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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

Phone Wind
Thanks for that. I was on earlies this morning! :zzz:
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 :ok:.
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.

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.

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.

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

£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

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?

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). :p

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. :ok:

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...aham227/53.jpg

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.

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.

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. :ok:

Point taken, and perhaps a bad example for me to use, and I agree that a helmet wont always save you, but if, say, approximately 70% of your melon is covered in kevlar, then I would say that reduces your chances of a blow that could render you unconscious by a fair amount!

212 -
That is good news, and I didn't realise you lot were using STAS. Maybe you could have a chat with our management. We are however starting to see the use of helmets here, although only on a very limited basis, and only if you have some sort of hearing issue based on a statement from a doctor. Having used a helmet for a large part of my career in my former flying job, I felt a little uncomfortable at first without one, and still wonder what my chances are in the event of a crash. 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.

As Jose Jiminez once quipped, when Ed Sullivan asked if that was his crash helmet:

"I hope not!" :eek:

Pilots wear one anyway, in certain occupations.

I should also state that these comments were specific to the S92 design, with regards to the hazard from the panels behind, but it will be fairly common I imagine, and certainly of the various types I have flown over the years, it would be a fairly common hazard.

HB, do you not have head restraints on your seats? We have the Martin Baker 'Hi-comfort' seats, fitted with them.

Some do, but some have also been removed, I am not quite sure why. We do also have the high-comfort seats now, which I am sure you will agree are a big improvement over the older "no-comfort" seats.

When training, should we not wear helmets in the simulator as well, the cockpit is the same and a sudden deceleration could be quite violent.

212man, m damn jealous u guys are finally going to get ur domes... as for the STAS, well u r light years away from us; we r still flying in the stone age offshore scene in my side of the Sth China Sea lol....

Tried to take my own STAS a few years back and was seen as being a trouble maker and could be sued by the local air authority body :ugh: as for wearing my own helmet, uhm another :rolleyes:

I wore a helmet for 15 years in the military and I am glad had the protection as the flying was -by civil standards - risky. I flew HEMS, SAR and firefighting when I left and also wore a helmet and again was glad because of the inherent risks.

I now fly offshore and am glad that i don't wear a helmet as it has to be one of the safest forms of flying around and helmets are bloody uncomfortable - even a well fitting Alpha. My David Clark headset is a blessing after 6 hours in 40 degree temps.

Wear a helmet if you want by all means but don't make the things mandatory.

Wear one in the sim? Give me a break. Might as well wear one in the car.

Epiphany

I was having a laugh about the sim!

Epiphany

I also spent 15 yrs flying with a mk4A. Then an Alpha with the plod. I am now on the SNS and would not be able to offer 1 reason as to why a helmet wouldn't benefit.
Nothing worse than having to break the seal of a crap peltor headset, when flying a 76c, to don a pair of sun glasses. To exacerbate what is already inadequate hearing protection. No need with a helmet that would have a dark visor, Cost less than £1000 with ANR, weighs less than 900g and would offer some practical visibility if you were unlucky enough to be floating alone in the North sea, while wearing the current emmersion suit issued to aircrew on the North Sea.

Mac

Good luck with your wishes Macaco and all of you who want to wear one - I have no objection.

I don't plan to have an accident or be floating around in the oggin. I fly a large, well maintained, twin engine helicopter from A to B and back again at 3000 feet and have been flying helicopters for 30 years.

I have more chance of being run over by a bus in the high street and I certainly don't wear one there.

Get a decent headset - Peltors are crap.

Helmets are good
 

They will keep the seagulls, and associated parts out of your eyes!

...provided you have the shield down on impact.

3.5 Kg X 135 KTS = Mess and/or Death

But headsets sure are cumfy and the passengers don't complain that they don't have the same protection as you since they have the critical task of sitting there.

My vote is for the helmet.

But hey, we all know there aren't many large sea birds frequenting the Atlantic...

...sarcasm :p

.

Epiphany - I suggest you re-read at least the very first page of this thread, and you will see that this is not just about crash protection. In fact that is a secondary to the real issue, which is the loss of hearing issue. I too wore a Mk4 for my military flying career, and it certainly was not the most comfortable thing in the world, but I certainly had a far better hearing protection than with a headset. In my time in the military, I never experienced any hearing problem at all. After the first couple of years flying S92 I started to get a deterioration in my hearing audiogram tests. We are seeing this now in extremely high incidences, especially on the S92, and have had several cases where pilots have had to stop flying due to tinnitus.
I am very glad to hear that you don't plan on having an accident or floating around in the water, and you will be pleased to hear that neither do I, nor for that matter any pilots that I know. The fact remains however, that I know quite a few others who did not plan on having an accident either, but somehow they still did, and some were also on very safe A to B routes. Some survived and some did not. Personally I hope to god that I never do end up in that nasty scenario where all is going wrong, but I will be prepared if it does in every way possible, including knowing my aircraft, procedures, drills and not letting myself get complacent for a second. Who knows when that lightening will strike or a large bird might take out the tail rotor, or the gearbox fails, or some other form of serious mechanical failure rears its ugly face, or you fly yourself into the water because of some chain of CRM failures during an ARA on your very safe A to B. Or perhaps because you have been flying for 30 years already, it won't happen to you. I don't mean to be flippant, but all these things have happened very recently and caused an aircraft to hit the water. I bet none of those crews planned on an accident either.

Is this Tinnitus? If I flew for around 3-4 hrs, wearing the company supplied peltor headset in an old S76, Inverter and AC gen whining away in the background, I find that the same evening I get a ticking in one ear which just won't go away whatever I try. The doc says no sign of wax so it's not baro related, he doesn't think. If I don't fly for a couple of days, no more noise and all well again until i fly again. The problem is exacerbated with a number of days flying 3-4 + hours a day. It drives me nuts, but I was led to believe tinnitus is a high pitched squeal/noise?

I'd be happy to trial helmets if it gave me some more hearing protection. I worked in a very noisy engineering environment for a number of years and never had similar trouble or degradation of hearing, until I started flying full time.

Birds don't come windscreens very often offshore. When did it last happen in the North Sea.

Can someone prove that helmets provide better noise attenuation than a good headset.

How many pilots who think helmets are a good idea for impact protection lock their seat harnesses on approach and take off?

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?

As I said HB - I have no objection to anyone wanting to wear a helmet if you think that it will make your North Sea flying any safer. I just think that it is OTT.Of the recent NS accidents that I know of a helmet would have made little difference to the crews concerned.

I expect to be firefighting again later this year and will be wearing my Alpha as will be spending most of the time below 200' dodging, trees, hills, birds, other aircraft and sitting in a 50' hover at 90% TQ. When I get back offshore it will go back in the attic. My choice.

As regards noise protection - WHAT DID YOU SAY?? ;)

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

North Sea bird strke Unst, 1985/6 can.t remember exact date, adult gannet came through the windscreen of a Bell 212 at 200', knocked the pilot out cold (wearing helmet) dismantled itself against the frame behind the pilot and hit the winchman in the face, luckily co-pilot took control landed safely, aircraft smelt of dead bird and fish guts for months, remember wearing face mask when I changed the screen overnight.

S

Fair enough, and I don't totally disagree on the overall safety argument. However I wonder what is going to happen in the future if we see an increase of pilots losing their licenses due to hearing loss/tinnitus. There has been a lot of research done recently as to safe noise and vibration levels in the cockpit and the effect on hearing. The conclusions are fairly conclusive and the most recent study in Norway effectively stated that the chances of hearing loss were extremely high in types such as the S92.
I do speculate as to how we will stand with regards to loss of license insurance if we lose it due to hearing loss, in an environment where it was a known probability and proper and adequate precautions to prevent this were not taken. The scenario could feasibly play out whereby the insurance company refuses to pay on the basis that due caution was not exercised. This puts both the individual pilot and the company he works for in a difficult position. The pilot is now forced to sue the company for a very considerable sum in order to cover his loss of earnings. In this day and age of litigation and blame, the insurance companies invest heavily in only paying out when they really have to, so I am sure they will investigate this, and with the evidence all readily available to prove their point, it is hard to argue against it, when it may very well be a preventable occurrence.

Not a-bloody-gain ! I have little to add to the previous contributions apart from what has been written already and I hoped this topic had died long ago.

I had to wear a helmet for almost 10 years in the military and the extra weight has left me with difficulty sleeping due to recurring neck pain which results in difficulty finding a comfortable head position on a pillow.

The military doctor suggested that the wearing of a helmet might also have caused my mild form of tinnitus, which increases whenever my neck gets stiff and sore; a certainty whenever I flew with a helmet for more than an hour or two.

The relief of wearing only a headset when I became a civvy pilot was wonderful and if I'd been required to wear a helmet during the subsequent 30 years, I would probably have lost my pilot medical before halfway through my career.

I have a good suspicion who started this thread and I can't help thinking that "image" might have played a part in his thinking. All I can say is that the risks of serious head injuries to North Sea pilots who wear only headsets are vanishingly small historically, but the health risk to me of wearing a helmet is absolutely 100%.

If you can persuade our employer to stump up the costs for this somewhat pointless exercise, then please ensure that the wearing of such will remain optional. Furthermore, I know more than one passenger whose nervousness would be increased to perceive that the pilots are dressed as if going into a war zone.

Why not go the "whole hog" and get us modified seats so that we can wear parachutes in case the main rotor stops turning too? After all, up at flight level ridiculous in an EC225 there would be sufficient height. You might think I'm being facetious, but that's how some of our passengers think.

Colibri,
I don't think anyone is suggesting that helmets be mandatory, nor do I for one second think there is any "image" or fashion element as you seem to think. That comment I found rather amusing. Having worn the military helmet for many years, I totally agree that it was a heavy and uncomfortable beast, especially when flying with NVG's for long periods. The difference however with new modern helmets is huge. Much lighter and more comfortable, and the key is that they offer a huge benefit for noise reduction. I personally do not wear one yet, as I want to also see all the options, and personally if a really good ANR was available, then perhaps that would be the answer, but right now the helmets seem to offer the best overall protection. Even with a good ANR headset, when you have to wear sunglasses you lose a lot of the protection.