Burn injury prevention

Rick has been a good friend for a lot of years. He is definitely a type-A kind of guy and I believe has the mindset to survive. Lets hope for the best with his recovery.

That said I am sick and tired of people needlessly burning up in aircraft accidents. I fear aircraft fires. There's got to be a way to build a lightweight system that would increase the chances of survivability if the mains spilled and caught on fire after an accident.

rocketbob said:

Rick has been a good friend for a lot of years. He is definitely a type-A kind of guy and I believe has the mindset to survive. Lets hope for the best with his recovery.

That said I am sick and tired of people needlessly burning up in aircraft accidents. I fear aircraft fires. There's got to be a way to build a lightweight system that would increase the chances of survivability if the mains spilled and caught on fire after an accident.

Click to expand...

I am with you on the fire thing, it is most undesirable.

One thing that's evolved with me is not carrying any more fuel than is necessary. Less is better. I used to top off tanks but no more, it is minimum fuel for the mission. The airplane flies better with less weight and there is less to splash around if the worst comes to pass.

I don't know Rick Grey or his family but I think about them every day....

Thanks for the info

Hi Darren,

Thanks for the update. I did not know Rick well but spent time picking his brain at Oshkosh on building a special plane. He was more than gracious with his time and openness. This is truly a sad event.

On a side note, fire scares me. As a professional pilot in a high risk environment, fire is my biggest fear. For this reason, and other accidents that have occurred, I'm putting a fire suppression system in my plane. I firmly believe the 6 lbs and $500 are worth the work. I don't believe it can hurt.

Card being sent. Hang in the Rick. We've got your back!!!!

rocketbob said:

Rick has been a good friend for a lot of years. He is definitely a type-A kind of guy and I believe has the mindset to survive. Lets hope for the best with his recovery.

That said I am sick and tired of people needlessly burning up in aircraft accidents. I fear aircraft fires. There's got to be a way to build a lightweight system that would increase the chances of survivability if the mains spilled and caught on fire after an accident.

Click to expand...

Bob, there is always the fuel cell insert foam the racers use. I've seen it used in homebuilts as well. My understanding is that you lose a couple of percent of fuel capacity, which isn't a deal breaker. The real problem (IMO) is that the foam eventually breaks down, potentially clogging the fuel system and requiring replacement.

Maybe the subject requires its own thread...

Perhaps one of our mods could open a new thread for discussion related to burn injury prevention.

Done.

As per Dan's request, here is a new thread for your thoughts on preventing burn injury.

I will toss out the first one, based on my career in the fire service.

Cotton long sleeve shirt, and pants.

For max safety factor, and min weight, a layer of nomex over the cotton. This is what I was required to wear while fighting a wildland fire.

Plus, leather boots, and gloves.

Nomex alone is not good, it melts.

I have personally seen the results of someone with burn injuries more than once, and where the nomex is over a cotton layer there is significantly less injury/damage.

FIRE SUPRESSION

Summitracing.com: search using fire supression systems. First listing: Safecraft LT5AAB, kit with 5# bottle, 2 ports, 3 nozzles with pull handle and tubing. $319.95. I have seen a similar setup installed in a single place homebuilt aerobatic monoplane.

Another useful thread:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=77498

Thanks in advance,

Nomex

I bought the 'pickle suit' and gloves for test flying my -8, but I'm thinking about 'geeking up' and wearing the nomex full time....plus I like all the pockets for my junk!

Mike S said:

For max safety factor, and min weight, a layer of nomex over the cotton. This is what I was required to wear while fighting a wildland fire.

Nomex alone is not good, it melts.

I have personally seen the results of someone with burn injuries more than once, and where the nomex is over a cotton layer there is significantly less injury/damage.

Click to expand...

I guess I thought that Nomex didn't melt. I don't understand what protection it is providing if it melts. Can you elaborate on the Nomex and the protection it provides?

Melts was not a really good choice of words on my part-------it does not melt and run, drip etc like a melted piece of wax, plastic or such.

It does soften up, and deform-----and then it will char and become brittle.

Nomex is a heat restive protection material, that will act like an insulator to heat. Mainly radiant, and convective heat.

The wildland firefighting nomex is a single layer, it protects the layer under it, and that is what protects the wearer, to put it in simplified terms.

For something like a race car driver suit, or a flight suit, the nomex has numerous layers in it-----each layer designed to prevent a specific portion of the overall fire hazard to the wearer. The total package is a system, and is specific to what it will protect against optimally.

A firefighters turnout suit is not the same as a race car driver fire suit, but there are a lot of similar components.

Do a bit of research via Google, and you will find a lot of info.

Hold on a minute guys. No one wants to burn.

Having said that, single engine aircraft fly alot. Shouldn't we wait until we know the cause before we all start wearing fire suits? Seems to me preventing the fire is a better way to go.

Leaving aside this accident, and to answer to a degree the OP, I typed "burns" into the (UK) AAIB (NTSB equivalent) website. An early hit / extract (a quick scan, could be worthwhile somebody performing a more thorough analysis):

Link 1

The accident was survivable but the pilot suffered life-threatening burns as a result of the fire. Wearing a flame retardant flying suit with gloves and boots, as recommended in the CAA Safety Sense Leaflet, may have reduced the severity of his burns.

Click to expand...

The fire did not ignite immediately and had it been possible to extract the pilot without undue delay, he would only have suffered impact injuries. Being trapped in the cockpit may have been due to the aircraft structure pressing on his legs or the secondary lap strap harness holding him in his seat or a combination of both. The fact that the rescuers were not aware of the secondary harness was considered a significant safety issue. The Light Aircraft Association estimate that there are about 200 aircraft which may have dual restraint harnesses.
Safety Recommendation 2009-046
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Light Aircraft Association consider introducing a requirement to install a placard adjacent to the cockpit, advising potential rescuers that the aircraft seats are fitted with more than one restraint harness.

Click to expand...

As an aside, it is easy to concentrate on one aspect, here fire/burns. If we are to get into "survivability" of accidents (leaving aside avoiding them in the first place which will always be the priority), then my number 1 item would be a decent helmet - ahead of fire protection and parachutes.

Andy & Ellie Hill
RV-8 G-HILZ
RV8tors

Is there any difference in the protective quality of a used/surplus nomex flightsuit and a new one?

Minimum uniform

At a minimum every pilot should wear Nomex gloves. They are inexpensive and offer two advantages. First and most important they keep your hands viable in a fire. Secondly they protect your cockpit from the corrosive fingerprints that make your cockpit look old before its time. And as every pilot knows ?looking good? is 90% of flying. Sure a full Nomex suit, helmet, engine fire suppression apparatus, ballistic chute, forward and sideward airbags, ejection seats, fire resistant fuel bladders and Saint Christopher medal may be cost/weight prohibitive but gloves are an ?easy do.? I flew helos with the 9th Cavalry in combat and we had our share of fires. In true gallows humor we referred it to becoming a crispy critter. It wasn?t funny; it was stress. One thing we all noticed was that Nomex worked well as did your helmet with the visor down. Probably aren?t going to see many RV guys wearing helmets (yes I bought a Gallet and will wear it) but there is simply no excuse for not wearing gloves. Give yourself a fighting chance.

Nomex washes out

During my AF career, we were issued nomex flightsuits every year because the nomex quickly washes out of the flightsuits. So keep that in mind if you plan on buying one suit and using it over and over. Also, I think reducing your fuel load is counter-productive. Its the fumes that go boom, not the fuel. So, a crash with half-empty tanks may cause more damage than a fully loaded tank.

Shopping for Nomex

You've convinced me to go shopping for nomex gear. Bob Hoover is a big proponent of Nomex.

Going to look at the fire suppression system too.

Thanks to all for the good info.

Prayers to Rick & family.
____________________
Deal Fair
RV-4 (N349!)
George West, TX. (8T6)

No fabric softener

As long as you wash with a mild detergent and completely avoid fabric softeners a Nomex flight suit should maintain its fire resistant qualities for several years - assuming normal use and judicious wash intervals.

I fly with a helmut and wear flight gloves every flight. Doubt I'd wear a flight suit going to a fly-in breakfast though - unless a bunch of cheerleaders where gonna be there too.

I installed a halon fire suppression system with two nozzles covering the firewall (engine side), fuel & oil lines, oil cooler and fuel pump with a fire T-handle in the cockpit to activate. Wont do anything to prevent a fire from fuel in the tanks but hopefully would help put out an engine fire in flight giving me enough time to land.

I also mounted a couple of plexi glass breakers with built-in web cutters, along the left shoulder strap of both cockpit harnesses so each person has a tool to help break/cut themselves free.

cbo111 said:

During my AF career, we were issued nomex flightsuits every year because the nomex quickly washes out of the flightsuits. .

Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is quite accurate - the Nomex IS the flight suit - that's the material that the threads are made of - it can't "wash out" without the suit dissolving.

However - Nomex can deteriorate pretty quickly when exposed to continuous sunlight, and will eventually start to pull apart - it doesn't like UV rays.

Paul
(25 year firefighter)

Passenger?

I am as interested as all of you in preventing and protecting against
catastrophic accidents caused by fire.
Wearing a Nomex suit and other protective gear may be all right in an RV-3
or in an F15 but you can't very well suit up like that and tell your passengers
that you are just doing it for yourself.
I for one would not fly along as a passenger with someone suited up in protective gear while I wear shorts and tennis shoes, same goes for parachutes, if the pilot wears one I want one too.
Maybe for phase 1, but after that it is simply not confidence inspiring
for a passenger.

What to wear/use

Ok getting ready for first flight here. I want to wear my gear at least the first few hours of phase 1 testing. I have a nomex suit and gloves and plan on wearing my boots.

What other kinds of protective gear are most of VAF using. Hoods? Nomex socks?

The real question: What kind of gear buys us the most time to get the aircraft to the ground in the unlikely event of an engine fire. (Assuming 2k - 4k' agl, or so)

Assuming - No onboard fire suppression equipment

N427EF said:

I am as interested as all of you in preventing and protecting against
catastrophic accidents caused by fire.
Wearing a Nomex suit and other protective gear may be all right in an RV-3
or in an F15 but you can't very well suit up like that and tell your passengers
that you are just doing it for yourself.
I for one would not fly along as a passenger with someone suited up in protective gear while I wear shorts and tennis shoes, same goes for parachutes, if the pilot wears one I want one too.
Maybe for phase 1, but after that it is simply not confidence inspiring
for a passenger.

Click to expand...

Actually you can "suit up," to a degree, without anyone noticing. I did it for years flying airliners. As was stated early in this thread, there is great value in natural fabrics. I have always made a point of wearing cotton or wool while avoiding any sort of synthetic textiles while flying. A 100% wool uniform is far superior to anything polyester in a fire. Don't forget the all leather shoes with cotton or nomex socks.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

a chute

GLPalinkas said:

...
The real question: What kind of gear buys us the most time to get the aircraft to the ground in the unlikely event of an engine fire. (Assuming 2k - 4k' agl, or so)

Assuming - No onboard fire suppression equipment

Click to expand...

A parachute!

What we have realise, is that no two accidents are identical and that we should cater for as many eventualities as possible.

• A parachute is a great idea in phase one testing and for aerobatics provided there is enough air below the wheels to egress and deploy.
  
• Proper sealing of the firewall to prevent heat and flames entering the cabin.
  
• Appropriate clothing to prevent or minimise burns from cabin fires in the air or ruptured tanks on the ground.
  
• Appropriate headgear to prevent incapacitation in the event of a hard arrival with terra firma.

As well as the above we could look at some sort of fire extinguisher to be mounted inside the engine compartment and also some sort of self sealing substance to be incorporated inside the tanks.

By kitting ourselves out and wearing decent fireproof clothing and decent headgear we can go a long way to prevent long and painful recovery and convalescence or even worse. I am certainly thinking about buying and wearing a set of racing driver overalls and Nomex undergarments. OK that's going to make me look like a bit of a geek or a poseur but I do not care about that.

As a rule I take off and land with my electric boost pump on. This is standard practice in many low wing aircraft and is done as a back up in case the engine driven fuel pump fails in that critical phase of flight. I think that this is a valid precaution. The down side is that should you have an accident at this stage of flight there is a very good possibility that this boost pump will continue to pump fuel should you be too busy flying the plane to shut if off, or worse yet be unable to shut it off.
My thoughts then go to just how many mechanical boost pump failures on take of and landing are there? Does this mechanical pump tend to just quit or does it typically give some warnings before failure?
Perhaps it would be good enough to just check the boost pump before landing or take off. This would do two things; verify that it works, and remind yourself exactly where the switch is if you needed in those next few critical minutes.

Any thoughts?

Emotional reaction

The problem with this thread is that it is an emotional reaction to an
Rv-10 accident.
It appears that no one has speculated on the cause of this accident and no
one has come forward and even given us a sequence of events that led to the fiery crash.
Are we now skipping all the facts and going on to fix something without knowing what needs fixing?
Did the fire start in the engine compartement? Did it start on impact spilling
fuel from the tanks? Was there a fire before impact or after?
All the fireproofing on the firewall or an engine mounted fire supression system will not do you any good if fire breaks out from spilled fuel after impact.
Nevertheless, some good suggestions are beeing brought up and all these posts are raising my awareness of potential fire disasters.

N427EF said:

The problem with this thread is that it is an emotional reaction to an
Rv-10 accident.
It appears that no one has speculated on the cause of this accident and no
one has come forward and even given us a sequence of events that led to the fiery crash.
Are we now skipping all the facts and going on to fix something without knowing what needs fixing?
Did the fire start in the engine compartement? Did it start on impact spilling
fuel from the tanks? Was there a fire before impact or after?
All the fireproofing on the firewall or an engine mounted fire supression system will not do you any good if fire breaks out from spilled fuel after impact.
Nevertheless, some good suggestions are beeing brought up and all these posts are raising my awareness of potential fire disasters.

Click to expand...

First - you're right Ernst - this is clearly a topic that came up due to Rick's accident. And I would really appreciate it if we didn't start speculating on the cause in this thread, since we don't have any data or information whatsoever at this point.

But the truth is, there are numerous cases of post-crash fires that we have all heard about that are relevant. I personally think that the occurance of fires is very low, but since their consequences are very severe, folks spend a lot of time thinking about it - I know I do.

I know it wasn't yor intent to start a speculation on Rick's crash, but someone else might decide to answer your post, then someone else asks a question on the speculation, then....well, you know....

It seems there are plenty of nomex clothing choices beyond flight suits. Winter is coming, gotta wear some kind of jacket anyway. Maybe I'll ask Santa for one of these:

http://www.flameresistantwear.com/Mens-Flame-Resistant-Zipper-Front-Sweatshirt-p-16473.html

Really like the idea of the hood. This kind of garment, coupled with nomex gloves and cotton jeans, seems like it would buy some time without any special effort. Winter is coming; you're going to wear a jacket anyway.

Ironflight said:

First - you're right Ernst - this is clearly a topic that came up due to Rick's accident. And I would really appreciate it if we didn't start speculating on the cause in this thread, since we don't have any data or information whatsoever at this point.

But the truth is, there are numerous cases of post-crash fires that we have all heard about that are relevant. I personally think that the occurance of fires is very low, but since their consequences are very severe, folks spend a lot of time thinking about it - I know I do.

I know it wasn't yor intent to start a speculation on Rick's crash, but someone else might decide to answer your post, then someone else asks a question on the speculation, then....well, you know....

Click to expand...

When did the word "speculation" get added to the "PC - do not use" list? I must have missed it.

Speculation can be very healthy as it gets people thinking freely about possible causes and offers opportunity for creative solutions nobody has thought of. As long as folks maintain a respectful and dignified tone in their speculations I'm at a loss as to why this sort of discussion is so highly censored?

Witnesses said they saw smoke prior to impact, I'm going to make a speculation there was an in-flight fire and maybe I go check all my hose B-nuts for the 100th time just in case... I'm not impugning the pilot/builder just applying what little info exist into theories which can help prevent it from happening to me... where is the harm? If later when the facts come to light and my speculations were in err..all I've done was inspect my hose connections again along wit anyone else who might have agreed.

N427EF said:

The problem with this thread is that it is an emotional reaction to an Rv-10 accident.

Click to expand...

While it may have started that way as part of the original thread, I haven't been following the RV-10 thread because I didn't know Rick and don't have any aspirations to own an RV-10. But I do find the discussion on protective gear interesting, informative, and useful on its own.

I bought my first nomex suit years ago, found a used green one on eBay and fitted it out with the patches from my flying club and a few pseudo-military ones as well. I bought it mostly because it looked cool, and partly because I liked the idea of the convenient pockets for pens, maps, etc. while flying. Fire protection was a distant third in my mind.

Recently I bought a new suit, which has a lot of benefits... It's new (should protect better), it's desert tan (cooler in summer), and it fits better (slightly different size) so i'll be more likely to wear it. That, combined with my nomex gloves (still green... I wonder if they make tan?) and Alpha helmet should provide more complete protection.

However, at the end of the day, I'm only likely to wear them all when i'm flying aerobatics or when flying formation... Times when i'm probably at greater risk. When i'm just taking my wife out for lunch, as someone else pointed out, she's not going to want to sit next to me in shorts and a t-shirt when i'm all dressed up in protective gear.

In just one year we've had 3 fires in RV-10's on this forum. One blew up on the ground (fuel leak), one lit off in the air (fuel leak), now Rick has put his shrimp on the barby. Immediately everyone decides that the best prevention is to fire-wrap the pilot. Some talk of fire suppression also. I'm thinking that instead of modeling your new nomex couture in the mirror it would be more productive to go look at your airplane. What I'm really seeing are plumbing errors. Thats what happens when each craft is different from the next. Each install is somewhat unique and nothing gets a chance to build a service history. If builder A goes left around something and builder B goes right, neither adds to the history of the other. Are both okay, or is one better than the other? Do we wait until one blows and say "don't do that"?
There are thousands of successful lycoming installs and the majority are very, very similar to each other. For carburetor guys you could take a hard look at the PA28 series. There are a millyun of 'em. They don't blow up. For injected lycs maybe look at a buncha light twins, etc. (they sometimes blow up). Not saying these are penultimate installs, just that there are lots to look at. Failed installs are as informative as non-failures. There are also a bunch of successful (high time) IO installs in RV's now. Is yours just like them or "different"? My thinking is that we need to maybe not be so darn clever. QC, heat exposure & wear issues should be easy. Vibration fatique, not so easy. If you are building an RV, find high time examples and either copy their plumbing EXACTLY, or do some dam hard thinkin' as to why you're going "off piste".

Snowflake said:

my nomex gloves (still green... I wonder if they make tan?)

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. And there's a link to Tina's Pilot Shop (with a photo of desert tan gloves) right there on the *front page* of VAF.

Can I get them monogrammed?

Yes, they do. And there's a link to Tina's Pilot Shop (with a photo of desert tan gloves) right there on the *front page* of VAF.
__________________
Buck Wyndham

Click to expand...

ARRRGH! I think this is just what I'm talkin' about.

RV8R999 said:

When did the word "speculation" get added to the "PC - do not use" list? I must have missed it..

Click to expand...

Actually Ken, we have had a long-standing rule here on VAF about non-speculation on recent crash causes. The number one reason is that lots of family members read these forums as well, and it takes about two posts for speculation to turn into "the guy didn't tighten his "B-Nuts" - and that doesn't help the family much.

Yes, I have been in experimental aviation all my life I have lost DOZENS of friends in crashes - some of the highest visibility. i am hardened to it. But many aren't - and neither are their families.

Media eyewitness reports have one thing in common - they are almost always proven to be wildly inaccurate, or completely wrong. Speculation based on DATA is one thing. Speculation on cause based on DATA is something. but with what we know now about the recent crash, it could just as well have been an alien abduction gone bad.

No, we don't allow speculation, especially without any facts whatsoever.

Paul

Thoughts on Nomex

It just occurred to me that when I raced formula cars with 6 gallons of fuel in a rubber bladder I wore three layers of Nomex. Now I fly with 36 gallons of fuel in plain aluminum tanks wearing jeans and a tee shirt...

Why can't we utilize rubber bladders in RV fuel tanks? More weight and reduced fuel capacity I'm sure, but other than that, what's the downside?

For starters you would have to remove all the ribs in the tank.
Then you would have to reengineer the tanks, not easy without ribs.
Tanks are an integral part part of the wing, weight would be the least of your problems.

Ful cell foam might be a partial solution for the outboard tank bays but not for the inboard where the fuel level sensor needs to move freely.
Foam breaking down in a few years would seem more of a nightmare than dealing with peeling slosh.
Capacitance units will have their own set of problems with accuracy.


As a previous poster pointed out, your best option is to make sure your plumbing is set up properly and all is good and tight, it seems to work for 99%
of all RVs

DanH said:

It seems there are plenty of nomex clothing choices beyond flight suits. Winter is coming, gotta wear some kind of jacket anyway. Maybe I'll ask Santa for one of these:

http://www.flameresistantwear.com/Mens-Flame-Resistant-Zipper-Front-Sweatshirt-p-16473.html

Really like the idea of the hood. This kind of garment, coupled with nomex gloves and cotton jeans, seems like it would buy some time without any special effort. Winter is coming; you're going to wear a jacket anyway.

Click to expand...

Good link Dan...some other good items there too, long sleeve henleys, fleece hoodies...good xmas list fodder for us impossible-to-buy-for guys (do you get the "I'm not buying you anything for the airplane for xmas" thing too?). Of course, when momma sees the site, she may query about the whole fire thing. When I say, "heck, get 'em in the kids' sizes too", it'll either be a very good thing, or a very bad thing (emotionally). Maybe I'll just get a few sets and have them in the hangar...

aerhed said:

ARRRGH! I think this is just what I'm talkin' about.

Click to expand...

I hear ya, but its a good way to talk about the prevention and safety aspects of this. When accidents hit close to home, the "it could happen to me" button gets pressed hard, so talking out the various aspects aint all that bad. If it makes us safer as the mechanic (your b-nuts) and the pilot (protective clothing or procedures), its all good stuff! I have tan nomex gloves too...but no monogram!

From that procedural aspect, Tom asked a very good question yesterday too:

Tom Martin said:

As a rule I take off and land with my electric boost pump on. This is standard practice in many low wing aircraft and is done as a back up in case the engine driven fuel pump fails in that critical phase of flight. I think that this is a valid precaution. The down side is that should you have an accident at this stage of flight there is a very good possibility that this boost pump will continue to pump fuel should you be too busy flying the plane to shut if off, or worse yet be unable to shut it off.
My thoughts then go to just how many mechanical boost pump failures on take of and landing are there? Does this mechanical pump tend to just quit or does it typically give some warnings before failure?
Perhaps it would be good enough to just check the boost pump before landing or take off. This would do two things; verify that it works, and remind yourself exactly where the switch is if you needed in those next few critical minutes.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Tom, I can't answer the question on mech pump reliability...perhaps there are readers out there that can. Thinking about it, there may be failure modes that allow fuel to continue to flow and a boost pump may keep the motor running, and perhaps there are catastrophic failure modes of the mech pump that block all flow to the engine, and a boost pump will do you no good in that scenario.

However, it seems to me the consequences of a low altitude failure would justify the use of the boost pump for TO and LNDG (for those non-catastrophic failures) and it also seems that fuel flow at TO is so high that supplementing with the boost pump is a good choice too.

Brings it back to the boost pump as your enemy after a survivable crash, which is a very valid concern. That's where I think boost pump switch placement and your emergency procedures come to play, as well as building the muscle memory you spoke of.

I placed my boost pump switch closest to the throttle, and set it apart from the rest of the switches just a bit...even put a different color cover on it (blue means fuel to me at work, so blue it is in my RV). I placed this and my other switches to support my takeoff, landing and emergency procedure flows. My engine failure procedures include (fly the airplane first, then) boost pump on, check engine contorls, switch tanks. My engine fire procedures include (fly the airplane first, then), fuel off, pull all the engine knobs (mixture, prop, throttle), and boost pump off. I just work the line across in each case. Here's a picture of my set up...just one guy's solution:



Each airplane is different, as is each pilot...that's just a set-up that works for me. If we each take the time to think this scenario through, set things up in a way that supports good response flows and actions, and practice it a bit, it should improve our response when the stuff hits the fan. Our response will not be perfect, almost guar-on-teed...but every little bit of prep and hangar flying (like this discussion) helps a bit! Good question Tom!

Cheers,
Bob

Flight Suits

I don't quite get the problem with wearing a flightsuit. I think it is very useful, lots of pockets for aviation stuff and it provides some fire protection which could make a big difference in an emergency.....but we know all that.

Not wearing one because some half-wit thinks it looks 'geeky" is a little silly.
Flightsuits and uniforms are very common within professional aviation with good reason and I think it looks very "Pilot"...well we are pilots too and face the very same hazards why not take the same precautions.

And as for the pilot being suited up and not the passenger, used flightsuits
are readily available and cheap. We've all seen racks of them at the big airshows for about $50.00 and they're in good condition. Get a couple sizes to have available for the passenger and it may also instill a sense of security for the passenger by knowing the pilot is thinking about safety and taking some positive steps. You can also tell her the suit will prevent her clothes from getting dirty around the plane.

Just my .02

Besides, I don't mind looking a little geeky since it seems to suit my image anyway.

Glenn Wilkinson

rvmills said:

...
Brings it back to the boost pump as your enemy after a survivable crash, which is a very valid concern. That's where I think boost pump switch placement and your emergency procedures come to play, as well as building the muscle memory you spoke of.
...

Click to expand...

The certified plane checklists I remember call for the MASTER SW - OFF before a forced landing.

This would take care of the bost pump and also other possible electrical sources of ignition.

In my Tiger checklist - no power emergency landing

....
6 - Wing flaps - AS REQUIRED
7 - Master Switch - OFF
....

Perhaps it would be better to get your memory to remember the MASTER not BOOST PUMP switch beofre an emergency landing?

Okay, I'm not flaming anyone for flame suits. Really. It's just that this thread popped up in response to the last accident and these fuel fires are really a bad deal. If these were certified planes we'd probably have emergency AD's comin' at us like tracers. Its just my feeble opinion that the best "burn injury prevention" we could do would be to run to the plane and do a fuel system inspection AND analysis. Obviously its not broken now, but could it? If so, how? I'd like to see everyone on this forum go take a fresh look at their fuel system from cap to carb and then report any discrepancies. I bet we'd get a few.

The next question

OK, there has been a healthy discussion of fuel system inspections and fire resistant clothing. How many of you have thought about or actually practiced the quickest way to get on the ground? What configuration is going to give you the greatest descent rate, without exceeding any limitations, in your particular aircraft?

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Good one John. How about some egress planning too?

Nomex Gloves - brown or black, short or long cuffs and GREAT wool socks

There are many places to get tan, OD green, or black Nomex, long cuff, military surplus gloves. There is only one place that I know that carries these color and cuff options:

Black - short cuff
Brown (not tan) - short cuff
Brown (not tan) - long cuff

We do! Flyboy Accessories Nomex Gloves

We had them specially made because I wanted brown gloves that more closely matched the leather jackets I like to wear and my buddy wanted some Nomex gloves that had a shorter, more comfortable cuff.

We also sell Alpha Industries leather jackets (and others) that should offer some protection against fire. Not as good as Nomex, but a helluva lot better than most synthetics. And a few more style options than Nomex offers.

Personally, I always choose COTTON shirts and pants when I'm going flying.

We don't sell these but a GREAT wool sock can be found at Bass Pro shops for extra foot protection. And they are not itchy! Very soft Merino wool. I wear these 100% of the time as soon as the wx turns cool. Bass Pro socks And they have a lifetime guarantee! (I've returned several worn out pairs and promptly received brand new ones!) Check the URL above... these socks have been reviewed 412 times and have a rating of 4.9 out of 5!!! And they're only $10 a pair.. chump change to any pilot.

Forgive the appearance of taking advantage of Rick's accident. I myself have strong opinions on fire safety, I even wear a chute for no other reason, and hope that these items make someone else a bit safer too.

az_gila said:

The certified plane checklists I remember call for the MASTER SW - OFF before a forced landing.

This would take care of the bost pump and also other possible electrical sources of ignition.

In my Tiger checklist - no power emergency landing

....
6 - Wing flaps - AS REQUIRED
7 - Master Switch - OFF
....

Perhaps it would be better to get your memory to remember the MASTER not BOOST PUMP switch beofre an emergency landing?

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point Gil, and I completely agree to include the master in the flow. I was talking about shutting the fuel stuff off, and in my case, I work up from the fuel selector, then right to left, shutting the engine down. After that, time permitting, I'll make the mayday call, then work the rest of the switches right to left (Avionics Master, Mags, Alt, Master). The time permitting part is for the radio call...no time, just go all switches off. (just for a ref, my earlier pic and part of the post pasted below, so ya don't have to go find it).

Your point on the master being the catch-all switch is a very good one...thanks!

rvmills said:

<snip> My engine fire procedures include (fly the airplane first, then), fuel off, pull all the engine knobs (mixture, prop, throttle), and boost pump off. I just work the line across in each case. Here's a picture of my set up...just one guy's solution:

Cheers,
Bob

Click to expand...

John asks a good question.

Suppose you're crusing along full bore at 8500' and then the unthinkable happens.

The only solution I can think of to get on the ground ASAP is after slowing the plane to the appropriate speed is to slip it hard to maximize the decent rate and land where possible and hope it quick enough.

I'm certainly not nearly as experienced or accomplished as many other RVators and if there is a better method I would like to learn about it but that's the best i've got.

Glenn Wilkinson

rvmills said:

That's an excellent point Gil, and I completely agree to include the master in the flow. I was talking about shutting the fuel stuff off, and in my case, I work up from the fuel selector, then right to left, shutting the engine down. After that, time permitting, I'll make the mayday call, then work the rest of the switches right to left (Avionics Master, Mags, Alt, Master). The time permitting part is for the radio call...no time, just go all switches off. (just for a ref, my earlier pic and part of the post pasted below, so ya don't have to go find it).

Your point on the master being the catch-all switch is a very good one...thanks!

Click to expand...

6 - Wing flaps - AS REQUIRED
7 - Master Switch - OFF

Bob,
I didn't include the whole list, but did highlight that flaps were on the list before the master switch since the Tiger has electric flaps like the RVs.

The items earlier in the list -

1 - Airspeed - 72 KTS
2 - Radio - TRANSMIT MAYDAY
3 - Mixture - IDLE CUT OFF
4 - Fuel Selector Valve - OFF
5 - Ignition Switch - OFF

The list essentially covers the other items you mention, but doesn't bother with the boost pump since the Master Sw takes care of it.

The only switches you need to bother with are the Master and Ignition.