Helmet Wear and Upkeep

[Linc]

...on the other thread.

 

All I will say is the same thing I've said before, if you're wearing a helmet for protection and you aren't investing money in getting it fitted/inspected/repaired properly to make sure it will do for you what you expect/hope it to, you're wasting money. At that point, you're deciding to wear the helmet for every other reason BUT protection.

 

The SPH-4 or SPH-4/B is not a good choice for protection compared to today's helmet options.

 

That is not a "to wear or not to wear" opinion. That is a professional opinion from one who wears and has maintained helmets (SPH-4, SPH-4/B, HGU-56/P) on helmet capability and upkeep.

[Linc]

It's like...

 

Buying an R22 with 2100 hrs TT on it and flying it for another 500 hours without completing the overhaul. How safe is that?

[napalm]

so what are the "today's options" that are better then the SPH-4/B for protection?

[dlo22]

people get so picky and protective over the smallest things<<<\

 

I think any helmet, football, hockey or bicycle helmet is sure better than wearing nothing. I don't know how you could say that a 1500 dollar helmet is not good protection, its not like they havent tested these helmets and ever thought about safety when making these expensive helmets. A helmet that is DOT approved is still just a helmet that is DOT approved. When buying a helmet for my streetbikes, sure you want one that will hold up when you crash. sure, some helmets will hold up better than others, but If they are DOT approved then it has been tested and should be adequate for what you are doing with it.

 

I'm sure you could spend 50, 000 dollars on a helmet, but it doesnt mean that it is going to hold up better than the next approved helmet, and if they say it does without a standardized test rating, then they are probably just blowing smoke up your butt.

 

I am not saying that you should or should not wear a helmet, but there is no law stating you have to wear one, so it is up to you. If you are going to wear a helmet, you need to wear it everytime you go up and not just on certain flights either. So when buying a helmet, Im sure the most important thing is that it is going to protect your head and not shatter on impact. Then the next important thing on everyones mind is probably going to be comfort and weight, along with headset capabilities and air vent holes. This subject is not all that complicated, first decide whether or not you want to wear a helmet everytime, and yes, it might be SAFER to wear a helmet everytime you fly, but it is no means a guarentee that you will live and be ok, and by no means is this a ticket to go fly stupid, but Im also sure you could spend a great deal of money on putting air bags into your helicopter, making it bulletproof, incase of stray bullets , and reinforcing the cabin so it will not crush upon landing, but at the end of the day, you just have to except that helicopters are dangrous and no matter what percautions you take, it will still be no where near as safe as not flying the stupid helicopter in the first place.

 

cause who wants to fly a helicopter with a full fire proof jumpsuit on, fireproof boots, and fireproof steele helmet and a five point harnessing seat belt system, along with full doors on and a shatter proof wind shield???

 

there are things you can do to make your survivability rate go up and up, but if you are so concerned about the saftey of flying helicopters, than why stop at just a helmet. Why not just don't fly them at all, especially when you get into the physics and ergonomics of which helicopter specific helmet may protect your dome better. Also, better make sure you are wearing poly-carbonite lenses in your sun glasses or sun visor, so when you smack your head on the instrament panel, you dont break those cheap gas station lenses and poke both your eyes out.

 

also make sure you have your professional helicopter sun glasses polarized so you have accurate depth perception with the sun glares off those cheap plastic bubbles. Anyways, I could go on for hours about how to be safer and personally, I don't think people care to hear every detail, cause most of it is common sense.

 

I am in no way implying that I don't believe in safety or thinking that one should not always wear safety equiptment or practice safe flight.

[Linc]

Well, the Army's opinion is that the HGU-56/P is the best thing going right now for impact protection for the head in a cockpit. The SPH-4B is late 80s technology.

 

Certain sites, like flightsuits.com give you impact protection numbers, but they don't really tell you what it is all about. The fps isn't as important as the G-threshold measurement the deceleration produces, the fps is usually dictated by a testing standard (such as ANSI...motorcycle helmets anyone?). Less than 200g is necessary to prevent serious blunt trauma brain injury. Below 150g is recommended by the United States Army Aeromedical Research Lab at Fort Rucker. Even the HGU-56/P's manufacturer numbers don't get that low, but they get the closest out of all the Gentex products. From what I've seen, you get what you pay for, too.

 

Brandt Systems & Support lists most of their helmets as being "below 300g" at 90 ft/lb force. Gallet LH-series helmet utilize the Air Force's 1998 MIL-DTL-87174/A standard which evaluates impact protection and penetration resistance as:

3.4.3 Penetration resistance.

 

The helmet shell shall withstand an impact of a pointed, 16-ounce steel bob freely dropped from a height of 10 feet. The bob shall have a point having a maximum radius of 0.015 inches. Penetration shall be less than 0.25 inches when measured from outside the helmet shell.

 

3.4.4 Impact protection.

 

When an impact of 35 foot-pounds [approx 50 joules] energy is applied to the helmet assembly, acceleration experienced by the headform shall not exceed 150g for more than 6 milliseconds, 200g for 3 milliseconds, or 400g.

So, when a site says that the helmet is below 300g, what is it really telling you? It's saying that the worst impact force you will experience according to that testing criteria is just below 300g, not for 6 ms or 3 ms but period. Sure, it meets that standards requirements but what does that really mean? The Army, as you will see from just the two helmet studies I've linked to by the US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL), has been doing extensive studies over the years and looking to improve the products that it uses.

 

For some background on how the U.S. Army has gone about solving the helmet issue, some reading is required since I am not going to summarize that much information here. WARNING:Large pdf files at the ends of these links. Dial-up users should get coffee or something.

 

U.S. Army Aircrew Helmets: Head Injury Mitigation Technology

Head injury remains the predominant cause of severe and fatal injuries to Army aircrew involved in helicopter mishaps. As a means to prevent injuries or reduce their severity, the U.S. Army has continuously sought improvements to aviator helmets. Numerous improvements have resulted from analysis of helmets involved in aviation accidents and the wearer's injuries. It is believed that the newest Army aviator helmet, the HGU-56/P, offers significant improvements over earlier designs. This paper presents a chronology of Army aviator helmets with descriptions defining their differences and improvements.

 

SPH-4 Aircrew Helmet Impact Protection Improvements 1970-1990

The Sound Protective Helmet-4 (SPH-4), a derivative of the Navy SPH-3, has been used by the Army since 1970. As our knowledge of crash environments and human impact tolerance has increased through analyses of aircraft accidents and laboratory research, the performance of the standard SPH-4 helmet has been continuously reappraised, and the helmet’s shell, liner, retention, earcups, and suspension have been upgraded to provide more impact protection. This report includes a discussion of improvements made in the SPH-4 helmet and the effects these improvements have had on its performance. The SPH-4, SPH-4B, and HGU-56/P are compared in terms of major design features, impact protection, and retention capabilities. The development of helmet impact testing methodology used at the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker, Alabama, also is discussed.

 

To break it all down, if you have a total acceleration (acceleration of your head inside the helmet as the helmet hits a hard object) greater than 200g, you will probably suffer a blunt trauma (concussion or basilar skull fracture) injury based on the most likely head impacts during helicopter accidents. These are all survivable accidents mind you. Accidents where the aircraft isn't extensively damaged and the landing is technically one you should walk away from.

 

There are always flukes. I have a senior NCO whose teenage son was not wearing his seatbelt and was thrown from his speeding car when he lost control in someone's yard. He was severely injured but the car's driver side A-frame was compromised and the whole driver's side of the roof was crushed in. It was the investigating officers heartfelt belief that if this man's son had been seatbelted in the car, they would be having a funeral instead of visitation in the hospital.

 

My point will always be that saving a few bucks should be viewed in the context of what a pilot is hoping to gain from that product, with the question of whether or not saving the money is worth the false perception of safety as opposed to knowing that you have a piece of gear that will do what it is advertised to do. "For a few dollars more", one can have a "cheaply" procured helmet (ebay, anyone?) inspected and repaired to make sure it is serviceable. What's more, with a bit more research, a pilot can make educated decisions as to what is or isn't a good product to provide the protection the individual hopes to gain for his money.

 

It is all a matter of perspective. I'm reminded of the boss asking his secretary if she'd sleep with him if he gave her a million dollars. She agrees and so he asks if she'd sleep with him for much less than that. She's offended and asks him what kind of woman he thinks she is. He answers, "We've already settled that, now we're just working out the price." If you're willing to wear second-hand equipment as a shortcut to secure your safety, because you feel that anything is better than nothing...what other sub-standard item or performance are you going to accept?

 

Anyways, read for yourself. Decide for yourself.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Linc

[Linc]

A helmet that is DOT approved is still just a helmet that is DOT approved. When buying a helmet for my streetbikes, sure you want one that will hold up when you crash. sure, some helmets will hold up better than others, but If they are DOT approved then it has been tested and should be adequate for what you are doing with it.

DOT doesn't approve helmets or test helmets. DOT establishes a standard and requires that the helmet manufacturer ensure that their helmet meets that standard to be allowed to sell it in the United States. The manufacturer may or may not conduct any kind of testing.

 

Snell, however, is an independent laboratory that does tests helmets and has a recommended list of helmets that meet their testing criteria.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Linc

[klmmarine]

I'd be curious to see how the HGU-84/p or the HGU-68/p stack up against the SPH-4 and HGU-56.

 

The Army has decided it wants to use the HGU-56, The Navy has decided on the HGU-84 (for rotor wing and the HGU-68 for fixed wing) and the Coast Guard has continued to use the SPH-4 (although they do approve the use of the HGU-84 as well)

 

Who is right, and why?

[delorean]

Some of the ex Army guys I work with told me they saw a "scared straight" kind of helmet demonstration. I don't know if it was first person or a video, but the demonstrators put a Jell-o mold inside of a hat, one inside of a bike helmet, and one inside a standard issue helicopter helmet. They dropped them from a top a tall ladder and the ones inside of the hat and bike helmet "liquified". The one inside of the helicopter helmet still held its fancy molded shape after impact. I would have loved to seen that myself.

 

Also.....Just FYI......At the Gallet booth at HAI, they had the leaflet saying that that the US Dept of Interior has updated their helicopter flight helmet specs to the ANSI Z90.1 (1992). Gallet passed all the tests and was notified on 2/16/07 that the Dept was now publishing the new specs (with all the helmets that were approved) and it should be available soon.

[Linc]

ANSI Z90.1-1992

 

A more directly useful standard is ANSI Z90.1-1992; this is a update of the original ANSI Z90.1 standard of 1966. ANSI Z90.1-1992 is accepted by many organizations as an Autocross helmet, and is appropriate for SCCA Solo II cometition. ANSI Z90.1 depends on many of the definitions of DOT FMVSS 218; it specifies pre conditioning of the helmets with low (-10 degrees C) and high temperatures (50 degrees C) before testing as well as testing at ambient temperature. A water immersion pre conditioning is also specified (between 4 and 24 hours in water at between 18 degrees and 27 degrees C before testing.) The standard specifies the velocity of the impact rather than the height from which the helmets are to be dropped, but the flat and hemipsherical anvils from DOT FMVSS 218 are to be used, and the headform accleration standard is tighter, with the limit at 300Gs. The ANSI Z90.1 standard also adds an "edge" anvil to the hemispherical and flat anvils. The chin strap retention test has the same 23kg preload, with a dynamic test load consisting of a 38kg mass dropped 120mm to provide an abrupt load on the strap. The Z90.1 standard does not appear to include the dropping of a striker on the test helmet. It does, however, include a solvent test which involves wiping the helmet with a 50/50 mixture of Toluene and Benzene. The actual purpose of the solvent test is unclear to me.

 

--Source

Doesn't sound unlike the USAF's MIL-DTL-87174 standard. Probably what they updated it with, since the previous standard was dated 1983 or so. The MIL standard has construction material requirements as well.

[permison]

...on the other thread.

 

All I will say is the same thing I've said before, if you're wearing a helmet for protection and you aren't investing money in getting it fitted/inspected/repaired properly to make sure it will do for you what you expect/hope it to, you're wasting money. At that point, you're deciding to wear the helmet for every other reason BUT protection.

 

The SPH-4 or SPH-4/B is not a good choice for protection compared to today's helmet options.

 

That is not a "to wear or not to wear" opinion. That is a professional opinion from one who wears and has maintained helmets (SPH-4, SPH-4/B, HGU-56/P) on helmet capability and upkeep.

 

Linc,

Great point! So where can I get my SPH-4 inspected and repaired to make sure it is serviceable? Mine was last inspected in the summer of 93 when I left the Army, so it is probably about time.

Permison

[Linc]

I'd be curious to see how the HGU-84/p or the HGU-68/p stack up against the SPH-4 and HGU-56.

 

The Army has decided it wants to use the HGU-56, The Navy has decided on the HGU-84 (for rotor wing and the HGU-68 for fixed wing) and the Coast Guard has continued to use the SPH-4 (although they do approve the use of the HGU-84 as well)

 

Who is right, and why?

From Gentex's HGU-84 data sheet.

 

Peak Gs Velocity* Anvil Environmental conditions

300 17.5 ft/sec Flat Cold

400 17.5 ft/sec Hemisperical Hot

 

17.5 ft/sec (5.334 m/sec) is greater than 3 m/sec but less than 6 m/sec. Comparatively, the HGU-56/P registers 150-175g for crown (top of the head), earcup (side of the head) and headband impacts. The SPH-4B registers 175g at the earcups and 250g for all other impacts at 6 m/sec. The much older SPH-4 (if manufactured after 1982) registers 300g for all impacts at the same velocity for the HGU-84, and pre-1982 SPH-4 helmets register 400g. The HGU-68 helmet mirrors the pre-1982 capability but it is designed for fast-movers and not helicopters.

[Linc]

Linc,

Great point! So where can I get my SPH-4 inspected and repaired to make sure it is serviceable? Mine was last inspected in the summer of 93 when I left the Army, so it is probably about time.

Permison

I'm not sure if Flightsuits.com is FAA-certified (or if that kind of certification is required), but they offer a repair service for military helmets. Also, there is Helicopter Helmets.com.

 

I can tell you what the repair criteria is for the military for the SPH-4B is:

Visors:

 

Inspect visors for dust, grease, and other defects. Clean visors, using a clean, damp cloth, to remove dust and dirt.

 

NOTE: Use a mild soap solution to remove grease, oil and perspiration from visors.

Visor locks

 

Inspect for cracks, blemishes or scratches. Replace/Repair if: Cracked, blemished or scratched.

 

Visor tracks and spacers:

 

Lower and raise visors to make sure they move freely in their tracks. Replace/Repair if: Visors sticks or fail to move

 

Inspect for cracks, excessive wear (that would make them inoperative), breaks or missing mounting hardware. Replace/Repair if: Any mounting hardware is missing or defective, tracks are worn enough to

make them inoperative.

 

Visor housing:

 

Inspect paint for blemishes or chips. Spot paint as required.

 

Chin strap:

 

Inspect for tears, rips, frayed stitching or defective D-rings. Replace/Repair if: Chin strap is torn or stitching is badly frayed. D-rings are bent or broken.

 

Retention assembly:

 

Inspect for defective or missing mounting hardware, torn fabric, damaged fasteners, or defective adjustment buckle. Replace/Repair if: Adjustment buckle is defective, fasteners are defective or fabric is torn.

 

Ear Pad:

 

Inspect for looseness or-deterioration. Replace/Repair if: Deteriorated or loose.

 

Ear cup tension cross straps, and spacer pads:

 

Inspect spacer pads for deterioration, cross straps for rips or tears. Replace/Repair if: Cross straps are torn or ripped, spacer pads (if used) are loose or deteriorated.

 

Edge Beading:

 

Inspect for chips, looseness, dry rot or weather checking. Replace/Repair if: Missing or loose.

 

(Polystyrene) Foam Liner:

Inspect for looseness, cracks, stains, dents and gouges. Inspect for loose or missing hook fasteners. Replace/Repair if: Cracked and/or compressed more than 2 cubic centimeters in any one location.

 

Shell:

 

Inspect for cracks, dirt, damaged paint or marking. Replace/Repair if: Shell is cracked.

 

Thermo Plastic Liner assembly (TPL):

 

Inspect for excessively loose hook and pile. Replace/Repair if: If hook and pile are excessively

loose.

That way, you can evaluate how bad off your helmet is and not be surprised if they tell you what it will cost to repair.

[arotrhd]

Linc - glad to read another one of your great technical posts. I had to respond with my $.02 because I thought there was something clearly missing to date - this may be obvious to those familiar, but one must qualify the bottom line of safety for others:

ANY helmet that is poorly fitted, or has a chin/nape/retention strap that is worn loose or is otherwise poorly secured will not provide adequate levels of safety per "tested" performance, whether MIL, DOT, ANSI or manufacturer. A correctly fitted and worn (SPH-4/whatever) will outpreform a loosely fitted or poorly secured newer type (HGU-56/Whatever), which would likely cause severe cranial/neck/spinal injuries/trauma to the pilot during an accident sequence. A helmet should not be worn for looks, but should be worn for safety.

 

I agree that all things being equal, newer helmets should offer a higher degree of protection (and comfort) vs. the predecessors. BTW - the USCG was using the Gentex SPH-5CG model most recently (not SHP-4) until the HGU-56 became standard issued eqt.

 

I have used flightsuits for an intermediate inspection & painting on my SPH-5, and they have provided excellent sevice in a timely manner... OK in my book.

 

-WATCH FOR THE WIRES-

 

Glad Matthew/Marpat crew are well. Just wish God didn't have to amend Flingwing206's clearance. Rest easy, friend.

[FinR]

Linc,

Great point! So where can I get my SPH-4 inspected and repaired to make sure it is serviceable? Mine was last inspected in the summer of 93 when I left the Army, so it is probably about time.

Permison

How about these guys, are they any good?

 

http://www.oregonaero.com/p69_2001.html

[Linc]

How about these guys, are they any good?

 

http://www.oregonaero.com/p69_2001.html

They don't inspect and repair helmets, they offer optional items for modification/installation. Certain of their products I would say are worth considering, although I am not authorized to use any of them.

[Linc]

...ANY helmet that is poorly fitted, or has a chin/nape/retention strap that is worn loose or is otherwise poorly secured will not provide adequate levels of safety per "tested" performance, whether MIL, DOT, ANSI or manufacturer. A correctly fitted and worn (SPH-4/whatever) will outpreform a loosely fitted or poorly secured newer type (HGU-56/Whatever), which would likely cause severe cranial/neck/spinal injuries/trauma to the pilot during an accident sequence. A helmet should not be worn for looks, but should be worn for safety.

I agree, that is a point that should be covered. Proper wear is required to provide the safety advertised.

 

Outside of the military it just seems that the rest of the helicopter community is lacking the same exposure, be it the level of funding, staffing, or "education" that the military receives on the benefits and the proper wear and care of helmets and other protective gear for aviation.

 

When you've seen Skip Tackett's AH-64 fire presentation, then you make sure you don't have holes in your Nomex and make sure it isn't threadbare, and you know not to wear flammable type undergarments. In fact, I just checked the inspection on my helmet, I'm good for another 4-5 months!

[500E]

The Z90 speck is real old and out of date, but this brings up a point if the helio helmet was to Z90 then the car racing helmet to the same speck should give the same protection or am I missing something.

The latest Car specks are FIA, Snell SA2005, Snell SA-2000, SFI Foundation 31.1A, 32.2A & BS6658type A/FR cant find any test info on them to give figures and the visors are pretty poor by aircraft standards

One thing I never understand is people painting helmets, the solvents can destroy the laminates\resins also resins age ask fiberglass boat owners.

 

THIS IS A PARAGRAPH from the SNELL web site Why should you replace your helmet every five years?

The five year replacement recommendation is based on a consensus by both the helmet manufacturers and the Snell Foundation. Glues, resins and other materials used in helmet production over can affect liner materials. Hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, as well as normal "wear and tear" all contribute to helmet degradation. Petroleum based products present in cleaners, paints, fuels and other commonly encountered materials may also degrade materials used in many helmets possibly degrading performance. Additionally, experience indicates there will be a noticeable improvement in the protective characteristic of helmets over a five year period due to advances in materials, designs, production methods and the standards. Thus, the recommendation for five year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from a prudent safety philosophy.

 

Snell web site http://www.smf.org/

[Linc]

500E,

 

The ANSI spec is a test and evaluation specification, not a construction specification for materials used. It talks about how to objectively test and evaluate an individual helmet model's performance. The same can be said for the FMVSS 218 and Snell M2000. The difference is the level to which they are tested. 300g limits at 50 joules isn't much. It gets a bit better when you're looking at 90 joules and much, much better if you are achieving 150 joules in the test and can maintain below that 300g.

 

As far as ANSI vs Snell, comparison for impact shows that ANSI will accept the use of either the DOT or ISO headforms but agrees with Snell that the 5.0 kg (22 lbs) drop assembly is used. USAARL tests use the ANSI Z90.1 (1979) standard for the monorail drop tower, but incorporates the B, C, and D headforms from AS 1698 (1988) and looks for the ANSI Z90.1 (1992) criteria.

 

The "year" of a standard is used to identify a version of a standard, and indicates that something in the standard was updated but doesn't necessarily indicate that it is the most stringent standard available. For instance, neither Snell nor ANSI incorporate a "tear" test to determine the anti-tear quality of the shell, but USAARL has a test for it.

 

When you've seen all sorts of helmets (hard hats, fire helmets, motorcycle helmets, etc.) with these tests applied to them, and the USAARL guys tell you that they continue to be impressed by the HGU-56/P...I gotta tell you, it starts to sway your opinion in that direction. Yeah, I'm a believer.

 

Paint on helmets, not a bad thing if the paint is also to a spec approved by the manufacturer, since most manufacturers DO paint their helmets.

[dlo22]

Linc,

 

I will give you this, you seem as though you are very versed in the ratings and options behind helmets, Either you have read about helmets for years, or you are some how incorperated with making them. and from what I read, you seem like you know a great deal about them. You probably do know which helmet is best and why. plus it is kindof interesting reading the science and numbers behind all of this. I don't want to get into the argument of should everyone be required to wear a helmet or not, but clearly you know what you are talking about so you might as well just tell us which helmet is the best in your opinion and why... which is the best helmet for the price and which is the most comfortable helmet.... also include the prices if you have them. maybe you could even give some of the guys the pros and cons to the helmets they are wearing now....

[klmmarine]

dlo22- Linc is in the Army, the standard issue helmet for the Army is the HGU-56 which is what he has stated over and over is the helmet that most impresses him. Since the Army doesn't make their pilots pay for their own helmets I am sure that Linc has only the same information that the rest of us have as to the prices of each helmet.

 

I am former military and wore a variety of headgear when flying, my personal preference for comfort was the HGU-84, but I think that there isn't going to be one helmet that is the best for everyone. Just like motorcycle helmets (or any other type for that matter) each is going to fit everyone a little different. Which one you buy is going to come down to which one you can afford, which one is most comfortable when properly fitted, and unfortunately which one has the best cool factor for you. Any properly fitted helmet is better than no properly fitted helmet, and while some may offer slightly more protection than others, in the end it comes down to personal preference.

 

If on the other hand your personal preference is NOT to wear a helmet then don't, and leave it at that.

[Linc]

dlo,

 

Like klm said, I'm military, and I have served as an aviation life support officer (inspecting and repairing helmets, Nomex clothing, survival vests, etc.) for 6-7 years in the past, and I try and stay current on why the Army says the current thing is the best. Part of the job is selling the value of the equipment to my fellow pilots. Some of the doctrine I believe and some I don't. Here, you get the benefit of how much and why I believe those parts of it I believe.

 

Comfort and protection seem to be at odds part of the time. As far as the industry standard, I haven't seen anything that matches the HGU-56/P from Gentex. I'm not selling it for them, it's just that I've seen the data and the data says this. It has the best broad spectrum noise protection and impact protection. The shell has the best tear resistance, and from the test result helmets I've seen, one of the best puncture resistance capabilities I've seen.

 

SPH-4B is the predecessor to the HGU-56/P and if you have one properly maintained and worn, you're doing definitely better than just wearing a set of DCs.

 

I'd think that the Gallet LH-series might be acceptable, in fact, anything that is tested at ANSI Z90.1 standards and passes is going to provide protection.

 

New helmets, for the two helmets I've specifically mentioned, run $700-1200. It's certainly an investment just like learning to fly helicopters. Making sure it stays effective, or getting a bargain and then ensuring it does what you need it to is also an investment.

 

I agree with you, the reality is that the helmet ONLY works in the survivable accidents. G-loads that are deemed unsurvivable and can't be attenuated by aircraft structures in a crash sequence are far more likely to cause severe internal or spinal injuries that are fatal. With a helmet in a survivable crash you are far less likely to be knocked unconscious and so be unable to egress the helicopter in the event of a fuel leak or post crash fire. The Army protects us for the purpose of our being able to do the above as well as to be able to evade an armed enemy who may come looking to put even more hurt on us. So, they have a vested interest in making sure that we have the best.

 

With that stated (the best), it means that it is the best helmet for use in a helicopter. The forces encountered in a helicopter crash are different than those encountered in a motorcycle accident. So, I wouldn't expect to find a motorcycle helmet being worn in a helicopter or a helicopter helmet being worn on a motorcycle. There are plenty of motorcycle helmets on the wall at USAARL for display that did not pass their tests to evaluate against the types of injuries that occur in helicopter hard landings and crashes.

[permison]

Linc,

There are a lot of companies out there selling flight suits that they claim are mil-spec and of course you can find a few used in the local Army Navy stores. Do you have suggestions on what is appropriate and what the Army recommends/requires? I have also heard that the nomex has to be reaplied every so often.

[Linc]

Nomex fabric is made with a fiber called Aramid nylon. The fire retardant qualities are inherent to the thread, and so it is inherent to the fabric. The reapplication myth comes from fire retardant (FR) applications for cotton clothing that washes out. However, the garments can "wear out" in high friction/compression areas where the thread diameter is reduced making it less capable of performing according to its FR nature.

 

If you are evaluating a Nomex flight garment, look at the seat of the trousers or jumpsuit and the armpits (the high wear areas). Hold it up in a well lit room and hold your hand behind the single layer you are evaluating and see if you can see your hand through it. If you can, the fiber diameter has been decreased through wearing and the Nomex fabric is suspect as to whether or not it will provide you the FR protection you want/need. Also look for persistent POL stains, even though the garment may have been laundered. Feel the fabric and if it feels thin and fragile, a. make sure it isn't cotton, and b. if it does feel soft and thin, reject the garment as excessively worn. While it may be comfortable to wear, the FR quality of protection is suspect. The easy way to do this is to feel a brand new Nomex garment and compare it to a worn garment.

[permison]

Nomex fabric is made with a fiber called Aramid nylon. The fire retardant qualities are inherent to the thread, and so it is inherent to the fabric. The reapplication myth comes from fire retardant (FR) applications for cotton clothing that washes out. However, the garments can "wear out" in high friction/compression areas where the thread diameter is reduced making it less capable of performing according to its FR nature.

 

If you are evaluating a Nomex flight garment, look at the seat of the trousers or jumpsuit and the armpits (the high wear areas). Hold it up in a well lit room and hold your hand behind the single layer you are evaluating and see if you can see your hand through it. If you can, the fiber diameter has been decreased through wearing and the Nomex fabric is suspect as to whether or not it will provide you the FR protection you want/need. Also look for persistent POL stains, even though the garment may have been laundered. Feel the fabric and if it feels thin and fragile, a. make sure it isn't cotton, and b. if it does feel soft and thin, reject the garment as excessively worn. While it may be comfortable to wear, the FR quality of protection is suspect. The easy way to do this is to feel a brand new Nomex garment and compare it to a worn garment.

 

My suits are all pretty old. Issued to me in 91ish. I am looking to get a new one as I get back in to the profession. Since I am buying them online I will not have the luxury of trying before buying. My concern is companies who claim to sell products that meet millitary specifications and deliver a cotton jump suit. Most places refer to Military Specification FNS/PD 96-17 (MIL-C-83141A)

 

I am looking at the following 3 places to purchase.

 

http://www.imall3d.com/Merchant2/merchant....ore_Code=aureus

 

http://www.imall3d.com/Merchant2/merchant....ore_Code=aureus

 

http://www.bdu.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?...Code=F511546347

 

Is the "Wings" store outside Rucker still open and do they have a web site?

Permison

[Linc]

http://www.flightsuits.com/uniform_cwu27p.html

 

Here is the Wings webpage:

http://www.wings-aviation.com/