Helmets in offshore ops?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
The only comment I received and there was only one, from a helideck person was "you are wearing your helmet today".
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.
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.
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.
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.
My interest in this topic doesn't stem one tiny little bit from 'families of the bereaved'. I'm simply a pilot, looking to maximise the protection of my hearing, improve comfort when flying in sunny conditions and if it protects my noggin' during an accident then even better. But as I don't plan and contacting the ground/sea...I'm hoping its the first two that I really benefit from.
"Divisive" is an accurate word to apply to me, or anyone who just doesn't happen to agree with you. That's what this sort of discussion is about; dividing participants into camps for and against. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to discuss.
As far as aircon goes, our employer wouldn't spend a penny to get it retro-fitted in these cooler regions of the world. But fortunately it comes fitted as standard in the S92, which is handy for the pilots flying them to get relief from the discomfort which only some may experience due to sweating.
Sweating happens to a minority even in the winter while wearing immersion suits over thick underwear, having cabin heating turned on and flying towards the sun.
So far the majority doesn't seem to agree with me on this forum and nor did I expect it, having been involved in similar discussions previously. But a few comments seem to support my contention that the wearing of helmets shouldn't be made compulsory in North Sea operations.
That's all I wanted to achieve by sticking my oar into this topic. I hope that more North Sea pilots will speak up against being forced to wear helmets, should that situation ever arise. However such developments often start out being sold as optional and become compulsory soon thereafter.
Anyone out there reading this who happens to agree that helmets should remain optional, please be ready to stand up and be counted the first time this subject gets raised again at work. And it will.
As far as aircon goes, our employer wouldn't spend a penny to get it retro-fitted in these cooler regions of the world. But fortunately it comes fitted as standard in the S92, which is handy for the pilots flying them to get relief from the discomfort which only some may experience due to sweating.
Sweating happens to a minority even in the winter while wearing immersion suits over thick underwear, having cabin heating turned on and flying towards the sun.
So far the majority doesn't seem to agree with me on this forum and nor did I expect it, having been involved in similar discussions previously. But a few comments seem to support my contention that the wearing of helmets shouldn't be made compulsory in North Sea operations.
That's all I wanted to achieve by sticking my oar into this topic. I hope that more North Sea pilots will speak up against being forced to wear helmets, should that situation ever arise. However such developments often start out being sold as optional and become compulsory soon thereafter.
Anyone out there reading this who happens to agree that helmets should remain optional, please be ready to stand up and be counted the first time this subject gets raised again at work. And it will.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colibri,
which bit of the "nobody is advocating that this should be compulsory" that I and others have stated over and over again are you not reading? I refer to your comments as being divisive on the grounds that you are threatening to misinform pax and involve the press in some sort of temper tantrum, and that would be divisive within your own company and colleagues not mine. I am fortunate enough to work in a company that is taking this very seriously and conducting thorough investigation and discussion into the topic, and now starting to give pilots the option based on all the evidence and recommendations from our own studies and medical advice. I think you will find that I have also stated that I am not totally convinced myself yet, but am striving to find evidence and a balanced argument for and against. Please read through the thread and actually understand that it is a discussion not some sort of attempt to upset you personally. If you cannot add a balanced argument then maybe it is best not to add anything. As I have stated previously, I believe you have perfectly valid points and welcome the input, but your points are somewhat watered down by you overly defensive attitude and somewhat of a persecution complex.
which bit of the "nobody is advocating that this should be compulsory" that I and others have stated over and over again are you not reading? I refer to your comments as being divisive on the grounds that you are threatening to misinform pax and involve the press in some sort of temper tantrum, and that would be divisive within your own company and colleagues not mine. I am fortunate enough to work in a company that is taking this very seriously and conducting thorough investigation and discussion into the topic, and now starting to give pilots the option based on all the evidence and recommendations from our own studies and medical advice. I think you will find that I have also stated that I am not totally convinced myself yet, but am striving to find evidence and a balanced argument for and against. Please read through the thread and actually understand that it is a discussion not some sort of attempt to upset you personally. If you cannot add a balanced argument then maybe it is best not to add anything. As I have stated previously, I believe you have perfectly valid points and welcome the input, but your points are somewhat watered down by you overly defensive attitude and somewhat of a persecution complex.
"nobody is advocating that this should be compulsory". Maybe not in your company and I have understood all along that most contributors to this topic have that point of view.
However in my company there is one conspicuous pilot who has pushed for the introduction of helmets and please believe me that if ever my employers decide to get us all fitted with helmets (much more expensive than individually fitted earplugs), they will definitely instruct all of us to wear them.
Before that day might come, I intend to rant loudly and leave senior management in no doubt that the safety case for helmets in North Sea ops is by no means clear cut. Furthermore I would point out to everyone that in our kind of operations, the wearing of a helmet will be a distraction to some pilots and detrimental to flying safely.
When I used to fly forestry operations with underslung loads, I always wore a helmet and accepted the discomfort. It's simply a case of which risks are greater in which operations, as some of you have agreed.
The trouble is management pilots in my company are mostly limited in their flying experiences, knowing little other than the North Sea and if they get a bee in their bonnets about this they won't be likely to listen to the experience of others or common sense.
So if they intend to unilaterally push helmets on to us some day, I'll do whatever it takes to flag up their unilateral actions in advance by making as public a noise as I can for the opposite point of view.
However in my company there is one conspicuous pilot who has pushed for the introduction of helmets and please believe me that if ever my employers decide to get us all fitted with helmets (much more expensive than individually fitted earplugs), they will definitely instruct all of us to wear them.
Before that day might come, I intend to rant loudly and leave senior management in no doubt that the safety case for helmets in North Sea ops is by no means clear cut. Furthermore I would point out to everyone that in our kind of operations, the wearing of a helmet will be a distraction to some pilots and detrimental to flying safely.
When I used to fly forestry operations with underslung loads, I always wore a helmet and accepted the discomfort. It's simply a case of which risks are greater in which operations, as some of you have agreed.
The trouble is management pilots in my company are mostly limited in their flying experiences, knowing little other than the North Sea and if they get a bee in their bonnets about this they won't be likely to listen to the experience of others or common sense.
So if they intend to unilaterally push helmets on to us some day, I'll do whatever it takes to flag up their unilateral actions in advance by making as public a noise as I can for the opposite point of view.
If you could see me, you'd appreciate that neck muscles aren't an issue. I've had military helmets fitted exactly to my requirements and the civilian one of 1980 onwards was very lightweight.
The problem, if you bother to read the previous thread, is that some people get sweaty itchy scalps even when washing hair daily with medicated shampoo. This in spite of flying in mid-winter.
Unlike some other helicopter theatres of operation where flights seldom last longer than a couple of hours before getting a short break, typically North Sea operations can have you strapped into an airframe for 2 flights, rotors running between flights, lasting from 5.5 to 7.5 hours.
When concentrating on performing airborne radar approaches to offshore installations, sometimes at night and usually in bad visibility, the last thing that's needed is distraction from an itchy scalp.
The problem, if you bother to read the previous thread, is that some people get sweaty itchy scalps even when washing hair daily with medicated shampoo. This in spite of flying in mid-winter.
Unlike some other helicopter theatres of operation where flights seldom last longer than a couple of hours before getting a short break, typically North Sea operations can have you strapped into an airframe for 2 flights, rotors running between flights, lasting from 5.5 to 7.5 hours.
When concentrating on performing airborne radar approaches to offshore installations, sometimes at night and usually in bad visibility, the last thing that's needed is distraction from an itchy scalp.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can only assume there are no itches to scratch in Brunei or a there will need to be baby smooth craniums!
Seriously, if the need to itch is so great I can't see that suffering for 2 hours at a time is any less distracting.
Seriously, if the need to itch is so great I can't see that suffering for 2 hours at a time is any less distracting.
Pity the poor old F117 pilots.....
Yes - I know the fleet is retired now
Yes - I know the fleet is retired now
The problem, if you bother to read the previous thread, is that some people get sweaty itchy scalps even when washing hair daily with medicated shampoo. This in spite of flying in mid-winter.
Unlike some other helicopter theatres of operation where flights seldom last longer than a couple of hours before getting a short break, typically North Sea operations can have you strapped into an airframe for 2 flights, rotors running between flights, lasting from 5.5 to 7.5 hours.
When concentrating on performing airborne radar approaches to offshore installations, sometimes at night and usually in bad visibility, the last thing that's needed is distraction from an itchy scalp.
Unlike some other helicopter theatres of operation where flights seldom last longer than a couple of hours before getting a short break, typically North Sea operations can have you strapped into an airframe for 2 flights, rotors running between flights, lasting from 5.5 to 7.5 hours.
When concentrating on performing airborne radar approaches to offshore installations, sometimes at night and usually in bad visibility, the last thing that's needed is distraction from an itchy scalp.
) the cool North Sea offshore is hardly an environment hostile to helmet wearing, IMO.I suspect that such a premise would get fairly short shrift from those in the fire attack community who regularly operate 10 - 12 flying hour days in slightly warmer conditions. Or the mil chaps in Afghanistan, or a number of far worse places. I wonder how they cope with itchy scalps: itchy bums watching for incoming, more likely
212man and Zalt,
Couple of helmet program admin questions:
1. If your helmet has a problem and won't work until some parts arrive, can you still crew the aircraft with a headset, or have you got company spares for the pilots, or do the pilots have two, like an immersion suit?
2. If a pilot claims the weight bothers his neck, or has an itchy scalp, can he excuse out on medical grounds or is it now simply a job requirement and he can either wear a helmet or work for another operator?
3. If headsets are an MEL item, how does maintenance sign off a pilot's own personal helmet as aircraft equipment?
Couple of helmet program admin questions:
1. If your helmet has a problem and won't work until some parts arrive, can you still crew the aircraft with a headset, or have you got company spares for the pilots, or do the pilots have two, like an immersion suit?
2. If a pilot claims the weight bothers his neck, or has an itchy scalp, can he excuse out on medical grounds or is it now simply a job requirement and he can either wear a helmet or work for another operator?
3. If headsets are an MEL item, how does maintenance sign off a pilot's own personal helmet as aircraft equipment?
It is my understanding that C-NLOPB Helicopter Operations Safety Committee have recently completed a risk assessment on the wearing of helmets in offshore operations.
It might be worth reading this report because it takes into account the probability of a pilot being involved in an accident (in this type of operations), the likely benefits, the physiological effect of the wearing of the helmet on long sectors, and the likely long term effect on health.
Whilst a good case can be made for the high-risk short-sector type of operations, it is not clear that the same benefits obtain for the low risk, long sector, operations that apply offshore.
Perhaps the discussion should be driven by the data - not emotion.
Jim
It might be worth reading this report because it takes into account the probability of a pilot being involved in an accident (in this type of operations), the likely benefits, the physiological effect of the wearing of the helmet on long sectors, and the likely long term effect on health.
Whilst a good case can be made for the high-risk short-sector type of operations, it is not clear that the same benefits obtain for the low risk, long sector, operations that apply offshore.
Perhaps the discussion should be driven by the data - not emotion.
Jim
If it is so safe flying in the N Sea why do the twin engine machines have to have floats ( regularly fly over Atlantinc in a 777 it doesnt have floats !!!!!!!!!), why does everyone have to wear emersion suits, why does everyone have to undergo dunker training ????
In over 40 years of offshore operations in the UK sector alone, well over a million flights have been made and easily over 10 million passengers have been transported, by very conservative calculations. For these civilian flights, not once has the absence of helmets been a safety issue in the few ditchings which have occurred.
The logistics of fitting and maintaining helmets for every passenger, which would have to be the case if pilots were forced to wear them, would be difficult to justify in the light of the historical statistics. If passengers were issued only lightweight canoeing style helmets, they could justifiably ask why the pilots get fitted with something more robust.
Furthermore the public address systems in offshore large helicopters are not of the highest quality. As things are, we frequently get complaints from passengers about poor p.a., so close-fitting helmets are just going to make the hearing of emergency announcements worse. I don't believe that fitting earphones to passenger helmets is practicable. (Certification, wiring, radio interference, etc.)
As for all the other safety stuff like immersion suits, flotation, liferafts and EPIRBs employed in offshore transportation, the assumption must be that when ditching on water there aren't going to be violent collision forces such as could knock people unconscious.
Basically if you hit the water hard enough to knock aircraft occupants about violently, then floats will be torn off, capsize is virtually certain and retrieving liferafts almost impossible.
No doubt you could refer to the Cougar S92 disaster and make suppositions about why one passenger survived. Possibly, or even probably, the wearing of helmets could have saved more. But it's such an extremely isolated case in the history of offshore operations.
The logistics of fitting and maintaining helmets for every passenger, which would have to be the case if pilots were forced to wear them, would be difficult to justify in the light of the historical statistics. If passengers were issued only lightweight canoeing style helmets, they could justifiably ask why the pilots get fitted with something more robust.
Furthermore the public address systems in offshore large helicopters are not of the highest quality. As things are, we frequently get complaints from passengers about poor p.a., so close-fitting helmets are just going to make the hearing of emergency announcements worse. I don't believe that fitting earphones to passenger helmets is practicable. (Certification, wiring, radio interference, etc.)
As for all the other safety stuff like immersion suits, flotation, liferafts and EPIRBs employed in offshore transportation, the assumption must be that when ditching on water there aren't going to be violent collision forces such as could knock people unconscious.
Basically if you hit the water hard enough to knock aircraft occupants about violently, then floats will be torn off, capsize is virtually certain and retrieving liferafts almost impossible.
No doubt you could refer to the Cougar S92 disaster and make suppositions about why one passenger survived. Possibly, or even probably, the wearing of helmets could have saved more. But it's such an extremely isolated case in the history of offshore operations.
Last edited by Colibri49; 9th Nov 2011 at 10:31.
Colibri.
The question of why Pilots should wear helmets when pax don't can be very simply addressed - There is a hell of a lot more stuff for us to smack our heads off then for the pax - Switches / panels / rotor brake levers etc. And that's before you consider the bird-strike / visor argument.
However: i agree with your position that there is not a significant safety case for helmets in N-Sea ops (although i think they should be made available to those that want to wear them).
OH
The question of why Pilots should wear helmets when pax don't can be very simply addressed - There is a hell of a lot more stuff for us to smack our heads off then for the pax - Switches / panels / rotor brake levers etc. And that's before you consider the bird-strike / visor argument.
However: i agree with your position that there is not a significant safety case for helmets in N-Sea ops (although i think they should be made available to those that want to wear them).
OH
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OvertHawk - you make a good observation on the potential for imact injury to pilots who can't really brace for impact. You have got me thinking if a suitable hood / bump cap could be developed for offshore passengers.
