Compulsory helmets/flight suits: merged threads
 

Robinson Helicopter Company releases Safety Notice SN-40
Monday, July 31, 2006 - Robinson Helicopter Company

Safety Notice SN-40
Issued: Jul 2006
POSTCRASH FIRES

There have been a number of cases where helicopter or light plane occupants
have survived an accident only to be severely burned by fire following the
accident. To reduce the risk of injury in a postcrash fire, it
is strongly recommended that a fire-retardant Nomex flight suit, gloves, and
hood or helmet be worn by all occupants.

"Especially when attending a horse racing event like Royal Ascot.."

h-r:} :p ;)

You can almost hear the insurance lawyer's breath on the neck of the letter writer. Now, in court, the defense attorney can ask the Robinson executive, "So, did you ever warn operators about post-crash fires and the way to help survive them?" And the Exec will answer, "Yes, in fact I have a copy right here....."

I always wear a nomex flight suit but, would always wear a helmet if I could. The school and operator in that I work for won't let us wear helmets, purely because "the passengers will want one and prices will go up, etc". There doesn't seem to be much of a culture in the UK of wearing helmets (except HEMS, Police) in comparison to places like NZ, Aus, etc.

TiP:ugh:

Personally, I would prefer to wear a helmet and some decent protective clothing but it's not seen as the normal thing to do in my present employment. :hmm:

Isn't there anyone else out there who flies in speedos?!

I prefer just a G-String on backwards.....then i just have to decide left or right balance ball:ok:

"Hey honey, look what i bought!" says the nouveau rich wife (not sexist...the wife is flying here:} ). "Now lets go shopping for a pair of fireproof flight suits and CRASH helmets:eek: :eek: :eek: ". I know these are required for working folks, doing critical manoeuvers all day long...but for the couple going to their cottage on the weekend:confused:
I know you never choose when an incident/accident will happen, but this apparel will probably have an effect on the perceived safety of these fine helicopters.

That's exactly the point. They are not safe.

A few serious points -
In quite a few years as a mustering pilot as well as aircraft recovery for a dealer I have only seen 1 crashed Robinson which burnt(maybe they all ran out of fuel?!?!). Robinsons don't have a lot of frontal impact protection (hollow-point fibreglass projectile!!) but the fuel tanks rarely rupture. I am relatively inexperienced on the B47 but when I did my Ag rating in a Hiller 12E the instructing pilot told me that he refused to get in a B47 due to the fire risk if they crash!

A not so serious point -
The idea of fire retardent clothing is great so that if you manage to crawl from the wreckage you won't get burnt as you light the wreckage with your cigarette lighter. Not worth claiming pro-rata insurance to rebuild it!

|Bell 47 ,s have fuel tanks that self seal and are designed to break away on impact so they dont generally burn. I know as 5 were written off in so many months crop spraying and none of them burnt !!:O

Compulsory helmets and flight suits????
 

Sorry to bring this subject up yet again but having notified my Insurers about my PPL(H) training, I have just received a letter back from them stating that during my training and for my Personal Accident Insurance Cover to stay valid, they require me to be wearing flame retardant clothing at all times and a helmet when flying solo.

Having just read the recent post on here and looked at the video of the crash scene of the R44 in America that was completely destroyed (with one fatality due to burns) I suppose it makes sense.

My main question is that in the Robinson R22 Pilot's Operating Handbook, their Safety Notice SN-40 states "It is strongly recommended that a fire-retardant Nomex flight suit and helmet to be worn by all occupants". So why is this not adhered to more than it is?
Now I realise that the opinion is usually split on wearing such safety equipment and some may even chuckle seeing an R22 pilot dressed so but surely it makes sense, so I was just wondering how come the relevant Aviation bodies have not yet made it compulsary given how many lives it could save. After all, it's illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet!

I shall probably get laughed at turning up at my flying school in flame retardant clothing but if it is the only way to satisfy my insurance company then so be it, you never know, it might be me who has the last laugh!

What a bizarre requirement from your insurance company; never heard that before - maybe you should try another insurance company.

As regards the R22 accident, maybe a compulsory licence might have helped :=

Cheers

Whirls

Hi Whirls,

I took out my Accident and Sickness cover when I went Freelance in 1991, it is an income replacement policy should I not be able to work for any reason other than unemployment.

I used to work offshore for which they excluded from my policy.

They will not let me engage in any dangerous sports, so I suppose I should be happy they are prepared to cover me at all while flying!

I suppose they are just covering their ass!

I visit the Middle East on a regular basis, that is another exclusion from their policy now.......and so it goes on!!!!!

K77.

Because the rules are made by plank drivers ? And flight suit there screams "military" which is a sworn enemy ? ;)

Seriously though, I see this as improvement, that the insurance company is the one to require protective clothing, and I don't really see the downside - anyone want to enlighten me ?

After seeing what some people wear while flying, it makes sense. Sandals, flip-flops, polyester shorts, nylon t-shirts, etc. One does need to dress properly when engaging in these type activities.

you can get normal looking clothes in Nomex material, a previous thread has covered this subject. That should stop you looking a complete berk...although drain pipes and a shirt with a skid lid will most likely look funnier still...but who cares...

Perhaps one obvious point is being missed. If you are anything on the tall side, there isn't headroom to wear a brain bucket in an R22.

Just as a side note---I am guessing this is a "life insurance" policy---not an aviation policy.

And yes we are back to the same argument again. Maybe we should wear nomex helmets while driving our motor vehicles. Think how safe you would be when someone slams into you.

Rick1128

Yep---I am one who wore flip-flops, shorts and aloha shirt while flying in Hawaii for 7 years. (I would actually fly bare foot--the flip-flops got in the way and really just protected my feet from the hot tarmac). Feel free to do an NTSB search of ALL Hawaii helicopter deaths and tell me if ANY of them could have been saved by nomex and helmets........

Again, it comes down to personal preference. Flying fires now, I wear them both.

You do realize, the motor industry is improving safety constantly, every year there comes another model with something improved, that is throughly tested. You have X generation seat belts, specially designed seats, XXX number of airbags etc. etc. When was the last revision of R22 airframe ? How many crash tests were conducted on it ? And lastly, how many % of car accidents result in fire ? That is a very small % compared to helicopters.

Lets face it, aircraft industry is painfully slow. How old are those Bell 47 that people still train in ? And still are considered useful, while that old cars in most western world can't be registered as easy as today's Mondeo as they're considerate dangerous!

Another question, how many training... actualy, any small helicopters can pass newest revision of FAA FAR part 27 ?

Unfortunatly, with ecception of KNIEVEL77 case, It's mostly all personal risk assesment - to wear nomex and helmet, or not.

Having worn a flight suit & helmet on almost every flight of my last 4500helicopter hours, on those occasions when I didn't, I always felt a little naked!

That said, flying around the Gulf of Oman, with RH of 98% and OAT of 46 C, tended to cause more than a little perspiration - & it wouldn't have made any difference if I'd been wearing a thong & lightweight headset, I'd just have felt even more uncomfortable in the event of an emergency!

I've not had any sort of incident involving fire, either in the air or driving a car - but my personal risk assessment says the result in one is likely to be more drastic than the other, especially given the differences in crash protection afforded by the two different vehicles. I'll therefore continue to "dress to survive", while flying, to give my self the best chance if the toast does fall butter side down!

It doesn't happen often, but the accident reports can make grimmer reading when such precautions have not been taken. :\

Zorab64,

Good post, food for thought indeed!

K77.

Cockpit protection
 

Ah the old chesnut back again.

After some forty years thinking about the problem .. I still don't have an answer.

A few years back I was asked to give evidence in the Glascow B206 accident where a colleague suffered head injuries and the police passenger was killed. The deceased estate's claim was that had the passenger been supplied with a bone dome .. he would probably have survived.

I took the view that utility flying needed fire suits and protective head gear, BUT and its a big but, we are in a commercial environment, and I'm not sure airline passengers would be too happy to see their pilots climb aboard in flame proof suits and crash helmets! And what about the flight attendants!

I know I wouldn't be happy giving a trial lesson, (where the object is to pull in the training business) wearing full protective gear. But on the other side of that coin .. guess who I'd blame when I'm cabbaged due to a head injury following an accident?

Its already been said here. The matter becomes a personal decision, perhaps akin to flight in the H/V avoid area. The ace in the hole the versatile helicopter enjoys is its ability to climb out from a landing site vertically. During my thirty-six years in helicopter operations, I haven't been prepared to abandon such revenue earning sites and I AM prepared to fly inside the H/V so called 'avoid area' for a few seconds of increased risk when considered against the minor risk of an actual engine failure ... which in my case is nil in a little under 14,000 hours airborne. I have always referred to the 'avoid' area as the 'area of extra caution' which I believe puts that situation into its proper perspective.

I accept that public transport flying is a different ball game and commercial pilots are obliged to minmise any increased risk, but I don't see the sense of treating non commercial pilots like F1 racing drivers. So until 'elf n safety' rules require me to dress up, I plan to continue in a smart white shirt, black tie with wings and rings. I wonder what that COF Chief Pilot of the 1970s Ferranti Helicopters would have said. Colonel Bob Smith required his pilots to always wear white gloves when carrying fare paying passengers and with a clean new pair worn every day!

Now lets have the opposite views.

Dennis K

Working for the BBC, i've done quite a bit of flying in Sea Kings over the years and the RAF kit you out with absolutely everything imaginable before you set foot in their helicopters including a substantial pre flight training course on emergency procedures..........so I suppose maybe one should at least take some of their vast experience on board.......now, where's that Nomex flight suit and helmet????? :)

Do nomex underpants cause terminal groin rot?
 

Dennis,

I always thought you to be the epitome of elegance when you carried out our OPC's at Lakeside in Aberdeen many years ago.

Engine failures from well within the "avoid curves" on the 300C and 206B taught me things that my previous 10,000 plus hours (in those days) on Hiller 12's, Whirlind 7's, Sea Kings, S61's, S76's, Bell 206 7 212's had not prepared me for!

Little did I know just how much safety equipment you were concealing beneath your everyday Clark Kent apparel when you were scaring the beejasus out of me dressed in my everyday Levis & M & S shirt!

Please p.m. me with the address of your tailor.

Trog

I currently fly for a Police Air Support Unit, where the dress code whilst flying is Nomex flying suit ,bone dome, leather gloves and boots. I'd much rather wear white shirt, dark trousers, headset and comfortable shoes (!) and NATO sweater in the winter. Rumour has it that the most dangerous phases of a helicopter flight are the take off and landing. I did far more ad- hoc landings/takeoffs doing public transport/corporate flights than I do now. If I were dressed then as I'm expected to dress now, half my passengers would have elected to go by road.
Personally, I think the main benefit of wearing all the kit that I'm expected to wear in my current job, is to make identification of the remains easier if I'm involved in something unpleasant.

RC

...as they say the only time you have too much fuel is when you crash!:uhoh:

NASA will do it differently
 

Auto makers are well ahead of aviation industry.
NASA have released a report into the crew saftey at the time of the Challenger accident. It is clear that the challenger accident was not a survivable event but it beggars belief that given the flight profile on re-entry the following list is standard procedure....

Crew were not wearing all seat belts available (some had just lap belt)
Visors were up
Suits not pressurised
Gloves not worn
Helments were not close fitting (head made contact with inside of helmet)
Parachutes did not have auto deployment
Pressure suites had no auto mode

News report
NASA report details last moments of Columbia crew - Los Angeles Times

Link to report
NASA - Most Recent NASA Reports

NASA are planning to rectify all of the above.



Mickjoebill

I used a helmet (SPH-4) for 12000 hrs but the neck pain finally got to me.
I always prefer a flight suit but sometimes the company insisted on the "bus driver's uniform".
I will not for any reason wear shorts while flying - I have seen the results of that - also if no flight suit is "available’ I wear cotton pants. I buy my own if the Company supplied items have synthetics.

I oft times wonder about cabin crew on Airlines in the event of a fire - skirts and nylons - that's going to work - not!!

Perhaps different than those of you flying in urban areas, but being based in Alaska, there are different considerations. "Surviving the crash" is a two part deal -- after you reach the ground, and survive the crash, you may need to survive until help arrives. That means wearing clothing that not only won't burn, but will allow you to not freeze to death after the fire is out. Clothing and equipment worn on your person is survival gear, while clothing and gear carried in the ship should be considered camping gear, since it may or may not be available after a crash.

While I am in the lower 48 now, it was -38 F today, mid-day, at Port Alsworth, Alaska, near where I did a lot of flying over the last year.

I was brought up in the "bush flying" environment in Northern Quebec in the
50’s and 60's and was always told to dress (and have your customers dress) as to be able to: "stand around looking stupid for 24 hours" in case the damned thing burned with all the survival equipment aboard. A knife, Zippo Lighter, compass, ect were also recommended.

I once had 3 customers show up for a trip to the "outreaches" to view a mining prospect get off an executive jet dressed in suits and ties - in November in Northern Canada no less - I refused to depart with them and after a brief discussion where the words "I'll have your job" were used. I asked them to stand on the ramp for 10 minutes - after about 5 we made a trip to a local store and bought appropriate clothing for all.

I have found it to be a very good concept

I hear the suggestion that what would passengers think if the pilot turned up in a flight suit and helmet........'very professional' would be my thinking and more so if he offered the passengers flight suits and helmets too, after all that's what the RAF offered me as did a couple of the 'taxi' companies when we used to film offshore.......and I was over the moon that they thought my safety was paramount!

That may be fine for HM forces K77, do you know the cost of a helmet, made to measure, and the cost of those flight suits they wear? Now to find one to fit so many different sized heads and bodies etc, Not really economical. An ill fitting helmet is probably going to more problems than not wearing one at all I would guess. In the offshore industry, they don't supply us with them and even then, we only get one cheapo flight suit supplied to us. Bit of a joke really.
I rang a company to have a decent quality made-to-measure flight suit made up for me. Over £300 and my employer won't pay for it. :eek:

It's easy to say 'here, everyone have helmets and suits." Not so easy to have them paid for.

You'd be better off taking the £1500 or whatever it'll cost for the outfit to be made up and pay for a years insurance cover for flying without it. Bet you still get change from £500.


As for your safety being paramount? Call me cynical but maybe the lawsuit was where they were thinking.

Helimutt,

Yes, some good points there.

Funnily enough after getting the letter from my Insurance Company I did a bit of reasearch........Robinson themselves do their own Nomex flight suit for around $200 and HTS will 'make' you a refurbished helmet to your requirements for around £500.

You are right though it would be incredibly expensive to supply suits and helmets to everyone, especially to have all sizes available.

I have to say that I didn't realise that you can but specialist Aviation insurance, separate to my Personal Insurance........I will search Google now!

One thing I still can't understand though is that after reading through past threads on the subject of safety why anyone would see fit to 'laugh' at anyone turning up in safety gear, we don't laugh at motorcyclists turning up in leather protective suits and helmets so why helicopter pilots, especially trainee pilots where surely the greatest risk of accidents prevail?

Some great posts though, the advice and opinions is always appreciated.

K77.

Military provides Flight Suits, Helmets, and Poppy suits, because the have them, many, in different sizes, mainly for their own use. Civilian company won't stockpile those because its statistically less probable for having an incident. For a passenger, being involved in helicopter incident is what ? 1 in 7.7million ? Unfortunately for the pilots it's 1 in 8800.

For passengers it's very bad luck. For crew, its occupation hazard.

Well for the people who want to wear nomex but have employers who dont want you to wear it......

Nomex Anti-Flame: UK

My instructor always had combats on, but on this website theres some trousers that wouldnt look out of place with a white shirt.... and a jacket which looks casual enough...

Not bad prices either, just a thought. :confused:

Here is another option:

Massif Mountain Gear Company

They make nomex mountaineering clothing.

Never given the Anti static quality of Nomex a thought either.
Nomex is not the only fire fabric out there

http://www.carbonx.com/images/headers/heat.jpg

Besides protection from direct flame, CarbonX® withstands heat extremely well. For example, at approximately 600° f., the leading FR fabrics burn, begin to shrink while charring, then crack and decompose. This is all in about 10 seconds. Under the same conditions, CarbonX is not affected in any way. It even disburses the heat energy and will take about 60 seconds before the heat will start penetrating the next layer of fabric.

Bone domes etc
 

Hi Trog ... My tailor ... Nothing less than Saville Row of course.

PS. Were we really doing B206 EOLs from within the H/V curve! Why didn't you slap my wrist.

Sometime try the Bell factory course. 175 ft and zero forward speed demo'd routinely. Ditto from 50 ft.

Back on topic. We do need to draw a distinct line between Utility and Pax Ops. I can't see protective gear ever becoming standard fit in pax carrying, certainly never on the airlines. Similarly I can't see any case for not wearing the full gear on the rest.

Dennis Kenyon.

I still can't understand why safety equipment is not compulsary if even just for helicopter pilots......surely it would make sense!