Incident 13 May 15

[SDQDI]

I have looked at them quite a few times Oscar, you can pick up brand new ones for between 1 and 2 hundred dollars. Just a matter of convincing SWMBO to look the other way while I get the card numbers:yes:

 

Actually we (YQDI aero club members) were having a light hearted conversation about getting matching monogrammed suits, again just need some spare money...........

 

 

[Maritime_Ev]

So - a question: what do people think about someone flying with in Nomex overalls - even ones with fairly obviously 'Air Force' or 'Navy' badges removed that have been purchased as good second-hand equipment from a Surplus store? Is the reaction generally that they are a bit of a poseur or that they are cautious and concerned about their safety? I freely admit that I have had thoughts both ways about this idea, but I anm starting to come to the idea that a pair of Nomex overalls is not silly (and maybe I'd strip them off immediately after landing, rather than wander into the clubhouse wearing them..)

They won't catch me lauging at you for wearing protective kit, the only thing I'd be afraid of wearing nomex would be to overheat in the Queensland summer heat. Seen quite a few aerobatics guys walk back into the club half molten after a 20 minute flight.

 

Considering the normal level of nanny-statism in Australia I find it amazing how little protection bikies are wearing in Qld, compared to NL... Riding in shorts back home would get you pulled over (especially by bike coppers), not to give you a fine as it's not technically illegal, but to tell you you're a bloody idiot.

 

 

[Maritime_Ev]

Just wear them as if it's normal. Better than wearing gold sleeves with black armbands around an aerodrome...Nev

You could combine both! I've got a pair of bright orange/high viz fire-retardant coveralls with epallete thingies on the shoulders for work. They never gave me the stripes that fit onto them though

 

 

[facthunter]

On a more serious note, I think it's not a bad idea to think about fire resistant clothing. It's a dire situation potentially and not helped by a BRS. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Statistically, fuel fires, where the aircraft is catastrophically burning are very rare. I can't remember one in recreational flying in Australia in the last five years.

 

Nomex equipment was introduced into motor racing for fuel fires where around 100 litres of fuel may spill from a split tank in a crash and ignite.

 

The full fire set includes nomex socks, nomex long underpants, nomex singlet, nomex suit (1, 2 or 3 layers), nomex balaclava, fire resistant gloves.

 

Added to this, after fatalities where the driver would otherwise have survived but inhaled flames into the lungs is a flame proof breathing barrier.

 

Survival with this in a fuel fire is around 30 seconds, but I've seen one crash where, with 4 metre flames surrounding the driver he survived about 45 seconds before the fire crews managed to cut the flames.

 

For almost all circuit motor racing there's going to be powder and foam crews on the scene within that 30 seconds.

 

So the combination is based on survival until an onsite crew can suppress the fire.

 

There are many other applications these days where nomex gear is worn, and provides excellent protection in less major fires - for example where a person can walk away from the fire (or an aircraft can be positioned so the flame path is away from the pilot.

 

The body gets very hot wearing all those layers, and in many cases races are over in 15 minutes or so.

 

With full gear, a two hour flight may pose a bigger risk of loss of control from heat stroke, than the very small risk of a fire.

 

So you have to think the situation through.

 

Synthetic clothes should be avoided at all costs, because the plastic simply melts into the skin, even at mild temperatures and you could be up for skin grafts - woolen socks, and cotton underclothes are a simple way to avoid this.

 

Nomex underwear and cotton clothes treated with borax were common in racing in the 1980s

 

You don't have top go round looking like top gun these days. Nomex is available in many styles with a recreational appearance.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you breathe in flames you are in trouble. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

All of these solid ideas are about protecting oneself from incidents which happen on miniscule frequency

 

How many in flight fires or structural incidents, mid air collisions are there?

 

Spend time and money getting forced and precautionary landings sorted out and reducing human factor mistakes. As you/we are far more likely to be hurt or killed with these as cause.

 

Im still buying an extinguisher

 

 

[storchy neil]

like the bloke that stepped out of f1 car helmet and leathers lot off money to save a life well worth it

 

I was at the scene of a car crash car on fire we got the driver out

 

the brand new uniform that I had on underneath my overalls had started to melt bloody near on fire overalls a bit singed

 

some wonder why I get mad at the idiots that try to put out bush fires in their thongs and shorts

 

in my opinion helmet and heat resisting overalls aint over dressing just be carefull whats underneath neil

 

 

[facthunter]

You can have fires and collisions on the ground. We have had a few over the years. Tip an aircraft over with a hot motor and you have a fair chance of a fire starting. Especially with float carburettors. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

They won't catch me lauging at you for wearing protective kit, the only thing I'd be afraid of wearing nomex would be to overheat in the Queensland summer heat. Seen quite a few aerobatics guys walk back into the club half molten after a 20 minute flight.Considering the normal level of nanny-statism in Australia I find it amazing how little protection bikies are wearing in Qld, compared to NL... Riding in shorts back home would get you pulled over (especially by bike coppers), not to give you a fine as it's not technically illegal, but to tell you you're a bloody idiot.

I always wear my protective gear all year round when riding and I agree that it gets very hot up here in QLD in the gear.

I shake my head at the muppets riding around in singlets , shorts and thongs. The difference is, I started riding motorcycles at the age of 10, 35 years ago. I know them back to front and I currently own two Ktm's. Both adventure models one is a 640 and the other is an 1190.

 

The retards riding around with no protective gear have probably only been riding for a couple of years and are simply naive to the fact that motorbikes can bite and car drivers drive around with blinkers on.

 

 

[jakej]

For the cotton wool brigade are you going to supply a nomex suit for your passengers too ? or don't they matter ?

 

IF proper materials & techniques & maintenance are carrried out on an aircraft then the chances of a serious incident caused by either fuel or electricity, in flight, are miniscule. A Nomex suit (was this started by a WA forumite?) & fire extinghuiser won't save you if it takes a while to get on the ground from height. The 'distraction' from heat or chemicals may be what causes your demise anyway.

 

This topic, although it has made some of us think a bit more about a 'what if' situation, is getting to the ridiculous stage IMO. Next thing there will be calls for more regulation to 'protect' us from ourselves, give me a break:scratching head:

 

Next you'll be suggesting Nomex suits, Fire Extinghuisers, Helmets & Airbags for boats & all vehicles - where will it end ? Ooops, nearly stepped out my front door without putting on my armour or having strobe lights fitted & the mandatory Lollipop person:fear:

 

 

[gandalph]

Oscar and Turbs have raised some good points (never thought I'd see those two linked!). The full nomex kit isn't really a viable option for the reasons Turbs mentioned earlier but an Oscar style hybrid kit such as non synthetic shoes, socks trousers and underwear with maybe a nomex flying jacket or a leather jacket and a pair of nomex gloves could be a sensible compromise.

 

I have a pair of ex USAF nomex overalls and a nomex jacket bought from the States for about Aud$200 all up. I'll wear those as I see fit. If I'm doing circuits around Canberrawhere the response time for the firemen is pretty damn good, I probably wouldn't kit up 'cause I can probably get down and out before I start to need basting, but on a flight further afield I'd probably go with the kit.

 

Jake, I don't think anyone here is suggesting PPE should be mandated. It should of course be a matter of personal choice, but the wearing of it it is surely a topic worthy of consideration discussion here?

 

To answer your question directed at the cotton wool brigade, yes I will be providing appropriate PPE for my wife when she flies with me and I will be recommending appropriate clothing to anyone who chooses to fly with me. What she, and they, CHOOSE to wear will be up to them. And yes they do matter.

 

My Co-owner and I have discussed these options and I believe he is coming to see the value of PPE but what he chooses to wear will be up to him. He can fly bare-assed & buck neckkid if he wants to - so long as I'm not there to witness it!

 

 

[jetjr]

How about helmets and maybe 4 or more point harnesses, head and neck rests, absorbing seats, even adjustable seats would be good

 

Perhaps some standards for crashworthiness.

 

When it comes to adding kit, Radio isnt mandatory yet, let alone transponders and TCAS or ADSB. The list of ways to increase weight of aircraft and lighten wallets in the name of safety is almost unlimited

 

Those talking flight suits and double clothing mustnt fly in hot weather much. A low wing in summer on a long taxi could eaaily see pilots having medical problems

 

Prioritising where to spend money and effort is the key to minimizing risks. Right now, stats could indicate the best money would be spent on further training, maintenance and medical checks. None of which we want to accept understandably

 

Anyone flying as a PAX in Jabiru already signs form sying they have a high likelyhood of engine failure and injury. If our pastime really does justify Nomex, helmets and BRS, maybe it really is as dangerous as public thinks

 

 

[Oscar]

JJ, I am very well aware of the problems of too many layers of clothing - having raced with (older) mandatory kit (only two-layer, but in a Clubman with your legs beside the engine and underneath the exhaust system, it gets pretty warm), but also for years as an RFS member - and working the fire-line gets very warm indeed at times.

 

I used to wear a tailor-made light cotton overall-type flight suit in gliders - cream in colour, for good reason - you're sitting under a long clear canopy for sometimes six-plus hours at a stretch, under the sun, requiring around 1 litre of water intake per hour on a decent flying day, and it all sweats out, believe me... Reason was NOT fire-resistance - obviously - but the location of pockets - gliders do not have an abundance of cup-holders and knick-knack bins.. Reasonably baggy legs on the overalls allowed some air circulation; in a race suit every opening to the outside air is closed off and your second-layer long johns are tucked into your nomex socks, gloves etc.

 

With the growing use of efi in aircraft engines, the possibility of a serious amount of fuel being pumped out into the cowl - or worse, into the cockpit if high-pressure lines run through the cockpit, which I suspect is the case in just about all RAA-class aircraft- in a very small time is heightened. We are all using / carrying more and more electronics - and some of the most popular of those ( iPads, iPhones) seem to be gaining a reputation for being anything BUT non-combustible..

 

Occupant safety / crash worthiness is something you choose with your choice of aircraft, and (at least for the more well-informed aircraft owner), we realise that there is a price/performance trade-off: like you, I choose Jabiru for occupant safety, and would not fly in for instance a Sting (having seen the results of a crash of a Sting) for that very reason.

 

PPE is a matter of personal choice, and (in the main) is fairly close to weight-neutral, unless you normally fly naked. And, I would add - the specific aircraft you fly in may make a difference to what gear you choose to wear. I would never suggest that it should be something for consideration as mandatory, but I can't see how elevating the general level of consideration of its use as an item to increase one's safety is negative to our sport.

 

 

[storchy neil]

For the cotton wool brigade are you going to supply a nomex suit for your passengers too ? or don't they matter ?

 

for crist sake you sound like the person that a discussion about what could happen is totally beyond your ability to understand

 

when thought out suggestion as to what may happen and are criticized by idiots of cotton wool brigade you take the cake neil

 

 

[jetjr]

Oscar my main points are with the habit, we all tend to have, of focusing on material fixes to problems rather than addressing major risk issues as their mitigation is harder

 

It is NOT Ok to use PPE as solution to a significant risk. The risk itself should be removed.

 

Also the effects of wearing PPE in hot environments is now a well known risk. leads easily to human factors problems. Particularly to those not used to hot conditions or prepared for the 1l per hour rehydration.

 

Increasing HF risk even slightly is a big problem.

 

There is already others (in other threads) supporting mandatory BRS.

 

All these safety ideas are great, take them up if people want to, but be clear they are reducing % of a tiny portion of risk. Perhaps not addressing the big risk factors.

 

Did you ever sort out harness options for a Jab?

 

 

[gandalph]

All good points Jet but when I'm faced with risks I can't eliminate like 65 litres of fuel just behind my seats, a fuel pump, fuel line, fuel tap and 6 joins in the fuel line between the tank and the firewall, all in the cabin with me, I have to mitigate the effects of those potential failure points. That's why I choose to use PPE as appropriate. I could have chosen other paths such as buying a different model of aircraft but.....$$$$$.

 

You know the old saying: " You makes your choices and you takes your chances."

 

We now have nanny censoring what we type . I can't call the manually operated valve that closes or opens the fuel flow to the engine, a fuel cock (insert another name for a rooster here), I have to call it a fuel tap! PC gone mad!

 

 

[Maritime_Ev]

Oscar my main points are with the habit, we all tend to have, of focusing on material fixes to problems rather than addressing major risk issues as their mitigation is harderIt is NOT Ok to use PPE as solution to a significant risk. The risk itself should be removed.

Also the effects of wearing PPE in hot environments is now a well known risk. leads easily to human factors problems. Particularly to those not used to hot conditions or prepared for the 1l per hour rehydration.

 

Increasing HF risk even slightly is a big problem.

 

There is already others (in other threads) supporting mandatory BRS.

 

All these safety ideas are great, take them up if people want to, but be clear they are reducing % of a tiny portion of risk. Perhaps not addressing the big risk factors.

 

Did you ever sort out harness options for a Jab?

I think it certainly doesn't hurt to have an objective look at (and talk about) the risks involved, and the costs (in money, time and discomfort) spend to mitigate them. So instead of spending money on stuff we're scared of (and yes in flight fire is about the scariest thing I can imagine in terms of aviation mishaps) we can spend our time and money where it gives the best return.

 

So let's say that the chances of getting a full on fire in your aircraft/operation are really small; probably don't justify the expense and the added risk of overheating of wearing a nomex suit.

 

However that small risk may still be big enough for you to decide not to wear syntetic clothing, since the 'costs' of doing that are very minor. Same goes for having a fire extinguisher, not an huge reduction of risk, but comes very cheap.

 

That doesn't mean that wearing the full Nomex gear isn't a smart thing to do for someone else, like a pilot doing 20 minute aerobatic sessions in a warbird (or even someone flying an Auster in Tasmanian winter who doesn't mind the extra warmth).

 

Or the unlucky (test) pilot from the article in the last flight safety magazine: http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2015/07/burning-dream/ (scary stuff that one...)

 

The same with all other safety measures, be it wearing a parachute or helmet or fitting a BRS... There's a time and place for all of them, and that will be different for different pilots.

 

I wouldn't wear a helmet when flying a 172 from the Sunny Coast to Bundaberg, but I would consider one if I was going to fly one off airport in Alaska like these guys (OK not quite a 172 but almost, pretty pictures too).

 

And yes... let's not make any of those compulsory anyway past where it is needed to protect the 'inocent bystander'.

 

That still doesn't make it a bad thing to discuss in a civilised way the choices by different people to use (or not) certain types of safety equipment. (Except protective gear for motor-cyclists... that's not up for discussion, you don't wear it you're an idiot )

 

 

[Oscar]

Oscar my main points are with the habit, we all tend to have, of focusing on material fixes to problems rather than addressing major risk issues as their mitigation is harderIt is NOT Ok to use PPE as solution to a significant risk. The risk itself should be removed.

Also the effects of wearing PPE in hot environments is now a well known risk. leads easily to human factors problems. Particularly to those not used to hot conditions or prepared for the 1l per hour rehydration.

 

Increasing HF risk even slightly is a big problem.

 

There is already others (in other threads) supporting mandatory BRS.

 

All these safety ideas are great, take them up if people want to, but be clear they are reducing % of a tiny portion of risk. Perhaps not addressing the big risk factors.

 

Did you ever sort out harness options for a Jab?

JJ - AMEN to all the above (and the bolding is added by me - I believe it to be the absolute safety base-line of all maintenance and installation actions). I also absolutely believe that one should NOT - as far as possible - do anything that in itself may constitute adding a risk factor because one is focussed on alleviating another risk factor - the law of unintended consequences applies to us equally as others. Anybody who knowingly takes of in an aircraft that contains a significant risk - e.g. a wiring of fuel delivery system defect / suspect condition because they believe they are 'fireproof', might as well place a plastic Jesus on their dashboard...

 

However, I do think that there is 'room' for the intelligent use of PPE - or at the very least, of not wearing 'dangerous' materials. As Geoff's experience shows, the unexpected can happen - and the unexpected can come from an absolutely hidden defect. I most certainly will NOT be ending up looking like the Michelin Man from using PPE appropriate to a high-risk situation, such as competition aerobatics, but I still like the idea of the nomex overalls that can be opened in flight to relieve heat stress but quickly zipped up again IF things get dangerous. And I WILL be testing how well one can manage the heat factor in a situation where there is the opportunity to bug-out in safety if it is becoming apparent that they are elevating my risk factor.

 

No current progress on the seat-belts: I have the belts I wish to use, I have made up a jig for the manufacture of the mounting in consultation with an aero-engineer, but I've been side-tracked on making a new set of cowls to hopefully improve the engine cooling situation: our original set are a bugger's muddle of something lashed-up from original 1600-engine cowls to fit a 2200, and given that the lower cowl shows extreme scorching marks from the heat of the muffler, I consider it to be a higher priority to remove THAT problem! ( Have a gander at this - the 'faux' muffler is a posting tube put in place on my dummy engine to see what clearance is needed)

 

 

And this, I must add, on an aircraft maintained pretty much all of its life by LAME's, L2s and used in flying schools for most of its several thousand hours...

 

 

[jetjr]

Yep mine has the same marks

 

Interestingly where the tailpipe sits resting on the cowl theres nothing

 

I have stuck on some heat proof insulation but thats PPE i guess

 

Have you lookd at CAE new muffler design? Should get rid of plenty of heat if it can fit.

 

Another story, my heater hose somehow came off, lodged on top of muffler, pretty much pointing at floor under pilot feet. the incoming forced air jetted past muffler, caused burning of outer glass and core of the floor. Nasty black charred hole around 50mm accross.

 

Luckily i smelt and felt a problem and retuned to land. Was only doing test circut thank goodness.

 

Had it burnt through much further an extinguisher would have been very helpful

 

 

[facthunter]

CO poisoning is another possibility. Heater hose should be secured well. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Yep mine has the same marksInterestingly where the tailpipe sits resting on the cowl theres nothing

I have stuck on some heat proof insulation but thats PPE i guess

 

Have you lookd at CAE new muffler design? Should get rid of plenty of heat if it can fit.

 

Another story, my heater hose somehow came off, lodged on top of muffler, pretty much pointing at floor under pilot feet. the incoming forced air jetted past muffler, caused burning of outer glass and core of the floor. Nasty black charred hole around 50mm accross.

 

Luckily i smelt and felt a problem and retuned to land. Was only doing test circut thank goodness.

 

Had it burnt through much further an extinguisher would have been very helpful

Wow... if I were running 'Oscar's Flameproof Knickers Co', I'd use that story as a 'testimonial'..

 

The scorch marks on the cowl are a warning sign; as an aero engineer has told me, part of the 'fireproofing' for 'glass comes from the 'paper-bag full of water vs. flame' effect - where the cooling on one side (airflow) keeps the temperature on the other side from igniting the material. Our cowls have coremat in them, which is quite a good insulator, so we rely to a considerable degree on the presence of Aluminum Trihydroxide in the resin - but eventually that loses its water-releasing property and can no longer cool the resin/glass matrix.

 

I intend to research, for my own cowl manufacture, the addition of an internal layer of a ceramic, heat-reflective and fire-retardant paint. I will be running some tests on that on a sample coupon of A-H containing lc3600 to see if it improves flame resistance - I'll pass the results on when I have done those.

 

 

[jetjr]

Good point re CO

 

Not a problem in my case as it was fresh air side which came off but CO is a more common problem than fire or mid air collision (and Jabiru engine failure Id guess)

 

How many rely on the CO detector cards?

 

Are you aware by the time they discolour your already seriously impaired and thats assuming they are in date and working properly.

 

Its also culmulative, an hour at very low levels has same effect as short severe dose.

 

Get a battey powered type, some are no bigger than keyring. Ian did have some on store here.

 

 

[Geoff13]

High folks. Sorry I have not replied earlier but moving house and family commitments got in the way of the flying stuff.

 

Oscar Thank you for your detailed analysis of what you found within the fuel pump. Your description of the smoke rendered by heating the foam well describes what we had. I like you have decided that the failure of this pump is a rare occurrence indeed. I do like the concept of the wire twist in the supply and may consider that in my own aircraft. Your final point has the 3rd possibility which could be a combination of both.

 

I will make a couple more posts relating to different issues bought up by this thread. You may be interested in a couple of them.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I have had some follow up from RAAus on this matter for which I am grateful. The latest correspondence from Katie Jenkins has left me in no doubt that RAAus have taken this incident seriously. I am not sure whether this is because I have made some waves or whether things just moved slowly because to be quite honest this incident happened in the midst of several far more serious incidents and I am sure that Katie and everyone else involved have had enough to do without me jumping up and down.

 

So the main thrust of what happened to date. The Australian distributor is following up with the owner/maintenance personnel to get photos the instrument panel, switches/fuses etc to forward to the factory to assist with their investigation. I also believe that they may have someone coming to look at the aircraft itself to asses it.

 

The manufacturer has stated that they advise against the installation of an electric auxiliary fuel pump. They have determined though that were only three aircraft with this similar installation and have advised the other owners.

 

The factory are still conducting their investigation and RAAus have requested a response from them when that investigation is complete so that they RAAus can pass that information on to me.

 

Needless to say I am very happy with the responses from the manufacturer, the Australian Distributor and RAAus to date. I look forward to hearing the factories final conclusions.

 

Having said that I do believe that this incident has highlighted a failing in the reporting procedure within RAAus and I intend to email Katie about that. It is not a major failing and it shouldn't be difficult to fix. That was simply that if you go to the website and report an incident via the email link then it goes to an email address that only one person has accesss to. If that person is on days off or leave, it could go unnoticed for some time. As I say a rather easy fix on the face of it.