Crashworthy pilot seats
Thread Starter
Crashworthy pilot seats
Would you, as a pilot, like to have crashworthy seats in your cockpit? Before giving the obvious answer of "yes", consider that they will typically be less comfortable and less adjustable than non-crashworthy ones - normally there is no rake adjustment.
By crashworthy I mean seats that stroke down in a hard impact to reduce the peak g loading and save your spine. If you are a single-engine driver, I would suggest that the answer still be "yes" even if less comfortable, but my question is (selfishly) aimed at offshore twin pilots and I am curious to get opinions.
On the one hand, an employer should provide the best safety equipment for his employees and so the "duty of care" argument suggests they should be fitted. But on the other hand, looking at accident stats for offshore ops its hard to find many where crashworthy seats would have made a difference, so my personal choice would be comfort over crashworthiness.
What say you?
HC
By crashworthy I mean seats that stroke down in a hard impact to reduce the peak g loading and save your spine. If you are a single-engine driver, I would suggest that the answer still be "yes" even if less comfortable, but my question is (selfishly) aimed at offshore twin pilots and I am curious to get opinions.
On the one hand, an employer should provide the best safety equipment for his employees and so the "duty of care" argument suggests they should be fitted. But on the other hand, looking at accident stats for offshore ops its hard to find many where crashworthy seats would have made a difference, so my personal choice would be comfort over crashworthiness.
What say you?
HC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me phrase helicomparitor's question another way:
Would you like to ride a wheelchair for the rest of your life after a hard landing?
Are you foolish enough to think the tradeoff is between comfort and safety?
The question hc poses is yet again proof that hc is simply out of touch with the real world. I wonder if he lets his daughter drive in a car without seatbelts, anti-lock brakes and the like?
Would you like to ride a wheelchair for the rest of your life after a hard landing?
Are you foolish enough to think the tradeoff is between comfort and safety?
The question hc poses is yet again proof that hc is simply out of touch with the real world. I wonder if he lets his daughter drive in a car without seatbelts, anti-lock brakes and the like?
Thread Starter
Thankyou Nick, I knew I could count on your response! Is there anyone out there with a less hysterical opinion?
Safety is important but safety is about reducing risk to be as low as reasonably practical, not to be zero. You only get zero risk if you stay in bed all your life and even then you may be abducted by aliens.
There is no point in having a safety feature that compromises your working life by making it a misery and contributing to licence loss to address a risk that is statistically very low. Research has shown that more offshore helicopter pilots have been abducted by aliens than have suffered back injuries from hard landings, so really the money would be better spent on armed orbiting satellites to shoot the pesky flying saucers down.
HC
Safety is important but safety is about reducing risk to be as low as reasonably practical, not to be zero. You only get zero risk if you stay in bed all your life and even then you may be abducted by aliens.
There is no point in having a safety feature that compromises your working life by making it a misery and contributing to licence loss to address a risk that is statistically very low. Research has shown that more offshore helicopter pilots have been abducted by aliens than have suffered back injuries from hard landings, so really the money would be better spent on armed orbiting satellites to shoot the pesky flying saucers down.
HC
D'you know, I never realised grown men were so fond of handbags.
Right, my offering. I have experience of both crashworthy [onshore] and "standard" seats on and offshore. The answer is simple; build a comfortable crashworthy seat. It will cost more. The current standard of such seats is insufficiently comfortable to be acceptable for long flights; anything much over an hour has my admittedly ample behind complaining.
Nick is right to say that the best should be used, but if "the best" means you're so uncomfortable you don't concentrate properly it's hardly sensible.
Right, my offering. I have experience of both crashworthy [onshore] and "standard" seats on and offshore. The answer is simple; build a comfortable crashworthy seat. It will cost more. The current standard of such seats is insufficiently comfortable to be acceptable for long flights; anything much over an hour has my admittedly ample behind complaining.
Nick is right to say that the best should be used, but if "the best" means you're so uncomfortable you don't concentrate properly it's hardly sensible.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once worked for a company that refused to issue immersion suits to pilots on long overwater low level missions. Their argument was that we would be so uncomfortable wearing them we wouldn't be able to concentrate.
I ended up buying my own suit and wearing it quite happily on 10 hour plus days. Turns out the company only hadn't looked at suits for about 20 years and had no idea about modern "breathable" fabrics..
My point being that just because a seat is designed to be "crashworthy" does not mean it is necessarily uncomfortable and if it is the the manufacturer is not doing their job properly.
I ended up buying my own suit and wearing it quite happily on 10 hour plus days. Turns out the company only hadn't looked at suits for about 20 years and had no idea about modern "breathable" fabrics..
My point being that just because a seat is designed to be "crashworthy" does not mean it is necessarily uncomfortable and if it is the the manufacturer is not doing their job properly.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seats comprise two main elements. The cushions that make contact with the body and the framework that supports the cushions. It should be possible to make a crashworthy seat frame that can support comfortable seat cushions. Perhaps not though, otherwise it would have been done by now. Maybe comfy cushions impact negatively on energy absorbtion. Any design engineers out there?
The sectors I fly are generally less than an hour, so to answer the question crashworthy gets my vote. However I can see why much longer sectors (offshore) might change the priority to comfort.
The sectors I fly are generally less than an hour, so to answer the question crashworthy gets my vote. However I can see why much longer sectors (offshore) might change the priority to comfort.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now let`s see. So far I've been flying R22, R44, Enstrom F28, Hughes300, Bell 206 (JetRanger/LonRanger), Bell 407, EC120 and BO 105.
Does that mean that there are seats out there being even less comfortable than those in the aircraft mentioned above????
consider that they will typically be less comfortable and less adjustable than non-crashworthy ones
The One Your Mother Warned You About
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wherever they pay me
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a P2 seat from a 350 B3 last week which had been through a major smash. The instructor who had been in the seat in the crash had a sore back for a day or two. The engineers were able to show me how the seat had worked, and it was very impressive. A similar impact (admittedly in an older design/different manufacturer) some years ago left me in hospital for six months and discomfort for life.
I'm lucky enough to fly Eurocopters' more modern offerings and believe me I find their "crash proof seats" very comfortable, and from what I saw last week a bloody good idea
I'm lucky enough to fly Eurocopters' more modern offerings and believe me I find their "crash proof seats" very comfortable, and from what I saw last week a bloody good idea
"consider that they will typically be less comfortable and less adjustable than non-crashworthy ones - normally there is no rake adjustment."
well, we've got lots of adjustments- including rake!
Mind you, they're not very comfortable, despite their name: High Comfort Seats! After about 2 hours you get a bit numb.
I'd still rather have them than not have crashworthy seats, though.
well, we've got lots of adjustments- including rake!
Mind you, they're not very comfortable, despite their name: High Comfort Seats! After about 2 hours you get a bit numb.
I'd still rather have them than not have crashworthy seats, though.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Neverland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of our pilots have to endure up to 8 hours in one sitting and up to 800 hours in a rolling year. Any takers? (Freelance Musterers/Herders/Loggers etc. with two logbooks, are barred from answering)
Ever experienced a "bad back"?
My vote is for a comfy chair.
Nick, mostly I agree with you, but not this time. I spend my entire working life strapped into an uncomfortable seat. The manufacturers say that these are very safe aircraft (i.e. the chances of crashing are small) BUT they want us to sit in these contraptions for hours on end, and destroy our spines in the meantime, so we will be OK after a crash. Sorry, but my back will be so f@c#d by then I will probably drown because I can hardly move!
Give me a comfy chair please, and I'll take a career that is not cut short by my equipment over the slim chance that a "crashworthy" seat will keep me alive if this very safe machine should fail.
Two things are imporant for pilots that are flying to the max for our customers: seat comfort and NOISE (sorry Nick, but Sikorsky have never been good at either - and I'm a long-term SK man).
If an aircraft is safe, then I want a comfortable seat and a quiet environment.
Zeb
Ever experienced a "bad back"?
My vote is for a comfy chair.
Nick, mostly I agree with you, but not this time. I spend my entire working life strapped into an uncomfortable seat. The manufacturers say that these are very safe aircraft (i.e. the chances of crashing are small) BUT they want us to sit in these contraptions for hours on end, and destroy our spines in the meantime, so we will be OK after a crash. Sorry, but my back will be so f@c#d by then I will probably drown because I can hardly move!
Give me a comfy chair please, and I'll take a career that is not cut short by my equipment over the slim chance that a "crashworthy" seat will keep me alive if this very safe machine should fail.
Two things are imporant for pilots that are flying to the max for our customers: seat comfort and NOISE (sorry Nick, but Sikorsky have never been good at either - and I'm a long-term SK man).
If an aircraft is safe, then I want a comfortable seat and a quiet environment.
Zeb
Last edited by zebedee; 29th Apr 2007 at 01:22.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birchington, Kent, England
Age: 82
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Crashworthy"
All helicopters have to have seats that are designed to a very demanding specification. For modern European large helicopters this is Certification Specification No. CS 29 Large Rotorcraft.
The file can be downloaded from the EASA web site if you are interested, the relevant part is CS 29.562 Emergency Landing Dynamic Conditions. There is a similar specification for small rotorcraft. Historically, there has always been a similar specification for seating. The UK CAA had their own as do the US FAA.
Clearly, the specification is designed to provide a minimum acceptable safety level to all helicopter occupants, a higher safety level would most likely cost more but nevertheless would have to be tested to the applicable design code.
It is an unfortunate fact that there is a limit to the crashworthiness that would be practical for a seat. There is little point of having a seat that is virtually indestructable when the aircraft structure would fail and allow the main gearbox to exit the aircraft via the cockpit, for example.
Comfort is another matter. If a seat is uncomfortable, to the extent that it starts to interfer with the safe operation of the aircraft, it should be reported using the appropriate occurence reporting procedure, or at the very least, submit a flight safety report to your FSO.
The file can be downloaded from the EASA web site if you are interested, the relevant part is CS 29.562 Emergency Landing Dynamic Conditions. There is a similar specification for small rotorcraft. Historically, there has always been a similar specification for seating. The UK CAA had their own as do the US FAA.
Clearly, the specification is designed to provide a minimum acceptable safety level to all helicopter occupants, a higher safety level would most likely cost more but nevertheless would have to be tested to the applicable design code.
It is an unfortunate fact that there is a limit to the crashworthiness that would be practical for a seat. There is little point of having a seat that is virtually indestructable when the aircraft structure would fail and allow the main gearbox to exit the aircraft via the cockpit, for example.
Comfort is another matter. If a seat is uncomfortable, to the extent that it starts to interfer with the safe operation of the aircraft, it should be reported using the appropriate occurence reporting procedure, or at the very least, submit a flight safety report to your FSO.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help from a design engineer...
Originally Posted by Rotating Star
Seats comprise two main elements. The cushions that make contact with the body and the framework that supports the cushions. It should be possible to make a crashworthy seat frame that can support comfortable seat cushions. Perhaps not though, otherwise it would have been done by now. Maybe comfy cushions impact negatively on energy absorbtion. Any design engineers out there?
http://www.sunmatecushions.com/aircraft_foam.php
http://cumulus-soaring.com/AearoE-A-R.htm
NB: I have not provided calculations for this topic, because it is a specialised area. For the performance to work you need computer simulation and testing to back it up. The manufacturers will have done this with the uncomfortable seats already out there.
Mart
Last edited by Graviman; 29th Apr 2007 at 10:07.
Frankly I am surprised by the premise of the question; as Paradism has already pointed out, crashworthy seats are now a design requirement. This requirement caters for the abnormal - i.e. the crash situation.
The question that might have been asked is why there are no design requirements to account for the normal case - i.e. the many of thousands of pilot hours that have to be spent in the seat - outside the crash situation.
The offshore pilots of Norway and Canada have spent untold hours addressing the seat comfort issues, and also bringing the noise issue to the attention of the operators, Authorities and manufacturers.
Perhaps we should attempt to ensure in the future that regulating for the abnormal does not compromise operations in the normal.
Jim
The question that might have been asked is why there are no design requirements to account for the normal case - i.e. the many of thousands of pilot hours that have to be spent in the seat - outside the crash situation.
The offshore pilots of Norway and Canada have spent untold hours addressing the seat comfort issues, and also bringing the noise issue to the attention of the operators, Authorities and manufacturers.
Perhaps we should attempt to ensure in the future that regulating for the abnormal does not compromise operations in the normal.
Jim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man is constructed with two ends,
One is to think, the other to sit.
His progress in life depends,
Upon the time spent at each pursuit.
I somehow doubt that my grandfather was thinking of flying machines when he penned that bit of philosophy about eighty years ago.
I know, I’m banned from this thread, by dent of my mustering connections, however none of it would have helped what looked like a huey on tonights news in the phillipines, story below.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1909064.htm
One is to think, the other to sit.
His progress in life depends,
Upon the time spent at each pursuit.
I somehow doubt that my grandfather was thinking of flying machines when he penned that bit of philosophy about eighty years ago.
I know, I’m banned from this thread, by dent of my mustering connections, however none of it would have helped what looked like a huey on tonights news in the phillipines, story below.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1909064.htm
Thread Starter
JimL
Yes, crashworthy seats are now required by certification for new aircraft, but my question was in relation to those many aircraft still in service that do not have crashworthy seats. Should an operator spend time and money retro-fitting such seats which, as far as I can tell, usually have crashworthiness as the primary design factor and comfort as a secodary one, or would the pilot workforce prefer comfort as the over-riding factor?
Of course in an ideal world these two considerations are not mutually exclusive but the reality seems to be different. It would be great to be have certification rules about comfort but can you imagine trying to write those rules and test for compliance?
HC
Yes, crashworthy seats are now required by certification for new aircraft, but my question was in relation to those many aircraft still in service that do not have crashworthy seats. Should an operator spend time and money retro-fitting such seats which, as far as I can tell, usually have crashworthiness as the primary design factor and comfort as a secodary one, or would the pilot workforce prefer comfort as the over-riding factor?
Of course in an ideal world these two considerations are not mutually exclusive but the reality seems to be different. It would be great to be have certification rules about comfort but can you imagine trying to write those rules and test for compliance?
HC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helicomparitor is correct in that "grandfathered" designs (which comprise perhaps 95% of the aircraft we fly) do not have safe seats, they are from the era before we knew how unsafe they were.
The latest requirements do NOT have to be met by your helicopter, because the rules are almost never made retroactive.
Time to rise up, guys. Stroking seats, which ride you downward in a crash and protect your precious vertebrae, are available for retrofit. The seats on the Black Hawk, AB-139 and S-92 will protect the pilot's back in impacts up to 18 to 20 g's, where it is guaranteed that major back injury will result if such a seat is not used.
It is a foolish premise that helicomparitor makes where somehow one virtue (safety) is balanced against another (in his warped universe, comfort). This is the brilliance of a good salesman - establish a difference that "makes sense" and then exploit it to prove another point. Like looking for weapons of mass destruction by some politicians, this "comfort" argument is an excuse to try and justify his other points - that the poor non-stroking pilot seats of the EC-225 are superior!! to the 18 g safety seats in its competitor. Remember, hc is the guy who told us that the size of the windows is more important that if the fuel cells are fire proof!
There is no property of a stroking seat that plays against comfort, period. As many ppruners have posted in this thread, there are many uncomfortable, un-stroking seats, which at the very least proves the case.
No mater how you slice it, a seat that breaks your back is a sub-standard seat.
Here is a good technical paper that talks about safety seat evolution:
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2004Confe...pter_seats.pdf
Here is a good Martin-Baker site:
http://www.martin-baker.com/crashw_Intro.htm
The latest requirements do NOT have to be met by your helicopter, because the rules are almost never made retroactive.
Time to rise up, guys. Stroking seats, which ride you downward in a crash and protect your precious vertebrae, are available for retrofit. The seats on the Black Hawk, AB-139 and S-92 will protect the pilot's back in impacts up to 18 to 20 g's, where it is guaranteed that major back injury will result if such a seat is not used.
It is a foolish premise that helicomparitor makes where somehow one virtue (safety) is balanced against another (in his warped universe, comfort). This is the brilliance of a good salesman - establish a difference that "makes sense" and then exploit it to prove another point. Like looking for weapons of mass destruction by some politicians, this "comfort" argument is an excuse to try and justify his other points - that the poor non-stroking pilot seats of the EC-225 are superior!! to the 18 g safety seats in its competitor. Remember, hc is the guy who told us that the size of the windows is more important that if the fuel cells are fire proof!
There is no property of a stroking seat that plays against comfort, period. As many ppruners have posted in this thread, there are many uncomfortable, un-stroking seats, which at the very least proves the case.
No mater how you slice it, a seat that breaks your back is a sub-standard seat.
Here is a good technical paper that talks about safety seat evolution:
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2004Confe...pter_seats.pdf
Here is a good Martin-Baker site:
http://www.martin-baker.com/crashw_Intro.htm
Last edited by NickLappos; 29th Apr 2007 at 13:47.
All of the RAN squirells have had their front seats re-fitted with EC120 seats. I couldn't tell you why they did this, much before my time. HELOPAT feel free to jump in here.
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
Is a "crashworthy" seat going to save my life or make a big difference to the outcome? In my opinion, unlikely unless I am spending a lot of time in the avoid curve over land, I suspect not.
If severity of crashes were graded on a scale of 1 - 10 where 1 to 4 are very likely to be surviveable, 5 and 6 were 50/50 surviveable with an asociated risk of severe back injury and 7-10 are always going to be fatal, all that crashworthy seats will do is change the odds for scale 5 and 6 crashes to maybe 60/40 with a reduced chance of severe back injury. You can argue about the numbers I have quoted but the principle won't change. Is it not only within a small band of the crash severity scale that a crashworthy seat will make a difference? And if it has made a difference to the initial impact back injury, is it going to stop me breaking my neck, knocking myself out by head impact with metal cockpit frames, burning or drowning? Who can quantify that?
For me as an offshore pilot spending 99% of my time in the cruise above 1000' over water, back damage due to heavy landings/crashes is very unlikely compared to back damage due to poor seating position/comfort. This is very important when strapped to a vibrating seat for up to 8 hours per working day.
Now if someone can give me a crashworthy seat which is safer AND as comfortable/adjustable as some non crashworthy seats then I will have one.
Now, if I was an onshore pilot doing powerline inspection, I would probably have a different view because of the different risk profile.
If severity of crashes were graded on a scale of 1 - 10 where 1 to 4 are very likely to be surviveable, 5 and 6 were 50/50 surviveable with an asociated risk of severe back injury and 7-10 are always going to be fatal, all that crashworthy seats will do is change the odds for scale 5 and 6 crashes to maybe 60/40 with a reduced chance of severe back injury. You can argue about the numbers I have quoted but the principle won't change. Is it not only within a small band of the crash severity scale that a crashworthy seat will make a difference? And if it has made a difference to the initial impact back injury, is it going to stop me breaking my neck, knocking myself out by head impact with metal cockpit frames, burning or drowning? Who can quantify that?
For me as an offshore pilot spending 99% of my time in the cruise above 1000' over water, back damage due to heavy landings/crashes is very unlikely compared to back damage due to poor seating position/comfort. This is very important when strapped to a vibrating seat for up to 8 hours per working day.
Now if someone can give me a crashworthy seat which is safer AND as comfortable/adjustable as some non crashworthy seats then I will have one.
Now, if I was an onshore pilot doing powerline inspection, I would probably have a different view because of the different risk profile.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh,
Your math is impeccable, your data is wrong. The seats protect your back and prevent crippling injuries in the 95th percentile survivable crash. There are hundreds of pilots in wheelchairs who sat in survivable crashes and who will never walk again, and such seats would have saved their families the need to hold so many doors for them. Again, the absurdity of trading comfort over safety is just that, absurd. Stroking seats are just as comfortable (or just as uncomfortable) as unsafe ones.
I am surprised at your mistaken belief that over water flights somehow protect you from high g crashes, I guess you think water is soft! I recall a water impact accident - engine out landing - where the aircraft reached over 20 g's - the inertial impact of water entry is awesome. Had that helo been equipped with safety sets all would have had a chance to survive, as it was, their unsafe seats injured them into unconsciousness, and they drowned.
Your math is impeccable, your data is wrong. The seats protect your back and prevent crippling injuries in the 95th percentile survivable crash. There are hundreds of pilots in wheelchairs who sat in survivable crashes and who will never walk again, and such seats would have saved their families the need to hold so many doors for them. Again, the absurdity of trading comfort over safety is just that, absurd. Stroking seats are just as comfortable (or just as uncomfortable) as unsafe ones.
I am surprised at your mistaken belief that over water flights somehow protect you from high g crashes, I guess you think water is soft! I recall a water impact accident - engine out landing - where the aircraft reached over 20 g's - the inertial impact of water entry is awesome. Had that helo been equipped with safety sets all would have had a chance to survive, as it was, their unsafe seats injured them into unconsciousness, and they drowned.
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
Nick,
Do you wear a crash helmet when you drive to work in your car? Does your car have a 5 point harness? Have you fitted an automatic fire suppresion system? I suspect not - neither have I.
We will all use statistics which suit ones own argument. I am just an ignorant line pilot who does not have access to all the facts and figures and I am sure there are hundreds of pilots who have suffered serious back problems but what were they doing at the time? All I have to go on is my own experience of 30+ years and 17k+ hours most of which has been in the goldfish bowl of the North Sea. During this time I have had to take time off work due to back problems several times (thankfully minor) and have known a number of pilots who have had to have operations to fix their problem backs which were contributed to by poor seat design. I don't really want to be critical of any particular manufacturer but SK has be seriously guilty of paying scant design to spinal health when designing the S61 and S76 seats.
I know of none who has survived an offshore accident to be impaired for any length of time with subsequent back problems. During my time in earlier lives flying low level pipeline patrols and other forms of aerial work, a crashworthy seat would have been very welcome but how many of the smaller single engine helicopters have crashworthy seats in the 21st century let alone when I was doing these jobs in the 70's and 80's.
The regulators and the industry are falling into the trap of imposing standards which are jack of all trades and master of none. Let's be more specific and design safety into the role rather than the aircraft type or class. A good example of this is the UK regulations which require a higher level of security for helicopters over a certain arbitrary weight even although they are doing the same job and carrying the same loads as ones below this arbitrary threshold weight.
Nick, if you can tell me of a crashworthy seat which offers the same level of adjustment and comfort as the best non crashworthy seat then I will be your biggest fan.
HM
Do you wear a crash helmet when you drive to work in your car? Does your car have a 5 point harness? Have you fitted an automatic fire suppresion system? I suspect not - neither have I.
We will all use statistics which suit ones own argument. I am just an ignorant line pilot who does not have access to all the facts and figures and I am sure there are hundreds of pilots who have suffered serious back problems but what were they doing at the time? All I have to go on is my own experience of 30+ years and 17k+ hours most of which has been in the goldfish bowl of the North Sea. During this time I have had to take time off work due to back problems several times (thankfully minor) and have known a number of pilots who have had to have operations to fix their problem backs which were contributed to by poor seat design. I don't really want to be critical of any particular manufacturer but SK has be seriously guilty of paying scant design to spinal health when designing the S61 and S76 seats.
I know of none who has survived an offshore accident to be impaired for any length of time with subsequent back problems. During my time in earlier lives flying low level pipeline patrols and other forms of aerial work, a crashworthy seat would have been very welcome but how many of the smaller single engine helicopters have crashworthy seats in the 21st century let alone when I was doing these jobs in the 70's and 80's.
The regulators and the industry are falling into the trap of imposing standards which are jack of all trades and master of none. Let's be more specific and design safety into the role rather than the aircraft type or class. A good example of this is the UK regulations which require a higher level of security for helicopters over a certain arbitrary weight even although they are doing the same job and carrying the same loads as ones below this arbitrary threshold weight.
Nick, if you can tell me of a crashworthy seat which offers the same level of adjustment and comfort as the best non crashworthy seat then I will be your biggest fan.
HM