First the VGSs and now the UASs?
Neither as yet have any crew successfully parachuted from an RAF Grob Tutor and I am not aware that the MoD or RAF ever carried out a full abandonment trial.
LJ,
I do not disaagree that an appropriate harness would make a HUGE difference. However, helmets also have the potential to save lives.
Following is a quote from a fairly recent accident report with which I am sure we are all familiar ( and YES I know harnesses were an issue here too!)
The FSP wore a headset24 provided by the commander, and the commander wore a Campbell Aero Classics hard shell flying helmet with integrated goggles. The RAFCAM report stated that had the FSP been wearing a protective helmet, it is possible that the protection afforded could have reduced the severity of his head injuries
I do not disaagree that an appropriate harness would make a HUGE difference. However, helmets also have the potential to save lives.
Following is a quote from a fairly recent accident report with which I am sure we are all familiar ( and YES I know harnesses were an issue here too!)
The FSP wore a headset24 provided by the commander, and the commander wore a Campbell Aero Classics hard shell flying helmet with integrated goggles. The RAFCAM report stated that had the FSP been wearing a protective helmet, it is possible that the protection afforded could have reduced the severity of his head injuries
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time lurker, first time poster, so be kind please.
I am a member of a UAS and, having read through these comments, wish to perhaps update members on current practises and the reasons we are, at the very least, given for these.
Firstly, the purpose of the UAS is to develop capable undergraduate students through leadership training, whilst exposing them to the RAF/military in an attempt to recruit 30% of students to the RAF - that is the official quota the UAS aims to recruit to the RAF and takes care of itself, largely through the bonds made and the training we participate and, believe it or not, Adventurous Training is a huge part of this. Students today love the fact that if you join the military you could potentially spend a week in the Dolomites and get paid, or spend a week in the Alps and, yes, get paid. AT is one of the biggest recruiters.
On the flying side, this of course also exposes those with no flying experience to the joys of aviation and inherently recruits, too. But, there is no requirement/favouritism given to those wishing to join the RAF as aircrew. If you have zero desire to even join the RAF, you will have the opportunity to fly as much as someone who has just smashed their pilot aptitude and has their OASC date in the diary. In fact, we are openly told that OASC do not necessarily care if you have completed the entire syllabus and then some (however, I find this quite hard to believe). In other words, if you don't wish to join the RAF, wish to join in a ground role or have aircrew aspirations, you can all fly, and will do, as much as each other if you so desire. Where there is a disparity is in the case of Pilot/RPAS(p) bursars; in an attempt to help them succeed during their flying training, they will be offered to progress through the syllabus as much as possible.
Furthermore, re kit. We have been told frequently that the next fatal tutor accident will end the UAS system. Of course, this is speculation, but you can hardly expect the RAF to send Uni students up in an aerobatic aircraft and, if the worst happens, to fail to have the opportunity to bail etc. And, if this was to prove fatal, how does that play out for the RAF in the public view? Also, no helmets? Really? There's a reason we still fly from the right hand seat - the point of EFT/UAS flying is to reduce the potential for failure when pilots get to the deeper stages of flying training. Why put a student up in a Tucano/Texan/Hawk/Typhoon/F35, where the flying would be much more demanding, and make them get used to having a big old, restrictive, helmet on? They are having to get used to increased G, speed and complex flying, so why increase the likelihood of accidents etc at a later stage? Prepare them during EFT.
Also, the UAS does train EFT pilots and we also offer decent holds for post-wing pilots in which they still get to fly. Helps the AEF org, too. This is a win win; helps holdies keep their hands in, but probably doesn't disillusion them nearly as much as if it was an admin hold, for example, whilst helping AEF tick over nicely. EFT training at a UAS is swift; they, obviously, have flying priority and regularly fly more than one trip a day. The UAS can also help clear the RPAS EFT pipeline which also helps to 'recruit' more UAS students to RPAS - you get to form bonds with the RPAS EFT bods and learn more about their training and future role from the horses mouth. This, too, has to be good for the RAF.
Ultimately, the UAS, at the very least, makes a lot of students very sympathetic to the military and does certainly offer a very convincing recruitment tool, whilst helping de-clutter the training pipeline ever so slightly.
I am a member of a UAS and, having read through these comments, wish to perhaps update members on current practises and the reasons we are, at the very least, given for these.
Firstly, the purpose of the UAS is to develop capable undergraduate students through leadership training, whilst exposing them to the RAF/military in an attempt to recruit 30% of students to the RAF - that is the official quota the UAS aims to recruit to the RAF and takes care of itself, largely through the bonds made and the training we participate and, believe it or not, Adventurous Training is a huge part of this. Students today love the fact that if you join the military you could potentially spend a week in the Dolomites and get paid, or spend a week in the Alps and, yes, get paid. AT is one of the biggest recruiters.
On the flying side, this of course also exposes those with no flying experience to the joys of aviation and inherently recruits, too. But, there is no requirement/favouritism given to those wishing to join the RAF as aircrew. If you have zero desire to even join the RAF, you will have the opportunity to fly as much as someone who has just smashed their pilot aptitude and has their OASC date in the diary. In fact, we are openly told that OASC do not necessarily care if you have completed the entire syllabus and then some (however, I find this quite hard to believe). In other words, if you don't wish to join the RAF, wish to join in a ground role or have aircrew aspirations, you can all fly, and will do, as much as each other if you so desire. Where there is a disparity is in the case of Pilot/RPAS(p) bursars; in an attempt to help them succeed during their flying training, they will be offered to progress through the syllabus as much as possible.
Furthermore, re kit. We have been told frequently that the next fatal tutor accident will end the UAS system. Of course, this is speculation, but you can hardly expect the RAF to send Uni students up in an aerobatic aircraft and, if the worst happens, to fail to have the opportunity to bail etc. And, if this was to prove fatal, how does that play out for the RAF in the public view? Also, no helmets? Really? There's a reason we still fly from the right hand seat - the point of EFT/UAS flying is to reduce the potential for failure when pilots get to the deeper stages of flying training. Why put a student up in a Tucano/Texan/Hawk/Typhoon/F35, where the flying would be much more demanding, and make them get used to having a big old, restrictive, helmet on? They are having to get used to increased G, speed and complex flying, so why increase the likelihood of accidents etc at a later stage? Prepare them during EFT.
Also, the UAS does train EFT pilots and we also offer decent holds for post-wing pilots in which they still get to fly. Helps the AEF org, too. This is a win win; helps holdies keep their hands in, but probably doesn't disillusion them nearly as much as if it was an admin hold, for example, whilst helping AEF tick over nicely. EFT training at a UAS is swift; they, obviously, have flying priority and regularly fly more than one trip a day. The UAS can also help clear the RPAS EFT pipeline which also helps to 'recruit' more UAS students to RPAS - you get to form bonds with the RPAS EFT bods and learn more about their training and future role from the horses mouth. This, too, has to be good for the RAF.
Ultimately, the UAS, at the very least, makes a lot of students very sympathetic to the military and does certainly offer a very convincing recruitment tool, whilst helping de-clutter the training pipeline ever so slightly.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the Chipmunk accident thanks did not know that. Re bone domes we all have a view and they have their place but as a Tutor pilot I just do not think the Mark and Model we are expected to wear for cadet flying is worth the grief. Never used a Campbell hard hat sounds good. I did ask if anyone knew about any Tutor crashes where the bone dome helped there might be something out there?
Beardy, if the service expect us to consider bailing out of a Tutor and using the parachute do they not have a duty of care to at least trial this?
Prefect rumour re canopy and head clearance with bone domes just that for the time being.
Beardy, if the service expect us to consider bailing out of a Tutor and using the parachute do they not have a duty of care to at least trial this?
Prefect rumour re canopy and head clearance with bone domes just that for the time being.
Beardy, if the service expect us to consider bailing out of a Tutor and using the parachute do they not have a duty of care to at least trial this?
I too fly the Tutor and have no problem with wearing a flying helmet, despite not having worn one for many years. It's not inconvenient and might just do some good.
Thread Starter
Stitchbitch
I think you misunderstood my post. Yes, of course the bonedome gives you cranial protection, but the only protection that a helmet offers in the average light aircraft accident is facial protection. If you need a bonedome to protect your head from fatal bumps then you are likely not restrained properly! If you think about it, we don’t need or use helmets in cars because the car’s bodyshell gives us that protection as long as we are suitably restrained. A light aircraft is broadly similar, even with a bubble canopy then normally the fin keeps the head away from the ground if the people are strapped in properly. Also, let’s face it the average survivable light aircraft accident is either a mis-judged forced landing, normal landing or take off - i.e an accident with plenty of ‘run out’ where the aircraft comes gently to a stop. For a tent-peg and hard-stop then a helmet is very unlikely to save you. In fact, rather than bother with helmets in light aircraft it makes more sense to invest in air bags - which several manufacturers are now starting to offer.
ASRAAMTOO
Yes, I am well aware of that accident and it was the failure of the straps and the fact that the poor pilot was thrown very many feet that killed him. If he was wearing a helmet it is very doubtful he would have survived anyway given the significant force with which he was thrown from the aircraft. So fitting decent 3/5/7 point harnesses is the way ahead for light aircraft (of which a Yak 52 is at the top end anway) and helmets are really not needed. As seen by the amazing Svetlana Kapanina flying her aircraft below (very lightweight headset and a decent harness). I suspect the Red Bull people do it more because it looks cool...
LJ I’m not quite sure which helmets you’re referring to as not providing cranial protection?
ASRAAMTOO
Yes, I am well aware of that accident and it was the failure of the straps and the fact that the poor pilot was thrown very many feet that killed him. If he was wearing a helmet it is very doubtful he would have survived anyway given the significant force with which he was thrown from the aircraft. So fitting decent 3/5/7 point harnesses is the way ahead for light aircraft (of which a Yak 52 is at the top end anway) and helmets are really not needed. As seen by the amazing Svetlana Kapanina flying her aircraft below (very lightweight headset and a decent harness). I suspect the Red Bull people do it more because it looks cool...
Thread Starter
I have just dug out my notes on this subject, here we go:
The Stevens’ Study. There have been very few recent studies into the pathology, in particular impact injuries, from light aircraft accidents. However, the RAF Halton Institute of Aviation Pathology’s Peter Stevens conducted his MD thesis in 1967 and released his findings in a book on the subject. In it Stevens studied 42 civil fatal light aircraft accidents and 15 military light aircraft involving over 100 persons ranging from PICs to pure passengers. It makes a very sobering read and I recommend it as a read to those in denial of the effects of an aircraft accident on the human body. Stevens made 2 observations. Firstly that shoulder restraint saves lives in light aircraft accidents and secondly that helmets may make a small percentage of accidents survivable. However, the “may” comes from the fact that many accidents result in multiple injuries (organ damage, severe laceration and impact trauma that is purely un-survivable) that helmets would only really improve the chances of survival in a very small number of cases. Indeed, the design of our aircraft has not kept up with the advances in the motor car industry and only the more recent Cirrus and Cessna aircraft have got airbags, crumple zones and collapsible control columns that we know from our vehicles. The results of his study showed that the accidents had the following break-down of injuries:
Fractures
a. Legs 73%
b. Skull 67%
c. Ribs 63%
d. Arms 56%
e. Spine 53%
f. Face 48%
g. Pelvis 27%
Laceration or Rupture
a. Brain 56%
b. Aorta 39%
c. Lungs 36%
d. Heart 35%
e. Liver 35%
f. Spleen 34%
g. Kidneys 23%
In Stevens’ study some 42% suffered from burns and 25% had penetrating wounds to their chest or abdomen. Stevens was very pro towards a helmet in light aircraft, however, it was in conjunction with shoulder straps. Shortly after his book was released the FAA mandated that shoulder harnesses should be fitted to all new aircraft and the rest of the world followed suit. Recently, this has changed again to a minimum of a 4 point harness and exemptions are made by the CAA to allow the diagonal shoulder harness fitted in older Cessnas/Pipers to be continued to be used. The shoulder harness really was the answer to the injuries that Stevens described in his study and the helmet would only help in <1% of fatalities in the survivable accidents whilst shoulder harnesses would have saved more than 16% of the fatalities that were judged survivable. In his book he concluded:
Shoulder harnesses and protective helmets can only be expected to protect from lethal injury in the potentially survivable accident. If they are truly effective in this function, one would expect that relatively few wearing such equipment would die in survivable accidents; most of those killed while wearing such equipment would be expected to die in essentially unsurvivable accidents.(Stevens 1970)
The Stevens’ Study. There have been very few recent studies into the pathology, in particular impact injuries, from light aircraft accidents. However, the RAF Halton Institute of Aviation Pathology’s Peter Stevens conducted his MD thesis in 1967 and released his findings in a book on the subject. In it Stevens studied 42 civil fatal light aircraft accidents and 15 military light aircraft involving over 100 persons ranging from PICs to pure passengers. It makes a very sobering read and I recommend it as a read to those in denial of the effects of an aircraft accident on the human body. Stevens made 2 observations. Firstly that shoulder restraint saves lives in light aircraft accidents and secondly that helmets may make a small percentage of accidents survivable. However, the “may” comes from the fact that many accidents result in multiple injuries (organ damage, severe laceration and impact trauma that is purely un-survivable) that helmets would only really improve the chances of survival in a very small number of cases. Indeed, the design of our aircraft has not kept up with the advances in the motor car industry and only the more recent Cirrus and Cessna aircraft have got airbags, crumple zones and collapsible control columns that we know from our vehicles. The results of his study showed that the accidents had the following break-down of injuries:
Fractures
a. Legs 73%
b. Skull 67%
c. Ribs 63%
d. Arms 56%
e. Spine 53%
f. Face 48%
g. Pelvis 27%
Laceration or Rupture
a. Brain 56%
b. Aorta 39%
c. Lungs 36%
d. Heart 35%
e. Liver 35%
f. Spleen 34%
g. Kidneys 23%
In Stevens’ study some 42% suffered from burns and 25% had penetrating wounds to their chest or abdomen. Stevens was very pro towards a helmet in light aircraft, however, it was in conjunction with shoulder straps. Shortly after his book was released the FAA mandated that shoulder harnesses should be fitted to all new aircraft and the rest of the world followed suit. Recently, this has changed again to a minimum of a 4 point harness and exemptions are made by the CAA to allow the diagonal shoulder harness fitted in older Cessnas/Pipers to be continued to be used. The shoulder harness really was the answer to the injuries that Stevens described in his study and the helmet would only help in <1% of fatalities in the survivable accidents whilst shoulder harnesses would have saved more than 16% of the fatalities that were judged survivable. In his book he concluded:
Shoulder harnesses and protective helmets can only be expected to protect from lethal injury in the potentially survivable accident. If they are truly effective in this function, one would expect that relatively few wearing such equipment would die in survivable accidents; most of those killed while wearing such equipment would be expected to die in essentially unsurvivable accidents.(Stevens 1970)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ thank you for a very interesting reply re injuries.
My point, perhaps badly made at the outset is that if we must a bone dome in the Tutor can we have one designed/optmised for a GA aircraft?
I am flying the Tutor tomorrow and will have to don a helmet which was designed for use in a fast jet with an oxygen mask and I am expected to stick ear plug things in before bone dome to protect hearing. There appear to be better products out in the market place for this sort of work.
My point, perhaps badly made at the outset is that if we must a bone dome in the Tutor can we have one designed/optmised for a GA aircraft?
I am flying the Tutor tomorrow and will have to don a helmet which was designed for use in a fast jet with an oxygen mask and I am expected to stick ear plug things in before bone dome to protect hearing. There appear to be better products out in the market place for this sort of work.
My point, perhaps badly made at the outset is that if we must a bone dome in the Tutor can we have one designed/optmised for a GA aircraft?
I am flying the Tutor tomorrow and will have to don a helmet which was designed for use in a fast jet with an oxygen mask and I am expected to stick ear plug things in before bone dome to protect hearing. There appear to be better products out in the market place for this sort of work.
I am flying the Tutor tomorrow and will have to don a helmet which was designed for use in a fast jet with an oxygen mask and I am expected to stick ear plug things in before bone dome to protect hearing. There appear to be better products out in the market place for this sort of work.
I will not fly in an aircraft that does not have a shoulder harness, full stop. With respect to helmets, I only wear a helmet in conjunction with a parachute in an aircraft where it is realistically possible to bail out of. The advantage of the helmet is to protect you head if you hit part of the aircraft as you are bailing out or hit something on the landing, especially if you are landing in trees.
A bit off topic but if you want to wear additional safety equipment in a GA aircraft then I strongly recommend a pair of nomex gloves. If there is a cockpit fire or you have to vacate a burning aircraft on the ground the ability to grasp something very hot may well be the deference between surviving...... or not.
A bit off topic but if you want to wear additional safety equipment in a GA aircraft then I strongly recommend a pair of nomex gloves. If there is a cockpit fire or you have to vacate a burning aircraft on the ground the ability to grasp something very hot may well be the deference between surviving...... or not.
Thread Starter
Big Pistons Forever
This is where PPruNe needs a “like” button. I agree that gloves are something I always wear when flying GA. I also try to keep away from nylon/polyester and wear cottons/wools and layer up where able. Finally, I tend to wear shades as I only ever fly day VFR in a puddle-jumper - that gives my eyes all the protection they need in a 90-120kt birdstrike (or even worse, drone strike!). I also question the wearing of parachutes if you are flying below 2,000ft AGL as you are probably better off trying to force land rather than bail close to min-bailout height. The helmet with respect to abandonment is also interesting - there are no correlated stats to show significant head injuries pre-1950 when leather/cloth flying helmets were used. In fact, when you think about it you are travelling at the same speed as the aircraft you are jumping from, so serious injury is unlikely, and I would suggest that the helmet is more likely to be of use for the final part of the parachute descent rather than the start?
Like everything, this is all about risk management. You could be trussed up like a chicken, cocooned in impact absorbing flame proof foam and restrained by 9-point harnesses with air-bags - but then the average puddle-jumper would fail to leave the ground and the occupants would die from heat exhaustion with no ability to enjoy the recreational activity of sport aviation! So I agree with your points that sensible precautions against the significant risks (like fire that you mention) rather than the <1% chance of being in a survivable accident where a helmet will save you.
This is where PPruNe needs a “like” button. I agree that gloves are something I always wear when flying GA. I also try to keep away from nylon/polyester and wear cottons/wools and layer up where able. Finally, I tend to wear shades as I only ever fly day VFR in a puddle-jumper - that gives my eyes all the protection they need in a 90-120kt birdstrike (or even worse, drone strike!). I also question the wearing of parachutes if you are flying below 2,000ft AGL as you are probably better off trying to force land rather than bail close to min-bailout height. The helmet with respect to abandonment is also interesting - there are no correlated stats to show significant head injuries pre-1950 when leather/cloth flying helmets were used. In fact, when you think about it you are travelling at the same speed as the aircraft you are jumping from, so serious injury is unlikely, and I would suggest that the helmet is more likely to be of use for the final part of the parachute descent rather than the start?
Like everything, this is all about risk management. You could be trussed up like a chicken, cocooned in impact absorbing flame proof foam and restrained by 9-point harnesses with air-bags - but then the average puddle-jumper would fail to leave the ground and the occupants would die from heat exhaustion with no ability to enjoy the recreational activity of sport aviation! So I agree with your points that sensible precautions against the significant risks (like fire that you mention) rather than the <1% chance of being in a survivable accident where a helmet will save you.
Thread Starter
Perhaps that is something that will be included in the review that sparked this thread. Although I think that the cost of introduction and maintaining the supply chain would mitigate against it, especially when the principle objection so far seems to be comfort and not increased safety and there is an adequate product in use already.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha Helmet, too big and heavy for a slightly built 13 year old cadet imo.
Did the RAF point out to the makers of helmets that while they would be worn by standard RAF pilots the MOD would go on to make air cadets wear them as well?
Did the RAF point out to the makers of helmets that while they would be worn by standard RAF pilots the MOD would go on to make air cadets wear them as well?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK but is it true?
[QUOTE=DCThumb;10435417]
OK does the Prefect, as selected by Ascent, allow two standard RAF pilots to fly it with the existing bone domes?
Or is it the case that the canopy is too low and the bone domes too large?
The Prefect was not selected by the RAF. It is part of a PFI where it is up to the contractor to select/provide the equipment. Ascent chose the Prefect.
[/QUOTEOK does the Prefect, as selected by Ascent, allow two standard RAF pilots to fly it with the existing bone domes?
Or is it the case that the canopy is too low and the bone domes too large?
[QUOTE=Bigpants;10435916]
OK does the Prefect, as selected by Ascent, allow two standard RAF pilots to fly it with the existing bone domes?
Or is it the case that the canopy is too low and the bone domes too large?
Both the Trago Mills SAH-1 (later known as the FLS Sprint) and later versions of the Slingsby T67 Firefly were built with oversize canopies specifically to accomodate bonedomes.
The Prefect was not selected by the RAF. It is part of a PFI where it is up to the contractor to select/provide the equipment. Ascent chose the Prefect.
[/QUOTEOK does the Prefect, as selected by Ascent, allow two standard RAF pilots to fly it with the existing bone domes?
Or is it the case that the canopy is too low and the bone domes too large?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did not know the T 4 could not accommodate two pilots with bone domes.
How did they get around that given the T4 could operate at high altitude and clip along pretty smartly at low level?
How did they get around that given the T4 could operate at high altitude and clip along pretty smartly at low level?