Aviation Helmets

[Rob Sherlin]

  I've seen a post here (and have heard other people say outside of CAPTALK), that they'd rather have engine failure in a rotary wing craft, rather than a fixed wing. I know when I'm flying a sim, and I have good altitude, I can point the nose down, gain some airspeed and glide in (most of the time). I can't see doing that in a rotary wing.
  This also leads me to the thought........Most rotary wing pilots and crew I've seen wear helmets (even in the smaller craft), while most fixed wing pilots and aircrew (other than fighter pilots and some aerobatic flyers) don't
  There has to be a reason behind this! Am I not seeing something?

[heliodoc]

Mr Sherlin,

The wearing of helmets SPH-4, SPH-5,and HGU-56 series is a military, agency, and EMS aviation thing written into policy whether it is their crews or a contract crew such as wildland rotary and fixed wing retardant and water delivery.  The fixed wing arena such as Air Tractor operators for both fire and ag operations require helmets in their contracts also.  Some individual operators in these industries may wear helmet at their own discretion

Msr Flying Pig and SJ Fedor can comment further on the whys on their helmet wear.  But again it is policy and safety driven and they can fill you in on their agency reasoning.

The training of rotary wing pilots is pretty intense with autorotations being the primary recovery method for engine out and is as completely a safe operation as gliding a fixed wing to a safe landing

[NIN]

100% concur. 

In gliding a fixed wing aircraft to a landing, one arrives at the point of impact with a LOT of airspeed.  Let me just say that I'd really rather not have an unscheduled arrival in a car, with airbags and other neato safety equipment, at touchdown speeds, let alone doing it in a little aluminum spam can.

In a helicopter, however, when a power loss is recognized and reacted to (and honestly, that's half the battle right there), you can enter an autorotative descent where you flatten the collective pitch on the blades and use the aircraft's forward speed and weight to help "keep things turning" up top.  Most helicopters I'm aware of allow the pilot to carry more rotor RPM in an autorotative descent situation than you would in normal powered operation.  At the bottom of the autorotation, you begin to convert that stored energy in the rotor system (potential energy, if you will) into dynamics (kinetic energy) as you trade rotor RPM to nullify forward and vertical speed.

Done correctly, a helicopter can arrive, sans engine, at zero altitude and zero airspeed with plenty of rotor RPM remaining.  Try that in a plane!

[NIN]

Oh, I forgot to mention:

Helmets are worn because when things do go wrong in a helicopter, they go VERY wrong.  Also, helicopters are operated with doors opened, slow, close to obstacles, etc, and these environments demand a higher degree of protection.   Crewmembers move about the cabin, etc. 

And, with a typical helicopter "accident" you might roll the aircraft into a small aluminum ball, but if your melon is protected, its probably a survivable arrival.   

In many fixed wing accident cases, the addition of a brain bucket to the equation merely means that your hair will remain nicely coiffed for the funeral director....

BTW, while I've not had the pleasure of a fixed wing "unscheduled arrival," I have been in the aircraft for one or two autos in a helicopter (one or two that were not of the "lets train for autos" variety, mind you. One started out as a training event and wound up as a true touchdown auto... Surprise!)

[Rob Sherlin]

  Got it! That clears things up quite a bit.....Thanks!

[Flying Pig]

Often in the helicopter business, wearing the helmet is almost for what you are doing outside the helicopter.  Getting out on unstable ground, rocks, walking around in the wilderness.  We use them for visibility and have canary yellow helmets.   My helmet is covered in scratches and dings.   I spend a lot of time with my head stuck out of the window and am always hitting my helmet on the door frame.  Also, we have had bird strikes where the helmet and visor saved the flight officer.  Flying at 500ft vs 10,000 you inclined to hit a few more birds on occasion.

When doing SAR though, I would like to wear a lighter weight fixed wing helmet.  I have been in turbulence where my head has hit the door and it really hurt!  Could you imagine getting knocked out?

The thing about engine failures, In an airplane, you are still hitting the ground at 70 kts or so.  In a helicopter, if you dont get the auto just right.....your done.  As far as reasons?  I think it may be more of a culture also.  Helicopter pilots seem to have adopted the helmet as their trademark.

[flyerthom]

Commission of Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems  requires us to wear helmets. If you follow the news, 2008 has been one of the worst for HEMS accidents and fatalities.

Personally I find them to be a necessary discomfort. They are heavy and hot. Add NVG's and it's a guaranteed headache. Of course if something happens they significantly decrease my chances of assuming ambient air temperature. 

[Pumbaa]

Just remember.. when you lose your engine in a 172/182 you always have enough glide to reach the crash site!

[ol'fido]

Yeah , you'll probably beat the paramedics there by 20 minutes. Sorry, Ron White.

[RiverAux]

The other reason they're not worn in regular civilian aircraft such as we use is that the cockpits just aren't tall enough for someone to wear a helmet in.  Helicopters have a lot more headroom in general than your average Cessna. 

[Pumbaa]

I think we should make helmets mandatory and part of the uniform.

Should we start a uniform thread on this?

[Pylon]

I think we should make helmets mandatory and part of the uniform.

Should we start a uniform thread on this?

Only if you promise to spend 20 pages discussing what insignia should go on the helmet...   

[aveighter]

In many fixed wing accident cases, the addition of a brain bucket to the equation merely means that your hair will remain nicely coiffed for the funeral director....

Actually thats not quite true.  An analysis of post accident (small aircraft) mortality data (which I have had the opportunity to do) shows that a significant percentage of deaths are secondary to head trauma.  Other post crash injuries are oftentimes survivable.  Helmets would make a difference, there is no doubt.

Whether they take up too much room, cause fashion issues or threaten your manhood are unrelated arguments.

[NIN]

Whether they take up too much room, cause fashion issues or threaten your manhood are unrelated arguments.

Yeah, we have a sufficiently bad enough rep at the gas pumps just in our "zipper suited sun god" outfits, let alone some numb nut prancing around the local muni in an HGU-55....

[DNall]

Our helmets are a little different for obvious reasons, but IHAADS are custom fitted & cost $10k/ea. I'm not sure what the cost on a fixed wing helmet would cost, nothing close to that I imagine, but probably more than we want to make members spend. So, it's a risk decision, drive on.

There's also a hearing protection issue that's more prevelant in helos, and helmets tend to do a better job with that. I probably wouldn't want to wear a helmet in a fixed wing aircraft I'm not planning to be upside down in.

I think we should make helmets mandatory and part of the uniform.

Should we start a uniform thread on this?

Only if you promise to spend 20 pages discussing what insignia should go on the helmet...   

Ooh, ohh... optional stickers. No unicorns, hearts, butterflies, or glitter - unless you think that's discriminatory, in which case they are mandatory for everyone. But college stickers are cool. Just ask half my BN.

[Flying Pig]

The helmet I wear is about $2000.  Its an MSA Gallet.  It has a set of ear plugs that come with it that fit in to a plug on the back of the helmet.  That way, you are listening to the radio though the ear plugs and not the head phones that surround your ear.  it allows you to keep the volume WAAAAY down and they act as ear plugs for outside noise.  They are not ANR (Active Noise Reduction).  Ive had an ANR helmet before and wasnt to impressed.

[CAPLAW]

I wear a USAF FLIGHT HELEMET I purchased off ebay.When I fly as a CAP observer I have not had a problem with height inside the cockpit of the 182.

[heliodoc]

^^^^^^ :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Flying Pig]

I wear a USAF FLIGHT HELEMET I purchased off ebay.When I fly as a CAP observer I have not had a problem with height inside the cockpit of the 182.

So your that guy??? :clap:

[PHall]

I wear a USAF FLIGHT HELEMET I purchased off ebay.When I fly as a CAP observer I have not had a problem with height inside the cockpit of the 182.

You're trusting your melon to a helmet you brought off E-Bay?  You are a trusting soul.

[CAPLAW]

Its a joke

[Flying Pig]

Wheeeew....I was worried!

[flyerthom]

I think we should make helmets mandatory and part of the uniform.

Should we start a uniform thread on this?

At work we're trying to find a Cheeto's tiger for mine. I suggest the Pluto dog wearing a propeller beanie on it for the gray corporate  helmet for those not meeting weight and grooming standards.  For those that do meet the standards they get to wear one with a ...     

[Rob Sherlin]

^^^^ I may be able to help you with that!

   I use to be an animator (a 9-5 animator that is), and have worked for USAnimation who did all the "Chester Cheetah" Cheeto commercials. I believe I still have character sheets with "Chester" in various poses.......I'll look for them for you. If not, I'm sure I can make one for you.

[Pumbaa]

I suggest the Pluto dog wearing a propeller beanie on it for the gray corporate  helmet for those not meeting weight and grooming standards.  For those that do meet the standards they get to wear one with a ...    

Oh great another helmet nazi! Picking on us fat and fuzzies again! Ooops Godwins law....

[Hawk200]

It has a set of ear plugs that come with it that fit in to a plug on the back of the helmet.  That way, you are listening to the radio though the ear plugs and not the head phones that surround your ear.  it allows you to keep the volume WAAAAY down and they act as ear plugs for outside noise. 

Communications Ear Plugs (CEP's). Actually standard for the Army side. Haven't played aircrew on the AF side yet. Don't know if they use them.

I do know you can get them for just about any helmet or headset available. I would consider them for CAP use. Not sure a helmet would be all that handy to me. It is a lot to lug around for such a small gain. I think a survival vest might be cheaper and more practical.

[O-Rex]

I wear a USAF FLIGHT HELEMET I purchased off ebay.When I fly as a CAP observer I have not had a problem with height inside the cockpit of the 182.

So your that guy??? :clap:

Oh please, don't let this get ugly, even in jest......

In my former life, I've worn an SPH-4, HGU-26 (which had a sweet red white and blue paint job on the visor cover that was our unofficial deal until the new unit commander nixed it) and HGU-55, the 55 being the most comfortable, of course.

Besides Military, most Police Fire/Rescue use them because of the type of flying they do: GA Helo pilots generally don't use them.

The only time I wore a flight helmet in a CAP aircraft was during the CAP ATG's operational test of NVG and slow-scan reticle-cam gear in 2002, and that was because the helmet (a USAF-style SPH-4B with the NVG mount) was part of the kit.  Personally, I would have preferred an NVG head-harness to a helmet because of weight.  Anyone who's worn a helmet with NVG's and counter-weights can attest to the fatigue factor after a couple of hours. 

[Stonewall]

I wear a USAF FLIGHT HELEMET I purchased off ebay.When I fly as a CAP observer I have not had a problem with height inside the cockpit of the 182.

So your that guy??? :clap:

Don't let him fool you by acting like a tough guy.  This is Flying Pig at work...

[JAFO78]

I wear a USAF FLIGHT HELEMET I purchased off ebay.When I fly as a CAP observer I have not had a problem with height inside the cockpit of the 182.

So your that guy??? :clap:

Don't let him fool you by acting like a tough guy.  This is Flying Pig at work...

   Oh brother

[flyerthom]

^^^^ I may be able to help you with that!

   I use to be an animator (a 9-5 animator that is), and have worked for USAnimation who did all the "Chester Cheetah" Cheeto commercials. I believe I still have character sheets with "Chester" in various poses.......I'll look for them for you. If not, I'm sure I can make one for you.

Believe it not my base manager found some on E Bay...

[PHall]

About the only time I've worn a helmet in a "CAP" aircraft was flying in a member owned T-6.
(Rescue 006 for you CAWG types.)

[ol'fido]

We used to have a member here in IL who wore a helmet that looked like a batter's helmet mated to a DC headset. It was one of the strangest things I'd ever seen at a mission. Of course, she also wore a full firefighter's bunker suit complete with helmet and face shield to collect firewood and at a class on survival knives,showed up with a knife that was about the same size and design as a Roman Gladius.

[Rob Sherlin]

^^ There's always one or two people taking it to an extreme (I can just picture a member getting into a Cessna looking like they're supposed to be in an F-16)

  A lot of people might be against it, but I don't see anything wrong with wanting to protect your melon and wearing a helmet in a small plane. Besides, there are a couple of other pluses too. Most helmets have built in tinted visors (or you can add them) for extra protection on those bright days, and if the helmets are just kept white with maybe the CAP logo and members name on them, with the blue flightsuit we're switching to, it should look VERY professional.
  The only problem with the helmets is they're NOT CHEAP. In fact, the only helmet I've seen that's more expensive than a lot of the aviation helmets I've seen, are authentic space helmets. You can get helmets off of ebay, but even then, you're still going to be looking at paying at least around $350 (low bottom...if your lucky) for HGU-55 or something (a LOT more if it's being sold with the MBU-12 mask), and you have to be real carefull of the quality.
  I bought a Chinese helmet with dual visors off e-bay for under $50. I mainly bought it for my nephew as a "dress up" toy, but when I saw it, the quality wasn't that bad (I'd actually wear it on a motorcycle), I ended up getting one for myself (I wear it while flying my flight sims........just kiddin') and put it on a shelf for display. The shell and the padding IS sufficient enough for protection allthough it's not Bell approved.
 

[RiverAux]

I am aware of a prominent CAP member that is well known for having regularly worn a flight helmet on CAP missions about 15 years ago. 

[PHall]

  I bought a Chinese helmet with dual visors off e-bay for under $50. I mainly bought it for my nephew as a "dress up" toy, but when I saw it, the quality wasn't that bad (I'd actually wear it on a motorcycle), I ended up getting one for myself (I wear it while flying my flight sims........just kiddin') and put it on a shelf for display. The shell and the padding IS sufficient enough for protection allthough it's not Bell approved.
 

I wasn't aware that Chinese knockoff helmets were DOT approved.

But hey, it's your melon and in safety gear, you do get what you pay for...

[Rob Sherlin]

  I know it's probably optional, it adds to safety a little more, and looks cool and professional. But, as much as I'd like to, I don't think I'd wear one as part of an air crew unless everyone else is doing the same. I tend to think it would look "odd" if I was wearing a helmet and everyone else was wearing ball caps. I think if they were issued (yeah, right!), as appose to having buy them, more would be inclined to wear them (maybe).
 There's the fact that it's optional because (as far as I know) there's no laws requiring a helmet while flying a prop plane (well, you might want one for an "open cockpit" type.....even on a motorcycle on the freeway, a piece of gravel, or even a bee hitting you can stun you pretty good). It's kind of funny isn't it?....That laws require a helmet (in most parts) for riding a bicycle, but not an aircraft that I've heard people refer to as a "Volvo with a garage door attached to the top"
  I'm just thinking, in the event where you're going down (knock on wood), and you happen to wreck, the last thing you want are severe head injuries.

[Rob Sherlin]

Sorry, I meant "DOT" approved (don't know why I was thinking "Bell"...must be from motorcycle helmets).
  But, "Dot" approved is an American QA thing isn't it? I've looked at these helmets first hand and,  well, I'd trust them to a certain point (definetly more than a ball cap). I mean, I don't think they'd be adequate for being in an aircraft that gets smashed like an aluminum can...But, I don't think any helmet would help you at that point. But, if you were to get knocked around the cockpit during a "failed" emergency landing, I think they'd do well.
  You also have to remember the fact that there's no laws at all requiring "any" kind of helmet for flying the aircraft that CAP uses (talking about the Cessnas and such)...it's just an optional "added" precaution.

[Eclipse]

  I bought a Chinese helmet with dual visors off e-bay for under $50. I mainly bought it for my nephew as a "dress up" toy, but when I saw it, the quality wasn't that bad (I'd actually wear it on a motorcycle), I ended up getting one for myself (I wear it while flying my flight sims........just kiddin') and put it on a shelf for display. The shell and the padding IS sufficient enough for protection allthough it's not Bell approved.
 

I wasn't aware that Chinese knockoff helmets were DOT approved.

But hey, it's your melon and in safety gear, you do get what you pay for...

Too true, however DOT approval is only required in states that have a helmet law, and frankly its not all that big a deal anyway.  The DOT doesn't actually do any practical testing, they simply review and approve the specs, and the manufacturers promise to make the helmets that way, and test them internally to the spec.

There are a lot of European helmet manufacturers that make products far superior in feature and function that do not submit their helmet designs to the DOT because their US market is too small to bother.

Practical testing by the Snell foundation is a better gauge of a helmet's safety abilities, but, due to their testing procedures  which drop a weight onto the chin bar, most of the DOT-approved flip-shield types cannot pass that test (a risk that the rider must accept when wearing one).

Assuming the AV helmet is a good idea to start with, I'd be willing to bet that for taller pilots and aircrews using them would be a practical impossibility because of the headroom in the cabin.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

http://www.smf.org/testing.html

In comment to the knockoffs, a poorly designed, or damaged, helmet can actually be worse than no helmet at all, either from the standpoint of simply not providing the protection you assume it should, or because on impact it shreds, etc., and punctures your skull or other parts of your body (ew).

Also the Chinese helmets contain high concentrations of melamine to give then an artificially higher protein count, so if you eat them they can make you really sick.

[sardak]

(Rescue 006 for you CAWG types.)

And for those that aren't.
Mike

[Rob Sherlin]

Also the Chinese helmets contain high concentrations of melamine to give then an artificially higher protein count, so if you eat them they can make you really sick?


  You just have to prepare them right.....Oh wait!!!....That's Sushi!!!!....

[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

[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.

[Gunner C]

  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]

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.

[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]

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. 

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]

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. 

Gunner

[lordmonar]

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.

[DNall]

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]

Predator?   

[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]

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>>>>>

[flyerthom]

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

http://www.concern-network.org/

[Rob Sherlin]

  I realize the cost of aviation helmets (even used ones) and the fact that members are often required to purchase their own equipment. That's why I was looking into other options as far as protecting the melon in the case of a flight emergency. Since there are no requirements for wearing helmets in the planes that CAP flies, then there is nothing stating you must wear a certain type of helmet. Common sense will say that something like a skateboard helmet might not do any good, but something like a motorcycle helmet with an adapted aviation communication system might suffice in preventing more severe injuries to the head than a ball cap would (throwing all statistics out and just going by common sense ).
  If a member wishes to purchase a $600 and up aviation helmet, I suggest them to keep the receipts and take advantage of the tax writeoff for doing so.