Helmets in offshore ops?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droopystop
I guess you didn't fly an S76 A+ at 10500 lbs on a hot windless day...
Just before CDP when landing and just after TDP departing (using the approved procedure), the outcome is not guaranteed. You may have no option but to ditch.
The introduction of PC2e should save a lot of grey hair.
Red
The bottom line is that when NS, if you loose an engine, you will fly away
Just before CDP when landing and just after TDP departing (using the approved procedure), the outcome is not guaranteed. You may have no option but to ditch.
The introduction of PC2e should save a lot of grey hair.
Red
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like a few of the other posters on this site i have flown in other environments and they are not the same as the N. Sea. HEMS, PAOC, Mil and pipeline all have one thing in common they are all close contact flying with a greater than normal chance of coming to a sticky end. N. Sea is pretty much like an airline and last year on my hols i didn't see one of my plank bretheren with a helmet on or come to think of it an immersion suit. I have experienced some atrocious turbulence on the N. Sea and i have had no concern about bumping my head, if we start getting to paranoid about it you'll end up in an immersion suit with helmet on your way to disneyland.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmets
Instead of worrying about helmets lets all fly helicopters that have the power to stay airborne in the event of an engine failure. The only time I would want a helmet is for walking in the cabin as I occaissonally bang my head on the fresh air vents, no hair, maybe I'll go for a wig.
I would like a 4 point harness and helmet in my car for all the idiots driving about, but we do not have them do we.
No for me helmets are a no no.
I would like a 4 point harness and helmet in my car for all the idiots driving about, but we do not have them do we.
No for me helmets are a no no.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staticdroop
While travelling to your holiday destination did you see those fixed wing pilots flying multiple short shuttle sectors, at night, at 500ft and below, down wind, in 50kts, landing and departing onto flat top decks of 16m diameter? A typical winter evening’s work in the SNS.
Was their cockpit as cramped as a S76 or AS365 ?
How noisy was their office?
I for one wouldn’t dream of giving up my immersion suit in the winter, and as for helmets I can see both sides of the argument.
But should I choose to wear one why should anyone deny me that option?
Red
N. Sea is pretty much like an airline and last year on my hols i didn't see one of my plank bretheren with a helmet on or come to think of it an immersion suit.
Was their cockpit as cramped as a S76 or AS365 ?
How noisy was their office?
I for one wouldn’t dream of giving up my immersion suit in the winter, and as for helmets I can see both sides of the argument.
But should I choose to wear one why should anyone deny me that option?
Red
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lost and Legless somewhere in LaLaLand
Age: 77
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWB
You're quite right when you say that an S76A+ won't fly away but you don't mean CDP or TDP. Both of those terms refer to Class One performance and anyway are both different names for the take off decision point. Most helicopters (except possibly the AW139) are usually too heavy to be operated Class One offshore and most S76s that I know of are not modified for Class One elevated heliport operations.
I too have worn a helmet for military operations and some civil operations, but I chose to wear a headset where I work in Africa. Some of our pilots out here chose to wear helmets. I guess it all comes down to whatever you like and what you personally judge the risk to be. As for wearing a headset because you might hit your head on the overhead console - speaks of not having the seatbelt properly fastened!
You're quite right when you say that an S76A+ won't fly away but you don't mean CDP or TDP. Both of those terms refer to Class One performance and anyway are both different names for the take off decision point. Most helicopters (except possibly the AW139) are usually too heavy to be operated Class One offshore and most S76s that I know of are not modified for Class One elevated heliport operations.
I too have worn a helmet for military operations and some civil operations, but I chose to wear a headset where I work in Africa. Some of our pilots out here chose to wear helmets. I guess it all comes down to whatever you like and what you personally judge the risk to be. As for wearing a headset because you might hit your head on the overhead console - speaks of not having the seatbelt properly fastened!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ban Don Ling
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me, but what a load of balderdash. Helmets are just not necessary on routine offshore tasks.
Safety is a compromise - despite whatever the "never over my dead body" experts say. Helmets would have been little use in most of those catastrophic incidents we have all read about. Basic airmanship and HUET training allow the remainder to escape.
Mitigation - spend the money on more sim / loft training and avoid the sudden / uncontrolled entry into water.
Safety is a compromise - despite whatever the "never over my dead body" experts say. Helmets would have been little use in most of those catastrophic incidents we have all read about. Basic airmanship and HUET training allow the remainder to escape.
Mitigation - spend the money on more sim / loft training and avoid the sudden / uncontrolled entry into water.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phone Wind
Thanks for that. I was on earlies this morning!
As I understand it, in order to conduct Performance Class 1 and Performance Class 2, helicopters must be certified to satisfy the Cat A criteria of Jar Ops3.480(a)(1). The S76A+ was certified as Group A under BCAR Sec G, which is acceptable under the the provisions of IEM OPS 3.480(a)(1)
As I remember the Sikorsky S76A+ flight manual refers to CDP for both Gp A take off and landing, whereas TDP clearly a Take off term. Maybe I would have been better off using TDP and LDP as generic terms.
The AW139 does perform to Class 1 at MTOW offshore, and it makes for a much less stressful departure. It is the way ahead
.
Whatever, the important part of the debate, as illustrated in your reply, is that you choose to wear a headset and some of your colleagues choose to wear helmets. Happiness!
Maybe we should all get opportunity to choose.
Red
Thanks for that. I was on earlies this morning!
As I understand it, in order to conduct Performance Class 1 and Performance Class 2, helicopters must be certified to satisfy the Cat A criteria of Jar Ops3.480(a)(1). The S76A+ was certified as Group A under BCAR Sec G, which is acceptable under the the provisions of IEM OPS 3.480(a)(1)
As I remember the Sikorsky S76A+ flight manual refers to CDP for both Gp A take off and landing, whereas TDP clearly a Take off term. Maybe I would have been better off using TDP and LDP as generic terms.
The AW139 does perform to Class 1 at MTOW offshore, and it makes for a much less stressful departure. It is the way ahead
.Whatever, the important part of the debate, as illustrated in your reply, is that you choose to wear a headset and some of your colleagues choose to wear helmets. Happiness!
Maybe we should all get opportunity to choose.
Red
The Morecambe Bay crash shows that it doesn't have to be an engine failure that puts you in the water. Helmets for those pax involved in an uncontrolled ditching will increase their chances of survival.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedWhite&Blue
Do you do that every night... do you fly outside the limitations of the aircraft and/or company Ops manual if not then you are within a reasonably safe environment, don't make it out to be something it's not.
Me neither, but then again it is mandated through the regulations.
flying multiple short shuttle sectors, at night, at 500ft and below, down wind, in 50kts, landing and departing onto flat top decks of 16m diameter? A typical winter evening’s work in the SNS.
I for one wouldn’t dream of giving up my immersion suit in the winter
Immersion suits when required, yes. Even marginal conditions it makes sense to wear one offshore. Helmets? No way. I can understand the thought behind wearing a helmet but is the risk really that great that us offshore bods need to wear one? I don't think so. Also, performance on say an S76A+/C whatever, is acceptable to the powers that be and proper planning will give you some margin for error. 139's would be nice all round but not all companies want to spend money when they can get away with not speding a cent and keeping old a/c in the air.
The exposure time is exactly that. Reduce/minimise the exposure time and you'll have more time to fly away rather than ditch.
Helmets would be good for bird strikes, but do you really think a blade coming through the cabin would have less effect if you're wearing a helmet? I think not.
As for hitting your head in turbulence. Utter cr*p!! Tighten your seatbelt and shoulder harnesses.
The exposure time is exactly that. Reduce/minimise the exposure time and you'll have more time to fly away rather than ditch.
Helmets would be good for bird strikes, but do you really think a blade coming through the cabin would have less effect if you're wearing a helmet? I think not.
As for hitting your head in turbulence. Utter cr*p!! Tighten your seatbelt and shoulder harnesses.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staticdroop
Of course the answers to the above is no not every night, but often enough (just ask the guys and girls in Norwich, Humberside, Denes, Blackpool, Den Helder and Esbjerg), and, no not outside either aircraft or Ops manual limitations.
I'm not trying to make "it out to be something it's not", simply trying to emphasise that not all North Sea flying is sitting in the cruise at 3000ft enroute to the Basin as your analogy with an airline might suggest. The guys in the NNS will recognise that too.
And I guess that every time you flew a HEMS, PAOC, Mil or pipeline sortie you were not dicing with death protected by only a thin dome of kevlar, resin and polycarbonate.
With the exception of Military ops in a hostile environment are these not also reasonably safe environments? If not why are we risking the lives of the crews and the people they fly over.
As I said before, I'm not arguing for or against helmets but rather for the opportunity to choose. If I want to wear a helmet why shouldn't I be allowed to? Now, if you feel I shouldn't be allowed to then convince me. Tell me who I will disadvantage by doing so, and why.
Red
Do you do that every night... do you fly outside the limitations of the aircraft and/or company Ops manual if not then you are within a reasonably safe environment, don't make it out to be something it's not.
I'm not trying to make "it out to be something it's not", simply trying to emphasise that not all North Sea flying is sitting in the cruise at 3000ft enroute to the Basin as your analogy with an airline might suggest. The guys in the NNS will recognise that too.
And I guess that every time you flew a HEMS, PAOC, Mil or pipeline sortie you were not dicing with death protected by only a thin dome of kevlar, resin and polycarbonate.
With the exception of Military ops in a hostile environment are these not also reasonably safe environments? If not why are we risking the lives of the crews and the people they fly over.
As I said before, I'm not arguing for or against helmets but rather for the opportunity to choose. If I want to wear a helmet why shouldn't I be allowed to? Now, if you feel I shouldn't be allowed to then convince me. Tell me who I will disadvantage by doing so, and why.
Red
£15 too much to spend?
North sea pasengers could wear a low cost, low profile helmet, that would cost peanuts but offer some protection.
Something like a rock climbing, mountain bike or skateboarding helmet (£15!) is better than nothing and not inappropriate given the padded interior of the heli.
Mickjoebill
Something like a rock climbing, mountain bike or skateboarding helmet (£15!) is better than nothing and not inappropriate given the padded interior of the heli.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see the industry, collectively between manufacturers , regulators, operators and clients, continue to strive for fixed wing jet transport levels of safety. That would be a proactive stance and is where the offshore industry should be heading.
Manufacturers to continue to improve the integrity of aircraft and autopilots, regulators to continue to ensure reasonable flight and duty times together with phasing out old aircraft and mandating performance standards for new aircraft, operators to ensure that pilots are suitably experienced, trained and crewed, and clients to understand that they have to pay for safety.
In my ideal industry, there would be no need for helmets for anyone. Pilots heads (probably the most at risk with overhead consoles etc.) should be protected with airbags each side of the cockpit which could be deployed by the pilot or automatically. I have 10 airbags in my car, why not in a helicopter?
Manufacturers to continue to improve the integrity of aircraft and autopilots, regulators to continue to ensure reasonable flight and duty times together with phasing out old aircraft and mandating performance standards for new aircraft, operators to ensure that pilots are suitably experienced, trained and crewed, and clients to understand that they have to pay for safety.
In my ideal industry, there would be no need for helmets for anyone. Pilots heads (probably the most at risk with overhead consoles etc.) should be protected with airbags each side of the cockpit which could be deployed by the pilot or automatically. I have 10 airbags in my car, why not in a helicopter?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument that fixed wing pilots don’t wear them does not hold water as the dynamics, environment and tasking of the two machines are completely different, particularly when it comes to crashing. In one particular 76 crash the uninjured Co-pilot was trapped in his seat. The Captain helped the crash crew extricate him but 45 minutes after the crash the Captain dropped dead as a result of a seemingly minor bump to the head on the broom closet during the crash. I’m a short ass, and didn’t like the 76 cockpit as I knew the overhead switch panel or door pillar were so close that a lobotomy might very well be in the offing should the worse happen (and I know a lot of people would say that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing). 
In the 30 years of operation of the company I worked for we never had occasion to use an emergency exit, life raft, life jacket, immersion suit, or any other item of safety equipment. Is that a good argument that we could/should rid ourselves of all those items and save a bunch of money?
This is the official report of an accident in which a pitch change link became disconnected from a blade. It is because of this type of scenario that I personally would make helmets mandatory for helo pilots.
Bell 412 N524EH Girdwood, Alaska 6th May 1989
WHILE IFR AT 10,000 FEET OVER MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN, THE HELCIOPTER EXPERIENCED VIOLENT VERTICAL VIBRATIONS, WHICH CONTINUED UNTIL THE CRASH-LANDING ABOUT FIVE MINUTES LATER. ON BOARD WEATHER RADAR WAS USED TO GUIDE THE HELICOPTER AROUND THE MOUNTAIN TOPS, WHICH WERE IN THE CLOUDS. AT ABOUT 200 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND, THE HELICOPTER CAUGHT FIRE, TAIL ROTOR CONTROL WAS LOST, BOTH ENGINES QUIT, AND CYCLIC CONTROL BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. THE HELICOPTER WAS DESTROYED BY POST-CRASH FIRE. ABOUT ONE HOUR OF FLT TIME EARLIER, THE HELICOPTER HAD UNDERGONE AN INSPECTION, DURING WHICH THE MAIN ROTOR FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM BOLTS HAD BEEN RETORQUED. ALL BUT ONE OF THESE BOLTS WERE FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE. HOWEVER, THE ROD END FOR THE MISSING BOLT WAS FOUND.
What the report does not say is that the vibration was so violent that the electrical panel fell down from the overhead, the pilots were bounced so violently in their seats, even though their straps were tight, that their heads went through and broke the overhead green house windows and their heads were continually beaten against the door pillar. What saved them? They had helmets (injuries were classified as minor/none). Both engines quit and caught fire because they had been torn from their mountings by the vibration.
Certainly there have been accidents/incidents in the fixed wing world where the pilot would have been better off with a helmet. I know one chap who was flying a Seneca who was rendered unconscious in turbulence by the door pillar. He has no idea how long he was out to it (was solo) but the aircraft was still more or less straight and level (no autopilot) when he woke up. A Pa28 pilot in the US had the same experience, but unfortunately when he came too he did not regain his vision and despite help from flight service subsequently lost his life in the crash.
Have a look at the photo below for what happens when blades decide that they have a life of their own. I did have a very evocative and poignant photo of the RHS pilot slumped in his straps with his head on his chest and the LHS pilot was no where to be seen (you can see what’s happened to his seat). A helmet won’t save you every time but there is many a pilot who thanks God he was wearing a helmet when that blade came through the cockpit, many of them humble R22 mustering pilots.
Safe flying folks.
In the 30 years of operation of the company I worked for we never had occasion to use an emergency exit, life raft, life jacket, immersion suit, or any other item of safety equipment. Is that a good argument that we could/should rid ourselves of all those items and save a bunch of money?
This is the official report of an accident in which a pitch change link became disconnected from a blade. It is because of this type of scenario that I personally would make helmets mandatory for helo pilots.
Bell 412 N524EH Girdwood, Alaska 6th May 1989
WHILE IFR AT 10,000 FEET OVER MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN, THE HELCIOPTER EXPERIENCED VIOLENT VERTICAL VIBRATIONS, WHICH CONTINUED UNTIL THE CRASH-LANDING ABOUT FIVE MINUTES LATER. ON BOARD WEATHER RADAR WAS USED TO GUIDE THE HELICOPTER AROUND THE MOUNTAIN TOPS, WHICH WERE IN THE CLOUDS. AT ABOUT 200 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND, THE HELICOPTER CAUGHT FIRE, TAIL ROTOR CONTROL WAS LOST, BOTH ENGINES QUIT, AND CYCLIC CONTROL BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. THE HELICOPTER WAS DESTROYED BY POST-CRASH FIRE. ABOUT ONE HOUR OF FLT TIME EARLIER, THE HELICOPTER HAD UNDERGONE AN INSPECTION, DURING WHICH THE MAIN ROTOR FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM BOLTS HAD BEEN RETORQUED. ALL BUT ONE OF THESE BOLTS WERE FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE. HOWEVER, THE ROD END FOR THE MISSING BOLT WAS FOUND.
What the report does not say is that the vibration was so violent that the electrical panel fell down from the overhead, the pilots were bounced so violently in their seats, even though their straps were tight, that their heads went through and broke the overhead green house windows and their heads were continually beaten against the door pillar. What saved them? They had helmets (injuries were classified as minor/none). Both engines quit and caught fire because they had been torn from their mountings by the vibration.
Certainly there have been accidents/incidents in the fixed wing world where the pilot would have been better off with a helmet. I know one chap who was flying a Seneca who was rendered unconscious in turbulence by the door pillar. He has no idea how long he was out to it (was solo) but the aircraft was still more or less straight and level (no autopilot) when he woke up. A Pa28 pilot in the US had the same experience, but unfortunately when he came too he did not regain his vision and despite help from flight service subsequently lost his life in the crash.
Have a look at the photo below for what happens when blades decide that they have a life of their own. I did have a very evocative and poignant photo of the RHS pilot slumped in his straps with his head on his chest and the LHS pilot was no where to be seen (you can see what’s happened to his seat). A helmet won’t save you every time but there is many a pilot who thanks God he was wearing a helmet when that blade came through the cockpit, many of them humble R22 mustering pilots.
Safe flying folks.
EDIT: Gentlemen and ladies, I discovered that this post was moved from the Cougar S-92 crash thread, which is the context of the quote and my observation.
LW50
Interesting question.
In 1989, Tom House died in a Seahawk mishap off of Point Loma California (RIP, Tom). Tail Rotor loss of thrust led to an immediate ditch scenario. Henry Harris, Pilot Flying and the AW (Darnit, name not on tip of tongue) egressed successfully. Navy crew, all three were wearing helmets, etc, and usual flight/flotation gear.
Tom, PNF, was knocked out, as best as they could reconstruct afterwards, at water impact. Wearing helmet, when the seat stroked (they didn't hit the water gently, Henry's back was a mess for some time after the crash) his head snapped down and forehead met cyclic stick. Bad luck of geometry. Hard to egress when you are not conscious.
Even with a helmet, there is no guarantee that with a hard landing in a ditch/crash one will avoid injury ... but it's the way to bet.
Not sure how that would have helped in this mishap.
LW50
Is the TSB implying that the crew may have been able to escape if they had been better protected?
In 1989, Tom House died in a Seahawk mishap off of Point Loma California (RIP, Tom). Tail Rotor loss of thrust led to an immediate ditch scenario. Henry Harris, Pilot Flying and the AW (Darnit, name not on tip of tongue) egressed successfully. Navy crew, all three were wearing helmets, etc, and usual flight/flotation gear.
Tom, PNF, was knocked out, as best as they could reconstruct afterwards, at water impact. Wearing helmet, when the seat stroked (they didn't hit the water gently, Henry's back was a mess for some time after the crash) his head snapped down and forehead met cyclic stick. Bad luck of geometry. Hard to egress when you are not conscious.
Even with a helmet, there is no guarantee that with a hard landing in a ditch/crash one will avoid injury ... but it's the way to bet.
Not sure how that would have helped in this mishap.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 9th Sep 2010 at 13:27.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sense the old question of helmets for crews is going to surface again soon, so it may as well be here, and it is a good point raised. There are many pros and cons, and whether it would have helped in the cougar accident is possibly doubtful, but the example above shows that quite possibly a helmet saved two lives. I have known quite a few people who have escaped accidents relatively unharmed, albeit with chunks missing from the helmet. There is generally far more to meet you face and head in the cockpit than in the cabin, and as many will testify to, the event is not over on impact with, or landing on the water. It is vitally important that the crew are still in some sort of conscious state to sort out the ensuing mess, including getting the aircraft properly stabilised and shut down, floats and rafts deployed, and the co-ordination of the egress. Many will complain of discomfort from wearing helmets, but modern design is making this easier. The problem is, as ever money, and until the oil companies push for it, it probably wont be properly implemented. There is always of course a psychological element to ditching, and it is very hard to blame any pilots for this. I hope this is covered in the report, and the idea of ditching in heavy seas with very cold temperatures will never be appealing, especially if one does not have full confidence in safety measures. It remains that most crews do not fly with helmets nor any form of re-breathing apparatus or STAS (Short Term Air Supply), and it just might be possible that this is one small factor that adds to the delay to ditch straight away, when possibly one should. The decision to ditch will never be an easy one, and never be completely black and white. It will be a complex analysis of many factors and a decision based on an assessment, not least of which is "what gives us all the best chance of survival?". Cold water, heavy seas, maybe darkness, no rebreather/STAS, relatively long rescue time, poor survival suits will all pretty much stack the odds in favour of at least a few deaths in most cases. A difficult decision indeed, but maybe it would be a little easier if the best available survival equipment was made available to all, thus mitigating at least one of the factors for assessment.
HB makes some good points, as usual. Personally, I've wanted to wear a helmet for over 20 years - I'm sure any 332 pilot with any imagination has spent some time in the cruise working out where those bolt heads were going to make contact in a hard impact! Or a 212 rotor brake, or harness guide etc etc. The biggest single aid to escaping a ditched helicopter (or burning one) is being conscious.
We have used STAS for 4 years now, and are about to start wearing helmets. Who knows what benefit there would have been for this unfortunate crew, but I hope we can move away from the "it might worry the passengers" mentality that seems to have prevailed for some time now.
We have used STAS for 4 years now, and are about to start wearing helmets. Who knows what benefit there would have been for this unfortunate crew, but I hope we can move away from the "it might worry the passengers" mentality that seems to have prevailed for some time now.
Horror Box, I don't think the helmets necessarily saved the lives of Henry nor his crewman. There was no cyclic stick in the rear cabin, and Henry is/was quite a bit taller than Tom, so different seat stroke geometry, and had the controls in his hands, which may have influenced where cyclic was relative to body as his body reacted to seat stroke.
What I was trying to point out was that even with a helmet, you can still get a blow to the head that will be an obstacle to your surviving the crash. (Had Tom and Henry ended up over dry land with as firm a landing, Tom would have lived thanks to not breathing in water after impact).
However, having flown numerous aircraft, all with helmet, I got used to it and was also grateful for the many improvements over the years in lightening the helmets ... which helped mitigate neck and back strain due to vibration loading on the body in helicopters. (Different topic, of course).
Very well said.
What I was trying to point out was that even with a helmet, you can still get a blow to the head that will be an obstacle to your surviving the crash. (Had Tom and Henry ended up over dry land with as firm a landing, Tom would have lived thanks to not breathing in water after impact).
However, having flown numerous aircraft, all with helmet, I got used to it and was also grateful for the many improvements over the years in lightening the helmets ... which helped mitigate neck and back strain due to vibration loading on the body in helicopters. (Different topic, of course).
The decision to ditch will never be an easy one, and never be completely black and white. It will be a complex analysis of many factors and a decision based on an assessment, not least of which is "what gives us all the best chance of survival?"
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horror Box, I don't think the helmets necessarily saved the lives of Henry nor his crewman. There was no cyclic stick in the rear cabin, and Henry is/was quite a bit taller than Tom, so different seat stroke geometry, and had the controls in his hands, which may have influenced where cyclic was relative to body as his body reacted to seat stroke.
What I was trying to point out was that even with a helmet, you can still get a blow to the head that will be an obstacle to your surviving the crash. (Had Tom and Henry ended up over dry land with as firm a landing, Tom would have lived thanks to not breathing in water after impact).
What I was trying to point out was that even with a helmet, you can still get a blow to the head that will be an obstacle to your surviving the crash. (Had Tom and Henry ended up over dry land with as firm a landing, Tom would have lived thanks to not breathing in water after impact).
212 -
We have used STAS for 4 years now, and are about to start wearing helmets. Who knows what benefit there would have been for this unfortunate crew, but I hope we can move away from the "it might worry the passengers" mentality that seems to have prevailed for some time now.
Last edited by Horror box; 8th Sep 2010 at 17:26.
My theory being that with pretty much any forward motion at the point of impact, you are going to get a fairly firm kiss from various parts of the cockpit, most likely from the circuit breaker panel behind as you head whips backwards and quite possibly the top of the instrument panel. In this instance a helmet will certainly help, and could very likely be the difference between remaining conscious or otherwise.
"I hope not!"
Pilots wear one anyway, in certain occupations.