• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Best helmet for backcountry

Bill,

Your spot on with the military testing standards. The classification for Bump Helmets I suppose is a bit more subjective. As far as the military is concerned I think its anything that is not a ballistic helmet. But on TW's own website the one that they are marketing as their "bump helmet" (EXFIL LTP) only meets the standards for whitewater where as the Backcountry meets ACH, Whitewater, mountaineering, and European industrial standards. The real benefit that I see with these helmets over other tactical style helmets is that they use an open cell foam that does not rebound, it will crush to absorb the energy, then it's time to get a new helmet. This is more similar to a bike or ski helmet. There is a pretty good writeup about the military ACH standards here: https://www.usaarl.army.mil/techreports/2005-12.pdf
 
Yes it is one size fits all. It comes with two different liners, and has a ratcheting system to make it snug. Will fit on 6 5/8 to 7 7/8 hat size. The Bose CAN be put back together. The only part that may not go back on are the little plastic clips that hols the wire to the headband. Other than that its reversible. Its not something I would do every day. If your intention was to take it on and off of the helmet. You could get Peltor Weedwacker earmuffs and steal the band. Then you can just click these on and off of the helmet.
 
If this helmet had been available when I upgraded my Gallet to A-20 comm? I'd have bought one and shelved the Gallet. A bump helmet is a practical solution to head protection for my flying. You warm weather guys should appreciate a good quality helmet that offers good ventilation. The Gallet is a sweat box when it's warm.
 
Bill,

Your spot on with the military testing standards. The classification for Bump Helmets I suppose is a bit more subjective. As far as the military is concerned I think its anything that is not a ballistic helmet. But on TW's own website the one that they are marketing as their "bump helmet" (EXFIL LTP) only meets the standards for whitewater where as the Backcountry meets ACH, Whitewater, mountaineering, and European industrial standards. The real benefit that I see with these helmets over other tactical style helmets is that they use an open cell foam that does not rebound, it will crush to absorb the energy, then it's time to get a new helmet. This is more similar to a bike or ski helmet. There is a pretty good writeup about the military ACH standards here: https://www.usaarl.army.mil/techreports/2005-12.pdf

Don’t oversell the helmet. It is a low impact product as compared to a motorcycle helmet or a jet helmet.

The Team Wendy hat does not comply with the entire ACH standard . It only meets the low impact part of the ACH. Technically it does not meet the standard at all.

Please don’t think I am anti helmet / bump device. They have their place in some applications.

Please understand what the Team Wendy helmet is and is not.

The folks at Team Wendy are very helpful. Get with one of them to help you understand what the helmet will do in a crash.

There is a place for bump helmets in a light plane crash. The DC helmet has lots of folks who credit the helmet with changing the outcome of a crash.

Pierce says it is comfortable, Ford says it is affordable and you sell them so the TW product sounds like a fine choice as a DC replacement.



Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Last edited:
Bill,

Certainly not trying to make the Team Wendy out to be something that it's not. But I think its important to understand the testing standards and how they are related. The Team Wendy EXFIL SAR Meets the blunt impact requirements for ACH AR/PD 10-02 which has since been replaced by CO/PD 05-04 but contains the verbatim language in regards to the requirements for blunt impact trauma. This testing standard is based on the motorcycle helmet DOT Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 with a few exceptions. The most notable of which are the ACH standard uses a lower test speed 10m/s apposed to the DOT FMMS of 19-20 m/s. However, the ACH Blunt impact limits peak G force to 150Gs where as the DOT FMMS has a limit of 400Gs. The David Clark Helmet as an example has a MIL-4-85047A which has an absolute limit of 400Gs at 5m/s.

All of that being said there is a great writeup on the shortcomings of the ACH standard. It touches specifically on the shortcomings of the Blunt Impact Trauma testing standard and how it relates to threats in the military. HERE.
 
The Visor is ready to go. I just have to update the web page. Im working on the Light Speed Sierra. It is a bit more involved of a conversion. Waiting to get my hands on a Zulu to look at how I can convert it
 
Somebody get this man a Lightspeed ZULU!

The Visor is ready to go. I just have to update the web page. Im working on the Light Speed Sierra. It is a bit more involved of a conversion. Waiting to get my hands on a Zulu to look at how I can convert it
 
Somebody get this man a Lightspeed ZULU!

IMG_0602.JPGIMG_0596.JPGIMG_0594.JPG



Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0602.JPG
    IMG_0602.JPG
    191.2 KB · Views: 463
  • IMG_0596.JPG
    IMG_0596.JPG
    140.8 KB · Views: 759
  • IMG_0594.JPG
    IMG_0594.JPG
    153.4 KB · Views: 722
The Visor is ready to go. I just have to update the web page. Im working on the Light Speed Sierra. It is a bit more involved of a conversion. Waiting to get my hands on a Zulu to look at how I can convert it
Sierra, WTH? I’ll send you a Zulu tomorrow... PM me!
 
I am happy to discuss this with you privately.

Bill,

Certainly not trying to make the Team Wendy out to be something that it's not. But I think its important to understand the testing standards and how they are related. The Team Wendy EXFIL SAR Meets the blunt impact requirements for ACH AR/PD 10-02 which has since been replaced by CO/PD 05-04 but contains the verbatim language in regards to the requirements for blunt impact trauma. This testing standard is based on the motorcycle helmet DOT Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 with a few exceptions. The most notable of which are the ACH standard uses a lower test speed 10m/s apposed to the DOT FMMS of 19-20 m/s. However, the ACH Blunt impact limits peak G force to 150Gs where as the DOT FMMS has a limit of 400Gs. The David Clark Helmet as an example has a MIL-4-85047A which has an absolute limit of 400Gs at 5m/s.

All of that being said there is a great writeup on the shortcomings of the ACH standard. It touches specifically on the shortcomings of the Blunt Impact Trauma testing standard and how it relates to threats in the military. HERE.
 
I am pretty ignorant to the differences in all these standards but it is obvious that the Team Wendy helmet is not like the helmets used in the military that are available. Weight, comfort and propensity to use the product all are factors. I looked at the Bonehead helmet that appears to me to just be a shell with a thin pad then compared them to several other more substatial helmets displayed at Oshkosh and Sun & Fun. Having blown out 2 discs in my neck I don't see me wearing one of those heavy helmets twisting and turning down the river like I do.
 
I wear a Northwall LMT Pilot helmet while working, it’s a great helmet that’s saved my life, but doesn’t seem to be supported in the US anymore. I’ll switch to a Gallet or Evo once it’s beyond repair. For all the talk of ratings and the like, has there been any deaths where wearing a helmet has been a contributing factor to the fatality? I lean towards any helmet being better than nothing, although it’s a little hypocritical for me to say since I don’t wear one in GA planes.
 
I wear a Northwall LMT Pilot helmet while working, it’s a great helmet that’s saved my life, but doesn’t seem to be supported in the US anymore. I’ll switch to a Gallet or Evo once it’s beyond repair. For all the talk of ratings and the like, has there been any deaths where wearing a helmet has been a contributing factor to the fatality? I lean towards any helmet being better than nothing, although it’s a little hypocritical for me to say since I don’t wear one in GA planes.

Dale Earnhardt?

Glenn
 
The Team Wendy helmet is a bump helmet.

The marketing material from Team Wendy claims to meets the ACH blunt impact standard. The ACH standard is 10 FPS drop with a 150 G pass / fail. As compared to a football helmet at 18 FPS drop.

In no way am I disparaging the Team Wendy helmet. I am pointing out that it is not a crash helmet and not designed for use in aircraft.

I spent some time with Wendy’s dad and siblings after her death from a a head impact while white water rafting. They founded the company with a passion to build better headgear. I have no reason to believe they have lost that passion.

Just don’t confuse snowshoes for skis when you are going skiing.

Is your lap belt low and snug? Your shoulder harness on? Head in the game before your fly?




Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

Great post... And thanks for the Cascade Lax helmet... I finally got to wear one my last 3 seasons in college. It's amazing there weren't more injuries with the Bacharach. Game changer!
 
Last edited:
My head hurts from this discussion.

Do we have a problem with catastrophic injury and death in light airplane crashes? Yes. Can this be cured by simply putting a helmet on our head? I don’t think so.

Will wearing a helmet decrease the risk of a cuts and bruises in a plane crash? Likely.

Will a helmet overheat or fatigue a pilot resulting in temporary decrease of skills? I bet it will.

Fly recklessly, on the edge or dumb you should expect Newton’s laws to kill you with or without a helmet.

In ice hockey and recreational skiing catastrophic injury and death rates increased with the adoption of headgear. Head injury decreased with the introduction of headgear in these sports.
One theory to explain this is that users behavior changed when they strapped on helmet. Skiers skied faster, hockey players dived in head first.

Don’t be a cowboy or pull bonehead moves just because you have a helmet on.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Last edited:
You're smart people. Read, research, make your own decisions.

Helmets: Possible Lives Saved 33
In the State of Alaska, several state and federal agencies now require helmets to beworn by all occupants of small aircraft during the performance of their official duties.This requirement is mainly for small aircraft performing low level surveys and off-airportwork. Of 27 relevant autopsy results, all listed moderate to severe injury to the head.While the team recognizes that not all 27 lives would have been saved by the use ofhelmets, we do believe wide-spread use of helmets, particularly in tandem seat aircraft,would have a significant positive impact on reducing FSI accidents in the State ofAlaska.

http://www.northstarsurvivalsolutions.com/uploads/FSI_Report_AK.pdf


And one that's written for helicopters. Our flying is most similar to helicopters and less similar to military fixed wing since those guys will eject while the helicopter crews ride along to impact.

http://www.ihst.org/portals/54/Helmets.pdf
 
Last edited:
Thanks Stewart, I have seen the useless pat themselves on the back video about the study but not the actual report.
 
You're smart people. Read, research, make your own decisions.



http://www.northstarsurvivalsolutions.com/uploads/FSI_Report_AK.pdf


And one that's written for helicopters. Our flying is most similar to helicopters and less similar to military fixed wing since those guys will eject while the helicopter crews ride along to impact.

http://www.ihst.org/portals/54/Helmets.pdf

Thanks for sharing the FSI report.

I have a love/hate relationship with the FSI report. Lots of good direction but little actionable material for a helmet designer to use.
The FSI make recommendations that are based the researcher’s intuition. Intuition that they do not supported with science. I see the FSI as a very good starting point for more study on the actual mechanism of injury.
Can an equipment manufacture build a product that will reduce the likelihood of injury in a small plane crash? Yes, but without understanding exactly how folks are killed (energy absorbed, what the head hit and location of impact on the head)the designers are guessing at what will and will not work.

Stewart, thanks again for bringing the FSI report to the discussion



Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Last edited:
Bill, you are obviously well versed on this subject and have taken great interest and shared your knowledge which is much appreciated. Can you share your background/motivation on this subject?
 
The design, manufacturer and promotion of helmets paid for my airplane habit.
Airplanes allowed me to design and manufacture helmets in the US.

Membership and participation in the ASTM process for headgear outside of my core markets opened my eyes to a lot of well wishing dreamers looking for magic solutions. Helmets are often not the solution. Mostly helmets are the last solution.

I will not ride a bike across the yard without a helmet or get on a dirt bike without a helmet- they work.

I am not one who thinks that “any helmet is better than no helmet”. I alpine ski my share of days a year- never a helmet found on my head. I accept the increased odds of a cut or a bruise over a death blow because know that I ski faster with a helmet on.

I believe helmets have a place for some pilots/aircraft. Most not.

Unfortunately the need for a light plane helmets is not large enough to attract study or commercial interest. Without that pilots are just guessing at the biomechanics involved in a light plane crash. Kind of like the airplane designs of the 1890’s. Well intentioned guesses.

The Alaskan FSI report tells us a lot about how to keep out of the morgue. The report mentions helmets without defining helmets- folks grab on to the FSI helmet comment like it is the silver bullet of light plane safety- it is not! Read the report. It tells us that we should:fly often, follow the FARs, keep the nose bellow the horizon with the ball centered(stall/spin), plenty of clean fuel in the tank, be fit to fly in an airworthy plane, understand the weather at our destination (wind and VMC into IMC kill us), use airbags, and shoulder harness.


Kudos to those who are trying to move the ball forward. Most don’t know what they don’t know about helmets.






Bill, you are obviously well versed on this subject and have taken great interest and shared your knowledge which is much appreciated. Can you share your background/motivation on this subject?
 
The idea that we might fly more recklessly with a helmet is ridiculous. The same is true for most other helmet sports.

In general? Doing something is almost always better than doing nothing.
 
Slight sidebar to this. Risk assessment that we all do, consciously and unconsciously. There are numerous studies about how sports and activities change as protection gets better, or as the perceived risk changes.

The standard risk matrix simply shifts over, as now with more wing, bigger tires, more power, better crashworthiness provides this perception of less risk.
1200px-Risk_matrix.png

And quite often, the perception is correct, there is less risk of bad injury/death/etc, but as Bill said, now there is a greater risk of accidents, as the perceived risk of accident hurting you "badly" is less.
I view it as the GoPro Era. It changed our world in terms of what we have seen/viewed and nearly experienced through first person visualization. If one guy wing suits his way along the ridge, the next guy wing suits through the hole in the rock, or between the buildings, or breaks both ankles strafing a ledge.... Because the performance of all the gear is well, now better...

It doesn't stop me from being part of it at times, as a cub and bush wheels open up more area for sure. But keep in mind perceived risk vs rewards.
I like the idea of a helmet. But I'm a believer in wearing your airplane when you buckle on your restraints as well. That inch of slack used up before an inertia reel locks may be the difference between needing the helmet, and not.
 

Attachments

  • 1200px-Risk_matrix.png
    1200px-Risk_matrix.png
    240.9 KB · Views: 278
Below are two excerpts from a British report on Injuries in Fatal Aircraft Accidents.

Read the entire report here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8550/303b58ffb92189864c59d57096a45733bd05.pdf

Harness restraint systems are provided in aircraft and these may modify the injuries that are sustained. The unrestrained head will swing forward when the torso is effectively restrained and the body is exposed to eyeball-out or -Gx acceleration. This may put a strain on the atlanto-occipital articulation, which is increased if a heavy helmet with, for example, night vision goggles attached is worn. This joint, therefore, needs careful evaluation.

Recurring Injury Patterns
In the early 1970s the frequency of certain injuries in light aircraft was apparent (Cullen 1973). The regularity of low speed light aircraft crashes was such as to suggest that our efforts would best be directed at injury prevention. A problem was encountered in that no attempts had been made in previous analyses to distinguish between survivable accidents and those that were clearly not survivable. The injury patterns in the non-survivable accidents would clearly confound any analysis. A survivable accident was defined as one in which a survivor resulted or that the deformation of the casualty’s immediate environment was so minor that survival would have been likely had adequate equipment been provided. The frequency of head injury above the eyes was surprisingly uncommon, occurring in only one third of cases. More than 75% had died of cerebral trauma involving the middle third of the face. This sort of injury is clearly not amenable to protection with a helmet.
Often these injuries resulted in fatal fractures to the skull but in some involving the middle third of the face death resulted from complications of the injury such as inhalation of blood. These injuries may
Injuries in Fatal Aircraft Accidents
RTO-EN-HFM-113 3 - 9


also incapacitate the pilot preventing escape from the post crash fire. The discovery of these injuries together with evidence of flailing such as hair and tissue embedded in the instrument panel is evidence that death should be prevented by the provision of upper torso restraint.
injuries
 
Bill,
What is your analysis of the EN 966 rating? It is advertised on the Icaro Helmets, and Tiger offered them as "rated for aviation impact" I understand the rating is for Microlight, etc. in Europe but wondered what your knowledge could provide about that rating compared to whatever "aviation" rating there is in the US... and not the DOI requirements - they go beyond my questions. Is it (the rating) the same in US? Different? If so, how?
I don't really want to get into the question of whether wearing a helmet is good or not. For myself and what I do, I know a helmet would be helpful in the event of at least an engine failure. I've done it a long time and my behavior doesn't change whether I'm wearing one or not. I am very curious as to what various ratings mean and how they apply to my particular world. Not asking you to analyze all the ratings but the waters get muddy when considering deceleration, penetration, rebound, etc.. Thus wondering what EN 966 really means.
I have done some research but it all seems to blend together and I hope to gain some insight from others who know far more than I about this. If you would add your insight I would appreciate it.
Thanks
Jose
 
The FAA used to have a safety poster..."The Harness worn round your shoulder - will keep you whole and growing older." Nylon will stretch up to 50%. that's the other part of this. Harness tight AND replaced or re-webbed in a timely fashion. Nylon deteriorates in sunlight and loses strength without warning. Since I'm currently looking, does anyone have a recommended supplier of re-webbing military style 3" belts?
 
I
Below are two excerpts from a British report on Injuries in Fatal Aircraft Accidents.

Read the entire report here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8550/303b58ffb92189864c59d57096a45733bd05.pdf

Harness restraint systems are provided in aircraft and these may modify the injuries that are sustained. The unrestrained head will swing forward when the torso is effectively restrained and the body is exposed to eyeball-out or -Gx acceleration. This may put a strain on the atlanto-occipital articulation, which is increased if a heavy helmet with, for example, night vision goggles attached is worn. This joint, therefore, needs careful evaluation.

Recurring Injury Patterns
In the early 1970s the frequency of certain injuries in light aircraft was apparent (Cullen 1973). The regularity of low speed light aircraft crashes was such as to suggest that our efforts would best be directed at injury prevention. A problem was encountered in that no attempts had been made in previous analyses to distinguish between survivable accidents and those that were clearly not survivable. The injury patterns in the non-survivable accidents would clearly confound any analysis. A survivable accident was defined as one in which a survivor resulted or that the deformation of the casualty’s immediate environment was so minor that survival would have been likely had adequate equipment been provided. The frequency of head injury above the eyes was surprisingly uncommon, occurring in only one third of cases. More than 75% had died of cerebral trauma involving the middle third of the face. This sort of injury is clearly not amenable to protection with a helmet.
Often these injuries resulted in fatal fractures to the skull but in some involving the middle third of the face death resulted from complications of the injury such as inhalation of blood. These injuries may
Injuries in Fatal Aircraft Accidents
RTO-EN-HFM-113 3 - 9


also incapacitate the pilot preventing escape from the post crash fire. The discovery of these injuries together with evidence of flailing such as hair and tissue embedded in the instrument panel is evidence that death should be prevented by the provision of upper torso restraint.
injuries

Thanks Bill, i think that is an excellent summary. I am a firm believer in high quality restraint systems, first and foremost. Without good restraints, a helmet just provides more inertia to the head.

And, I am a believer in inertial reel restraints, as opposed to fixed restraints. Frankly, it takes a lot of discipline to keep fixed restraints tight at all times. And if they’re not tight when something bad happens, they may not be of much use.

MTV
 
Slight drift?
I have a friend who ran a Top Fuel dragster in competition and then switched to a Exibition Jet dragster that set a top speed of 331 mph in 3... seconds over a 1/4 mile. Everything was restrained, body, head, legs, arms.....Everything happens in a millisecond but he would close his eyes as hard as he could as he pulled the chute at over 300mph because his eyes would leave his head from the de-xcelleration Gs. He spared no expense on safety gear and one day the car jumped the guardrail and left the track at over 260 mph then hit the vertical Ibeam holding up the scoreboard at the finish line. It tore the top rollcage off of the car and then tumbled many times before coming to a stop. He woke up the next day in a hospital missing his right arm and to this day still doesn't think he was lucky the day of the crash. He does go to church more often now though.



Glenn
 
Back
Top