Clothing issues
http://asasi.org/apcswg/papers/flammability.pdf
Might be worth a read. Still wonder why airlines insist on polyester. Easy care I guess but I've worn both poly & wool and wool is better every time!
One from 1999. Would be interesting to see how much (if anything) has changed.
http://flightsafety.org/ccs/ccs_mar_apr99.pdf
Might be worth a read. Still wonder why airlines insist on polyester. Easy care I guess but I've worn both poly & wool and wool is better every time!
One from 1999. Would be interesting to see how much (if anything) has changed.
http://flightsafety.org/ccs/ccs_mar_apr99.pdf
For what it is worth, having been involved with the trials, testing and evaluation of military aircrew equipment over the past 10 years, the following are some of the basic concepts/observations I have worked too:
- At least 2 layers.
- Cotton or nomex undergarments.
- Fire Retardent (FR) outer garment/ protective shell
- Hands and faces are the most vulnerable.
- Clothing is tested to give 4-8 secs protection from a fire at a specific temp; this includes footwear.
One suggestion that I would put to the airlines, is that FR gloves are made more available i.e. with every portable oxy set there are a pair, or they are issued to all crews for the use in an emergency as standard. (Cape leather will shrink wrap your hands unless worn with a pair of silk inners)
As an aside, when I travel as pax on civ air, I always wear clothing that will at least give me a chance of getting out when things go wrong. However, next time you fly, look around the cabin and see how many are dressed to survive??
- At least 2 layers.
- Cotton or nomex undergarments.
- Fire Retardent (FR) outer garment/ protective shell
- Hands and faces are the most vulnerable.
- Clothing is tested to give 4-8 secs protection from a fire at a specific temp; this includes footwear.
One suggestion that I would put to the airlines, is that FR gloves are made more available i.e. with every portable oxy set there are a pair, or they are issued to all crews for the use in an emergency as standard. (Cape leather will shrink wrap your hands unless worn with a pair of silk inners)
As an aside, when I travel as pax on civ air, I always wear clothing that will at least give me a chance of getting out when things go wrong. However, next time you fly, look around the cabin and see how many are dressed to survive??
Last edited by Could be the last?; 7th Nov 2011 at 11:21.
Most airlines issue fire retardant gloves (usually stowed near galleys), but I think they are not as sophistocated as what you are talking about. (Basically big fuzzy yellow gloves that are hard to do any fine motor work with- more for smothering or for holding a crash axe with or picking up large objects with) Most of the ones I have used come to mid forearm so don't offer muh i nthe way of protection.
Newer ones seem to be a rubbery material with an elastic fitted cuff, again only short and reach to mid forearm (bracelet length)
Newer ones seem to be a rubbery material with an elastic fitted cuff, again only short and reach to mid forearm (bracelet length)
Genghis:
All I can offer is a couple of anecdotes from past years.
1. The RAF realised decades ago (1960 ish) that nylon had no place in aircrew clothing, after serious burn incidents with socks and watch straps in cockpit fires - I remember seeing related Flight Safety films and photos back then. It amazes me that cabin crew still wear this, and other flammable materials.
2. In the 80s, before high viz jackets, the airline I flew for had a pilot hit by a baggage tractor on the ramp at MAN while doing a night walk-round in his uniform navy blue raincoat. He was badly injured but recovered. BALPA started pressing for high viz clothing, but it was some years before it appeared. Now, as noted above, it's being devalued by unnecessary use.
All I can offer is a couple of anecdotes from past years.
1. The RAF realised decades ago (1960 ish) that nylon had no place in aircrew clothing, after serious burn incidents with socks and watch straps in cockpit fires - I remember seeing related Flight Safety films and photos back then. It amazes me that cabin crew still wear this, and other flammable materials.
2. In the 80s, before high viz jackets, the airline I flew for had a pilot hit by a baggage tractor on the ramp at MAN while doing a night walk-round in his uniform navy blue raincoat. He was badly injured but recovered. BALPA started pressing for high viz clothing, but it was some years before it appeared. Now, as noted above, it's being devalued by unnecessary use.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gods own country (Wales)
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive had a few dealings with different uniform companies over the years and not one of them ever mentioned about the flame resistant properties of the uniforms we were purchasing/using!
Possibly something for the bigger carriers to look into with their suppliers as they have more shove.
After spending some time in the heavy plant industry it has been researched and proven that orange hi-viz is more clearly identifable then yellow hi-viz. Is there any set standards/rules that says that the aviation industry have to use yellow hi-viz?
Ta
nesboy
Possibly something for the bigger carriers to look into with their suppliers as they have more shove.
After spending some time in the heavy plant industry it has been researched and proven that orange hi-viz is more clearly identifable then yellow hi-viz. Is there any set standards/rules that says that the aviation industry have to use yellow hi-viz?
Ta
nesboy
Last edited by nesboy 1976; 8th Nov 2011 at 12:08. Reason: missing word *them
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Midlands UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not flight related - but subject related, When I was in the RN all of our working uniform and overalls was polycotton, this was 1981 >
Remember the Falklands ? Sir Galahad ? all the crew and Welsh Guards and RE's that came off that ship with horrible burns, and many permanently waterproofed by the polycotton that melted to them.
Not too long after that polycotton gradually was replaced by cotton - especially overalls which became mandatory wear during any emergency situation.
Man made is BAD, Natural fibre is GOOD.
Remember the Falklands ? Sir Galahad ? all the crew and Welsh Guards and RE's that came off that ship with horrible burns, and many permanently waterproofed by the polycotton that melted to them.
Not too long after that polycotton gradually was replaced by cotton - especially overalls which became mandatory wear during any emergency situation.
Man made is BAD, Natural fibre is GOOD.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minstermineman, it was somewhat ironic that the Navy in the Falklands wore polyester uniforms as you say, but wore the required anti flash gear when at action stations. Protecting hands and head but not much else.
How many wars do you have to fight to get that bit right? Polyester uniforms did look snappy though compared to the previous cotton.
How many wars do you have to fight to get that bit right? Polyester uniforms did look snappy though compared to the previous cotton.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Midlands UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it all came down to cost, as most things seem to these days, and of course polyester was easier for the Chinese at the back to look after.
The cost to many though was far more than monetary.
The cost to many though was far more than monetary.
