Helmet pigtail adaptor?

[scottyhs]

Hi there,

One of the guys at my flying club has asked if its possible to buy an adaptor for a flying helmet pigtail to fit into a standard light aircraft PPL socket? He also has a share in a JP so wants to use the helmet in the JP and the light aircraft. Ive searched the internet for him but to no solution. Does anyone have any ideas?? Thanks

[SNS3Guppy]

Yes, adapters are available commercially, or one can make an adapter for very little using commercial plugs and wire.

You'll also need a different microphone, depending on what is presently installed.

Headset Adapters - Headset Adapters - Communication - Marv Golden Pilot Supplies (http://www.marvgolden.com/communication/headset-adapters/headset-adapters/?headset_adapter_termination_type=1441)

Flying around doing general aviation type recreational flying, with a helmet may look a little goofy.

[wigglyamp]

Adams Aviation at Croydon (formerley at Biggin Hill) stock all of the headset adaptors. If using a military headset with standard EM mic in a light aircraft, you'll need an EMCC adaptor which will amplify the mic output t0 Carbon-equivalent level for the standard light aircraft intercom and radios.

[ShyTorque]

Easy enough in UK. Transair Catalogue - look under "Headsets and accessories" :)

[iRaven]

Here you go

UK Nato to Twin Plug Adaptor (Military) - Adaptors - Pilot Warehouse/ASCO (http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/product21800023catno2840023.html)

By the way, some might think it "Goofy" but you would find a forced-landing far more survivable with a bone dome and a decent harness in a GA aircraft.

iRaven

[SNS3Guppy]

Ever made one?

I have, both with a helmet and without.

Time to change that mindset; no more hot seat. Plan your flight such that you can always make a forced landing. This becomes a regular landing, and therefore not such an exciting event.

What's the difference between landing on a runway, and a road?

None.

What's the difference between landing on a grass runway and a football field? Not much.

Get a descent GA headset if one is flying general aviation. Save the helmet for cropdusting and firefighting.

[NutLoose]

Also

Adams Direct pilot shop your pilot supplies direct - online (http://www.flyingshop.com/testindlvl3.asp?Second=Headset%20Adaptors&First=Headsets)

[iRaven]

Au Contraire, I would suggest that risk of injury (to head/face) could be avoided by the use of helmets. Take a look at these:

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/photos/10/03/31/103125_large.jpg
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201002/r522297_2904936.jpg

And most will have remembered this in the UK:

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/may2010/8/9/nigel-farage-pic-ins-news-image-1-193540038.jpg

Mr Nigel Farage MEP had a very lucky escape in this aircraft without a helmet.

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/may2010/5/8/nigel-farage-pic-ins-news-image-2-588008987.jpg

I guess we used to argue the same for motorcycle helmets in the 1970s and just look at how many lives they saved after they were made a legal requirement.

Here's a good statistic from the US of A:

"In 2006, 65% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing a helmet in states without all-rider helmet laws, compared with only 13% in states with all-rider helmet laws. (NHTSA, 2007)"

The Maths, or Math (for Americans!), is pretty compelling.

iRaven

[SNS3Guppy]

I would suggest that risk of injury (to head/face) could be avoided by the use of helmets.

Yes, I suppose you would.

I'll take that as a "no," then; that you have no experience with off-field landings in general aviation airplanes.

[Lima Juliet]

Here's a quote from the Introduction of a FAA report (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/1960s/media/AM66-12.pdf)

Many accident investigators have reported that 70% to 80% of all deaths and injuries in crash decelerations are from face or head injuries, or both, caused by body flailing.

In 2007 there were 42 fatalities in the UK. I for one would like to see 30 aviators still alive today from the 2007 figures alone...

LJ :ok:

[iRaven]

SNS3Guppy

I have nearly 300hrs in SE(P)s and about 2500hrs as a Mil Aviator and luckily have never had to make a forced landing. When I flew kitbuild PFA/LAA types (what you call "Experimental") I would wear a helmet and also when spinning in civvy Aerobats/Chipmunks (plus chute).

Would I wear a helmet for every trip and every GA type? At present "no" because of the peer pressure coming from the GA community like yours - but in reality I believe I should. I take enough banter for wearing leather flying gloves and a Nomex jacket from a selection of GA aviators - with all that 100 Octane sloshing around I have no idea why!!!

I think it is high-time for us GA pilots to learn from the safety equipment supplied to Military Aviators - helmets, life jackets, flame retardent clothing, chutes and gloves.

I really do believe the motorcycle helmet analogy is a good one - we took this on in the Uk and saved lives and some States in the US have ignored at their bike-riding populace's peril (and death).

iRaven

[Runaway Gun]

iRaven,

I'm with you on this. Having only been in one GA accident I was grateful for my helmet. Whereas in military flying I've had enough birdstrikes and rather severe turbulence helmet to canopy strikes it was a thousand times safer than without. I've observed (and briefed) many GA friends on their poor choice of flying clothing, especially that which melts!

[SNS3Guppy]

Wow. Three hundred hours.

Would I wear a helmet for every trip and every GA type? At present "no" because of the peer pressure coming from the GA community like yours - but in reality I believe I should. I take enough banter for wearing leather flying gloves and a Nomex jacket from a selection of GA aviators - with all that 100 Octane sloshing around I have no idea why!!!

It's peer pressure that's keeping you from acting safely (as you see it), then? Do you only cave in to peer pressure in civil aircraft, or do you do this in military operations, too?

There's nothing wrong with wearing nomex. Even if you don't, cotton clothing, or no-melt clothing is still preferable. Frankly, I prefer to see fire resistant clothing worn around aircraft, and nomex jackets are somewhat of a fashion statement, even among the general aviation population. In fact, I see a lot of private pilots wearing faux-nomex jackets, ironically made of (you guessed it) nylon. Just to look like they're wearing a nomex jacket. Go figure.

Jumping in your Cessna 172 with a helmet on...makes you a geek.

Jumping in your 172 with a flight suit on...makes you a geek.

Jumping in your 172 with flight gloves and helmet and flight suit makes you a candidate for internet laughing stock of the year. But don't let that deter you.

Make sure you adorn your jacket, flight suit, and helmet with patches depicting skulls with swords through them and testosterone-inflamed regalia best befitting a 20 year old. Don't forget the goggles and silk scarf.

100 octane sloshing around: how terrifying!

In truth, there are places in general aviation for wearing a helmet, nomex, and even flight gloves. And parachutes, too. (I ensure I'm wearing one every time I climb out of an airplane in flight: it's been a very successful policy thus far). I wear a helmet, leather boots, flight gloves, and a flight suit when performing low altitude work. I wear a helmet when I'm riding a motorcycle. I don't wear a helmet when flying a Cessna 210 or 421, or King Air, or Learjet or a 747. Then again, neither does the military.

What is it when swapping to a Cessna 120, or Citabria, or Cherokee, that would inspire one to don a helmet, when one doesn't wear it in most civil aircraft (or comparable military aircraft)?

Helmets are hot and cumbersome. I use a Gentex HGU-55P, with a kevlar upgrade. It's got a custom temperfoam liner, upgraded from the standard TPL. It molds to my head each time I put it on. It's got top grade electronics. It's also a lot less comfortable than a headset. While I'm required to wear it for certain low-level operations (and it's a darn good idea in those cases, regulations and policies not withstanding), it tends to detract from safety and is unnecessary for most light-airplane, general aviation operations.

In the majority of general aviation aircraft, even when the same aircraft are operated by a branch of the military, helmets are not worn. Most of the time, neither are parachutes.

If you think that wearing a parachute, helmet, leather boots, flight gloves, and a flight suit (don't forget the jacket!) in your piper or cessna for that saturday-afternoon jaunt, by all means, have at it. Remember, safety first, and at 300 whopping hours, you're in an excellent position to advise everyone else regarding safety in general aviation airplanes. Don't back down.

[The B Word]

SNS3Guppy

With comments like:

Wow. Three hundred hours.

Jumping in your Cessna 172 with a helmet on...makes you a geek.


Jumping in your 172 with a flight suit on...makes you a geek.

100 octane sloshing around: how terrifying!

You have just proven iRaven's point on "peer pressure". With people like you spouting such "tosh" in aviation circles is it surprising why General Aviation has such a bad reputation with respect to fatality?

I would suggest that a safe aviation culture encourages opinions of all its pilots and crew - not "how many hours have you got son? 300!!! Well you don't have a speaking chit!". Anyway, 300 civ plus 2500 mil makes for an experienced aviator in my mind!!!

For what it's worth, if the stats are true (70-80%), then a light weight helmet for light aircraft (akin to that worn my microlight flyers) should be positively encouraged - in that case, it would be you that I would not care to hear the opinion from.

Finally, if you want to see how terrifying 100LL can be I'm sure it can be arranged :E

The B Word

[scottyhs]

Leaving the sarcasm to one side for a brief moment...............

Will one of the cables be enough to bridge a Mk 4 helmet into a light aircraft, or would you need what appears to be one of the more elaborate adaptors to convert the signal from a mk 4 helmet with boom mike into a GA radio?

Thanks

[wigglyamp]

For the Mk4 to civvie light aircraft with standard radios use, you need the amplifier as well as plug conversion, so from Adams, it will be part number: EMCC-NSTP.
There are some civvie radios (primarily Becker) that can run EM or Carbon mics dependant on wiring, but all American radios - Garmin, Bendix-King, Narco etc use carbon-level mics, so require the amplifier.

[SNS3Guppy]

I would suggest that a safe aviation culture encourages opinions of all its pilots and crew - not "how many hours have you got son? 300!!! Well you don't have a speaking chit!". Anyway, 300 civ plus 2500 mil makes for an experienced aviator in my mind!!!

2,800 hours doesn't make you very experienced either, but then with 300 general aviation hours and 2,500 military hours, you're still a 300 hour general aviation hour pilot. That shouldn't be "experienced" in anybody's mind.

Certainly your opinion is to be encouraged. If you're in the belief that you should wear a parachute, nomex jacket, flight suit, leather boots, flight gloves, and a helmet when flying a Cessna 172, then you should do so. If you're deterred by "peer pressure," then it's your judgement that must be questioned.

Don't blame your "peers" for your decision. If you think you need all that kit, then by all means, load up. If you can't stick to your guns because of comments of those you deem your "peers," then you have a much bigger problem than protecting your noggin or keeping from roasting your flesh.

Do you refuse your seatbelt in the car, because others aren't wearing theirs? Do you jump off the bridge because others are jumping? Especially at 2,800 hours, you should know better than to do something because you think it's what others might want to see. You should know enough to do something because you believe it's right, regardless of what anyone else will tell you.

With people like you spouting such "tosh" in aviation circles is it surprising why General Aviation has such a bad reputation with respect to fatality?

People like me? Which people like me would those be? The instructors? That would be me. The ATP's who have been operating professionally for several decades? Me also. The mechanics who fix and maintain that airplane that you rent or own? Me, also.

General aviation doesn't have a "bad reputation." Check your perception.

For what it's worth, if the stats are true (70-80%), then a light weight helmet for light aircraft (akin to that worn my microlight flyers) should be positively encouraged - in that case, it would be you that I would not care to hear the opinion from.

Which stats are those? Seventy to eighty percent of what? Didn't you just finish saying that everyone's opinion counts? You just don't like mine...because it's not what you want to hear. You're revealed, aren't you?

I would suggest that a safe aviation culture encourages opinions of all its pilots and crew - not "how many hours have you got son? 300!!! Well you don't have a speaking chit!".

Encourages the opinions of everyone, but me, of course.

Nobody ever said that with your 300 hours, you don't have a "speaking chit." Then again, nobody needs a "chit" to speak.

Without any experience landing off field, you can speak from guesswork, however, rather than a position of experience, and even with the massive, whopping 300 hours of general aviation experience, added to those 2,800 hours of military experience, that still makes you a zero off-field landing aviator. But at least you've got a "chit."

I was part of an operation to recover the bodies of two F4 drivers who killed themselves in a light piper some years ago. They apparently tried to outclimb a mountain, in a snow-filled canyon, and discovered that the luxurious performance to which they were accustomed wasn't available; one had to actually fly the airplane rather than depend on raw power and seats for salvation. Being an "experienced military aviator" meant exactly squat as they struck the mountainside.

Out of curiosity, how many 100LL fires have you handled in light airplanes? If you're worrying about 100LL, don't you think hydrazine, skydrol, and numerous other hazardous materials and propellants and explosives in military operations pose a significantly higher risk. It's nearly comical to worry about 100LL. We used to drain 100LL out of the airplane to wash engines every day, spraying it on with a garden sprayer. Are you envisioning general aviation airplanes exploding in flight and catching fire at the drop of the proverbial hat? Come now, let's be realistic.

Will one of the cables be enough to bridge a Mk 4 helmet into a light aircraft, or would you need what appears to be one of the more elaborate adaptors to convert the signal from a mk 4 helmet with boom mike into a GA radio?

I'm not familiar with the mk4, but other setups I've used require a change of the microphone for compatibility, especially if one is going to be using other civilian headsets on an ICS system.

Some helmets use a very small pigtail; ensure you have enough cable available to reach the radio plug in for the airplane you intend to use. Extensions and adapters with extra length are available.

There are some civvie radios (primarily Becker) that can run EM or Carbon mics dependant on wiring, but all American radios - Garmin, Bendix-King, Narco etc use carbon-level mics, so require the amplifier.

Most use electret mics, actually.

[wigglyamp]

An electret microphone (or an amplified-dynamic mic) is a carbon-level microphone as I've stated - it outputs a typical carbon-mic equivalent signal of 250-275mV, whereas a standard military EM mic puts out 5mV. The electret mic uses the same excitation voltage to run the pre-amp as the carbon mic uses to polarise the carbon capsule.

[SNS3Guppy]

True, but there's a big difference between carbon mics and electret mics in general aviation use, insofar as transmission quality goes.

[teeteringhead]

At the risk of endangering what remains of my incognito, I'll tell you a tale O best beloveds.

Many many years ago, I was flying Hueys for a foreign Air Force. The pilots were a motley bunch, and many favoured the "headset and desert boots" look. I still wore my (Mk 3 in them days) helmet, causing occasional derision, chaff and banter.

Come the day of a severe control malfunction, I hit the ground (side of a mountain actually) much much harder than intended, and the Huey rolled over a couple of times before stopping. I survived to fight another day, but with a grapefruit sized hole you could put yer fist through in the side of the trusty Mk3. (Caused, we think, by the rotor brake reservoir when the cab sort of folded up). Guess where said grapefruit sized hole could have been....

.... and strangely, more people wore "bone-domes" after that .......

Great fan of helmets, me.

[sycamore]

You`ll probably also need a `longer` lead(double plugs either end) for civ,a/c use,as the pigtails are fairly short..

[Torque Tonight]

SNS3,

You are a long time poster on pprune, a username I recognise and (rightly or wrongly) I presume you to be an experienced pilot in your own particular field. I have to say that I think you have let yourself down with a silly point of view on this subject and I would expect better from you.

Let me be clear there is a very big difference between using military style safety equipment in GA aircraft for SAFETY purposes and using such equipment for the 'look' only. You seem unable to distinguish the two. I wouldn't think too highly of some 5 hour Cessna student hanging around the clubhouse looking like Maverick or Goose BUT I would have no problem with a pilot wearing fireproof coveralls (eg a flying suit) and a helmet for safety reasons.

There is good reason why the RAF use such equipment even in single engine piston aircraft. I may not have a huge number of GA hours but I have seen enough burnt flying suits and cracked helmets, damage that would otherwise be absorbed by flesh and skull, to take flight safety seriously.

It is ridiculous to suggest that you can always make a safe forced landing. Even if you mitigate the risks by avoiding forest, mountains and water, you can still not guarantee a safe forced landing. That big flat open field may have invisible obstruction, soft ground etc. As for 'landing on roads', I guess you haven't been to the UK.

Have a look at this and tell me how early you would have seen the single-strand wire fence that snagged the undercarriage?
bvbS-oHi9ro

Save the helmet for cropdusting and firefighting.
For what purpose do cropduster pilots wear helmets, that is not equally applicable to other SEP aircraft?

[SNS3Guppy]

Let me be clear there is a very big difference between using military style safety equipment in GA aircraft for SAFETY purposes and using such equipment for the 'look' only. You seem unable to distinguish the two. I wouldn't think too highly of some 5 hour Cessna student hanging around the clubhouse looking like Maverick or Goose BUT I would have no problem with a pilot wearing fireproof coveralls (eg a flying suit) and a helmet for safety reasons.

I distinguish quite well between function and appearance, actually. That's really the point of my posts. Read again.

If you really believe you need all that gear in a Cessna 172, then as I have said repeatedly, WEAR IT!!! If you feel you need it, but elect not to because of "peer pressure," then your judgment is poor and you are acting contrary to your own conscience.

Frankly, I believe all that is extreme overkill, especially in a light piston airplane, but do as you will. If you do differently than you will because you're afraid of image, then you have a much bigger problem facing you than what you're wearing. You've met the enemy, and it's you.

You don't want the five hour student hanging out looking like "maverick or goose," though you don't have a problem with them hanging out in helmet, nomex coveralls, nomex jacket, flight gloves, parachute, and boots (which, let's face it, looks suspiciously like "maverick or goose."). You don't see the inconsistency there?

What, no g suit?

Have a look at this and tell me how early you would have seen the single-strand wire fence that snagged the undercarriage?

As the video keeps going black, including up until the landing, it's very hard to see anything, isn't it?

The pilot kept making turns, never having committed to a landing site, and continued spin turns until a much lower altitude than necessary; the pilot sacrificed his opportunity to recon his landing site, and appears to have made multiple decision changes as he got lower and lower. The flight wasn't conducted over a good choice of forced landing sites at the outset.

Fencelines tend to follow straight lines. If you can see a straight line anywhere on the ground, consider it an obstacle, period. This includes roads, where fences are invariably found (along with powerlines, etc).

I made a forced landing several years ago on a mountainside, following a power loss in a turbine single engine airplane, while fighting a wildfire. Because of the terrain and the wind driven fire, and the low altitude at which the engine failed (150'), I made a downwind landing on the mountainside with nearly a 40 knot tailwind. My experience is low-level operations, and my first commercial flying experinece was as a teenager, crop dusting. I'm familiar with objects, off field landings, forced landings, rough terrain, etc. A single abandoned powerline appeared along my path, perpendicular to my my line, as I was gliding in. I carried enough extra energy to pitch over it before putting the main gear on the mountain. Yes, I was wearing a helmet, along with full fire gear (I'm a long time professional firefighter, incidentally, with a fairly solid background in protective equipment and gear, and dealing with fire...in airplanes, in the wild, and in structures).

Unlike the spinning airplane, I had very little time (and no altitude) with which to survey the landing site before choosing it (it was the only choice; everything else had unsurvivable obstacles, or was on fire). That didn't mean I wasn't able to address surprise obstacles.

If one has the time to execute the forced landing, then constant turns down to a touchdown decrease one's chances, as does changing one's mind repeatedly. If one has an engine failure with significant altitude, but elects to keep on maneuvering, spinning, and believes one can do so and restart the engine, one may be in for a rude awakening. In the video, the pilot makes nearly 14 more turns before recovering, or completing his recovery; that altitude could have been used to recover and set up for the restart or landing.

I don't see any mention of a post-flight fire there, by the way.

For what purpose do cropduster pilots wear helmets, that is not equally applicable to other SEP aircraft?

You really have to ask?

Setting aside the concept that the entire flight is conducted in close proximity to obstacles such as trees, powerlines, fences, standpipes, tractors, etc, and setting aside the fact that if the engine fails one is generally landing right here, right now (and not getting out, not gliding anywhere, not pulling over to mull it over, not ejecting, and not bailing), one wears a helmet to protect one's self from the airplane. I've had more mileage from my helmet protecting my noggin as it bounces off the canopy and airplane while maneuvering in Air Tractors and Dromaders than I have in forced landings and emergencies.

The instrument panel in the Pawnee, for example, was designed with a roll of sheet metal across the top portion that absorbed the impact of the pilot's head and face. Unless one is wearing a full face helmet (we don't, and neither do you), one is going to be looking at one's teeth on the floor and prying one's face out of the panel regardless of whether one had on a bone dome.

Whereas the typical light airplane pilot spends his time at several thousand feet, much of it ideally within gliding distance of a suitable surface, the ag aviator spends it at five feet, within gliding distance of what's immediately in front of the nose, generally looking up at powerlines and other obstacles. when firefighting, those obstacles may be a ten thousand food mountain, while flying an airplane loaded heavily enough to max out at a fifty to one hundred foot per minute climb. One is generally doing the flying in stiff winds, severe turbulence, strong downdrafts and very close proximity to very hostile terrain, with very few (if any) landing options. This is particularly true when doing the job in a single engine airplane.

I presume you to be an experienced pilot in your own particular field. I have to say that I think you have let yourself down with a silly point of view on this subject and I would expect better from you.

Never presume, but you're correct that I am an "experienced pilot," though my "particular field" includes flying in a corporate environment, private environment, military environment, airline environment, freight environment, ag environment, fire environment, law enforcement environment, and a few others along the way, too. I can absolutely assure you that I haven't let myself down, thanks (I'll be sure to let myself know). What you expect from me means nothing to me, and is entirely irrelevant to the post, the topic, and to my response.

Again, we have 300 hour posters here who assert that everyone should be given a fair hearing, but cry foul when it's not what they want to hear. Everybody has a say, but me, apparently, because it's not what you want to hear.

The individual in the video, the one that snagged the wire with his ear, acted foolishly. He could have done many more things to prepare for his forced landing, as discussed. The 5 hour student in the full flight kit might be prepared for any eventuality (except actually flying the airplane), but let's face it: in a light airplane, you're operating your parachute. It's called an airplane. As the saying (and the book) goes: fly the biggest piece down.

In some military equipment, helmets, nomex, parachutes, and hot seats are required, for a very good reason.

As yourself why C12 pilots generally don't wear a helmet, even though it's nothing more than a military king air. Ask yourself why C21 pilots wear a headset and not a helmet, eventhough it's just another learjet. Ask yourself why the T41 pilot in training, or flight screening (now relegated to the base flying club or civil air patrol) doesn't wear a helmet, but rather a headset. Ask yourself why the entire USAF auxilliary, the civil air patrol, doesn't wear helmets when flying light airplanes (Cessna 182's predominantly). They wear headsets.

Military aviators tend to come from a small environment where exposure to one kind of mentality and one kind of operation leads them to believe they're the best of the best of the best, and have all the answers, but often find that once on the outside, there's a little more to learn. Be open. You really don't need to go throw on that parachute, helmet, nomex, pair of boots and gloves, and whatever scarf may be the flavor of the day, in order to operate a Luscombe or Citabria or Maule around the pattern, or to fly to Grandma's house for tea. If you feel you need it, wear it, and don't give in to "peer pressure."

If you do that, if you compromise because of appearance or "peer pressure," then you don't belong in the cockpit at all.

[ShyTorque]

Scotty,

Hope some of the answers here were useful. I would do the obvious thing now.

Take note of the advice given re your original inquiry and then click on "Edit" on your first post. You can then take the option to delete it, which will delete the whole thread along with it and cure the ego explosion which appears to have taken over the whole deal here. :rolleyes:

[SNS3Guppy]

So much for encouraging input from anybody. Now you're encouraging deletion of the thread, given that it's not what you want to hear.

So much for that "chit."

[Torque Tonight]

Quite an essay there chap. A few brief points.

You say they might as well wear the g-suit and badges too, which tells me that you still don't see the distinction between wearing the kit for safety reasons and wearing the kit to look cool in the bar. Flying suits don't just come in olive green any more. Using safety equipment does not necessarily mean you are trying to impersonate a military pilot.

Peer pressure? NEVER been a factor in any flying I have done. Currently wearing some of my old RAF boots to my airline job rather than the smooth leather soled shoes that the company likes. I would consider slipping on an icy apron and breaking a wrist to be an avoidable hazard. 'Wearing military boots to fly an airliner' - I guess you must be p1ssing yourself laughing by now.

Your choice of kit comes down to personal risk acceptance. I don't wear anything special when flying a Cessna or Piper but I do avoid inhospitable terrain and manage threats to the flight. If I'm doing aerobatics in a vintage aeroplane or taking an SEP across sea I would use appropriately more safety equipment. I would not begrudge someone else's decisions either.

You may not, but I do have an aversion to avgas 100LL flash fires. I guess that makes me a pussy and the butt of your jokes! I also don't like head injuries - time and time again helmets or lack of them have made the difference between fatal and survivable accidents. The original poster actually entioned the use of the helmet in a Jet Provost: you still think he should just get a nice set of David-Clarkes?

You miss the point of the video I posted. The pilot didn't set out to perform a 26 turn high rotational flat spin which caused the engine to fail, and the aircraft only to recover at very low level. The point is that even in GA aircraft you can find yourself in a position where you have to make a forced landing (what brought you to be in that position is not relevant to this discussion). The pilot did however, after recovering from the spin, maneuvre postively to set up for what looked like a good field. Here is the crux of the matter - what looks like a good field from the air may still have hazards which result in a severe impact. The right safety equipment will improve your chances of surviving. No, there wasn't a fire in this case, but in many crashes there is. Wearing fireproof clothing aint so dumb.

Finally easy on the superiority complex. You may have plenty of hours on various classes of aircraft in several roles. Well done you! Guess what, you're not the only one. The few hundred hours GA that you seem to be mocking is not the sum total of my and iRaven's experience, and in my time, I've seen enough to have a fairly positive attitude to safety equipment. I'm very surprised you haven't.

[Runaway Gun]

Despite all the best intentions in the world, carrying reserve fuel, flying high and avoiding rough ground, searching for suitable forced landing areas, and displaying the best of airmanship, the reality is that it can all turn to custard. Only one thing has to go wrong, and that 'perfect forced landing' has the potential to ruin your day.

Please don't begrudge someone for having the foresight to wear suitable safety equipment and clothing, no matter how good you might be.

[SNS3Guppy]

Using safety equipment does not necessarily mean you are trying to impersonate a military pilot.

Nobody (but you) has suggested anything of the kind.

Flying suits don't just come in olive green any more.

This has exactly what to do with the price of tea in China? Are you interested in safety equipment, or making a fashion statement? Nobody has addressed the color of your clothes...but you.

I guess you must be p1ssing yourself laughing by now.

I guess that makes me a pussy and the butt of your jokes!

You guess wrong, but at least you keep on guessing. All I'll say to your "guesses" is 'if you say so.'

You miss the point of the video I posted. The pilot didn't set out to perform a 26 turn high rotational flat spin which caused the engine to fail, and the aircraft only to recover at very low level.

Never the less, the pilot did it anyway, and in the process sacrificed considerable altitude and time that could have been used to address his or her problem. Recovery at a lower altitude was unnecessary and foolish, especially to waste altitude by executing an additional 13 and a half turns in the vertical, before recovery. Additionally, he held his downline for a long time, sacrificing additional time and reducing his options substantially.

The point is that even in GA aircraft you can find yourself in a position where you have to make a forced landing (what brought you to be in that position is not relevant to this discussion).

Obviously.

It's never a matter of if the engine will fail, but always when.

The pilot did however, after recovering from the spin, maneuvre postively to set up for what looked like a good field. Here is the crux of the matter - what looks like a good field from the air may still have hazards which result in a severe impact. The right safety equipment will improve your chances of surviving.

One won't need the safety equipment if one exercises proper precuations, particularly in the case of the video. I wouldn't hardly call what we saw in the video as "maneuvering positively to set up for what looked like a good field." More like making a last minute series of last-ditch efforts after having sacrificed one's opportunity and options.

The time to be thinking about making that forced landing isn't after squandering one's options and time with an additional 13 turns a long vertical recovery. It starts before one enters the spin in the first place. The mental mantra that's part and parcel with flying light, single engine airplanes goes something like this: "When the engine fails, I'll land there. When the engine fails, I'll land there. When the engine fails, I'll land there." Re-evaluated moment by moment. A suitable landing site should have been in mind before the initial power reduction and spin entry, particularly as the pilot was preparing to give away altitude and energy. One should begin every maneuver and action, every cross country, and every individual moment of flight, with the idea that one will be making a forced landing next. Plan accordingly.

Light airplanes don't have ejection seats. Light airplanes must be landed. No such thing as giving it back to the taxpayer. One must land. One must be prepared to put the fuselage between two trees to let the wings take the impact, separate the wings, and move the fuselage from the fuel. One must be prepared to ditch, given obstacles and short swampy areas. One must be prepared to use a road, a football field, or other imprompty sites. One should prepare and plan such that a forced landing is a routine event.

Wearing fireproof clothing aint so dumb.

No one (but you), least of all me, has suggested any such thing. Read.

The few hundred hours GA that you seem to be mocking is not the sum total of my and iRaven's experience, and in my time, I've seen enough to have a fairly positive attitude to safety equipment.

I'm not mocking your 300 hours. Or your military experience. What you have is a comprehension problem, here. If you show up at the Cessna with a helmet, flight gloves, leather boots, a nomex flight suit (any color of your choosing, as this appears to concern you), and of course a parachute, then that's your right.

Peer pressure? NEVER been a factor in any flying I have done.

Of course not. But we can't say the same for iraven, who told us "Would I wear a helmet for every trip and every GA type? At present "no" because of the peer pressure coming from the GA community like yours - but in reality I believe I should." This is a quote from an "experienced" military aviator who asserts that he doesn't do what he believes he should because of "peer pressure."

Again, if you feel you need this equipment (read slowly now, because this isn't the first time you're seeing this material), wear it. Don't be detered. Do what your 300 hours of experience tells you to do, and don't take any "tosh" from anyone, least of all anyone from "the GA community like yours." You find it egotistical to tell you to do what you think best? You must really struggle with concepts like "do what you think is right," and to act professionally. Come now...the counsel from my end has been do do as you feel best. You really have a problem doing that? Not you, of course...but iraven?

I don't think so. You certainly wouldn't be where you are if you did. Never the less, the quote says otherwise.

Please don't begrudge someone for having the foresight to wear suitable safety equipment and clothing, no matter how good you might be.

Again, nobody here has done so.

It's not about being "good." That concept can be left to the likes of the C17 pilot who was too good for policy and regulation, too good to fly a proper stall recovery, and too good to communicate. It's about judgment.

Frankly, I've taken plenty of flack from highly placed people in my own organization, when suggesting that nylon uniform pants and flammable clothing is a foolish idea. I was told to "get with the program," and that "you're flying for the airlines now, boy...we don't crash airplanes." Tell that to the UPS crew that recently were faced with an inflight fire (regardless of whether Jet or Avgas was onboard).

Several years ago I offered a Tee shirt to a government pilot on a tanker base. Trading tee shirts was a form of bartering currency, and I offered him one of mine. A former military aviator, he quickly pulled the tag and consulted it, and said "this is poly cotton. It melts, I'm not taking this damn thing." He stormed off. I looked around the office, half a dozen other very experienced faces shaking their heads, every one of them wearing a poly cotton tee shirt. Every one of them on standby to go fly a fire, as was I. I walked across the ramp and gave the shirt to someone else, and went about my day. Mr. Uptight didn't want the shirt, no problem. Nobody is telling you what to do, and if you're letting peer pressure prevent you from doing what you believe is right, then you're doing something very, very wrong.

[iRaven]

Guppy

Again, we have 300 hour posters here who assert that everyone should be given a fair hearing, but cry foul when it's not what they want to hear. Everybody has a say, but me, apparently, because it's not what you want to hear.

You seem to have a very selective memory here. I have 300hrs SE(P), about 600hrs on a wide-bodied ISTAR type, about 1900hrs on FJs and 3 seasons flying "historics" for HM Forces at the weekend (incidentally, we wear helmets et al in those too - plus we're sh!t scared of AVGAS and give it the respect it deserves, it sounds like you bathe in it!).

Your outburst of

2,800 hours doesn't make you very experienced either, but then with 300 general aviation hours and 2,500 military hours, you're still a 300 hour general aviation hour pilot. That shouldn't be "experienced" in anybody's mind.

So 22 years in the aviation game as a professional and also as a GA Pilot for the past 8 years isn't "experienced" - crikey man, who are you? Sir George Cayley? Louis Bleriot? :ugh:

I have landed on grass strips, fields and also farm strips in my 300hrs - however all were planned (unlike your unplanned) and for a large majority I wore a helmet.

Another quote from you

Which stats are those? Seventy to eighty percent of what?

D'uh! You don't read too good for a pilot do you? I will post the line from Leon again:

Here's a quote from the Introduction of a FAA report (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/m...ia/AM66-12.pdf (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/1960s/media/AM66-12.pdf))

"Many accident investigators have reported that 70% to 80% of all deaths and injuries in crash decelerations are from face or head injuries, or both, caused by body flailing." Many accident investigators have reported that 70% to 80% of all deaths and injuries in crash decelerations are from face or head injuries, or both, caused by body flailing.
In 2007 there were 42 fatalities in the UK. I for one would like to see 30 aviators still alive today from the 2007 figures alone...



You seem to infer that your "superioty" in "experience" comes from a variety of different roles plus to quote you earlier:

People like me? Which people like me would those be? The instructors? That would be me. The ATP's who have been operating professionally for several decades? Me also. The mechanics who fix and maintain that airplane that you rent or own? Me, also.


So being an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) telling the crew "Cabin Doors To Manual" and then putting your feet up in the cockpit monitoring the FMS from waypoint to waypoint is relevant to GA. Being a mechanic doesn't really fit with the argument (although I do regularly listen to both civ and mil engineers for advice on technical issues). And finally, God help us all if you are an instructor (and I speak to you as a military Central Flying School A2 (above average) instructor myself - but to you I am of course inexperienced!) as your manner and behaviour towards the inexperienced sucks the dog of death!

Anyway, Happy Holidays my Colonial Cousin, I hope you never need to call upon a helmet, flame retardant suit/gloves, boots or a chute.

To the original poster, crack on with your helmet my friend; I for one, will not be laughing at you and I think you make a sensible choice.

From an experienced/inexperienced* aviator (*delete as applicable)

Rant out...

iRaven

PS - Guppy, if you're on the Christmas Wind-Up then you have certainly "hit the money"!

[Torque Tonight]

"When the engine fails, I'll land there. When the engine fails, I'll land there. When the engine fails, I'll land there." Re-evaluated moment by moment.

Indeed, this was drilled into all of us RAF pilots during Elementary Flying Training (single engine piston). Always having a field in mind in case the engine fails. Even with that being the case I would not go so far as to suggest that the landing would be as uneventful as landing on a grass runway. You simply cannot be so confident and that is why we wore 'the full works'.

One must be prepared to put the fuselage between two trees to let the wings take the impact

Probably nice to have a helmet in that case.

This thread is now going in circles so I think I'll leave it there.

[SNS3Guppy]

And finally, God help us all if you are an instructor

Well God help you then, mate, because yes, I am.

crikey man, who are you? Sir George Cayley? Louis Bleriot?

No. Amateurs.

I shouldn't do this, but I will point out that neither wore helmets, nomex, or parachutes. Boots, yes.

You seem to have a very selective memory here. I have 300hrs SE(P), about 600hrs on a wide-bodied ISTAR type, about 1900hrs on FJs and 3 seasons flying "historics" for HM Forces at the weekend (incidentally, we wear helmets et al in those too - plus we're sh!t scared of AVGAS and give it the respect it deserves, it sounds like you bathe in it!).

I've been covered head-to-toe in it many times.

We tend to fear what we don't understand, don't we?

A selective memory? This is the first time you've introduced your experience break-down, so no: no selective memory. I've stuck with quoting what you posted, and responding in kind. So what you're really saying is that you're a 300 hour general aviation pilot, then...over the last six years, that's about fifty hours a year. Got it. Congratulations, I suppose.

You seem to infer that your "superioty" in "experience" comes from a variety of different roles plus to quote you earlier:

I claimed no "superiority," mate. That would be you. You just said it. I didn't.

So far as reference to different roles, that would be in reference to your assertion that my "community" in the general aviation world is responsible for your failure to adhere to the protocols you believe to be safe ("peer pressure," remember?).

So being an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) telling the crew "Cabin Doors To Manual" and then putting your feet up in the cockpit monitoring the FMS from waypoint to waypoint is relevant to GA.

We don't have cabin crew, actually. I don't put my feet up, though I do use a FMS, and yes, it's pretty damn relevant. So are the thousands of hours flying light, piston airplanes, crop dusting, perforning air ambulance, flying corporate, tracking game, giving tours, flying skydivers (and jumping), towing banners, instructing, patrolling forests, and a host of other general aviation activities.

Happy Holidays my Colonial Cousin

Happy Holidays to you, likewise. (We were colonials, incidentally, until forcing the crown to the sea at gunpoint, and deporting it from the country. Since then, we've been independent, you see).

I hope you never need to call upon a helmet, flame retardant suit/gloves, boots or a chute.

I already have, for many years on end, as already discussed, but thanks. I've put parachutes to good use on many occasions; even split a helmet in half doing it. I've had the nomex burned off my face around a mask, and had air in a tank on my back hot enough it's nearly painful to breathe. I've burned my hand on my own helmet after exiting a flashover. I've worn my helmet for a full stop on a mountainside, and many steep trips down violent burning hillsides, and various spots around the globe. I certainly hope I have occasion to call on them again; it means I get paid.

Indeed, this was drilled into all of us RAF pilots during Elementary Flying Training (single engine piston). Always having a field in mind in case the engine fails. Even with that being the case I would not go so far as to suggest that the landing would be as uneventful as landing on a grass runway. You simply cannot be so confident and that is why we wore 'the full works'.

You had better be that confident. A forced landing should never be more than a familiar event. So far as being drilled into you, good on you, and good on your instructors. This is right, and proper.

This thread is now going in circles so I think I'll leave it there.

Fair enough.

[Runaway Gun]

I hate it when I get an instructor that's a bigger w*nker than me.

[Geehovah]

I was going to ask where to get a connector for my old Mk3 helmet but maybe I wont now. Mind you its only on a plinth in the study:hmm:

Its a long time since I saw such vitriole. Mind you I only have 3000+ hrs of which only 150 is GA so I'd best not offer too many opinions:ugh:

[youngskywalker]

Sadly a quick scan through Guppy's many previous posts will reveal a depressingly similar pattern. He regularly pops up in the biz jet and private flyers threads to bash everybody into submission. It's a real shame as I do believe that someone of his considerable experience could really contribute positively to this forum, and we could maybe learn something, but instead, he prefers a very aggressive and confrontational attitude. What a waste.

Best added to your 'ignore' list.

[ShyTorque]

So much for encouraging input from anybody. Now you're encouraging deletion of the thread, given that it's not what you want to hear.

So much for that "chit."

The actual question was answered very quickly.
The only thing you want to hear is your own voice.

[Saintsman]

Slight thread drift??

I once had to order some standard NATO headset adaptors for a piece of test equipment we were making, only for the RAF to complain that they didn't work.

Apparently there are two types of NATO headset plug and us and the Yanks use different ones. Naturally we'd ordered the wrong one. So much for standard NATO.

[Sun Who]

Really Annoyed you almost made me barff a lung. I'm still laughing.:D

By the way, see these other Guppy posts and make your own mind up.

EBR SOPMODS - WHO WEARS BDU's TO SHOOT IN? (http://ebrsopmods.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=53&page=1#239)
New Post in "The Way I See It" - Page 5 - BladeForums.com (http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8911212)

Sun

[SNS3Guppy]

Wow...you really had to go far afield, to other completely unrelated web boards, to make your position? Really?

The EBR sopmods posts are old, and I stand by what I said then; people wearing costumes to go shoot are idiots. (Bearing in mind that I say that as one posting from a free country where we can still go recreational shooting for fun, rather than a nation where one can be arrested for wearing a tee shirt emblazoned with a picture of a pocket knife, and where the police constabulary shout "Halt, or I shall yell 'Halt,' again!").

Much like people who put on a helmet to go fly a 172...but not nearly such idiots as those who cave in to "peer pressure" when determining if they should act safely in an aircraft.

As for the knifeforums thread, I have a solid foundation there, too. No apologies. None needed, when in the right.

What I find interesting is that lacking any substance to contribute to the conversation here, you had to go to two different forums to seek out something you thought you might be able to use, and still failed. Quite a lack of accomplishment there, mate. I'm underwhelmed.

The actual question was answered very quickly.

Yes, I know. I answered it and provided the link to purchase the requested pigtail. You can't get much quicker than that. The remainder of the thread are folks such as yourself that are unhappy with the answer. Folks who can't stand the thought of not wearing their costume while flying light airplanes.

The only thing you want to hear is your own voice.

Ah, hang on a second there, big guy. You're the one who whined about everyone needing their own "chit" to speak, but who went on to suggest that the thread be deleted when it didn't go the way you wanted. Again, so much for that "chit" that everyone should have. Everyone, save for those who publish something you don't like.

Now, to be fair, it was The B Word that wanted a chit. It's you that wanted to close the thread. It's you that seems threatened by the concept that someone could actually get in an airplane fueled by (good Lord!) avgas, without wearing enough kit to survive a tank attack.

I couldn't care less about hearing my own voice, but I'm certainly entertained by your posts. Your inability to face the unfathomable, fearsome prospect that one might actually fly a light airplane from A to B, or even about the patch, without being decked out in true walter-mitty fashion with enough gear to choke a fighter pilot, is not only comical, but downright funny. I digress; there's that peer pressure that keeps you from exercising good judgment, and we can't have any of that.

[The B Word]

Kind of reminds me of someone...

http://spe.fotolog.com/photo/14/13/0/elabuelo81/1234559853801_f.jpg

[The B Word]

Scotty

You will probably need an extension lead - Mart Aviation sell them for about £25.

http://www.mart-aviation.co.uk/Ext.lead_3.jpg

[SNS3Guppy]

The B Word prattled on about his "Chit," and that was it? Truly underimpressive.

[Sun Who]

Guppy, mate,

What point do you think I was trying to make by posting your comments from other boards?
It's not the content of your posts dude - I've yet to disagree with anything you say and I think you talk a lot of sense.
My issue with your posts and (I suspect) the thing that has attracted derision from others, is your supercilious, superior tone.
I don't think you're a walt (others may) but you come across as one because you 'patch drop' - I'm a this, I've done that etc. It's that tendency that attracted Really Annoyed's (bloody funny) parody.
I bet I'm not the first to say this to you mate, and I bet you continued to plough your own furrow (fnar fnar) then as well.

Pip pip.:)

Sun.

[SNS3Guppy]

Thanks for your comments, Sun. I have no idea what you said, but it sounds good.

[ShyTorque]

Guppy, I hope you fly better than you read and understand what is written here. You seem to be confusing my posts with those from someone else, or have possibly combined all the answers here into one big bad guy and are now fighting him.

Please point out where I mentioned "chits" (whatever you mean by that), flying clothing, light aircraft or AVGAS.

To make it easy for you, here are my posts:

Easy enough in UK. Transair Catalogue - look under "Headsets and accessories"

Scotty,

Hope some of the answers here were useful. I would do the obvious thing now. Take note of the advice given re your original inquiry and then click on "Edit" on your first post. You can then take the option to delete it, which will delete the whole thread along with it and cure the ego explosion which appears to have taken over the whole deal here.

The actual question was answered very quickly.
The only thing you want to hear is your own voice.

[pulse1]

Presumably, those who advocate the use of helmets and Nomex when flying a Cessna 172, regardless of nature (risk) of the planned flight, would also provide their passengers with the same protection.

In my view, if the risk of fire was high enough to justify Nomex, then it is too high to carry any passengers who are not able to assess that risk for themselves and are trained to deal with it.

I have waded through the above discussion as much as I can stand and I have not seen any reference to the need for a risk assessment before and during every flight, although it has been implied by some posters. A proper risk assessment should look at the chances of any event occurring and then assessing the possible outcome if it does occur. Most of the time, we do this almost unconsciously but it should become a formal part of our flight checks. e.g. constantly checking possible landing areas.

As I say, if a risk assessment for a C172 flight over hospitable countryside to another low risk airfield justifies the use of helmets and Nomex, I would suggest that the risk is too high for normal passengers. The CAA recognise this by not allowing "normal passengers" in Permit to Fly warbirds.

Even in a C172, if the planned flight is to involve higher risk activities, mountain flying or crossing water, the assessment should lead to further precautions such as, for the latter, the wearing of life jackets, carrying a dinghy or even the wearing of immersion suits.

In my view, very few people, even in aviation, have a realistic idea of the concept of risk. This is why so many optimistically buy lottery tickets every week and even drive motorcars in a country which kills about 15 people day for the privilege. Of course, how much risk one is prepared to take is up to the individual although the modern obsession with Health and Safety is rapidly depriving us of that freedom.

[phil9560]

God what are you like you lot ?? :rolleyes:

Happy Christmas all ;)

[Lima Juliet]

Pulse 1

I'll play the risk assessment and stats game with you by using CAP 701 - the CAA's Aviation Safety Review 1990-1999 (CAP 701: Aviation Safety Review 1990 -1999 | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=227)):

From CAP 701: 1990-1999 UK Non-Public Transport Aeroplanes <5700kg mtwa
Total Number of Accidents = 1963
Total Number of Accidents involving Injury = 366
Total Number of Accidents involving Fatalities = 119
Total Hours flown = 8,500,000hrs

Injuries
Fatal(F) Serious (S) Minor(M) Total(T)
Crew 134(F) 71(S) 211(M) 416(T)
Passengers 65(F) 46(S) 130(M) 241(T)

Taken from Table 54 - Non-public Transport Aeroplane Occupants Risk

Non-public transport aeroplanes were involved in almost 2000 accidents from 1990 to 1999, of which 366 (19%) involved injuries and 119 (6%) involved 199 fatalities.
As the number of people flying in non-public transport aircraft is not recorded no individual risk exposure is possible, however, with 8.5 million aircraft hours flown the statistical fatal accident rate is 1 in 71,500 hours flown or 0.14 per 10,000 flying hours. The chances of any light aircraft accident is 1 in 4,300 hours flown or 2.32 in 10,000 flying hours.
The previously referenced FAA report (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/1960s/media/AM66-12.pdf) stated that “70%-80% of fatal accidents could be avoided by wearing helmets”, so for 199 pilots and passengers killed in the above stats we could have saved between 140-160 persons from dying by wearing helmets alone. If we look at fatal and serious injuries then the numbers really start to rack up - 316 persons with a chance to stop 221-253 major injuries or fatalities through wearing helmets. I would venture that passengers should be offered head protection (it doesn't have to be a full jet-jocks' helmet combination, but similar to those worn by microlight pilots and their passengers). I agree that it doesn't stack up to cars but that is why over the past 10-15years we have seen the introduction of airbags - that could be the other way of stopping so many fatalities in light aviation through head injury.

Just for comparison here are the UK Fast Jet Cat4/5 through-life accident stats from Defence Analytical Statistics Agency
Sea Harrier: 1.88/10,000fg hrs (>1979)
Jaguar: 1.02/10,000fg hrs (>1973)
Harrier GR7/9: 0.97/10,000fg hrs (>1988)
Tornado GR1/4: 0.59/10,000fg hrs (>1980)
Tornado F3: 0.28/10,000fg hrs (>1985)
Compare to 2.32/10,000fg hrs total for Light Aircraft and 0.14/10,000fg hrs fatal for Light Aircraft. :eek:

PS- Happy Christmas Phil :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

PPS. Here's a microlight helmet that fits with a Dave Clarke style headset and costs about £100 each - saving lives need not be so expensive...

http://shop.flybubble.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/m/m/mm021_-_001.jpg

[Basil]

If you use an extension cable, PLEASE, PLEASE make sure you take it with you when you leave. If you find you've mislaid it, DO go back and check the aircraft from the pedals to back all the way inside the fuselage with a bright torch.
It is for good reason that I bang on :O

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Thanks for bringing this back Basil. For such a boring thread title it's got a lot of bite (off subject perhaps) and I just love our incredibly talented colonial cousin and his modest and understated comments. However I believe I've found a gap in Guppies qualifications.. he is not a professionally trained navigator (I am) which would account for his laughable suggestion that flights should only be planned where suitable off field emergency landing sites are available perhaps using roads. In UK, apart from parts of Scotland, you can't even move a car on the roads and the fields are so small and full of livestock that the sheep sleep two high.
Do come and pay us a visit Guppy, and you may wear any one of your many hats.:ok: