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

From memories of RAF Chipmunk flying, taller colleagues could have bone dome issues from the limited amount of space available within that rather narrow Chipmunk canopy.

The Mk IV fitted quite well in the Chippie when I did my training in them. I've a feeling the Alpha might be a little large.

phil

Dave Clark K10 bone dome
 

I use a Dave Clark K10 bone dome over my old DC headset when I'm flying Pawnee tugs, it's same me from rough air rash numerous times.

Look HERE.

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.

I can see the logic in a Vulcan pilot wearing this stuff.

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.

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. :ok:

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

Campbell Classic Helmet is a possible solution.

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

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.

MSA are well regarded in the helicopter community.

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.

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.

Wear the helmet all the time. You'll be grateful when a bird flies through the windscreen, as has happened many times.

Phil

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.

Bone-some? Go for it, and a parachute. The Chippy is designed for one.:)

Well said!

I learnt to fly in the chippie at Swinderby back in the day. Grow bags and domes were part of the process of introducing candidates into the stream for fast jets. It was to acclimatise you right from the start into the military kit and way of doing things.

I see no benefit in flying a chippie or any other light aircraft kitted out in the same gear. Rather I just see it as catering to those with the failed schoolboy dream of being a fighter pilot or Biggles. If GA flying was that unsafe then we should give it up!!!

I think it would be a good idea to wear a helmet in a Chipmunk. I also started my flying in Chipmunks at Swinderby, but also flew them later on. Helmets and nomex suits were not just to acclimatise fast-jet students - they were mandated for passengers and cadets too.
One of the benefits of a helmet is protection from contact with the cockpit and/or canopy, which in the chipmunk is all very close.

The problem is getting one to fit, and to be compatible with your comms system. The Mk3/4 had web cradles - you still need the basic sizing correct but fine fitting is by adjustment of straps in side the shell. The Alpha/Mk10 has solid pads so you need to get hold of the correct sized pads to make it fit well.

Or you could go completely retro: For Sale: 1960s RAF Bone Dome Helmet with inners and mask. ? FighterControl ? Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast

And, your safety would be vastly improved if you wore said bone dome whilst driving to the airfield.
Manage the risk and enjoy.
J.J.

Where can you buy a Mk 4? Are there any remanufacturers or is it a case of eBay etc.? How are the helmets sized? How easy is it to get spare parts?

This company are well-priced for new SPH and HGU helmets. Not sure how good they are or if they can be exported from the States.

Flight Helmets - Flight Suits - Aviation Helmets

Before the fashion police swoop down my ride is a Vampire so I am allowed to wear one :E :ok:

Quote:

---

And, your safety would be vastly improved if you wore said bone dome whilst driving to the airfield.

---

It always used to be said that driving helmets would prevent more deaths-per-hour than cycling helmets (by the cycling lobby). I suspect it was true in the 1980s but not any more. Airbags and passive safety means that in nearly 4 years in A&E I've personally only seen one fatal road accident - a motorcyclist. The stuff kids do - and get away with - is stupendous. Reversing into lamp-posts at 70mph. Driving off cliffs and being rescued from trees. All sorts.

2013 figures for cars were 5.6 deaths per billion vehicle miles. Assuming 50mph (which seems generous) that's 5.6 deaths per 20 million hours or about 1 death per 3.6 million hours. GA runs at about 1 fatal accident per 100,000 hours (which will equate to more than 1 death per 100,000 hours), on a par with motorcycling (212 deaths per billion miles).

Quote:

---

I learnt to fly in the chippie at Swinderby back in the day. Grow bags and domes were part of the process of introducing candidates into the stream for fast jets. It was to acclimatise you right from the start into the military kit and way of doing things.

---

Now, in peacetime the military accident rate is actually quite competitive. 85 US F16 pilots have died in 10,491,752 hours : 0.8 deaths per 100,000 flying hours.

The idea that GA flying is safer than driving simply doesn't cut it. It probably isn't even safer than peacetime military flying - particularly if you're flying something 'characterful' rather than a C172. The idea that military pilots need to wear lots of protective clothing because their flying is dangerous, but we don't because our flying is safe, simply doesn't hold water.

A counter-argument I can see is that our flying is so dangerous that protective equipment is useless. The ratio between serious injuries and fatalities is low enough that you could argue that we either survive intact, or are mangled well beyond any hope of survival. On the other hand my military surplus Nomex garb is cheaper than a pair of new jeans and a woollen sweater so why not?

~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-2013-data.pdf

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP667.PDF

http://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/...stics/F-16.pdf

There are quite a lot of MkIV helmets at the moment on Ebay. Some of them need new plugs (I suspect this is the sellers way of dodging liability). You do seem to be able to buy new webbing and parts as well.

What does wearing a hard helmet in a Chippie protect the wearer against?

To answer CP's question - er the ground, the instrument panel, the windscreen frame, the canopy hoop etc.....

I'm amazed how much polarised debate my question has presented. I did my conversion with a well known 'Mr Chipmunk' at a west of London airfield. In the cafe / bar before and after flying he can be found wearing a smart shirt, cords and brogues but when it comes to flying his beloved Chipmunks its Nomex flying suit, gloves and leather flying boots always. Apparently having had an in-cockpit fire once is his rationale for this level of protection but each to his own I guess.

I also fly a more normal motor glider and gliders and other than the practical advantages of the pockets in a grow bag, I usually fly those in shorts and trainers.

Post 27 from abgd sums it up nicely particularly the interesting, and probably very valid, comparison between GA and current military accident statistics. A point I hadnt considered before. His sensible remarks are well worth digesting.

The comparison between GA and motorbikes is also a well known fact.

Any professional flight safety expert will tell you of the advantages of helmets. Listen to Them...

Clareprop: Parachute landings (abandoning appropriate in certain circumstances). The military want you to survive them. Military Chipmunks had parachutes, hence bone domes worn. Same in Bulldogs.

Nomex suits - fire resistant, same as gloves.

Flying boots (still have mine!) - parachute landings

Cold weather jackets - Saves shivering while you waited for rescue after your parachute landing, etc etc

Applying civilian values to ex-military aircraft has never gone wrong, has it?

On the surface I have to agree with this. But, there's more to it that that. I've been flying a year longer than I've been driving. I suppose I've driven more than flown, but not by much. I've never had an injury in a car, nor plane. But I've had four cars destroyed in collisions, while I drove, but never lost a plane. I've had two friends killed while flying, but they were both doing very silly low level maneuvering, which did not work - entirely flyable aircraft were crashed fatally.

If I could not have a shoulder harness (hopefully four point), I'd wear a helmet. I always wear reduced flammability clothing, and suitable footwear, in case on fire (never sandals). I always wear a life jacket when flying on/off the water.

I have found a sense of security when flying helicopters in wearing a helmet, and I'm sure that in some aircraft types (ejection seats) a helmet is an outstanding idea. For regular GA aircraft, I don't perceive a risk which a helmet would reduce.

abgd - Thank you :ok:

My mind returns to the accident report where our man makes a perfect forced landing only to split his head open on the altimeter subscale knob... or the other 'perfect' one which ended with a chap bouncing his head off the cockpit in three places hard enough to split his helmet (this one survived.)

At the end of the day I suppose it's like aircraft parachutes... nerdy but when the time comes I bet you'd rather have one than not :8

This subject seems to continue across forums with threads galore, everyone seems intent on expounding their opinion regardless.

I've been knocked unconscious during an accident because I was daft enough to go low level filming without a helmet, in a bog standard Bell Longranger. I wouldn't dream of ever going into a higher risk flying environment without a bone dome again as it hurts. As a further example, all our fire agencies in Australia mandate helmets for all crew in any aircraft be it a Firebird stoogeing around at 5,000ft or a Helitak down in the weeds.

FWIW, having done EFT on the Chippie and a few hours to contemplate the cockpit hazards, I'd consider a helmet a sensible option when flying it but wouldn't be critical of another pilot who chose a headset instead.

So am I right in thinking that the argument from a number of posters is not whether helmet's should be worn in a Chipmunk but that, for safety and security, they should be worn in all types of light aircraft including helicopters?

Just look at these mad fools...:

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post9565280

Not from me. Flying is inherently risky and we each need to find a level of risk/reward with which we're happy. That can include wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet. I could entirely understand why someone might not want to wear a helmet in a tiny bubble canopy on a sweltering hot day, for example.

What I don't like is people either kidding themselves that flying is much safer than it is (one of my pet hates is to hear the 'safer than driving to the airport' trope from GA pilots and particularly instructors) or to hear other people being put down for taking what they see as sensible precautions to reduce the risks.

Flying Anorak - to answer your question rather than subject you to a diatribe of whether it is right or wrong to wear a helmet in a GA aeroplane:

I had 2 x Mk4 when I was flying the chippie (1 for my passenger also).

I brought them on Ebay and then had a friend of mine (an Ex-Squipper) overhaul them. He changed the avionics in them as the Mic was not compatible with the GA Avionics in my chippie.

I think I spent £200 for each on Ebay, a drink for my friend and £70 for a microphone per helmet.

I found them comfortable and easy to use in the Chippie, I felt safer with one on and also warmer on a cold day !!, I rarely used the visors although mine were both operational and had soft covers.

When I finished I sold them on Ebay again for £475 each.

There is definitely a Market out there.

Don't be put off by what people say about image and poseurs, If I was able to wear one in what I am currently flying I would certainly do it. It's a bit like wearing flying gloves - some people say I am a poseur for doing that, for me they are just another piece of safety equipment........

Regards


Arc

clareprop: No such argument from me.

My position is that (1) the use of safety equipment is a personal choice, and (2) ridiculing people for their choice is not sensible.

Each to his own, but seeing the dent made by a helmet in a Super Cub panel makes for a lasting impression...

So am I and never had any problems. But a very good friend of mine is 6' 2" and he split a canopy. The visor: "It's the knob wot did it".