Flight Helmet for missions?

[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