Originally Posted by
Twist & Shout
I don’t think a helmet, with visor down, should be mandatory, but it should be encouraged.
(Often actively discouraged as it has the appearance of signalling that the operation, a scenic flight in this case, must be “dangerous”.)
I built and fly an RV-9, and to that end wear one of those 'police-style' tactical vests when I fly. It's got a bunch of goodies in various pockets, from my 406 PLB, first aid kit, laser pointer to a small survival kit, etc. It's not about "looking cool", but recognising the fact I
do have a somewhat dangerous passion and I want to do all I can to tip the odds in my favour. It does generate an occasional question at the bowser, but so far as I'm concerned, we had 'em in Army Aviation where we had factory-built birds and professional maintainers - not just a plane some bloke put together in his back shed - and If I could get a helmet to fit under the canopy, I'd have no hesitation in wearing one of those too to better my chances of surviving a prang.
Statistically, the take-off and landing are more dangerous than cruise, and Sea World has their frequent operations down to a fine art - and I speak as a passenger on one of their longer joyflights a couple years back. But one must ask when does PPE (a helmet) become unpalatable in an OH&S context just because it's 'a passenger operation' - given there's documented history of birds coming through helicopter canopies including on the Gold Coast
and helmets are proven to minimise injuries in even relatively minor accidents.
Given the choice of two identical operators, one with a pilot in a Nomex flying suit, work boots & helmet, the other in shirt sleeves, Rayban's and deck shoes, I'd pick the former every time, for the simple reason they're
demonstrating not just
saying they take safety seriously and 'at any cost' and go that little bit extra to try to make sure they go home to the wife & kids at the end of the day. But then again, the KRviatrix does frequently tell me I'm not right in the head so YMMV....
