Flight Helmet for missions?

[Charlie82]

I'm a new member of CAP but an eight year veteran of the Air Force. A an aircrew member, I was used to wearing a flight helmet for training and deployed operations, which encompasses anytime I flew. I was not a pilot nor was I subjected to high-G forces.  Anybody who's anybody knows it's what all aircrews wear while operating aircraft, big or small.

Before I get into my question, I wanted to get into the helmet and what it was for, as an aircrew member.  The HGU-55 fixed wing flight helmet (the one I wore) is used for fighter pilots, bomber pilots and officer and enlisted aircrew, such as flight engineers, crew chiefs and loadmasters. It's an outdated version for fighter and bomber pilots but the rest of the Air Force still uses them. The helmet cut down on aircraft noise considerably and it was difficult to knock off your headset since it is integrated into the helmet.  The shaded and clear visors were also an advantage for anybody who needed to shade their eyes from the sun or God forbid, eject.  In the event of an emergency landing or crash, it IS designed to afford the wearer a certain amount of impact protection as opposed to your skull and headset.  As an added bonus, it can also be used to fit night vision goggles if necessary.

Now I know we're not the military and I'm not looking for ways to relive "glory days".  And now my question to you all:  Is there or do you feel there a practical application in CAP for the use of a flight helmet?  Pilots, observers and scanners are specifically targeted.  In my opinion, there is.  Besides being a source of added safety to the wearer, communication is easier to understand.  Most other elements, such as O2 or High-G protection are not needed but those are only optional benefits and do not apply to CAP.

Do you feel there is a practical application or need for the flight helmet or would a headset be just as good?  Do you know of any CAP aircrew member who does utilize a flight helmet?  Sound off!  I'd like to hear the different comments and viewpoints you have. Thanks!

[PHall]

I'm a new member of CAP but an eight year veteran of the Air Force. A an aircrew member, I was used to wearing a flight helmet for training and deployed operations, which encompasses anytime I flew. I was not a pilot nor was I subjected to high-G forces.  Anybody who's anybody knows it's what all aircrews wear while operating aircraft, big or small.

Don't know what you were flying in, but in EC/KC-135's and C-141's, we normally did not wear helmets. About the only exception was if you were in the cargo compartment of the C-141's while the Troop Doors or Cargo Doors were open during Air Drops.

AFSOC on the other hand, wears helmets just to go to the bathroom...

To get back to your question, CAP does not wear helmets while flying.

[Live2Learn]

Is there a "practical application" for flight helmets with CAP?  ABSOLUTELY.  While not a requirement or even explicitly approved as 'optional' by CAPR 39-1, CAPR 60-1, or CAPR 60-3, helmets would be a great addition to aircrew safety.  Even a cursory read of NTSB accident reports demonstrates that helmets have made several saves in GA fixed wing aircraft, and lack of helmets have resulted in fatalities.  The Alaska Region of the FAA did a review of accidents over a five year period and fund helmets would have probably reduced fatalities by about 30% during that period. 

When in a 'search' or photo mission, particularly during flight over mountainous or forested landscapes the opportunities for a low risk emergency landing can be slim to none.  Should we experience total engine failure.  Like it or not, engine failures do occur in CAP aircraft.  To confirm just do a search of NTSB accident reports and several will surface.   I am aware of four engine failures in the last five years - all fortunately where a viable option existed for landing.  In the mountains or over continuous forest things could get dicey really quick if the fan stops.  At 1000' AGL (search altitude) and 80 kts (search airspeed) we are in a low energy state.  Even with near instantaneous transition to best glide we're gonna be on the ground in 45-60 seconds... and our area of potential landing sites is severely limited.

I think it would be a great, forward thinking move for CAP to look into group purchase pricing for two or three different helmets.  Who knows, the life it saves might be a member of the forum?

[Live2Learn]

To get back to your question, CAP does not wear helmets while flying.

I'd rephrase that to "most CAP" don't wear helmets... Perpetual optimism is a disease that afflicts many who don't like "helmet hair"!  :-)

[coudano]

come on guys, you haven't seen cap's latest helmet mounted cueing system for the surrogate pods?

[Charlie82]

Thank you for your comments. I understand that most, if not all CAP members have never used a flight helmet during training or missions.  And while I agree that we are not combatants, it does nothing to save any of us from the risks associated with flying the missions the CAP is called upon daily. Big engine or tiny engine, they fall to the ground just as hard (knock on wood). Flying a bus at 30'000 ft is a bit safer than flying patterns over even terrain.

Keep the comments coming!

[Charlie82]

UNEVEN terrain..

[SarDragon]

Do you feel there is a practical application or need for the flight helmet or would a headset be just as good?  Do you know of any CAP aircrew member who does utilize a flight helmet?  Sound off!  I'd like to hear the different comments and viewpoints you have. Thanks!

Nope. Having flown in both environments, I see little need for a helmet. The aircrew isn't crawling around the aircraft while performing their duties. Their exposure to violent movements while not strapped in is minimal, and said violent movements are not a part of our mission profiles.

Last is the weight factor. Helmets in our profiles, IMO, are more fatiguing than military profiles. Also the Cessna excess power available is much lower than any military aircraft, FWIW.

[PHall]

UNEVEN terrain..

Flown search missions in the Sierra Nevada's, never needed a helmet. Remember, you're strapped into a seat with a seat belt and a shoulder harness.
So you're moving not around.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Required - to prevent head strike when the pilot puts the flaps to the unnecessary position of Full for the Preflight.

[Live2Learn]

UNEVEN terrain..

Flown search missions in the Sierra Nevada's, never needed a helmet. Remember, you're strapped into a seat with a seat belt and a shoulder harness.
So you're moving not around.

If you "never needed a helmet" I congratulate you on many safe and uneventful flights. 

I have a friend who lost his engine on takeoff in western Montana near West Yellowstone.  He stuck his plane (a supercub with all lift enhancing devices known to man) in a very small clearing next to the runway.  His choices were grim: a cliff off the end of the runway; tall trees to the immediate right and left; and a small opening created by recent logging about 150 degrees behind him.  He almost made a perfect 3 point landing in that tiny clearing... BUT his left wing hit a tree some inconsiderate oaf failed to cut down.  The plane started flying again (at least the right wing did).  Then it stalled.  Side loads from the tree caused severe damage to his skull, and also to the passenger's head.  His 4 point harness kept him from a face plant in the panel, ditto for the pax.  BUT though tight, the harnesses were'nt tight enough.  Both he and passenger submarined through their lap belts causing a lot of damage to ribs, thorax, etc.  He's a true believer in helmets.  He and pax were unconscious from the banging of their heads on the sides of the aircraft.  Even with his severe injuries, had he not banged his head he would have been able to shut off fuel and spark.  But he was out and fuel was dripping from the damaged left wing tank.  Fortunately some friends were watching the takeoff.  When they heard the engine quit the cavalry was in motion! Within less than two minutes of the crash one friend turned off both fuel and power.  A lot of fatalities from GA aircraft result from post crash fires.  This crash was a prime candidate for want of a helmet.  Another pilot I know is also a true believer.  His engine quit about six years ago while he was flying up the Columbia River Gorge.  During his off airport landing he hit  two trees (perfectly, one on each wing mid span - and entirely by luck), had a harness, and still banged his head (encased in a helmet).  He walked away with a bit of soreness.   Hubris says "don't need no helmets... I got shoulder harnesses!".  Flying over mountains shoulder harnesses may not be enough.  Engine failure is the second highest root cause of GA SE aircraft accidents, and has been for a long time. 

[lordmonar]

Back when we used to argue about whether NOMEX was required or not......I always stated that from a safety point of view a flight helmet was more practically useful then a Nomex Flight suit.

To the OP.....yes a flight helmet has a practical application. 

Beyond that I will say no more.

[RiverAux]

While I'm not unusually tall (6'1"), my head is uncomfortably close to the ceiling already while in the right front seat and I'm not sure there would be room for me to wear a helmet if I wanted too. 

[Capt Thompson]

A quick glance over to eBay shows this helmet as about $800 used, which even if they became authorized, is an expense the individual member would have to handle on their own.

Just like RiverAux, our 172 is already a tight fit without a helmet. I would hate to cram into one for a long CD mission with my head tilted constantly to one side because I'm suddenly a few inches taller due to a helmet.

Yes, they save lives, but would be too cost prohibitive, and wouldn't work for anyone average height or above I would guess.

[Storm Chaser]

The main reason military fighter pilots wear helmets is because they may have to eject in case of an emergency. Military aircrews in larger transport aircraft carrying parachutes must carry helmets in case they have to bailout (they don't actually have to wear them). They also carry and wear helmets when flying NVG missions. They're not require to wear or even carry a helmet when flying without parachutes onboard.

I think requiring helmets for CAP flying is not practical nor necessary.

[Al Sayre]

Don't really need them until our new aircraft arrive...
http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/09/cap-slated-to-receive-aging-a-10-fleet-from-usaf/

[Capt Thompson]

 

[Thonawit]

Go ahead and get lost... I dare you

Couldn't resist the thread hijack...

[Capt Thompson]

When you have a ground team vehicle stuck in traffic, sometimes you have to call in for air support!

[Luis R. Ramos]

Did anyone notice the registration number on that CAP A-10?

N976CP... CP as in Cadet Programs?[/size]

Coincidence? Intentional? 

[Capt Thompson]

Luis most of the planes here in MIWG end in CP, and I've noticed a lot of planes in other Wings with the same. Not sure but I think this is an FAA designator for CAP planes.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I assumed that starting with the 182T we asked the FAA if CAP could have CP as the last part of the registration.

However, I am curious if someone actually knows if we asked?

[PHall]

All new CAP airplanes for about the past 10 years or so have had registrations ending in CP. It's nothing new.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Didn't answer the question.  How did it happen.

[SarDragon]

I assumed that starting with the 182T we asked the FAA if CAP could have CP as the last part of the registration.

However, I am curious if someone actually knows if we asked?

I don't know for sure, but it is very likely that someone did ask. Coulda been CAP, or CAP-USAF. Or someone else.

[Flying Pig]

When I used to do a lot of mountain flying in CA flying canyons looking for weed (law enf) there were a couple times where turbulence caused me to seriously smack my head on the doorframe a couple times.  This was a T206H.  My unit has gone away from the traditional flight helmets for a lot of reasons.  We are wearing these with the integrated Peltor ComTac III headsets.  Flying LE missions and firefighting we wanted something more lightweight but still with a great protection.  These are rated to 75Gs and adhere to the same standards as flight helmets.  The cooling vents in the top are amazing.  Not to mention, if you have never worn a set of Peltors... you should.  You dont fly with the noise canceling on, but they are great for when you have to operate outside a running aircraft (helicopter).  The Peltors do work in aircraft.  We also wear NVGs.  Its pricey... but I figure if the State Dept can fly with them in Afghanistan (thats where I got the idea) it will work just fine for me here.

http://store.teamwendy.com/exfil-carbon-bump-helmet/

[Charlie82]

Great replies from everybody.  I see a couple posts regarding how helmets may have prevented serious injury to previous mishaps and others who feel they are unnecessary or are a financial burden. All are valid arguments. I do have an expanded thought on the topic.

I'm sure most, if not all private pilots would forgo a flight helmet. In fact, I've never seen a private pilot wear anything other than a headset and seatbelt.  I think of wearing a flight helmet, especially during CAP missions, essential to the safety of the CREW. It has nothing to do with ejecting, looking cool or bailing out.  If I were a passenger on a motorcycle on the interstate, the driver may want to feel the wind at 80mph and not wear a helmet.  I would choose to wear the helmet because of the increased odds of an accident and because of the statistical safety analysis that has been proven.  The same is true with CAP missions on aircraft.  The higher the risk, the higher the odds.

In the Air Force or any of the other branches, safety is drilled into you until you want to puke.  But they're right. From the simple act of taking a ride on a motorcycle to mission oriented tasks, safety is priority over all else.  That doesn't mean a pedestrian should walk around with a helmet.  You match the safety requirements with the risk you are taking. I for one don't want to end up a statistic in a safety briefing.

Flight helmets are an expensive proposition and not all will favor them for a variety of reasons.  I believe they should be authorized as an optional item for the flight crew.  I do not expect CAP or the USAF to pick up the tab or even subsidize the cost.  It would more than likely be something you or I would have to invest in and that's no different from any other uniform requirement. So is there a practical reason for flight helmets in CAP?  I agree there is. 

I am happy to see all the responses.  Each opinion has as much value as the next. 

[THRAWN]

You're issued one head. Take care of it.

[Flying Pig]

In the helicopter world, its rare to see a pilot not wearing a helmet.  There are exceptions though, Tours, flying in the gulf, corporate are a few.  Most of that has more to do with passenger comfort.  Its hard to have helmets being swapped between passengers in Vegas and flying out to oil rigs every day.  Corporate.... some gazzilionaire isnt going to put on a helmet in the back of their $13M S-76. 

But anything else, wearing a helmet isnt even a question.  Utility, Fire, LE, EMS, etc.   I often fly airplanes in the same missions that I would fly a helicopter.  Low, slow, before moving to FL, I was always in the mountains flying along ridge lines looking for stuff.  So a helmet made sense.  Plus smacking my head a couple of times because of turbulence wasnt cool.   Would I expect CAP to foot the bill for several hundred helmets that would end up being shared?  #1 No.  #2 YUCK.

Would I fault a crew for showing up with one?  No. 

[Live2Learn]

Go ahead and get lost... I dare you

Couldn't resist the thread hijack...

Cool~  Uniquely suited for low level missions (like strafing and SAR).  With a FLIR package it would be very effective at finding survivors.

[Live2Learn]

A quick glance over to eBay shows this helmet as about $800 used, which even if they became authorized, is an expense the individual member would have to handle on their own.

I don't think the intent is to make helmets a 'requirement', but rather include them in 39-1 and/or 60-1 as optional uniform items.  Acceptable helmets are available for about $300 or less.  Look at Sport Link, FARO, David Clark, etc.  Some of these have very low profiles (much lower than Alpha Eagle, Gentex, or some of the other high impact protection types that might be essential for high energy crashes such as are likely in helicopters or jets).  Wearing nomex and boots does little good if the aircrew is incapacitated because of head injuries during the critical seconds necessary to exit an aircraft before a fire erupts.  From what I've read the post crash fire stats are pretty grim... about 1 in 3.

[JeffDG]

Go ahead and get lost... I dare you

Couldn't resist the thread hijack...

Cool~  Uniquely suited for low level missions (like strafing and SAR).  With a FLIR package it would be very effective at finding survivors.

Plus, with the cannon, you could then ensure that there were no longer survivors without the bother of a ground team.   

[Live2Learn]

Cool~  Uniquely suited for low level missions (like strafing and SAR).  With a FLIR package it would be very effective at finding survivors.

Plus, with the cannon, you could then ensure that there were no longer survivors without the bother of a ground team.

Another veteran of the ISIS Air Force, I see...

[sardak]

The attached report is another reason you might want a helmet. When you look down at your feet while flying and see a snake crawling around your foot - your first reaction might not be a calm one.

As for the CP registrations, a group buy of 172s in 1997 were the first to have CP. There are 172s, 182s, 206s, Maules and gliders with CP - 281 total. Thirteen planes bought in 2008 had CA for the suffix. That doesn't explain  how we got CP registrations, but someone had to ask for them. There are non-CAP planes, of types CAP doesn't buy, mixed in with blocks of CAP CP registrations.

Mike

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Live2Learn]

The attached report is another reason you might want a helmet. When you look down at your feet while flying and see a snake crawling around your foot - your first reaction might not be a calm one.

Mike

Maybe a better reason for "leather boots above the ankle" and "long pants"...  Required PPE on wildfire suppression helicopters under CWN or Exclusive Use contracts. 

[Flying Pig]

Is there anything that says you cant wear a flight helmet?  I dont recall reading anything that mentioned it either way

[Luis R. Ramos]

Sardak-

Are you suggesting we use the helmet to bash the crawling snake? With MY luck, I will miss smashing MY foot instead. Then the snake would take advantage. The classic one-two punch!   

[TheSkyHornet]

Is there anything that says you cant wear a flight helmet?  I dont recall reading anything that mentioned it either way

Not to my knowledge. It's not restricted in CAPR 60-1. The aircraft has to be operated legally per FARs (not busting airspaces, etc.). As long as it has the minimum equipment, it's good. Additional portable equipment is up to the PIC (headset, helmet, sunglasses, diapers...)

[THRAWN]

Is there anything that says you cant wear a flight helmet?  I dont recall reading anything that mentioned it either way

Nope. I've known pilots that do and many who do not. I know a few GA non-CAP types that do as well. If you can afford it....

[Live2Learn]

Is there anything that says you cant wear a flight helmet?  I dont recall reading anything that mentioned it either way

The last CD refresher I did had a short segment on insurance requirements under an AFAM.  The slides presented in the refresher were crystal clear:  If an item of apparel or equipment isn't authorized (explicitly) as part of the CAP uniform than Air Force insurance payouts following an accident are at risk.  I heard this very same message loud and clear during the insurance briefings that were part of MP training at NESA 2010.  I think the briefer was the current or former INWG Commander.  A quick review of CAPR 39-1 indicates only three types of head gear are authorized for the USAF FDU:  They are the flight cap, the knit watch cap (black only), and a CAP ball cap.  Other CAP uniforms also indicate which head gear is acceptable... and none of the uniforms even mention helmets of any kind or purpose.

Which would you rather have, $10,000 of insurance (under the Corporate policy) or $1,000,000 of insurance (under an AFAM)?  It looks to me like the choice is pretty black and white... Or "black side of ledger" vs "red side of ledger".

[goblin]

Might as well wear the helmet in the car ride to/from the airport as well. You know, just in case.

[Nuke52]

Might as well wear the helmet in the car ride to/from the airport as well. You know, just in case.

Uh, just in case what?

[abdsp51]

I dont see the AF paying out $1 mill for an insurance payout...

[lordmonar]

Is there anything that says you cant wear a flight helmet?  I dont recall reading anything that mentioned it either way

The last CD refresher I did had a short segment on insurance requirements under an AFAM.  The slides presented in the refresher were crystal clear:  If an item of apparel or equipment isn't authorized (explicitly) as part of the CAP uniform than Air Force insurance payouts following an accident are at risk.  I heard this very same message loud and clear during the insurance briefings that were part of MP training at NESA 2010.  I think the briefer was the current or former INWG Commander.  A quick review of CAPR 39-1 indicates only three types of head gear are authorized for the USAF FDU:  They are the flight cap, the knit watch cap (black only), and a CAP ball cap.  Other CAP uniforms also indicate which head gear is acceptable... and none of the uniforms even mention helmets of any kind or purpose.

Which would you rather have, $10,000 of insurance (under the Corporate policy) or $1,000,000 of insurance (under an AFAM)?  It looks to me like the choice is pretty black and white... Or "black side of ledger" vs "red side of ledger".

I don't doubt that the slides said that.    Nor do I doubt that a CAP member keeps telling that fairy tale.   But that is not the way fault and line of duty are determined.

Unless the "not authorized" equipment was somehow the cause of the accident......there is no way that line of reason would work.

Also please note that 39-1 does not cover what would be considered functional, safety or operational clothing.

You think some one at USAF will argue, in court, that it is perfectly okay to fly an AFAM mission in say full mess dress but it is not okay to wear a survival vest, PFD and a flight helmet (none of which are listed in 39-1)?

[RiverAux]

Unless the "not authorized" equipment was somehow the cause of the accident......there is no way that line of reason would work.

Except for the guys that didn't get covered after being killed on a CD mission because they weren't in proper uniform.... (or at least that is what is claimed on the CD training program).

[lordmonar]

Like I said.   Fairy tale.

[Live2Learn]

Like I said.   Fairy tale.

Who was it that said "Give me the Facts, man, just the FACTS!"?  So are you saying that the CAP CD program lied in their briefing and refresher?  Some back up to the assertion would be very helpful...

[sarmed1]

Unless the "not authorized" equipment was somehow the cause of the accident......there is no way that line of reason would work.

Except for the guys that didn't get covered after being killed on a CD mission because they weren't in proper uniform.... (or at least that is what is claimed on the CD training program).

In a little google-fu, there is a PPT on the CAP web page from a USAF legal guy (he listed himself as USAF legal council to CAP- USAF) that specifically debunked this myth.  Though a PPT on a web page is certainly NOT regulatory in anyway, I would be apt to believe it is a legitimate enough interpretation for a web forum argument.  (ie I am sure if you called any CAP legal officer on the phone they would likely agree with the USAF lawyer)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjABahUKEwiFiteC-4vIAhVBGz4KHckQBT4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capmembers.com%2Fmedia%2Fcms%2FGC02_FECA_FTCA_ProtectioninTimesofN_3F85A7EAFE78D.ppt&usg=AFQjCNGkZykntCi6GlAcVb-RDRhZ-R8Xwg

Slide #26, Rumor #1 (talking about FECA & FTCA coverage)

MK

[lordmonar]

I go the other way show me in the regs were it explicitly says you must be in full and complete uniform or else.

[Live2Learn]

Unless the "not authorized" equipment was somehow the cause of the accident......there is no way that line of reason would work.

Except for the guys that didn't get covered after being killed on a CD mission because they weren't in proper uniform.... (or at least that is what is claimed on the CD training program).

In a little google-fu, there is a PPT on the CAP web page from a USAF legal guy (he listed himself as USAF legal council to CAP- USAF) that specifically debunked this myth.  Though a PPT on a web page is certainly NOT regulatory in anyway, I would be apt to believe it is a legitimate enough interpretation for a web forum argument.  (ie I am sure if you called any CAP legal officer on the phone they would likely agree with the USAF lawyer)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjABahUKEwiFiteC-4vIAhVBGz4KHckQBT4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capmembers.com%2Fmedia%2Fcms%2FGC02_FECA_FTCA_ProtectioninTimesofN_3F85A7EAFE78D.ppt&usg=AFQjCNGkZykntCi6GlAcVb-RDRhZ-R8Xwg

MK

Interesting.  Dueling "truths" posted by CAP HQ and quoted at the star studded premier ES training (NESA).  One of the "Truths" is in a required refresher for CD crews, the other is posted in some obscure PPT by an allegedly Legal Beagle.  What a sordid plot is wove from these tales of darkness!

[lordmonar]

I also bring 22 years of USAF AD service that's says this is a myth.  Line of duty determination does not take into consideration of what the claimant was wearing.   Unless it was required PPE

[sarmed1]

The closest barracks lawyer approach I see, is that a-CAP says you will be in a CAP uniform in accordance with 39-1 while conducting CD missions (unless requested not to be by the supporting agency).  Under deny reasons for insurance coverage (FECA) it says something along the lines of willful misconduct, one could argue that flagrantly disregarding the regulations requiring the wear of a uniform and its proper wear are misconduct.

Maybe at one time things were more strict (officially or unofficially) but no where that I have searched have I seen it stated that you will (or even may) get denied coverage for not being in the proper uniform.

MK

[sarmed1]

back to the rest of the topic:

Interestingly I saw a report from Alaska on aviation related deaths.  Among other issues, there were 19 deaths that they felt would have been prevented by the wear of helmets.

CAP has 550 aircraft.  In my helo practice, even though everyone wears a helmet, its really geared (so I have been told) towards those that ride up front.   So easiest scenario is that CAP (via USAF) procure 2 helmets for each aircraft.  That works out to around $1 milion ish, if you are using a civilian off the shelf military style helmet.  Prevent one death from head trauma and you have easily saved that much in death benefit pay outs.  If you want your own its a tax write off.  If we think that every seat should have one, then fine $2 million, still cheaper than killing a single crew from a preventable injury.

Logistically I am sure its more complicated than that.  (I am sure there is upkeep, and replacement etc over time) 

As far as sanitation, we have had the same issue where I work.  In the past they had community use helmets, each person was issued their own interior liner:  it created a custom fit for the helmet and meant you werent bumping heads with the last person to wear the helmet.

mk

[TheSkyHornet]

Did anyone notice the registration number on that CAP A-10?

N976CP... CP as in Cadet Programs?[/size]

Coincidence? Intentional? 

A lot of CAP planes have "CP" in the tail number

[sardak]

A lot of CAP planes have "CP" in the tail number

And the number of CAP aircraft with CP was posted in this thread 20 posts back. http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20320.msg373125#msg373125

Mike

[Live2Learn]

back to the rest of the topic:

Interestingly I saw a report from Alaska on aviation related deaths.  Among other issues, there were 19 deaths that they felt would have been prevented by the wear of helmets. ...

mk

I think this is probably the Alaska FAA Region study that discussed the role of helmets (alone) in preventing death or serious injury to aircraft crew and pax.  A lot of accident reports I read, and some anecdotal accounts from friends/acquaintances who have survived serious accidents makes it clear that not all injuries occur from the head smacking the panel.  A lot of very serious injuries (and fatalities) result from injury to the skull as side loads throw the passengers against aircraft structure. 

Alaska Region FAA Fatal and Serious Injury Study:   https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/divisions/alaskan_region/media/FSI_Report_AK.pdf.

Much of the CAP fleet is still equipped with only 3 point harnesses for the pilot and co-pilot seats.  While one strap is certainly far better than just a lap belt, it's known to be less effective in preventing occupant injury than a 4 point or 5 point harness. There's no doubt that a helmet would provide additional protection against skull injuries from cartwheel or side load crashes.   I agree with your suggestion that a single fatal accident where a helmet would have prevented the coup de grâce justifies CAP investment in some mechanism to facilitate making helmets available to aircrew as optional PPE.  Several alternatives CAP might consider to accomplish this include (a) purchasing helmets for each aircraft crew member - expensive!; (b) CAP negotiating an arrangement with the USAF to make serviceable helmets available to CAP aircrew at salvage value (a very reasonable cost per unit); (c) CAP negotiating group purchase discounts with a few helmet retail/wholesale businesses (depending upon the type of helmet, this too could make the item affordable for our volunteer aircrews); or (d) taking a combination of the previous three options.  All it would take would be for CAP national operations personnel to take a small amount of initiative.   In any case, I believe CAP is well behind the power curve.  The value of helmets worn in addition to shoulder harnesses is well documented for airmen who operate at low altitudes over hazardous terrain. 

During my 10 years or so of association with CAP I've never seen mention of helmets.  That's not a great surprise given that most of us who fly GA have little experience with them.  It is surprising, however, that while past regulations acknowledged the risks of synthetic materials in aircrew flight uniforms the current versions do not address hazards of synthetic fabric in flight crew uniforms.  IMHO, CAP has taken a giant stemp BACKWARD with respect to aircrew PPE in recent versions of CAPR 60-1 when references to nomex flight suits were eliminated.  The current CAPR 60-1 merely requires that "CAP members will wear an appropriate CAP uniform...".  CAPR 60-3 refers back to CAPR 60-1 for uniform and PPE requirements.  There is no discussion in CAP regs or pamphlets that I've found which addresses what an "appropriate CAP uniform" for flight crews might be.  CAPR 39-1 is insensitive to the efficacy of approved flight crew uniforms with regard to crash protection.  For example, the Black Fleece jacket (made of polyester) is authorized for wear with the Flight Duty Uniform, as in the green MA-1 flight jacket (100% nylon outer shell and 100% polyester interlining). 

[sarmed1]

I think that's the same one I read.  Interestingly one of the other big recommendations I liked was installation of seat belt based air bags, which I would also/alternatively support.

I doubt CAP would purchase helmets for every aircrew member.  I think the idea of the USAF coordinating for the transfer of still serviceable helmets to CAP is the best cost saving option for both CAP/USAF.  I think the best option though is to assign them to the aircraft specifically.  (I dont see the numbers being that great beyond the ability to meet the need of 2 per aircraft, even if they scour the other services/DRMO) If there is an excess beyond that then allocate them to the wings for additional distribution/spares.  CAP may still have to pay for refurb.

MK

 

[lordmonar]

Surplus military helmets are not comparable with out modification or adapters.

[abdsp51]

Plus I believe its a heavily controlled item and is required to be de-miled.  Thos items usually don't get transferred.  Plus it has come into contact with skin which usually doesnt get reissued to others. 

[sarmed1]

The adapters look to be in the $75 range.
Trying to navigate DRMO regs are complicated at best; It looks like only foreign helmets have to be de-milled.  It was hard to tell if they have to be stripped of the communications part or not.  I have seen former military helmets for sale in a number of places though.

MK

[TheSkyHornet]

I think the important question is this....

If you were to get a helmet, how would you have it painted up? 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Goblin and Nuke-

Helmets for car driving?

In the off chance someone hits a pothole, helmets are a must!




On the other hand, a study may be needed, in the order of requiring a helmet when driving cars may encourage a race car mentality. Don't ya think?

[Live2Learn]

I think the important question is this....

If you were to get a helmet, how would you have it painted up? 

Good question.  If personal property does it have to be in USAF colors (boring gray)?  Or can it be bright yellow with blue stars  arranged to maximize aesthetic tastes?  FWIW, I like the bright yellow minus the blue stars.  The color is more likely to noticed by potential rescuers should I stagger from my crumpled ride following an encounter with low level clear air turbulence.

[Luis R. Ramos]

There will be some members who will try to convince all of us that such helmet has to be white since it states so in the regs... With the CAP Emergency Services decal...

[Live2Learn]

There will be some members who will try to convince all of us that such helmet has to be white since it states so in the regs... With the CAP Emergency Services decal...

Ah.  If you knew the answer, why'd you ask the question?  Can't see white in a snow storm...  But bright yellow would stand out.  I still prefer bright yellow.

[Luis R. Ramos]

What question did I ask?

I did no such thing!

I answered the question someone else asked about color!!!! 

Yet... I DID state there was to be a hi-vis color, the ES decal!!!

Just stating that some in here like arguing, and they would start the issue by pointing that 1) There is a color specified for helmets in Emergency Operations. 2) Others would contend that Orange is better for visibility. 3) Those in Pennsylvania will argue that because Hawk has Orange all PA aircraft helmets should be in Orange as well.

[Ned]

Helmets for car driving?

In the off chance someone hits a pothole, helmets are a must!

I spent a fair amount of my life driving around in big armored vehicles for Uncle Sugar, and my CVC saved my noggin on many occasions.  Lousy suspension, *big* potholes, and unforgiving metal upholstery are a bad combination.   

[goblin]

If the AF doesn't make me wear one in my jet now, they're not going to pay for CAP to assign them to aircraft.

[wingnut55]

Helmets are issued as protective equipment, that means each one is fitted for that specific
airman. I flew in C130s in Search and rescue and was not issued a helmet, nor the Aircrew except for the Load
Master, and he never wore it.

They are Hot, uncomfortable, and the ones at surplus are all ratted out, needing hundreds of dollars of repairs.

Now once again individual Helmets are not supposed to be used by everyone, they are issued individually.

I have seen one guy wear a surplus helmet flying scanner, and he looked like a Dork.

[goblin]

^ this

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Mental Picture:  The door of the FBO swings open and here come our two heros.  Flight Suits either two sizes too large or too small, Sneakers, and their flight helmets or questionable vintage, but nicely decorated as Ice Man and Maverick.  Watching as they trundle to their mighty steed the once powerful but now tired and bloated C-182 (not to be confused with the real C-130).  Mounting their plane they make sure everyone is strapped in, all plug in connections made and crank the engine.  The plane sits there for a couple minutes then the engines increases power but the plane remains stationary.  Crap they forgot the wheel chocks.  Just another CAP flight.
OK, not smart but at least they think they looked good doing it.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Forgot to add a CAP van zooming along the road as the C-182 takes off...

[Flying Pig]

Senior Members playing beach volley ball in short shorts and tank tops.

[THRAWN]

Senior Members playing beach volley ball in short shorts and tank tops.

Negative Ghost Rider....just negative....

[TheSkyHornet]

"Because, I was inverted"

[PHall]

"Because, I was inverted"

Nice picture of a Model R/C Airplane.

[NIN]

Mental Picture:  The door of the FBO swings open and here come our two heros.  Flight Suits either two sizes too large or too small, Sneakers, and their flight helmets or questionable vintage, but nicely decorated as Ice Man and Maverick.  Watching as they trundle to their mighty steed the once powerful but now tired and bloated C-182 (not to be confused with the real C-130).  Mounting their plane they make sure everyone is strapped in, all plug in connections made and crank the engine.  The plane sits there for a couple minutes then the engines increases power but the plane remains stationary.  Crap they forgot the wheel chocks.  Just another CAP flight.
OK, not smart but at least they think they looked good doing it.

So I've been a little hesitant to jump in here, and I don't exactly know how to say this delicately, so I'll just put it out there:

Our perception/rep in the GA community, sometimes, ain't exactly the most sterling thing in aviation. 

And its not helped much by people doing things that either don't counter that perception/rep, or actively contribute to it.

As a guy who's spent a lot of time wearing helmets in aircraft for various reasons, IMHO absent some serious manoeuvring situations in the Sierras/Cascades/Rockies (See Flying Pig's post), there are truly precious few times where a true aviation helmet would be beneficial to a CAP aircrew. 

I submit to you that in far more cases, it will contribute to crew fatigue, heat stress, and other deleterious effects.

And then there is the issue of perception among our brother and sister aviators.  When the CAP crew taxis up to the pump and everybody jumps out in flight suits, survival vests and helmets, the rest of the world (rightly or wrongly) shakes their heads and says "wannabes."

Sure, they might not know what Flying Pig knows: that slow and low in a 206 on the wrong side of a ridge line is going to bounce you around like a marble in a tuna can.  Yep, got it. Tracking.

But as you guys know, perception = reality for the majority of people out there. 

So when they see the very same Cessna they fly day in and day out, wearing nothing more than a pair of cutoffs, flipflops and a "Bear Whiz Beer" t-shirt, taxi up on the ramp at their local airpatch and three people alight wearing nomex, survival vests, gloves & helmets and looking (to them) like rejects from a casting call for "Top Gun II: Its Time To Buzz The Tower (Again)," what is their perception going to be?

Which will it be?
"hey, look a CAP aircrew just got back from a long, arduous sortie in a very challenging flying environment?"
or
"Jeez, these people look ridiculous."

Helmets probably make sense in a very tiny percentage of our flying environments.  For the other 98-99.5% of the time, we probably should think long and hard about not just why we're doing things but how we are perceived when we're doing them.

[Storm Chaser]

I couldn't have said it better. The times when a helmet might be useful are very, very few. As some one who has also worn helmets during my military flight career, I don't think the majority of CAP sorties we fly require one. I, personally, wouldn't want the wear a helmet in a C-172 or C-182.

[TheSkyHornet]

"Because, I was inverted"

Nice picture of a Model R/C Airplane.

I hope you don't find a picture of an inverted CAP 182....

Or anybody's 182 for that matter 

[goblin]

Mental Picture:  The door of the FBO swings open and here come our two heros.  Flight Suits either two sizes too large or too small, Sneakers, and their flight helmets or questionable vintage, but nicely decorated as Ice Man and Maverick.  Watching as they trundle to their mighty steed the once powerful but now tired and bloated C-182 (not to be confused with the real C-130).  Mounting their plane they make sure everyone is strapped in, all plug in connections made and crank the engine.  The plane sits there for a couple minutes then the engines increases power but the plane remains stationary.  Crap they forgot the wheel chocks.  Just another CAP flight.
OK, not smart but at least they think they looked good doing it.

So I've been a little hesitant to jump in here, and I don't exactly know how to say this delicately, so I'll just put it out there:

Our perception/rep in the GA community, sometimes, ain't exactly the most sterling thing in aviation. 

And its not helped much by people doing things that either don't counter that perception/rep, or actively contribute to it.

As a guy who's spent a lot of time wearing helmets in aircraft for various reasons, IMHO absent some serious manoeuvring situations in the Sierras/Cascades/Rockies (See Flying Pig's post), there are truly precious few times where a true aviation helmet would be beneficial to a CAP aircrew. 

I submit to you that in far more cases, it will contribute to crew fatigue, heat stress, and other deleterious effects.

And then there is the issue of perception among our brother and sister aviators.  When the CAP crew taxis up to the pump and everybody jumps out in flight suits, survival vests and helmets, the rest of the world (rightly or wrongly) shakes their heads and says "wannabes."

Sure, they might not know what Flying Pig knows: that slow and low in a 206 on the wrong side of a ridge line is going to bounce you around like a marble in a tuna can.  Yep, got it. Tracking.

But as you guys know, perception = reality for the majority of people out there. 

So when they see the very same Cessna they fly day in and day out, wearing nothing more than a pair of cutoffs, flipflops and a "Bear Whiz Beer" t-shirt, taxi up on the ramp at their local airpatch and three people alight wearing nomex, survival vests, gloves & helmets and looking (to them) like rejects from a casting call for "Top Gun II: Its Time To Buzz The Tower (Again)," what is their perception going to be?

Which will it be?
"hey, look a CAP aircrew just got back from a long, arduous sortie in a very challenging flying environment?"
or
"Jeez, these people look ridiculous."

Helmets probably make sense in a very tiny percentage of our flying environments.  For the other 98-99.5% of the time, we probably should think long and hard about not just why we're doing things but how we are perceived when we're doing them.

NIN, you are a lot better at saying what I'm thinking than I am. Articulate and accurate. Excellent analysis.

[TheSkyHornet]

I agree with most of that Darin, with the exception of public perception. While we do need to be cautious in how we present ourselves to the public as CAP members, safety and mission effectiveness should not take a back seat to public perception. That being said, I posted in the past that I don't think helmets are an essential for CAP flying. Most CAP flights really aren't any different than the maneuvers you would do as a private pilot in a Cessna 172 or 182, and I have yet to meet someone who wears a helmet flying a 172 as a PPL. If there was a significant safety improvement by wearing what is essentially a crash helmet, I could see the need, or at least, the encouragement for wearing one. But I don't think we really need them in most cases, and they may not be so safe for some of the older crews or the less-experience crews that might not have a lot of time wearing a helmet (between the change in weight, visibility, heat, head clearance in the cockpit).

By the way, folks, my question about the paint scheme for the helmet was purely satirical just to get a buzz.

[sarmed1]

.... If there was a significant safety improvement by wearing what is essentially a crash helmet...

Diminishing the chance of death from blunt force trauma to the head if you happen to crash, yes, kind of like the arguments for not wearing your seatbelts I hear.  I think the argument of GA vs CAP is in the case that generally there is/maybe a lot more going on in a SAR/DR flight than simply going from point A to point B,  so there is a greater risk of incident vs just a standard flight, so extra safety precautions may be indicated.

CAP in general seems to have an image problem on all kinds of fronts.... not just flying.  The same argument could be made for not wearing nomex, and survival vests and helmets.  Police/Sheriff crew gets out of their aircraft in said attire vs CAP crew in shorts and polo's  ".... hey who are those dingdongs, arey the lost, and searching the golf course?...."
In my flying job even though I am in the same aircraft as Bob's Tours,  no one bats an eye when we are at the FBO and  I have on nomex, a helmet and a survival vest, because they realize its not a tour aircraft....


MK

[NIN]

I agree with most of that Darin, with the exception of public perception. While we do need to be cautious in how we present ourselves to the public as CAP members, safety and mission effectiveness should not take a back seat to public perception. That being said, I posted in the past that I don't think helmets are an essential for CAP flying. Most CAP flights really aren't any different than the maneuvers you would do as a private pilot in a Cessna 172 or 182, and I have yet to meet someone who wears a helmet flying a 172 as a PPL. If there was a significant safety improvement by wearing what is essentially a crash helmet, I could see the need, or at least, the encouragement for wearing one. But I don't think we really need them in most cases, and they may not be so safe for some of the older crews or the less-experience crews that might not have a lot of time wearing a helmet (between the change in weight, visibility, heat, head clearance in the cockpit).

By the way, folks, my question about the paint scheme for the helmet was purely satirical just to get a buzz.

BTW, I don't disagree with you here. 

There may well be times when a helmet, survival vest, nomex, etc, are all indicated and can contribute to crew safety. In very specific flight regimes and environments.

Those times, however, are very few and far between for the VAST MAJORITY of the flying we're doing.

The perception issue I mentioned is not confined to CAP folks, when you think about it.

Its like the perception of volunteer fire fighters sometimes.   (every volunteer here is either going "Hey!" or cringing at what they know is coming)   You have 100 volunteer firefighters.  90 of them are awesome, do their jobs, fight fires, make the required number of runs a year to stay "current," etc.  Those other 10 are there for the "lights and sirens," don't make their annual runs, and generally are the primary example of the "10% that take 90% of your effort". 

A CAP guy I knew when I first moved to the Northeast called them "hoopies." Cuz they were always "hoopin' around with their light bars and wig wags and radios and pagers..."

(He was a full time fire fighter and ANG guy until they busted him for setting fires on a nearby Air Force Station, so take it with a little grain of salt)

But those other 90 volunteer firefighters are shaking their heads at their brothers going "You're making us look bad!" 

So what are those other 90 doing to curb the 10?

More to the point, its the same thing in CAP. The majority of our pilots and folks do just fine day in and day out. They represent the organization well, etc.

And then you get that percentage that are there to "play dress up" and not much more.  They barge into the pattern at the local airpatch without a radio call. They taxi to the pumps like they're the most important thing going that day.  They leave the tow bar attached when the try to crank.  They treat the line boy like a serf because they have to get to the debrief. Etc.

And these guys are the ones who leave behind the perception.

People have very long memories in General Aviation.  And when they're not flying, they're talking to each other.

So you have Elmer and his three buddies who spend Saturdays sitting in lawn chairs hangar flying under the wing of Elmer's Aeronca at the Wayfield Airport, watching the comings and goings at the airport, and "grading landings" like an LSO on the USS George Washington.  Elmer and his buddies know every single thing that has gone on at that airport over the last 20 years.  Either because they were there, or they've talked to people who were there.

And there was that one Saturday 5 years ago when Elmer and the boys were there when CAP showed up in their "fancy taxpayer provided red-white-and-blue 182" and: [pick one or more]

• Bombed into the pattern without so much as a "how do you do" on the CTAF;
• Bounced the landing a bit (well, it was a lot in Elmer and the boys' opinion!);
• Taxied off the runway way, way, way faster than anybody in their right mind should;
• Cut off old Ted who was taxiing to the self-serve pumps. (Never mind that old Ted was on the otherside of the field, still looking at his plane in the hangar, and contemplating taxiing over for gas);
• Dropped the self-serve nozzle on the ramp;
• "Pranced around" in their flight suits ("What they hell do you need that for? Showoffs! I ain't never needed no Nomex..");
• Cranked up with the chocks still in place;
• Took the active without a call on the CTAF, which clearly caused them to cut off old Ted who was on short final (Old Ted had actually departed 20 minutes before and didn't come back for another hour, but its all in the retelling, don't you know?)
• Climbed out at an awfully steep angle... (it wasn't, but Elmer and the boys, man, they're experts at what the current procedures look like, even though all their medicals expired during the Carter Administration).

So these things get repeated to others, over the years, and now every time a CAP plane shows up at the Wayfield Airport, someone who talked to Elmer and the boys says "Pffft, CAP.. Cowboys. You should hear what they did that one time.." 

That might have been a SAREX gas stop, it might have been a REDCAP mission, the boys might have been enroute home after a long sortie in the mountains, maybe Elmer didn't even have his airband radio tuned to the CTAF that one day. Who knows.

But one perceived slight ("I watched that fella put gas in the plane and he dropped the nozzle on the ground!"), even by accident, causes years upon years of "Yeah, whatever, CAP sucks.." at the Wayfield Airport. Now multiply that by 52 wings. Even if it happens only once in a wing every 10 years (which I'm sure it doesn't), that means like 5-6 times a year someplace around the country someone is doing something that gives us a black eye in the GA community.

This is getting a bit afield of the "helmets in the planes" discussion, but does speak to CAP's perception in GA.

I have a friend who runs an aviation business.  He's a super CAP guy, very moto, uses every opportunity to talk up CAP when he can.  He has found that as he traveled the country for his business, he got a lot of negative feedback in the GA community when he mentioned CAP.  To the point where he's stopped mentioning his affiliation with CAP altogether.

Back to the volunteer firefighters analogy: we, the 90%, need to do what we can to police ourselves, and definitely the 10%.

[lordmonar]

Back to the volunteer firefighters analogy: we, the 90%, need to do what we can to police ourselves, and definitely the 10%.

I agree.

But how does that relate to us letting the fear of "looking like a dork" keep us from doing what is right from a safety perspective?

NOW.....I'm not saying we need flight helmets (or Nomex, or Survival Vests) as required PPE.   I just don't think the cost/benefit is really there when you crunch the numbers.

But "public perception" should not be a factor in ORM and PPE decisions.



Sorry for the rant.

[RiverAux]

There is ALWAYS something that could technically be done to make any operation safer.  But, you've got to look at the cost vs the benefit.  If CAP is going to spend many hundreds of dollars per member for "safety" (there is zero chance that members would pony up that kind of cash for this), would flight helmets save the most lives or reduce the number of injuries the most?  I have a hard time believing that we couldn't come up with more efficient and effective ways to spend that money on safety. 

[NIN]

Back to the volunteer firefighters analogy: we, the 90%, need to do what we can to police ourselves, and definitely the 10%.

I agree.

But how does that relate to us letting the fear of "looking like a dork" keep us from doing what is right from a safety perspective?

NOW.....I'm not saying we need flight helmets (or Nomex, or Survival Vests) as required PPE.   I just don't think the cost/benefit is really there when you crunch the numbers.

But "public perception" should not be a factor in ORM and PPE decisions.

Sorry for the rant.

Hey, man, I ain't saying "don't wear a piece of PPE cuz someone might get the wrong idea."

I'm saying "do the appropriate thing at the appropriate time."

If wearing a flight helmet was beneficial to our ops in our flight regimes, we'd have them already.  the AF would have mandated and paid for them. Some safety guys would have ensured that.

[Flying Pig]

Doesn't matter if you know what you are doing as long as you look good doing it.