Warbird Information Exchange

I spent my annual week working vintage flightline at Oshkosh and was looking forward to seeing the Xp-82 fly. It was fabulous to see it in the air, but was dismayed to see it being flown by crew in short sleeved shirts and mini boom mikes. I have lost several friends to accidents and know of people who have been permanently disabled by mot wearing the proper PPE. Most of these would have survived had they were utilizing PPE. We are operating 75 year old equipment and some of us operate like you are getting into your Cessna or Piper. We have to re-educate ourselves to operate these Warbirds like what the military does, proper flight suits, helmets and gloves. Aircraft can be replaced. People are not. Please be safe.

Having spent 23 years in the Aircrew Life Support career field, teaching survival training, bailout procedures, and maintaining the survival equipment, this is a topic that is dear to my heart.

In the 23 years I spent doing this job, the units I was assigned to lost 3 aircraft, 2 OV-10s when I was with the 27th TASS, and 1 F-15 when I was with the 1st FS. All 4 pilots survived in part due to the training we provide, the equipment we provide, and our maintaining of the ejection systems.

I'm anal in the belief that proper equipment should be worn, it's designed for a reason, and many lives were loss, making the design of this equipment important.

Thank you for bringing this subject up, it's something all aircrew should think about.

_________________
Mike in Florida
TSgt USAF Retired
Jan 86 - Sept 08
Aircrew Life Support
"Your Life Is Our Business"
(122X0, 1T1X1, 1P0X1)
NRA Life Member

Yes, this is a very personal decision and a "hot" topic among warbird operators. A few of my own personal thoughts:

1) The use of a helmet and nomex flight suit protects both from crash impact trauma as well as fire protection. Wearing both gives the additive advantage of both types of protection. Some pilots wear one without the other. It is personal preference as I know some warbird pilots who wear a helmet with shorts and short-sleeved shirts (crash protection, but no fire protection) and some that wear a nomex flight suit but no helmet (no crash protection, but fire protection). Everyone has to accomplish their own assessment to decide their personal risk tolerance.

1) In the XP-82 pilot's defense, the XP-82 is a twin engine aircraft and has redundancy built in via the second engine. The chances of the Twin Mustang making an off-airport landing due to twin engine failure is extremely remote. The XP-82 has no Vmc or single-engine safety speed. In other words, it is capable of always flying single engine at any speed above stall speed. That means there is never any time in its flying envelope where it cannot successfully fly single engine, even on initial takeoff. That is vastly different from most twin-engine warbirds and is a HUGE safety issue that is not prevalent on any other twin-engine warbird that I am aware of. An off-airport landing, or aborted takeoff and subsequent runway overun is the greatest chance for a traumatic, blunt force head injury. Since the odds of this are extremely remote in the XP-82, one could say that having crash protection via a helmet is not necessarily a high priority for that particular airframe. Having fire protection is a little bit higher priority, in my opinion. The odds of an engine catching on fire and possibly going into the cockpit area is a greater risk, so wearing a nomex flight suit might be a higher priority to some pilots in this aircraft.

The XP-82 pilot is extremely well versed in the dangers of operating warbirds and the potential risks involved. He is a current F-16 pilot and has a multitude of experiences in everything from Cubs to P-51's, B-17's and Airbuses. I think he knows the risks involved and has made a conscious decision based on his personal risk tolerance.

3) All of this debate has to be balanced by risk exposure, comfort, and practicability. It is up to each individual warbird pilot to decide what risk they are willing to take and what personal protection they should use. My own personal thought is that I want all of the protection I can utilize. If I were to fly or ride as a passenger in a high performance single-engine W.W.II fighter, I would wear both. If I were to fly on a twin engine W.W.II aircraft that has engines isolated from the cockpit area in nacelles such as the C-47, B-25 or P-38, I would not be inclined as much to wear either a helmet or a Nomex flight suit. But, this is just me. Each pilot has to determine what their individual risk tolerance is.


Two anecdotes which illustrate both ends of the extreme which tie into this debate:

1) One very well known warbird pilot who is a member here on WIX, wore both Nomex and a flight helmet when his W.W.II single engine fighter caught on fire on initial takeoff. He has posted here in the past that he directly attributes his life being saved to wearing a helmet and flight suit. The aircraft had serious damage and still has not flown since the accident some 17 years ago.

2) One very well known warbird and Reno Air Race pilot, who was not wearing a helmet, lost engine power on final in his single-engine fighter aircraft. He sustained serious head injuries which have ended his flying career and confined him to a wheel chair, probably for life. Could wearing a helmet have prevented this? I don't know, and it might not have made a difference. But, it certainly didn't help his chances for survival either.

There is a reason why every single pilot in the Unlimited races at Reno wear some type of fire protecting flight suit, helmet and onboard oxygen. Granted the chances for a mishap at the Reno races is much greater than your average every day Mustang flying, but the inherent risks are well known, calculated and mitigated.

This is a personal decision that every warbird pilot has to make. I don't judge anybody for their risk tolerances, but they have to accept the consequence of those decisions - good or bad.

I started wearing a brain bucket when I saw one too many bloody T-6 cockpits where the pilot hit either the roll bar or coaming. These were survivable accidents. In most cases, the pilot did survive, but with a probably avoidable head injury. At first, wearing a helmet was uncomfortable and somewhat disorienting. Over time, it became very natural. Also, if you use the visor, you are better protected from a bird strike.

Where I part company with the “in” crowd in a big way, is with flight suits. I used to wear one. Over time, I noticed how often the heat was affecting my cognitive judgement. I live in a part of the country that is usual hot. I began to question whether some of the inexplicable accidents we see are heat related. My conclusion was that in high temperature, heat exhaustion is a far bigger risk than fire. I think shorts and a t-shirt is a much safer alternative in hot weather. Yes, the military requires flightsuits, but their cockpits are air conditioned.

Further, a comment was made that the pilots dress like they are going to fly a Cessna or Piper. I would just point out that most non-combat warbirds like the T-6 are licensed to the same standards as a Cessna 120. So the fire risk is no higher both in theory and in fact. This does not mean there is no risk of fire. But it is a judgement call where all risk factors must be considered.

_________________
Rob C

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. “

– Michael Crichton

Where I part company with the “in” crowd in a big way, is with flight suits. I used to wear one. Over time, I noticed how often the heat was affecting my cognitive judgement. I live in a part of the country that is usual hot. I began to question whether some of the inexplicable accidents we see are heat related. My conclusion was that in high temperature, heat exhaustion is a far bigger risk than fire. I think shorts and a t-shirt is a much safer alternative in hot weather. Yes, the military requires flightsuits, but their cockpits are air conditioned.

My friend was flying to Oshkosh in his Warbird several years ago when he stopped for fuel. When he turned off the runway, the tower notified him that he was on fire. He exited the aircraft but died 6 days later to the burns he suffered while getting out. He was wearing shorts, t-shirt and sandals. He was trained as a naval aviator. I miss my friend

Exactly right. You defined a completely different set of parameters. Your friend was flying a very high risk airplane. Highly modified foreign built non-certified airplane with a modified non-standard fuel system. Nomex might have given him enough time to get out. A very good example of different equipment for a different mission. Ditto racing at Reno. A very short flight where heat exhaustion is a smaller risk than fire. Where oxygen is required breathing matter, etc.


I don’t wear Nomex when I am driving my Toyota Tundra, either. Is fire a risk? Hell yes, it is.

_________________
Rob C

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. “

– Michael Crichton

personally i wouldn't even do T/Gs without flight suit, gloves and parachute, but that me.

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

Regarding flight helmets, the original purpose for them was for a suspension assembly to hold comms, visor, and the O2 mask. The HGU-55/P series helemts and later are designed to absorb the Initial impact and break. I use to take a condemned helmet and slap it against the corner of a table while teaching Life Support Equipment training to air crews. To demonstrate how easy the helmet cracks, and for them to see how this damage affects the liner assembly also.

Flight suits, by design, are made from an inherently fire retardant material aka NOMEX and is to afford the aircrew the opportunity of getting out of the aircraft without serious burns. Another flight suit trivia bit, flight suits are to be condemned when the threads along the seams start to unravel or when there are holes in the suit itself. Some people treat their flight suits like their favorite pair of jeans, the more worn the better. The opposite is true here, a worn out flight suit offers little if any protection, and the same applies to flight gloves.

I will admit that I am bias based on this was my job for 23 years, and I took the safety of my crews seriously. Hence our motto "Your Life Is Our Business", I lived and breathed that motto for 23 years. Did it well enough to make Outstanding Life Support Airman of the Year for 21st AF as a SrA in 1989, and to be handpicked several times for assignments, though I chose to remain in AFSOC.

I was on track for selection and being groomed for HQ positions and would have eventually made CMSgt had I not had a heart attack in 2002 and made to retire in 2008.

Regardless I take aircrew safety seriously..........

Edited to add: Old cars didn't have seatbelts in the rear, new cars do, old cars didn't have airbags new cars do. So does imply that old cars aren't powerful enough to be considered dangerous? Safety equipmemt like technology evolves over time. So flying an old aircraft with modern protective equipment is just a way of bridging old with new and being protected and safe at the same time.

_________________
Mike in Florida
TSgt USAF Retired
Jan 86 - Sept 08
Aircrew Life Support
"Your Life Is Our Business"
(122X0, 1T1X1, 1P0X1)
NRA Life Member

Here's what I know. I have a big scar on my forehead because one day things went wrong, and I didn't have a helmet on. But I'm probably here today because on the other day things went wrong, I did have a helmet on.

I flew some years ago with an extremely experienced former military test pilot; he pretty much had every credential in the book and had survived several serious crashes. No matter what he flew - even a Cessna 172 - he was always fully suited up with helmet, Nomex, gloves, boots. Someone asked him why once, and he said something like "'cuz every one of these d*mn planes big and small is always trying to come up with a new way to kill me, and I ain't gonna make it easy for 'em".

While I can understand the issue in certain situations with a Nomex Flight Suit (even summer weight suits), I personally believe that it doesn't minimize the need to make sure you're wearing appropriate clothing. When I say appropriate clothing, I mean that you're wearing all natural fibers (aka cotton) and do your best to maximize coverage (i.e. jeans not shorts, long sleeves if possible, short sleeve shirt if not). I know shorts seem cooler, but the actual difference in how cool you are between shorts and long pants/jeans is really very little since the main areas of cooling for your body are almost all above your waist. As such, you can still wear a fairly appropriate alternative clothing that will offer better protection than shorts (as most fires occur down low in the plane first).

In general, I agree that the type of operation should always be considered when PPE is concerned (in fact, in my professional life as a Line Service Technician, I have Job Hazard Assessments for most of my tasks and PPE is laid out in each for those tasks). Helmets are great in a lot of occasions, but if you're just doing circuits, then there is an argument that your "type of operation" is not needing of say a helmet or oxygen, but maybe a flight suit or at least long pants.

I am reminded of a video of Lockheed’s Kelly Johnson when asked what the safest aircraft was. He said it’s the Piper Cub, because it can just barely kill you.

How about your pax?
I've ridden on a few two-place high-performance WW2 types over the years and each time I was handed a David Clark headset because they didn't have a helmet for the back seater. I wore my Nomex each time, because it was always a good idea to me.
Ironically, I was wearing BDUs the one time that Nomex would have really come in handy but I wasn't aircrew. Got a decent burn across my right shoulder blade due to something wonky happening in an Army helicopter but thankfully it healed just fine with no ill effects (or scars/marks) now.
In the 90s, I had a custom-made HGU-33 helmet with com plug adapters for various military/civilian aircraft but I never got the opportunity to wear it as the rides I got came up last moment and I didn't know I'd need the helmet. Never got to wear it once and I eventually sold it...

_________________
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
Owner, 1944 Willys MB #366014
Former REMF (US Army, O3)