Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:40 pm
H IV,
My recollection may be incorrect, but the fatality to which I referred was very similar to the circumstances described by Jack & Tim.
In my own case, the Winjeel requires the canopy closed for flight, so you're stuck!!
G'day
My recollection may be incorrect, but the fatality to which I referred was very similar to the circumstances described by Jack & Tim.
In my own case, the Winjeel requires the canopy closed for flight, so you're stuck!!
G'day
Sun Jan 09, 2005 11:49 pm
Never ass-ume. You know what happens.
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it!!??
Right????
I never make assumptions, and I especially never follow blind leadership.
Sun Jan 09, 2005 11:50 pm
fat her #3 wrote:
My recollection may be incorrect, but the fatality to which I referred was very similar to the circumstances described by Jack & Tim.
In my own case, the Winjeel requires the canopy closed for flight, so you're stuck!!
I'm not interested in them birds, so I be unstuck..
Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:09 am
You would be very surprised how much even properly secured belts and harnesses can stretch during a crash, and add to that the deflection of the seat and supporting structure. The stretching and deflecton reduces yur body's deceleration rate which could otherwise just snap your neck. In fact, the proximity to the panel has probably saved a lot of pilots from having a Dale Earnhart type neck/spinal injury.HarvardIV wrote:It sounds like the Lance T-6 pilot didn't have his shoulder harness secured. You say yes you should, but for no clear reason if your shoulder harness is on.
I won't mention names but a friend of mine hit his helmet on the instrument panel during an off field landing a few years back. The helmet saved him. His plane was totally destroyed, but the paramedics found him walking dazed around his plane. He didn't even know where he was and didn't remember the crash- but only spent the night at the hospital under observation. The panel is at least 2 feet from his face in the seated position, and his head was actually guided to the instrument panel after being deflected off of the forward portion of the windscreen.
Incidentally, his seat, seat supporting structure, and harness were not damaged during the accident!
Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:12 am
Hey bdk.
I suppose the heavy weight of a warbird creates these severe internal forces in the cockpit in that scenario due to inertia, and transfer of momentum, etc.
I suppose the heavy weight of a warbird creates these severe internal forces in the cockpit in that scenario due to inertia, and transfer of momentum, etc.
Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:35 am
What they say is true, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end. The inertia of a heavy aircraft might even help to slow the deceleration, plus you usually have a very heavy engine in front of you to push obstacles out of the way. A BD-5 crash would be a very scary proposition!HarvardIV wrote:I suppose the heavy weight of a warbird creates these severe internal forces in the cockpit in that scenario due to inertia, and transfer of momentum, etc.
Helmet
Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:34 am
One of our T-6s suffered a ground loop about 10 years ago.
The swerving skid off the runway was so violent that the pax busted the side of the canopy glass with his head. Yes, he was wearing a helmet. But it still gave him one hell of a headache.
One of our squadron's A-6 hit a turkey vulture once doing 500 kts on a low level route throught the cascades. Came through the front armored windscreen and nailed the pilot in the head and split his helmet in 2! The B/N flew the airplane while the pilot shook out the cobwebs. Only A-6 I ever saw with a bird kill marking painted on it. Never did get the stink out of it though.
The swerving skid off the runway was so violent that the pax busted the side of the canopy glass with his head. Yes, he was wearing a helmet. But it still gave him one hell of a headache.
One of our squadron's A-6 hit a turkey vulture once doing 500 kts on a low level route throught the cascades. Came through the front armored windscreen and nailed the pilot in the head and split his helmet in 2! The B/N flew the airplane while the pilot shook out the cobwebs. Only A-6 I ever saw with a bird kill marking painted on it. Never did get the stink out of it though.
Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:31 am
One of our squadron's A-6 hit a turkey vulture once doing 500 kts
Wow, some bird. Sign'm up for the Air Farce!
Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:59 am
Speaking of Dale Sr....I think I read there's a chance he would be alive if he had a full faced helmet....inexplicably his son raced on for another year or more before seeing the light and going full faced.
John
John
Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:07 am
Hello all!
I'm reluctant to make this comment but it may be of some (?) value.
I'm a glider pilot and we too have accidents, most of them in the context of landing. In the mid eighties, the central gliding school in Sweden started wearing helmets during the training of instructors and the objective was, of course, to provide some kind of head protection in a cramped cockpit.
Gliders often soar the same thermal very close together and maintaining outside vision is paramount, even in the rear quarters, over the shoulders. The helmet actually made scanning the rear quarters more difficult and for the tallest pilots, head movement became very restricted by the helmet catching the canopy.
The conclusion was that the helmet in itself introduced a safety hazard that was more frequent than the hazard it was supposed to protect against. Wearing a helmet was not made mandatory but stayed as an option that, to the best of my knowledge, very few if any pilots opt for.
Is it possible that warbird pilots flying in close formations take the same in consideration?
Christer
I'm reluctant to make this comment but it may be of some (?) value.
I'm a glider pilot and we too have accidents, most of them in the context of landing. In the mid eighties, the central gliding school in Sweden started wearing helmets during the training of instructors and the objective was, of course, to provide some kind of head protection in a cramped cockpit.
Gliders often soar the same thermal very close together and maintaining outside vision is paramount, even in the rear quarters, over the shoulders. The helmet actually made scanning the rear quarters more difficult and for the tallest pilots, head movement became very restricted by the helmet catching the canopy.
The conclusion was that the helmet in itself introduced a safety hazard that was more frequent than the hazard it was supposed to protect against. Wearing a helmet was not made mandatory but stayed as an option that, to the best of my knowledge, very few if any pilots opt for.
Is it possible that warbird pilots flying in close formations take the same in consideration?
Christer
Safety Fast
Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:25 am
John H,
A full face would not have saved Dale Sr...the trauma-name for what
occured is termed Basal Skull Fracture. It occurs when the inertia of the
human head reachs the physical limits that the spinal column and the base
of the cranium can survive structurally.
This condition has taken the lives of many fine auto-racers, as well I'm sure....of many fine aviators.
The larger the traveling mass &/or the more resolute the resistance of the
impact point , the worse the participant suffers. The good outcome of this
recurrent tradgedy, is the focus leveled on creating a safety device to
protect the potential victims. It may not be practical at this time to
provide every civilian conveyance with it, but those who find themselves
"near the extreme", will find comfort in the offered safety.
Safety Fast!!!
....Cecil Kimber
A full face would not have saved Dale Sr...the trauma-name for what
occured is termed Basal Skull Fracture. It occurs when the inertia of the
human head reachs the physical limits that the spinal column and the base
of the cranium can survive structurally.
This condition has taken the lives of many fine auto-racers, as well I'm sure....of many fine aviators.
The larger the traveling mass &/or the more resolute the resistance of the
impact point , the worse the participant suffers. The good outcome of this
recurrent tradgedy, is the focus leveled on creating a safety device to
protect the potential victims. It may not be practical at this time to
provide every civilian conveyance with it, but those who find themselves
"near the extreme", will find comfort in the offered safety.
Safety Fast!!!
....Cecil Kimber
Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:17 pm
Just checked out the Campbell hard-hats. REALLY COOL! Any got a guestimate as the what they cost?
Mudge the curious
Mudge the curious
Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:25 pm
About $2000 US
Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:28 pm
2000$??
Blimey! That's twice the price of my Gentex!!
Blimey! That's twice the price of my Gentex!!
Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:12 pm
I bought mine from Ivan at Oshkosh about 4 years ago and it was about $1,000. He got the fit great, so good that it is quieter than my noise cancelling Flight Suits (Gentex) helmet which is also a great helmet.
The Campbell is a terrific product and the folks are really nice.
I had been having some problems with my neck while doing aerobatics in the Gentex helmet, never thought about the stress that it puts on you while pulling G. The Campbell helmet is somewhat lighter and I think has made a difference.
The Campbell is a terrific product and the folks are really nice.
I had been having some problems with my neck while doing aerobatics in the Gentex helmet, never thought about the stress that it puts on you while pulling G. The Campbell helmet is somewhat lighter and I think has made a difference.