Survival Vests for Aircrews

[Hawk200]

Thought about posting this as a topic, but figured a poll would provide clearer results.

How many aircrew people here were a military aircrew type survival vest when on missions? Basically something like an SRU-21, SARVIP, or AIRSAVE type of vest, when in the aircraft.

The mods here have been suggesting that initial posts set some ground rules on replies. So, here is what I'm setting forth:

1. A yes or no response.

2. If your response is Yes, I'd be interested in knowing what you carry in your vest, what you've found useful. Just asking if you'd share.

3. If your response is No, then just vote "No". Nothing else really required.

4. If someone posts an item that another isn't familiar with, then clarification requests are certainly not unreasonable. I, and others, would probably rather not see "What the h&!@ are you using that for?".

And on Thursday, we'll try to set up a game of "Fizzbin"....

[NIN]

EDIT: I didn't read the ground rules carefully before posting, but I believe that suggesting you shouldn't post a response if you don't wear survival gear is tantamount to saying "If you agree with me, chime in, but if you don't, I'm not interested in your opinion or information."

Having worn a survival vest for operational purposes in aircraft that are considerably bigger than the high-wing monoplanes we fly in CAP, I can suggest two things:

1) A vest in our tiny bug-smashers is probably overkill.  Seriously.  Its a big enough pain in the butt getting out of the plane when un-encumbered with additional girth/weight/stuff, imagine trying to get out IN A HURRY with all that extra stuff.  "Captain Smith might have survived the post-crash fire had he not been trapped in the wreckage by his survival vest.."

2) About 50% of the stuff carried in a military vest like SRU-21/P or AIRSAVE  is probably utterly unnecessary in CAP's mission environment.

There is a maxim in flying that says that if its not attached to you when you have to egress the aircraft, its not coming with you, so I do agree that survival equipment needs to be "close at hand" somehow.  But considering that most CAP crashes in the last 10-15 years have not been of the "firey destruction variety," I don't think its out of the question to secure a survival kit in the baggage area.

I think its probably a better ROI to invest that kind of money in proficiency flying and training than on extra gear thats might not be helpful anyway.

(Never mind the whole "scheduled inspections" of survival gear for things like battery life, time-change items, etc.. Ugh, I hated that..)

I'm a flight gear nut. I collect flight gear, mostly rotary wing, but I have a lot of fixed wing equipment in my collection, too.  But there are circumstances where the benefit of survival gear may be outweighed considerably by the presence of it, and I think our operational environment would not be enhanced by survival vests. 

I do, however, think that impact attenuating flight helmets, locking shoulder harnesses and those airbag devices may do more to improve our aircrews chances of survival in an accident sequence than a survival vest.

Remember: fatalities in general aviation accidents are more of the "blunt force trauma" or "massive burn" variety than of the "survived the accident but didn't survive the next 24 hrs in the woods.."

[RiverAux]

I wear a vest though I hardly ever see anyone else do so.  Probably the most useful things in it are the signal mirror and strobe light.  If I was wearing a flight suit or BDUs I could probably distribute everything in the vest in the various uniform pockets, but then I'd just have to take all the junk out again and put it back in order to wash the uniforms.  Its just easier to leave it in the vest so I can just put it on and be ready to go no matter what uniform I wear. 

The vest isn't really set up for "survival" per se as I agree that it is unlikely I'll need to survive out there for weeks after a crash. 

What I would really llike to have attached to me is some water as that could be a significant need immediately after a crash.  But I just haven't found a good way to do this given the cramped interiors of our plane.  Hopefully the plane will be in good enough shape that I will be able to go back for my water bottles in my gear bag. 

[lordmonar]

I carry the basic survival and first aid equipment listed in the GTM3 task guide plus 1 MRE worth of food (broken down of course) and 1 liter of water in 250 ml packets.

I also carry a strobe light and 1 smoke grenade.

I also carry the USAF survival knife.

All of this in an air-save vest(less the harness)

So...I got everything I need to spend the night with the aircraft in the desert.

[wingnut]

Survival equipment is mandantory in PCR region aircraft, anyone flying search and rescue missions are acutely aware that most of our missions are in remote areas. So if you survive the crash (we wear nomex) you may need the items way in the back of the plane underneath all the crap. My vest (Draped over my seat has water, firstaid items, signal devices (mirror, flares, laser flare), personal ELT, survival rations, Asek survival knife (cuts seatbelt&smashes plexiglass).

Ok too much, try not having anything and be in a survival situation in the boonies, I have, and unless your willing to eat your scanner you better be prepared. It is the commen sense and safe thing to do, besides my scanner is old and tough chewing.

[Trung Si Ma]

Don't wear a vest, but do carry a Prepared Pilot Pocket Pack (www.preparedpilot.com) in my pocket and survival gear in the baggage compartment.

[RiverAux]

I also carry a strobe light and 1 smoke grenade.

You're carrying a smoke grenade on one of our aircraft? 

[freeflight]

I always wear a vest when I fly.  My list of items are in this thread.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1068.msg13044#msg13044

[Hawk200]

EDIT: I didn't read the ground rules carefully before posting, but I believe that suggesting you shouldn't post a response if you don't wear survival gear is tantamount to saying "If you agree with me, chime in, but if you don't, I'm not interested in your opinion or information."

Not a matter of disagreement, just wish to avoid any wars over opinion. Your post was informative, thorough, and objective. I just don't want any of the "What the f--- are you thinking? You don't need a d--- survival vest!"

Your post avoided that, so I consider it welcome. Posts like it are also welcome. I just don't want any namecalling, questioning the lineage of peoples mothers, questioning peoples mental status, etc .

[bosshawk]

I, too, like wingnut fly in PACR, where our terrain sometimes exceeds 14,000 ft and contains all sorts of cumulo granite and trees of all descriptions.  An aircraft survival kit is mandatory in CAWG, as are personal survival packs or vests.

The only thing that I would add to wingnuts list is medication: if you are an old guy like me, you take one or more mandatory medicines daily and it might be real handy to have a three day supply in your vest or pack.

Good topic and one well worth some consideration.  No doubt vests and packs are a pain, but they may come in handy one day when you have to try to walk away from your favorite 182 or 206 in the Sierras.

[Slim]

I wear one of the SRU-21P variety, and have for years.  Despite the looks of amusement, contempt, or disagreement from my fellow aircrew members.

I carry:  A small first aid kit, signalling devices (strobe light, signal mirror, cyalume sticks and a whistle), two compasses (map reading and lensatic), a notebook and pen/pencil, small pocket knife, 1 liter plastic water flask, and an AF survival knife.  If I think to, I'll also throw my GPS unit in there.

I also carry my handheld CAP radio in one pocket, with the antenna removed and in the same pocket.  Between the CAP, amateur and public safety frequencies in it, someone is sure to hear me.

I don't necessarily plan to spend a significant amount of time in the woods, but I would be able to take care of my basic needs if I were fortunate enough to survive the impact and egress. 

[SAR-EMT1]

When was the last time a CAP aircraft was force down and the crew made use of such items? Ive heard of CAP planes going down, but in all the stories Ive heard, the crew -bless their souls- did not make it.

[DNall]

When was the last time a CAP aircraft was force down and the crew made use of such items? Ive heard of CAP planes going down, but in all the stories Ive heard, the crew -bless their souls- did not make it.

Funny how when you find yourself in a survival situation such logic is pretty worthless.

Our planes also all have a survival kit aboard. I carry some additional stuff in a flight bag. I figure it's either going to be fatal or I'm going to be able to get to the bag, &/or help will be there quick. I also make sure I carry some spare overnight stuff for those times when you may have to sit it out at a dif airport than your car. The MAIN thing I take is an excess of water. I always end up crewing with people that don't bring any & if we end up off-field that & the first aid kit are going to be the main needs. If I were in more challenging terrain then I'd probably go with a vest & more complete kit in the bag, but as it is I opt for comfort in this area.

[Hawk200]

When was the last time a CAP aircraft was force down and the crew made use of such items? Ive heard of CAP planes going down, but in all the stories Ive heard, the crew -bless their souls- did not make it.

SAR-EMT1, I appreciate that you made input, but this seems a little more negative than what I'm looking for.

This thread was not intended as a discussion on whether or not there is merit to wearing a vest, but a poll on how many people do it. I pretty much understand that if someone doesn't carry one, they don't feel a need for it. There are, however, people that do consider it a legitimate need, and if they do carry one, I'd like to know what they carry in it.

Second, in the near future, I'm probably going to be aircrew on military helicopters. One thing I do know about military aviation is that we don't dress for the 99.999% of the flights we do that never have any problems. We dress for the the .001% that does go wrong.

I've been in one light airplane wreck in my life, and I will agree that it was minor and that a survival vest was unnecessary, as it was on an airfield at the time. I do think about the "What if it hadn't been on that airfield?" Would I have been prepared?

[NIN]

Something to think about that I found pretty funny a couple years back.

I have carried a signal mirror with me since I was old enough to spell "LBE." In the old days it was a flat metal shaving mirror that coincidentally fit neatly in the back of my M-14 style ammo pouches.

Later, I carried a regular signal mirror in my aircrew vest, and have that same mirror in my ground team gear.  Apart from checking uncheckable areas for ticks, or seeing if that branch that just poked me in the eye socket left a mark, or showing someone how to use a signal mirror, I NEVER used one. NEVER. I've carried one since 1982.  NEVER used it.

Until about 2003, when my unit was conducting a bivouac and SAR training with a local boy scout troop. We get out there to coordinate with the airplane and discover that the wing-issued HTs we have are somehow programmed with a PL on all the simplex air to ground freqs and nobody knows how to turn it off, or vice versa in the airplane. Bottom line was: from my truck I could talk to the plane via my mobile. From my HT, no joy.  I could hear them, they couldn't hear me.

Solution?  Well, we could have relayed from the truck to the ground team and up to the plane, but that would have taken a body we didn't have able to commit.  So I told the aircrew "Ask me questions and I'll signal you with my signal mirror for the answers.." and it WORKED!  (whoo hooo!)

So the moral there is "Carry a signal mirror for 21 years and you, too, may get a chance to use it!"

[NIN]

Second, in the near future, I'm probably going to be aircrew on military helicopters. One thing I do know about military aviation is that we don't dress for the 99.999% of the flights we do that never have any problems. We dress for the the .001% that does go wrong.

You would be amazed at how untrue this statement is....

[Hawk200]

Second, in the near future, I'm probably going to be aircrew on military helicopters. One thing I do know about military aviation is that we don't dress for the 99.999% of the flights we do that never have any problems. We dress for the the .001% that does go wrong.

You would be amazed at how untrue this statement is....

Don't know why I'm asking, but how so? What part is untrue?

[NIN]

Don't know why I'm asking, but how so? What part is untrue?

While we were "supposed" to wear our vests all the time, I can tell you that in the several hundred hours of rotary wing aircraft crew time that I have (CH-47s, UH-1s, AH-1s and OH-58s) I probably wore my survival vest all of about 25 or 30 hours total.  It was common to snap-link it to the seat and forget it.  Pilots too.

If you see photos of me in my gear, I'm wearing an SPH-4, flightsuit, jacket, gloves and monkey harness.  I can think of about three or four discrete instances where I was wearing a survival vest when I might have been in a serious position to really need it.  Never actually did.

The fact is: when you're doing a$$ and trash missions far from anything "hot", its easy to get complacent and figure "I don't need that vest right now.."  It gets in the way, crap gets snagged on it, you might screw up and lose something out of it and have to pay for it, its bulky, my monkey harness rides badly under it, its too hot, etc...

Only wore chicken plate about three times.  And my vest was ON for that.

[Hawk200]

While we were "supposed" to wear our vests all the time, I can tell you that in the several hundred hours of rotary wing aircraft crew time that I have (CH-47s, UH-1s, AH-1s and OH-58s) I probably wore my survival vest all of about 25 or 30 hours total.  It was common to snap-link it to the seat and forget it.  Pilots too.

If you see photos of me in my gear, I'm wearing an SPH-4, flightsuit, jacket, gloves and monkey harness.  I can think of about three or four discrete instances where I was wearing a survival vest when I might have been in a serious position to really need it.  Never actually did.

The fact is: when you're doing a$$ and trash missions far from anything "hot", its easy to get complacent and figure "I don't need that vest right now.."  It gets in the way, crap gets snagged on it, you might screw up and lose something out of it and have to pay for it, its bulky, my monkey harness rides badly under it, its too hot, etc...

Only wore chicken plate about three times.  And my vest was ON for that.

I don't see how that is contradictory to my statement, but in the interest of keeping this thread clean, I'm going to suggest that you make any responses as PM's. I think the disagreement is probably a matter of viewpoint, not a difference of facts.

[Trung Si Ma]

Don't know why I'm asking, but how so? What part is untrue?

While we were "supposed" to wear our vests all the time, I can tell you that in the several hundred hours of rotary wing aircraft crew time that I have (CH-47s, UH-1s, AH-1s and OH-58s) I probably wore my survival vest all of about 25 or 30 hours total.  It was common to snap-link it to the seat and forget it.  Pilots too.

AMEN and can CONCUR with the above.  Several hundred aerial observer hours in -58's and very few while wearing a vest.  Of course, the -58 cockpit isn't designed for arctic clothing and a survival vest.  Usually clipped to the survival gear in the back and then taken out an put on when going into a maneuver TOC (counted as web gear).

The only time I really wore a -21 vest was when they were modified with Type II nylon straps and made into field expedient STABO rigs.  You wore the vest with the leg straps tapped up out of the way and the lift rings at the shoulders taped down.  Then, if you needed a STABO extraction, you hooked the leg straps up, cinched them down REAL tight and hooked the ropes to the lift rings and went for a ride.  Scared the bejesus out of me the first time we did it down at McCall.  Fortunately, we never had to use it for real.

[A.Member]

No, I don't wear a vest and I wouldn't unless I'm in an area that would require me to spend an exorbitant amount of time over water - ie. Hawaii.

The aircraft has a survival pack.  That is all the additional gear that is needed.  Everything else is bulk and weight in already cramped space.

[DNall]

That reminds me, I do have one of those suspender inflatable lifejackets that I bought with the intention of actually wearing, but I quit observering much after that & hadn't actually worn it. It's in the boat now I think or garage one.

[aveighter]

I think NIN made the best and more salient observation in his first post.  Helmets.  If you examine mortality data (I have) for pilot deaths in crashes.  Blunt force trauma is the usual killer.  So many times that involves the head and death comes in an event that would have otherwise had a high probability of survival.

Given the type of flying we often do (mission) with the factors of low altitude, relatively low airspeed and maneuvering (depending on your slice of the country that ground may be very uneven) and potentially heavy weights, I'm disturbed that head protection is not mandatory.  Even with good technique, an unscheduled landing can result in forces potentially fatal if the wrong thing gets knocked but survivable if it's not.

That way your alive to enjoy the many benefits of your vest whilst observing the efficiencies of the SAR system from another perspective 

[RiverAux]

I'm banging my head against the ceiling as it is.  Don't think I could fit if I had to wear a helmet in one of our planes. 

[A.Member]

Helmets?!  YGTBSM!  Do some of you work for NHQ?     Sounds like something they'd come up with. 

Have you guys that are suggesting this been in the Cessna model 172?  It's not exactly known for it's abundant amount of space.  Put a couple of our "standard" members up front and it's downright cramped. 

The term low and slow is also relative.  We are low and slow - compared to an F-16.  However, 90 kts is still rather fast (~103 mph).   Another one of my hobbies is auto racing.  I love it.  Every so often someone asks me about what type of helmet to buy.  They may ask, "What do you think of open face helmets - they look pretty cool, huh?"  I usually respond with something like, "Yeah, they look real cool but I hope you have a good dental plan because should you find yourself in a position that requires it's use, you'll likely be taking a pretty good bite out of your steering wheel".  The same basic principle holds true in this case.  In the unfortunate event of a crash, the greatest likelihood of impact will be forward to the controls.  An open faced helmet is not likely to produce any significant increase to your probability of survival in this situation, which is already fairly low.  What's more is that a helmet is far more likely to be an obstruction/distraction in the cockpit.

[SAR-EMT1]

I would like to offer up an apology to anyone who saw my earlier post as negative or morbid. I didn't intend to infer that a survival vest would be useless.
The reason I asked was because I am not a pilot and was merely looking for some background into the subject.

[A.Member]

I would like to offer up an apology to anyone who saw my earlier post as negative or morbid. I didn't intend to infer that a survival vest would be useless.
The reason I asked was because I am not a pilot and was merely looking for some background into the subject.

I am a pilot and read your comments.  They were pretty much right on - it's the reality of the situation.  If you have a hard, off-field landing, you're probably in a bit of trouble.  No need for an apology as far as I'm concerned.

[aveighter]

Helmets?!  YGTBSM!  Do some of you work for NHQ?     Sounds like something they'd come up with. 

Have you guys that are suggesting this been in the Cessna model 172?  It's not exactly known for it's abundant amount of space.  Put a couple of our "standard" members up front and it's downright cramped. 

The term low and slow is also relative.  We are low and slow - compared to an F-16.  However, 90 kts is still rather fast (~103 mph).    An open faced helmet is not likely to produce any significant increase to your probability of survival in this situation, which is already fairly low.  What's more is that a helmet is far more likely to be an obstruction/distraction in the cockpit.

Yeah, I know.   Every time the mention of helmets comes the above type response is pretty common. 

90kts sounds pretty good.  Throw in summer heat, turbulence, heavy and maneuvering bank angles at low altitude and that 90kts ain't what it used to be.  Besides a moments inattention and that 90kts can become something else very quickly.  One our (CAP) more recent crew losses was a stall/spin in a similar situation, while maneuvering.  Three aboard lost.  It happens.  We recently lost another of our own (not in a CAP plane this time) after a power loss after take off.  Great technique and good reflexes made everything look good right up till the gear brushed some tree limbs and tumbled the plane on it's back at low speed.

Cause of death?  A cigar if you said head injury otherwise survivable if there had been protection.  Tragic.  Remember, I said I have examined the data (a lot of it).  Open face helmets work just fine in fact.  Our cockpits are cramped if you are a beast but the helmet isn't wider than your shoulders (or shouldn't be).  I have actually used a helmet while training in a 150.  Odd at first but fine after a while, no obstructing or distracting noted.

If you're blasting along at altitude doing o-rides or otherwise fat and happy have at it.  But for mission flying requiring low altitude maneuvering (especially in certain regions of the country) I think head protection is the way to go.  God Forbid, but it could make the difference between coming home to mama or the sad singing and slow walking.  Surely it's worth giving some strong consideration.

[O-Rex]

I was fixed-wing, so the vest clipped to the seat was not an option (tends to cramp your style when you eject.)

Most wings have an SOP, or memorandum with required or suggested gear.  General rule is bring what will keep you comfortable for a few hours if you have to land somewhere "out-of-the way."  Crash-survivability is one thing: ditching, or landing in a remote area is another: hasn't happened in CAP for awhile, but I'd hate to be unprepared if I'm the first.  And if you do land somewhere out-of-the-way, don't plan on getting picked up for a few hours. .

CMU-33's,  AIRSAVES or SRU-21's are quite spiffy, but even a well-stocked fanny-pack might suit your needs.

Helmets in CAP aircraft?  Bit over-the-top.  We had a guy who wore one: was quite a sight in his custom-painted HGU-26 revving up a C-172.  We called him "Maverick" and laughed at him.

[RiverAux]

Unless we're going to start limiting the height of aircrew members, any more to require helmet wear will keep quite a few of the taller folks from participating.  There isn't enough headroom in it now for me to wear a ball cap while flying, and I'm only 6'1".

[afgeo4]

I carry the basic survival and first aid equipment listed in the GTM3 task guide plus 1 MRE worth of food (broken down of course) and 1 liter of water in 250 ml packets.

I also carry a strobe light and 1 smoke grenade.

I also carry the USAF survival knife.

All of this in an air-save vest(less the harness)

So...I got everything I need to spend the night with the aircraft in the desert.

Do we know what the potential drawbacks are to an accidental discharge of a smoke grenade inside a Cessna 172/182 are? Can we estimate? Now can we weigh out the risks vs benefits? How does the rest of the aircrew feel about this? I know I wouldn't get into an enclosed aircraft with no jettison device if the pilot had a smoke grenade on him/her. I wonder how your safety officer feels.

[afgeo4]

Wear of helmets is an interesting issue... USAF pilots wear helmets mostly for proper fit of oxygen mask. At supersonic speeds, helmets wont help you much with trauma anyway. They also offer good glare-free sun protection for the eyes and the oxygen mask also doubles for commo. Now, we don't need oxygen, so... how would a US Army issue helicopter helmet do in a typical Cessna accident? The benefits could be head protection, sun visor, and good (is it?) communication boom and earphones.

[NIN]

Since I'm the guy who brought up helmets, permit me to retort..

Helmets in a GA aircraft look stupid. I agree.  Helmets were not the ONLY thing I mentioned in my post.  I also mentioned locking shoulder harnesses and strap-mounted airbags.

However, I think we tend to underestimate many of our missions as just "another GA flight."  They are not.  As was previously mentioned, we put our airframes and aircrews into an environment where a moment of inattention may result in an unscheduled meeting of aluminum and earth.  The big problem is surviving the big, bad nasty crash sequence so you can go on to worry about beating the crap out of the elements with your survival gear.

I have a fair amount of time inside 172s and 182s, C-206s, C-208s, King Airs, DHC-6s and Casa 212s, etc, etc.  And I have a fair understanding of crash dynamics.  The front office in the smaller bug smashers tends to be tight, and in an accident sequence it will get tighter (or you may be forced my Mr. Newton to explore more of the studio space than you intend..).   At some point in time, you need all the extra protection from surrounding aluminum that you can get.

Flying cadets around?  Doubtful you need head protection.  You're not putting yourself in really any greater risk than any other GA / Young Eagles pilot.  Sluffing along at 90kts and 1000ft AGL in a hard bank trying to get your eyeballs on the target?  He who hesitates shall inherit the earth.  Don't blow this one or you and your crew are going to be playing "bad touch" inside a smashed up aluminum can...

Your melon (and the rest of you, too!) needs protecting.  Plain and simple.  Your DCs ain't gonna do it.  You might survive blunt force trauma to the body. You won't survive blunt force trauma to the brain housing group.   Those shoulder-strap mounted airbags might help, as might other crashworthy features in the aircraft. 

My overall point is: For CAP's purposes, a survival vest is likely not going to be as useful as it may be detrimental.  There was a reason we only wore them when the potential to need them went up. It was a risk-based approach, sure, and there was a chance we'd get caught with our pants down.  but bombing around the airfield in the pattern seemed (at the time) less risky than a night overwater SF insertion from a "will I need survival gear or not?" perspective. 

My dad rides a sport bike. He was stopped a light one summer day on the way to work when a kid pulled up next to him on a crotch rocket.  My dad is wearing a full-face helmet, leather jacket, gloves, turtleback, jeans and boots.  The kid is wearing a pair of sneakers, nylon running shorts and an open face helmet and a pair of sunglasses.  The kid looks over, says "Wow, man, aren't you a little over dressed?"  My dad replied "If I knew when I was going to have to step off, I'd only wear it then.."  Different environments, surely.  My father has stepped off and laid down more bikes than I can count.  I'll take his understanding of the risk environment there any day.

I've had one precautionary landings for a chip light.

I think a brain bucket is a cheaper alternative that balances risks and protection.

[Al Sayre]

Before anyone heads down to the local surplus store let me remind you that there is a difference electronically between Helicopter helmets and Airplane helmets, and there also may be a difference between the military electronics and Civilian Electronics in your particular aircraft. 

Be sure that what you buy is compatible with the aircraft that you fly, otherwise not only will you buy a $300 used brain bucket, but a $2000 ICS panel when it burns up because of your non-compatible gear.  If you check around on the web, there are a few companies that offer retro-fitted helmets for use with civilian aircraft, or will retro fit one you send them, and it involves more than just changing the plugs

Also, you need to get a helmet that is properly fitted to your head.  I have my old one from my Navy days and it does not fit anymore, so I wouldn't even consider wearing it, not just from a comfort standpoint, but also from a safety standpoint.  If you are going to buy a helmet, do it right and get it fitted by someone who knows what they are doing.

[Dragoon]

Continuing the off topic, but salient thread...

...it's been anecdotal for years that we wear nomex for "safety" when truly its blunt force trauma that kills us CAP types - not fire.  Glad someone's actually looked at the safety figures and determined that the anecdote is true.

What to do about it?  Not sure - helmets are expensive, and kind of personal.  You don't normally have communal helmets sitting in the plane for anyone to use.

And....unless everyone starts wearing one, you're gonna look goofy (and don't underestimate the "looks goofy" factor in getting folks to do something.)

[A.Member]

OK, my rebuttal to the rebuttal  :

First, one needs to understand why some military pilots and crew members wear them (Note: crews flying 130's, 135's, etc. aren't wearing helmets, with the exception of the crew chiefs while doing walkarounds).  For fixed wing ejection seat equipped aircraft (primarily fighters and attack aircraft), hard-shell helmets were developed to provide blast protection during ejection.  Now, in addition to that, they provide mounting points for O2 mask, comms, NVG, and other gear, as well as offering noise attenuation.  For rotor-craft, cranials provide for comms, protection from flying objects and fire, as well as offering some strike protection (rotor blades can flex quite a bit).  In both cases, helmets offer good protection from bumps to the noggin that might be received while preflighting at 0-dark-30. 

Second, consider the following warning from Flight Suits Ltd. when purchasing the HGU-55 (my emphasis added):

Caution: HGU-55 helmets have been designed for use in fixed-wing aircraft and offer limited impact protection. Users with different applications should consider helmets with greater impact protection designed specifically for their applications.

Comparing auto or motorcycle helmets to one for aviation use is very much an apples to oranges comparison.  SNELL and ANSI test and certify helmets for different uses.  A military style helmet does not offer suitable protection to a motorcycle driver or auto racer as it does not meet the impact standards for those devices – and that's because the point isn't to offer significant impact protection.  Oh, and BTW, a person can definitely be killed without ever impacting their head.  The rapid deceleration alone can cause massive internal trauma to the brain and organs.

Third, with even light use, helmets require routine maintenance to stay working order.  To provide effective comms and visibility, a helmet must be fit to each person.  The military (life support folks in particular) spend a great deal of time and money to ensure their proper fit.  That's why if a person loses, wrecks, or in some way damages their helmet, there is hell to pay.

Speaking of paying, did we mention the cost?  An inexpensive helmet with comm. would start around $1000+.  How many people will fork that over? CAP certainly won't pay for it.

And then there is the practicality of wearing a helmet.  Have you ever flown an airplane in the summer with the sun beating through the cockpit?  Now throw on a helmet.  Fatigue and heat = no fun.  It's like having your head in an oven.  A mission may run several hours.  From a flight safety standpoint, with that alone, crew fatigue is a real concern.  You now compound that with the helmet.  They are also clunky.  Two guys in the front looking around in such close proximity are bound to continually knock craniums. 

But I will say this about helmets...they do look cool with the visor down!  And after all, isn't that the real point?  I mean if someone was really that concerned or risk adverse, their feet would probably never leave the ground, let alone climb into an airplane.  As a matter of fact, they'd wear a helmet while driving in their car on the way to work.  Check that, no they wouldn't.  They wouldn't drive at all - they'd tele-commute.

Life is dangerous. 

[aveighter]

Well, golly mackrel boy, who can argue against that?

Woodrow Wilson had a saying "Never murder a man who is committing suicide".

Reckon that pretty much wraps up this discussion.

[O-Rex]

Do we know what the potential drawbacks are to an accidental discharge of a smoke grenade inside a Cessna 172/182 are? Can we estimate? Now can we weigh out the risks vs benefits? How does the rest of the aircrew feel about this? I know I wouldn't get into an enclosed aircraft with no jettison device if the pilot had a smoke grenade on him/her. I wonder how your safety officer feels.

"Smoke-grenades" are a misnomer. There are a number of devices you can buy in marine and aviation supply stores that do the job well and are relatively safe to handle.

Accidental discharge of emergency pyrotechnics is highly unlikely, provided you are using USCG or FAA-approved items made for that purpose: if you are using "gyro-jet" Pen flares, you actually have to load them for it to work. With most smoke/flare combos, you have to screw-off the cap and pull (more like tug) a ring to activate.

I'f you're worried about pyros "cooking-off" (spontaneous combustion,) don't: it requires very high temperatures. If they cook-off inside a vest from the excessive heat of a cockpit fire, chances are that the wearer is already dead.

Helmets: the only recent CAP-sanctioned use of a flight helmet was an SPH-4B during a brief test of night-vision equipment a few years back. Even then, the helmet was really little more than a mounting platform, as there were no head-harnesses for the device.

There are currently no CAP mission profiles that would necessitate the use of a flight helmet of any kind. You no more need to wear a flight helmet in a 172/182 than you would wear a racing helmet in the family SUV.

If you insist on wearing a military-style helmet, have a professional prepare it.  Aviation Life-Support is as much art as science: wearing something you cobbed together in the basement from surplus parts may potentially more harmful to you than if you wore nothing at all.

[aveighter]

There are currently no CAP mission profiles that would necessitate the use of a flight helmet of any kind. You no more need to wear a flight helmet in a 172/182 than you would wear a racing helmet in the family SUV.

Very authoritatively put.

Just out of  curiosity, in what part of the country do you fly your missions (I'm assuming you're an experienced Form 91 pilot) and what is your medical background?

[JohnKachenmeister]

One of the things I do whenever possible when I have a new officer member is take them up for an airplane ride, even if I have to use one of my club planes at my own expense.  I've done this maybe a dozen times or so, mostly when I commanded a squadron.

I have the officer tell me where he lives.  If it is not in controlled airspace, I have him call his wife/mom/dad/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever.  I tell him that we are going to fly over his house, and that they should be alert  for the sound of a light plane engine, and come out and wave.

Then I circle his house at 1000 feet agl.  Sure enough, they come out and wave.

But most of the time, you can't see them unless you make several passes or know exactly where they are.  You also can't tell what they're doing.  Waving, dancing, or standing still.  Literally, they look like ants at 1000 feet.

After we land I make this a teaching point.  What if that had been a lost hiker waving?  They are easy to miss, and you KNEW that your companion would be there.  When you're an observer, don't forget that, and when you're on a ground team, remember there is no such thing as "Too visible."  Smoke, flares, mirrors, ground panels, use them all.

My flight bag has 1 MRE, 1 qt. of water, and LOTS of signalling devices.

[A.Member]

One of the things I do whenever possible when I have a new officer member is take them up for an airplane ride, even if I have to use one of my club planes at my own expense.  I've done this maybe a dozen times or so, mostly when I commanded a squadron.

I have the officer tell me where he lives.  If it is not in controlled airspace, I have him call his wife/mom/dad/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever.  I tell him that we are going to fly over his house, and that they should be alert  for the sound of a light plane engine, and come out and wave.

Then I circle his house at 1000 feet agl.  Sure enough, they come out and wave.

But most of the time, you can't see them unless you make several passes or know exactly where they are.  You also can't tell what they're doing.  Waving, dancing, or standing still.  Literally, they look like ants at 1000 feet.

After we land I make this a teaching point.  What if that had been a lost hiker waving?  They are easy to miss, and you KNEW that your companion would be there.  When you're an observer, don't forget that...

I kind of like that.  I may start using that little exercise too.  <thumbsup>

[SAR-EMT1]

IF you dont mind a question from the peanut gallery - Im not a pilot-
I once saw an article in Popular Mechanics about an emergency safety system for G/A aircraft.  Seems like it incorporated an emergency parachute that deployed from the tail area of the plane itself, it also talked of airbags that deployed both in the cockpit, but also on the exterior to cushion the blow of impact.

I expect this system would cost more then our annual budget, but I was jsut wondering if anyone else had heard of such a system... And if something other then a helmet / survival kit is worth looking into in regards to safety.

[Al Sayre]

There are some light aircraft that use a Ballistic Parachute Recovery System.  Cirrus comes immediately to mind, and the company BRS makes an STC aftermarket version for installation on several different GA airframes.  Cockpit airbags are also available on many newer GA aircraft, and can be retrofitted to several older models.  The airbag is actually incorporated into the shoulder harness.

[lordmonar]

Well we are back to the old cost benifit analysis for safety equipment.

Are personal survival vests worth the cost?  Are helmets? Are Nomex flight suits? Parachutes or BRSs?

All comes down to personal tastes and peace of mind.

[Al Sayre]

I'd say vests are worth the cost simply because the cost is low.  You can buy one on Ebay for about $35.00.  put your stuff in it and be good to go.  Whether you wear it or toss it in the back seat is another issue.  I've got one, but I use it for GT stuff, primarily because I fly 172's and it gets in the way when I wear it. 

I have a bright orange backpack with my survival gear (spare hand held radio, gps, signalling equipment, etc.) in it that I take when flying, I make sure it is on top of the pile of stuff in the back, and my breifing includes "in case of a crash grab the orange bag". Everyone else seems to favor black bags, so the orange one stands out...

[Hawk200]

I'd say vests are worth the cost simply because the cost is low.  You can buy one on Ebay for about $35.00.  put your stuff in it and be good to go.  Whether you wear it or toss it in the back seat is another issue.  I've got one, but I use it for GT stuff, primarily because I fly 172's and it gets in the way when I wear it. 

On a lark, I bought an AIRSAVE off eBay a few days ago. $42, and includes five pockets. I'll probably put it all together when I get back from school. May come in handy, time will tell.

[RiverAux]

Regarding helmets, it probably doesn't matter that a much higher percentage of our flying is done at low levels when compared to GA...you're still going to hit the ground pretty darn hard.  Also, we're fogetting that most accidents happen during takeoff and landing phases of flight so excluding o-rides from helmet wear wouldn't make any sense. 

However, I will wear a helmet inside a CAP van before I will wear one in a CAP aircraft.  It is all about risk vs benefit -- you're stiill at much greater risk of having blunt force trauma to the head while in an auto than when in a plane. 

[aveighter]

suppose from the definitive tone of your input there River that you too have some experience as a  mission pilot (with actual experience in day, night, rain, turbulence, mountainous terrain, etc., real world/not sarex kind of experience) along with considerable experience in the analysis of post crash morbidity/mortality data. 

Please tell me that you are such that a discussion of your faulty interpretation of these data can be had between two people that actually know what they are talking about.   Otherwise this is nothing more than rebuttal to idle postulations and non-stop bloviation.

Don't like helmets, vests, whatever?  No probelm.  Try "I've got a really poor self image and no stones and someone might laugh at me so I don't want a helmet, vest, whatever".  Or how about something like "Man, in my opinion, it's just not something I believe I need to fool with".  Thats actually pretty good.  Really, if you don't like it just say so and leave it at that.

Opinion, everyones got one.  Differs from a reasoned analysis of the specific facts of the matter.  One of the advantages of being somewhat older is a sense of history.  I remember a time before seatbelts.  I remember the time seatbelts were introduced and the moaning and handwringing when it seemed the use thereof would become mandated. Very similar to the opining on this matter.

"I never wore them and I did fine" they blubbered.  "It doesn't make any difference because in a side impact crash you'll still get killed" they howled.  "Also we're forgetting that most crashes happen within 5 miles of home so why wear them while highway driving" they wailed.  Now, of course, anyone making such an argument is immediately written off (and rightfully so) as a moron.  Now, you can always count on some genius, with great pride and obnoxious puffery, point out the poor slob that burned up in his car because his seatbelt trapped him inside as an indictment of galactic proportion against the wearing of seatbelts while completely ignoring the massive numbers of lives saved and otherwise fatal injuries that became survivable.  Now theres some reasoned analysis for you.

RA, with all due respect, you make some pretty interesting posts on almost every topic available but really,  to say
it probably doesn't matter that a much higher percentage of our flying is done at low levels when compared to GA...you're still going to hit the ground pretty darn hard.  confirms a complete lack of understanding of the flying we do and the dynamics of forced landings controlled or not.  It's just a silly statement.

Being able to surf the internet and produce some factoidal do-dads on this or that subject does not constitute actual knowledge based on real study and direct experience.  If you do have the actual stuff, great, so state and carry on so that we might all potentially learn something of real value.  If it's just something you think based on something you read or heard somewhere than say so and don't pontificate in such a definitive manner.  It's most annoying.

[RiverAux]

Whether you're flying at 1000 feet and crash or flying at 10000 feet and crash it won't make any significant difference whether you had a helmet or not.  IF we were going to require helmet wear, it would need to be for all flights all the time to have any chance of being effective. 

As to when crashes occur, refer to any AOPA Nall report....Taking cadets on an o-ride at 5000 is going to be just about as dangerous as our normal mission flying. 

[aveighter]

Whether you're flying at 1000 feet and crash or flying at 10000 feet and crash it won't make any significant difference whether you had a helmet or not.  IF we were going to require helmet wear, it would need to be for all flights all the time to have any chance of being effective. 

As to when crashes occur, refer to any AOPA Nall report....Taking cadets on an o-ride at 5000 is going to be just about as dangerous as our normal mission flying. 

For the love of pete, man, this is precisely what I'm talking about.  The initial cruising altitude has nothing to do with the dynamics or specific nature of the unscheduled landing and the mitigation of injury protective equipment may or may not have.  It's just a silly thing to say.  Its nothing more than the incessant need something about anything

Heres the real eye-popper though.  Do you honestly think something you read equates the risk levels of cruising flight at 5000 feet with low altitude maneuvering flight under the conditions I have cited?  Come on now, do you really want to make that assertion?  I am going to surmise you are not a pilot because I can't imagine that even the most inexperienced pilot would make such a silly statement and attempt to present any data purporting to support the conclusion as being even remotely serious.  As I indicated before, the ability to read information does not equate with the ability to comprehend what you have read.  Please, no more nanny nanny boo boo retorts.

[RiverAux]

Please refer to the Nall reports.  Aerial observation flights (most of which are conducted at even lower levels than standard CAP mission profiles) actually have fewer total accidents and fewer fatal accidents than you would expect based on how many hours are flown.  Heck, even aerial application flights have a lower percentage of fatal accidents than you would expect. 

Yes, I realize that the Maneuvering phase has a relatively high percentage of accidents, but check their definition: "Includes the following: aerobatics, low
pass, buzzing, pull-up, aerial application maneuver, turn to reverse direction (box-canyon-type maneuver), or engine failure after takeoff and pilot tries to return to
runway."  --- most of which CAP isn't doing.

I'm not saying that there isn't some increased risk from CAP's flying, but we've obviously addressed that pretty darn well already since our accident rate is usually lower than GA in general.  If it was significantly more dangerous our rate would be much, much higher.

You've got to assess the risks here.  What you need to show to us is that requiring helmet wear in C-172s or C-182s would significantly reduce the number of injuries or deaths suffered during CAP flights.  Show us some data on that. 

[Hawk200]

I didn't mind a little drift, but a few of the latest posts are exactly what I didn't want to see. Can we just knock it off, or should I request a mod lock?

[O-Rex]

I speak with authority and conviction on this subject because I have an extensive background in this sort of thing. 

I don't need to give anyone my bio, or chest-thump on a public forum: who and what I am permeates in every post I write.  Anyone too obtuse to see that couldn't possibly grasp where it was coming from.  The curious or skeptical can PM me: you show me yours, I'll show you mine.

As for the poseurs, it's not that hard to sniff them out: they know who they are.

If there's one thing I've learned in this organization, is watch who you "call out:" I've been humbled by what some CAP members have accomplished, achieved or experienced in other facets of their lives.  While our "least common denomiator" members get a lot of attention (albeit unwanted) some of our other compatriots are pretty amazing, rather than "annoying."

Now that we got that out of the way....

My statement regarding mission profiles reflects CAP policy, and not individual preferences: I don't recall any mention of CAP-sanctioned wearing of helmets mentioned in 60-1, and it was never a discussion topic at NCPSC's.  CAP doesn't address it because its not a General Aviation requirement, and doesn't appear in any of the FAR's. . .

If a safety-conscious individual wants a helmet, David Clark makes one that is worn over the headset-it's not quite as sexy as  "Top Gun," but it's practical, low maint, and I would bet that a the CAP member wearing that one is actually into safety rather than aesthetics (as opposed to the latter, who are probably wearing something that's unsafe, as per my last.)

I'm not trying to dissuade conscientious aircrew from prudent honest pursuits: more power to them.  Saving the flamboyant, misguided & uninformed from themselves is another matter entirely.

Flying cross-country over wide-open spaces of swamp, tundra, mountains, etc?  Pack accordingly, be it vest, fanny-pack, or Gucci Valise.  Helmets?  Entirely optional, but if compelled to, wear the right one for the right reason. 

[AlaskanCFI]

1. I teach floats and therefore I am in the water most of the time.

2. We live on the Alaskan coast and most of our CAP flying is over sea water or lakes.

I own a Stearns Nomex pilot vest.  Inlfaltable type that I have modified with extra gear.
I have another for my Float rating customers.
A couple of my fellow CAP pilots are now wearing them as well.

My web site may have a photo of that vest and my survival gear box.

If not, send me an E-mail and I will send photos of both.

dragonfly@alaska.net



xx