Request For Info - Nomex and CAP accidents

[ddelaney103]

I have heard this whole "OMG, nomex in the cockpit is a SAFETY ISSUE!!!" too many times w/o anything but the rare story to back up this claim.

So, I would like people who have information about accidents in CAP that would have been mitigated by nomex to give us the story.  It can't just be an accident where the aircraft burned and people died.  If the crew was unconscious from the crash and burned to death, that points to crash helmets as a safety measure, not nomex.

The info should be geo-located and chrono-located as well as you can.

Again, it should be:

• Accidents involving CAP


• Where the presence or absence of nomex would have made a difference.

Thanks!

[LittleIronPilot]

If I may be so bold...why?

Unless you have an issue with the flight suit, what is the purpose of the question?

[jeders]

You know delaney, every time nomex is even hinted at as being a safety issue, you fight against it saying that there is no safety benefit for GA aircraft.

It has been scientifically proven (i.e. when it was invented) that nomex is a fire retardant material. Regardless of what type of fire, nomex doesn't burn, at least not easily. If nomex helps in even a minor way of saving a life once out of a million times, that's good enough for me.

As far as helmets in the aircraft, I'm all for them. That is as long as I can get one relatively cheap, which new ones aren't.

[Pylon]

It has been scientifically proven (i.e. when it was invented) that nomex is a fire retardant material. Regardless of what type of fire, nomex doesn't burn, at least not easily. If nomex helps in even a minor way of saving a life once out of a million times, that's good enough for me.

Then why isn't it mandated for wear by every GA pilot in the world, like seat belts?

Is the need for safety from cockpit fires for CAP pilots significantly higher than other GA pilots?  Is the incident rate of cockpit fires significantly higher for CAP than in other GA?

It's a cost issue.  Would our pilots all be safer if we required each of them to buy $150 in other safety gear?  You bet ya.  But that's not reasonable, is it?

The other safety equipment in and related to our aircraft, Civil Air Patrol buys and provides.  If it is a liability to CAP, or a significant risk, Civil Air Patrol provides appropriate protections.  You don't hear CAP NHQ Safety asking members to provide their own fire extinguishers, right?

[RocketPropelled]

You don't hear CAP NHQ Safety asking members to provide their own fire extinguishers, right?

Curses, foiled again! Pylon saw the secret agenda for the next Safety Down Day....

[ddelaney103]

You know delaney, every time nomex is even hinted at as being a safety issue, you fight against it saying that there is no safety benefit for GA aircraft.

It has been scientifically proven (i.e. when it was invented) that nomex is a fire retardant material. Regardless of what type of fire, nomex doesn't burn, at least not easily. If nomex helps in even a minor way of saving a life once out of a million times, that's good enough for me.

As far as helmets in the aircraft, I'm all for them. That is as long as I can get one relatively cheap, which new ones aren't.

Look, if safety was our one and only concern, we'd only need one item: wheel chocks.  We'd put them under the wheels, and walk away.  But it's not.

Operational Risk Management is all about balancing risks vs. gains.  Every time CAP decides to change something, there are pluses and minuses.

Would we be safer if all pilots and observers were instrument rated with 250 hours PIC?  Yes, no question - but we'd lose over half of our aircrews without gaining much in the way of safety.

Nomex would make us safer for the X number of accidents where you a) survive the crash and b) are conscious enough to escape the aircraft, but c) there is a fire of a type that would have killed/injured you if you didn't have the nomex.  I'm just trying to find for X, which I'm guessing is a remarkably small number.

I'm not saying there's no benefit to nomex.  What I'm asking is if the risk of flying without it is so great that we are willing to scrub missions because we have an aircrew without nomex.  Because that's what CAWG (and other units) are saying with their "nomex only" rule.

[Eclipse]

I'm not saying there's no benefit to nomex.  What I'm asking is if the risk of flying without it is so great that we are willing to scrub missions because we have an aircrew without nomex.  Because that's what CAWG (and other units) are saying with their "nomex only" rule.

Agreed - Nomex, properly cared for, is fire >retardant< not proof, and unless we mandate the rest of the uniform be worn as well, has little overall value.  It will also allow your skin to burn underneath it in high temperatures which do not ignite the cloth itself.  I indicate this only to say that Nomex is not the "super-suit" some people believe it is.

Most of our pilots wear an >accelerant< (i.e. nylon jacket), over their flightsuits, which basically negates the Nomex's properties.

In an aircraft as small as most of ours, survivability of the crash is more important than fire issues.  I'm not aware of a single instance recently where a CAP aircraft was involved in a fire incident, not related to a crash, where injury would have been mitigated by Nomex or similar material.

If it was that big a deal, you'd see traffic helicopter crews wearing flightsuits, instead of the typical business casual they wear.  Traffic helos fly way more hours, in much more challenging situations, and have higher accident rates than CAP ever will.  Ditto with commercial pilots.

We'd be better served mandating natural fibers which would at least not melt into your skin during an accident, than the more expensive Nomex.

If the tanks dump on your head in a crash, and you ignite soaked in fuel, its not going to make any difference what you are wearing.  And if crash resistance is a goal, denim or leather is a better choice than the current paper-thin Nomex and nylon.

No reason not to wear Nomex, every little bit helps, but no reason to mandate it either, especially if it scrubs a mission by otherwise qualified aircrews.

[NIN]

As was suggested above, the data may well prove out that more people die in GA accidents from "blunt force trauma" (ie. a blow to the head) than from fire or other causes. 

If so, and CAP comes along and mandates (and provides) HGU-55 helmets, tell me how many people are going to refuse to wear them because "helmets in GA aircraft are dorky."

So it follows that if x people die in GA accidents due to blunt force trauma, and y people die in GA accidents due to fire (and not having the proper protective clothing), but x > y by a large margin, then why are we so busy mincing about with our "zipper-suited Sun God" duds on when we should be wearing a bone dome?

[SJFedor]

I'd wear a helmet in a CAP aircraft. As long as it's one similar to what current medevac helicopter crews wear.

But you know there'd be someone wearing their fighter pilot helmet w/ the O2 mask and everything...

As for the nomex, I don't have an answer for you. I'd say it's a safety tool in the box, something that could be used in the situation to help, but definitely not a fix all/cure all.

And honestly, if we were THAT worried about safety, we wouldn't be allowed to fly, and our uniforms would look like this:


Yes, bubble wrap...

[DNall]

Sure, I'll take that bait. Several CAP members, and lots of people in GA have been killed in fire related incidents. I'll relate one story that impacted me very hard.

Circa 1996. Young Capt, former cadet officer out of PAWG, recently out of the AF as an F15 XO. He was serving as DCFC, I was a young TFO 2yrs into CAP figuring out how to be a CP officer, and he was my mentor. He was flying a lot, building hours for MP, commercial & CFI so he could pay back the program what he'd taken from it when he was younger. I flew a lot of right seat with him, picking up observer & figuring out the job. One day, he had a problem with the mags, onboard fire, prevented control of the aircraft, drilled into the bay. Accident report says he was alive & attempting to manuever through an emergency decent while on fire (personally) right up to impact.

Would nomex save someone in a situation like that? I don't know, but I think it might buy them a few seconds, and that just might be the difference.

Why the difference between GA & CAP aviation? The two are not comparable. You don't wear nomex driving your car to work, but a NSACAR driver does. What's the difference there? In CAP, we fly near our weight limit (with as much gas as we can put on), in bad density altitude, with marginal & shifting weather. We then fly low & slow, making a whole bunch of tight turns, and a lot of times we do it in terrain. Fact is a little too much turn & just the wrong gust of wind puts you in the trees. GA doesn't fly like that, not ever. We fly safe, but we do it closer to the edge than there is ever any need for GA to do. I think if you talked to a NASCAR driver, you'd hear that they drive safe, that they'd rather be there with professional drivers than on some of your typical freeways, but that that do that driving out closer to the edge where safety gear is warranted.

You're welcome to your opinion, everybody has one. For me personally though, nomex is an essential part of CAP flight safety gear. If ever I'm in the position to do so, I would mandate it for flight activities, and I don't much care what the complaints are. And by the way, most pilots spend more than the cost of a flt suit on a day of flying.

[RiverAux]

You're probably better off if you just researched fire-related injuries in general aviation accidents.  CAP isn't going to have a big enough sample size to prove anything. 

[PHall]

California Wing had a plane go down during a Search in the Sierras about 10 years ago or so.
The one survivor had burns in just two places, hands and head.
Everywhere else on his body was covered either by his nomex flight suit or by boots.

Proof enough for me.

[Eclipse]

That's anecdotal evidence, but statistically insignificant for a regulation.

It could have been they weren't burned because they were covered by "something", whether that it was Nomex and that made the difference is debatable.

[mikeylikey]

I'd wear a helmet in a CAP aircraft. As long as it's one similar to what current medevac helicopter crews wear.

But you know there'd be someone wearing their fighter pilot helmet w/ the O2 mask and everything...

As for the nomex, I don't have an answer for you. I'd say it's a safety tool in the box, something that could be used in the situation to help, but definitely not a fix all/cure all.

And honestly, if we were THAT worried about safety, we wouldn't be allowed to fly, and our uniforms would look like this:


Yes, bubble wrap...

Is that for the "occasional" falling out of the A/C midflight? Or perhaps slipping from the seat and landing on your butt while trying to climb in the aircraft??

[Smokey]

I Have to fall in with DNall. I think every little bit helps. We do fly GA aircraft but do it in a manner unlike GA.  I fly a different profile in CAP than I do going for the $100 hamburger.

I agree that brain buckets would be a good idea.  However the cost is much more than a nomex flight suit. Most helmets have to be custom fitted in order to be comfortable enough to wear for long periods. And that ain't cheap. You are looking at $500 or more. It wold be nice if the AF popped for these, but I'm not holding my breath.  Even used AF ones that could be refitted would be a good idea. 

In law enforcement air units they fly with nomex slight suits and helmets. The crews do not wear regular uniforms (which are often wool shirts and pants).  The reason....they are flying a different profile than news/tv  helos and others. Likewise the Fire Depts flight crews wear nomex flight suits and they have issued turn out gear would be even more fire resistant. They also wear brain buckets.  Why??  Not that they are going to fly into a fire, but their flight profile is riskier than the news helicopter.

[RiverAux]

We do fly GA aircraft but do it in a manner unlike GA.  I fly a different profile in CAP than I do going for the $100 hamburger.

And we actually do it more safetly than GA -- so shouldn't the FAA start requiring GA pilots to wear it and give CAP a waiver since we don't need it as often?

I agree that brain buckets would be a good idea. 

My head is already bumping the ceiling of the airplane now, and I'm only 6'1. 

[bosshawk]

PHall's comment is correct, the aircraft was from my Sq and I was the aircraft manager.  The member who survived was in the back seat and his most severe injuries were serious burns of the face and hands: he didn't have nomex gloves on and, of course, nothing nomex on his head.  The two pilots in the front seat were killed by impact: the engine came back into their laps.  Talk to the guy who survived: I have and he says repeatedly that he wishes that he had had nomex gloves on.  Some of us have requirements that causes our crews to wear nomex gloves: I do, even in my private aircraft.  I don't often wear a nomex flight suit in my aircraft, but I do wear materials that don't burn easily.

This is an argument which is a non=starter in my Wing.  Nomex flight suits are required when flying a corporate aircraft and I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the Wing about it.  Guess that CAWG aircrews have more money than those in other Wings.

[isuhawkeye]

unless Im mistaken California OES, Forestr, and Law enforcement all require nomex for flight operations for all agencies. 

Can anyone provide details on this