Helmets that fit headseats underneath

[BrendAn]

11 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

i can't help with nascar accidents but microavionics make an excellent microlight flying helmet that slips over a standard headset

not too expensive , i think 8or900 last time i looked. lots of options with visors etc.  mendehlsons in melbourne are agents and do mail order. just checked $450

Edited May 31, 2023 by BrendAn

[spacesailor]

A little off topic ,.

BUT

IS a curly cord , any better than a straight cord ? .

And who puts wires together , red to blue and blue to red .

spacesailor

[Siso]

Regarding headsets that fit under helmets, catch up with a local cross country hang glider pilot. They have some pretty good setups now days.

[jamdfingr]

Just wondering, how many people actually wear flying helmets? Do we have any data on the population? 

 

It seems like we are having the seatbelt discussion in the 1950's all over again.... you don't need a seatbelt until you actually do need a seatbelt.... 

 

As a pilot, if you are in an emergency landing, you are too busy holding controls and flying the plane to protect yourself so wouldnt a helmet be a good idea?

 

Landing back at a runway is not always guaranteed....

[facthunter]

I never take a seat belt off in flight. It's there to hold you in the seat in turbulence. A really good one will also stop you hitting the Aircraft's structure. I have no desire to wear a helmet as it's likely to be uncomfortable and you lose some awareness of your situation.  Nev

[spenaroo]

same thing I used to say when selling people motorcycle helmets.

So you have a $100 head or a $1000 head? thats essentially what it boils down to with safety 

I don't see the point in these helmets unless its to stop the pain of hitting a crossmember or roof during turbulence.
Is there even a minimum standard and testing required?
And they could actually kill you in a crash, especially as we tend to wear 4 point harnesses.

That's a considerable added mass on the head, that the neck has to deal with in a crash.
that's the reason why car racing now requires HANS devices (basically strap the helmet to the car so it cant move in an accident)
and why motocross riders wear neck braces
 

Edited August 9, 2023 by spenaroo

[jamdfingr]

I agree on the seatbelt, my original point was that back in the 50's, people were saying "I don't wear a seatbelt now and have no problems so why should I wear one?". Just because you never had a crash in a car, doesn't mean you wont benefit from wearing a seatbelt in future. 

 

I also agree that the mass of a helmet should be thoroughly considered to add additional momentum to the head, but because aircraft are designed so lightly, there are no airbags or soft pillars to impact. Only hard surfaces. Just look at the inside of a Jabiru or Cub next time and think... if I have a crash, what is my head going to hit....

 

I also agree that it must be comfortable otherwise no one would wear it. My current helmet is no more or less uncomfortable than wearing a headset. You know its there, but gives you no less awareness of situation.... again, this just depends on the helmet. 

 

Bottom line is that some are more exposed to the risk than others... They need to consider the airfield type they are flying from (eg. grass strip with trees all around) and the type of flying they do... (XC over dense forrests or back country style flying). The increase in risk of an off field landing in anything but a smooth paddock should at least make you consider wearing one... 

 

Cost wise, I know a lot of people get turned off in paying for the $2000-$4500 big clunky helmets... for us recrational flyers, if it was only an investment of around $500, would more people take it up?

 

 

[facthunter]

How's it help if you land in water or flip over.? Don't fly over rough wooded country.   There are problems a helmet won't help. Our LOW landing speeds are part of  this consideration. Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, spenaroo said:

And they could actually kill you in a crash, especially as we tend to wear 4 point harnesses.

That's a considerable added mass on the head, that the neck has to deal with in a crash.
that's the reason why car racing now requires HANS devices (basically strap the helmet to the car so it cant move in an accident)
and why motocross riders wear neck braces
 

Good points. I picked a Simpson harness set up a couple of days ago and it must weigh about 3 kg; very heavy in the hands but designed to keep you inside a roll cage at speeds around 200 km/hr +.

On the half mile tracks in the US the fatalities started to focus on G forces, with the brain slamming into the stationary skull in a brock wall collision or internal organs being ripped out. The HANS device fits into that equation.

 

We had a very good thread on here a few years ago which started on either helmets or roll cages in recreational aircraft, and after we started to analyse it, you might be unlucky enough to stall the aircraft or fly into cloud and stall, spiral glide or just plain fly into the ground or solid object, but the (a) the collision point of impact could be anywhere on an out of control aircraft, including the tail, which would provide excellent crumple rate, or (b) the very low mandatory stall speed reduced the forces in a collision under control down to a lot less requirement for restraint/roll cage type protection/head protection/neck protection. and (c) the wings provide crumple rates each side. It would be worthwhile searching for the thread, but certainly also worthwhile analysing the potential collision sources, then where a helmet might make a difference and what type of helment etc.

[onetrack]

Probably a good start point is to try and define how many aviators involved in crashes died from head injuries that could have been avoided if they had been wearing a helmet.

Not so easy to find that information, as so much crash information is deficient, or many sites need to be trawled, to dig out reports and to try and find the relevant details.

 

We know that helmets save lives in motorcycle and bicycle crashes - but those style of crashes are different to aircraft crashes, where speeds are often higher, and there's a cage with many hard points of contact around the pilot.

I really am surprised that more effort isn't put into softening surfaces and recessing projecting controls, knobs, levers, etc., in light aircraft.

[turboplanner]

19 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I really am surprised that more effort isn't put into softening surfaces and recessing projecting controls, knobs, levers, etc., in light aircraft.

The Australian Design process produced evidence that people were being impaled on switches and knobs, and they started to be softened and broadened as a result, but I think you were onto it before suggesting a study on deaths from head injuries which could have been avoided by a helmet.

 

You might not find much in ATSB reports because they are looking for the cause of the crash.

You might find some information in Coroners' reports because they are looking for the cause of death.

 

[Old Koreelah]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

I never take a seat belt off in flight. It's there to hold you in the seat in turbulence.

Good advice that Airbus/Boeing passengers should follow.

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

I have no desire to wear a helmet as it's likely to be uncomfortable and you lose some awareness of your situation.  Nev

Good point, but training is meant to condition our behaviour to be instinctive in an emergency, while wearing all the protective stuff.

 

2 hours ago, jamdfingr said:

… the mass of a helmet should be thoroughly considered to add additional momentum to the head

This has always been a compromise for Motorcycle riders: a full-face lid might preserve your good looks, but the extra weight could break your neck. 

[jamdfingr]

Ok, lets go to the data on this one....

 

“The most commonly occurring bony injuries were fracture of the ribs (72.3%), skull (55.1%), facial bones (49.4%).” The data was drawn from autopsy reports and suggests that head injuries, if not always the fatal mechanism, are nonetheless common. 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10775101_Analysis_of_injuries_among_pilots_involved_in_fatal_general_aviation_airplane_accidents

 

A helmet won't help you in all situations (like you said from landing in water), but think of it this way, if you land in water and take a knock to the head, do your chance of survival increase with a helmet preventing a knock-out and drowning or does it give you a fighting chance to get out of the plane while holding your breath..... Substitute for fire on the ground. 

 

We like to think (and certainly advertise) that our low speeds are what keeps us safe, but at 30kts hitting an object, do you know what that would feel like? Tim Howes did a great interview on helmets a while ago from an actual accident that occurred at STOL speed where the pilot was thrown from his seat (seatbelt failed as well) and ended up with his head between the fuselage and the passenger seat where it hit a pretty small tree. If he had been wearing a helmet, he would have walked away (in theory). 

 

Again, I am not saying a helmet will save you everytime, but consider the risk of the ground not being perfect, having equipment failure of a tyre or a suspension component, or a steering component failure and if you hit something in your plane doing 30kts as a stall speed (which most of us are around 45kts), you have bugger all soft spots to bounce around inside your cockpit with. 

 

If you are hitting something hard enough to break your neck due to the additional weight of a helmet, I think you have bigger problems than the helmet itself....

 

But this is a good conversation to better understand the reluctance of people to take a simple protective measure. Its probably not for everyone, but for those who see the sense in it, I wonder what is holding them back....

[jamdfingr]

The ATSB does suggest helmets used to save lives in low level operations due to the increased risk. This is from a helicopter crash... 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2022/helmets-can-save-lives

 

They don't mandate it as not all pilots face the same risk of a crash. 

 

We all face the same consequences of a crash, but the liklihood does increase with certain operations such as test pilots, racing and low level. 

 

I would go further to say back country flying and off rough strips. 

 

Again, you don't need one until you need one....

[spenaroo]

Which goes back to the standard and type of helmet.
the designs posted earlier - to my untrained eye they have little foam and would offer a very limited amount of protection in a crash.
the inner lining and foam is what is important and does the work to increase the time of impact. the shell is just there to prevent puncture injuries.
so great for turbulence, but for dissipating the force of an actual impact its questionable.

we saw it all the time with Harley riders. would wear the ski type slim helmets (skull caps), that offered only puncture protection and were not suitable for road use.
 

If it was me, and I wanted crash protection - I would be going for a light motocross style design. highly breathable with the chin bar to prevent face head hitting the dash and fairly light weight.

can add a neck collar for $50 that will help fill the gaps around the helmet and stop some of the load on the neck.
 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by spenaroo

[jamdfingr]

Yes, you would definitely want one designed to sustain an impact and have a decent amount of "crush" area to it. 

 

The inner shell is what takes the impact, but the outershell (if designed properly) is what dissipates the impact across a broader area. You basically take the force across that side of your head rather than specifically in one area... 

 

And I am sure we will hear someone cry: "but it doesnt protect your brain from slamming into the side of your skull".... again, its to reduce the impact, not eliminate it.... its a last line of defence. 

 

 

[spenaroo]

yeah, 
and then we get into the rotational forces.
where the Mips system comes into play.

 

its the yellow part on this helmet. lets the inner and outer layer slip slightly to redirect the rotational forces away from the head in an angular impact.

There is an absolute ton of research and development in modern helmets.

(Also keep in mind that is a bicycle helmet, look at the coverage and thickness of the foam compared to the ultralight helmet posted earlier....
apparently its not just engines and airframes, the helmets stuck in the 70's too)
 

found a paragliding helmet to compare with. note that there is nothing but liner around the side of the head

Edited August 9, 2023 by spenaroo

[turboplanner]

Interesting concepts.

You can get a collar, more square in shape which fits tightly between the shoulders and bottom rim of a full face helmet.

This was the forerunner of the HANS system which is more effective in the hard bangs of race cars.

 

With all of these ideas you have to decide what you are setting out to do. If it's just shooting the breeze on social media it will be gone in a couple of days. If it's a recommendation for a Law or a Rule you have to decide whether it applies to all classes, or just specify which ones. Once you have the specifics, backed up by hard evidence, you have to address the politics, just as each government has to do. No point in having a great idea if the public/members are going to crucify you or shoot is down. You have to take the next step and do something. That's not quite so easy.

[spenaroo]

and the biggest hurdle of all. the noise cancelling headset.
how many would rather have a good fitting noise cancelling headset - over an in-built coms system that lets in noise.

any aircraft helmet I believe will always be inherently flawed because of the priority for communication and comfort.
every pilots helmet I view on google has the ear cups off a headset grafted into it. that's a lot of foam carved out. often the shell bulges to accommodate these cups.
as opposed to a motorcycle headset which uses 3mm speakers slid into a form fitting liner.
 

Edited August 9, 2023 by spenaroo

[jamdfingr]

I think at the end of the day, you have to work with what ya got. The ultimate helmet doesn’t exist and comparing to a higher standard for motorcycles is a bit flawed as they are completely exposed to the impact rather than being a part of the momentum forces (eg inside the aircraft)

 

Anything between your head and the hard surface is going to be better than nothing at all even if it’s just the ear cup of a headset. 
 

What would be good to see is aviators wearing more helmets as this would help drive the demand in the industry to produce higher quality helmets with more of the features you identified. For now, there are a good selection out there ranging from expensive to really expensive. Most are the bulky type that could be uncomfortable, heavy and overkill for a typical recreational pilot. But, there are a couple which are more value driven, comfortable and provide a good balance of protection.

 

I think if more start wearing them, then we may see a shift in the aviation culture around the attitude to them…

[kasper]

Whilst I do not wear helmet over headset I do own and fly with headset in helmet for all open cockpit flying. 
 

by choice I fly with this setup in open cockpit 2 and 3!axis because I have better comms… and warmer ears.  

 

 I fly with the helmet in weight shift because it’s a requirement in the Uk where I started flying ws and I fly in Oz with them because they are comfortable and add safety.

 

I have not flown closed cockpit 3axis with helmet but to be frank I have not had a cockpit on any plane I own for the past decade so I’m a full face helmet man

 

for lookup I use Flycom helmet and comms equipment

flycom.co.uk 

Edited August 9, 2023 by kasper

[spacesailor]

All this ' helmet ' , argument's ,

IS THE SAME 

AS the 1960's  argument. 

When England enforced all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet .

OR,

In my case, don't ride if it's so dangerous. 

spacesailor

PS

When Are they , going to outlaw , " passenger trailer's " .

 

 

[facthunter]

I've used a helmet in a drifter where it would be considered "normal" You're in the open and could have a bird strike or even a large insect. If you have an ejector seat or parachute I'd wear one also. Risky parts of  the forward cockpit were Padded with Leather on early planes. Can't see the advantage in something like a C-182 or a Bonanza.  Nev

[Kenlsa]

I have put a skylight in my Colt and it sure has a lot of hardware just above my head. I guess I will know soon after the first turbulent flight.

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, Kenlsa said:

I have put a skylight in my Colt and it sure has a lot of hardware just above my head. I guess I will know soon after the first turbulent

Could you fit a sheet of thin Lexan under the framework?  I’d rather hit my head on that than a metal frame.