Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Helmets Why you need one

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Helmets Why you need one

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

dblahnick(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:15 am Post subject: Helmets Why you need one

As Brian knows, here is why we need a hard shell helmet; for hard lessons that when they

Don't kill you, make you better...as long as your jelly is still in place.

http://gallery.me.com/lacloudchaser/100382

Brian, you know I had to go with that levity after our email!  Seriously, even a minor thrashing back and forth with the heads impacting potruding buttons, knobs, throttle quadrants, canopy rails, etc. during the proverbial "fiery cartwheel approach" would "seem" to favor a hard shell vs soft. But I suspect the scientific testing of the 55 tells another tale...  And I can remember our ejection and parachute landing fall (PLF) training in flight school for the Tweety Bird & T38, a truck would pull us to 50 feet under canopy and we would release on our own recognizance; invariably over half the class would dork up the PLF desired impact sequence (feet, calf, thigh) for (feet, arse, back of head) - and then getting dragged in the wind looking for the riser-releases. We had helmets on, couldn't imagine wearing shoe leather on my dome for that?  Maybe it's just a confidence inspirer...

P.S. *information only* I want to go on the record on a long past issue I discussed with Mark on the phone that may have affected you,  over our adopting a YPA policy in 2003 (when we stood up the RPA) that you "had" to wear parachutes during RPA fly-in formation training (or you assumably couldn't fly in the given formation). For some, the sheer logic behind this was troubling. Around 2004/5, based on member objections like Mark and Walts, we changed our policy to strictly follow the FAA FARS concerning parachutes in the RPA at training clinics. Flight Leaders can make personal rules, but we (RPA) simply asked aviators to follow the FARS at clinics. There was no logic to a parachute increasing the safety of *others outside your aircraft* by your use during non aerobatic formation. (your backseater is another issue). Helmets were also always made optional as I recall.

But I wore my dome 98% of the time for the above...

Drew

______________________________________

Strive for one knee down in life, but never two.

(1000 Year Old Road Racing Proverb That I Just Made Up)

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

brian(at)lloyd.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:29 am Post subject: Helmets Why you need one

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Drew Blahnick <dblahnick(at)gmail.com (dblahnick(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    

As Brian knows, here is why we need a hard shell helmet; for hard lessons that when they

Don't kill you, make you better...as long as your jelly is still in place.

  



http://gallery.me.com/lacloudchaser/100382



	




Ouch! Leathers and helmet are good. You'd never catch me on the bike without them. (Armor too.) I hope you didn't trash the fairing too much. I am in the process of rebuilding the fairing on my bike (Kawasaki Ninja) because a replacement fairing cost about half of what I paid for the bike!!!

  



 	  Quote: 	
		  



Brian, you know I had to go with that levity after our email!  

  

	






 

 	  Quote: 	
		  Seriously, even a minor thrashing back and forth with the heads impacting potruding buttons, knobs, throttle quadrants, canopy rails, etc. during the proverbial "fiery cartwheel approach" would "seem" to favor a hard shell vs soft. But I suspect the scientific testing of the 55 tells another tale...  And I can remember our ejection and parachute landing fall (PLF) training in flight school for the Tweety Bird & T38, a truck would pull us to 50 feet under canopy and we would release on our own recognizance; invariably over half the class would dork up the PLF desired impact sequence (feet, calf, thigh) for (feet, arse, back of head) - and then getting dragged in the wind looking for the riser-releases. We had helmets on, couldn't imagine wearing shoe leather on my dome for that?  Maybe it's just a confidence inspirer...

  

	




And I understand all that. We tend to use simple cause-and-effect single-variable analysis of these kinds of problems, e.g. if your head hits these bumpy things it will hurt your head and the helmet stops them from hurting your head so a helmet is good. That sort of analysis is useful but it doesn't tell the whole story. We have the issues of neck injury due to compression against the canopy during radical -G events. We have neck injury caused by additional mass on the head. They are easy to dismiss as, "Well, gee, the mass of the helmet isn't that much so how bad can it be?" 

  

Rick Volker's article is stellar. It is the kind of analysis I was looking for. It isn't simplistic and it addresses trade-offs. (Good on ya Rick!!!!)

For me I started to question things as I prepared a car to run on the track. One of the things that really got me is how much better I could perform because of a proper seat in the car. The seat protects my head from lateral loads and reduces fatigue as well, making me a better AND safer driver. So when I was thinking about protecting myself in the aircraft I started thinking about whether it might make sense to approach it from a different angle, having the seat and/or something like a HANS device providing additional protection and whether that would be better than a helmet by itself. We also have the example of the air-bag. Now I am not saying that an air-bag is the answer in the cockpit but just that, if you start thinking outside the traditional box, you see other possibilities. 

 



-- 

Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL

3191 Western Dr.

Cameron Park, CA 95682

brian(at)lloyd.com (brian(at)lloyd.com)

[url=tel:%2B1.767.617.1365]+1.767.617.1365[/url] (Dominica)

  [url=tel:%2B1.916.877.5067]+1.916.877.5067[/url] (USA)



  [quote][b]

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

fish(at)aviation-tech.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:41 am Post subject: Helmets Why you need one

Brian & Group,

 

 I have been following the discussion on helmets, but have not had time to sit down and respond until now.

 

 Brian, why would you use seat belts in an aircraft?

 If you do not crash, you should not need them!

 But if you need them, it is probably to late to put them on.

 The same for helmets.

 

 But before choosing a helmet, there are several things that need to be considered.

 What type of flying are you going to be doing, what aircraft, ect.....

 

 Helicopters use hard helmets, because they can not egress the aircraft in flight, so they increase the chance of a hard impact.

 Jet fighters use lighter weight helmets to ease neck strain, and offer min protection from impact.

 But then they will hopefully egress the aircraft before the big impact.

 

 So ultimately you need to decide what is the greatest danger you face in an accident.

 If you will be leaving the aircraft in flight, min protection required (HGU-55, HGU-6 should be fine.

 If you will stay with the aircraft to the ground, then you would want a hard helmet (HGU-33, SPH-5, Ect....).

 If you are not worried about your head hitting anything in an emergency then wear you Boise headset and if you need retention a leather helmet to hold it in place.

 

 However I do find it funny that you would not consider riding a motorcycle without full protection, but do not believe it is necessary in an aircraft.

 I guess it will ultimately be a individual choice, based on perception of danger and cost of providing the protection.

 

 In the last 10 years, I have lost three friends in aircraft accidents (Dan Levigina, T-33; Bob Gilford, Hunter; Wyatt Fuller, F-86).

 In the same period, I do not know anyone who has been seriously injured in a traffic collision (car or motorcycle).

 However, I did investigate 3-5 traffic accidents a day, 3-4 days a week, for 5 years (incl 10-15 fatal traffic collisions).

 

 So my decision is to use a helmet, I have an HGU-55P for min protection and an SPH-4 (upgraded to SPH-5 retention & ear cups) for more protection.

 But then my decisions may be biased, since I have a military aviation background (Helicopter flight test, & C-130 FE).

 

 Laterrrrrrr

 Avn-Tech

 Army Life Support Technician (93P20Q2), (1991-1995, Airworthiness Qualification Test Dir, Edwards AFB)

 C-130E, Flight Engineer (2001-2005, incl 14 missions in Iraq & Afghanistan)

 Traffic Collision Investigator (2005-2010)

 

 PS, Yes I wear a helmet on my motorcycle also! 

 Although I am bad about wearing a seat belt on city streets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 On 1/6/2012 8:22 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote: [quote]On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Drew Blahnick <dblahnick(at)gmail.com (dblahnick(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

       	  Quote: 	
		            As Brian knows, here is why we need a hard shell helmet; for hard lessons that when they

     Don't kill you, make you better...as long as your jelly is still in place.

     

     

     http://gallery.me.com/lacloudchaser/100382

     

   	
   

   

   Ouch! Leathers and helmet are good. You'd never catch me on the bike without them. (Armor too.) I hope you didn't trash the fairing too much. I am in the process of rebuilding the fairing on my bike (Kawasaki Ninja) because a replacement fairing cost about half of what I paid for the bike!!!

   

   

    	  Quote: 	
		            

     

     Brian, you know I had to go with that levity after our email!  

     

   	
   

   

   

    

    	  Quote: 	
		            Seriously, even a minor thrashing back and forth with the heads impacting potruding buttons, knobs, throttle quadrants, canopy rails, etc. during the proverbial "fiery cartwheel approach" would "seem" to favor a hard shell vs soft. But I suspect the scientific testing of the 55 tells another tale...  And I can remember our ejection and parachute landing fall (PLF) training in flight school for the Tweety Bird & T38, a truck would pull us to 50 feet under canopy and we would release on our own recognizance; invariably over half the class would dork up the PLF desired impact sequence (feet, calf, thigh) for (feet, arse, back of head) - and then getting dragged in the wind looking for the riser-releases. We had helmets on, couldn't imagine wearing shoe leather on my dome for that?  Maybe it's just a confidence inspirer...

     

   	
   

   

   And I understand all that. We tend to use simple cause-and-effect single-variable analysis of these kinds of problems, e.g. if your head hits these bumpy things it will hurt your head and the helmet stops them from hurting your head so a helmet is good. That sort of analysis is useful but it doesn't tell the whole story. We have the issues of neck injury due to compression against the canopy during radical -G events. We have neck injury caused by additional mass on the head. They are easy to dismiss as, "Well, gee, the mass of the helmet isn't that much so how bad can it be?" 

   

   

   

   Rick Volker's article is stellar. It is the kind of analysis I was looking for. It isn't simplistic and it addresses trade-offs. (Good on ya Rick!!!!)

   

   

   For me I started to question things as I prepared a car to run on the track. One of the things that really got me is how much better I could perform because of a proper seat in the car. The seat protects my head from lateral loads and reduces fatigue as well, making me a better AND safer driver. So when I was thinking about protecting myself in the aircraft I started thinking about whether it might make sense to approach it from a different angle, having the seat and/or something like a HANS device providing additional protection and whether that would be better than a helmet by itself. We also have the example of the air-bag. Now I am not saying that an air-bag is the answer in the cockpit but just that, if you start thinking outside the traditional box, you see other possibilities. 

   

   

 -- 

 Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL

 3191 Western Dr.

 Cameron Park, CA 95682

   brian(at)lloyd.com (brian(at)lloyd.com)

   [url=tel:%2B1.767.617.1365]+1.767.617.1365[/url] (Dominica)

   [url=tel:%2B1.916.877.5067]+1.916.877.5067[/url] (USA)

   

    	  Quote: 	
		  



 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

 href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

 href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
 [b]

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum