Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Flight suits, again.....

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Flight suits, again.....
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Frank

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 69

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

John

If you really want to make flying "SAFE" then you shouldn't fly at all.

That's the only way I know of to not have an incident. I could also argue

that you should have an airbag installed. That would save allot of lives,

wouldn't it? Of course there are many other safety enhancements we could

impose on you........ So many in fact that it will make flying safe.....safe

because you won't be able to afford to go flying!

Regards

Frank

jsfox(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:45 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

If I want to burn in my cockpit should there be a fire or not wear a 

parachute during formation flight, that is my right to choose. It does 

NOT affect your ability to fly your own airplane. 	




Ok I really wanted to stay out of this in the hopes it would just go away and die a peaceful death, but like a insidious disease this subject does not seem to want to die.



OK here's my question, first forget the RPA, are we sure that that wearing a parachute would not be mandatory by FAR 91.307 paragraph c?  I know most times I have been in a form flight, especially in extended trail, we exceed 60 degrees of bank and a nose up or nose down of greater than thirty degrees, which according to the FAA requires you to wear a chute. This doesn't even bring up whether the FAA looks a formation flying as normal flight.

gus.fraser(at)gs.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

Getting back to the basis of this thread, that Spencer wrote a great article

about flight suits and how ineffective Nomex olive green suits are in a fire

situation, the basic point that Smash brought(without realizing what she was

about to do) up is that there are people flying around in the nice green

zoot suits. If the reason that RPA insists on the wearing of these zoot

suits is for fire protection then this reason is flawed. 



Lets look at the reasons for wearing a suit that could possibly be the

driver here.



1. Fire protection, as Spencer shows if you believe this you are just

fooling yourself.

2. Keep all the crap together and out of the controls, I think that everyone

should have a strategy for removing fod hazards from the cockpit regardless

of what you fly or how you fly it, a suit is just one of many ways to get a

good result here. In my SP I have zippered secured pouches in the aircraft.

3. Getting lucky, as we have discovered that is a "phallus-y ) ".

4. As a Uniform, this is the only reason I can find that has no detraction.



As Brian points out below rules that protect others make sense because you

could hurt someone else. However whatever you decide to do to yourself

should be up to you. I have tried to stay away from this issue in the past

because it really does not matter to me what rules are in place cause I just

don't do that stuff (although I think that my personal fire protection is

light years ahead of a green Nomex suit) that REQUIRES me to comply.  But

now I am just interested to know, what is the real reason, inquiring minds

want to know ?? Can anyone remember or is just one of those "well damn it

that's how we've always done it, and if it was good enough in the past it is

good enough today" things ?



The government make more than enough rules for me but even they see this as

a valid point (motor cycle helmets excepted). For example, if I do

aerobatics I am required to wear an in date chute when carrying a passenger.

On my own it is left between me and my maker. Same with ELTs, single seat

configuration I don't need an ELT, two up I do, and guys that is the FAA,

please don't say that we have become more dogmatic that the FAA. 



So as a person not affected by the outcome, and on behalf of all those for

who this is such a hot button topic:-



Please, as a fee paying RPA member, can I ask the management to re-assess

this issue given the recent findings by Spencer regarding the lack of

protective properties of these pretty green suits.



Gus

--

gus.fraser(at)gs.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

John I have news for you that Nomex suit buys you 1.5 seconds of protection,

should reduce your insurance though !



Gus 



--

cjpilot710(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:38 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

John

If you really want to make flying "SAFE" then you shouldn't fly at  all.

That's the only way I know of to not have an incident. I could also argue

that you should have an  airbag installed. That would save allot of lives,

wouldn't it? Of  course there are many other safety enhancements we could

impose on  you........ So many in fact that it will make flying safe.....safe

because  you won't be able to afford to go flying!

Regards

Frank



 ))))))   I  remember years ago my first instructor Buck Greenfield #1888, told me he once  (for $400), flew a beat up old Jenny into the side of a barn for a  movie.  He put pillows in around the cockpit to help protect him on  impact.  He put just enough gas in the tanks to get the airplane up and  around the pattern and into the barn.  It turned out to be still be to much  fuel.  The Jenny caught fire and he like to have never got out because of  the "Damn pillows and their feathers".

  

 Jim "Pappy"  Goolsby

dsavarese(at)elmore.rr.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:39 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

Aren't the words in 91.307 (c) "no pilot  of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may  execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds— " the key wording as to whether  you as the pilot flying solo; 1-must wear a parachute if flying solo and 2-  whether or not you can exceed the 60 degrees of bank and 30 degrees of pitch  without a parachute?

  

 Looking for interpretations here. 

 Dennis

  

 [quote]   ---

jsfox(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

On Feb 16, 2006, at 9:05 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Aren't the words in 91.307 (c) "no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds— " the key wording as to whether you as the pilot flying solo; 1-must wear a parachute if flying solo and 2- whether or not you can exceed the 60 degrees of bank and 30 degrees of pitch without a parachute? 	


Dennis you are correct, as always

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:17 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

fish(at)aviation-tech.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   I would agree with you, except in our litigious society your family would sue

 after your death. Their argument would be that we failed to protect you, causing

 them harm!


	


So we step 'n fetchit before the fact because someone *might* get sued?



Remember how the liability laws for the manufacture of GA aircraft got

changed?



 	  Quote: 	
		   I had a meeting with my insurance agent yesterday, and he said that my insurance

 rates were going up, because the cost of defending me was going up. He also

 said that I could no longer get some types of insurance.


	


Then you go without insurance. Your best insurance is to operate your

aircraft safely anyway.



 	  Quote: 	
		   About 20 years ago there was a debate in California over a motorcycle helmet

 law. The most outspoken person (Gary Buesy), then had a motorcycle accident

 and was in a coma. The next time the law was put to a vote it passed. So who

 would like to be the first person roasted alive, to pass this law!


	


Pretty sad, eh?



 	  Quote: 	
		   In military flying we have a saying that the Warnings are written in blood (others

 have died so we don’t have to make the same mistake). 


	


But we aren't in the military any more. We really do get to make the

decisions ourselves as they are our airplanes and our bodies. I am not

debating the value of protective gear. I am debating two things:



1. It is not clear that spending thousands of dollars protecting against

flash fire in the cockpit is the best use of resources.



(Opinion: spend that money on new hoses and you will probably go a long

way toward being safer.)



2. What gives you the right to tell me what to wear in my airplane? I

have to put up with crap from the assholes in the FAA. (Not all people

in the FAA are assholes but enough are to make my point valid.) I

shouldn't have to put up with it from my "friends".



A service organization like AOPA, EAA, and RPA are there to make my

flying experience better. They are there to provide information and

services and to facilitate communications. They are not there to act as

auxiliary gestapo.



You know, I have been thinking of ways to turn a Nomex flight suit into

a clown suit. It could be great fun, especially when the media shows up

to take pictures.



-- 

Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

Stephen Fox wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   OK here's my question, first forget the RPA, are we sure that that

 wearing a parachute would not be mandatory by FAR 91.307 paragraph c?  I

 know most times I have been in a form flight, especially in extended

 trail, we exceed 60 degrees of bank and a nose up or nose down of

 greater than thirty degrees, which according to the FAA requires you to

 wear a chute. This doesn't even bring up whether the FAA looks a

 formation flying as normal flight.


	


That does not matter. That is between the pilot not wearing a 'chute and

the FAA. If flight lead decides to play "crack-the-whip" and you go

along without a 'chute, that is YOUR decision. If a fed ramp-checks you

when you get down and instigates an enforcement action against you, that

is YOUR problem, not RPAs.



What you guys don't seem to be getting is that I am not saying that you

shouldn't wear a flight suit or a 'chute. I am saying that RPA should

not MAKE me wear a flight suit and a 'chute.



                 It is *MY* *CHOICE* *NOT* *YOURS*!!!



It is fine to recommend. It is fine to strongly recommend. It is fine to

teach that one should have all proper equipment when engaged in these

somewhat dangerous activities. It is fine to *insist* on proper training

before you will let someone participate because at that point they could

be a threat to others. Whether or not I wear a flight suit or parachute

is not a threat to anyone else, only me. I repeat:



                 It is *MY* *CHOICE* *NOT* *YOURS*!!!



-- 

Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

HawkerPilot2015

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 503

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: Re: Flight suits, again.....

.....

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

That gets you up the rails, out of the Oh shit my world has just turned

brown, and under a canopy. Depending on what mode of the envelope you were

in when you opted for the 3rd redundant life support system to save your

little pink ass from your trusted stead when it's world turned to SHIT.

That is all the Nomex was intended to do for you.

Doc

 	  Quote: 	
		   [Original Message]

 From: Fraser, Gus <gus.fraser(at)gs.com>

 To: yak-list(at)matronics.com <yak-list(at)matronics.com>

 Date: 2/16/2006 8:26:50 AM

 Subject: RE: Flight suits, again.....



 



 John I have news for you that Nomex suit buys you 1.5 seconds of

protection,
	


[quote] should reduce your insurance though !



 Gus 



 --

Scooter

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 155

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:29 am Post subject: Re: Flight suits, again.....

Here's a good article on nomex flight suits:



http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_11_58/ai_95153298



It's by Capt John McKnight, and with a name like that you must know what you're talking about.



Seems like much of what I've read about them states that they offer protection mainly for "flash fires".  Is this something we would experience in the crash of a Yak or CJ?



Also, anyone have recommended throttle/pitch settings for (all phases of) an inverted spin?

aerobaticgirl(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG(at)cherrypoint.usmc.mil> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		      Smash, you really don't want to open this discussion.  Trust me.   But.. you kind of already did.   Oh well.... My fault, not yours.  

   

	
  Boy oh boy were you right about this!

   

  For what it's worth, I really don't care what ya'll wear in your cockpit.  I just assumed that since we are all pilots and by definition...geniuses, that we would all be smart enough to take the extra precautions to prevent getting burned, should the situati  on  arise.  But yeah, it's pretty lame to force someone to go buy a $150 flight suit just to hang with play with their friends in the sky. Hey what do I know anyway, I'm not a member of the RPA.

   

  Smash



 	 		 Yahoo! Mail

  [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/pmall2/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com]Use Photomail[/url] to share photos without annoying attachments.

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

Say Scooter?

How disoriented are you looking to be?

Throttle closed after entry...not to bad if watching the brown stuff over

your head go around hanging by your harness at a reasonably calm pace with

the wind whistling by your canopy is what stokes your fire.

82% and 850 or> mmHg manifold pressure...is quite a bit more attention

getting. Between the shake rattle an roll of the M-14 with the revolutions

of the brown stuff above yo head whipping around a fair amount faster while

hanging by your harness again will make you wonder what possesed you to

want to voluntarily subject yo rosey pink to this?!

As one of my hangermates said one day after flying acro..."Man, I really

love doing spins in this airplane. It is just like floating down on a leaf!

My response being.."SAY WHAT??!" A gentle spin you say!?" He was entering

them with the throttle closed. Suggested that he try it at 82% and come

back an tell me how he loved the "gentle floating leaf feeling." Next day

the ol' eyeballs were a bit wider on return! Seems it took him 1400 ft and

4 -5 turns before he recovered, he lost count.

Me personally, try to avoid 'em. Terrible waist of energy in a fight and it

just makes you to damned predictable!

Doc

 	  Quote: 	
		   [Original Message]

 From: Scooter <yakk52(at)verizon.net>

 To: <yak-list(at)matronics.com>

 Date: 2/16/2006 12:39:54 PM

 Subject: Re: Flight suits, again.....



 



 Here's a good article on nomex flight suits:



 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_11_58/ai_95153298



 It's by Capt John McKnight, and with a name like that you must know what

you're talking about.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Seems like much of what I've read about them states that they offer

protection mainly for "flash fires".  Is this something we would experience
	


in the crash of a Yak or CJ?

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Also, anyone have recommended throttle/pitch settings for (all phases of)

an inverted spin?
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  



 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12663#12663

KingCJ6(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

In a message dated 2/16/2006 10:39:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,  aerobaticgirl(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  But    yeah, it's pretty lame to force someone to go buy a $150 flight suit just to    hang with play with their friends in the sky. Hey what do I know anyway,    I'm not a member of the RPA 	


 

  Well, one can usually find a decent used flight suit on e-bay for $25. This  is slightly less than what we pay our fuel valet boys here in Marin to  clean and press our Banana Republic kaki shirts after each form sortie (tip not  included).  This does not include costs to polish our Birkenstock organic  flight boots, but that's a whole other topic.

  

 Dave

jsfox(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

On Feb 16, 2006, at 4:50 PM, KingCJ6(at)AOL.COM (KingCJ6(at)AOL.COM) wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Well, one can usually find a decent used flight suit on e-bay for $25. This is slightly less than what we pay our fuel valet boys here in Marin to clean and press our Banana Republic kaki shirts after each form sortie (tip not included).  This does not include costs to polish our Birkenstock organic flight boots, but that's a whole other topic.

 

	




Wait a minute, you got your flight suit of ebay! You are running a grave risk, my friend. Please review your RPA guidelines for Marin County Flyers. You will see in Chapter 11 paragraph 72 sub section c  you should only be wearing the new powder blue issue by Vera Wang. Please rectify this immediately or you will loose your privileges to the men's grill.. Further if you want maintain your Lead status the Birkenstock flight boots must be replaced with the newly designed boots from Gucci. You can special orders these with or without the gold bit buckle from Gucci in Florence: Via Roma 38r, 50123 Florence 

tel: 39.055.75.92.21 ask Antonio.

ByronMFox(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

In a message dated 2/16/06 2:21:37 PM, jsfox(at)adelphia.net writes:

 

 

  	  Quote: 	
		  

 You can special orders these with or without the gold bit buckle from Gucci in Florence: Via Roma 38r, 50123 Florence 

 

 tel: 39.055.75.92.21 ask Antonio.

 

 

 

 	


 

 No, no, brother. Much too overstated. Lack tradition. Much better as apres fly wear. ...B

BitterlichMG(at)cherrypoi
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

Well,  "one" might indeed find a Flight  Suit for $25 if "one" happened to be just the right size to wear whatever "one"  found on E-Bay.  

  

 However, if God happened to pull the same  joke on you as he played on me, the price is $287.75 thank you very much.  That also does  not include the price of sending it back and forth a few times to get it to  fit.  

  

 Send me $262.75 Dave, and I'll stop  complaining.  By the way, lest someone think I speak anything other than  the truth... the included file shows the bill.  No advertisements  intended.  

  

 Mark Bitterlich

  

 [quote]   --

Bitterlich.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

Bitterlich.pdf

Filesize:

14.93 KB

Downloaded:

637 Time(s)

Frank

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 69

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

You know, I have been thinking of ways to turn a Nomex flight suit into a

clown suit. It could be great fun, especially when the media shows up to

take pictures.

Brian, that's twice in a row now you made me bust a gut. What's gotten into

you?



Thanks 

Frank

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: Flight suits, again.....

Frank Haertlein wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

> You know, I have been thinking of ways to turn a Nomex flight suit into a

> clown suit. It could be great fun, especially when the media shows up to

> take pictures.

 Brian, that's twice in a row now you made me bust a gut. What's gotten into

 you?

I think it is because I have fallen into a Kafka novel and can't get

out. Humor is the only thing that keeps me alive.

-- 

Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum