Compulsory helmets/flight suits: merged threads
Guest
Posts: n/a
Compulsory helmets/flight suits: merged threads
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
TiP
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
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. 
"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.
). "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.
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!
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 !!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compulsory helmets and flight suits????
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!
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!
Last edited by KNIEVEL77; 2nd Jan 2009 at 20:04.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
As regards the R22 accident, maybe a compulsory licence might have helped
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just wondering how come the relevant Aviation bodies have not yet made it compulsary given how many lives it could save.
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 ?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Down a Jitty
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.