Quite. And no lady would ever wear pantaloons.

The relevant point being: what have gentlemen or ladies to do with helicopter operations?:rolleyes:

In my experience , nothing !!! So good point :ok:

There are very few ladies, and even fewer gentlemen, engaged in helicopter operations. ;)

Nigel, Ladies and gents get transported by scruffy crummy heli drivers in the bush, or sleek smart looking airliner style uniform on onshore medium twins. At least that's my perception.
You guys doing utility be glad your uniform is something practical, rather than 'black slacks and white pilot shirt'. I'm junior enough (helicopters) to have used 'company logo T-shirt' but prefer collared long sleeve cotton shirts for sun protection if nothing else. I'm dreading having to wear those even instructing light piston singles later on.

As to the picture posted, it's still considerable body/skin surface covering, the blue overalls. Having torso and legs covered would be higher on my agenda than forearms (not even whole arm from shoulder) for post-crash fire probability. It's down to 'Rule of Nines'. It also shows that baseball cap can be handy as well.

http://images.emedicinehealth.com/im...e_of_nines.jpg

I am VERY glad that there is one area in your diagram which shows only a 1% incidence of encounter with burns.

No, Greenville, it's the IMPORTANCE (seriousness) of the skin surface for survival of the burn.
I would presume it's Europe-centric, though. Ehrm. Well, back to serious discussion.

Sorry, it's not the importance/seriousness either. It's the percentage of body/skin area.

yes, MG. Importance of (size of) area affected, dictating seriousness and likely 'pulling through' if dealt with promtly by emergency services. I try not to be (look) too nerdy and make it a lecture about human physiology/biology.

There's average cut-off percentage (of surviving serious burns) and that 1% doesn't matter much, if not connected with excessive blood loss. Exceptions to rule happen.

It does if it's the only bit burning! :eek:

I suppose......if there were a chance that things could go awry....you should wear protective gear?

Don't bang on about heat and stress......short sleeves does fxxx all to make much of a difference.

I have flown in 45 degree heat with body armour, a pistol, 200 rounds of 5.56 and a host of other crud attached to me.....along with combat clothing.

Now I fly with none of that, in plus 45 degrees and things just require getting used to.....it all depends on where you want to stop persevering.

If you have never even tried for a meaningful length of time.....try.

It goes part and parcel with a professional approach to flying.......

Martinch,

If you had a cockpit fire in the instrument panel......what would you use to manipulate switches and fly the aircraft?

Do you wear gloves? Or are you hard enough to just crack on through the flames?

Wear what your passengers are wearing. If they are wearing body armour and carrying assorted ordinance get yourself some Nomex, body armour and have an assault rifle tucked away in the cockpit. If they are wearing immersion suits then do the same. If they ponce about in jeans and T shirts then a white short sleeved shirt with loads of rank braid and black trousers marks you out as the boss.

Modern turbine engine helicopters don't burn, anywhere. You have more chance of dying in an executive twin than a modern twin engined helicopter. When was the last JP1 refuelling fire? How can an instrument panel catch fire? Smoulder, yes, but burn? Engine fires? Spurious to real is about 1000 to 1. Even the real ones blow themselves out when the fuel is shut off.

Wear what you are comfortable in. Should you be a doom laden worrier then put on the whole nine yards complete with helmet. That's OK; I have had F/Os who have looked like astronauts but they are comfortable so they will fly well.

Me: I always wore the minimum I could get away with because I was always a bone idle relaxed flyer.

The Chinook accident at Hannover in the late 80's turned into an inferno. From what I remember, 3 crew members died as a result of the fore and 1 was severely burned, he only had a T-shirt and shorts under underwear provided.is flying suit and the burn pattern reflected this.

Flying suits give a limited flash fire protection, secondary layers beneath enhance the protection.

When I was in the RAF, we were mandated to wear flying coveralls and long johns beneath. However, I know that as the weather got warmer, some crews did not wear the cotton. I personally did and you got used to it.

However, when working in extremes of high temperature in the desert of Oman, we made the conscious decision not to wear the underwear due to the induced stress caused by overheating (We were living in tented accommodation with no air con). It was a matter of weighing up the risk of reduced efficiency against the risk of suffering an incident and subsequent flash fire.

Here in the desert where I am now, we wear full nomex flying coveralls with cotton T-shirts and cotton shorts beneath.

If there is any risk you should wear protection?
If thats the case you should wear nomex 24/7 Because there is always some risk.

In combat it makes sense, you are getting fired at. In other military flight ops they are preparing you for combat, so again it makes sense.

In civilian flight ops the chances of being in a post crash fire, while possible, are about the same as you being involved in a post crash fire in your automobile. Do you wear nomex when going to get the groceries?

Safety science teaches you to mitigate the greatest hazard. There comes a point where the increased fatigue created by fire resistant clothing exceeds the mitigating value of the protection it affords.

It should be up to the pilot to determine where that point is. We dont need babysitters.

what is the best flight suits that protects against burn then?
 

what is the best flight suits that protects against burn then?
anyone