Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 19, 2018, 05:49:06 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Flight Suit Poll
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: What do you wear while participating as Aircrew in ES or flying?
Flight Suit Sage Green Nomex   -24 (50%)
Flight Suit Corporate Nomex   -2 (4.2%)
Corporate Coveralls or Cotton/Poly   -1 (2.1%)
Grey & Whites   -0 (0%)
Corporate Polo   -16 (33.3%)
Flight Suit (either) for ES only, Polo for all other reasons   -1 (2.1%)
BDUs/BBDUs   -4 (8.3%)
Other   -0 (0%)
Total Members Voted: 48

Author Topic: Flight Suit Poll  (Read 1518 times)
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,830
Unit: Earth

« on: March 11, 2018, 11:25:28 AM »

Was poking around old posts and found this thread from 10 years ago.  Curious to see if views have changed in a decade.  Some people in the past have stated that the flight suit is becoming less common.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2095.40;viewresults

So just out of curiousity, wondering if it has changed.  Not necessary to get into the pros and cons of flight suit, but then again this is CAPtalk, so I know it will happen. 
Logged
dwb
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,340

« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2018, 02:02:54 PM »

Polo, but I do own a flight suit.

There are more outerwear options with the polo for cold weather, and a short-sleeve polo is more breathable for warm weather.

I also find myself leaning corporate more often in general. The uniforms are more comfortable, and although I am still very honored to be able to wear the USAF style uniform, after 25+ years I don't feel like I'm required to.
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 644

« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2018, 05:27:44 PM »

Polo, but I do own a flight suit.

There are more outerwear options with the polo for cold weather, and a short-sleeve polo is more breathable for warm weather.

I also find myself leaning corporate more often in general. The uniforms are more comfortable, and although I am still very honored to be able to wear the USAF style uniform, after 25+ years I don't feel like I'm required to.

Having looked at the stats for post crash fires, I avoid wearing any synthetic fibers when flying GA.    Nomex with natural fibers beneath is my flight attire.  We're lucky (in CAP) to have not suffered many recent crashes.  For example, had the crash of N784CP been a survivable event before the fire ignited, it most certainly was not when the fuel burst into a fireball.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,220

« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2018, 10:28:45 PM »


There are more outerwear options with the polo for cold weather, and a short-sleeve polo is more breathable for warm weather.


Dittos for me.  Especially here in the hot humid south. :)
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Stonewall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,918

« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2018, 08:02:19 AM »

Voted then and voted this time. Same answer.
Logged
chuckmilam
Forum Regular

Posts: 116
Unit: GLR-KY-216

« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2018, 08:37:29 AM »

Years ago, my answer would've been "flight suit, all day, every day," because you know--young me thought "it's cool" or something. 

After some age and mellowing, I'm all about that new technical wicking fabric polo combined with the 5.11 Stryke pants with the stretchy fabric.  Comfortable and practical, especially in the hot and humid south.
Logged
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,830
Unit: Earth

« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2018, 09:49:10 AM »

Polo, but I do own a flight suit.

There are more outerwear options with the polo for cold weather, and a short-sleeve polo is more breathable for warm weather.

I also find myself leaning corporate more often in general. The uniforms are more comfortable, and although I am still very honored to be able to wear the USAF style uniform, after 25+ years I don't feel like I'm required to.

Dan, I agree that over the years I started leaning more towards corporate.  The uniform has a tendency to be more comfortable and rather low maintenance.  I was happy to wear the USAF style uniform and still wore it (until a few years ago) for higher formal events (e.g., National Conference).  The ease of travel with the corporate uniform (could bring 1 pair of pants, 1 pair of shoes, and 1 coat for 2-3 uniforms) and the availability sealed the deal for me.  I donated my USAF-style uniform items to cadets  that otherwise could not afford the items (except SM specific items--1st come, 1st serve). 

Even now, I consider eliminating some of the corporate uniforms.  The Blazer is no big deal for me as I have several coats hanging in my closet for "business" events that do not require suits (love academia).  The white shirt is required per regulations and I do wear this on occasion (e.g., change of command, wing conference).  The BBDUs I have not worn in years and the last time I touched that was to sew on the new colors.  The polo is by far the most worn as it is easier to go from work to CAP. 

I have considered getting rid of my flight suit as the only time I wear that is when I fly, but keep wanting to keep it only because of the safety factor when compared to polyester.  I keep going back and forth on this as it is not like the rest of the GA community wears them.  I know that in 20 years, about 300 died due to impact and fire, while ~600 died due to exclusively fire.  I believe Canada also reached similar numbers of post-crash fires. 
Logged
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,830
Unit: Earth

« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2018, 09:54:31 AM »

Voted then and voted this time. Same answer.

You mean this?    :P

Remember this idea from 2007? That was funny...


Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,220

« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2018, 12:48:30 PM »


 I know that in 20 years, about 300 died due to impact and fire, while ~600 died due to exclusively fire.  I believe Canada also reached similar numbers of post-crash fires.

And I wonder how many of those would have lived if they had worn Nomex?  For most, I would bet "cause of death" was fire, but they were most likely incapacitated, knocked out, or passengers confused on how to get out of the harness, and were not able to get out of the airplane. In which case, clothing didn't matter.  Nomex only helps if you are still conscious and able to quickly get out. It just gives you a few more seconds at best.  YES, its a good idea, but the numbers above do not tell the accurate story.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 644

« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2018, 12:04:21 PM »


 I know that in 20 years, about 300 died due to impact and fire, while ~600 died due to exclusively fire.  I believe Canada also reached similar numbers of post-crash fires.

And I wonder how many of those would have lived if they had worn Nomex?  For most, I would bet "cause of death" was fire, but they were most likely incapacitated, knocked out, or passengers confused on how to get out of the harness, and were not able to get out of the airplane. In which case, clothing didn't matter.  Nomex only helps if you are still conscious and able to quickly get out. It just gives you a few more seconds at best.  YES, its a good idea, but the numbers above do not tell the accurate story.

FWIW, three years ago the FAA released a study of several hundred accidents in the Alaska Region where they looked at equipment in the cockpit (PPE and accessories) that would have enhanced survival.  The study included about 100 fatalities that occurred in about 650 accidents over a recent five year period.  Way up there among survival enhancers were airbags (in newer CAP aircraft); 4 and 5 point harnesses (absent from all CAP powered aircraft); and helmets (absent from all CAP aircraft).  For all intents and purposes the number of lives that would have been saved would have increased by about a third by any one of those three enhancements.   While they didn't explicitly look at post crash fires, military research from decades ago makes it clear that seconds count.  Recently I saw some interesting figures during a pre-duty day pilot briefing for wildland fire fighters:  Nomex is definitely a major asset in any cockpit where ops are over terrain where an uneventful landing is unlikely/impossible.  Included in the category of such inhospitable terrain are mountains, forested areas, and built up areas like cities and industrial sites.   IMHO, arguments against nomex are fluff.  We ought not  discount the value of 10-45 seconds added to our limited time for escaping a nascent or active post crash fire, or the value of nomex should we experience a cockpit fire.  The value of nomex as a survival asset is well demonstrated.  However, even good PPE can be defeated by aircrew.  It's also well demonstrated that wearing synthetics beneath nomex negates the fire retardant value of the flight suit. 
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 12:11:14 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
Briank
Member

Posts: 76
Unit: GLR-MI-063

« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2018, 06:10:42 PM »

Polo is all I plan on using at this point.  I've got a sage green flight suit, but I may never wear it again.  The flight suit has an advantage if I catch on fire, but otherwise pretty much everything makes the polo superior.  Better ability to dress for the weather, don't have to try and fly wearing boots, etc.
Logged
Stonewall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,918

« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2018, 08:05:29 PM »

Voted then and voted this time. Same answer.

You mean this?    :P

Remember this idea from 2007? That was funny...



Id will vote for that! Way better than ABUs!
Logged
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,830
Unit: Earth

« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2018, 08:39:31 PM »

Id will vote for that! Way better than ABUs!

So would I.  Replace the ABUs and Blue BDUs, and CAP can make that the SM uniform.   :D
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Flight Suit Poll
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.058 seconds with 29 queries.