On 9/12/07 10:46 AM, in article
, "Tim Taylor"
wrote:

On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson
wrote:


For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
one

Paul,

I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?

Tim

The US Army has done a huge amount of research in this area, primarily at
the Aeromedical Research lab at Fort Rucker, AL. Low speed (less than 200
konts) is the realm of Army helicopters, and head injuries have been a
problem since before Vietnam.

The SPH-4 series of helmets emerged from all this research. SPH means "sound
protective helmet", and that feature is of no concern to us glider types.
The shell of those helmets are designed to limit penetration, which is also
less of an issue, unless weapons become approved in glider contests (in
which case "I got shot down" could have a different meaning).

The inner shell is the part that would be of benefit to us, in that it
limits impact forces to the head.

The problem with using these in gliders is that they make your head larger:
the impact absorbing bits require space to do their thing, and that space
makes your head taller, wider, and longer. Not a problem for some, a big
problem for others.

Having spent many, many hours in hueys and other helicopters, I can say that
I always felt right to have a helmet on.

Perhaps a bicycle helmet, without all the aerodynamic shell/fairings would
be useful?

bullwinkle