ABSTRACT
Pilot uniforms, particularly in the commercial airline industry, conveys professionalism, competence, and experience. However, historically, uniforms started as a component of safety in aviation, which relied not just in their protective functions but as well in their capability to protect combat pilots from the natural elements of extreme heat and cold, particularly during the era of open cockpits. Protective flight clothing has evolved significantly through decades and even centuries. The sophisticated development in protected flight clothing, however, failed to influence adaption in the civil air transport industry. Using grounded theory through archival literature analysis, the Capstone Project revealed advantages and disadvantages of protective flight clothing, its evolution through history primarily from the British military aviation, its current adaption among air transport pilots, and its future in the civil air transport industry. Analysis outcomes indicate that the absence of adaption in the industry had been a consequence of regulatory disinterest in more advanced protective flying garments for use among commercial airline pilots. Its future, too, will be highly dependent upon developments in this area. In the meantime, commercial airline pilot uniforms will continue to be guided by a message of professionalism and the best fashion design the airline management can and is will to provide.
INTRODUCTION
1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The civil air transport industry has a major role in enhancing global economic movement. Thus, it is necessary that aviation safety be maintained and protected in addition to security and environmental protection (International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO], 2015). One aspect of aviation safety involves the use of protective flight clothing to ward off all forms of hazards.
Much of the evolution on aviation protective clothing resulted from the accelerated developments in the human-driven air defense capability of nations. Wars, particularly the last two world wars, significantly speeded up the development of protective flying suits in parallel with a similar developmental speed in aircraft technology, essentially beyond the motorist clothing where flight clothing used to regard as inspiration and even as clothing source (Rood, 2014). Since the beginning of the flight clothing history, protective apparel technology had to improve in its capability to maintain the aircrew’s combat effectiveness and even advantage. Consequently, during the early years of combat aviation, the developments of protective clothing technology for aviators were primarily reactive (Rood, 2014).
Today, however, the growth in commercial aviation provides a different environmental context than was not present in the early years of aviation from which the use of protective flight clothing originated. The branching of aviation from combat to commercial consequently affects the need for protective flight uniforms among pilots. It is clear though that the focus on protective flight clothing remained in combat aviation and unheard of in commercial aviation. Moreover, occupational health and safety guidelines require other service occupations, such as non-aviation military personnel, factory workers, and even sports drivers, to wear protective clothing as their basic uniform or as a covering to their standard uniforms (ICAO, 2015).
Thus, it becomes logical to wonder over this lack of utilization for protective flight clothing among commercial pilots, considering the physical hazards of the profession in the event of crashes, which can take their lives. Is it a decision made by the airline management or by the commercial pilots themselves? This Capstone Project aims to explore the protective flight clothing industry, particularly in relation to aviation history and to the context of commercial airline use.
2.0 ORGANIZATON OF THE PAPER
Finally, Part IV will explore the future prospects of aviation protective uniforms in the context of the market and segment and of commercial aviation as well. This will include a discussion on the factors that may determine adoption of protective flight uniforms in the commercial aviation industry.
LITERATURE REVIEW
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PROTECTIVE FLIGHT CLOTHING
Advantages of aviation protective uniforms
Protect pilots from physical harm against various physical threats (Rood, 2014). This is often applicable to combat pilots; although terrorist acts also expose civil pilots;
Shield and isolate the pilots from chemical, physical, and biological hazards encountered, especially in hijacks where perpetrators use any of these weapons (Mueller, 2015);
Protect pilots’ ability to fly and communicate effectively (Rood, 2014), particularly when weather or biological hazards are involved;
Ensure continuing mental agility (Rood, 2014) as a consequence of physical protection;
When used as pilot uniforms, protective clothing conveys professionalism, competence, and experience (Pride, et al., 2012)
Disadvantages of aviation protective uniforms
Specialized protection designs: No single protective flying suit can protect against all forms of hazards (Mueller, 2015). Protective suits designed to withstand fire may not withstand biochemical exposures;
Costliness: Protective clothing is inherently expensive due to the special fibers needed in designing protection capability against specific flight hazards. Kevlar, which can be effective against heat and mechanical hazards, can be costly to the airlines when adopted as regular pilot uniforms. Moreover, biochemical hazard protective clothing, for instance, had to balance biochemical breakthrough time with cost as clothing with shorter breakthrough time can be cost effective at times even if they are discarded after use. Reuse can also lessen safety and protection as well as requires thorough cleaning before storage;
Body heat management issues: Protective clothing likely interferes with heat dissipation from the body, particularly during hot weather, exposure to sunlight, and length of stay in a confined space (e.g. cockpit) (Mueller, 2015). Undissipated heat may cause discomfort to the pilots, resulting to potential errors in judgment at crucial times.
Restrictions to movement: Thick and bulky protective flight clothing designed to combat extreme cold and strong winds can restrict pilot, particularly combat pilots, movements in the cockpit (Rood, 2014). Features like hoods may interfere with a broad vista that may be crucial in combat situations. Small commercial airplanes may also have constrictive cockpits for bulky uniforms.
HISTORY OF PROTECTIVE UNIFORMS
Varieties of protective uniforms in history
The tweed jacket with trousers
The changes of aviation apparels through decades moved oftentimes according to changes in aircraft technology. During the era of perched wicker-seated airplanes, early aviators, such as brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright of the United States, Samuel Franklin Cody of Great Britain, Alberto Santos-Dumont as well as Henri Farman and Louis Bleriot of France, used a relatively durable tweed jacket with trousers, the earliest known form of aviation protection apparel (Rood, 2014). In those times, air travel speed ranged from 30 miles per hour (mph) to 70 mph; while car travel can reach as fast as 120 mph under similar environment. In Great Britain, the purveyors of pilot protective apparel comprised of two large London department stores: the Gamages at Holborn and the Benetfinks at Cheapside (Rood, 2014).
As aviation technology advanced, along with faster, higher, and longer flying, protective suits also evolved. Later on, protection concerns were centered not merely against the elements, but against other physical threats as well, such as cold, air-blast, chemical and biological weaponry, nuclear flash, fire, laser weapons, impact of continuous acceleration, survival in cold water in case an emergency escape became necessary, and many impacts of changing altitudes. Various countries with well-developed military services (e.g. the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, and the likes) developed their own protective flying apparel (Rood, 2014).
The khaki jacket lined with interior wool
The problem with tweed suits, however, was that they easily damaged with exposures to sun, rain, cold, dirt, and oil. Thus, as more engines became more powerful, more reliable, and lighter, and thus more capable of flying to longer distances, aviators sought for better protective clothing (Rood, 2014). The plain tweed jacket evolved into a khaki jacket lined with interior wool, a cotton boiler suit, often with a skull cap with flaps to protect the ears. Bleriot used this protective clothing when he flew the English Channel for 37 minutes in 1909 (Rood, 2014). It became a new sport apparel sensation in the new sports of flying, which forced large European stores, including Burberrys, Gamages, and Roold, to produce combination aviator suits and leather coats with options for rainproof gauntlets, fleece-lined boots, and better specialized goggles. These combination suits became the first non-military aviation-designed protective clothing.
However, as the shadows of the First World War spread through Europe, flying matured from an exciting sport into an air defense capability. The Air Battalion of the Royal Engineers was established in 1911 at Farnborough, initiating the formation of an air defense force (Rood, 2014). In 1912, the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) emerged. Protective aviation clothing, however, continued to follow the motoring sport trend, particularly in its safety objectives.
4.1.3 The weatherproof leather coat and trousers
When World War I started in 1914, more refined combat aircraft rolled out from manufacturing hangars. It made use of an open cockpit located within the aircraft fuselage. For the first time, the military issued formal protective flying uniform, specifically a weatherproof coat, supplemented with similarly capable gauntlets, goggles, and leather boots (Rood, 2014). This flying uniform covered their standard military uniform, providing a sturdier protection than either uniform alone. This uniform was issued to the RFC and the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) pilots. Moreover, military pilots were allowed freedom to supplement this uniform with better commercial options, which gradually specialized protective aviation clothing in military use. The RFC came to favor the tan leather coat lined with fleece; while the RNAS preferred the black leather coat with leather flying caps. Both were sold at Robinson & Cleaver. When the SIDCOT suits became standard issues, leather coats ceased to be used by the RAF in 1922.
4.1.4 The SIDCOT flying suit
The first design break in protective aviation clothing came in 1916. RNAS Squadron No. 8 pilot, Sidney Cotton, discovered that his dirty working overall protected him from cold after an hour of flying better than the standard weatherproof flying coats used then. So he had Robinson & Cleaver designed for him a three-layer suit, which came to be known as the SIDCOT Flying Suit (Rood, 2014). Its three layers consisted of a thin fur lining, an airproof silk, and an outer light Burberry material; all manufactured in a single piece like his overalls. It met all requirements for protection against cold, which was then the primary threat. It helped tolerate temperatures as low as -50oC. Fug boots, which were originally added for the protection of the legs, were generally put into disuse, too. However, their usage was extended among pilots who patrolled the Northwest Frontier of India in 1918 while flying the Handley Page V1500 bomber, which also involved clearing many mountain ranges in the Middle East and the Far East.
4.1.5 The electrically heated waistcoat (and gloves)
The first attempt to use electrically heated protective clothing came with the increased altitude ceiling in aircraft flying to up to 18,000 feet above the ground (Rood, 2014). The Sopwith Pup, a British single-seater fighter biplane produced by Sopwith Aviation in 1916, was allowed to reach 17,000 feet. The French fighter biplane, Spad S.IV, was allowed to fly at 18,000 feet. This ceiling increase led to long hours of patrolling and cold soaks at high altitudes. The issued new protective suit comprised the electrically heated waistcoat with gloves and a pair of boot soles, which was issued only to half of the British pilots, primarily to selected bombers and high-altitude meteorological observers. They were not intended to replace the standard flying SIDCOT suit; but to be worn underneath. A small windmill generator, mounted on the wing struts, powered the waistcoat. It intended merely to better protect from cold exposure the most vulnerable parts of the pilots: the extremities. However, because it had no voltage regulator attached, it caused burns to the hands and fingers during dives when voltage generated surged. The gloves also caused wire breaks during continuous finger flexing. Moreover, the mica-heated sole inserts tend to crack. Nevertheless, when the heating systems worked, respite from cold provided acceptable comfort. During the Battle of Britain, the heating system was developed around the Irvin suit with the jacket and trousers heated indirectly through the wiring sewn into the jacket to the sleeves where plugs connected to the electrical source. Extended flights required an electrically heated waistcoat. Electrically heated waistcoats, however, disappeared with the SIDCOT suits in the late World War II when closed cockpit and cabin heating systems came.
4.1.6 The RAF 1940-pattern suit
In 1940, a new standard-issue protective clothing kit came to be used. It consisted of the RAF 1930-pattern flying suit, this time, fitted with a detachable fur collar (and an optional quilted lining), a large pocket on each knee, and a zip fastener (Rood, 2014). All these were worn over the standard service uniform.
4.1.7 The Irvin thermally insulated jacket and trousers
During World War II, the RAF pilots started using the Irvin thermally insulated sheep-skin jacket and trousers, particularly at the Battle of Britain in 1940. Fighter pilots, however, stopped using it due to the increased bulk it added to the standard flying suit, which the cramped cockpits could only provide discomfort (Rood, 2014). Contrarily, it became a favorite among bomber pilots, which had better space capacity while providing better protection against cold, especially on long (5 to 6 hours) nighttime flights. In fact, due to the extended hot periods in the English summer, most RAF fighter pilots stopped using the standard-issue suits, which became hot and uncomfortable, and opted instead for their blue service uniform.
4.1.8 The RAF battledress
In 1941, a new style of flying dress, called the Battledress, became standard to all RAF personnel. It is similar to the Army battledress: waist length, of serge wool (blue or grey); belted at waist; and with two breast pockets with flaps (Rood, 2014). The trousers had a single pocket with a flap and can be buttoned tightly around the ankles, making it easier for the flying boots to fit. It underwent a minor change in color to Army khaki after D-day because the blue/grey color resembled the German feldgrau and provided better camouflaging effect against German troops (Rood, 2014).
4.1.9 The Capstan partial pressure suit
After the Second World War, aircraft designs moved towards high altitude operations with pressurized cockpits and cabin conditioning, which eliminated the problems on cold, hypoxia, and decompression sickness (Rood, 2014). The English 1945 Electric Canberra, a high-altitude bomber, had a cruising speed of 518 mph at 40,000 feet with a ceiling of 50,000 feet. Despite this advancement, protection remained necessary against partial or total incapacitation when the pressured cabins fail or suddenly de-pressurized due to combat damage. The situation gave rise to the need for pressurized suits, fully or partially so. A full pressure suit could equip the pilot his own pressure cabin; while a partial pressure suit could allow the pilot to descend under 40,000 feet where normal oxygen systems function normally. However, both the British designs failed to meet the Ministry requirements. Finally, they opted for the U.S.-made Capstan partial pressure suit, which the U.S. Air Force and Russia continued to use after the WWII. However, in 1957, the British government shifted its defense strategy to missile defenses and discontinued fighter-based defenses, except for the retention of the English Electric Lightning (EE Lightning), which became operation during the Cold War, specifically in 1960.
4.1.10 Current flying suits
Today, although the threat for a world war becomes increasingly unlikely (there had been no world war since 1945), combat pilots continue its search for better combat effective clothing. Members of the Royal Air Force now have separate service dress for warm weather areas (No. 6-8 SD), a greatcoat, and an MVP Rainwear, in addition to regular service dress (No. 1 SD) (Royal Air Force, 2007).
Comparatively, the current U.S. Air Force service uniform for men (equivalents are available for women) consists of a mess dress coat, which is blue, non-fastening, single-breasted, straight backed, three buttons (CAP or USAF coat of arms design) on each side of the front of the coat, satin shawl collar and lapels, and closure buttons (same design) connected by a silver chain (Vazquez, 2015). It has two types of outer garments: the topcoat and the all-weather coat.
However, in the commercial airlines industry, pilot uniforms continue to be far less focused on protective concerns than on functionality and fashion. Certain airlines even conduct the so-called wear tests, a form of survey research, for proposed uniform design before adopting it as the final pilot uniform. American Airlines, for instance, conducted a “fit tour” in 20 cities to obtain feedback from its almost 25,000 employees (Ahles, Baker, & Kaskovich, 2015). It even hired fashion designer Kaufmanfranco in 2013 to design new uniforms.
Conversely, the 2005 Air France uniform for pilots kept the trademark 70-year airline dark navy blue color, which was expected to communicate a “sense of precision and professionalism” with an added blue-grey variation, lending a feel of “softness and femininity”, and a highlight of red (i.e. in gloves and belts) for vitality (Brachet & Fontaine, 2005). The coat fabrics were of 100% combed wool, virtually wrinkle-proof, and yarn-dyed to ensure impeccable color stability even after long trips and frequent washes. It was designed by Christian Lacroix.
CURRENT STATE OF PROTECTIVE FLIGHT UNIFORM
The global technical textile sector is diverse, broad, and marked with high innovativeness wherein new applications develop on a daily basis. In the United States, it is growing proportionately to the entire textile industry (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015). In 2014, exports reached an estimated $8.5 billion, comprising 46 percent of the entire textile industry.
The protective apparel sub-sector represents the evolutionary nature of the technical textiles sector, which is designed to address current, and oftentimes, pressing problems (Smith, 1999). Current high technology fibers, such as Kevlar, Nomex, Twaron aramids Spectra HDPE fibers, Kermel, P84 and other metal (e.g. carbon, steel, copper, etc.), or fiberglass, impregnated fibers, have grown into common use. Its industry, however, is fragmented on the manner protective apparel is defined. Application ranges from protection against cuts or abrasions (e.g. Kevlar), extreme heat or fire (e.g. Nomex and PBI), toxic spill, asbestos exposure, and the like.
Current official categories of protective apparel products include protection from: extreme cold (e.g. Thinsulate by 3M, Primaloft by Albany International, or ICE by Arthur D. Little); ballistic and mechanical injuries (e.g. Kevlar by DuPont, SpectraShield by AlliedSignal); radiation; harmful particulate matters (e.g. Tyvek, Kleenguard by Kimberly Clark); microorganisms, such bacteria or viruses (e.g. Bactekiller by Kanebo); harmful chemicals (strong acids and alkaline); extreme heat or fire (e.g. Kevlar and Nomex by DuPont, PBI, FR Rayon, Kermel, or P84); high pressure; and delicateness of certain products or ‘clean room’ (e.g. Saranex 23P laminated Tyvek, Teflon coated nylon or polyester).
The protective apparel sub-sector in the United States has been estimated to deliver beyond 200 million square yards, according to the Industrial Fabric Association International (IFAI), excluding medical clothing and working gloves. It was reported to reach $578.2 billion in 1998 from $559.1 billion, an increase of 3.4 percent (Smith, 1999). However, export markets remained elusive. Of the 30 top markets for technical textiles, only some countries felt a demand for protective apparel (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015). These countries include Canada, China, India, and a few others. In 2014, Canada constituted as the largest market for U.S. protective apparel exports, reaching $274.4 million in both textiles and apparel. It represented an increase of 36 percent from 2009’s $201.2 million. It is strongly in demand as a high-performance outerwear and wool apparel and as a high-performance outerwear (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015). China is also experiencing rapid growth due to its heightened industrialization and the emergence of its manufacturing workers. Moreover, India showed a U.S. export market of $4.1 million, an increase of 156 percent over U.S. 2009 exports.
Interestingly though, most of the aviation market in protective apparel around the world are strictly restricted to government military organizations and mainly ground technical support for commercial airlines (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015). The situation exists largely among countries with sophisticated aviation industries in North America (e.g. the United States and Canada) and Europe.
Non-approval in airlines: Occupational health hazards policies among aviation regulatory agencies around the world ignored any mention of protective clothing for pilots and crews. This is the prime reason airliners did not use protective apparel in addition to lack of fashion qualities found in their current uniforms. For instance, Section 2.1 of the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) field reference guide for aviation users requires no commercial airlines to wear protective clothing (Office of the Aviation Services, 2014). In New Zealand, the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand made no mention of protective uniform, even in passing (Health and Safety in Employment Unit [HSEU], 2009). Moreover, safety oversight groups, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), never mentioned protective uniforms (ICAO, 2015).
THE FUTURE OF PROTECTIVE FLIGHT UNIFORM
Expectedly, competition in the protective apparel market has been unremittingly strong, which effectively prevented profits from increasing through pricing strategies. Stiff competition in providing continuous innovation is necessary to the point of being the requirement of leading the market (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015). The possessor of cutting edge technology has stronger potential to dominate the technical textile sector.
Essentially, the technical textile sector remained need-driven. Two areas continue to be of profound need for solution: development and standards (Smith, 1999). Developmental needs center around the development of better base materials and on better definition of user problems to resolve. Standards need revolves around the lack of precise, repeatable, and widely acceptable testing and standards based on empirical studies, which virtually do not exist.
Base materials continue to be hazard specific; although, a few high technology fibers appeared to be applicable against a few range of hazards, such Kevlar, which has been proven as effective protective clothing against ballistic, mechanical, and thermal hazards. It has not tested well against chemical or biological threats. The need still exists for fibers that can ward off almost all threats facing users in various military, professional, and emergency contexts.
The United States International Trade Administration (ITA) reported optimistically over the future growth of the U.S. technical textile sector as current use of technical textile in foreign markets remained robust (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015). Export potential appeared to be concentrated in four sub-sectors of technical textiles, namely: non-woven textiles; specialty and industrial fabrics; medical textiles; and protective apparel. All sub-sectors appeared to expand as export products with demands growing, thus, expanding existing markets and opening new ones.
The largest regional consumer of technical textiles in 2014 is North America, particularly Mexico and Canada, which are the No. 1 and No. 2 projected markets for technical textiles in the coming years, respectively (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015). It is due to the presence of the most end-using industries in Mexico and Canada. China, which is projected No. 3, is a new and emerging market for technical textiles like India (No. 17) and Vietnam (No. 20). Germany, Japan, and Hong Kong followed accordingly, making Asia Pacific a highly promising market in the future, followed by Europe, particularly Germany (No. 4) and Belgium (No. 5) (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015).
In the protective apparel sub-sector, North America is the leading regional market, comprising more than half of 2013’s total market volume and mostly for industrial application (Carrigg & Alarid, 2015). Growth drivers in the next six years in this market are rigorous regulatory standards and high safety awareness. However, Asia Pacific region is expected to exhibit the fastest growth for industrial protective apparel between 2014 and 2020, estimated at 12 percent annual growth rate. Drivers include rapid industrialization, which is expected to lead to more stringent safety regulations.
The use of protective flight clothing among commercial airline pilots, however, appeared to be immaterial in these growing markets, apparently due to the absence of regulatory oversight on its potential role in the commercial aviation sector. The situation is potentially a Catch 22 case, though. Regulation, which is a strong driver both in North America and Asia Pacific, is ignoring protective flight apparels, which is expected because the civil aviation industry rarely use protective clothing for pilot and aircrew uniforms. Apparently, civil aviators must first start using protective uniforms before aviation regulators can start overseeing their use.
Carrigg and Alarid (2015) identified three barriers to technical textile exports globally: foreign protectionist policies (e.g. high tariffs, non-automatic import license requirements); foreign competition and robust research and development investments (a prerequisite in the sector); and lack of foreign customs transparency (e.g. extensive documentation requirements, unstable regulations).
METHODOLOGY
PROJECT DESIGN
The Capstone project used the qualitative Grounded Theory as design with archival literature analysis as data collection method (Bitsch, 2005). Grounded Theory allowed the emergence of themes relevant to this project based on the broader theme of “airline pilot uniforms”, “protective flying garments”, and “history” through the analysis of 10 archival literature available online in PDF file format. It also provided adequate flexibility in pursuing additional literature search based on the emerging themes to finally completely and adequately present each theme selected. Moreover, archival literature analysis provided greater rigor to the design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using three broad search categories “airline pilot uniforms”, “protective flying garments” and “history” in Google search engine, ten relevant search results were downloaded for content analysis in order to gather common themes from which a theory may be derived. Three more specific themes, namely “advantages/disadvantages”, “protective flying uniforms in history”, and “state of airline protective uniforms (current/future)”, emerged. Common information relevant to each of these themes were then consolidated under the three themes and reported in the Literature Review section.
The protective apparel sub-sector in the global technical textile sector has developed into a highly innovative and evolutionary component that possesses the technical capability to address the changing needs of its market. From the tweed jacket materials in earliest history of leisure and combat aviation (Rood, 2014) to the high technology fibers of Kevlar, Nomex, and other metal- or fiberglass impregnated fibers. Its applications include protection against ballistic and mechanical injuries, radiation, harmful particulate matters, toxic industrial chemicals, microorganisms, extreme heat or fire, and even high pressure (Smith, 1999).
Despite these technological advances, the commercial transportation airline industry appeared oblivious with the protective potentials of these highly technological fibers. The uniform choices among passenger airline pilots appeared to diverge significantly away from protective clothing and towards more fashionable fibers and designs, except perhaps for their technical support crew on the ground. Government military organizations appeared to be relatively more in touch with technological developments in protective fibers, although their operational choices continued to be traditional in typology.
Policy makers in the occupational health and safety standards appeared to ignore these developments, too. International aviation groups (e.g. ICAO) as well as national regulatory agencies, such as the USDI and the CAANZ, mentioned nothing about requiring commercial airline pilots to choose highly technological fabrics for their uniforms. Naturally, without regulatory requirements, commercial airline managements focused their pilot uniform policies at maximizing image branding characteristics, such as professionalism, reliability, and similar descriptors often unique to specific airlines, and simply ignore flight protective fabrics.
10.0 DISCUSSION
The earliest history of aviation pertains essentially to private endeavors of leisure flying and combat applications. In fact, protective clothing developments in these periods adapted primarily from clothing materials used in sports driving instead of the aviation’s intrinsic interest in developing its own unique types of clothing materials and fibers. The reason resides from the infancy of aviation engineering technology compared to car manufacturing technology. In fact, there was a time when driving a car at 120 mph top speed could be more elating than flying an airplane with a maximum speed of 70 mph (Rood, 2014).
However, everything changed for aviation flight protective clothing in 1916 with the appearance of the SIDCOT flying suit (Rood, 2014). Thereafter, the development in flight protective clothing take its own specific turns, but not without insights from the driving industry. There were few indications that the commercial pilot uniform selection had lagged behind the developments in combat flight protective apparels.
Perhaps the lag of commercial pilot uniforms in the area of flight protection had been so since the early periods of the passenger aviation industry. Perhaps it was due largely to the perceived low risk exposures in commercial airlines piloting than flying combat airplanes with open cockpits. Moreover, perhaps, this same historical disinclination of the commercial airline industry from the use of combat-standard protective uniforms primarily explains the consistent and parallel disinterest of commercial aviation regulatory agencies around the world from requiring commercial pilots from using combat-quality uniform fabrics.
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION
Commercial aviation regulatory agencies around the world purposefully ignored any possible contribution of protective uniforms of pilots and flight crews in relation to occupational health and safety. Although its value in high altitude usage can be noticed in various global markets, its use, however, appeared to be in sports activities, such as mountain climbing, and not as protective uniforms for pilots and, by extension, for the cockpit crew or the entire aircrew, its application as protective uniforms for pilots appeared a strange and unfamiliar application despite its history with the RAF airmen since the early days of modern aviation.
In this era of employee empowerment, including the selection of aircrew uniforms (e.g. Brachet & Fontaine, 2005), there is a strong need for convincing at least airline pilots to adopt protective apparels or textiles for their uniforms, which could be highly challenging considering that the tradeoff would be the professionalism image and fashion. Unless current protective apparel textiles or fabrics can deliver the stylistic demands available in their current uniforms, no convincing pitch to them will be plausible.
Since the pursuit of protective flight uniforms is not historically feasible for commercial airline pilots due to their less exposure both to elemental exposure and combat life risks, it is recommended that the commercial airline industry should be ignored as potential markets for protective pilot uniforms simply because the potential cannot be found there. Moreover, the aviation protective garment history as explored in this paper does not support that potential.
REFERENCES
Ahles, A., Baker, S., & Kaskovich, S. (2015, December 27). America’s employees will soon get
Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria.
Brachet, V. & Fontaine, C. (2005, April). The new Air France uniform. Tremblay-en-France,
France: Air France Press Office.
Carrigg, R. & Alarid, R. (2015, July). 2015 Top markets report: Technical textiles and apparel.
Washington, DC: International Trade Administration.
Health and Safety in Employment Unit. (2009, February 24). Occupational health and safety for
cabin crew and flight crew: A guideline for health and safety onboard aircraft (Draft). Wellington, NZ: Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2015). Safety report 2015. Quebec, Canada: ICAO.
Mueller, A.M. (2015, September 17). Air Force guideline memorandum to AFI 91-203: Air
Force consolidated occupational safety instruction. Washington, DC: United States Air Force.
Office of Aviation Services. (2014, May). Field reference guide for aviation users. Boise, ID:
United States Department of the Interior.
Pride, W.D., Ferrell, O.C., Lukas, B.A., Schembri, S., & Niininen, O. (2012). Marketing
Principles. Asia Pacific Ed. Australia: Cengage Learning.
Rood, G. (2014). A brief history of flying clothing. Journal of Aeronautics History, 1(1): 3-54.
Royal Air Force. (2007, April 4). RAF orders of dress – male personnel. Retrieved from:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/9645fada_ee31_9299_8e899fc7fa734d14.pdf <12 Feb. 2016>
Smith, W.C. (1999). An overview of protective clothing: Markets, materials, and needs. Greer,
SC: Industrial Textile Associates.
Vazquez, J.R. (2015, November 14). CAPM 39-1 Civil Air Patrol Uniform Manual. Maxwell Air
Force Base, AL: Civil Air Patrol/U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.
