Sun Protection While Soaring - UPF 50+ Clothing

[JDS]

While looking at the UV damage done to the gelcoat on my glider, it reminds me how much UV radiation we are exposed to while soaring. Particularly out west!

Coolibar (no affilation) is in the Sun Protection Clothing business. Take a look at their website. They are making some great products with innovative materials.

I particularly like their Andros Shirt and fingerless long gloves.
Both with UPF50+ protection.

[JS[_5_]]

Good to see a one-stop shop in USA for skin protection.
Much like what you'd find at Cancer Council shops in Australia.
Jim

[[email protected][_2_]]

OK, thanks will do....
On the subject.....experiencing multiple mohs surgeries....I was curious and purchased a UV meter to check levels under canopies. The meters are made by a physics professor/engineer who does consulting work on light transmissions. He educated me that UV does not transits mediums to any concerning levels.
His meter proved him correct after checking levels under new thru 40 year old canopies. I found another source with numbers and his meters seem to be correct.
So, watch out when in direct sunlight. No worries under cover. The heat you feel is IR, both UV and IR reflects. I was surprised how much leaves block..
I would be interested in reading any info that counters my understanding.
Lets see what’s new in Colibre fashions.
Cheers,

R

[son_of_flubber]

Coolibar offers a wide range of garment types and fashions.

A narrower range of SPF 50 garments are available from Orvis, REI, L.L.Bean, EMS at the like. In some cases, the prices are much lower.

I just picked up a SPF 50 collared shirt at Columbia Outlet store for $35.

[[email protected]]

Best option, though expensive, would be a canopy with the UV screen built in.

[Dan Marotta]

Earlier in this thread someone reported that he'd used a UV meter to
check various canopies and found that they blocked UV radiation.Â* He
also stated that other tests showed the same results.

My guess is that the most sun exposure occurs before flying, you know,
all that time spent standing around in the sun.Â* All of that sunscreen
and those solar protective garments are really great protection while
you're standing around or working in the sun.Â* I doubt they cause any
harm during flight, either.

On 4/19/2019 12:40 PM, wrote:
> Best option, though expensive, would be a canopy with the UV screen built in.
>
> The following info has been obtained from various, readily available sources.
> 1) Skin Cancer rates among the Pilot Population are 50% higher than the general population.
> 2) Our exposure to UV Radiation, a leading cause of Skin Cancer, increases by 3% to 5% for each 1,000 ft of altitude gain. Just wonderful news for high altitude work.
>
> My Dad, who flew from 1942 to 2015, died from Melanoma which first developed on his chest. Dad was never one to go around without a shirt on but did typically wear very thin shirts while flying and soaring. Draw your own conclusions. In early 2016 I had all of the glass in my 172 replaced with green tint with the built-in UV screen. The cabin is more comfortable and safer as well.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

Sierra Trading Post is the cheapest place I've found to go get SPF (usually built for fishing) clothing.

[D S]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 3:30:55 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Earlier in this thread someone reported that he'd used a UV meter to
> check various canopies and found that they blocked UV radiation.Â* He
> also stated that other tests showed the same results.
>
> My guess is that the most sun exposure occurs before flying, you know,
> all that time spent standing around in the sun.Â* All of that sunscreen
> and those solar protective garments are really great protection while
> you're standing around or working in the sun.Â* I doubt they cause any
> harm during flight, either.
>
> On 4/19/2019 12:40 PM, wrote:
> > Best option, though expensive, would be a canopy with the UV screen built in.
> >
> > The following info has been obtained from various, readily available sources.
> > 1) Skin Cancer rates among the Pilot Population are 50% higher than the general population.
> > 2) Our exposure to UV Radiation, a leading cause of Skin Cancer, increases by 3% to 5% for each 1,000 ft of altitude gain. Just wonderful news for high altitude work.
> >
> > My Dad, who flew from 1942 to 2015, died from Melanoma which first developed on his chest. Dad was never one to go around without a shirt on but did typically wear very thin shirts while flying and soaring. Draw your own conclusions. In early 2016 I had all of the glass in my 172 replaced with green tint with the built-in UV screen. The cabin is more comfortable and safer as well.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Isn't there a time component too. The amount of UV under a canopy might be pretty low but you are continuously exposed to it for hours upon hours. That to me seems like it will make the impact on your skin from what would normally be considered a low exposure much higher. Personally I use 70+ sunscreen, I've heard that anything over ~35 is overkill but I like to be safe and don't want to reapply it every couple of hours. I would love to wear long sleeves but I am in the Southwest US and it gets HOT, even at reasonably high altitudes.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 11:10:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> OK, thanks will do....
> On the subject.....experiencing multiple mohs surgeries....I was curious and purchased a UV meter to check levels under canopies. The meters are made by a physics professor/engineer who does consulting work on light transmissions. He educated me that UV does not transits mediums to any concerning levels.
> His meter proved him correct after checking levels under new thru 40 year old canopies. I found another source with numbers and his meters seem to be correct.
> So, watch out when in direct sunlight. No worries under cover. The heat you feel is IR, both UV and IR reflects. I was surprised how much leaves block.
> I would be interested in reading any info that counters my understanding.
> Lets see what’s new in Colibre fashions.
> Cheers,
>
> R

Do you know if the meter measured both UVA and UVB?

[[email protected][_2_]]

The meter was designed to check the intensity in the Ulta Violet range of the spectrum. The professor gave me a rather detail lesson of radiation energy in the IR thru UV section of the ‘spectrum’ and it’s ability to transit a medium. He stated that the UV amount was insignificant in the hundreths (sp) of a percent and the meter confirmed it. I could differentiate no difference in value between canopies. UV is very reflective, even off concrete. Angle of sun , time of day, winter/ summer made a big difference.
No harm in doing your own research, but can anyone recall landing with a sunburn. I wonder if standing out on the grid waiting allows one to be expose to high level of reflected UV from all the polish wings. A hat may not be enough. I need to do some more sampling.

R

[David Hirst]

A 2mm acrylic sheet has a fairly sharp cutoff between 375 and 400nm, so transmits about 17% of all UVA (315 - 400nm). The skin has a spectral response that is highest for the UVB but drops significantly in the 375-400nm region, so you'll have to try pretty hard to get a tan in the cockpit. If you think of a glider canopy as an SPF100 layer, you won't be far off.

Acrylic blocks practically all UVB (280 - 315nm) so you won't be making any vitamin D while under perspex.

Glass is worse; typical float (soda lime) glass has a 50% cutoff around 340nm so lets through around 60% UVA and no UVB. My grandmother spent most of her last years sitting in a warm sunroom and got a pretty good tan.

As previously stated, your biggest danger is in hanging around on a sunny airfield, especially in the southern hemisphere. European pilots are only in trouble if they fly above the inversion which caps the pollution layer ;-)

DH
TX

[Richard DalCanto]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 10:29:27 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> The meter was designed to check the intensity in the Ulta Violet range of the spectrum. The professor gave me a rather detail lesson of radiation energy in the IR thru UV section of the ‘spectrum’ and it’s ability to transit a medium. He stated that the UV amount was insignificant in the hundreths (sp) of a percent and the meter confirmed it. I could differentiate no difference in value between canopies. UV is very reflective, even off concrete. Angle of sun , time of day, winter/ summer made a big difference.
> No harm in doing your own research, but can anyone recall landing with a sunburn. I wonder if standing out on the grid waiting allows one to be expose to high level of reflected UV from all the polish wings. A hat may not be enough. I need to do some more sampling.
>
> R

Interesting. My son has transition glasses, which don't transition/turn dark in his car. However, he still got a blistering sunburn on his arm when he drove from Utah to California last August to start his Sophomore year (windows up). Does the plastic canopy protect more than auto glass? Thanks,
Rick

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-4, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 10:29:27 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > The meter was designed to check the intensity in the Ulta Violet range of the spectrum. The professor gave me a rather detail lesson of radiation energy in the IR thru UV section of the ‘spectrum’ and it’s ability to transit a medium. He stated that the UV amount was insignificant in the hundreths (sp) of a percent and the meter confirmed it. I could differentiate no difference in value between canopies. UV is very reflective, even off concrete. Angle of sun , time of day, winter/ summer made a big difference.
> > No harm in doing your own research, but can anyone recall landing with a sunburn. I wonder if standing out on the grid waiting allows one to be expose to high level of reflected UV from all the polish wings. A hat may not be enough. I need to do some more sampling.
> >
> > R
>
> Interesting. My son has transition glasses, which don't transition/turn dark in his car. However, he still got a blistering sunburn on his arm when he drove from Utah to California last August to start his Sophomore year (windows up). Does the plastic canopy protect more than auto glass? Thanks,
> Rick

windshield likely tinted, side windows, not.

[Richard DalCanto]

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 11:55:13 AM UTC-6, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 10:29:27 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > The meter was designed to check the intensity in the Ulta Violet range of the spectrum. The professor gave me a rather detail lesson of radiation energy in the IR thru UV section of the ‘spectrum’ and it’s ability to transit a medium. He stated that the UV amount was insignificant in the hundreths (sp) of a percent and the meter confirmed it. I could differentiate no difference in value between canopies. UV is very reflective, even off concrete. Angle of sun , time of day, winter/ summer made a big difference.
> > No harm in doing your own research, but can anyone recall landing with a sunburn. I wonder if standing out on the grid waiting allows one to be expose to high level of reflected UV from all the polish wings. A hat may not be enough. I need to do some more sampling.
> >
> > R
>
> Interesting. My son has transition glasses, which don't transition/turn dark in his car. However, he still got a blistering sunburn on his arm when he drove from Utah to California last August to start his Sophomore year (windows up). Does the plastic canopy protect more than auto glass? Thanks,
> Rick

I should also add that my dad would get sunburned on the left side of his face and has sun damage on that side from years of flying his Cessna 421. Do glider canopies offer more protection than the windshield in a Cessna?

[Richard DalCanto]

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 11:56:36 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-4, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> > On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 10:29:27 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > > The meter was designed to check the intensity in the Ulta Violet range of the spectrum. The professor gave me a rather detail lesson of radiation energy in the IR thru UV section of the ‘spectrum’ and it’s ability to transit a medium. He stated that the UV amount was insignificant in the hundreths (sp) of a percent and the meter confirmed it. I could differentiate no difference in value between canopies. UV is very reflective, even off concrete. Angle of sun , time of day, winter/ summer made a big difference.
> > > No harm in doing your own research, but can anyone recall landing with a sunburn. I wonder if standing out on the grid waiting allows one to be expose to high level of reflected UV from all the polish wings. A hat may not be enough. I need to do some more sampling.
> > >
> > > R
> >
> > Interesting. My son has transition glasses, which don't transition/turn dark in his car. However, he still got a blistering sunburn on his arm when he drove from Utah to California last August to start his Sophomore year (windows up). Does the plastic canopy protect more than auto glass? Thanks,
> > Rick
>
> windshield likely tinted, side windows, not.

But is the tinting the thing that blocks UV, or the glass itself? The side windows of the car still block enough that his glasses don't darken inside the car, despite the ability to get a sunburn.

[David Hirst]

Does the plastic canopy protect more than auto glass? Thanks,
> > > Rick
> >
> > windshield likely tinted, side windows, not.
>
> But is the tinting the thing that blocks UV, or the glass itself? The side windows of the car still block enough that his glasses don't darken inside the car, despite the ability to get a sunburn.

The glasses probably only respond to UVB (which glass blocks). Your skin tans and burns in response to UVA (which glass doesn't block enough of).

As to getting sunburn inside an acrylic-windowed cockpit, I guess that the UVA cutoff from acrylic that I specified above is more of an 'industry average' - some formulas let through more than others - and that in combination with the amount of time flying was enough to burn skin. They definitely make acrylics which are better at transmitting UV than the standard. Back when the 172 was designed, I doubt whether UVA blocking was a design requirement.

[Richard DalCanto]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 8:44:07 AM UTC-6, JDS wrote:
> While looking at the UV damage done to the gelcoat on my glider, it reminds me how much UV radiation we are exposed to while soaring. Particularly out west!
>
> Coolibar (no affilation) is in the Sun Protection Clothing business. Take a look at their website. They are making some great products with innovative materials.
>
> I particularly like their Andros Shirt and fingerless long gloves.
> Both with UPF50+ protection.

I did a little more reading. UVA penetrates deeper into the second layer of the skin. It is present year round, and penetrates clouds and glass windows (don’t know about plastic canopies). It causes wrinkles and premature aging of the skin, and skin cancer. UVB is stronger during the summer, penetrates the top layer of the skin, and causes sunburns, DNA damage, and skin cancer. It does not penetrate glass as much. So if the plastic canopies in gliders stop UVB, but no A, you will not get burned, but you will still get sun damage to your skin. I looked into some UV meters on Amazon, but it is unclear how accurate these meters actually are. Personally, for now, I will continue to use sun screen in the glider, and protective clothing, to be sure I block UVA which might be getting through the canopy.

[Bret Hess]

I can't imagine that blue tint helps much. Blue-violet light is just slightly less energetic than UVA light. Grey tint blocks all visible colors by essentially the same amount, and maybe UV too, but it would have to be measured.

Sunscreen all the time is a good idea.

[Tango Whisky]

Sun screen helps you to avoid superficial sun burn, but it doesn't do anything against UVA and the subsequent skin cancer. The only thing which helps against skin cancer is clothing.

[Richard DalCanto]

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 1:38:36 AM UTC-6, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Sun screen helps you to avoid superficial sun burn, but it doesn't do anything against UVA and the subsequent skin cancer. The only thing which helps against skin cancer is clothing.

That is not correct. Quality sunscreen protects against UVA and UVB.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 8:46:13 AM UTC-5, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 1:38:36 AM UTC-6, Tango Whisky wrote:
> > Sun screen helps you to avoid superficial sun burn, but it doesn't do anything against UVA and the subsequent skin cancer. The only thing which helps against skin cancer is clothing.
>
> That is not correct. Quality sunscreen protects against UVA and UVB.

There is another factor here making the issue even more complicated. It seems there are two basic types of sun screen, chemical and mineral. There is considerable debate as to if some of the ingredients in the chemical types may cause other health issues. There is a lot of info on line about this. I started using a mineral type this season, which can be hard to find. It is white and stays that way making you look like a ghost.

Terry

[[email protected]]

This is a topic with multiple facets. If you are looking for more info on suncsreens, here's what appears to me to be a reasonable discussion on their effectiveness and some possible risks: https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/buying-guides/sunscreen

From my reading, Acrylic, which I think most/all canopies are made of can be made to block UV with additives, but in its pure form it does not. So it depends on the specifications of the acrylic that was used in the manufacture of your canopy. I found one reference that suggests Mecaplex, who make canopies for many gliders, use an acrylic that "blocks 95% of UV": https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/library/canopy-dg-glider

If anyone has a spec sheet for the acrylic used in their canopy, that would be interesting data.

[Charlie Quebec]

I was talking recently to Ian Linke, who makes canopies here on Australia, he told me he can get two types of Perspex, one that is normal and one that blocks UV, however the UV block is considerably more expensive, about 3 x the cost.

[Bret Hess]

My understanding is that Plexiglass = Perspex = Lucite = PMMA = poly-methyl-methacrylate = pure acrylic

Here's a transmission curve for pure acrylic (PMMA) vs UV-transmitting Acrylic: https://www.gsoptics.com/transmission-curves/

It seems that you have to work hard to get an acrylic that does not block all of UV-B and almost all of UV-B

[Bret Hess]

> I started using a mineral type this season, which can be hard to find. It is white and stays that way making you look like a ghost.

The mineral suncreens are zinc oxide and titanium oxide nanoparticles, the "white" ingredients of white paint, and the oldest sunscreens. They scatter UV instead of absorbing it like the chemical ones do. So using this is basically painting your skin white. If you can see skin, it's not enough :).. Or they add enough other ingredients (oils, etc) that absorb the rest of the UV, so you're back to chemical absorption.

[KarlBoutin]

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:18:13 UTC-4, David Hirst wrote:
....SNIP...
If you think of a glider canopy as an SPF100 layer, you won't be far off.
>
....SNIP....
> As previously stated, your biggest danger is in hanging around on a sunny airfield,
....SNIP...
> DH
> TX

Is that really the case David? It is the first time I have heard about this..
I recall being told that the plexiglass was doing nothing to protect against
UVA & UVB. This is still what I preach at the X-country lecture that I give at
my club. If what you claim it true, I'd have to change my storyline and workflow.

Having been more than once incommodated by an aweful mix of sweat and solar cream in my eyes while airborne, I would really like to get away from "buttering" up before a flight. I can see the point of protecting our skin while running around the airfield but right now my routine seem reversed: I wait
until the last minute to layer the sunscreen on my face, hands, neck and ears just as I climb in the cockpit for my XC flight

Can anybody challenge David's claim here?

[Bret Hess]

>
> Can anybody challenge David's claim here?

See the posts above by:
who measured the reduction with a meter
David Hurst who analyzed a transmission curve
Bret (me), who posted transmission curves

Plexiglass blocks UVB and most of UVA. David said only 17% of UVA is transmitted by 2mm plexiglass. My canopy is 4mm thick, twice as thick, and the transmission dies off exponentially with thickness so roughly (0.17)^2 = ..03 = 3% of UVA is transmitted, which matches what measured: very little is transmitted.

[Bret Hess]

Correction: my canopy is 3 mm thick, so I'd guess about 10% of UVA is transmitted.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 9:19:16 PM UTC-7, Bret Hess wrote:

> It seems that you have to work hard to get an acrylic that does not block all of UV-B and almost all of UV-B

I'm told that not all acrylic is created equal. Years ago I sold an old free-blown glider canopy transparency to someone with an LS-1 who had lost their original canopy. Later, they took UV measurements and found that the Mecaplex fixed forward canopy blocked a lot more UV than the hinged canopy section they made using the transparency I'd sent. I don't recall whether that was UV-A or UV-B, though.

--Bob K.

[Tom BravoMike]

> He educated me that UV does not transits mediums to any concerning levels

> Can anybody challenge David's claim here?

Lab science vs my real life experience: I get a tan very fast once I start soaring each season. If I don't use my sunscreen cream (factor 30), after few hours of gliding my face, neck and arms are red. And I also have been explaining to others how plexi transmits UV, unlike glass, except for special quartz glass used in the lamps/bulbs so that people can get the desired tan and pay for it. So what I'm reading posted above turns everything upside down - not so much my scientific knowledge which I have none, but my practical life experience.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 12:48:04 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 9:19:16 PM UTC-7, Bret Hess wrote:
>
> > It seems that you have to work hard to get an acrylic that does not block all of UV-B and almost all of UV-B
>
> I'm told that not all acrylic is created equal. Years ago I sold an old free-blown glider canopy transparency to someone with an LS-1 who had lost their original canopy. Later, they took UV measurements and found that the Mecaplex fixed forward canopy blocked a lot more UV than the hinged canopy section they made using the transparency I'd sent. I don't recall whether that was UV-A or UV-B, though.
>
> --Bob K.

That matches my experience. It basically depends on the glider. To know for sure, you have to get a meter and measure your own canopy.

[Richard DalCanto]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 8:44:07 AM UTC-6, JDS wrote:
> While looking at the UV damage done to the gelcoat on my glider, it reminds me how much UV radiation we are exposed to while soaring. Particularly out west!
>
> Coolibar (no affilation) is in the Sun Protection Clothing business. Take a look at their website. They are making some great products with innovative materials.
>
> I particularly like their Andros Shirt and fingerless long gloves.
> Both with UPF50+ protection.

I got a definitive answer by an aviation plexiglass manufacturer. I don't know how to post a picture here of the UV graph of two different colors with and without extra UV protection. It looks like they all block UVB. It is UVA where they differ, from blocking only under 377nm, to blocking up to 400nm. So you won't get sunburned under any canopy, but you will get various amount of deeper skin damage from UVA based on your particular canopy.

[Richard DalCanto]

>
> That matches my experience. It basically depends on the glider. To know for sure, you have to get a meter and measure your own canopy.

The problem is measuring. The UV meters I looked at on Amazon just give you a UV index, which will be lower on cloudy days, and higher during the summer on bright sunny days, which means that even though they claim to measure both UVA and UVB, they weigh the UVB much more. You would need to get an expensive meter which gives you the actual data from each part of the spectrum.

[Richard DalCanto]

>
> I got a definitive answer by an aviation plexiglass manufacturer. I don't know how to post a picture here of the UV graph of two different colors with and without extra UV protection. It looks like they all block UVB. It is UVA where they differ, from blocking only under 377nm, to blocking up to 400nm. So you won't get sunburned under any canopy, but you will get various amount of deeper skin damage from UVA based on your particular canopy.

Well, I guess I should have stated that this is data from one manufacturer..... Based on people getting tanned under their canopies, there maybe some that don't block UVB very well in addition to the UVA. Sorry about that.

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 12:20:15 PM UTC-4, KarlBoutin wrote:
....
> Having been more than once incommodated by an aweful mix of sweat and solar cream in my eyes while airborne,...

1.Don't put the sunscreen above your eyes. 2.Wear bucket hat and sunglasses. 3.Remove sunscreen from your fingertips. No problemo...

[JDS]

> That matches my experience. It basically depends on the glider. <

So, I spend a lot of time outdoors. Skiing, cycling, and soaring. I like to use all tools available to me to protect myself from the sun. I wear neck protection while skiing ALL THE TIME now. It works great!

I have Eddie Bauer Travex SPF button-down shirts, Columbia hiking shirts, cycling jersey's, Voler Sunskin sleeves and many rash guards.

These Coolibar products are new. They have a unique approach, great fabrics, great product designs and I like them.

The Adros Shirt I have is a hooded shirt! I wear it as a turtleneck until I deploy the hood and facemask, under my bucket hat. It's nearly 100% coverage! It has long sleeves with finger loops, so I can wear it without gloves if I want!

I think they are great. I use them when I have ground duty at the soaring club, as well as when I fly.

I highly recommend you outdoorsy folks add one to your sun protection arsenal!

[ripacheco1967]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 9:44:07 AM UTC-5, JDS wrote:
> While looking at the UV damage done to the gelcoat on my glider, it reminds me how much UV radiation we are exposed to while soaring. Particularly out west!
>
> Coolibar (no affilation) is in the Sun Protection Clothing business. Take a look at their website. They are making some great products with innovative materials.
>
> I particularly like their Andros Shirt and fingerless long gloves.
> Both with UPF50+ protection.

You'd think by now the canopy would have a UV filter coating... most eyeglasses do.