- Apr 10, 2007
- Fresno, California
I agree. However - I was flying right seat just yesterday in a Seneca (moderate wing loading; higher than many homebuilts) when we hit a pocket that caused me to smack my head against the ceiling - and I always keep my belt very tight. I couldn't figure out after I hit my head how I'd managed to reach the ceiling (the belt was still tight) but I'm certain I did.No, I'm not. Out of the link I can't (or can't find) whether that happened during this occasion, but I know from another incident where a pretty big pilot was fine, ending upside-down. So for the moment I think that extending your head above the fuselage is a matter of bad seatbelt tension or bad aircraft design.
I've seen a pilot doing it on landing as well (too sloppy belts), crushing his canopy.I agree. However - I was flying right seat just yesterday in a Seneca (moderate wing loading; higher than many homebuilts) when we hit a pocket that caused me to smack my head against the ceiling - and I always keep my belt very tight. I couldn't figure out after I hit my head how I'd managed to reach the ceiling (the belt was still tight) but I'm certain I did.
Well, then we're back on the original question.I've seen too many designs where there's some "rollover protection" included - but when you draw a straight line from the rollover structure to the engine, the pilot's head is above it - and that's *before* any crash damage!
For me, it's not rational - it's habit.Having said that I still suspect there's a rational reason pilots use helmets, but I still don't get why.
My sentiments exactly. PG pilots are more or less mandated to wear a helmet whereas airbags are optional. While the accident stats show far more injuries occur to the lumbar spine than head.For me, it's not rational - it's habit.
I have a kayaking helmet, a hockey helmet, a skiing helmet, a rock climbing helmet, a motorcycle helmet, 2 biking helmets...
It might not be a good idea, but that's my reason.
I also have a 5-point harness in my plane, and I'm definitely glued to the seat when it's cranked.
Similar to the Hans device I've been driving my motorcycle a couple of hours with the Leatt Brace which is a similar idea. Driving up the Stelvio requires quite a bit of looking over your shoulder which is sligtly irritating with the device. Otherwise you barely notice it and for risky sports it's a definite safety-device everybody should consider long before using a helmet.... well, in my opinion.My sentiments exactly. PG pilots are more or less mandated to wear a helmet whereas airbags are optional. While the accident stats show far more injuries occur to the lumbar spine than head.
I suspect the same may be the case for the sports noted but since no adequate or practical protections systems exist for the most commonly injured regions, they figure you may as well protect the region you can. But I'm not convinced a spinal injury resulting in lifelong paralysis is better than a head injury and the head deserves a higher protection priority than the spine.
It never should. When it breaks it accelerates you till you hit the bottom of your aircraft (or the tarmac) and then your back. I think various regulations state 16 to 20G's, but in a homebuilt (shorter crumple-zone) I'd bet at 40 or so, including safety factor.Thinking about a benchlike seat with foam underneath for a little homebuild... at what weight should the butt-part brake apart from the back-part (vertical). The vertical part should avoid the cabin to implode and the lower part should brake apart to pass the energy to the foam.
Very interesting - never seen it before. What's the main difference between that and a HANS? Can you turn your head as much as you'd like to in a plane?
Well, it's a small effect. Two things play a role.Thanks for the contribution Autoreply! That's a good article.
Does anyone have any data on the effect of seat back angle in reducing spine injury? It makes common sense that the flatter you lay the safer your spine is.