Perhaps RAFCAM might ask the Saudis for some evidence, after all they have been flying in full sets using U.K. oxygen masks since Lightening days. Not sure how Typhoons ADOM masks sit with a beard but P&Q masks seem to work fine.

LJ - it appears that we agree; no one has yet scientifically quantified the risk.

MPN11 - conversely I think that the presence of a dense beard would lessen the risk of injury in a flash fire....but that’s just conjecture!

Trouble is, ‘xx thousand hours of incident-free aviation with beards’ is not the type of evidence which counts for anything in matters of safety. Who knows how many near-misses went unreported or even unrecognised? And let’s not even ask about the reporting culture...

Sitting beard-wearing test subjects in a particulate-filled tent while feeding them 100% O2 through a standard regulator and mask and sending the exhaled air through particulate sensors (think respirator testing...) would be a scientific approach. Different conditions of head and jaw movement, mask toggle setting and beard length would need to be tested. I’m not aware of what RAFCAM is doing, by the way, just setting out what seems a cheap and easy experimental approach.

I very much suspect that the overpressure inherent to the 100% setting would render it totally safe, as everyone instinctively seems to know. It doesn’t seem like something that will take long to examine scientifically. But until that’s been done I can understand the unwillingness of Duty Holders to go against a HSE “will not”.

MPN11 - conversely I think that the presence of a dense beard would lessen the risk of injury in a flash fire....but that’s just conjecture!

I just hope the military have got it right on this one and aren't opening themselves up to legal battles.

For instance:

if this is flight safety, will our mil personnel be allowed to fly on air tanker if their civvy pilots have beards?

And I can only presume, we have grounded any students of religious faith from flying in the U.K. as well?

How, exactly do the Navy, the airlines and the rest of the world do it?

And that's just scratching the surface.......

It does seem that there is a great deal of emotional investment in this subject, which further undermines the idea that the dearth of reported occurrences proves safety. How many proud beard wearers would report a slight whiff of fumes or mild hypoxia if they thought the rules on face furniture would come under scrutiny as a result? I wonder if that was a consideration in the decision to get RAFCAM on the case with some science rather than relying on ‘incident-free’ history.

And if LJ’s rumour is correct, BZ to the pilot who reported...

Alternatively, might it be the case that 13 years after the Nimrod accident, the RAF is finally applying more rigour to some aspects of safety than other parts of the aviation sector? The 737 MAX saga shows clearly that civil aviation is not the paragon of virtue that you imply, and there are plenty of other examples. Of course I expect DV and Chug to point out areas where the RAF remains behind (Typhoon TCAS most obviously) but that doesn’t mean it has to lag in all areas.

Easy street

thats one of the questions answered then.....

what's your thoughts on allowing people to fly on religious grounds, even though ( apparently) a beard is a flight safety issue?

I reckon that’ll be due to the HSE publication (quoted earlier) offering some legal wriggle room in cases where beards “must” be worn.

for instance, on medical grounds?!

unless we put religion ahead of medical grounds!?

"Yes, but without a look-down shoot-down RADAR the FRS1 wasn’t going to sit at FL nosebleed to detect targets - you could probably fly with the window open! "

It's a fair cop; only got to FL420 once!

Mog

A fair comment if you can join the dots between beard and hypoxia

Just to clarify the above. I’ve flown LOX, GOX and OBOGS. I’ve flown clean shaven and with a (tatty attempt at) a beard. I’ve had smoke and fumes. I’ve ‘toggled down’ in anger; but I really, really don’t get this one. Whatever happened - if it turns out to be the beard’s fault I will marinate, sauté and then ingest my hat.

This is all because of a badly thought out policy, terrible implemented and now it's affected people with genuine med conditions who have been flying without incident for years.

If you're telling me that it's fine to fly with a beard on faith and religious grounds vs flying with a genuine medical condition, then that's legal grounds for discrimination.

This is just utter nonsense. Do some testing, on specific masks and make a sensible call.

Just embarrassing.

disproven in the university study “The efficacy of oxygen Delivery masks for Commercial Pilots with facial hair” by Sherri Ferguson SFU Canada.

Their summary; “The policy of a clean-shaven face is based on outdated research on obsolete equipment and testing on respirators not intended for aircrew oxygen delivery.”

This study tested oxygen masks from a320 and b767 so not military masks.

Drove through the local village this afternoon which is where the local RAF Station FMQs are. Saw about 6 or 7 RAF Personnel in uniform and all had beards. Nothing against beards or this relaxing of the rules but it did not look good.

If moustaches and oxygen masks aren’t compatible someone needs to tell the USN immediately...

What actual testing has been done?

Nothing published.

however Air Canada did a thorough study in 2018. Seems there is no problem.

Will people be able to fly according to their religious beliefs?

No official answer.

Will military personnel be allowed to fly in Air Tanker if their civvy pilots have beards ( the exact plane military pilots can't fly with a beard?) and therefore are they at risk if so?!

No answer.

Just hopeless.