Bone Domes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: N/W London
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bone Domes
Hi All,
Throwing myself at your mercy for some advice please.
As a new convert to the delightful world of Chipmunk flying, I've decided I'd like a bit more protection than just my trusty DC headset and unlike a spam can, I think bone domes are a bit more acceptable in a chippie.
I've been looking on-line and my options seem to be an ex RAF Mk 4 or Alpha type helmet, but ones in my size (I have a long head so think I'd need a Med-Long) seem few and far between in sensible sizes / prices. Alternatively I'm considering an HGU55 (if I can find one that would fit and I could buy from the US) or maybe an MSA one.
Anyone any views / advice please?
Cheers
FA
Throwing myself at your mercy for some advice please.
As a new convert to the delightful world of Chipmunk flying, I've decided I'd like a bit more protection than just my trusty DC headset and unlike a spam can, I think bone domes are a bit more acceptable in a chippie.
I've been looking on-line and my options seem to be an ex RAF Mk 4 or Alpha type helmet, but ones in my size (I have a long head so think I'd need a Med-Long) seem few and far between in sensible sizes / prices. Alternatively I'm considering an HGU55 (if I can find one that would fit and I could buy from the US) or maybe an MSA one.
Anyone any views / advice please?
Cheers
FA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Weston-super-Mare & Jersey CI
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny isn't it, pretty much every other sport or hobby has its 'garb'. How often do you pass the Tour de France or IoM TT racers on the way to the airfield? Or how often do you find the Saturday 5-a-side team playing in cargo shorts and a South Park T-shirt. As for golf ...
Yet anyone who feels it's sensible to wear a set of overalls let alone a genuine RAF surplus Nomex gro-bag is considered a poncy show-off wanna-be jet jockey.
Afraid the inverse snobbery where the only acceptable clothing to fly in is a pair of Supermarket jeans, a market stall bargain bin T-shirt and a pair of sandals is laughable and quite pathetic.
What are you trying to prove? That you're 'normal'?
Those who I see wearing their oil-stained gro-bags sitting in my home airfields cafe I think 'good on you'. My wife would certainly prefer I wear a set rather than getting grass stains, oil and crud all over my TU jeans as it just makes more work for her.
Yet anyone who feels it's sensible to wear a set of overalls let alone a genuine RAF surplus Nomex gro-bag is considered a poncy show-off wanna-be jet jockey.
Afraid the inverse snobbery where the only acceptable clothing to fly in is a pair of Supermarket jeans, a market stall bargain bin T-shirt and a pair of sandals is laughable and quite pathetic.
What are you trying to prove? That you're 'normal'?
Those who I see wearing their oil-stained gro-bags sitting in my home airfields cafe I think 'good on you'. My wife would certainly prefer I wear a set rather than getting grass stains, oil and crud all over my TU jeans as it just makes more work for her.
Gender Faculty Specialist
I wear a crash helmet on my motorbike. I assume someone here will now be "rotfl" because they think I'm trying to emulate Valentino Rossi.
There's a guy at my airport who wears a bright red helmet to fly his Mooney around.
Last time I saw him he was blundering into the traffic pattern landing on the reciprocal runway to all the rest of the traffic.
Last time I saw him he was blundering into the traffic pattern landing on the reciprocal runway to all the rest of the traffic.
Having seen the effects of various incidents over the years, including one forced lading where the AI knob went through someones forehead, I say wear whatever safety equipment you want to. If people think it's 'showing off' they can jog on.
Where I work, an Extra 300 had a landing incident, flipped over, and they were picking up teeth and scalp from the runway afterwards. He was wearing a Dave Clark headset. With a helmet would the outcome have been different? Who knows.....but I know where my money would be.
Where I work, an Extra 300 had a landing incident, flipped over, and they were picking up teeth and scalp from the runway afterwards. He was wearing a Dave Clark headset. With a helmet would the outcome have been different? Who knows.....but I know where my money would be.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 72
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the first two replies appeared, I was so p'd off by them that I decided to defer posting until I'd calmed down. Pleased to see that in the meantime others have posted their more measured views on those posts. Why someone like Bose-X feels the need to sneer at someone looking at taking basic safety measures in an ex-military trainer, is beyond me. Edited to add: it seems Bose-X has deleted the post I referred to.
At airpolice: it should be obvious that a military cockpit is unlikely to be as crashworthy as a "spamcan", and hence the military wear protective equipment.
Taken from the AAIB report of an ex-military tandem trainer crash that took the life of both on board; the back-seat passenger was a young colleague and a thoroughly good guy
At airpolice: it should be obvious that a military cockpit is unlikely to be as crashworthy as a "spamcan", and hence the military wear protective equipment.
Taken from the AAIB report of an ex-military tandem trainer crash that took the life of both on board; the back-seat passenger was a young colleague and a thoroughly good guy
The post mortem examination revealed that both occupants received fatal injuries as a direct result of the accident and that their chances of survival, the rear seat seat in particular, would have been greatly enhanced had .... head protection been worn.
Last edited by SlipSlider; 2nd Nov 2016 at 09:26. Reason: to reflect deletion of Bos-X's post
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: N/W London
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the sensible replies - had hoped for advice on the merits of the various options rather than a dawn raid by the fashion police. :-)
For example, are the MSA ones any good - is it a bad idea to buy a surplus RAF Mk4 as opposed to a new one, presumably any major damage would be obvious.
Cheers
FA
For example, are the MSA ones any good - is it a bad idea to buy a surplus RAF Mk4 as opposed to a new one, presumably any major damage would be obvious.
Cheers
FA
An RAF Mk4 has several adjustments so that it fits your head snugly otherwise it will give you a headache. I had a badly fitted one once and it gave me a headache across my forehead.
When I flew in a Hawk, the RAF doctor fitted my bonedome and when I acquired my own shortly afterwards, I was able to undo the small cords on the side and adjust it to my skull.
When I flew in a Hawk, the RAF doctor fitted my bonedome and when I acquired my own shortly afterwards, I was able to undo the small cords on the side and adjust it to my skull.
As Tay Cough mentioned, I recently started a similar thread. So far I bought a MkIV shell just to try the fit cheaply, but it seems large and heavy even without the headset attachments and I don't think I'll take this option.
David Clarke does a K10 helmet which looks quite good (not too bulky) but which seems a good example of rip-off aviation pricing - though to be fair presumably they have to pay for all the testing but will sell far fewer helmets than if they were designed for motorbikes/skiing/cycling etc...
TBH I worry with the MkIV that it's so large and heavy that I might flip the plane then whack the helmet in situations where I wouldn't otherwise have hit my head, just 'cos it sticks out more. I can also imagine the weight of it making spinal injuries more likely in a rapid deacceleration scenario. On the other hand, padding takes space and more padding provides more protection. I'm no expert in helmet safety but for my own aircraft I'm not sure the large helmets are optimal from a safety perspective.
I'm not going to get much flying in over the next few months, but when I do I'm most tempted by the idea of using CEP in-ear plugs and my lightweight hang-gliding helmet which cost £100.
Her Majesty's Government has seen fit to make piles of ex-military grow-bags available to Ebay sellers, who are moving them on for between £30 and £70. Go-Karters and rally drivers seem to be paying £500 to £1200 for their Nomex outers (new). I'll admit to feeling a bit self-conscious in mine, and given a free choice of colours I may not have opted for either tan or drab. However, immolation doesn't appeal and I'm grateful for her largesse.
David Clarke does a K10 helmet which looks quite good (not too bulky) but which seems a good example of rip-off aviation pricing - though to be fair presumably they have to pay for all the testing but will sell far fewer helmets than if they were designed for motorbikes/skiing/cycling etc...
TBH I worry with the MkIV that it's so large and heavy that I might flip the plane then whack the helmet in situations where I wouldn't otherwise have hit my head, just 'cos it sticks out more. I can also imagine the weight of it making spinal injuries more likely in a rapid deacceleration scenario. On the other hand, padding takes space and more padding provides more protection. I'm no expert in helmet safety but for my own aircraft I'm not sure the large helmets are optimal from a safety perspective.
I'm not going to get much flying in over the next few months, but when I do I'm most tempted by the idea of using CEP in-ear plugs and my lightweight hang-gliding helmet which cost £100.
Her Majesty's Government has seen fit to make piles of ex-military grow-bags available to Ebay sellers, who are moving them on for between £30 and £70. Go-Karters and rally drivers seem to be paying £500 to £1200 for their Nomex outers (new). I'll admit to feeling a bit self-conscious in mine, and given a free choice of colours I may not have opted for either tan or drab. However, immolation doesn't appeal and I'm grateful for her largesse.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a few hundred hours in the Chippy and every one flown while wearing a Mk IV helmet. I think that I did most things that you would normally do in them, including bagiilions of aerobatics and found there to be no restrictions to movement etc. I am 6' and there was plenty of canopy clearance. Most of my flying was for the RAF Air Experience Flights but I also did plenty of glider tugging using HM's DH aircraft.
I would have no problem recommending the MK IV as a sensible safety precaution but, if I did have the choice then I would chose the Alpha helmet over the MK IV. I say this for two reasons: the most significant one is weight and the fact that the Alpha is lighter. The MK IV is not a problem when you're tootling around looking at the sunbathers but, of course, it weighs four times as much when you're pulling up into a loop and for those who aren't used to having all that extra weight on their heads it might just put them off wearing a helmet. The same thing will happen with the Alpha, of course, but it won't exert quite the same weight. The second thing I prefer about the Alpha is the dual visor system. Now, depending on which mark of MK IV you get, you may well have independent visors and that's a good thing, but the earlier versions required the clear one being locked in place before you could lower the dark one. That's a great safety feature for aircraft equipped with ejector seats and miniature detonation cord but less of a requirement in a Chippy. Of course, it would always help in a birdstrike situation but that would probably be on the rear of the canopy and less of a problem than a faster mover
The American forces helmets (HGU I think) are much lighter again but they were form-fitted to the wearer and had fewer adjustments to ensure it fitted properly and comfortably. They were comfortable by virtue of the fact that they were form-fitted and that wouldn't be the case if you were buying second hand. The MK IV and Alpha, on the other hand, have plenty of bits of string and straps to ensure a decent fit and make sure they stay put when you want to use one of Martin Baker's disembarking systems.
A very close friend of mine is alive today because he was wearing a helmet in a Tiger Moth when it flipped upside-down in a field, following a forced landing after an engine failure. The passenger was not so fortunate, despite having the protection of the wing struts etc closer to them. I agree there's a reverse snobbery at many of the fields we're likely to visit and it is ridiculous to have some sniggering idiot make comments on ones 'coolness'. But let them have their silly opinion. You are going to be safer no matter which helmet you pick, over flying bare-headed and the Chipmunk does allow you the space to be comfortable in whatever you choose.
I would have no problem recommending the MK IV as a sensible safety precaution but, if I did have the choice then I would chose the Alpha helmet over the MK IV. I say this for two reasons: the most significant one is weight and the fact that the Alpha is lighter. The MK IV is not a problem when you're tootling around looking at the sunbathers but, of course, it weighs four times as much when you're pulling up into a loop and for those who aren't used to having all that extra weight on their heads it might just put them off wearing a helmet. The same thing will happen with the Alpha, of course, but it won't exert quite the same weight. The second thing I prefer about the Alpha is the dual visor system. Now, depending on which mark of MK IV you get, you may well have independent visors and that's a good thing, but the earlier versions required the clear one being locked in place before you could lower the dark one. That's a great safety feature for aircraft equipped with ejector seats and miniature detonation cord but less of a requirement in a Chippy. Of course, it would always help in a birdstrike situation but that would probably be on the rear of the canopy and less of a problem than a faster mover
The American forces helmets (HGU I think) are much lighter again but they were form-fitted to the wearer and had fewer adjustments to ensure it fitted properly and comfortably. They were comfortable by virtue of the fact that they were form-fitted and that wouldn't be the case if you were buying second hand. The MK IV and Alpha, on the other hand, have plenty of bits of string and straps to ensure a decent fit and make sure they stay put when you want to use one of Martin Baker's disembarking systems.
A very close friend of mine is alive today because he was wearing a helmet in a Tiger Moth when it flipped upside-down in a field, following a forced landing after an engine failure. The passenger was not so fortunate, despite having the protection of the wing struts etc closer to them. I agree there's a reverse snobbery at many of the fields we're likely to visit and it is ridiculous to have some sniggering idiot make comments on ones 'coolness'. But let them have their silly opinion. You are going to be safer no matter which helmet you pick, over flying bare-headed and the Chipmunk does allow you the space to be comfortable in whatever you choose.
I fly an aircraft with a bubble canopy and no headroom for a helmet. Am I being foolhardy? Should I consider changing to something safer? Golf perhaps. Do they make Golfing helmets?
Should Chippie pilots have a range of helmets in various sizes for any passengers they might carry? Seems selfish to only provide for the pilot.
Should Chippie pilots have a range of helmets in various sizes for any passengers they might carry? Seems selfish to only provide for the pilot.