Main Menu

Aviation Helmets

Started by Rob Sherlin, November 19, 2008, 03:21:39 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sarmed1

I remember a regularly published safety bulliten (from when I workd medevac type flight comm...)on all aeromedical crash/near crash incidents (tom can likely name it off for me) but there was one that had two different incidents in, both cockpit bird strikes on either approach or takeoff....

#1 was wearing head set only, blinded & crashed

#2 was wearing a helmet with visor down as per SOP....was able to land without further incident or injury

so I can definetly see the advantage ot at least the front seat guys wearing them....

mk
Capt.  Mark "K12" Kleibscheidel

Rob Sherlin

  If the team members in front were wearing them, I'd wear one in back too. Not only to look "uniform" as a professional team, but you never know what can happen in the back. For a precaution, even a motorcycle helmet with an adapted communication system for aircraft would be safer than just a ball cap.
  Whether it SHOULD be a requirement is a long debate. I'm just saying it's a good idea, and it's better to be safe than sorry.
To fly freely above the earth is the ultimate dream for me in life.....For I do not wish to wait till I pass to earn my wings.

Rob Sherlin SM, NER-NY-116

Gunner C

Quote from: Rob Sherlin on December 11, 2008, 10:24:23 AM
  If the team members in front were wearing them, I'd wear one in back too. Not only to look "uniform" as a professional team, but you never know what can happen in the back. For a precaution, even a motorcycle helmet with an adapted communication system for aircraft would be safer than just a ball cap.
  Whether it SHOULD be a requirement is a long debate. I'm just saying it's a good idea, and it's better to be safe than sorry.

In military freefall, we used moditied Bell helmets.  The helmets they issued were horrible and were basically useless for head protection.  We asked the AF folks (can't remember what they're called - they packed chutes, fixed O2 masks, and issued survival equipment).  The helmets worked great, the comms worked great, and the oxygen hangers worked great.

Would they do it for us, probably not - they definitely don't have the gear for GA aircraft comms (completely different).  But building your own is completely doable.  Frankly, the pieces parts should be much cheaper than buying a commercial setup.  Two speakers, a boom mike, wires, a connector, and one drilled hole in the side.

One problem is they're hot as heck.  Using a ProTec helmet would be a plus.  There's holes for cooling/ventilation, plus they're light as heck.  For hearing protection, we just wore foam earplugs and turned up the volume slightly.  Worked great.

Gunner

DNall

#43
aerospace physiologist - ie life support shop

protech wired up with a GA headset would work great actually. They're low profile as well, so it wouldn't be an issue in the smaller cockpit. You'd still look like an idiot flying a Cessna with a helmet, but we already look pretty stupid with blue crap all over our uniforms, so whatever. Would it be safer? Yes. Would something like protech/built in headset be reasonably priced versus an actual flight helmet? Yes. But, from a risk mgmt perspective, is it worth the additional cost for the minor return? That's debatable at best. I'm a big supporter of nomex, even mandatory nomex, but I'm not sure helmets have as big a pay off, but of course that's a personal view.

Rob Sherlin

   I don't even think you'd have to wear them at all times. It was a thought at first, then I thought it would be good to have something that would protect the head in the event you're forced to make an unprepaired landing, so to speak, in which case, even a motorcycle helmet stowed away where you can get to it easy would be a plus.
To fly freely above the earth is the ultimate dream for me in life.....For I do not wish to wait till I pass to earn my wings.

Rob Sherlin SM, NER-NY-116

DNall

you're not getting to anything in the event of an emergency. Just like you're not putting on your seat belt if it wasn't already on. You're a little busy at that stage of the game. I understand you're backseating right now, and it might in theory be possible from that spot, but not from the front, where it's likely more needed. Personally, I wouldn't mind having something like that doing photo work from the back seat. You can be up in a precarious position & get whacked around pretty good if you hit some bumpy air.

Gunner C

Quote from: DNall on December 22, 2008, 06:51:29 AM
you're not getting to anything in the event of an emergency. Just like you're not putting on your seat belt if it wasn't already on. You're a little busy at that stage of the game. I understand you're backseating right now, and it might in theory be possible from that spot, but not from the front, where it's likely more needed. Personally, I wouldn't mind having something like that doing photo work from the back seat. You can be up in a precarious position & get whacked around pretty good if you hit some bumpy air.

Being unconvinced that helmets are necessary . . . You don't need them until you begin your letdown into the search area.  They'd only be needed for the low and slow portion - that's when you're most vulnerable to both ending up in the bushes and being rattled around like a pea in a paint can.  After that portion, take them off, put back on your headsets.  Embarrassment solved.  ;D

Gunner

DNall

It's that sudden stop more than the approach.

I'm willing to endure embarrassment for reasonable safety measures. I'm not real convinced yet that this is reasonable, but if it is, I'd go with always on or not at all. I can't see moving around & donning/stowing a helmet for just low level flight as a good idea. If you're going to do that, you should include takeoff/landing as well... again the seat belt analogy.

Gunner C

Quote from: DNall on December 22, 2008, 09:32:03 AM
It's that sudden stop more than the approach.

I'm willing to endure embarrassment for reasonable safety measures. I'm not real convinced yet that this is reasonable, but if it is, I'd go with always on or not at all. I can't see moving around & donning/stowing a helmet for just low level flight as a good idea. If you're going to do that, you should include takeoff/landing as well... again the seat belt analogy.

Like I said, I'm not convinced we need it, just some random musings from random synapse firings.  ;D

Gunner

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on December 21, 2008, 11:27:28 PM
aerospace physiologist - ie life support shop

protech wired up with a GA headset would work great actually. They're low profile as well, so it wouldn't be an issue in the smaller cockpit. You'd still look like an idiot flying a Cessna with a helmet, but we already look pretty stupid with blue crap all over our uniforms, so whatever. Would it be safer? Yes. Would something like protech/built in headset be reasonably priced versus an actual flight helmet? Yes. But, from a risk mgmt perspective, is it worth the additional cost for the minor return? That's debatable at best. I'm a big supporter of nomex, even mandatory nomex, but I'm not sure helmets have as big a pay off, but of course that's a personal view.

DNall....I think that if you compare the cause of death in typical CAP accidents....manditory flight helmets would make more sense then manditory Nomex.  Blunt Force Trama killed more pilots then fire ever has.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: lordmonar on December 22, 2008, 04:23:20 PM
DNall....I think that if you compare the cause of death in typical CAP accidents....manditory flight helmets would make more sense then manditory Nomex.  Blunt Force Trama killed more pilots then fire ever has.

I hear ya, but I don't know if I believe that. I'm sure a great majority of car crashes are due to trama as well. They have seat belts & air bags to restrain & reduce the nature of that trama, but it's a no brainer that when your car, plane, train, etc hits something then blunt force trama is going to be the leading cause of injury/death, regardless if you're in a stay puff marshmallow man outfit or not.

Helmets would arguably reduce the severity of head injuries. It wouldn't stop head injury, and it wouldn't do anything for the rest of the body that's taking a pretty big jolt when you slam an airplane into something. I'm not saying it isn't a good idea, I just have yet to be convinced it's reasonably necessary.

As far as nomex... to me, that's not for a crash scenario. Certainly it has benefits for a crash, but I'm thinking more about an in-flight fire. In that scenario - ie pilot sitting in fire - it becomes impossible to pilot the plane to the ground in a recoverable manner, and everyone on board dies. Nomex buys some time for the pilot to get it down. Basically, it's the alternative to an eject handle in my thinking.

Now, you can talk about the frequency of head trama injury/death from crashes (and the small portion of which would be prevented by helmets), versus the frequency of in-flight fires, but I don't care. I'm more scared of being on fire in-flight and helpless to land than I am of what happens when if I crash. That's a gut statement more than solid risk mgmt, but I don't have the stats to be able to tell you what a good risk mgmt decision is on this. So far, CAP doesn't make nomex mandatory (with the exception of a couple places), much less even talk about helmets. So, it a long way from that policy to the level we're talking about.

Pumbaa

Talk about looking kewl in a 172!!


Gunner C


aveighter

It is no wonder these threads go on ad nauseam. 

I have posted factual information regarding morbidity data on aircraft accidents specifically and the effects cranial protection would or would not have.  I have posted data on blunt force trauma to the body Vs. the head specifically relating to aircraft accidents.  Data drawn from the end results of small airplane accidents.  No speculation, no guessing, no supposing.  Factual real life and post mortem info.

The bottom line?  A significant number (that means: a lot) of fatalities were secondary to head trauma.  The other injuries, some quite severe, many not so bad, were potentially survivable but it was the head that got 'em.  And many of these cases, cranial protection would have made the difference.  I've seen the reports and I've seen the bodies.

The next to the bottom line?  Head protection can be the difference between making the next family function or sad singing and slow walking.

Helmets come in many flavors.  Way Bad Jet Pilot to Gunslinging Helicopter Pilot to odd-looking general aviation shells.  Argue about style, degrees of manhood/embarrassment or whatever but please stop yapping about whether head protection makes a difference because there is no rational debate to be had.  They do, period.

One other question to the gallery of experts.  How many of you have actually been in an aircraft accident and can speak to the violent suddenness that surrounds an incident as it is happening?  In the blink of an eye life can go from perfectly normal to completely out-of-control.  And brother, you are just along for the ride.  At that point your training and preparation are all you have going for you.  If those wing tanks rupture over the cabin and hot engine you will be glad you invested in that nomex flight suit.  Could give you a few extra seconds to evacuate whats left of the plane with survivable burns.  If you are fortunate to be in the new 182 with amsafe airbags and 26g seats you might stay out of the instruments and save your face (and head) and protect your spine.  But as you are sliding sideways feeling the G forces pushing you can only hope your adrenalin pumped arm strength can keep you locked in the seat, overcoming the lateral forces that could slap you sideways into the door and window or the guy seated next to you.
It is in those few nanoseconds that seem like minutes as the events are unfolding that those thoughts cross your mind and then one other; [darn], I wish I had a helmet.

It took 30+ years of aviation experience for me to think that thought.  Praise be to the Almighty I get to make at least one more post.

PHall

The biggest hazards we face while flying down low in the grid are bird strikes, turbulance and crashing.

I don't know how much a helmet would help during a crash in a cessna, but they would give good protection in case of a bird strike or if the turbulance is throwing you around.

But, since they're not required, it's your decision.

DNall

Quote from: aveighter on December 23, 2008, 01:10:43 AM
It is no wonder these threads go on ad nauseam. 

I have posted factual information regarding morbidity data on aircraft accidents specifically and the effects cranial protection would or would not have.  I have posted data on blunt force trauma to the body Vs. the head specifically relating to aircraft accidents.  Data drawn from the end results of small airplane accidents.  No speculation, no guessing, no supposing.  Factual real life and post mortem info.

The bottom line?  A significant number (that means: a lot) of fatalities were secondary to head trauma.  The other injuries, some quite severe, many not so bad, were potentially survivable but it was the head that got 'em.  And many of these cases, cranial protection would have made the difference.  I've seen the reports and I've seen the bodies.

Just a point of order... "secondary to head trauma" means they died of something other than head trauma.

I understand a lot of accident information indicates head injury that would cause death. A limited part of those injuries would be preventable with use of a helmet. Of that smaller number, a much smaller percentage would otherwise live accounting for non-head injuries. The data available cannot determine the degree to which any generic helmet would prevent death and/or severe injury. It's much less useful in determining what kinds of helmets would provide what levels of protection related to the types of force routinely encountered.

I would need solid results from such a thorough study before I could run the dollar figures for that range of options, and then make a cost benefit analysis. And it is a cost benefit analysis. The degree of safety you can attain with unlimited money is pretty high, but unreasonable. I do not believe I can determine with the available information if an aviation helmet up against our accident rate would be a reasonable use of resources.

Speaking from my gut, I would say anything along the lines of a military or commercial helmet would not be worth the money. A pro-tech, which is basically a climbing helmet, wired with a GA headset would $150-250 probably. That's marginal in terms of price for gain. I just can't tell.

dbaran

A friend of mine got knocked out briefly when his head hit the roof hard during turbulence.  He came to pretty quickly afterwards and the plane had recovered on its own.

I had a similar experience myself about a year afterwards over Reno at 16K - I'd remembered his story and had the seatbelt and shoulder harness real tight - but I still made contact with the roof a couple times myself (tall guy in a Mooney) and it hurt.

I can't recall reading a NTSB report about a pilot getting knocked out - or dealing with an inflight fire where Nomex was (or would have been) useful.   You'd think that if either actually had some quantifiable benefit, we'd see some organization suggesting a helmet or Nomex as being a good idea.


aveighter

Dennis, I've been a fan of yours for a long time but your out of your league here.  The data is not subject to further mulling, it is clear in the circumstances I have described.  Feel free to PM me.  And, in medicine, something that is secondary to something proceeds from it.  Therefore when I say that in many cases of small airplane accidents where the landing injuries were fatal,  the fatal aspect was many times secondary (or a function of) the head trauma as the other injuries were not immediately fatal in nature.

The cost and inconvenience are a matter of academic interest to everyone but the decedent.  Sort of like nomex. Wear it or not as you like.  The chances of an aviation fire are very slim and you will probably go your entire career and never experience one.  So the nomex discussion is academic and subject to endless argument as to cost-benefit ratios, coolness, wannabeeism etc., etc. 

Right up to the point of the wings on fire.  Or an aircraft operation that has suddenly gone terribly wrong.

DNall

I'm not questioning your data. I just don't believe the degree of detail is there. A percentage of head related fatalities does not mean helmets would make a difference. The best helmet in the world would only prevent some percentage of those injuries from rising to fatal. It's not going to do anything for the guy that gets his melon crushed, not matter what. In a perfect ideal world we can say any protection is worth any cost, but we know that's not the case in reality.

I don't see in any avail data (that I've seen) enough information to determine exactly what range of protective level would be necessary to justify related cost. I have no doubt a study could determine the level of protection required. And from that data, I'm sure we could do a cost-benefit structure to determine IF this should be done at all, and what PPE we'd require by policy.

And look, as cold & heartless as this is, policy is about insurance payouts, not aircrew survival. If the cost spent in equipment cost or capability (weight or aircrew recruiting/retention that effects mission production capability) is higher than the cost savings of death versus severe injury payouts - or the risk levels on each side of that equation, then it's bad policy. I hate to put it like that, but that's the reality of it.

heliodoc

Reading the above posts especially the medical side (aveighter) are probably the most serious to llok at

BUT

Being a former Army ALSE type

Questions to ask:

How much is CAP going to put towards an ALSE program to support helmets?
Is CAP going to have an ALSE shop or depend on DoD assets to do ALSE inspections?
If the Army (right now is having problems with parts support, in theater) how is CAP going to tap that?
If helmets are running $650 to $1000 per helmet  ( and not Bell helmets) is CAP going to support a refurb program??
Is CAP going to be able to keep up with the traditional helmet inpections or is that up to the CAP membership?  
Does CAP REALLY have the capability to support helmets??

CAP'ers seem to thing this stuff is as common as 24/72 hour gear

I am here to tell you , it isn't.  If CAP can not take its current mission of updating regs, Specialty Track updates and other things very seriously, then its time to just carry on and do our search mission without the helmets

Not too mention additional ICL's and regulations CAP'erscan not generally follow already................

The Army had problems of pilots treating helmets like footballs  using 'em as chairs, pillows, blah,blah in the past and ALOT of ALSE types were sending 'em off to repair or demil thru Gentex and whatnot...

How on God's green earth do you thing CAP'ers with that "rental car mentality" gonna treat those things if that can not take care of aircraft like is so often written here...

CAP'ers REALLY gotta start thinkin about this stuff more seriously.  Head injuries ARE. SO is taking care of ALSE type equipment

CAP'ers ... unless you are a mil zooomie driver or helo type or an EMS agency that can SERIOUSLY take ALSE equipment seriously and support its infrastructure, and put enough personnel and money into it, leave this one well enough alone.....  Its hard enough to have consistent G1000 training throughout CAP  and then take on ANOTHER program that I seriously doubt CAP could take on...

OK CAP pilots start FLAMIN>>>>> >:D >:D