Thanks Bronx - it is clear that this is likely to result in a chain of posts so clearly a new thread is called for.
The picture below was posted on the Photo thread by 'oscar bravo'.
After viewing this picture, I posted the following:
Well Oscar Bravo - it is nice to see you are safety conscious and are wearing a helmet.
Is it possible to see the risk assessment that went along with that.
In fact I was trying to make a serious point; the pilot had considered the consequences on his health following a crash but was involved in an activity (rotors running with no-one at the controls) that, following a risk assessment by a number of authorities (including ICAO), is discouraged.
After a post by 'Heliringer' on my observations, the following was observed
My comment wasn't about the size of the pad per se - although it is small; it was the combination of location, small pad and rotors-running without a pilot at the controls.
'Remote Hook' further commented
There is nothing wrong with that what so ever. Happens ALL the time
In fact this was an interesting comment because in a previous thread on the wearing of helmets, 'Remote Hook' had posted the following:
I think in this day and age, not wearing one is just plain ignorant. They cost what they cost, and they save lives. It's like the seat belt argument, there's always someone willing to fly in the face of wisdom and common sense.
Clearly, Remote Hook's comment on the wearing of a helmet was based upon a risk assessment of the likelyhood and consequences of a crash and, reference to seat belts was based upon a risk assessment of likelyhood and consequence of a car crash conducted by other expert groups (not getting at you Remote Hook only the ambiguity of the argument).
In another thread, a question has been raised about 'self regulation' replacing prescriptive requirements. Clearly no-one wants to see the accident rate increase (particularly when we have a number of initiatives aimed at reducing the accident rate by 80% in 10 years); any move away from prescriptive requirements can only be contemplated if operators take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.
In such a 'brave new world' will the wearing of helmets become the norm but the risk associated with the operation in the photo be deemed to be acceptable. A similar discussion followed a post, in the same vein, about the relative risk of sitting in uncomfortable seats for thousands of hours as opposed to the 'extremely remote' probability of a crash leading to back damage.
The risk assessment for wearing of helmets is obviously accepted (in the more risk associated aerial work activities), and the wearing of seat belts accepted under all circumstances. Is that as far as we are prepared to go or are we forever to be condemned to the principle that 'it must be all right, we do it all the time'?
Mars
NB:
Oscar Bravo took the ag ops picture. He is
not the pilot.
It is one of several superb pics OB has posted in our
Rotorheads Around the World collection.
Heliport