Brain buckets for GA flying

I was having breakfast up at Big Bear Airport about six or so months ago, there was a pair of U.S Marshals wearing the full flight suit regalia, with all the patches and such, sitting at the table next to me. I looked out on the tarmac for some sort of war bird or something, perhaps a small fighter jet, but nothing other than Cessna's and the like, including my Warrior.

I asked them what they were flying, it was a Cessna 180 or 210 I can't remember which one. They didn't have helmets with them at the restaurant, probably left them in their airplane.

John
 
wabower said:
Sparky might have disagreed with your conclusion after crashing the Husky.
Click to expand...

Ouch, that's a bit more than a 'scratch'.

I think the case to wear a helmet in a taildragger going into backcountry strips is a pretty good one. The NTSB study on seatbelt airbags examines a nose-over in a Husky at Owyhee reservoir where the pilot suffered a similar injury and bent the cross-member over his head using his head :eek: . Another nose-over in the series (a 182T) left the same mark after a nose-over in a field.

Btw. anyone need a Husky. I know of one with a 200hr engine, a 430 and nice fabric that is about to go to the bank unless someone puts down a deposit this week. I just have absolutely no use for the plane or I would just write the 70k cheque myself.
 
tonycondon said:
Alan,
did the plane you were flying have shoulder harnesses?
Click to expand...

Yes. Shoulder harnesses help, but are no guarantee against panel or interior impact. We always think of the panel, but remember that you have solid structures all around you, including above you (if the airplane ends up inverted).

Again, maybe not for everyday use, but low and slow or hostile terrain, I'd wear one.
 
weilke said:
Ouch, that's a bit more than a 'scratch'.
Click to expand...
Isn't that low down enough on his head that it wouldn't have been protected by a helmet unless it had a face shield or something? I'm comparing it to the picture of the helmet that Ryan posted.
 
Everskyward said:
Isn't that low down enough on his head that it wouldn't have been protected by a helmet unless it had a face shield or something? I'm comparing it to the picture of the helmet that Ryan posted.
Click to expand...

May or may not have made a difference.
 
I guess if you think about it, these contraptions we fly can be mighty deceiving. They feel solid and safe when you are in them, much like an automobile, at least for those of us who fly aluminum skinned ones.

It feels natural to dress pretty much as you would to drive in your car, yet should we get in a wreck, most of us would be wishing we had leathers on to protect us from the flames, cuts and abrasions, gloves and boots for the same reasons, and of course a good solid helmet with face protection.

I would feel ridicules climbing in my Warrior dressed in such a fashion, and probably look just as ridicules to others, especially in our nice California heat.

How about dressing like that to fly commercial on big iron? A wreck in one of those would require the exact same protection, wouldn't it?

So, for most of us, we do not seriously protect ourselfes for three primary reeasons, the weather, what others might think, and personal comfort.

John
 
Thinking more about it, I guess this goes all the way back to the twenties and thirties, when aircraft designers went overboard to make aircraft seems like cars or boats, as safe as possible. Instead of sticks, they put in steering wheels, comfortable padded seats, ash trays, carpets, interior lighting, even curtains.

The sales brochures and ads always displayed the happy American family getting on board, dad in his sports coat and tie, mom and the kids dressed like they are on their way to church, even the dog excitedly leaping about in anticipation of going on the family trip.

We would look stupid dressed in protective gear after all those years of brainwashing.

John
 
John Baker said:
Thinking more about it, I guess this goes all the way back to the twenties and thirties, when aircraft designers went overboard to make aircraft seems like cars or boats, as safe as possible. Instead of sticks, they put in steering wheels, comfortable padded seats, ash trays, carpets, interior lighting, even curtains.

The sales brochures and ads always displayed the happy American family getting on board, dad in his sports coat and tie, mom and the kids dressed like they are on their way to church, even the dog excitedly leaping about in anticipation of going on the family trip.

We would look stupid dressed in protective gear after all those years of brainwashing.

John
Click to expand...

You could make the same arguments for a car. Leather riding gear is there mostly to protect from slides on pavement. Injuries in an aircraft are mostly blunt force trauma, against which biker gear is useless except the helmet. Motorcycle helmets are far too restrictive and heavy to be of use in an aircraft though, and are likely to pose a greater hazard than they solve.

Shoulder harnesses are about the best safety investment I can imagine for an aircraft, better still aerobatic restraints.
 
John Baker said:
Thinking more about it, I guess this goes all the way back to the twenties and thirties, when aircraft designers went overboard to make aircraft seems like cars or boats, as safe as possible. Instead of sticks, they put in steering wheels, comfortable padded seats, ash trays, carpets, interior lighting, even curtains.

The sales brochures and ads always displayed the happy American family getting on board, dad in his sports coat and tie, mom and the kids dressed like they are on their way to church, even the dog excitedly leaping about in anticipation of going on the family trip.

We would look stupid dressed in protective gear after all those years of brainwashing.
Click to expand...
We can be re-brainwashed. I'm pretty sure cars didn't have seatbelts in the twenties and thirties. I didn't wear seatbelts in a car regularly until sometime in the 80s or maybe 90s. The airplanes I flew only had lapbelts until the late 90s. Now I always wear a seatbelt in a car and like the five-point installation in the airplane I fly. That said, I don't think I would be inclined to wear a helmet in either an airplane or a car unless it was for some out-of-the-ordinary reason.
 
dmccormack said:
I usually wear a flight suit when flying the Chief for several reasons:

  • LOTS of easily-accessible pockets (not many storage options in the Chief)
  • Easy ventilation (one long zipper)
  • Nothing to snag on while hand propping or climbing in/out (VERY important!)
  • It fits
  • I had one hanging in the closet
Click to expand...

My old man must've used similar excuses for the stuff he wore. :rofl:
 
That is my point, we would not dress in protective gear to drive our cars. They have made aircraft seem just a safe as cars, so we dress like we are going for a drive, not like we are taking to the air in a machine.

Leathers were popular in the early days of flying, for protection from the elements, and also protection during wrecks. Leather does indeed offer considerably more protection from the flames than say the popular mode of flying dress today, T shirts, jeans or shorts.

We do not wear protective gear flying for the same reason we don't driving our cars, both vehicles are designed to appear safe, protective clothing is unnecessary except in the extremely unlikely event of a wreck, so they want us to think.

It might simply be a money matter. If we are killed in a wreck, they would have a one time payment to your survivors. If we are maimed and incapacitated, they could be paying for our maintenance for the rest of our lives.

Wearing leathers, including gloves, you have time to get out of the wreck before the pain sets in. Without the protective gear, it is hard to even think about unfastening a seat belt when your skin is melting off, so you die. Much cheaper that way.

Even with all this knowledge, I will probably never wear all that protective gear in my Warrior.

John
 
For general flights, I don't wear anything special. But for some, I take more precautions.

When I was doing some ADS-B monitoring 12+ miles offshore in a single I wore a flight suit, SOSpenders life vest, and my PLB, as well as a helmet, since I've done the dilbert dunker before and I know how nasty a ditching can be. If I were doing low flying like pipeline patrol I might wear the suit and the helmet for impact and fire protection. Depends on if I can get the helmet on and fit in the plane properly.

Wish I'd kept my USCG helmet. It had "Save Me First" in big reflective letters on the back. But unlike the flight suit and boots, they wanted the helmet back.
 
John Baker said:
Leathers were popular in the early days of flying, for protection from the elements, and also protection during wrecks. Leather does indeed offer considerably more protection from the flames than say the popular mode of flying dress today, T shirts, jeans or shorts.
Click to expand...

Pilots wore leathers for the same reasons as motorcyclists. Protection from wind. LIke I said, it does little for blunt force trauma. I doubt that many wore it for fire protection. During WWI they burned up anyway.

John Baker said:
We do not wear protective gear flying for the same reason we don't driving our cars, both vehicles are designed to appear safe, protective clothing is unnecessary except in the extremely unlikely event of a wreck, so they want us to think.
Click to expand...

We don't wear protective clothing because the vehicles are enclosed. they are supposed to have protective devices (seat belts and now airbags). My guess is that if the trauma is sufficient to cause physiological harm despite the restraints, it would do so with a leather jacket as well.

John Baker said:
It might simply be a money matter. If we are killed in a wreck, they would have a one time payment to your survivors. If we are maimed and incapacitated, they could be paying for our maintenance for the rest of our lives.

Wearing leathers, including gloves, you have time to get out of the wreck before the pain sets in. Without the protective gear, it is hard to even think about unfastening a seat belt when your skin is melting off, so you die. Much cheaper that way.
Click to expand...

I doubt leather gloves would do much in a fire. Even the stoutest do little to protect your hands from heat. Just abrasion.

John Baker said:
Even with all this knowledge, I will probably never wear all that protective gear in my Warrior.

John
Click to expand...

I would put restraints in my Cherokee, but most are profoundly uncomfortable. So make all my flying time a chore just in case of the one crash? A very tough calculation.

Apparently many of us are making it. Lots of older airplanes sport amazing avionics suits and airframe modifications. Few have shoulder harnesses.
 
steingar said:
We don't wear protective clothing because the vehicles are enclosed. they are supposed to have protective devices (seat belts and now airbags). My guess is that if the trauma is sufficient to cause physiological harm despite the restraints, it would do so with a leather jacket as well.
Click to expand...

Yet people who race cars professionally routinely wear helmets, fire-retardant suits, hoodies and gloves. It is all a risk-benefit calculation.
 
weilke said:
Yet people who race cars professionally routinely wear helmets, fire-retardant suits, hoodies and gloves. It is all a risk-benefit calculation.
Click to expand...

Utterly true, though crashes are somewhat more common on a race track than on a city street. Nomex is protective against fire, far more so than leather I believe.
 
John Baker said:
I was having breakfast up at Big Bear Airport about six or so months ago, there was a pair of U.S Marshals wearing the full flight suit regalia, with all the patches and such, sitting at the table next to me. I looked out on the tarmac for some sort of war bird or something, perhaps a small fighter jet, but nothing other than Cessna's and the like, including my Warrior.

I asked them what they were flying, it was a Cessna 180 or 210 I can't remember which one. They didn't have helmets with them at the restaurant, probably left them in their airplane.

John
Click to expand...

CAP is also authorized to wear the NOMEX flight suits during flight duty, but one must meet USAF weight requirements + a bit of a "chub" factor for us Civilians.

I still miss the mark by about 10 lbs. Safety is only for skinny people. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
CAP is also authorized to wear the NOMEX flight suits during flight duty, but one must meet USAF weight requirements + a bit of a "chub" factor for us Civilians.

I still miss the mark by about 10 lbs. Safety is only for skinny people. ;)
Click to expand...
I think you can get non-issue NOMEX if you're a chubby CAP'er. I know the CG auxiliary had rompers that were not standard CG style but are still Nomex.
 
TMetzinger said:
I think you can get non-issue NOMEX if you're a chubby CAP'er. I know the CG auxiliary had rompers that were not standard CG style but are still Nomex.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're f-ing Papa Smurf blue. LOL.

So far I've been doing such little flying with them, that I'm just waiting until I get my fat butt a little skinnier. The suits aren't cheap. :)

Low and slow in the mountains... the comment about having a lightweight bike helmet handy kinda caught my attention. Hmm.
 
steingar said:
Utterly true, though crashes are somewhat more common on a race track than on a city street. Nomex is protective against fire, far more so than leather I believe.
Click to expand...

Nomex is not terribly protective against fire. It is non-flammable and it doesn't melt into your skin like Malden-Fleece, Polyester or many of the other synthetic fabrics so common in sports and outdoor-wear. So rather than giving you much of an advantage, it doesn't give you a disadvantage like those other synthetic fabrics. Leather, wool and cotton-duck will give you a similar profile, not truly protective but wont sustain a fire or melt.

True fire-protective clothing is typically made from cotton impregnated with a fire-resistant resin (e.g. INDURA and its successors). In order to protect against fire, they usually have insulating layers made from Nomex or other nonflammable synthetics underneath.
 
Last edited:
I believe the phrase most often used for NOMEX is, "Won't melt to your skin at survivable temperatures."
 
steingar said:
Pilots wore leathers for the same reasons as motorcyclists. Protection from wind. LIke I said, it does little for blunt force trauma. I doubt that many wore it for fire protection. During WWI they burned up anyway.
Click to expand...

Depends on the type of "leathers" to which you are making the comparison. My armored track leathers offer a very high level of protection against blunt force trauma, abrasions and contusions. Not that I would wear them in an airplane, but I suspect they could possilby make an ejection in a crash survivable, and/or prevent a crushed rib cage caused by slamming in to the yoke.

Let's just say that if my track gear were sitting in the back seat of the plane and I knew I was going to crash, I'd put it on if I could, or I'd have my passenger put it on.
 
steingar said:
I doubt leather gloves would do much in a fire. Even the stoutest do little to protect your hands from heat. Just abrasion.
Click to expand...
Tim recently posted a [thread=42570]thread[/thread] about a retired AF brigadier general on crash survivability, and he made the point fairly strongly that gloves (I don't know if they were leather) are EXTREMELY useful, and that one should NOT take them off during takeoff or landing, because they could allow you to keep your fingers in the event of a fire.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Depends on the type of "leathers" to which you are making the comparison. My armored track leathers offer a very high level of protection against blunt force trauma, abrasions and contusions. Not that I would wear them in an airplane, but I suspect they could possilby make an ejection in a crash survivable, and/or prevent a crushed rib cage caused by slamming in to the yoke.

Let's just say that if my track gear were sitting in the back seat of the plane and I knew I was going to crash, I'd put it on if I could, or I'd have my passenger put it on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a set of those. They'll do great if my freeway get-off results in a long slide. Not so good if I collide with a truck. And they look Odin-awful silly.
 
You guys are getting really saucy in this thread. Hilarious!
 
On long flights, I'll wear a nomex flight suit. As pointed out above, it's really comfortable and has pockets exactly where you want them and a zipper configuration that makes in-flight pit stops very easy. The fire thing is a plus but not why I wear it. I find I wear it less now that I have an iPad because I don't fly with nearly the paperwork I used to. I'm always surprised that more people don't wear them since it really is a garment designed to be worn by pilots. I bet most of us have more than one kind of sneaker for activities we probably don't do but nothing specific for flying.

I also often fly with a bike helmet. Mostly because I often fly with a bike. I keep it accessible but I'm not sure if there is any safety benefit because in order for it to work I would need to know that I am going to crash and have the time to put it on. Not that many scenarios where this is going to happen.
 
I have seen a lot of the local CAP guys in restaurants wearing flight suits with rank, and really don't understand the requirement for meeting the height weight standards when most of the people I have seen were overweight, out of shape, needed a haircut, and had unpolished boots. If they need to meet one standard, why not have them meet all (or none)?

I recall saluting one at OSH or somewhere and remembering how sloppy the guy looked, needing a haircut and terrible boots, before realizing he was in CAP.
 
CJones said:
...
I worked with one pilot that refused to wear a helmet. He said he had a good friend that belly-flopped a spray plane once. When they got to the scene, the pilot was still sitting in his seat slumped over. They thought he had been knocked out but it turned out that the weight of the helmet had caused his neck to snap when he hit the ground. The pilot I worked with said that if he was in an accident hard enough that he needed a helmet, there would probably be bigger problems to deal with and would rather not be around to feel it. To him, it was a risk/benefit decision.
Click to expand...
Sounds a lot like "I won't wear a seatbelt because there's chance that the belt won't unbuckle fast enough when there's a chance of having an accident where there's a chance of having a fire." The "chance" that your unrestrained bod will hit metal, road and other bad things in any accident are about 1000% higher. The fear comes from having every car explode as it goes off a cliff on TV and movies.

I've wished I had a helmet in the convertible more than once when I realized that my bare head was sticking up as I hear things crunching on the road around me. Once I was creeping alongside a semi accident as I watched an emergency vehicle backed up and crushed a fire extinguisher. I lost a few years of life at that moment.
 
This is what I as thinking about from the AK DNR officers mentioned earlier:

dav-crainal.jpg

(David Clark, picture out of the airsourceone.com catalogue)

It's the thing aircraft carrier deck crews wear. It's lightweight, doesn't do much to protect the softer parts of the skull (membranous portion of the temporal bones) from side impact, e.g. after you caught a wing on the first tree.

I guess this would do a little more to protect the noggin yet allow for a headset:

davk10.gif
 
I bet my motorcycle helmet is loads more protective at a fraction of the cost.
 
steingar said:
I bet my motorcycle helmet is loads more protective at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

Depends on what kind of hemlet. Dot certs are great for a single hit but not as good for multiple. The snell racing helmets for auto racing are certified to a higher standars (often fire retardent too) but can restrict vision more.

Its all a crapshoot and largely depends on how you crash. That pic of Sparky didn't show his broken spine.
 
AcroBoy said:
I have seen a lot of the local CAP guys in restaurants wearing flight suits with rank, and really don't understand the requirement for meeting the height weight standards when most of the people I have seen were overweight, out of shape, needed a haircut, and had unpolished boots. If they need to meet one standard, why not have them meet all (or none)?

I recall saluting one at OSH or somewhere and remembering how sloppy the guy looked, needing a haircut and terrible boots, before realizing he was in CAP.
Click to expand...


Sadly, the requirements are not universally applied.

I met and knew several squared away types. Others, not so much. Some Phony-Baloney 75 year old "Major" was gonna tell me how it was -- that stopped right quick and in a hurry.

I tried CAP but there's a bit of resistance to folks coming in with an actual commission signed by the President.

:dunno:
 
dmccormack said:
I tried CAP but there's a bit of resistance to folks coming in with an actual commission signed by the President.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Really? Is it resentment toward those that really have been there and done that?

I've toyed with the idea of getting involved in the CAP, but have too many other irons in the fire lately and the group here seemed a bit disorganized.

I've heard that if you are a commisioned officer in the DoD, that you can come into the CAP with your current rank.
 
AcroBoy said:
I have seen a lot of the local CAP guys in restaurants wearing flight suits with rank, and really don't understand the requirement for meeting the height weight standards when most of the people I have seen were overweight, out of shape, needed a haircut, and had unpolished boots. If they need to meet one standard, why not have them meet all (or none)?
Click to expand...

The same could be said about all branches of the military (save the marines maybe) and most police and fire departments.

Stringent physical fitness and weight standards to join, but once the donuts and fast food hit there is no mechanism to boot people out based on failing those standards.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
The same could be said about all branches of the military (save the marines maybe) and most police and fire departments.
Click to expand...


Sad but very true - we have plenty of fatbodies in the USN. The USMC however, does not have an obesity problem.
 
weilke said:
The same could be said about all branches of the military (save the marines maybe) and most police and fire departments.

Stringent physical fitness and weight standards to join, but once the donuts and fast food hit there is no mechanism to boot people out based on failing those standards.
Click to expand...


There sure as heck are standards. In the latter days of stop-loss there's definitely a challenge, but it's hard to be a DFB in an Infantry unit.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Really? Is it resentment toward those that really have been there and done that?

I've toyed with the idea of getting involved in the CAP, but have too many other irons in the fire lately and the group here seemed a bit disorganized.

I've heard that if you are a commisioned officer in the DoD, that you can come into the CAP with your current rank.
Click to expand...


Well, you have to apply to HQ (for everything actually), but there was definitely some resentment. And I meet the height/weight/ PT standards.. Which also put me on the oddball side.

Again, there were some excellent folks in CAP. But it's hard to be pretend military when you're volunteer, unpaid, and the majority of members are under 17.

:dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top