Posted By Paul Leaman You know that someone is going to ask the question because they always do.. Have you completed a Risk Assessment? If so then what conclusions did you reach?

Posted By Adrian Clifton Lee I would say no, unless the space constraints force employees to be so close to the hot surfaces that contact is inevitable. Do the engine surfaces radiate heat levels that are likely to cause problems from close proximity rather than direct contact? Consider a kitchen scenario where there are likely to be numerous hot surfaces. Those employed in kitchens are not supplied with such PPE. PPE is the last resort. If the layout of the workplace forces staff to be so close, see if it can be altered.

Posted By Eric Taylor Lee, Proban treated overalls will only stop the flame from spreading. Your guys shouldn't be getting that intimate with any part hot enouth to ignite their overalls. If the overalls are contaminated with fuel or oil, it will burn just the same but will not spread readily. Washing them wil reduce the effectiveness of the proban treatment. It needs to be renewed regularly. What types of engine(s) are being tested? For piston engines, it's really only the exhaust side that will be hot enough to ignite overalls. If it's on a test bed, there will be a standard exhaust fit for the particular engine(s)on test? This can be wrapped with insulating blankets and or tape. Use the right stuff and you will be able to touch the exhaust while the engine is running. If the guys have to get so close to hot items they may burn their skin through the overalls, you can get kevlar gloves / sleeves that will protect them from inadvertent contact. The same products will protect them for longer periods while close to the hot parts. if it's gass turbine engines, it's a little bit more difficult, but insulating blankets are available or can be made. The kevlar gloves etc work just the same. Contact me direct for names of suppliers.

Posted By Martyn Hendrie I stand to be corrected but doesn't Proban wash out on laundering? Perhaps "Nomex" overalls should be considered their properties are inherent to the fabric.

Posted By Lee Cowdrey Thank you all for your views and comments. It seems that a lot of comments have only considered the heat / burn risk associated with engine test testing. The type of engines are gas turbine aircraft / Helicopter engines which John rightly assumed. The preventing of operators going into the cell whist running is not an option as they must conduct tests IAW OEM test manuals. Our concern is more related to the potential for flash fires resulting from failures etc. I have been on numerous websites today in a bid to find more recommendations and found some interesting facts. The bottom line is historically the risk assessment has always stated the use of Proban overalls but due to the frequency and length of exposure some operators fail to see the need to wear them. Thus, why do we need to wear them. Any additional thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Lee

Posted By John Murgatroyd At the end of the day, the guy/s have to wear them. If they are working in a hot environment then using a material that offers excellent insulation is not a good idea....it may stop heat going IN, but it also stops it going OUT. Yes, F1 drivers wear nomex-type suits....they also sweat a couple of kilos of water during a race... One presumes that the provider of the coverall will also wash it according to the makers instructions. With nomex as well as proban. But since it seemed to me that the original post had more than a hint of cost-effectiveness about it .........

Posted By John Murgatroyd The trouble with stating that nomex coveralls should be used is that you are not qualifying the underlying textile base. And, you state that proban is inferior because of problems with impregnation with flammable liquids. Nomex has the same problem. To reach a quality decision, you need impartial advice. This you will not get. Everyone is rowing their own boat in this trade. One thing is sure: You get what you pay for. If it's cheap, it's in more ways than one. Cheap = plastic fabric coveralls with no protection Expensive = nomex fibre weave(the type they use in F1) (got a few thousand floating-about...per set) But then, what would you put a guy into a test bay with an operating turbine for ? Surely basic safety procedure would negate that operation ? What does the RA for that job say ? And if yours doesn't say "stay out 'till cool", why ?

Posted By Martyn Hendrie As an ex motor racing fire marshal I obtained a single layer nomex boiler suit for £50 (circa 1980) I have no doubt prices have gone up but I doubt that we are talking a fortune. (The £95 quoted would seem likely) It was not significantly warmer than a standard boiler suit. Remember F1 drivers usually have 4 layers Underwear and a 3 layer racing suit.

Posted By George Wedgwood Basically you would not and the HSE would frown on such practice! All measurements should be taken outside the cell or cover and if that means a bit more piping or cable, then it should be done. It still remains that there is a risk external to the cell during operation, especially during testing, when parameters can stray from the safe. in such cases, full protection should be worn. To explore this case in detail, it would be necessary to do a site visit and evaluate the required operating and testing/maintenance regime. It is highly likely from what has been said, that changes will be required to improve the risk levels for thiose who may be present. Regards, George

Posted By NSO We issue our welders with proban overalls to protect them from the sparks, UV etc, which they do quite effectively until they pick up the old angle grinder, as soon as the sparks become localised for any period of time a hole soon follows where the sparks have burned through. Leather aprons and kelvar sleeves do the trick. Proban can become expensive as it needs to be laundered correctly.