With Tutor flying, it’s worn to protect against the risk of fire and functionality.
Viking flying for functionality.
In both cases it’s considered survival equipment. I.e layers/jacket to keep the individual warm following abandonment etc.
What cost would you consider is appropriate to help prevent serious burns or to help somebody survive in the worst case scenarios?
So, the RAF/MOD/MAA tell us we have to wear the appropriate clothing.
Abandonment from a classroom or an office?
There is nobody arguing against the wearing of flying clothing whilst flying, but the practice of mooching around in a gro-bag at all times by personnel who are not engaged in flying duties (or flying staff who are nowhere near needing it) is rife even in the RAF.
Some VGS may still do this? If the intention is to fly, which most of the time for AEF and VGS staff it is, then everybody wearing flying clothing is fine. This sort of stuff is managed locally and practically.
If I have an issue with my flying clothing, then a squipper will look at it and repair/ replace it. I don’t particularly want to have to get changed every time I go flying during the course of the day!
Guess you could write to att the AEF and VGS OCs pointing out the errors of their ways…
Would love to see their reactions…
Totally missing the point. No-one is suggesting cadets and staff who are flying shouldn’t wear flying coveralls. But there is no need for someone who is not expecting to fly to be issued with them, and they are much more expensive than no. 2s (and the latter are provided already).
Which is an argument in favour of (particularly) staff cadets - who’s main duties will be assisting the operations rather than flying itself and therefore at greater risk of damaging the clothing by scrambling around with winches and vehicles - not then being at risk of damaging the clothing that’s vital for their safety in the air.
If we think of it from a risk perspective - as we have to with everything now - are we really saying we’re happy to live with the risk that their flight safety equipment might be damaged in the course of their other duties, but they didn’t change because it was inconvenient? How would that look in an accident report…?
So who are all these people on AEFs and VGS that don’t go flying then? You make it sound as if there are plenty of them?
Even staff that occasionally fly on a VGS or AEF are more deserving than those who’ve completed a QAIC course?
Does it really upset you that much when you visit a VGS or AEF to see someone sitting at a desk wearing a flying suit?
Is this flying suit envy?
If it’s damaged they don’t fly in it. They get another pair issued to them.
At what cost? Why was it being used for inappropriate activities where it could be damaged in the first place?
Just because something has always been done in a certain way doesn’t mean it should be done in a certain way. No truly robust process is above questioning.
What inappropriate activities do you mean? ‘Flying duties’ covers a multitude of activities, including winch driving etc.
Nobody’s stoping you from questioning the process.
i question this.
the safety element of the flying suit is its protection from fire - ie fire retardant.
to compromise that protection the suit would need to be damaged severely, eg tears to sleeves, knees/legs as high wear areas.
If a flight suit were in such a state the individual would also look a state and be chastised for wearing uniform/kit in a poor/unfit state and would not be seen wearing it.
to counter this you could argue there is “unseen” damage, such as UV damage to the fabric or the “thinning” of the fabric due to excessive wear and tear (bending down to attach a winch cable for example) - I am not sure given the unseen nature of the damage how this would be included in an accident report.
indeed in accident reports how detailed do they go into with regard pilot/crew clothing? would it be be as simply as questioning if it was it present and worn correctly?
Anything of a serious safety nature (such as a helmet) might under go an annual inspection and be proven suitable/not suitable for continued use.
Let’s abolish tailored no.1dress for officers- they’re unnecessary and expensive. At Least flying suits have a functional purpose.
So what if FSCs and RAFAC staff wear flying kit when it not wholly necessary? We are creating an environment where cadets get the feel for life in the RAF. That’s why we have no1s and saluting etc. If we don’t want that then let’s get rid of uniform altogether and have sweatshirts instead.
When I was an FSC we helped cadets into the aircraft and strapped them in. If that is still the case at AEFs now then there is still a fire risk on the apron and so flying kit is necessary.
I would have thought that was (and needed to be) done by the babcock ground crew at the AEF
And that role in the RAF is conducted by line technicians wearing coveralls.
But they don’t fly at all. FSCs do fly so should they be issued with flying suit and coveralls!
Babcock ground staff will strap cadets in at AEFs.
Flight staff cadets don’t normally get issued brand new flying suits. They’re normally serviceable used suits. Any worn clothing returned to stores is scrapped. The cost of flight staff cadets being issued with flying suits is minimal.
Are they maintained as safe and serviceable on a regular basis as per regular service flying suits, or are they basically coveralls with plastic knees?
They’re personal issue. So unless a problem is highlighted or noticed then there’s no regular maintenance schedule for them.
I disagree - they satisfy the needs when a “full suit” is required, namely jacket and tie, for formal events and dinners (No4s)
although i do agree with removal of tailoring - get off the peg like the rest of uniform!