Robinson Helicopter Company releases Safety Notice SN-40
Monday, July 31, 2006 - Robinson Helicopter Company

Safety Notice SN-40
Issued: Jul 2006
POSTCRASH FIRES

There have been a number of cases where helicopter or light plane occupants
have survived an accident only to be severely burned by fire following the
accident. To reduce the risk of injury in a postcrash fire, it
is strongly recommended that a fire-retardant Nomex flight suit, gloves, and
hood or helmet be worn by all occupants.

"Especially when attending a horse racing event like Royal Ascot.."

h-r

You can almost hear the insurance lawyer's breath on the neck of the letter writer. Now, in court, the defense attorney can ask the Robinson executive, "So, did you ever warn operators about post-crash fires and the way to help survive them?" And the Exec will answer, "Yes, in fact I have a copy right here....."

I always wear a nomex flight suit but, would always wear a helmet if I could. The school and operator in that I work for won't let us wear helmets, purely because "the passengers will want one and prices will go up, etc". There doesn't seem to be much of a culture in the UK of wearing helmets (except HEMS, Police) in comparison to places like NZ, Aus, etc.

TiP

Personally, I would prefer to wear a helmet and some decent protective clothing but it's not seen as the normal thing to do in my present employment.

Isn't there anyone else out there who flies in speedos?!

I prefer just a G-String on backwards.....then i just have to decide left or right balance ball

"Hey honey, look what i bought!" says the nouveau rich wife (not sexist...the wife is flying here ). "Now lets go shopping for a pair of fireproof flight suits and CRASH helmets ". I know these are required for working folks, doing critical manoeuvers all day long...but for the couple going to their cottage on the weekend
I know you never choose when an incident/accident will happen, but this apparel will probably have an effect on the perceived safety of these fine helicopters.

That's exactly the point. They are not safe.

A few serious points -
In quite a few years as a mustering pilot as well as aircraft recovery for a dealer I have only seen 1 crashed Robinson which burnt(maybe they all ran out of fuel?!?!). Robinsons don't have a lot of frontal impact protection (hollow-point fibreglass projectile!!) but the fuel tanks rarely rupture. I am relatively inexperienced on the B47 but when I did my Ag rating in a Hiller 12E the instructing pilot told me that he refused to get in a B47 due to the fire risk if they crash!

A not so serious point -
The idea of fire retardent clothing is great so that if you manage to crawl from the wreckage you won't get burnt as you light the wreckage with your cigarette lighter. Not worth claiming pro-rata insurance to rebuild it!

|Bell 47 ,s have fuel tanks that self seal and are designed to break away on impact so they dont generally burn. I know as 5 were written off in so many months crop spraying and none of them burnt !!

Sorry to bring this subject up yet again but having notified my Insurers about my PPL(H) training, I have just received a letter back from them stating that during my training and for my Personal Accident Insurance Cover to stay valid, they require me to be wearing flame retardant clothing at all times and a helmet when flying solo.

Having just read the recent post on here and looked at the video of the crash scene of the R44 in America that was completely destroyed (with one fatality due to burns) I suppose it makes sense.

My main question is that in the Robinson R22 Pilot's Operating Handbook, their Safety Notice SN-40 states "It is strongly recommended that a fire-retardant Nomex flight suit and helmet to be worn by all occupants". So why is this not adhered to more than it is?
Now I realise that the opinion is usually split on wearing such safety equipment and some may even chuckle seeing an R22 pilot dressed so but surely it makes sense, so I was just wondering how come the relevant Aviation bodies have not yet made it compulsary given how many lives it could save. After all, it's illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet!

I shall probably get laughed at turning up at my flying school in flame retardant clothing but if it is the only way to satisfy my insurance company then so be it, you never know, it might be me who has the last laugh!

What a bizarre requirement from your insurance company; never heard that before - maybe you should try another insurance company.

As regards the R22 accident, maybe a compulsory licence might have helped

Cheers

Whirls

Hi Whirls,

I took out my Accident and Sickness cover when I went Freelance in 1991, it is an income replacement policy should I not be able to work for any reason other than unemployment.

I used to work offshore for which they excluded from my policy.

They will not let me engage in any dangerous sports, so I suppose I should be happy they are prepared to cover me at all while flying!

I suppose they are just covering their ass!

I visit the Middle East on a regular basis, that is another exclusion from their policy now.......and so it goes on!!!!!

K77.

Because the rules are made by plank drivers ? And flight suit there screams "military" which is a sworn enemy ?

Seriously though, I see this as improvement, that the insurance company is the one to require protective clothing, and I don't really see the downside - anyone want to enlighten me ?

After seeing what some people wear while flying, it makes sense. Sandals, flip-flops, polyester shorts, nylon t-shirts, etc. One does need to dress properly when engaging in these type activities.

you can get normal looking clothes in Nomex material, a previous thread has covered this subject. That should stop you looking a complete berk...although drain pipes and a shirt with a skid lid will most likely look funnier still...but who cares...

Perhaps one obvious point is being missed. If you are anything on the tall side, there isn't headroom to wear a brain bucket in an R22.

Just as a side note---I am guessing this is a "life insurance" policy---not an aviation policy.

And yes we are back to the same argument again. Maybe we should wear nomex helmets while driving our motor vehicles. Think how safe you would be when someone slams into you.

Rick1128

Yep---I am one who wore flip-flops, shorts and aloha shirt while flying in Hawaii for 7 years. (I would actually fly bare foot--the flip-flops got in the way and really just protected my feet from the hot tarmac). Feel free to do an NTSB search of ALL Hawaii helicopter deaths and tell me if ANY of them could have been saved by nomex and helmets........

Again, it comes down to personal preference. Flying fires now, I wear them both.

You do realize, the motor industry is improving safety constantly, every year there comes another model with something improved, that is throughly tested. You have X generation seat belts, specially designed seats, XXX number of airbags etc. etc. When was the last revision of R22 airframe ? How many crash tests were conducted on it ? And lastly, how many % of car accidents result in fire ? That is a very small % compared to helicopters.

Lets face it, aircraft industry is painfully slow. How old are those Bell 47 that people still train in ? And still are considered useful, while that old cars in most western world can't be registered as easy as today's Mondeo as they're considerate dangerous!

Another question, how many training... actualy, any small helicopters can pass newest revision of FAA FAR part 27 ?

Unfortunatly, with ecception of KNIEVEL77 case, It's mostly all personal risk assesment - to wear nomex and helmet, or not.