing the flight suit to its members is not an issue in the way you think it is.

[Storm Chaser]

Per CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3, Aug 2012.

1-11.  Operational Risk Management.

c. Added.  All members participating as aircrew on training or actual missions will wear a CAP approved flight suit in accordance with CAPM 39-1.  Wear of NOMEX gloves is also strongly recommended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's what the supplement says and as far as I can tell all CAP approved Flight Suits are made from NOMEX.

The problem with that supplement, as mentioned earlier, is that it's expired and no longer valid. CAWG needs to submit a new supplement for NHQ approval.

That said, flight suits are expensive. Unless CAWG is issuing flight suits to all its aircrew, that's a huge burden to impose on its members.

I agree it is not cheap if a member is looking for a new one, but it hadn't stopped most people from becoming aircrew. Respectfully, CAWG not issuing the flight suit to its members is not an issue in the way you think it is.

Maybe not, but if wearing a flight suit was that important or necessary, CAP would mandate it for all aircrews across the nation. 

[JeffDG]

Per CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3, Aug 2012.

1-11.  Operational Risk Management.

c. Added.  All members participating as aircrew on training or actual missions will wear a CAP approved flight suit in accordance with CAPM 39-1.  Wear of NOMEX gloves is also strongly recommended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's what the supplement says and as far as I can tell all CAP approved Flight Suits are made from NOMEX.

The problem with that supplement, as mentioned earlier, is that it's expired and no longer valid. CAWG needs to submit a new supplement for NHQ approval.

That said, flight suits are expensive. Unless CAWG is issuing flight suits to all its aircrew, that's a huge burden to impose on its members.

I agree it is not cheap if a member is looking for a new one, but it hadn't stopped most people from becoming aircrew. Respectfully, CAWG not issuing the flight suit to its members is not an issue in the way you think it is.

Maybe not, but if wearing a flight suit was that important or necessary, CAP would mandate it for all aircrews across the nation.

And, you'd think that CAWG would actually republish their expired supplement if they thought it was at all important.

[Eclipse]

Per CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3, Aug 2012.

1-11.  Operational Risk Management.

c. Added.  All members participating as aircrew on training or actual missions will wear a CAP approved flight suit in accordance with CAPM 39-1.  Wear of NOMEX gloves is also strongly recommended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's what the supplement says and as far as I can tell all CAP approved Flight Suits are made from NOMEX.

Which part of "invalid supplement" is difficult to understand?

I and others have pointed this out about three times.  I quoted this above and pointed out that
it would have to be updated anyway as the new 39-1 indicates no discitnion between nomex and non-nomex
jumsuits, they are both considered "flight suits" in the draft.

60-3 was updated in Dec 2012, that automatically expires all supplements and requires they be updated.

An invalid supplement is null and void. Someone is either asleep or doesn't care, either way, the result is the same.

[LSThiker]

Well how about a parachute?

Hmmmm.  I have not jumped in nearly 10 years, but sure why not, sign me up    Come on, that is a bad analogy.  Could you really imagine a senior member trying to waddle out of a Cessna with a parachute on?  He would need at least 5 minutes of prep time

It is all about "Risk Management". After 30 years as a lawman, I know lots of people who wore body armor and then I know a few that should have, but I went to their funerals instead of their weddings, anniversaries, birthday parties, etc, etc. 

This pretty much supports the idea of having aircrews wear a helmet.  Getting shot poses a serious and common risk for LE.  Blunt force trauma poses a serious and common risk for GA pilots.

[VNY]

Maybe not, but if wearing a flight suit was that important or necessary, CAP would mandate it for all aircrews across the nation.

CAWG doesn't even mandate it all the time.  Last mission I flew on I had been an MRO and got assigned to fly highbird at the last minute.  I flew on an actual SAREX in a polo shirt.  It violated no CAWG standing rules.

As it was explained to me, the nomex flight suit is only required when doing low altitude maneuvers - IE flying a search grid.  And considering who it was who moved me to the 206 I have no doubt that is the actual policy

[a2capt]

..and -every- flight involves low altitude maneuvers.

As for waddling out with prep-time?

If that aircraft is missing a wing, you may be surprised how fast people can move.

[Eclipse]

Well then that's really a double-secret rule, since it doesn't say that in the expired supp.

[Flying Pig]

Maybe not, but if wearing a flight suit was that important or necessary, CAP would mandate it for all aircrews across the nation.

CAWG doesn't even mandate it all the time.  Last mission I flew on I had been an MRO and got assigned to fly highbird at the last minute.  I flew on an actual SAREX in a polo shirt.  It violated no CAWG standing rules.

As it was explained to me, the nomex flight suit is only required when doing low altitude maneuvers - IE flying a search grid.  And considering who it was who moved me to the 206 I have no doubt that is the actual policy

You don't wear flight suits on CD ops in CAWG

[a2capt]

..and CAWG, probably not the only entity, but sure does have a lot of "un-official" rules. Stuff needs to be documented, and applied universally. Or stick it.

[PHall]

Maybe not, but if wearing a flight suit was that important or necessary, CAP would mandate it for all aircrews across the nation.

CAWG doesn't even mandate it all the time.  Last mission I flew on I had been an MRO and got assigned to fly highbird at the last minute.  I flew on an actual SAREX in a polo shirt.  It violated no CAWG standing rules.

As it was explained to me, the nomex flight suit is only required when doing low altitude maneuvers - IE flying a search grid.  And considering who it was who moved me to the 206 I have no doubt that is the actual policy

You don't wear flight suits on CD ops in CAWG

Per the requesting agency's request.

[Eclipse]

So, in summary:

Nomex is required in CAWG for when flying except:

Cadets.

CD crews.

Anytime it's more expedient to just ignore the supplement.

Actually never because the supps are expired.

I'll have that pepperoni now...

[Flying Pig]

Yes exactly.  Clear as mud?