Multitude of Uniforms

[ZigZag911]

Over the years several wings have used orange or yellow baseball caps for ground team personnel, highly visible....if not a large enough target, then wear some sort of orange safety vest when going into woods, forests, and so forth.....you need it many places during hunting season, anyhow.

"...Several Wings..."?   

A reflective vest is >REQUIRED< gear for any GTM's. It always has been, or certainly has been for the last two rev's of the gear list. See above for citations of the GT manual, and the new 39-1 now makes it a part of the uniform.

Where are you guys getting that its optional?  Some members play fast and loose with the color (orange vs. yellow), but there is no question you're supposed to wear something bright.

Its so frustrating to see people complaining about  / suggesting things which are already addressed or included in the regs.  If you're wearing the badge, you sure should know this, and if not, check before you comment.

(BTW - ILWG authorizes and encourages an orange hat, especially for the GTL, but for field use only, not for everyday wear.)

My apologies....I usually rely on my GBD & GTLs to ensure the GTMs have all required gear!

[Eclipse]

After rather quick research, I can't find any cases where CAP aircraft crashed on missions and fire was involved. Granted this was a quick search from old records, but unless a pilot flew full bore into a granite cloud, the chances of fire in a light aircraft doing normal mission flights are so minor that it's not probable for fire to be involved. So why the thread pushing for nomax for flight crews? It appears that it makes no difference if a pilot is wearing golf shirt and grey pants or whatever uniform they choose. The only push for nomax sems to be the "coolness" factor.

The thread is not pushing for Nomex®, it was pointing out that for our use, the Nomex® serves little purpose with regards to crew safety.

[Chris Jacobs]

I think that the push for Nomex is not in case of a fire after a crash, but in case of a cabin fire that the crew needs to deal with.  If they have the Nomex on it gives them that much more time.

[Chaplaindon]

Actually, Chris, you are wrong about Nomex buying a flight crew time to deal with a fire emergency versus street clothes.

Although Nomex (brand) aramid fabric clothing is flame resistant and retardant, it gives absolutely no protection from the thermal effects of fire.

You can sustain deadly burns eventhough the Nomex coveralls stay uncharred.

Firefighters wear double quilted under the Nomex shell of their "bunker gear" to provide the more essential thermal protection. Racing drivers quilt their coveralls itself for thermal protection. They also wear Nomex long johns under their coveralls.

Thermal protection is FAR more needed than flash or flame protection in a confined space fire situation (e.g. inside a cockpit). The temperature will rise much more rapidly than will the flames (lest they be fed by 100LL avgas ... and Nomex doused with gasoline burns quite beautifully). At the same time noxious fumes from the plastics and fabrics of the aircraft interior will cause blinding smoke and damage to lungs (that's why commercial airline pilots don smoke hoods as a part of their cockpit fire procedures).

Heat, though is the killer --even with smoke hoods. In fact a person's own perspiration can turn to steam and severely burn a person underneath the Nomex coverall (or bunker gear).

So, with Nomex, a flightcrew member will likely be in as much jeopardy from a cockpit fire as a person wearing gray Dockers and the golf shirt. They may look more military, but --if safety is the reason to wear the Nomex "bag" (absent all of the other accoutrements; e.g. helmet, goggles, gloves, etc.)-- save your money.

Add to that lack of additional safety factor, the fact that Nomex is stifflingly hot in summer. Wearing it (especially with the other needed safety equipment: boots, helmet, gloves, appropriate long underwear, maybe a survival vest) can greatly increase your chance of heat exhaustion/stroke. Having a pilot collapse at the controls due to heat-related (clothing exacerbated) stress could mean a bad day for his/her crew (especially if none are pilots).

So, I suggest Nomex is not only NOT safer, in some situations it can be much LESS safe than more street-clothes-like apparel.

[jayleswo]

"After rather quick research, I can't find any cases where CAP aircraft crashed on missions and fire was involved. "

Monday November 3, 1997, a Civil Air Patrol Cessna 182 N2043E from San Jose Senior Squadron 80, California Wing, crashed while in a search mission near Lake Tahoe. Both mission rated pilots in the front of the aircraft were fatally injured on impact, while the back seat Scanner (Capt. Joe Lawrence) survived the crash, but was severely burned as a result of a post-crash fire when he tried to rescue the pilots. Joe was wearing a Nomex flight suit OVER his BDU's. His neck, face and left hand were burned but the Nomex did a good job protecting him except for those parts of him that were exposed to the flames.

So, I disagree with chaplaindon's conclusion. I'd rather have a heat injury than a burn and melted clothing to deal with.

[Chaplaindon]

jayleswo,

Thank God that Capt. Lawrence survived, regardless of exactly how.

You can disagree with my conclusion, however, you actually made my case unknowlingly.

First,  burns to the face, neck and hands are (by definition) "critical burns" especially the face and neck as they can cause airway and respiratory compromise.  Surviving with burns to those areas may be --in many cases-- sadly, short-lived.

Second, the wearing of BDU's UNDER the flight suit --something you could get away with up in the high Sierra's in November (try it in Victoria, Texas in July ...) likely served as the thermal insulation (similar to the liners under firefighters' bunker coats and pants). Being as to how it's mighty cold in Lake Tahoe in November, Capt. Lawrence might have had on thermal underclothing too, that's not mentioned.

That's a fortunate thing that he was --at least-- wearing BDUs ... imagine had he been wearing a thin synthetic "Under Armour" tee shirt (or a female wearing nylon/lycra-blend under clothing) and shorts ... there would have not only NOT been a thermal barrrier of any sort, the underclothing likely would have melted onto the body exacerbating the burns and necessitating lengthy and brutally painful debriedments.

The Nomex flight clothing MAY have provided some flash burn protection --Nomex, however, will burn ... it just will not, itself SUPPORT combustion absent any other fuel (e.g. avgas spilled on it)-- theremal burns likely were prevented by the addition of another layer of thick underclothing (the BDU). Sadly, Nomex or not, Capt. Lawrence sustained critical burns that might well have been prevented had he (like the US military aviators) been wearing a full-kit of protective flight clothing ... not just a Nomex bag.

Such full-kit would have been far more tolerable in northern California rather than warmer climes where crews are frequently seen with their "protective" Nomex sleeves rolled up and their front zipper pulled down for ventilation and heat-relief.

Nevertheless, I pray that Capt. Lawrence fully recovered.

[Chris Jacobs]

I am going to have to say that i would want to stick with the Nomex.

When i wear my bike helmet i am not getting full protection.  If i wanted full protection i would wear a helmet that was more like a motorcycle helmet that also covered my face.  But a bike helmet is proven to be better than no helmet at all.

Wearing the full fire protection clothing as Chaplin don mentioned would be unrealistic in our aircraft.  But we could take at least one preventative action and do the best that we can.  As with the bike helmet, a little bit of protection is better than none at all.

[jayleswo]

chaplaindon,

I'll defer to your apparent expertise on the subject, but I'll continue wearing a Nomex flight suit, with nomex gloves, leather boots and cotton undergarments on SAR missions. I agree, it's not the most comfortable thing in the world, but it's the best we have to protect ourselves. I'm long past the "pickle suit" being cool looking, I wear it for what little protection it offers vs. the alternatives.

On CD missions, we are limited to civilian clothing and I'll agree with you that I prefer not wearing a Nomex flight suit in 115 degree heat on the U.S./Mexican border in July.

John

[Eclipse]

And as a further tangent to this, unless you are laundering a nomex flight suit properly, it will lose its fire retardent properties over time.

http://www.scoutingdigest.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=120

[flyguy06]

This thread kind of changed directions huh? lets get back on track. Yes the Wing and Region CC's could sprescribe uniform standards. But it is unrealistic to think they wuld do the examples you listed. If they tried, The higher echelon Commander would probably override them. But Commanders should have a little flexibility in their command but not go to far.

[SarDragon]

And as a further tangent to this, unless you are laundering a nomex flight suit properly, it will lose its fire retardent properties over time.

http://www.scoutingdigest.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=120

That page sounds more like an ad for a specific product.

More (and better?) info here:

http://civilairportal.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=66&topic=612.msg10947;topicseen#msg10947

[Psicorp]

Psicorp,

Your assertion that, "One could argue that being unable to wear Nomex while flying puts the crew in unnessary risk, from a safety standpoint" is a "stretch" -- at the very least.

While it is an undeniable truth that the US armed forces (and those of many other nations) outfit their aviators and aircrews in Nomex flight clothing for protective purposes, it is hard to honestly assert that by CAP personnel wearing it too, that CAP aircrews are enhancing safety.

Here's why: although Nomex is fire-retardant, a coverall of it will provide little of any useful theremal of flash protection to the wearer in the absence of a full suite of ancillary protective items (e.g. helmet, goggles of face shield, gloves, nomex thermal under clothes "long johns", leather flying boots and the like).

Most CAP aviators that I see wearing the Nomex green (or blue) "bag" wear it without regards to the other items of protection I just listed. In an crash, cockpit fire, ditching or off-airport landing, the most important things needed for emergent egress are usually unprotected ... your eyes (to find your exit), your skull (to protect your brain and thus your ability to think through your egress), your hands and your feet (your "tools" for egress and escape).

If in the southern US, where I live and serve, you wore FULL Nomex regalia (e.g. racing drivers for F-1, NASCAR, IndyCar, etc) you would melt most of the year when the ambient air temperature (even at search altitudes) is sweltering. Hence the so-called "safety" of the Nomex becomes a liability and a hazard.

Even racing drivers wear "cool suits" water-cooled" long johns and skull caps that "air condition their Nomex safety suits. CAP aircraft are not air conditioned and few of our volunteers could afford to buy a "cool suit."

So, to review:

1.  Worn as most CAP members wear the green/blue bag ... gloveless, even sleeves rolled up ... without Nomex long-johns underneath ... no helmet, no goggles/face shield ... the Nomex isn't really useful.

2.  Worn as per US military standards or those of motor racing would make the suit a dangerous liability for the wearer.

Frankly, I believe that most CAP members wear the Nomex "bags" because they think they look nice. Nothing more.

I know I'm not as up on the Regs and the CAP insurance policies as I should be (can anyone be) given that I'm my unit's Safety Officer, but what really caused me concern was this thread from the Civil Air Portal regarding insurance payouts if members are not wearing the "appropriate uniform" for their activity.    http://civilairportal.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=66&topic=612.30

There is nothing that is going to, on it's own, make you safer.  Safety is a multitude of factors and behaviors all working together (or opposed) in order for an accident or mishap to occur.   What we can do is be safety conscious and look out for one another. 

I plan on reading up on our insurance information to find out for sure whether the above "appropriate uniform" stipulation exists and what our regs say about it.