Survival Vests for Aircrews

[A.Member]

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

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

[DNall]

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

[aveighter]

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

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

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

[RiverAux]

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

[A.Member]

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

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

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

[SAR-EMT1]

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

[A.Member]

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

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

[aveighter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[O-Rex]

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

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

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

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

[RiverAux]

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

[afgeo4]

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

I also carry a strobe light and 1 smoke grenade.

I also carry the USAF survival knife.

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

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

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

[afgeo4]

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

[NIN]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Al Sayre]

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

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

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

[Dragoon]

Continuing the off topic, but salient thread...

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

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

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

[A.Member]

OK, my rebuttal to the rebuttal  :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life is dangerous. 

[aveighter]

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

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

Reckon that pretty much wraps up this discussion.

[O-Rex]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aveighter]

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

Very authoritatively put.

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

[JohnKachenmeister]

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

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

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

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

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

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