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…

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.

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....

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....

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?

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....

Damaged by an x (axe I assume) and a hammer... Sounds like a bitter ex-partner or something didn't like the project... The nose cone isn't what worried me but the condition of the propeller and the general rusted out engine on it... And the idea that it is the starter motor that is seized... uh... I wouldn't think it was the starter motor that is seized....

Best off speaking to Darren Barnfield or Jared Smith from the RA-Aus Tech department on that one. One phone call and they can sort it out for you. Why would you want to change it?

Basic theory says you should lean it out but not by much... Cold air is slightly denser so at higher temps the air would be less dense and therefor reduce the amount of air in the cylinder. Thus, theoretically to maintain the same ratio, you would reduce the amount of fuel with the reduced amount of air. But 10 degrees or so wouldn't make that much difference I would imagine...

Great question, I went for a spin on Sunday up to lakeside airpark just to see where it was. Travelling up, all of a sudden I realized I was almost over the airfield at 3000' so made a quick call to note I was going to complete a right hand orbit overhead just for a look. In theory I should have made a call 10nm out as an inbound to overfly, but didn't realize how close I was. With no other traffic on the radio that I could hear, I figured I was in the clear as I was well above circuit height. Was a spectacular day too up in the air... reminded me of my love for flying.. :) But back to the original post, what is the actual requirements in non-CTAF® airfields? I assume just an inbound and joining circuit are the minimums?

Michael Linke was recently on annual leave for a week and hence why Jill Bailey was acting CEO during that time.

Hi guys, I am hoping to make my way up there from Mackay to come and say hello but am wondering if this will still go ahead given the recent rains etc. Are you guys ok up there since the cyclone?