Flying safer and avoiding the avoidable accident!

[robinsm]

One of the reasons for the increase in height to 10k was the ability to go higher over bad terrain so you could glide clear to somewhere to put down. I have done some long miles in the yellow beast and have flown over some pretty inhospitable country but I have always made certain that there is at least a patch of green available to land on within gliding distance. I am always aware that the fan could fail and, as I was taught, that I may have to put it down somewhere. I think part of the problem with getthereitis is the fact we have faster aircraft arriving on the scene and people are using them as you would a car and not a sports, fun item. Running out of fuel is just plain dumb.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I suggest getting yourself a Nomex (aramid) flight suit or pants at least. Can't hurt.

I wear nomex gear for CFA but it's ridiculously hot and dehydration is a real problem.

 

I honestly take reasonable precautions but then try not to think of fire. I've read too many WWi books about fire in rag and tube aircraft, and pilots stepping out rather than frying. Not nice! At least we can turn off the electrics and use an extinguisher if necessary but....

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

I wear nomex gear for CFA but it's ridiculously hot and dehydration is a real problem.I honestly take reasonable precautions but then try not to think of fire. I've read too many WWi books about fire in rag and tube aircraft, and pilots stepping out rather than frying. Not nice! At least we can turn off the electrics and use an extinguisher if necessary but....

 

Kaz

I'll let you into a little secret Kaz, don't tell anyone, but on a hot day dosing your suit in water creates a great Coolgardie safe. I drove many races on hot days in comfort with my mind on the track, not the discomfort.

 

 

[Powerin]

Warning- thread drift...

 

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with fuel tanks in the cockpit space, but that's where a lot of RA aircraft have them (or header tanks).

 

Is this a misplaced fear? Are there any stats (in any class of aircraft, GA or RA) to suggest that fuselage tanks are worse than wing tanks for crash survivability? Are any tanks worse than others - plastic, metal or fibreglass?

 

One I have read about is the Piper Pawnee which had problems where fibreglass fuselage tanks split in accidents. They were later recommended to be fitted with rubber bladders or retrofitted with wing tanks if I recall.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

II hadn't heard of NOMEX before so I looked it up and it has good fire resistance properties. But there seems to be a down-side to everything as you can see:

 

Unlike Kevlar, Nomex cannot align during filament formation and has poorer strength. It has excellent thermal, chemical, and radiation resistance. But Nomex is a meta-aramid, suitable for protection from fire; not a para-aramid, suitable for protection from bullets.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomex

 

-what a shame.

My Nomex flight suit has 5% Kevlar and 2% carbon fibre in the fabric. While not bullet proof, it would strengthen the fabric. It's a summer weight suit (150gsm), so not ridiculously hot in summer.

 

 

[Louis Moore]

Kaz,

 

Not a member yet of the AAAA and as for scone, with the new motel there is not much chance of me attending. I went last year for a few hours and had a really good time so would love to go again but there is always next year for that!!!

 

As for the talk of Nomex and all the comments about flying in it, are you guys serious? Motzartmerv I find you comment about not daring to get in an aircraft where the pilot occupies the same space as the fuel pretty ridiculous to be honest. Is fire a risk if we crash, HELL YES, is it for any aircraft no matter where the fuel is HELL YESS. I can tell you now that is not going to make me strap into a set of Nomax flight gear every time I go flying. Nor am I going to don a full mattress protection suit, fit a BRS, seat belts with airbags or bring along a diffribulator just in case I have a heart attack. I think there is a line we cross when we go from being practical and safe to basically being so scared where eventually going to convince ourselves to stay on the ground!

 

There are a LOT of aircraft that house fuel tanks in the front or/and rear fuse, plus every ferry aircraft has fuel in the cabin some wear. Guess how many pilots I have mean that fear flying in them without Nonex suits, NONE! I don't even know if military pilots where nomax!!!

 

Just my opinion but the fact there a pilots out there willing to slander aircraft that have fuse tanks as totally dangerous is ridiculous, I mean I feel sorry for helicopters, there is no way they can protect themselves!!!!! Find the fact so many guys are seriously considering Nomax as a viable protection for private pilots, yet so many are slandering BRS or personal parachutes totally insane!

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Louis. No problems. I was stating my own personal views on the subject. These are views which have recently been changed after standing helpless only 2 meters from two men as they were incinerated after a fuel tank ruptured in a soft accident. Rediculous it may seem to you and that's your parogative. If you don't want to protect yourself then so be it. I do a little bit of testflying and my next job looks like being a cheetah which has the fuel tank sitting over the pilots legs. I will be donning a ridiculous fire retardant suit for that one..

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Find the fact so many guys are seriously considering Nomax as a viable protection for private pilots, yet so many are slandering BRS or personal parachutes totally insane!

No problem. I don't require others to agree with my personal choices. I wear a hi-viz vest if walking around out on the airfield too, and other PPE when appropriate.

 

At work everyone in production areas wears Proban overalls or dust coats. Proban is a similar fire retardant fabric to Nomex.

 

I guess it just depends on your background and training.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

And experience...;)

 

 

[eightyknots]

Just my opinion but the fact there a pilots out there willing to slander aircraft that have fuse tanks as totally dangerous is ridiculous, I mean I feel sorry for helicopters, there is no way they can protect themselves!!!!! Find the fact so many guys are seriously considering Nomax as a viable protection for private pilots, yet so many are slandering BRS or personal parachutes totally insane!

Yes, you're right, they all have fuselage tanks. I have never yet heard of any helicopters with wing tanks.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

As for the talk of Nomex and all the comments about flying in it, are you guys serious? Motzartmerv I find you comment about not daring to get in an aircraft where the pilot occupies the same space as the fuel pretty ridiculous to be honest.

Well I guess the suggestions and comments were in response to your comment in an era when fire was more a concern:

 

To be honest tough the main concern for me with the J2 and a prang is it's one of those wonderful designs where the fuel tank sits just above your knees. Have heard to many stories of survivable crashed becoming fatal after the engine made the fuel tank catch fire!

On this topic I just read this article today about an experimental landing on the roof of a shopping centre & catching fire. It caught my eye as I've spent some time in DeLand Florida in the past and have been to that shop if I recall correctly.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Kaz,Find the fact so many guys are seriously considering Nomax as a viable protection for private pilots, yet so many are slandering BRS or personal parachutes totally insane!

G'day Louis,

 

I'm with you

 

You will only find me slandering the BRS i have on my trike if i need to use it and it doesn't work, I will be cussing them and myself on the way down for carrying that 12 kg anchor around for so long.

 

If it does work it was cheap and i get to live hopefully another day.

 

I will never pull it unless I have a structural failure or maybe a medical reason / midair ect.

 

It is only on my trike now as I had a close call with some ibis's coming out of a turn a few years back.

 

I fly at all times with it armed as there is no point trying to fiddle round trying to get the safety pin out if you in the poo poo spiraling in with g forces, and for those who leave the safety pin in while flying IMO may as well take the chute off.

 

Cheers

 

Alf

 

 

[David Isaac]

Interesting subject really,

 

I own an Auster J1B with the usual front fuel tank between the engine and instrument panel. There is also an aux tank under the belly of the aircraft. Apparrently there is a wing tank mod which I am going to enquire about.

 

I dont like the concept of fuel in the fuselage either but have to accept it is a potential risk in a substantial collision; it would have to be a substantial impact because the steel tube frame is reasonably strong and will distort and progressively collapse if the impact forces are high enough, hopefully absorbing enough impact to prevent a tank rupture.

 

I actually think it prudent to wear a fire rated flight suit, I used to wear fire rated overalls when I raced jet sprint boats as a younger man. I was actually going to contact Tubz about it to find out where to buy them these days since I knew he had experience racing and I have lost all my old boat racing contacts.

 

You have to wear something in the Auster to keep warm, so why not wear something fire rated; Oh and don't forget fire rated socks and substantial shoes.

 

I will ceratinly be wearing all these in my 95-10 Javelin plus a crash helmet.

 

Is there anything wrong with wearing a crash helmet when flying the Auster .... it may look odd, it may look eccentric, perhaps over the top ... but is it; what do you think?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Is there anything wrong with wearing a crash helmet when flying the Auster .... it may look odd, it may look eccentric, perhaps over the top ... but is it; what do you think?

Why not go the whole hog and wear a full-face with a darkened visor; that way nobody would recognise you.

 

 

[facthunter]

I wouldn't David. A lot of the protective gear removes your awareness of noise, vibration, full eye visual range , etc. It's a question of what's good minus the negatives. What you give up for the protection. IF you do the primary job of making it happen right then you don't need the protection that the lowest common denominator requires. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

I wouldn't David. A lot of the protective gear removes your awareness of noise, vibration, full eye visual range , etc. It's a question of what's good minus the negatives. What you give up for the protection. IF you do the primary job of making it happen right then you don't need the protection that the lowest common denominator requires. Nev

Thanks Nev,

Good points, I agree.

 

Why not go the whole hog and wear a full-face with a darkened visor; that way nobody would recognise you.

Lyle ... what are you saying ... am I really that ugly to look at

 

 

[fly_tornado]

another thing that always worries me is the carbon monoxide poisoning... a silent killer. You have to wonder how many pilots have drifted off flying

 

 

[kaz3g]

Interesting subject really,I own an Auster J1B with the usual front fuel tank between the engine and instrument panel. There is also an aux tank under the belly of the aircraft. Apparrently there is a wing tank mod which I am going to enquire about.

Is there anything wrong with wearing a crash helmet when flying the Auster .... it may look odd, it may look eccentric, perhaps over the top ... but is it; what do you think?

Hi David

 

Some Austers had 140 litres in the wings instead of the over and under arrangement . The latter varied too. Mine holds 68litres in the main scuttle tank and 52 in the belly. Not much when you want to travel longer distances and I am seriously looking at buying a Little Buddy (40litres) which will sit on the floor in the back. Anyone like to tell me where I buy a Nomex suit, please?

 

The current AAAA president usually flies his aircraft (Auster and CT4) wearing a helicopter style helmet. Seems very sensible to me.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Louis Moore]

Well I guess the suggestions and comments were in response to your comment in an era when fire was more a concern:

Gnarly, I am not saying the fuel tanks position is not a concern. I am very aware of the fact that if I am going to crash I have 68 litres of flammable liquid sitting above my knees. I keep it my mind and if I should have to carry out a force landing it will be taken into consideration. As any aspect of the aircraft design your flying should be if your about to crash. I still feel people can jump into overkill mode when it comes to safety, as my favourite saying goes about my family in law "there so practical it is almost in practical".

 

I have thrown spanners around a number of aircraft types and designs and I am as of yet to meet one that does not have fuel at some point passing through the cockpit! In fact you can go as far to say Auster's with the tanks up front have far less of the weaker fuel lines running to the engine as designs that have to carry it from each wing up to the front. Also wing tank are always more likely to rupture than a metal tank securely fitted between a solid steel frame (unless of course the engine comes through it!)

 

I just think Nomax flight gear is overkill for us to wear, especially when not all that long ago there was so much talk about how ridiculous the BRS system is and how it now means pilots are wrecking their aircraft for unnecessary reasons. I can tell you I would rather a BRS system over a nomax flight suit any day. Just my opinion.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you had a fire situation, the BRS might not be a good idea. With fire, getting down quick is paramount and sideslipping was considered an optional technique to stop the fire coming back as fast. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Louis,

 

Whilst I understand your sentiments, I am about reasonable risk mitigation; the Auster does not have cabin heating and you need to wear warm gear, so if I am going to purchase a flight suit for warmth and general comfort (the same reason you wear sturdy shoes, not thongs) I might as well buy a Nomex one, you couldn't tell by looking at them, they look like any other flight gear. Other than that, I accept that I have 68 litres of bang water above my knees and 50 odd under my bum, however, I am reasonably confident it will take a substantial impact to rupture the tank. I don't believe wearing a Nomex suit is an 'over the top' risk mitigation method in any aircraft.

 

 

[David Isaac]

... Anyone like to tell me where I buy a Nomex suit, please?....

Kaz,

I have sent you an email with a link which DavidH10 kindly sent me.

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot depends on the nature of your operation. If it's high risk, ( dusting, mustering etc.) dress up.

 

The ONLY time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire. ( Not quite true but close).. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

It’s a pity we have dyslexic Moderation where a thread with a very clear message relating to Performance and Operations becomes a shrine, and the message is split into various threads which drifty all over the place and don’t provide any relevance for future study and reference, and perhaps saving one’s life.

 

At least Frank’s thread was about avoiding things like the Cootamundra Accident.

 

That’s Primary Safety – action which can be taken, or design used to completely avoid the potential crash, in which case we can lead long lives and enjoy flying without ever experiencing a crash where Secondary Safety becomes an issue, which is what this thread is now discussing.

 

For example, when I was doing my Industrial Design training we studied the evolution of the aircraft rudder pedal following regular cases of crushed foot bones in crashes. This was found to be a combination of additional inertia of the lower leg and foot during deceleration, combined with the tiny area of the round rudder tube. When flat pedals were introduced the injuries went away.

 

And that’s why we don’t use tube for rudder pedals today (We don’t do we?)

 

When designing a fuel tank for safety we first look at the fuel characteristic.

 

The most dangerous form is vapour which is heavier than air, drops to the floor and forms a pool just waiting for a spark. A cup full is enough to blow a boat or aircraft to pieces, so tiny leaks or the smell of petrol are clear warning signs of impending danger.

 

Where petrol can be constrained it is relatively safe. I’ve seen videos of petrol boiling out of the manholes of fuel tankers without blowing the tank, and in fact you can buy petrol powered stoves and hurricane lamps where a thin jet of petrol is ignited.

 

So in a crash, where a fuel line is broken but the tank stays intact the fire will be limited. Knowing where the fuel taps are, and turning them off before the crash reduces the locations for this limited fire, (away from the cockpit if the designer has understood why)

 

If the tank splits open, the bigger volume creates a bigger fire, so the aim is either no leakage, or minimised leakage.

 

This is much more important to your safety than whether the tank is in the wing or fuselage.

 

I’d agree fibreglass is not suitable for an aircraft tank because, although it can be made tougher than aluminium, it shatters at ultimate where aluminium bends and this is the characteristic you want.

 

Where the fuel tank has been professionally welded with a crash in mind (ie spigot wall thickness to suit bigger welds, and non-dislodge able cap), in many crashes it will just deform, and no leaks mean no fire.

 

Race cars, where crashes are expected go to the next level and use a sponge type filler which only releases the fuel at a limited rate, so if the tank does split, the fire is smaller and controllable with smaller extinguishers etc.

 

And don’t forget that if you have wing tanks you will be, in a dazed condition, attempting to crawl out of the cockpit into the fire front, often without the ability to get out the other side.

 

Personal safety equipment is still a personal decision in aviation – in racing we have a saying “If you’ve got a two dollar head buy a two dollar helmet.”

 

Bear in mind that people are suffering permanent head injuries in push bike accidents, and helmets are now compulsory there.

 

Helmets are a good idea anywhere you are likely to bang your head, so if I was flying a single seater, narrow cab, low flying etc, I wouldn’t be hesitating.

 

This organization is one of the bigger race suppliers

 

http://www.revolutionracegear.com.au/

 

A rough example of fire and head protection would be

 

Arai open face helmet $699.00 OR Bell Pro Rally with earphones and mike $995.00

 

Nomex socks $39.00

 

Nomex underwear $165.00

 

Nomex Balaclava $89.00

 

ProTech triple layer nomex suit $1495.00

 

OR Mondial double layer nomex suit if you are heat resistant $699.00

 

 

[Louis Moore]

Dave: In your case I agree, if your cold and need something anyway then for sure go ahead and get nomex, why not, I agree. I have a lyco engine and as such have a heater for the cabin so do not suffer from being to cold flying the Auster. I just do not think it necessary to go out of your way to wear nomax for ordinary flying operations.

 

Turboplanner: Are we not supposed to stray off the threads topic? I was assuming it was okay to discuss what ever came up during the course of the topic, if this is not the case let me know and I will restrain in future?