|
Regardless of O2 supply/fumes, what’s the perspective on flash fires when the victim has protruding facial hair? Just curious, but I assume increased risk of personal injury.
|
Well here is another little FACT, ratter than conjecture. The Voyager aircrew O2 masks have written on the seals themselves “BEARDS WILL NOT SEAL” - so if you were going to be held personally responsible for the decision to allow Aircrew to go against the manufacturer’s warning, what would you do? I also understand that RJ has similar masks and probably other types too.
The latest dictat is supposed to be temporary until RAFCAM can scientifically quantify the risk, I don’t honestly believe there is anything more reasonable that can be done without the evidence. We moved away from “it’ll be alright” after the Nimrod et al and so this latest issue is no different. |
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! |
Originally Posted by Stitchbitch
(Post 10607770)
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. 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”. |
I may have missed this upthread, but is the RAF actually defining ‘beard’, rather than just long stubble? :)
|
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! [/QUOTE]At the risk of lowering the tone, one of the acknowledged dangers of igniting flatus is forest fire. Not, of course, that I have ever participated in, or indeed watched, said exhibition. |
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. |
And the air forces of the Middle East.......
|
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man
(Post 10608061)
Just ask the Fleet Air Arm.
|
Originally Posted by 57mm
(Post 10608207)
And the air forces of the Middle East.......
|
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man
(Post 10608316)
Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East. My point was that there is no need to go so far afield when there is ample experience already within the UK military for the RAF to draw upon.
|
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 10608228)
I remember several Falklands Sea Harrier pilots (including one at the time on-loan RAF pilot who posts on here) carrying 'full set' beards by the end of the conflict.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ce7e6ecbdb.jpg OK, not the most luxurious growth!! |
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! :E
This was what kicked off this whole affair - a new beard wearer in a Typhoon started feeling a bit squiffy at FL nosebleed and it was deduced that his beard was the issue by the Squippers. The new, temporary, guidance followed shortly after with an expectation for a scientific qualification that beards should be safe, but until that is done by RAFCAM then it is time to go clean shaven for a bit. I also hear rumour that the poorly pilot had been putting some odd concoction on his face fungous that may well have caused the issue - although that is rumour (this is a rumour network, right?). |
It must have been Brylcreem.
|
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... |
Originally Posted by 3 bladed beast
(Post 10608765)
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....... |
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? |
Originally Posted by 3 bladed beast
(Post 10608956)
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? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.