What to wear when flying

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 12:38 am, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:


I didn't see anything that made me think that "cotton kills" is a
marketing ploy with no basis in fact.

Thanks for the long post, but hypothermia is usually the last link in
a very long chain.

With respect, poor preparation causing hypothermia is usually a primary
link, quickly followed by deteriorating mental acuity. It is like hypoxia
or dehydration, you do not recognize it until it is too late, usually at
sunset.

Trust me -- I've got the gear --polypro, wool, etc. I hunt in below 0
temps, have backpacked in winter, canoed whitewater in early spring,
and spent weeks in the field in training on two continents.

I love my polypro, but wasn't allowed to wear any of it on a tank --
ever.

Tank wear is irrelevant, and most tank discussion similarly quite OT.

"Cotton kills" oversimplifies the problem. If you are to the point
where the only thing protecting you is a t shirt and cotton long johns
-- you're in a world of hurt.

If you even own cotton long johns or wear cotton tshirts then you have
already taken several steps toward hypothermia. In a survival situation,
you should take your cotton shirt and wear it as far from your body as
possible.

Happy landings,

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote in
:

The subject of this thread is (oddly enough) "What to wear
when flying."

It may well be that the analogues from hiking, biking, and
moutaineering are more relevant to the thread than lessons
learned from driving a tank.

Wrong. the tank example is more relevant -- enclosed space, possibiity
of fire, possible breakdown in inhospitable terrain.

Well, there's no accounting for taste in the use
of analogies, I guess.

There's nothing I've worn Mountain Biking that would do a bit of good
in an airplane -- or a tank.

The situation envisaged is the kind of clothing that may
be necessary for survival if and when the plane comes down
in inhospitable territory.

I imagine it is rare for tank
crews to end up in a situation where they have to survive
in a cold, wet wilderness.

You haven't spent much time on a tank in Hohehfelds, have you?

Neither have you.

I'm sure you meant to type "Hohenfels."

http://benefits.military.com/misc/in...nt.jsp?id=1645

40,000 acres of playground is big.

But I doubt that even the military could lose a
tank there in such a way that the crew had to
hike out in order to survive.

"Cotton kills" is a slogan and a mnemonic, not a substitute
for accident investigation. It wasn't wearing cotton that
caused the two snowmobilers to enter restricted area without
telling anyone where they were going; but once they got in
trouble, their cotton clothing didn't help them as much
as other kinds of clothing would have.

The chain was long. Polypro instead of cotton would have prolonged the
inevitable.

The son survived; the father died.

Polypro instead of cotton may have saved the father's
life.

Perhaps we should attribute it to Darwin?

If any of us want to avoid starring in the Darwin awards,
foresight about the dangers we face might help.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

On Mar 28, 2:57 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:

I imagine it is rare for tank
crews to end up in a situation where they have to survive
in a cold, wet wilderness.
You haven't spent much time on a tank in Hohehfelds, have you?

Neither have you.

Yeah, I have.

Funny, I never saw you there.


But I doubt that even the military could lose a
tank there in such a way that the crew had to
hike out in order to survive.

Based on your vast experience?

"Hiking out" isn't the only concern. Proper clothing allows crews to
perform despite the conditions.


Dan Mc

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

You haven't spent much time on a tank in Hohehfelds, have you?

Preferred black PJs on LRRPS.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:03:20 -0700, Private wrote:

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 12:38 am, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:


I didn't see anything that made me think that "cotton kills" is a
marketing ploy with no basis in fact.

Thanks for the long post, but hypothermia is usually the last link in
a very long chain.

With respect, poor preparation causing hypothermia is usually a primary
link, quickly followed by deteriorating mental acuity. It is like hypoxia
or dehydration, you do not recognize it until it is too late, usually at
sunset.

Yes, you have the sequencing accurately, hypothermia is a long way from
the end of any physiological chain of events.

On Mar 28, 4:49 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:
You haven't spent much time on a tank in Hohehfelds, have you?

Preferred black PJs on LRRPS.

Oh god -- now you were a LRRP in 'Nam?

Keep it coming.. this is too good.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

On Mar 28, 4:49 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:
You haven't spent much time on a tank in Hohehfelds, have you?

Preferred black PJs on LRRPS.

Oh god -- now you were a LRRP in 'Nam?

How about that? You read my books?

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 28, 2:57 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:

I imagine it is rare for tank
crews to end up in a situation where they have to survive
in a cold, wet wilderness.
You haven't spent much time on a tank in Hohehfelds, have you?

Neither have you.

Yeah, I have.

Funny, I never saw you there.

"Hohehfelds" doesn't exist. There is a huge
military training base by a different name
(Hohenfels). I presume that is what you meant.

But I doubt that even the military could lose a
tank there in such a way that the crew had to
hike out in order to survive.

Based on your vast experience?

Based on reasonable expectations of how the military
feels about 1) losing tanks on maneuvers; 2) leaving
tank crews to walk out of harsh terrain.

Here's another way of putting it: the rules you were
given for what you would wear in the tank were only
concerned with surviving a fire in the tank. They
were not geared toward surviving in the bush after the
tank failed because, as a general rule, tanks don't
get lost out in the bush in such a way that the tank
crews have to hike out of the wilderness.

Airplanes, unlike tanks, often do get lost in such
a way that survivors need to spend some time in the
cold and damp.

"Hiking out" isn't the only concern. Proper clothing allows crews to
perform despite the conditions.

Hiking out after a crash is the situation that was
envisaged in this thread. Tank maneuvers on a
closed reserve under the watchful eye of a huge
corps of support staff just don't strike me as
a reasonable analogy to the difficulties that
pilots may face elsewhere in the world.

YMMV.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

On Mar 28, 7:19 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:

Based on your vast experience?

Based on reasonable expectations of how the military
feels about 1) losing tanks on maneuvers; 2) leaving
tank crews to walk out of harsh terrain.

OK, so the answer is, you don't know.


Here's another way of putting it: the rules you were
given for what you would wear in the tank were only
concerned with surviving a fire in the tank. They
were not geared toward surviving in the bush after the
tank failed because, as a general rule, tanks don't
get lost out in the bush in such a way that the tank
crews have to hike out of the wilderness.

How much time is spent on the tank? Off the tank? What happens when
the tank breaks down? Any idea?


Airplanes, unlike tanks, often do get lost in such
a way that survivors need to spend some time in the
cold and damp.

And tank crews and helicopter crews (who operate under the same
uniform restrictions) certianly are always just a few miles from a
comfy hut.


Hiking out after a crash is the situation that was
envisaged in this thread. Tank maneuvers on a
closed reserve under the watchful eye of a huge
corps of support staff just don't strike me as
a reasonable analogy to the difficulties that
pilots may face elsewhere in the world.

What Army were you in? I froze and sweat my a$$ off in damn harsh
conditions, and and off a tank.

It 'doesn't "strike [you] as a reasonable analogy" because you decided
you know all about tanks and crews and Army training without really
having the faintest idea that in fact there is a direct co-relation
between the clothing needs of the two -- both pilots and tankers need
to survive the initial fire, and then the Long Walk to the Rear.

NOMEX is the fabric of choice for both.

Now, where this thread got hijacked was the use of the brilliant
marketing phrase, "cotton kills."

If it's stuffed down your throat in the form of a sock, maybe. If it's
all you're wearing and you drop into a lake when it's under 40 degrees
F, and you don't dry off, maybe.

By that reasoning, we should also say "Doritos Kill", "J.C. Penney Big
and Tall Man's Dress Slacks Kill", and "Phil Collins Playing the
Background on the Radio Kills" because there is some tenuous casual
link that someone, somewhere can imagine.

Patently absurd.


Dan Mc

Dan wrote:
By that reasoning, we should also say "Doritos Kill"

Well for your information they do! Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0nliPWaCvA

If that doesn't prove it is unsafe to fly in the winter in shorts and a bad
haircut, I don't know what does.

Patently absurd.

Mission accomplished.