Helmets in offshore ops? [Archive]

Impress to inflate

29th Jun 2007, 17:42

Our pax in the north sea wear survival suites, re-breathers and most wear plb's (Personal Locater Beacons) The cabin is trimmed and lined and there are no sharp edges or corners. They are provided with "spongy" ear protection and in the a/c they also have ear defenders issued. The crew DO NOT get re-breathers or a lined cockpit. I asked for a re-breather years ago and was told were to get off. I have also asked to wear a helmet and was told that "The pax would complain". Twice I have hit my noggin on sharp objects while in turbulence and f&*k me does it hurt.

Some years ago the crews were instructed by "D Management" to wear safety glasses offshore while re-fueling and pairs of said glasses where place in the door trim of the a/c. NO ONE wears them. If D Management cared about its crew then it would issue modern light weight helmets to its crews.

I for one would have no problem wearing one. Mines a medium.

Swamp76

29th Jun 2007, 17:44

I ditched with a helmet (night, November, sub-Arctic).

The helmet was not hindrance and in fact was a boon in helping to reduce heat loss from the head, better than any touque out there.

Outside Europe, what I have seen, the wearing of a helmet is at the discretion of the pilot (offshore oil flying). Some wear them, some don't. I don't in the summer due to the heat. I didn't in the tropics due to the heat. I expect I will again in the colder weather. I know I should. My copilot is wearing one today.

Never ceases to amaze me what can become an issue in Europe.

BRASSEMUP

29th Jun 2007, 17:57

If you have done HUET training then you would Know that a helmet and a STASS bottle would not encumber U on exiting a cockpit(women and pilots first.) But apart from the limited protection from banging your head, wouldn't a good quality pair of headsets protect your hearing! Having worn a helmet in the Military for many years it was such a relief to fly with headsets in all enviroments. I think it should be an individual choice.

What ever makes you happy!!!!!!!:)

rotordk

29th Jun 2007, 20:06

Some trivial information.

All HLO's AND deckcrew in the Danish sector wears SPH5 kevlar helicopterpilot helmets.

Mayby they know something we don't !!??

diginagain

29th Jun 2007, 21:43

Having worn a helmet during my military flying I can well appreciate the benefits; in fact, I was quite surprised when I started my second career (in the offshore drilling sector) to see aircrew without, but while I believe aircrew should be given the maximum protection available, I foresee a snag.

Someone flying as pax will see the crew wearing electric hats, and will demand that they are made available to all onboard, without understanding the rationale for the crew to have them, nor the need for training in wearing them correctly to obtain the best protection, the supply and maintenance chain, hygiene issues and costs involved, which will have to be absorbed by someone.

To reitereate, in my personal opinion, the provision of helmets for aircrew cannot be a bad thing, but I can't see it happening.

Rotordk, the Danes seem to understand the helideck hazards rather better than others. A company I worked for provided the same helmets for our helideck crews in the UK sector, but without some compulsion to wear them, the helmets remained in the stores.

Brian Abraham

30th Jun 2007, 07:02

Following years of refusal (because all the passengers will want one was the excuse) to allow pilots to wear helmets our offshore company relented and will even purchase the item for you. It's your choice if you want one. And guess what, the passengers couldn’t care less. Indeed whenever the subject does arise the passengers are glad to see the pilots wearing them when it is explained how it adds to THIER safety as passengers.

WLM

30th Jun 2007, 07:09

Uhm... well I have worn one ever since I started flying and don't really give a damn what the pax or the boss may think of my head having protection. 16 years on, and now flying VIPs, I still wear it; had a few narky comments passed many times from cosmonaut, Luke Skywalker, for the more polite ones eheh, but at the end of the day, I made it clear it was take it or leave it...glad to say i am still wearing it
Cheers
WLM

Whirlygig

30th Jun 2007, 08:11

to allow pilots to wear helmets our offshore company relented and will even purchase the item for you.

Can I infer from that, that your employer wouldn't let you wear a helmet even if you bought it yourself? :ugh::rolleyes:

Cheers

Whirls

rotordk

30th Jun 2007, 10:01

diginagain,

I haven't seen or heard of any passengers asking for helmets, even though
100% of them have seen the deckcrews and HLO's wearing helmets (DK sector).
Open ended question......who says the passenger would want helmets.....?

[email protected]

30th Jun 2007, 10:08

Has the AAIB from the Morecombe Bay crash been published yet? - I think that will have something to say on the subject of passengers and helmets (based on what the SAR crews found when recovering the bodies)

Brian Abraham

30th Jun 2007, 11:23

Whirly,
A couple of pilots did start to wear them without any sort of management approval and the management with the reins at the time made no comment, although they were tight fisted when it came to suggestions that the company might contribute to the costs, but as I said they did eventually come across. Previous management I'm inclined to think would have made life uncomfortable for anyone inclined to wear a helmet by regarding them as having less than the required amount of right stuff.

Brilliant Stuff

30th Jun 2007, 11:31

Impress to inflate has made the perfect argument.

It's really a no brainer get BALPA onto it pronto! Maybe by the time you retire you get it. :E I was always told the real helicopter pilots in Aberdeen don't want them plus the pax would want some as well.

helimutt

30th Jun 2007, 12:32

Lets get the headset issue sorted out first for the S76 offshore flying never mind helmets!!! :hmm:
Too bloody loud those S76's, but then again, who would be flying 800 hrs a year in the North Sea? We only work 20 days a month:E:E! :mad:

Helmets? At more than £1k a piece, i'm sure management would rather not discuss this issue.

Impress to inflate

30th Jun 2007, 15:53

Had a chat with the friendly tax man the other week. He was prepared to give a tax break if I was to purchase one. Thats £400 back.

helimutt

30th Jun 2007, 16:21

so, only £600 then. Bargain!:ok:

Still doesn't sort the headset issue out. Can I get tax relief on a headset?

bondu

30th Jun 2007, 16:41

Helimut

Yes!
Speak to your BALPA rep or your friendly taxman!

bondu :ok:

ThomasTheTankEngine

30th Jun 2007, 16:47

Hi Helimut as Bondu said yes you can (But this is provided you empolyer does not suply a noise canceling headset, see the following link;

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM50051.htm

diginagain

30th Jun 2007, 17:13

rotordk, while I agree with you that the vast majority of pax probably wouldn't care either way, I have personal experience of the machinations of otherwise well-intentioned shore-based management.
As in many industries, given an opportunity to meddle in things that don't really concern them..............:ugh:

rotordk

30th Jun 2007, 18:16

Guess it's not the pax then .

diginagain

30th Jun 2007, 18:30

The pax are happy to get a ride home. It's the irregular visitor who might wonder why, if the front-seaters wear a bone-dome, why can't the SLF?

rotordk

30th Jun 2007, 19:01

mayby the irregular visitor should wonder why the airport busses don't have seatbelts for the passengers, but only for the busdriver.

diginagain

30th Jun 2007, 19:07

Ah, but in the UK our buses are fitted with seatbelts for the pax.

rotordk

30th Jun 2007, 19:26

I recall the busses driving you to your departing aircraft lacks the mentioned safetyfeature in UK airports. I vaguely recollect the missing seats, but the straps overhead where there(not wellsuited for vertically challenged people).
The point is.....why can a person (irregular visitor..) with no aviation background be capable of determining the safety of something they don't have a clue about ?
Safety should be our first concern in all aviation decisions, shouldn't it !
Why is there 600 kg of safety-stuff strapped to the helicopter in the northsea enviroment, if the pilot is incapable of flipping the proper switches
at the right time (being unconsicous at the wrong time)!!??

diginagain

30th Jun 2007, 19:32

Q1
why can a person (irregular visitor..) with no aviation background be capable of determining the safety of something they don't have a clue about ?

A1 - Beancounters
Q2
Safety should be our first concern in all aviation decisions, shouldn't it !(?)

A2 - see A1 above.

rotordk

30th Jun 2007, 19:55

Since this tale of wonder has now been investigated and found to be lacking foundations in reality, let's no longer blame the pax for not getting a piece of safety equipment.

helimutt

30th Jun 2007, 21:22

Hi Helimut as Bondu said yes you can (But this is provided you empolyer does not suply a noise canceling headset, see the following link;

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM50051.htm

So, just still waiting to see if the 'promised' noise cancelling headsets are gonna turn up first. Believe they are to be ordered, but painfully noisy till then on some of our 76's.

dpale

1st Jul 2007, 03:51

I find the argument for wearing helmets has taken on an almost evangelical slant much like that used by proponents of bicycle helmets by adults. This makes me worry that first it will be helmets for those who want them and eventually it will be mandatory helmets for all.
One of my better days was when I got out of the military and was able to take off the helmet and put on a headset. The idea of sitting in an S-76 in Karratha in the summer makes my eyes water, having to wear a helmet at the same time would probably bring on early retirement.
On 19 June the Australian newspaper reported that "the inquirery into the Black Hawk disaster on the HMAS Kanimbla last year heard that Capt. Bingley's helmet got snagged on the helicopter's antenna as he tried to escape. He managed to free himself after submerging 30m, but could not be revivied."

Brian Abraham

29th Jul 2007, 03:02

the inquirery into the Black Hawk disaster on the HMAS Kanimbla last year heard that Capt. Bingley's helmet got snagged on the helicopter's antenna as he tried to escape. He managed to free himself after submerging 30m, but could not be revivied
dpale - you believe what you read in a paper? Ask yourself if he could not be revived who witnessed the fact he got snagged. If you want to wade through the inquiry report you will find that it was the co-pilot who got snagged, and further, the helmet saved him from an injury that may well have lead to his demise (my conclusion from the damage the helmet incurred).

The comment about wearing helmets while driving is quite appro as well. A brain surgeon in Oz being interviewed for a road safety campaign opined that there would be far fewer deaths and brain injury victims if car occupants wore helmets.

Brilliant Stuff

29th Jul 2007, 05:54

To me the helmet will save my hearing anything else is a bonus, as regards to cool. I can not see that catching on down the Essex high street. IMHO.

Why not leave it as free choice? After all we don't all wear Y-fronts.:ugh:

OffshoreHeli

29th Jul 2007, 08:04

Cannot imagine anything worse than flying for 8 hours in a helmet. Like others I was glad to give mine up when leaving the military.
Remember you do not, like me, speak for all North Sea pilots so stop trying to ram your ideas down our throats. At present there are far more important issues on the North Sea like lack of communications and no radar cover past 80 nm which seem to be taking forever to sort out.

T4 Risen

29th Jul 2007, 08:09

P3 do you fly north sea? or commercially at all for that matter? If not then you probably don't appreciate the type of weather conditions that we have to endure, severe turbulance is not uncommon and with all the switches knobs and buttons above and around our heads i would feel alot safer wearing a helmet than not. On nearly all platforms at some stage one member of the crew has to get out of the helicopter and on the rigs All personell working outside are supposed to wear some sort of head protection.
If pilots find helmets uncomfortable then surely it should be our decision if we want to wear them.
As to your idea that we want to wear them to look "cool". I dont see gucci stamped all over the immersion suits that we wear!!! and if we did want to look cool who would we be trying to impress?.......the hairey a**sed HLO on the heli deck?? :cool:

floatsarmed

29th Jul 2007, 10:06

Not much point doing all that HUET training if you are unconcious?
We had a quick count up over a few beers the other night and out of the hundred or so pilots in the company 15 had been in the water at some point in their offshore careers. Some more than once!
I guess at the end of the day its a personal choice but for me its a no brainer - helmets on. :ok:

stabout

29th Jul 2007, 11:38

Some very interesting points.
From what I have read I confirm my thoughts that the North Sea needs helmets and the sooner the better, I do believe that it should be a personal choice so for those that do not wish to wear them may not.
My question is now how do we go about getting them provided? Should we go through BALPA and leave it to them?
As with all issues like this it takes a vast amount of time for anything to be agreed. For those that don't want to wait that long can we just start wearing helmets if you already have them?
If we do and the operator starts to object can you carry on wearing it?:confused:

Droopystop

29th Jul 2007, 13:12

TTT,

Having done both SAR and NS, there is no comparison between the environments. The only commonality is the sea. The bottom line is that when NS, if you loose an engine, you will fly away; at times in SAR, if you loose an engine you will crash. That is why SAR pilots wear helmets. And certainly in the machines I have flown, I have never knocked a switch with my helmet, even in the mountains where the turbulence is far greater than anything in the NS.

Helmets are bloody uncomfortable in hot weather and in my opinion offer poorer noise attenuation than a standard headset.

For my money, STASS before helmets.

RedWhite&Blue

29th Jul 2007, 13:38

Droopystop
The bottom line is that when NS, if you loose an engine, you will fly away
I guess you didn't fly an S76 A+ at 10500 lbs on a hot windless day...
Just before CDP when landing and just after TDP departing (using the approved procedure), the outcome is not guaranteed. You may have no option but to ditch.
The introduction of PC2e should save a lot of grey hair.
Red

Staticdroop

29th Jul 2007, 14:37

Like a few of the other posters on this site i have flown in other environments and they are not the same as the N. Sea. HEMS, PAOC, Mil and pipeline all have one thing in common they are all close contact flying with a greater than normal chance of coming to a sticky end. N. Sea is pretty much like an airline and last year on my hols i didn't see one of my plank bretheren with a helmet on or come to think of it an immersion suit. I have experienced some atrocious turbulence on the N. Sea and i have had no concern about bumping my head, if we start getting to paranoid about it you'll end up in an immersion suit with helmet on your way to disneyland.

OffshoreHeli

29th Jul 2007, 14:40

Instead of worrying about helmets lets all fly helicopters that have the power to stay airborne in the event of an engine failure. The only time I would want a helmet is for walking in the cabin as I occaissonally bang my head on the fresh air vents, no hair, maybe I'll go for a wig.
I would like a 4 point harness and helmet in my car for all the idiots driving about, but we do not have them do we.
No for me helmets are a no no.

RedWhite&Blue

29th Jul 2007, 15:56

Staticdroop
N. Sea is pretty much like an airline and last year on my hols i didn't see one of my plank bretheren with a helmet on or come to think of it an immersion suit.
While travelling to your holiday destination did you see those fixed wing pilots flying multiple short shuttle sectors, at night, at 500ft and below, down wind, in 50kts, landing and departing onto flat top decks of 16m diameter? A typical winter evening’s work in the SNS.
Was their cockpit as cramped as a S76 or AS365 ?
How noisy was their office?
I for one wouldn’t dream of giving up my immersion suit in the winter, and as for helmets I can see both sides of the argument.
But should I choose to wear one why should anyone deny me that option?
Red

Phone Wind

29th Jul 2007, 16:39

RWB

You're quite right when you say that an S76A+ won't fly away but you don't mean CDP or TDP. Both of those terms refer to Class One performance and anyway are both different names for the take off decision point. Most helicopters (except possibly the AW139) are usually too heavy to be operated Class One offshore and most S76s that I know of are not modified for Class One elevated heliport operations.

I too have worn a helmet for military operations and some civil operations, but I chose to wear a headset where I work in Africa. Some of our pilots out here chose to wear helmets. I guess it all comes down to whatever you like and what you personally judge the risk to be. As for wearing a headset because you might hit your head on the overhead console - speaks of not having the seatbelt properly fastened!

tistisnot

29th Jul 2007, 17:20

Forgive me, but what a load of balderdash. Helmets are just not necessary on routine offshore tasks.

Safety is a compromise - despite whatever the "never over my dead body" experts say. Helmets would have been little use in most of those catastrophic incidents we have all read about. Basic airmanship and HUET training allow the remainder to escape.

Mitigation - spend the money on more sim / loft training and avoid the sudden / uncontrolled entry into water.

RedWhite&Blue

29th Jul 2007, 18:36

Phone Wind
Thanks for that. I was on earlies this morning! :zzz:
As I understand it, in order to conduct Performance Class 1 and Performance Class 2, helicopters must be certified to satisfy the Cat A criteria of Jar Ops3.480(a)(1). The S76A+ was certified as Group A under BCAR Sec G, which is acceptable under the the provisions of IEM OPS 3.480(a)(1)
As I remember the Sikorsky S76A+ flight manual refers to CDP for both Gp A take off and landing, whereas TDP clearly a Take off term. Maybe I would have been better off using TDP and LDP as generic terms.
The AW139 does perform to Class 1 at MTOW offshore, and it makes for a much less stressful departure. It is the way ahead :ok:.
Whatever, the important part of the debate, as illustrated in your reply, is that you choose to wear a headset and some of your colleagues choose to wear helmets. Happiness!
Maybe we should all get opportunity to choose.
Red

[email protected]

30th Jul 2007, 11:00

The Morecambe Bay crash shows that it doesn't have to be an engine failure that puts you in the water. Helmets for those pax involved in an uncontrolled ditching will increase their chances of survival.

Staticdroop

30th Jul 2007, 17:35

RedWhite&Blue
flying multiple short shuttle sectors, at night, at 500ft and below, down wind, in 50kts, landing and departing onto flat top decks of 16m diameter? A typical winter evening’s work in the SNS.
Do you do that every night... do you fly outside the limitations of the aircraft and/or company Ops manual if not then you are within a reasonably safe environment, don't make it out to be something it's not.
I for one wouldn’t dream of giving up my immersion suit in the winter
Me neither, but then again it is mandated through the regulations.

helimutt

30th Jul 2007, 19:18

Immersion suits when required, yes. Even marginal conditions it makes sense to wear one offshore. Helmets? No way. I can understand the thought behind wearing a helmet but is the risk really that great that us offshore bods need to wear one? I don't think so. Also, performance on say an S76A+/C whatever, is acceptable to the powers that be and proper planning will give you some margin for error. 139's would be nice all round but not all companies want to spend money when they can get away with not speding a cent and keeping old a/c in the air.
The exposure time is exactly that. Reduce/minimise the exposure time and you'll have more time to fly away rather than ditch.

Helmets would be good for bird strikes, but do you really think a blade coming through the cabin would have less effect if you're wearing a helmet? I think not.

As for hitting your head in turbulence. Utter cr*p!! Tighten your seatbelt and shoulder harnesses.

RedWhite&Blue

30th Jul 2007, 20:44

Staticdroop
Do you do that every night... do you fly outside the limitations of the aircraft and/or company Ops manual if not then you are within a reasonably safe environment, don't make it out to be something it's not.
Of course the answers to the above is no not every night, but often enough (just ask the guys and girls in Norwich, Humberside, Denes, Blackpool, Den Helder and Esbjerg), and, no not outside either aircraft or Ops manual limitations.
I'm not trying to make "it out to be something it's not", simply trying to emphasise that not all North Sea flying is sitting in the cruise at 3000ft enroute to the Basin as your analogy with an airline might suggest. The guys in the NNS will recognise that too.
And I guess that every time you flew a HEMS, PAOC, Mil or pipeline sortie you were not dicing with death protected by only a thin dome of kevlar, resin and polycarbonate.
With the exception of Military ops in a hostile environment are these not also reasonably safe environments? If not why are we risking the lives of the crews and the people they fly over.
As I said before, I'm not arguing for or against helmets but rather for the opportunity to choose. If I want to wear a helmet why shouldn't I be allowed to? Now, if you feel I shouldn't be allowed to then convince me. Tell me who I will disadvantage by doing so, and why.
Red

mickjoebill

31st Jul 2007, 16:27

North sea pasengers could wear a low cost, low profile helmet, that would cost peanuts but offer some protection.
Something like a rock climbing, mountain bike or skateboarding helmet (£15!) is better than nothing and not inappropriate given the padded interior of the heli.

Mickjoebill

Hippolite

31st Jul 2007, 16:42

I would like to see the industry, collectively between manufacturers , regulators, operators and clients, continue to strive for fixed wing jet transport levels of safety. That would be a proactive stance and is where the offshore industry should be heading.

Manufacturers to continue to improve the integrity of aircraft and autopilots, regulators to continue to ensure reasonable flight and duty times together with phasing out old aircraft and mandating performance standards for new aircraft, operators to ensure that pilots are suitably experienced, trained and crewed, and clients to understand that they have to pay for safety.

In my ideal industry, there would be no need for helmets for anyone. Pilots heads (probably the most at risk with overhead consoles etc.) should be protected with airbags each side of the cockpit which could be deployed by the pilot or automatically. I have 10 airbags in my car, why not in a helicopter?

Brian Abraham

1st Aug 2007, 01:39

The argument that fixed wing pilots don’t wear them does not hold water as the dynamics, environment and tasking of the two machines are completely different, particularly when it comes to crashing. In one particular 76 crash the uninjured Co-pilot was trapped in his seat. The Captain helped the crash crew extricate him but 45 minutes after the crash the Captain dropped dead as a result of a seemingly minor bump to the head on the broom closet during the crash. I’m a short ass, and didn’t like the 76 cockpit as I knew the overhead switch panel or door pillar were so close that a lobotomy might very well be in the offing should the worse happen (and I know a lot of people would say that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing). :p

In the 30 years of operation of the company I worked for we never had occasion to use an emergency exit, life raft, life jacket, immersion suit, or any other item of safety equipment. Is that a good argument that we could/should rid ourselves of all those items and save a bunch of money?

This is the official report of an accident in which a pitch change link became disconnected from a blade. It is because of this type of scenario that I personally would make helmets mandatory for helo pilots.

Bell 412 N524EH Girdwood, Alaska 6th May 1989

WHILE IFR AT 10,000 FEET OVER MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN, THE HELCIOPTER EXPERIENCED VIOLENT VERTICAL VIBRATIONS, WHICH CONTINUED UNTIL THE CRASH-LANDING ABOUT FIVE MINUTES LATER. ON BOARD WEATHER RADAR WAS USED TO GUIDE THE HELICOPTER AROUND THE MOUNTAIN TOPS, WHICH WERE IN THE CLOUDS. AT ABOUT 200 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND, THE HELICOPTER CAUGHT FIRE, TAIL ROTOR CONTROL WAS LOST, BOTH ENGINES QUIT, AND CYCLIC CONTROL BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. THE HELICOPTER WAS DESTROYED BY POST-CRASH FIRE. ABOUT ONE HOUR OF FLT TIME EARLIER, THE HELICOPTER HAD UNDERGONE AN INSPECTION, DURING WHICH THE MAIN ROTOR FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM BOLTS HAD BEEN RETORQUED. ALL BUT ONE OF THESE BOLTS WERE FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE. HOWEVER, THE ROD END FOR THE MISSING BOLT WAS FOUND.

What the report does not say is that the vibration was so violent that the electrical panel fell down from the overhead, the pilots were bounced so violently in their seats, even though their straps were tight, that their heads went through and broke the overhead green house windows and their heads were continually beaten against the door pillar. What saved them? They had helmets (injuries were classified as minor/none). Both engines quit and caught fire because they had been torn from their mountings by the vibration.

Certainly there have been accidents/incidents in the fixed wing world where the pilot would have been better off with a helmet. I know one chap who was flying a Seneca who was rendered unconscious in turbulence by the door pillar. He has no idea how long he was out to it (was solo) but the aircraft was still more or less straight and level (no autopilot) when he woke up. A Pa28 pilot in the US had the same experience, but unfortunately when he came too he did not regain his vision and despite help from flight service subsequently lost his life in the crash.

Have a look at the photo below for what happens when blades decide that they have a life of their own. I did have a very evocative and poignant photo of the RHS pilot slumped in his straps with his head on his chest and the LHS pilot was no where to be seen (you can see what’s happened to his seat). A helmet won’t save you every time but there is many a pilot who thanks God he was wearing a helmet when that blade came through the cockpit, many of them humble R22 mustering pilots.

Safe flying folks. :ok:

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/53.jpg

Lonewolf_50

8th Sep 2010, 12:44

EDIT: Gentlemen and ladies, I discovered that this post was moved from the Cougar S-92 crash thread, which is the context of the quote and my observation.
LW50

Is the TSB implying that the crew may have been able to escape if they had been better protected?
Interesting question.

In 1989, Tom House died in a Seahawk mishap off of Point Loma California (RIP, Tom). Tail Rotor loss of thrust led to an immediate ditch scenario. Henry Harris, Pilot Flying and the AW (Darnit, name not on tip of tongue) egressed successfully. Navy crew, all three were wearing helmets, etc, and usual flight/flotation gear.

Tom, PNF, was knocked out, as best as they could reconstruct afterwards, at water impact. Wearing helmet, when the seat stroked (they didn't hit the water gently, Henry's back was a mess for some time after the crash) his head snapped down and forehead met cyclic stick. Bad luck of geometry. Hard to egress when you are not conscious. :{

Even with a helmet, there is no guarantee that with a hard landing in a ditch/crash one will avoid injury ... but it's the way to bet.

Not sure how that would have helped in this mishap.

Horror box

8th Sep 2010, 13:33

I sense the old question of helmets for crews is going to surface again soon, so it may as well be here, and it is a good point raised. There are many pros and cons, and whether it would have helped in the cougar accident is possibly doubtful, but the example above shows that quite possibly a helmet saved two lives. I have known quite a few people who have escaped accidents relatively unharmed, albeit with chunks missing from the helmet. There is generally far more to meet you face and head in the cockpit than in the cabin, and as many will testify to, the event is not over on impact with, or landing on the water. It is vitally important that the crew are still in some sort of conscious state to sort out the ensuing mess, including getting the aircraft properly stabilised and shut down, floats and rafts deployed, and the co-ordination of the egress. Many will complain of discomfort from wearing helmets, but modern design is making this easier. The problem is, as ever money, and until the oil companies push for it, it probably wont be properly implemented. There is always of course a psychological element to ditching, and it is very hard to blame any pilots for this. I hope this is covered in the report, and the idea of ditching in heavy seas with very cold temperatures will never be appealing, especially if one does not have full confidence in safety measures. It remains that most crews do not fly with helmets nor any form of re-breathing apparatus or STAS (Short Term Air Supply), and it just might be possible that this is one small factor that adds to the delay to ditch straight away, when possibly one should. The decision to ditch will never be an easy one, and never be completely black and white. It will be a complex analysis of many factors and a decision based on an assessment, not least of which is "what gives us all the best chance of survival?". Cold water, heavy seas, maybe darkness, no rebreather/STAS, relatively long rescue time, poor survival suits will all pretty much stack the odds in favour of at least a few deaths in most cases. A difficult decision indeed, but maybe it would be a little easier if the best available survival equipment was made available to all, thus mitigating at least one of the factors for assessment.

212man

8th Sep 2010, 13:55

HB makes some good points, as usual. Personally, I've wanted to wear a helmet for over 20 years - I'm sure any 332 pilot with any imagination has spent some time in the cruise working out where those bolt heads were going to make contact in a hard impact! Or a 212 rotor brake, or harness guide etc etc. The biggest single aid to escaping a ditched helicopter (or burning one) is being conscious.

We have used STAS for 4 years now, and are about to start wearing helmets. Who knows what benefit there would have been for this unfortunate crew, but I hope we can move away from the "it might worry the passengers" mentality that seems to have prevailed for some time now.

Lonewolf_50

8th Sep 2010, 15:12

Horror box

8th Sep 2010, 17:14

Horror Box, I don't think the helmets necessarily saved the lives of Henry nor his crewman. There was no cyclic stick in the rear cabin, and Henry is/was quite a bit taller than Tom, so different seat stroke geometry, and had the controls in his hands, which may have influenced where cyclic was relative to body as his body reacted to seat stroke.

What I was trying to point out was that even with a helmet, you can still get a blow to the head that will be an obstacle to your surviving the crash. (Had Tom and Henry ended up over dry land with as firm a landing, Tom would have lived thanks to not breathing in water after impact).

Point taken, and perhaps a bad example for me to use, and I agree that a helmet wont always save you, but if, say, approximately 70% of your melon is covered in kevlar, then I would say that reduces your chances of a blow that could render you unconscious by a fair amount!

212 -
We have used STAS for 4 years now, and are about to start wearing helmets. Who knows what benefit there would have been for this unfortunate crew, but I hope we can move away from the "it might worry the passengers" mentality that seems to have prevailed for some time now.

That is good news, and I didn't realise you lot were using STAS. Maybe you could have a chat with our management. We are however starting to see the use of helmets here, although only on a very limited basis, and only if you have some sort of hearing issue based on a statement from a doctor. Having used a helmet for a large part of my career in my former flying job, I felt a little uncomfortable at first without one, and still wonder what my chances are in the event of a crash. My theory being that with pretty much any forward motion at the point of impact, you are going to get a fairly firm kiss from various parts of the cockpit, most likely from the circuit breaker panel behind as you head whips backwards and quite possibly the top of the instrument panel. In this instance a helmet will certainly help, and could very likely be the difference between remaining conscious or otherwise.

Lonewolf_50

8th Sep 2010, 18:30

My theory being that with pretty much any forward motion at the point of impact, you are going to get a fairly firm kiss from various parts of the cockpit, most likely from the circuit breaker panel behind as you head whips backwards and quite possibly the top of the instrument panel. In this instance a helmet will certainly help, and could very likely be the difference between remaining conscious or otherwise.
As Jose Jiminez once quipped, when Ed Sullivan asked if that was his crash helmet:

"I hope not!" :eek:

Pilots wear one anyway, in certain occupations.

Horror box

8th Sep 2010, 20:15

I should also state that these comments were specific to the S92 design, with regards to the hazard from the panels behind, but it will be fairly common I imagine, and certainly of the various types I have flown over the years, it would be a fairly common hazard.

212man

9th Sep 2010, 01:26

HB, do you not have head restraints on your seats? We have the Martin Baker 'Hi-comfort' seats, fitted with them.

Horror box

9th Sep 2010, 06:33

Some do, but some have also been removed, I am not quite sure why. We do also have the high-comfort seats now, which I am sure you will agree are a big improvement over the older "no-comfort" seats.

industry insider

9th Sep 2010, 06:48

When training, should we not wear helmets in the simulator as well, the cockpit is the same and a sudden deceleration could be quite violent.

WLM

11th Sep 2010, 02:04

212man, m damn jealous u guys are finally going to get ur domes... as for the STAS, well u r light years away from us; we r still flying in the stone age offshore scene in my side of the Sth China Sea lol....

Tried to take my own STAS a few years back and was seen as being a trouble maker and could be sued by the local air authority body :ugh: as for wearing my own helmet, uhm another :rolleyes:

Epiphany

11th Sep 2010, 04:03

I wore a helmet for 15 years in the military and I am glad had the protection as the flying was -by civil standards - risky. I flew HEMS, SAR and firefighting when I left and also wore a helmet and again was glad because of the inherent risks.

I now fly offshore and am glad that i don't wear a helmet as it has to be one of the safest forms of flying around and helmets are bloody uncomfortable - even a well fitting Alpha. My David Clark headset is a blessing after 6 hours in 40 degree temps.

Wear a helmet if you want by all means but don't make the things mandatory.

Wear one in the sim? Give me a break. Might as well wear one in the car.

industry insider

11th Sep 2010, 15:03

Epiphany

I was having a laugh about the sim!

Macaco Norte

11th Sep 2010, 15:42

Epiphany

I also spent 15 yrs flying with a mk4A. Then an Alpha with the plod. I am now on the SNS and would not be able to offer 1 reason as to why a helmet wouldn't benefit.
Nothing worse than having to break the seal of a crap peltor headset, when flying a 76c, to don a pair of sun glasses. To exacerbate what is already inadequate hearing protection. No need with a helmet that would have a dark visor, Cost less than £1000 with ANR, weighs less than 900g and would offer some practical visibility if you were unlucky enough to be floating alone in the North sea, while wearing the current emmersion suit issued to aircrew on the North Sea.

Mac

Epiphany

11th Sep 2010, 15:58

bandit19

11th Sep 2010, 16:59

They will keep the seagulls, and associated parts out of your eyes!

...provided you have the shield down on impact.

3.5 Kg X 135 KTS = Mess and/or Death

But headsets sure are cumfy and the passengers don't complain that they don't have the same protection as you since they have the critical task of sitting there.

My vote is for the helmet.

But hey, we all know there aren't many large sea birds frequenting the Atlantic...

...sarcasm :p

Horror box

11th Sep 2010, 17:40

Good luck with your wishes Macaco and all of you who want to wear one - I have no objection.

I don't plan to have an accident or be floating around in the oggin. I fly a large, well maintained, twin engine helicopter from A to B and back again at 3000 feet and have been flying helicopters for 30 years.

I have more chance of being run over by a bus in the high street and I certainly don't wear one there.

Get a decent headset - Peltors are crap..

Epiphany - I suggest you re-read at least the very first page of this thread, and you will see that this is not just about crash protection. In fact that is a secondary to the real issue, which is the loss of hearing issue. I too wore a Mk4 for my military flying career, and it certainly was not the most comfortable thing in the world, but I certainly had a far better hearing protection than with a headset. In my time in the military, I never experienced any hearing problem at all. After the first couple of years flying S92 I started to get a deterioration in my hearing audiogram tests. We are seeing this now in extremely high incidences, especially on the S92, and have had several cases where pilots have had to stop flying due to tinnitus.
I am very glad to hear that you don't plan on having an accident or floating around in the water, and you will be pleased to hear that neither do I, nor for that matter any pilots that I know. The fact remains however, that I know quite a few others who did not plan on having an accident either, but somehow they still did, and some were also on very safe A to B routes. Some survived and some did not. Personally I hope to god that I never do end up in that nasty scenario where all is going wrong, but I will be prepared if it does in every way possible, including knowing my aircraft, procedures, drills and not letting myself get complacent for a second. Who knows when that lightening will strike or a large bird might take out the tail rotor, or the gearbox fails, or some other form of serious mechanical failure rears its ugly face, or you fly yourself into the water because of some chain of CRM failures during an ARA on your very safe A to B. Or perhaps because you have been flying for 30 years already, it won't happen to you. I don't mean to be flippant, but all these things have happened very recently and caused an aircraft to hit the water. I bet none of those crews planned on an accident either.

helimutt

11th Sep 2010, 18:05

Is this Tinnitus? If I flew for around 3-4 hrs, wearing the company supplied peltor headset in an old S76, Inverter and AC gen whining away in the background, I find that the same evening I get a ticking in one ear which just won't go away whatever I try. The doc says no sign of wax so it's not baro related, he doesn't think. If I don't fly for a couple of days, no more noise and all well again until i fly again. The problem is exacerbated with a number of days flying 3-4 + hours a day. It drives me nuts, but I was led to believe tinnitus is a high pitched squeal/noise?

I'd be happy to trial helmets if it gave me some more hearing protection. I worked in a very noisy engineering environment for a number of years and never had similar trouble or degradation of hearing, until I started flying full time.

Droopystop

11th Sep 2010, 18:16

Birds don't come windscreens very often offshore. When did it last happen in the North Sea.

Can someone prove that helmets provide better noise attenuation than a good headset.

How many pilots who think helmets are a good idea for impact protection lock their seat harnesses on approach and take off?

helimutt

11th Sep 2010, 18:20

How many pilots who think helmets are a good idea for impact protection lock their seat harnesses on approach and take off?

Erm, aren't the shoulder belt inertia systems supposed to do that? If you locked them in place, how would you reach forward if necessary?

Epiphany

11th Sep 2010, 18:53

Horror box

11th Sep 2010, 19:12

Can someone prove that helmets provide better noise attenuation than a good headset.

Yes they can............

stacey_s

11th Sep 2010, 19:23

North Sea bird strke Unst, 1985/6 can.t remember exact date, adult gannet came through the windscreen of a Bell 212 at 200', knocked the pilot out cold (wearing helmet) dismantled itself against the frame behind the pilot and hit the winchman in the face, luckily co-pilot took control landed safely, aircraft smelt of dead bird and fish guts for months, remember wearing face mask when I changed the screen overnight.

S

Horror box

11th Sep 2010, 19:25

As I said HB - I have no objection to anyone wanting to wear a helmet if you think that it will make your North Sea flying any safer. I just think that it is OTT.Of the recent NS accidents that I know of a helmet would have made little difference to the crews concerned.

I expect to be firefighting again later this year and will be wearing my Alpha as will be spending most of the time below 200' dodging, trees, hills, birds, other aircraft and sitting in a 50' hover at 90% TQ. When I get back offshore it will go back in the attic. My choice.

Fair enough, and I don't totally disagree on the overall safety argument. However I wonder what is going to happen in the future if we see an increase of pilots losing their licenses due to hearing loss/tinnitus. There has been a lot of research done recently as to safe noise and vibration levels in the cockpit and the effect on hearing. The conclusions are fairly conclusive and the most recent study in Norway effectively stated that the chances of hearing loss were extremely high in types such as the S92.
I do speculate as to how we will stand with regards to loss of license insurance if we lose it due to hearing loss, in an environment where it was a known probability and proper and adequate precautions to prevent this were not taken. The scenario could feasibly play out whereby the insurance company refuses to pay on the basis that due caution was not exercised. This puts both the individual pilot and the company he works for in a difficult position. The pilot is now forced to sue the company for a very considerable sum in order to cover his loss of earnings. In this day and age of litigation and blame, the insurance companies invest heavily in only paying out when they really have to, so I am sure they will investigate this, and with the evidence all readily available to prove their point, it is hard to argue against it, when it may very well be a preventable occurrence.

Colibri49

11th Sep 2010, 20:33

Not a-bloody-gain ! I have little to add to the previous contributions apart from what has been written already and I hoped this topic had died long ago.

I had to wear a helmet for almost 10 years in the military and the extra weight has left me with difficulty sleeping due to recurring neck pain which results in difficulty finding a comfortable head position on a pillow.

The military doctor suggested that the wearing of a helmet might also have caused my mild form of tinnitus, which increases whenever my neck gets stiff and sore; a certainty whenever I flew with a helmet for more than an hour or two.

The relief of wearing only a headset when I became a civvy pilot was wonderful and if I'd been required to wear a helmet during the subsequent 30 years, I would probably have lost my pilot medical before halfway through my career.

I have a good suspicion who started this thread and I can't help thinking that "image" might have played a part in his thinking. All I can say is that the risks of serious head injuries to North Sea pilots who wear only headsets are vanishingly small historically, but the health risk to me of wearing a helmet is absolutely 100%.

If you can persuade our employer to stump up the costs for this somewhat pointless exercise, then please ensure that the wearing of such will remain optional. Furthermore, I know more than one passenger whose nervousness would be increased to perceive that the pilots are dressed as if going into a war zone.

Why not go the "whole hog" and get us modified seats so that we can wear parachutes in case the main rotor stops turning too? After all, up at flight level ridiculous in an EC225 there would be sufficient height. You might think I'm being facetious, but that's how some of our passengers think.

Horror box

12th Sep 2010, 07:37

Colibri,
I don't think anyone is suggesting that helmets be mandatory, nor do I for one second think there is any "image" or fashion element as you seem to think. That comment I found rather amusing. Having worn the military helmet for many years, I totally agree that it was a heavy and uncomfortable beast, especially when flying with NVG's for long periods. The difference however with new modern helmets is huge. Much lighter and more comfortable, and the key is that they offer a huge benefit for noise reduction. I personally do not wear one yet, as I want to also see all the options, and personally if a really good ANR was available, then perhaps that would be the answer, but right now the helmets seem to offer the best overall protection. Even with a good ANR headset, when you have to wear sunglasses you lose a lot of the protection.

Colibri49

12th Sep 2010, 08:29

The sunvisors, even the light gray ones, in the EC225 are sufficient sun protection for my eyes. Even before I was forced to wear glasses, I almost never used sunglasses in the military and simply 'squinted' my eyes to reduce glare. I found that sunglasses irritated me and sometimes gave me a headache.

The stems of my prescription glasses don't let extra noise into the earphones, as the pads have settled around the stems to make a full seal. We are issued with reusable individually shaped earplugs which do a fantastic job of filtering out unwanted noise, so additional noise reduction offered by helmets is not an issue for us.

Sunburn also isn't an issue when flying over the North Sea. I have a skin type which is highly intolerant of strong sunlight and I use SPF 50 in sunny latitudes. In 30 summers here, I've never gotten sunburned in a helicopter.

So, hearing problems can't be blamed on a combination of earphones and sunglasses; properly fitted earplugs take care of that. Sunburn is a non-factor for North Sea pilots. All that leaves is head protection in the event of a crash. About 40 years of North Sea oil exploration history tells us that not one life might have been saved by the wearing of helmets. Q.E.D.

2papabravo

12th Sep 2010, 08:44

I can't help feeling this issue is rather simple:

1) Does clear evidence exist regarding the noise reduction? Numbers rather than the anedoctal...

2) What is the weight of a modern helmet vs a company issued headset? An actual figure...not people talking about their old mil/civ helmets...

Once we have some facts rather than 'opinions' - this debate can move in a sensible direction. I think the nervousness of passengers is blown out of proportion. The notion that they would be quaking in their boots because we sit up front with helmets on is laughable. They are not stupid - simply keep them informed that its because we spend our working life inside a high noise-level environment and we require increased protection (assuming those facts I asked about demonstrate this). I'm sure they will quickly drift off back to sleep or get back to their paper. I saw people wearing helmets getting into Schweizers during training - it didn't drum up emotions of a 'war-zone' Colibri. Nor would it for PAX as they climb into their air conditioned, well lit cabin for their 1.5 hour flight to work.

I think its my back that's going to give out first rather than my hearing...where's the thread on that?? ;)

2pb

Senior Pilot

12th Sep 2010, 08:51

I think its my back that's going to give out first rather than my hearing...where's the thread on that?? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Helicopter pilot back problems (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/305794-helicopter-pilot-back-problems.html) :ok:

2papabravo

12th Sep 2010, 08:59

Now that is service!

Thank you Senior Pilot :)

Colibri49

12th Sep 2010, 09:06

I say again, hearing isn't an issue. Properly fitted earplugs take care of that. Discomfort of helmets is definitely an issue. Even if they weigh next to nothing, the wearing of anything close-fitting around the head creates extra heat and for people like me, that means sweating and itching.

Discomfort of any kind increases fatigue, so I would be campaigning for a further reduction in flying and duty hours a la the reductions we already have to compensate for wearing immersion suits.

We would also need to take mandatory breaks of at least one hour between flights, such as my company already allows after 4.5 hours in immersion suits.

Fatigue increases risk and no doubt our passengers would be interested to know that many pilots will feel more fatigued while wearing irritating and distracting helmets during ARAs, etc.

Horror box

12th Sep 2010, 09:56

Colibri,
if you are comfortable, and have been issued a decent headset, then great for you, crack on with that. Don't dismiss all of the other accounts though just because they don't match yours. You also forget that this can be quite type specific. When I flew the Puma, some years ago, I had no great problem with the noise, and agree that the sun-visor in aircraft was of great help. In the S92 the problem and aesthetics are different. The main problem in the S92 comes more from pressure wave through the top of the cockpit from the 4 blades. This is especially apparent in the right hand seat. This was something I never experienced in a Puma, nor any other type for that matter. Many pilots in the 92 are experiencing serious tinnitus after a short period of time due to this. Simply wearing a cap reduces this somewhat, and putting a newspaper on top of your head reduces further (although looks bloody daft, and probably would scare the pax more than a helmet), but a fifth blade would really help. I suspect that most of the supporters of the wearing of helmets are from the S92 community, and many of the nay-sayers from other types, so please take this into your consideration when you so quickly dismiss the benefits.

Droopystop

12th Sep 2010, 10:02

Helimut

Erm, aren't the shoulder belt inertia systems supposed to do that? If you locked them in place, how would you reach forward if necessary?

My rather elementary understanding on how inertia reels work is that they only work in response to acclerations in one or maybe two of the possible six degrees of freedom. I gather that there are many cases where inertia reels have not prevented the cyclic and/or the instrument panel causing injury. That coupled with the regulators requiring a locking mechanism would to me indicate that your confidence in the inertia reel is misplaced. As for reaching stuff when locked, I take the view that allowing yourself to be distracted in a critical phase of flight by something out of reach is more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.

Horror Box,

Yes they can............

Would you care to expand on that, perhaps with a link or reference? I have to say I am anti helmet at the moment. I have found helmets to provide less noise attenuation than a headset and I gather that is confirmed by measurements. Moreover, I do wonder why if helmets are so good at reducing noise, why the American military provide their helicopter pilots with supplementary hearing protection. However if there is compelling evidence that a particular helmet provides better noise attenuation than any other means of hearing protection I am willing to be persuaded.

Horror box

12th Sep 2010, 10:25

Droopystop,

I think the main reason the US military provide both is that it is the best combination to afford the best protection. The helmet provides a good protection from vibration and pressure waves heading toward and through your skull, and extra earplugs just make sense to give maximum possible protection in certain frequencies, especially the high pitch. This effectively covers the whole spectrum of vibration and noise. A very good idea, and I believe if I recall correctly the Australian military do the same, for the same reason.
As far as evidence, here is a link. A study conducted by the Norwegian Aviation Medicine Institute, showing the high levels of vibration and noise in the S92 over other types. Sorry if you can't read Norwegian, but google translate does a fairly good job. It would appear hat the Norwegian authorities are the only ones taking this seriously.

http://www.flymed.no/files/Helkroppsvibrasjoner%20og%20stÃ¸y.pdf (http://www.flymed.no/files/Helkroppsvibrasjoner%20og%20st%C3%83%C2%B8y.pdf)

Also see this thread, with more anecdotal evidence.

Hearing problems and flying the S92 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/362452-hearing-problems-flying-s92.html)

Horror box

12th Sep 2010, 11:12

Very very briefly to summarise the article - The S92 has a vibration level 42% higher than that of the Super Puma. 85db is considered to be the absolute maximum, and at this level damage can be expected. It is recommended that the level be closer to 70db for a safe working environment. The S92 is often above 85db and can be considerably higher. In all categories the S92 vibrates more and has higher noise levels than other types tested.
My point point is to the anti-helmet argument, you must take types other than your own into consideration, and the fact that there is documented evidence to support the idea that noise and vibration levels are above an acceptable threshold, mean we must do something. The aviation medical experts are of the opinion that a helmet provides the best overall protection, and that whilst ANC and other DC headsets are comfortable, as are earplugs, they do nothing to reduce the high vibration entering your skull and damaging the small mechanisms in your ear. There are a variety of solutions, of which a helmet is one. It is also the cheapest and easiest, but maybe not the most preferable to all. The alternatives require major redesign of the aircraft structure and materials used, and are not likely to be forthcoming in a short time period. I recommend for anyone interested to at least google translate the summary of the article posted.

C.C.C.

12th Sep 2010, 12:15

Many pilots in the 92 are experiencing serious tinnitus after a short period of time due to this. Simply wearing a cap reduces this somewhatSo how does wearing a cap help reduce tinnitus? Many of the S92A pilots I work with who wear a baseball cap have their headset on top of the side rim of the cap thus breaking the ear cup seal - same effect as wearing glasses without using the stop gap/eyeglass temple cushions.

Droopystop

12th Sep 2010, 12:42

Horror Box,

Thankyou for the links. I have seen the Norwegian text before, but never translated it although was aware of the increased noise levels experienced by S92 Pilots.

Correct me if I am wrong though, that report doesn't look at noise levels experienced by S92 Pilots (or indeed their simulator) wearing helmets. I think what is needed here is a similar report being conducted with the pilots and the HATS dummy wearing helmets. I suspect that my hearing has been damaged whilst wearing a helmet, I would only wear one again (and gladly) if it is proven to be better than alternatives (or there is an increased risk of crashing!).

Horror box

12th Sep 2010, 15:44

CCC - the cap simply adds an extra layer between your skull and the pressure wave coming through from above, and helps to absorb some of the low frequency waves. It makes quite a difference, and if you try with and without irrespective of whether on top or under the headset, you will immediately notice the difference. Then try and put something else on top of that such as a hood or a newspaper and it gets a lot quieter again. The idea is that the tinnitus is caused by the low frequency pressure waves effect caused by the rotor directly above the head, and anything that cushions/absorbs this between the source and skull will reduce the effect. I am in no doubt as to the validity of this theory.

Droopystop - you are quite right, and as far as I am aware the full benefits of a helmet have yet to be investigated, and therefore I am yet to be fully convinced myself. What we do know is that the levels are unacceptably high. What I am certainly advocating is a much discussion and trial as possible and finding where the solution lies and not just dismissing options for whatever reason. There are multiple factors, as we are all aware, and it is not just noise, but also various types of vibration, and it will probably require a combination of fixes, such as a helmet for vibration and low frequency and ANR/DC or good earplugs for higher frequency. Perhaps there are alternatives to the helmet that offer more comfort such as some form of fitted hood made from a material that will absorb the vibration. This however might upset that fashion conscious amongst us as it may give the impression of a wannabe Russian cosmonaut in the cockpit, and of course we wouldn't want to confuse the passengers!;)

Colibri49

12th Sep 2010, 19:48

Horror box

12th Sep 2010, 21:05

I take orders from my wife sometimes, my employer always, the police in the conduct of their lawful duties and anyone pointing a gun or knife at me. Any other person who tells me "Don't say something" relating to what he thinks others won't want to hear will elicit a terse reply.

I will fight by all means any attempt to impose a blanket requirement for all offshore pilots to wear helmets, particularly if that requirement is applied to pilots flying over the northern North Sea.

I NEVER implied that those who fly types where noise is a serious issue e.g. the S92, or those who fly in other operational theatres where the risk of serious head injuries is significant, shouldn't be provided with helmets.

I'll reiterate and keep on reiterating: 1) There is no irrefutable historical evidence that the wearing of helmets in northern North Sea ops might have saved lives. 2) Even the lightest weight helmets cause heat and discomfort to increase to the extent where it can be a serious distraction for some pilots. 3) If we're forced to wear them, I'll campaign loud and long for mandatory 1 hour breaks free of all flight planning between flights. 4) I'll ask contacts in the offshore unions whether they would feel safe knowing that pilots engaged in critical phases of flight are being distracted by itchy sweaty scalps, caused by wearing helmets.

Finally, I'll calm down and adopt a more moderate tone when I'm given total assurance that the wearing of helmets will never become mandatory.

I do take your points and they are all perfectly valid but for every argument there must be a counter argument, and very often the truth lies between the two! I don't think you need to elevate your blood pressure over a very healthy discussion. I find it very unlikely you will be forced to wear a helmet, even if your company issues them, as long as you have a good reason not to, although the TSB of Canada are not far from enforcing this on their offshore pilots. I do suggest though that you continue to engage in the discussion, and take it as that, and hopefully we all benefit.
As far as your points above - well 1) irrefutable evidence in the North Sea as to where a helmet has saved lives is difficult, I will grant you that. However that does not mean that they have not saved lives anywhere else. I have known quite a few people who have probably owed their lives to their "bone-domes" on land, so they do help. Of course, thankfully, accidents are rare offshore, but they do happen, and the report into the Cougar accident will state that the pilots received head injuries that likely caused them to lose consciousness. Whether or not they would have survived if they had been wearing helmets or not, we will never know, but the families are pushing very hard to have helmets made compulsory for pilots, and they have seen the evidence and been party to an in depth investigation.
2) Helmets causing heat and distraction - this is not exactly objective. Having used an old heavy helmet for up to seven hours during the day in 40 degrees plus, in an old aircraft with no aircon, sometimes at night with NVG, flying low-level and requiring high degrees of concentration, and with people on the ground being really a bit unfriendly toward us on occasion, I can honestly say I did not find my helmet a much of distraction. You get used to it, as you well know. It would have been madness not to wear one. I agree it is more comfortable in some ways without, but i have heard exactly the same argument from people who want a helmet and now wear one - that the noise and vibration is actually a far greater distraction and that a lightweight comfortable helmet allows for a more comfortable, less distracting environment.
3) Our company already has 1 hour breaks between all flights and has done for many years and most of us do not wear helmets. In fact those who are wearing them say they feel less fatigued now than when they did not have a helmet. 4) don't bother asking your contacts offshore if they are happy with pilots having itchy sweaty scalps as they will just realise a bunch of smelly pongos have infiltrated, and will probably just reply that you need better hygiene rituals.

2papabravo

12th Sep 2010, 21:38

Jeez ,no wonder you're a 'sweater'. ;)

We're all free to say what we like so you keep doing it.

It would be nice, if clear data and evidence existed, that if helmets provided increased safety/comfort benefits, we could choose to wear them. Whether paid for by ourselves, or provided by the company - I don't really care. At the moment, the mere notion of wearing them seems to kick up so much stink and I can't understand why.

I don't support a blanket requirement either - but demolishing the idea of personal choice with sensationalist arguments about helicopters dropping out of the sky during ARAs and passengers gripped with fear is simply crazy. You've made up your opinion you don't like them...that's ok...but I'm still open to the idea as others are it seems.

I stuck my sunglasses on the other day...raybans with wire frame...even this thin frame destroyed the seal on my earcup and increased the background noise. At that precise moment I thought how nice it would be to simply stick my visor down had I been allowed to wear a helmet...especially as I had to do several approaches with the sun behind the rig.

I say again my first opinion on this subject - clear, independent data on the matter would be helpful...

Colibri49

12th Sep 2010, 22:07

2) Helmets causing heat and distraction - this is not exactly objective. No it isn't an objective statement and nor could it ever be, in my opinion. Such a matter as whether certain items of clothing or equipment worn by an individual are comfortable can only ever be assessed by the subject wearing them.

Hence I feel justified in making such an observation subjectively. This is the essence of my contention that the wearing of helmets in the theatre where I fly will have to remain optional, just as the wearing of fitted earplugs which my company issued is optional.

We have recently been issued with superb headsets, but after a few hours of wearing them on a warm day it's a relief to take them off. So there's no chance that I'm going to get used to wearing a helmet for hours on end.

It is a precarious route to follow when our employers and authorities start bowing to pressure from groups like families of the bereaved, to decide what equipment we should wear or carry. Particularly in cases where it's uncertain whether such equipment might have made a difference.

For example they could insist that we wear many specified thick layers under our immersion suits, or that we should always wear thermal gloves while flying over the sea rather than trying to don them after a ditching.

It's a bit facetious to suggest that our passengers might regard us as dirty pongos. If they get told that some human beings, i.e. some of we pilots sweat more than others and find the consequent itchiness a distraction, why should they find that hard to believe? They get uncomfortable and sweaty in their immersion suits too.

I wouldn't hesitate to make my AME understand how uncomfortable and distracted any helmet would make me. Having obtained a 'line' from the AME excusing me from wearing a helmet, if my employer were to try dismissing me I would involve BALPA and be pleased if the press were to get involved.

This would probably alert offshore workers to the safety issues raised by potential distraction caused during flight, due to being forced to wear something which could be likened to wearing a hair shirt for some pilots.

Droopystop

12th Sep 2010, 22:28

Colibri,

It is no wonder that you might find a helmet uncomfortable if you get so hot under the collar about what is at the moment a hypothetical discussion. I think the too hot and uncomfortable argument would get shot down fairly easily since, as has been said here before, there are pilots who have to wear a helmet flying in hotter (in every sense of the word) conditions.

I happen to agree that wearing a helmet in the offshore environment is a bit over the top. Head protection is better provided by other safety measures such as SOPs, modern aircraft, training etc. Birds don't seem to go through windows very often. The only scenario I can see where helmets would be introduced is the noise issue and I am dubious if that can be justified. However if helmets are deemed necessary, the solution to sweaty heads is simple - air conditioning.

pohm1

12th Sep 2010, 22:55

Guys flying offshore here in Australia, including myself, wear a helmet if they want to, pilots simply exercise personal choice in the matter.

In 5 years, I've never had a passenger complain about it!

P1

Garry Butler

12th Sep 2010, 23:40

I started flying offshore in 1988. The Company had a policy of not wearing helmets for offshore operations for the only reasons of causing alarm amongst the pax. Shortly after this when H & S started to become more prevalent the Company produced a H & S policy stating to the effect that an individual shall take what ever steps necessary to protect ones body. This snookered the Company and were forced to back down from their no helmet policy offshore. I immediately started wearing my helmet again. The only comment I received and there was only one, from a helideck person was "you are wearing your helmet today". I have worn a helmet ever since, upgrading to the latest Gentex in 2002 with CEP(earplugs with a microphone inside the earplug) and this was a great step forward in technology for noise/fatigue reduction.

otter712

13th Sep 2010, 01:07

Company issued HGU-56 with ANR kit. Would not want to trade it for anything else. Beats my Lightspeed Zulu in every aspect.

Horror box

13th Sep 2010, 06:37

I wouldn't hesitate to make my AME understand how uncomfortable and distracted any helmet would make me. Having obtained a 'line' from the AME excusing me from wearing a helmet, if my employer were to try dismissing me I would involve BALPA and be pleased if the press were to get involved.

This would probably alert offshore workers to the safety issues raised by potential distraction caused during flight, due to being forced to wear something which could be likened to wearing a hair shirt for some pilots.

Once again, nobody is advocating that this should be compulsory, we are simply discussing the pro's and con's, and whether or not it is a good idea and should be made available. Your comments are highly divisive and intentions damaging with reference to "alerting offshore workers" and "involving the press" in you last statement and i would caution you against such action based purely on your own subjective opinions toward safety.

2papabravo

13th Sep 2010, 07:11

Guys flying offshore here in Australia, including myself, wear a helmet if they want to, pilots simply exercise personal choice in the matter.

How very refreshing...the common sense approach. I cannot understand how this couldn't be adopted in the North Sea

In 5 years, I've never had a passenger complain about it!

As I said and expected, the PAX won't batter an eyelid...maybe a slight look of interest the first time they see one in operation...

The only comment I received and there was only one, from a helideck person was "you are wearing your helmet today".

Funny that, appears to support my last statement

latest Gentex in 2002 with CEP(earplugs with a microphone inside the earplug) and this was a great step forward in technology for noise/fatigue reduction.

For some of us, it could actually make a significant improvement in fatigure/distraction Colibri.

I wouldn't hesitate to make my AME understand how uncomfortable and distracted any helmet would make me. Having obtained a 'line' from the AME excusing me from wearing a helmet, if my employer were to try dismissing me I would involve BALPA and be pleased if the press were to get involved.

This would probably alert offshore workers to the safety issues raised by potential distraction caused during flight, due to being forced to wear something which could be likened to wearing a hair shirt for some pilots.

A very dramatic response for something that has proved to pose few issues in other operating areas around the world.

It is a precarious route to follow when our employers and authorities start bowing to pressure from groups like families of the bereaved, to decide what equipment we should wear or carry. Particularly in cases where it's uncertain whether such equipment might have made a difference.

My interest in this topic doesn't stem one tiny little bit from 'families of the bereaved'. I'm simply a pilot, looking to maximise the protection of my hearing, improve comfort when flying in sunny conditions and if it protects my noggin' during an accident then even better. But as I don't plan and contacting the ground/sea...I'm hoping its the first two that I really benefit from.

Colibri49

13th Sep 2010, 08:25

"Divisive" is an accurate word to apply to me, or anyone who just doesn't happen to agree with you. That's what this sort of discussion is about; dividing participants into camps for and against. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

As far as aircon goes, our employer wouldn't spend a penny to get it retro-fitted in these cooler regions of the world. But fortunately it comes fitted as standard in the S92, which is handy for the pilots flying them to get relief from the discomfort which only some may experience due to sweating.

Sweating happens to a minority even in the winter while wearing immersion suits over thick underwear, having cabin heating turned on and flying towards the sun.

So far the majority doesn't seem to agree with me on this forum and nor did I expect it, having been involved in similar discussions previously. But a few comments seem to support my contention that the wearing of helmets shouldn't be made compulsory in North Sea operations.

That's all I wanted to achieve by sticking my oar into this topic. I hope that more North Sea pilots will speak up against being forced to wear helmets, should that situation ever arise. However such developments often start out being sold as optional and become compulsory soon thereafter.

Anyone out there reading this who happens to agree that helmets should remain optional, please be ready to stand up and be counted the first time this subject gets raised again at work. And it will.

Horror box

13th Sep 2010, 09:58

Colibri,
which bit of the "nobody is advocating that this should be compulsory" that I and others have stated over and over again are you not reading? I refer to your comments as being divisive on the grounds that you are threatening to misinform pax and involve the press in some sort of temper tantrum, and that would be divisive within your own company and colleagues not mine. I am fortunate enough to work in a company that is taking this very seriously and conducting thorough investigation and discussion into the topic, and now starting to give pilots the option based on all the evidence and recommendations from our own studies and medical advice. I think you will find that I have also stated that I am not totally convinced myself yet, but am striving to find evidence and a balanced argument for and against. Please read through the thread and actually understand that it is a discussion not some sort of attempt to upset you personally. If you cannot add a balanced argument then maybe it is best not to add anything. As I have stated previously, I believe you have perfectly valid points and welcome the input, but your points are somewhat watered down by you overly defensive attitude and somewhat of a persecution complex.

Colibri49

13th Sep 2010, 10:54

"nobody is advocating that this should be compulsory". Maybe not in your company and I have understood all along that most contributors to this topic have that point of view.

However in my company there is one conspicuous pilot who has pushed for the introduction of helmets and please believe me that if ever my employers decide to get us all fitted with helmets (much more expensive than individually fitted earplugs), they will definitely instruct all of us to wear them.

Before that day might come, I intend to rant loudly and leave senior management in no doubt that the safety case for helmets in North Sea ops is by no means clear cut. Furthermore I would point out to everyone that in our kind of operations, the wearing of a helmet will be a distraction to some pilots and detrimental to flying safely.

When I used to fly forestry operations with underslung loads, I always wore a helmet and accepted the discomfort. It's simply a case of which risks are greater in which operations, as some of you have agreed.

The trouble is management pilots in my company are mostly limited in their flying experiences, knowing little other than the North Sea and if they get a bee in their bonnets about this they won't be likely to listen to the experience of others or common sense.

So if they intend to unilaterally push helmets on to us some day, I'll do whatever it takes to flag up their unilateral actions in advance by making as public a noise as I can for the opposite point of view.

Horror box

13th Sep 2010, 13:06

Ahhh... the crux of the problem is now obvious.

Hughes500

8th Nov 2011, 18:50

C49 if wearing one fatigues you and is uncomfortable suggest you havent had one fitted to you properly and you need to man up on the neck muscles

Colibri49

8th Nov 2011, 19:13

If you could see me, you'd appreciate that neck muscles aren't an issue. I've had military helmets fitted exactly to my requirements and the civilian one of 1980 onwards was very lightweight.

The problem, if you bother to read the previous thread, is that some people get sweaty itchy scalps even when washing hair daily with medicated shampoo. This in spite of flying in mid-winter.

Unlike some other helicopter theatres of operation where flights seldom last longer than a couple of hours before getting a short break, typically North Sea operations can have you strapped into an airframe for 2 flights, rotors running between flights, lasting from 5.5 to 7.5 hours.

When concentrating on performing airborne radar approaches to offshore installations, sometimes at night and usually in bad visibility, the last thing that's needed is distraction from an itchy scalp.

squib66

8th Nov 2011, 19:36

One can only assume there are no itches to scratch in Brunei or a there will need to be baby smooth craniums!

Seriously, if the need to itch is so great I can't see that suffering for 2 hours at a time is any less distracting.

212man

9th Nov 2011, 01:24

Pity the poor old F117 pilots.....;)

Yes - I know the fleet is retired now

John Eacott

9th Nov 2011, 02:23

The problem, if you bother to read the previous thread, is that some people get sweaty itchy scalps even when washing hair daily with medicated shampoo. This in spite of flying in mid-winter.

Unlike some other helicopter theatres of operation where flights seldom last longer than a couple of hours before getting a short break, typically North Sea operations can have you strapped into an airframe for 2 flights, rotors running between flights, lasting from 5.5 to 7.5 hours.

When concentrating on performing airborne radar approaches to offshore installations, sometimes at night and usually in bad visibility, the last thing that's needed is distraction from an itchy scalp.

An itchy scalp, whilst an annoying personal problem, is hardly a discomfort and fatigue issue such as to warrant discarding valuable life saving PE. Without the obvious resolutions such as a skull cap or better shampoo (try Ginger Scalp Care from the Body Shop ;) ) the cool North Sea offshore is hardly an environment hostile to helmet wearing, IMO.

I suspect that such a premise would get fairly short shrift from those in the fire attack community who regularly operate 10 - 12 flying hour days in slightly warmer conditions. Or the mil chaps in Afghanistan, or a number of far worse places. I wonder how they cope with itchy scalps: itchy bums watching for incoming, more likely :p

malabo

9th Nov 2011, 03:08

212man and Zalt,
Couple of helmet program admin questions:
1. If your helmet has a problem and won't work until some parts arrive, can you still crew the aircraft with a headset, or have you got company spares for the pilots, or do the pilots have two, like an immersion suit?
2. If a pilot claims the weight bothers his neck, or has an itchy scalp, can he excuse out on medical grounds or is it now simply a job requirement and he can either wear a helmet or work for another operator?
3. If headsets are an MEL item, how does maintenance sign off a pilot's own personal helmet as aircraft equipment?

hueyracer

9th Nov 2011, 05:29

You ever tried using a "skull cap"?

Never flying without it (when using a helmet, of course!)....

JimL

9th Nov 2011, 06:38

It is my understanding that C-NLOPB Helicopter Operations Safety Committee have recently completed a risk assessment on the wearing of helmets in offshore operations.

It might be worth reading this report because it takes into account the probability of a pilot being involved in an accident (in this type of operations), the likely benefits, the physiological effect of the wearing of the helmet on long sectors, and the likely long term effect on health.

Whilst a good case can be made for the high-risk short-sector type of operations, it is not clear that the same benefits obtain for the low risk, long sector, operations that apply offshore.

Perhaps the discussion should be driven by the data - not emotion.

Jim

Hughes500

9th Nov 2011, 06:55

If it is so safe flying in the N Sea why do the twin engine machines have to have floats ( regularly fly over Atlantinc in a 777 it doesnt have floats !!!!!!!!!), why does everyone have to wear emersion suits, why does everyone have to undergo dunker training ????

Colibri49

9th Nov 2011, 10:18

In over 40 years of offshore operations in the UK sector alone, well over a million flights have been made and easily over 10 million passengers have been transported, by very conservative calculations. For these civilian flights, not once has the absence of helmets been a safety issue in the few ditchings which have occurred.

The logistics of fitting and maintaining helmets for every passenger, which would have to be the case if pilots were forced to wear them, would be difficult to justify in the light of the historical statistics. If passengers were issued only lightweight canoeing style helmets, they could justifiably ask why the pilots get fitted with something more robust.

Furthermore the public address systems in offshore large helicopters are not of the highest quality. As things are, we frequently get complaints from passengers about poor p.a., so close-fitting helmets are just going to make the hearing of emergency announcements worse. I don't believe that fitting earphones to passenger helmets is practicable. (Certification, wiring, radio interference, etc.)

As for all the other safety stuff like immersion suits, flotation, liferafts and EPIRBs employed in offshore transportation, the assumption must be that when ditching on water there aren't going to be violent collision forces such as could knock people unconscious.

Basically if you hit the water hard enough to knock aircraft occupants about violently, then floats will be torn off, capsize is virtually certain and retrieving liferafts almost impossible.

No doubt you could refer to the Cougar S92 disaster and make suppositions about why one passenger survived. Possibly, or even probably, the wearing of helmets could have saved more. But it's such an extremely isolated case in the history of offshore operations.