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.