Helmets in offshore ops?

[Colibri49]

The sunvisors, even the light gray ones, in the EC225 are sufficient sun protection for my eyes. Even before I was forced to wear glasses, I almost never used sunglasses in the military and simply 'squinted' my eyes to reduce glare. I found that sunglasses irritated me and sometimes gave me a headache.

The stems of my prescription glasses don't let extra noise into the earphones, as the pads have settled around the stems to make a full seal. We are issued with reusable individually shaped earplugs which do a fantastic job of filtering out unwanted noise, so additional noise reduction offered by helmets is not an issue for us.

Sunburn also isn't an issue when flying over the North Sea. I have a skin type which is highly intolerant of strong sunlight and I use SPF 50 in sunny latitudes. In 30 summers here, I've never gotten sunburned in a helicopter.

So, hearing problems can't be blamed on a combination of earphones and sunglasses; properly fitted earplugs take care of that. Sunburn is a non-factor for North Sea pilots. All that leaves is head protection in the event of a crash. About 40 years of North Sea oil exploration history tells us that not one life might have been saved by the wearing of helmets. Q.E.D.

[2papabravo]

I can't help feeling this issue is rather simple:

1) Does clear evidence exist regarding the noise reduction? Numbers rather than the anedoctal...

2) What is the weight of a modern helmet vs a company issued headset? An actual figure...not people talking about their old mil/civ helmets...

Once we have some facts rather than 'opinions' - this debate can move in a sensible direction. I think the nervousness of passengers is blown out of proportion. The notion that they would be quaking in their boots because we sit up front with helmets on is laughable. They are not stupid - simply keep them informed that its because we spend our working life inside a high noise-level environment and we require increased protection (assuming those facts I asked about demonstrate this). I'm sure they will quickly drift off back to sleep or get back to their paper. I saw people wearing helmets getting into Schweizers during training - it didn't drum up emotions of a 'war-zone' Colibri. Nor would it for PAX as they climb into their air conditioned, well lit cabin for their 1.5 hour flight to work.

I think its my back that's going to give out first rather than my hearing...where's the thread on that??

2pb

[Senior Pilot]

Originally Posted by 2papabravo

I think its my back that's going to give out first rather than my hearing...where's the thread on that??

Helicopter pilot back problems

[2papabravo]

Now that is service!

Thank you Senior Pilot

[Colibri49]

I say again, hearing isn't an issue. Properly fitted earplugs take care of that. Discomfort of helmets is definitely an issue. Even if they weigh next to nothing, the wearing of anything close-fitting around the head creates extra heat and for people like me, that means sweating and itching.

Discomfort of any kind increases fatigue, so I would be campaigning for a further reduction in flying and duty hours a la the reductions we already have to compensate for wearing immersion suits.

We would also need to take mandatory breaks of at least one hour between flights, such as my company already allows after 4.5 hours in immersion suits.

Fatigue increases risk and no doubt our passengers would be interested to know that many pilots will feel more fatigued while wearing irritating and distracting helmets during ARAs, etc.

[Horror box]

Colibri,
if you are comfortable, and have been issued a decent headset, then great for you, crack on with that. Don't dismiss all of the other accounts though just because they don't match yours. You also forget that this can be quite type specific. When I flew the Puma, some years ago, I had no great problem with the noise, and agree that the sun-visor in aircraft was of great help. In the S92 the problem and aesthetics are different. The main problem in the S92 comes more from pressure wave through the top of the cockpit from the 4 blades. This is especially apparent in the right hand seat. This was something I never experienced in a Puma, nor any other type for that matter. Many pilots in the 92 are experiencing serious tinnitus after a short period of time due to this. Simply wearing a cap reduces this somewhat, and putting a newspaper on top of your head reduces further (although looks bloody daft, and probably would scare the pax more than a helmet), but a fifth blade would really help. I suspect that most of the supporters of the wearing of helmets are from the S92 community, and many of the nay-sayers from other types, so please take this into your consideration when you so quickly dismiss the benefits.

[Droopystop]

Helimut

Erm, aren't the shoulder belt inertia systems supposed to do that? If you locked them in place, how would you reach forward if necessary?

My rather elementary understanding on how inertia reels work is that they only work in response to acclerations in one or maybe two of the possible six degrees of freedom. I gather that there are many cases where inertia reels have not prevented the cyclic and/or the instrument panel causing injury. That coupled with the regulators requiring a locking mechanism would to me indicate that your confidence in the inertia reel is misplaced. As for reaching stuff when locked, I take the view that allowing yourself to be distracted in a critical phase of flight by something out of reach is more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.

Horror Box,

Yes they can............

Would you care to expand on that, perhaps with a link or reference? I have to say I am anti helmet at the moment. I have found helmets to provide less noise attenuation than a headset and I gather that is confirmed by measurements. Moreover, I do wonder why if helmets are so good at reducing noise, why the American military provide their helicopter pilots with supplementary hearing protection. However if there is compelling evidence that a particular helmet provides better noise attenuation than any other means of hearing protection I am willing to be persuaded.

[Horror box]

Droopystop,

I think the main reason the US military provide both is that it is the best combination to afford the best protection. The helmet provides a good protection from vibration and pressure waves heading toward and through your skull, and extra earplugs just make sense to give maximum possible protection in certain frequencies, especially the high pitch. This effectively covers the whole spectrum of vibration and noise. A very good idea, and I believe if I recall correctly the Australian military do the same, for the same reason.
As far as evidence, here is a link. A study conducted by the Norwegian Aviation Medicine Institute, showing the high levels of vibration and noise in the S92 over other types. Sorry if you can't read Norwegian, but google translate does a fairly good job. It would appear hat the Norwegian authorities are the only ones taking this seriously.

http://www.flymed.no/files/Helkroppsvibrasjoner%20og%20støy.pdf

Also see this thread, with more anecdotal evidence.

Hearing problems and flying the S92

[Horror box]

Very very briefly to summarise the article - The S92 has a vibration level 42% higher than that of the Super Puma. 85db is considered to be the absolute maximum, and at this level damage can be expected. It is recommended that the level be closer to 70db for a safe working environment. The S92 is often above 85db and can be considerably higher. In all categories the S92 vibrates more and has higher noise levels than other types tested.
My point point is to the anti-helmet argument, you must take types other than your own into consideration, and the fact that there is documented evidence to support the idea that noise and vibration levels are above an acceptable threshold, mean we must do something. The aviation medical experts are of the opinion that a helmet provides the best overall protection, and that whilst ANC and other DC headsets are comfortable, as are earplugs, they do nothing to reduce the high vibration entering your skull and damaging the small mechanisms in your ear. There are a variety of solutions, of which a helmet is one. It is also the cheapest and easiest, but maybe not the most preferable to all. The alternatives require major redesign of the aircraft structure and materials used, and are not likely to be forthcoming in a short time period. I recommend for anyone interested to at least google translate the summary of the article posted.

[C.C.C.]

Originally Posted by Horror box

Many pilots in the 92 are experiencing serious tinnitus after a short period of time due to this. Simply wearing a cap reduces this somewhat

So how does wearing a cap help reduce tinnitus? Many of the S92A pilots I work with who wear a baseball cap have their headset on top of the side rim of the cap thus breaking the ear cup seal - same effect as wearing glasses without using the stop gap/eyeglass temple cushions.

[Droopystop]

Horror Box,

Thankyou for the links. I have seen the Norwegian text before, but never translated it although was aware of the increased noise levels experienced by S92 Pilots.

Correct me if I am wrong though, that report doesn't look at noise levels experienced by S92 Pilots (or indeed their simulator) wearing helmets. I think what is needed here is a similar report being conducted with the pilots and the HATS dummy wearing helmets. I suspect that my hearing has been damaged whilst wearing a helmet, I would only wear one again (and gladly) if it is proven to be better than alternatives (or there is an increased risk of crashing!).

[Horror box]

CCC - the cap simply adds an extra layer between your skull and the pressure wave coming through from above, and helps to absorb some of the low frequency waves. It makes quite a difference, and if you try with and without irrespective of whether on top or under the headset, you will immediately notice the difference. Then try and put something else on top of that such as a hood or a newspaper and it gets a lot quieter again. The idea is that the tinnitus is caused by the low frequency pressure waves effect caused by the rotor directly above the head, and anything that cushions/absorbs this between the source and skull will reduce the effect. I am in no doubt as to the validity of this theory.

Droopystop - you are quite right, and as far as I am aware the full benefits of a helmet have yet to be investigated, and therefore I am yet to be fully convinced myself. What we do know is that the levels are unacceptably high. What I am certainly advocating is a much discussion and trial as possible and finding where the solution lies and not just dismissing options for whatever reason. There are multiple factors, as we are all aware, and it is not just noise, but also various types of vibration, and it will probably require a combination of fixes, such as a helmet for vibration and low frequency and ANR/DC or good earplugs for higher frequency. Perhaps there are alternatives to the helmet that offer more comfort such as some form of fitted hood made from a material that will absorb the vibration. This however might upset that fashion conscious amongst us as it may give the impression of a wannabe Russian cosmonaut in the cockpit, and of course we wouldn't want to confuse the passengers!

[Colibri49]

I take orders from my wife sometimes, my employer always, the police in the conduct of their lawful duties and anyone pointing a gun or knife at me. Any other person who tells me "Don't say something" relating to what he thinks others won't want to hear will elicit a terse reply.

I will fight by all means any attempt to impose a blanket requirement for all offshore pilots to wear helmets, particularly if that requirement is applied to pilots flying over the northern North Sea.

I NEVER implied that those who fly types where noise is a serious issue e.g. the S92, or those who fly in other operational theatres where the risk of serious head injuries is significant, shouldn't be provided with helmets.

I'll reiterate and keep on reiterating: 1) There is no irrefutable historical evidence that the wearing of helmets in northern North Sea ops might have saved lives. 2) Even the lightest weight helmets cause heat and discomfort to increase to the extent where it can be a serious distraction for some pilots. 3) If we're forced to wear them, I'll campaign loud and long for mandatory 1 hour breaks free of all flight planning between flights. 4) I'll ask contacts in the offshore unions whether they would feel safe knowing that pilots engaged in critical phases of flight are being distracted by itchy sweaty scalps, caused by wearing helmets.

Finally, I'll calm down and adopt a more moderate tone when I'm given total assurance that the wearing of helmets will never become mandatory.

[Horror box]

I take orders from my wife sometimes, my employer always, the police in the conduct of their lawful duties and anyone pointing a gun or knife at me. Any other person who tells me "Don't say something" relating to what he thinks others won't want to hear will elicit a terse reply.

I will fight by all means any attempt to impose a blanket requirement for all offshore pilots to wear helmets, particularly if that requirement is applied to pilots flying over the northern North Sea.

I NEVER implied that those who fly types where noise is a serious issue e.g. the S92, or those who fly in other operational theatres where the risk of serious head injuries is significant, shouldn't be provided with helmets.

I'll reiterate and keep on reiterating: 1) There is no irrefutable historical evidence that the wearing of helmets in northern North Sea ops might have saved lives. 2) Even the lightest weight helmets cause heat and discomfort to increase to the extent where it can be a serious distraction for some pilots. 3) If we're forced to wear them, I'll campaign loud and long for mandatory 1 hour breaks free of all flight planning between flights. 4) I'll ask contacts in the offshore unions whether they would feel safe knowing that pilots engaged in critical phases of flight are being distracted by itchy sweaty scalps, caused by wearing helmets.

Finally, I'll calm down and adopt a more moderate tone when I'm given total assurance that the wearing of helmets will never become mandatory.

I do take your points and they are all perfectly valid but for every argument there must be a counter argument, and very often the truth lies between the two! I don't think you need to elevate your blood pressure over a very healthy discussion. I find it very unlikely you will be forced to wear a helmet, even if your company issues them, as long as you have a good reason not to, although the TSB of Canada are not far from enforcing this on their offshore pilots. I do suggest though that you continue to engage in the discussion, and take it as that, and hopefully we all benefit.
As far as your points above - well 1) irrefutable evidence in the North Sea as to where a helmet has saved lives is difficult, I will grant you that. However that does not mean that they have not saved lives anywhere else. I have known quite a few people who have probably owed their lives to their "bone-domes" on land, so they do help. Of course, thankfully, accidents are rare offshore, but they do happen, and the report into the Cougar accident will state that the pilots received head injuries that likely caused them to lose consciousness. Whether or not they would have survived if they had been wearing helmets or not, we will never know, but the families are pushing very hard to have helmets made compulsory for pilots, and they have seen the evidence and been party to an in depth investigation.
2) Helmets causing heat and distraction - this is not exactly objective. Having used an old heavy helmet for up to seven hours during the day in 40 degrees plus, in an old aircraft with no aircon, sometimes at night with NVG, flying low-level and requiring high degrees of concentration, and with people on the ground being really a bit unfriendly toward us on occasion, I can honestly say I did not find my helmet a much of distraction. You get used to it, as you well know. It would have been madness not to wear one. I agree it is more comfortable in some ways without, but i have heard exactly the same argument from people who want a helmet and now wear one - that the noise and vibration is actually a far greater distraction and that a lightweight comfortable helmet allows for a more comfortable, less distracting environment.
3) Our company already has 1 hour breaks between all flights and has done for many years and most of us do not wear helmets. In fact those who are wearing them say they feel less fatigued now than when they did not have a helmet. 4) don't bother asking your contacts offshore if they are happy with pilots having itchy sweaty scalps as they will just realise a bunch of smelly pongos have infiltrated, and will probably just reply that you need better hygiene rituals.

[2papabravo]

Jeez ,no wonder you're a 'sweater'.

We're all free to say what we like so you keep doing it.

It would be nice, if clear data and evidence existed, that if helmets provided increased safety/comfort benefits, we could choose to wear them. Whether paid for by ourselves, or provided by the company - I don't really care. At the moment, the mere notion of wearing them seems to kick up so much stink and I can't understand why.

I don't support a blanket requirement either - but demolishing the idea of personal choice with sensationalist arguments about helicopters dropping out of the sky during ARAs and passengers gripped with fear is simply crazy. You've made up your opinion you don't like them...that's ok...but I'm still open to the idea as others are it seems.

I stuck my sunglasses on the other day...raybans with wire frame...even this thin frame destroyed the seal on my earcup and increased the background noise. At that precise moment I thought how nice it would be to simply stick my visor down had I been allowed to wear a helmet...especially as I had to do several approaches with the sun behind the rig.

I say again my first opinion on this subject - clear, independent data on the matter would be helpful...

[Colibri49]

2) Helmets causing heat and distraction - this is not exactly objective. No it isn't an objective statement and nor could it ever be, in my opinion. Such a matter as whether certain items of clothing or equipment worn by an individual are comfortable can only ever be assessed by the subject wearing them.

Hence I feel justified in making such an observation subjectively. This is the essence of my contention that the wearing of helmets in the theatre where I fly will have to remain optional, just as the wearing of fitted earplugs which my company issued is optional.

We have recently been issued with superb headsets, but after a few hours of wearing them on a warm day it's a relief to take them off. So there's no chance that I'm going to get used to wearing a helmet for hours on end.

It is a precarious route to follow when our employers and authorities start bowing to pressure from groups like families of the bereaved, to decide what equipment we should wear or carry. Particularly in cases where it's uncertain whether such equipment might have made a difference.

For example they could insist that we wear many specified thick layers under our immersion suits, or that we should always wear thermal gloves while flying over the sea rather than trying to don them after a ditching.

It's a bit facetious to suggest that our passengers might regard us as dirty pongos. If they get told that some human beings, i.e. some of we pilots sweat more than others and find the consequent itchiness a distraction, why should they find that hard to believe? They get uncomfortable and sweaty in their immersion suits too.

I wouldn't hesitate to make my AME understand how uncomfortable and distracted any helmet would make me. Having obtained a 'line' from the AME excusing me from wearing a helmet, if my employer were to try dismissing me I would involve BALPA and be pleased if the press were to get involved.

This would probably alert offshore workers to the safety issues raised by potential distraction caused during flight, due to being forced to wear something which could be likened to wearing a hair shirt for some pilots.

[Droopystop]

Colibri,

It is no wonder that you might find a helmet uncomfortable if you get so hot under the collar about what is at the moment a hypothetical discussion. I think the too hot and uncomfortable argument would get shot down fairly easily since, as has been said here before, there are pilots who have to wear a helmet flying in hotter (in every sense of the word) conditions.

I happen to agree that wearing a helmet in the offshore environment is a bit over the top. Head protection is better provided by other safety measures such as SOPs, modern aircraft, training etc. Birds don't seem to go through windows very often. The only scenario I can see where helmets would be introduced is the noise issue and I am dubious if that can be justified. However if helmets are deemed necessary, the solution to sweaty heads is simple - air conditioning.

[pohm1]

Guys flying offshore here in Australia, including myself, wear a helmet if they want to, pilots simply exercise personal choice in the matter.

In 5 years, I've never had a passenger complain about it!

P1

[Garry Butler]

I started flying offshore in 1988. The Company had a policy of not wearing helmets for offshore operations for the only reasons of causing alarm amongst the pax. Shortly after this when H & S started to become more prevalent the Company produced a H & S policy stating to the effect that an individual shall take what ever steps necessary to protect ones body. This snookered the Company and were forced to back down from their no helmet policy offshore. I immediately started wearing my helmet again. The only comment I received and there was only one, from a helideck person was "you are wearing your helmet today". I have worn a helmet ever since, upgrading to the latest Gentex in 2002 with CEP(earplugs with a microphone inside the earplug) and this was a great step forward in technology for noise/fatigue reduction.

[otter712]

HGU-56

Company issued HGU-56 with ANR kit. Would not want to trade it for anything else. Beats my Lightspeed Zulu in every aspect.