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.

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

Helicopter pilot back problems :ok:

Now that is service!

Thank you Senior Pilot :)

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.

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.

Helimut

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,

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.

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

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.

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.

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!).

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!;)

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

Helmets in Offshore ops?
 

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.

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.

Once again, nobody is advocating that this should be compulsory, we are simply discussing the pro's and con's, and whether or not it is a good idea and should be made available. Your comments are highly divisive and intentions damaging with reference to "alerting offshore workers" and "involving the press" in you last statement and i would caution you against such action based purely on your own subjective opinions toward safety.

How very refreshing...the common sense approach. I cannot understand how this couldn't be adopted in the North Sea

As I said and expected, the PAX won't batter an eyelid...maybe a slight look of interest the first time they see one in operation...

Funny that, appears to support my last statement

For some of us, it could actually make a significant improvement in fatigure/distraction Colibri.

A very dramatic response for something that has proved to pose few issues in other operating areas around the world.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

"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.

Ahhh... the crux of the problem is now obvious.

C49 if wearing one fatigues you and is uncomfortable suggest you havent had one fitted to you properly and you need to man up on the neck muscles

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.

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.

Pity the poor old F117 pilots.....;)

Yes - I know the fleet is retired now

An itchy scalp, whilst an annoying personal problem, is hardly a discomfort and fatigue issue such as to warrant discarding valuable life saving PE. Without the obvious resolutions such as a skull cap or better shampoo (try Ginger Scalp Care from the Body Shop ;) ) 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 :p

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?

You ever tried using a "skull cap"?


Never flying without it (when using a helmet, of course!)....

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

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.

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

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.