Don your hard hats!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pulse1, I don't see why a helmeted pilot of a multi-seat aircraft would be duty bound to provide similar headgear for all passengers. Helmets are very expensive, and (IMHO) to work well they have to be custom made, or at least fitted with a semi-custom liner.
It would be nice if everyone could have a helmet, but I wouldn't refrain from wearing mine just because a pax had none: my greater safety doesn't adversely affect his (now parachutes, that's another matter).
It would be nice if everyone could have a helmet, but I wouldn't refrain from wearing mine just because a pax had none: my greater safety doesn't adversely affect his (now parachutes, that's another matter).
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm sure FNG would be better able to comment on this, but I imagine that if your personal risk assessment concluded that the risk was significant enough to warrent the wearing of head protection, then, as you owe your passengers a duty of care, you would be required to give them head protection too. To do otherwise would apprear negligent.
If you didn't and they suffered a head injury that the protection could have provented, or reduced it's severity, then I think you'd have a hard case justifying why you saw the need to protect yourself, but not your passengers.
dp
If you didn't and they suffered a head injury that the protection could have provented, or reduced it's severity, then I think you'd have a hard case justifying why you saw the need to protect yourself, but not your passengers.
dp
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Seaguls statistics are slightly out, however his sentiment is not. The original pink aic quoted, 80 percent of accidents involving fatalities or serious head injuries would be avoided with appropriate head gear. The latest aic Pink 175(101/98) states that 5 DEATHS would have been avoided if helmets had been worn. For commercial pilots the CAA will suspend your licence for a considerable time as a result of a head injury.
Pulse 1. Alpha make a pax helmet that is designed to fit varying headshapes.
Parachutes, I use Russian chutes, bloody heavy but will low altitude deploy 500ft (just ask a Sukhoi 26 pilot in Spain. FNG has it spot on, the practicality is in being able to leave the a/c. Doesn’t the Cessna 150 Aerobat have jettisonable doors. As for getting out of a normal aircraft in a chute, is probably pointless.
As in most of flying, safety equipment is a matter of risk management. As I fly older or aerobatic aircraft (Chipmunk-YAK) I wear Kevlar Bonedome, nomex flying suit and gloves. I also don’t tend to flyover large stretches of water. However I am a big girls blouse.
As in all of these cases, present the facts and let the adults make the decision.
Regards
Wide
Pulse 1. Alpha make a pax helmet that is designed to fit varying headshapes.
Parachutes, I use Russian chutes, bloody heavy but will low altitude deploy 500ft (just ask a Sukhoi 26 pilot in Spain. FNG has it spot on, the practicality is in being able to leave the a/c. Doesn’t the Cessna 150 Aerobat have jettisonable doors. As for getting out of a normal aircraft in a chute, is probably pointless.
As in most of flying, safety equipment is a matter of risk management. As I fly older or aerobatic aircraft (Chipmunk-YAK) I wear Kevlar Bonedome, nomex flying suit and gloves. I also don’t tend to flyover large stretches of water. However I am a big girls blouse.
As in all of these cases, present the facts and let the adults make the decision.
Regards
Wide
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublinpilot, you are correct, at least to the extent that there is an argument to be made.
However, an argument can also be made that everyone benefits when a pilot's safety is increased (if he or she is incapacitated - which can happen in circumstances other than a crash landing - who will fly the aircraft?). It is hardly unique for aircrew to be furnished with better equipment than their passengers. E.g., the pilots of most (all?) commercial airliners have much better safety harnesses than the crummy lapbelts back in the cabin, and (I believe) air ambulances do not typically provide their patient-pax with helmets.
In any case, personally I wouldn't let the possibility of an adverse finding in a potential lawsuit prevent me from wearing safety equipment that might save my life ...
However, an argument can also be made that everyone benefits when a pilot's safety is increased (if he or she is incapacitated - which can happen in circumstances other than a crash landing - who will fly the aircraft?). It is hardly unique for aircrew to be furnished with better equipment than their passengers. E.g., the pilots of most (all?) commercial airliners have much better safety harnesses than the crummy lapbelts back in the cabin, and (I believe) air ambulances do not typically provide their patient-pax with helmets.
In any case, personally I wouldn't let the possibility of an adverse finding in a potential lawsuit prevent me from wearing safety equipment that might save my life ...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seagull2200
I haven't read the entire thread (not enough time) but I think there is little point in wearing a helmet in a normal GA type in case of an accident.
If you have an accident during a deliberate ground contact (i.e. a landing) then usually you walk away from it. The plane might get wrecked but unless somebody does something drastically bad they are usually OK.
If you have an unintended ground contact, that is probably flying into a hill in poor visibility or in IMC, and at say 100kt a helmet will make no difference, because the plane will be obliterated.
I do know one man who went into a hill in IMC at (he says) about 120kt, at such an oblique angle that he just ended up in hospital for a while. But that is a one-off.
If you want to wear something, spend your money on the very best headset you can buy: a Bose X
Otherwise, spend it on the best GPS you can buy. <--- that comment will make this thread run and run, but I am getting out of here!!!
I haven't read the entire thread (not enough time) but I think there is little point in wearing a helmet in a normal GA type in case of an accident.
If you have an accident during a deliberate ground contact (i.e. a landing) then usually you walk away from it. The plane might get wrecked but unless somebody does something drastically bad they are usually OK.
If you have an unintended ground contact, that is probably flying into a hill in poor visibility or in IMC, and at say 100kt a helmet will make no difference, because the plane will be obliterated.
I do know one man who went into a hill in IMC at (he says) about 120kt, at such an oblique angle that he just ended up in hospital for a while. But that is a one-off.
If you want to wear something, spend your money on the very best headset you can buy: a Bose X
Otherwise, spend it on the best GPS you can buy. <--- that comment will make this thread run and run, but I am getting out of here!!!
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I kit up to counter the dangers posed by (1) impact to head in forced landing or in aerobatics/spinning ; (2) fire aloft or on the ground; (3) structural failure in flight, and (4) a survived midair (I do not wish to spend my last few minutes alive as a falling leaf). I offer my passengers flying kit and a chute, not so much from a risk assessment/duty of care point of view, but because it seems rude not to (although I'm a lawyer I definitely do not live my life by reference to risks of law suits. Most of the health and safety excesses of the kind deplored by the whinging lawyer-haters in Jetblast are not in reality lawyer driven).
Last Sunday, I meant to take my lifejackets to cross the Solent, but forgot to pack them. In the event, we had to cross at 1000 feet so could not have glided clear if the engine had failed (one Bulldog minus one engine equals one brick sh**house with wings). Some of this safety awareness blah may be down to experiencing the unexpected but happy prospect of fatherhood in middle age: if I die, my wife is well covered by my insurance, but I would like to meet my kid.
Last Sunday, I meant to take my lifejackets to cross the Solent, but forgot to pack them. In the event, we had to cross at 1000 feet so could not have glided clear if the engine had failed (one Bulldog minus one engine equals one brick sh**house with wings). Some of this safety awareness blah may be down to experiencing the unexpected but happy prospect of fatherhood in middle age: if I die, my wife is well covered by my insurance, but I would like to meet my kid.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hereford, England
Age: 49
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Don your hard hats.' Response.
I'd like to thank very much everybody (With the exception of one individual..) for the replies to this thread
This was my first thread, i joined just last night, and i'm pleased with the valuable and varied insights which have been extracted from this topic.
The helmet i have is a reconditioned ALPHA 200, which was slightly more expensive than a good motorcycle helmet. It's construction looks to be of carbon fibre, but it is much much lighter than a motorcycle helmet. As for the added weight in respect of inertia, this is something i admittedly had not thought about previously.
I suppose with use, such as the heavier motorcycle helmet which felt like lead when i passed my motorcycle test, i would reach the point where i wouldn't even realise i'm wearing it. Today, a motorcycle helmet is for me just like wearing a cap, seems your neck / reactions adapt in time to the different pressure and muscles requirements to ensure when you 'slam-on', you don't konk your head on the windsheild.
I totaly understand the strange concept of wearing safety gear whilst flying the air- equiv of a Mondeo (PA-28 Etc), but as for it being nigh-on impossible to get out of a light aircraft which is out of control - call me stupid, but i would be willing to give it my best shot in an emergency, rather than decorating the local farmer's feild with a 'Chris & Cessna' fuelled bar-b-que - provided of course i had a 'chute!
Q) So what have i learnt from all your responses for which i am grateful?
A) Without wanting to sound smug, i think the last paragraph of my initial mail has been underlined. That being that people have different views - some like helmets, some don't. Some see that level of safety equipment necassary, some don't - some feel in certain types of aircraft, some in all, some in non.
So, are we surprised at the responses? I think not - What i do think is that these responses call for people such as me and you, especially where safety is concerned, to have the right to raise our safety measures to the level at which we see fit, and in doing so, not being discriminated against in any way. Also, that we, in respect of others, would embrace an open and accepting attitude in regards to this.
Thank you so much to everyone - and may this first thread never have to be brought to the fore in an emergency for any of us.
Very Kind regards
Chris W (Helmeted-Seagull2200)
This was my first thread, i joined just last night, and i'm pleased with the valuable and varied insights which have been extracted from this topic.
The helmet i have is a reconditioned ALPHA 200, which was slightly more expensive than a good motorcycle helmet. It's construction looks to be of carbon fibre, but it is much much lighter than a motorcycle helmet. As for the added weight in respect of inertia, this is something i admittedly had not thought about previously.
I suppose with use, such as the heavier motorcycle helmet which felt like lead when i passed my motorcycle test, i would reach the point where i wouldn't even realise i'm wearing it. Today, a motorcycle helmet is for me just like wearing a cap, seems your neck / reactions adapt in time to the different pressure and muscles requirements to ensure when you 'slam-on', you don't konk your head on the windsheild.
I totaly understand the strange concept of wearing safety gear whilst flying the air- equiv of a Mondeo (PA-28 Etc), but as for it being nigh-on impossible to get out of a light aircraft which is out of control - call me stupid, but i would be willing to give it my best shot in an emergency, rather than decorating the local farmer's feild with a 'Chris & Cessna' fuelled bar-b-que - provided of course i had a 'chute!
Q) So what have i learnt from all your responses for which i am grateful?
A) Without wanting to sound smug, i think the last paragraph of my initial mail has been underlined. That being that people have different views - some like helmets, some don't. Some see that level of safety equipment necassary, some don't - some feel in certain types of aircraft, some in all, some in non.
So, are we surprised at the responses? I think not - What i do think is that these responses call for people such as me and you, especially where safety is concerned, to have the right to raise our safety measures to the level at which we see fit, and in doing so, not being discriminated against in any way. Also, that we, in respect of others, would embrace an open and accepting attitude in regards to this.
Thank you so much to everyone - and may this first thread never have to be brought to the fore in an emergency for any of us.
Very Kind regards
Chris W (Helmeted-Seagull2200)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I'm a lawyer, I definitely do not live my life by reference to risks of law suits. Most of the health and safety excesses of the kind deplored by the whinging lawyer-haters in Jetblast are not in reality lawyer driven.
I offer my passengers flying kit and a chute, not so much from a risk assessment/duty of care point of view, but because it seems rude not to
Notwithstanding the above, honesty compels me to admit that I rarely wear a helmet, although I do own one.
I don't really have an excuse; it's just that usually I can't be bothered to lug it out to the airport (one more bag to carry), and it can be uncomfortable on a hot day.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how much of the head injury problem is caused by the car-style seatbelts and cr@ppy seats in the PA28/C172 style aeroplanes? Excluding aerobatics, as IO-540 says a bonedome is only going to be any use in a low speed accident - which almost by definition is one during take-off or landing (forced or otherwise). Wouldn't it be better to make sure that the seat and harness stop your head from getting anywhere near something solid?
The seat rails in the PA28s I used to fly seemed very flimsy (and by reputation the Cessna ones are worse), and I would be surprised if they stopped the seat sliding forward if you hit something solid. Likewise, the three-point seatbelt is total rubbish - there was one poor sod in the AAIB reports recently who flew a perfect forced landing after engine failure only to die from head injuries thanks to the seatbelt being useless when he hit something after landing. I've even flown an aeroplane (once) with just a lap-strap
The seat rails in the PA28s I used to fly seemed very flimsy (and by reputation the Cessna ones are worse), and I would be surprised if they stopped the seat sliding forward if you hit something solid. Likewise, the three-point seatbelt is total rubbish - there was one poor sod in the AAIB reports recently who flew a perfect forced landing after engine failure only to die from head injuries thanks to the seatbelt being useless when he hit something after landing. I've even flown an aeroplane (once) with just a lap-strap
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
The answer to the problem of increased inertia with a helmet has been partially addressed in Formula 1 with the introduction of the COMPULSORY helmet restraint system.
Possibly too restrictive for aviation (at least for those who want to look out the windows - that's another thread), but some modification might still be appropriate.
2P
Possibly too restrictive for aviation (at least for those who want to look out the windows - that's another thread), but some modification might still be appropriate.
2P
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The response from the instructor was quite negative. He simply didn't want me to wear it - he stated he found it a bit difficult to communicate with me when i wore it.
There's a relevant thread on Rotorheads, although it's helicopter-oriented.
Hearing protection and reducing the chances of fatal and non-fatal injuries, particlularly following forced landings and birdstrikes, are valid reasons for wearing a helmet.
Increased neck-loading in accidents is a reasonable concern, but I've found no evidence to weight the argument against helmets (I don't mean there isn't any, I'd like to hear if there is), whilst there is a wealth of evidence to support the use of helmets in light aircraft operations.
Communication incompatibilties should be sortable either with the help of an avionics engineer - or with a different instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hereford, England
Age: 49
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for laughs...???
Just to put a smile on your (helmeted) faces...
http://www.fototime.com/347803C8C20216E/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/347803C8C20216E/standard.jpg
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said it before, but I'll take the opportunity to repeat myself on this thread: everyone who flies an open cockpit airplane or 'warbird' should splurge and purchase a Campbell Aero Classics helmet. Much classier and authentic than those Gentex things, unless of course one happens to be flying an F-16!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit to flying a Pietenpol with my motorcycle gear on, including the helmet. My thinking was that if something hard came my way it might help, also it did keep the wind out and my head warm.
Mike
Mike
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DNMM/UK
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the benefits of wearing a helmet in any form of aviation outweigh the risks by far. But there is the issue of personal image, i think younger people tend to want to look more "flash" and while the older middleaged types try to tone down their appearances, except when middleage crisis is involved. The average PPL (at least the regular ones) tends to be in the slightly older range and there is a general view that any extra aviaton kit is a sign of showing off. Combine that with a bit of the Great British Sense of Modesty and I can see why the orginal poster is facing the problems he's facing.
People will go to all kinds of lengths to put you down and you'll get all kinds of ludicrous statistics. FACT: many more pilots have died as a result of not wearing a helmet than have died as a result of wearing one, never heard of the latter.
Since the field of aviation you intend to work in requires you to wear a helmet, i think you are perfectly right in your decision to wear one now and your insructor's attitude is quite appalling.
Good luck with your flying
Capt. M
People will go to all kinds of lengths to put you down and you'll get all kinds of ludicrous statistics. FACT: many more pilots have died as a result of not wearing a helmet than have died as a result of wearing one, never heard of the latter.
Since the field of aviation you intend to work in requires you to wear a helmet, i think you are perfectly right in your decision to wear one now and your insructor's attitude is quite appalling.
Good luck with your flying
Capt. M
