Genghis the Engineer

I'm stretching my mind on the subject of clothing, safety, and being around flying machines.

Depending upon our working environment, most of us when we're flying or working on the ground around aeroplanes wear something specificl Hiz-viz on the ground, uniforms of some description in the air. And of-course, there's always somebody with an opinion about that clothing - whether it's glowing with praise or burning with sarcasm (this last seems particularly reserved for hi-viz clothing).

Most of the decisions are made by some combination of aesthetic judgment and risk assessment. One would hope more the latter - but frankly I don't believe that: I've seen pilots and CCMs wearing uniforms that look suspiciously likely to be the first thing to go up if close to a fire, and can't say I've ever actually heard of somebody's life being saved by hi-viz clothing.

Or maybe I'm just too cynical, and all these things have been thoroughly thought through and tested?



Has anybody got any actual facts, stories, anecdotes where clothing has made a difference in some way? A nomex suit has saved somebody's skin in a flash fire?, a nylon CCMs uniform has burned them badly in a galley fire?, an accident was actually avoided by the use of hi-viz clothing? Anything?

G

werbil

A mate of mine (ag pilot) ended hung up in a tree on fire following an engine failure. Because of the heat he wasn't wearing his overalls, however he still had his gloves on. I understand he had to reach forward into the fire when he released himself before climbing out. Result was serious burns to his arms that required skin grafts, but his hands were fine.

The last time I wore a tie around an aircraft was about 20 years ago. Due to a flat battery I was hand started the engine. Because of the configuration of the engine and propeller, I was pulling from the front. As I stepped back when the engine fired my tie was being drawn towards the propeller. I haven't worn a tie around an aircraft since.

doubleu-anker

Cowboy boots with the high heal should not be worn. In fact high heals, period. There has been at least one fatal accident when the heal of the boot, obstructed back movement of a rudder pedal during an EFTO.

I have seen guys wear the big dangling wrist chains when operating multi throttles of the quadrant type. Recipe for obstruction there too I have thought when confronted by it.

IGh

Question posed about crew-clothing:You should be able to document historic occurrences with mention of flammability or melting of crew-clothing. Forty years ago such videos were common during training, with victims describing various protective items or extremely hazardous clothing. Most of us sat through these training sessions several times, and this was a regular topic (don't ware synthetic materials next to skin, use cotton or wool). Various mishap F/A's described "nylons" melting to their skin.

During most flight testing on B767 most participants arrived in regular clothing, but on the day of the big RTO down at Edwards, the FAA pilot and his FT Engineers showed-up in Nomex Flight Suits. [TBC had elected to NOT install any excape chutes for fear of COST-of-deployment during evac, so we used a long ladder to evac' after one brake-lockup.]

bcgallacher

I witnessed a Cessna 310 crash and burn on takeoff - the student pilots were wearing white cotton shirts and this gave some protection from the heat - when they returned from the hospital checkup they were slightly burned - like severe sun tan above the neck line and red gloves below shirt cuffs. It surprised me at the time that the shirts had given so much protection - I think that being white they reflected a large percentage of the radiated heat from the fire.

172_driver

Thank you, I have been against the 100 % polyester uniforms we are required to wear at our school. Being American design, they are plain ugly too

Henry09

Whoever is authorising polyester uniforms for flight crew needs shooting.

I was at the Ramstein Air Show Disaster in the late 80\'s. We had a big helicopter there and I started it up out of the display line to help the rescue attempt. Not a lot of people know that on the opposite side of the airfield was a Blackhawk with a full medical team on board that was running throughout the display as the first line of action should there be an incident. Sadly this aircraft was taken out by fireball from one of the three crashing jets. Everybody on board was cindered, but the pilot was still alive. We picked him up and he was naked apart from his boots. He had been wearing a Nomex suit only apart from his undies, it was a hot day. The Nomex must have taken a lot of the heat energy but was burned right off him. The best recommendations are Nomex, on top of cotton undershirt and cotton long-johns as a minimum whatever the weather. Sadly the guy we picked up died within an hour of arriving at hospital only 2 mins away by air.

flipster

Spot on and that is what the military always say. Sadly, in the heat of the summer (or in the desert) cotton longjohns can often be more of a hazard because of body-temp-overheat-induced thermal stress. One has to weigh up the risks but I am as guilty as the next man and often did away with that extra layer on hot days. The only aircraft in which I didn't do this was the Bulldog (Scottish Aviation version), where there was a fuel feed directly to the fuel pressure guage which was just above one's knees. I sweated buckets but thought the risks too great not to wear longjohns.

I tried to get a major UK airline to consider sanctioning the wearing of cotton trousers and a 99% cotton pilot shirt (Brookes Brothers, I think and so quite pricey - and they no longer make them). I was told to shut up by my line-manager who made a point of taking it no further and even criticised me for wearing the cotton trousers ('against company policy' he said even when it wasn't); his attitude was the straw that broke the camel's back, so I left! Not that new company will pay for it either but at least they listen to safety concerns but sadly, it is too costly.

Read "9 minutes 20 seconds" if you want a reason to consider longjohns, a t-shirt and leather gloves (Amazon.com: Nine Minutes, Twenty Seconds: A True Story of Tragedy and Triumph (9780609810163): Gary M. Pomerantz: Books)

jumpseater

Two spring to mind that may be of use.

At Hatfield, early 90's IIRC a engineer was killed during ground testing of a 146. A search of google found this previous posting on prune

I recall the event and I think one of the 'results' of the investigation is the requirement now that overalls must be fastened i.e. coats buttoned, so if your SOP's on an airfield include this specific instruction, this is probably the root of the requirement. In this instance I believe that the coat in question was a scientist type of lab coat rather than a hi-viz. There must be a CAA investigation somewhere in SRG for that.

An event where hi-viz may have prevented a death occurred in Southampton docks in the late sixties. One evening a young bloke 'hitched' a ride on the battery box of an articulated truck. It was apparently common practise but strictly forbidden for obvious reasons. As the vehicle was moving he fell off and went under the trailer being killed instantly. At the time hi-viz was years away, but I do wonder if he'd been wearing one if someone would have seen him sitting between truck and trailer, and stopped it before the accident. At this distance of time it's not known if the truck driver knew of his 'hitcher', if not, perhaps hi-viz would have helped the driver see him and broken the chain of events.

For that reason and accident I never have any issues regarding wearing hi-viz.

The guy who fell off was my brother ...

Piltdown Man

Rubbish - these Hi-Viz vests work really well. Since I have been wearing one for 'elf-n-saftee' I've not taxied my own aircraft into myself, been attacked by a crocodile, bitten by a snake, spontaneously combusted, involved in an earthquake nor been shot by al'Queda. However, I have lost count of the numbers of times a Neanderthal has almost run me over. But if anything happens airside when I'm wearing my jacket, it will now be someone else's fault - like the airport management.

But back to the thread - in air transport type aircraft, rapid donning and very portable smoke protection is probably the most important item we need. In service type aircraft and bug smashers - fire protection should come very high on the list. Leather jackets, cotton shirts and other natural fibres appear to offer some of the best value for money. In fast jets, I'll let the potential victims make their own selections.

PM

A37575

Wedding rings are another hazard especially for military pilots in my day. We were shown 'orrible photos of the skin completely stripped away from the wedding ring finger that had caught some part of the airframe during exit from an aeroplane in a hurry. My then new wife was most upset when I refused to wear the wedding ring she gave me citing her dark suspicions that I was after a bit on the side. Maybe - maybe not. Perish the thought I said to her

But I was cured of wearing a wedding ring when I fell out of the rear gun turret of a Lincoln (we were on the tarmac during an escape and evasion exercise and I was hiding in the rear turret when I was spotted). I jumped out and ran leaving a trail of blood from my ring finger where the ring partially caught on a metal bracket. It was from that point I never wore a wedding ring again.

Nylon socks were lethal in fires as was holes in the toe of socks. We were shown graphic pictures of a Spitfire pilot's burns and where one of his socks had a large hole, his toe was badly burnt. Same with nylon wrist-watch bands. The scars left by melting nylon in a fire looked awful. At the time they were standard RAAF issue in the late Fifties I happened to be a flight safety officer of the squadron I was in and had access to many flight safety magazines from the USN and USAF.

It was in one of those mags I saw my first photos of the results of nylon melting from a wrist watch band into the skin. Terrible stuff. I convinced the CO we should switch to metal wrist watch bands and eventually the nylon watch bands were replaced by metal "Bonclip" watch bands obtained from the Royal Air Force.

We soon discovered these too were hazardous, because they were too long and occasionally became unclipped and caught up in throttle levers. Happened to a Mirage pilot while he was in full afterburner during take off and he couldn't get the throttle back for a while.

Captain Stravaigin

Just as a matter of interest how flammable is silk ? I had 3 shirts made for me on a recent trip to Vietnam. They are brilliant for hot weather and fit like a glove. But how safe are they ?

McGoonagall

The original idea behind hi-vis clothing is sound. To make you more visible to others when in a vulnerable position. Today that advantage is negated by the ubiquitous usage of hi-vis by people that have no need to wear it. As an example, at King's Cross station yesterday you could see orange, yellow, blue and green hi-vis being worn by people who were not at risk yet it is part of their uniform. There is no need for customer service jollies in airport terminals or security staff or anyone not airside to wear hi-vis. It seems that hi-vis has become a badge of identity and as such dilutes the real purpose of it.

grounded27

Living in a world where common sence is increasingly replaced by policy and procedure. Hi-vis does no good when the person walking and the operator of a vehicle pay no mind to situational awareness. P&P gives a false sence of safety. Hell I trust no-one. This only degrades our intelect giving the companies a legal lack of liability.

750XL

On your average small GA airfield during the summer I think hi-viz jackets etc have minimal impact. However, if you've ever worked on the ramp at a large international airport on a dark, cold and rainy night then you'll see why hi-viz's are so important If you're wearing dark blue or black clothing at night on the ramp in a dark corner of the apron on a wet night then it can be extremely difficult to see you through a steamed up or wet windscreen

Miles Gustaph

I believe that the reason we wear the various clothing systems is twofold, firstly the hi-viz etc is mandated under health and safety legislation, secondly it is the As Low As Reasonably Practical (ALARP) issue... if a company can reasonably prevent a harm it should, and clothing is reasonable.

Regards

Miles

Sir Niall Dementia

I once asked the purser of an aeroplane I was P2 on what the girls kept in their "hostie bags". She showed me some running shorts and told me that if they had to use the slide they had been told that nylon tights could be burnt into the flesh by the friction on the slide.

I have no idea if its true, but when I'm a passenger I keep a close eye on the girls, if they appear to be hitching things up under their skirts, then we may be using the slides shortly

Then again, tights are the work of Satan, maybe stockings and no underwear is the answer

nesboy 1976

From someone who worked in aviation for 10 years and then moved into 'elf and safety' this is only my humble opinion.

Every health and safety training course i've ever been through (there's been a few too) PPE is classed as relatively low down in the hierachy of control. However PPE is always an easy thing to put in place and easy enough to manage but will not necessarily eleviate the hazard, compared to processes and procedures which in turn are somewhat harder to manage.

hierachy of control goes something like this:

Eliminate
Reduce
Isolate
Control
PPE
Dicipline to follow the above

givemewings

To this day I have still not had a satisfactory response to why cabin crew are required to wear tights/stockings/pantihose/nylons. Aside from aesthetic reasons there is not one good reason for them to be worn.

I recall reading a flight attendant describing her burns from nylon stockigns however the accident escapes me at the moment, it might be UAL 232 but I'm not entirely sure on that one.

I remember doing a cabin prep once, told the juniors if they got time to get rid of the stockings if they could, while sitting on the jumpseat if need be as I would hate to think what would happen in a fire. Same goes for the scarves that middle eastern airlines insist on having- flammable polyester right near the face.

Qantas' shiny dress is supposedly fire retardant but I managed to scorch a few with an iron so I highly doubt it!!! The jackets, pants and skirts however were wool and definitely protected one crewmember during an oven fire incident who wore the jacket backwards to supplement the fire gloves. We were always advised to keep the jacket on for takeoff and landing.

Now wherever possible I will change into cabin flats asap after pushback so I don't have to worry about the heels. I know they say the 'high heels off' thing comes from stilettos and not court shoes but I won't be taking any chances. I also recall an interview with an FA post accident where she described walking over burning metal because she had to remove her shoes prior to landing.

If I can find links to either will post here.

Sir Niall Dementia

GMW;

It was UAL 232, I can't find documentation about the lady's injuries, but I do remember an interview with her on a tv documentary and she mentioned the injuries then.

SND