Why don't pilot's wear crash helmets?
John Herlihy
other day, indicating 180, dodging seagulls.
A crop duster pointed out the danger (decapitation) of this. I had
incorrectly assumed that the plexiglass would deflect a bird, but that is not
the case. The gory real life examples he gave me definitely beg the question.
We take precautions against mac with other planes, but there's way more birds,
especially at airports, that could just as easily kill us. It turns out that
there is no protection since even 'bird proof' plexiglass cannot always stop
or deflect a 1 pound bird with an impact speed of over 250 feet/second. This
crop duster's advice is to not go over 100 when down low. I haven't heard of
anyone else, including my original cfi, heed this advice. Does anyone out
there?
John
Andrew Sarangan
>
>
> We take precautions against mac with other planes, but there's way more birds,
> especially at airports, that could just as easily kill us. It turns out that
> there is no protection since even 'bird proof' plexiglass cannot always stop
> or deflect a 1 pound bird with an impact speed of over 250 feet/second. This
> crop duster's advice is to not go over 100 when down low. I haven't heard of
> anyone else, including my original cfi, heed this advice. Does anyone out
> there?
Crop dusters spend all their time at low altitudes. A possibility of a
bird strike is high. Most other operations spend very little time at low
altitudes. When they do, it is for the purpose of take-offs and landings
which are usually done no faster than about 80 mph. A bird strike at
that speed can't be too bad. Furthermore, I have not heard of too many
cases of accidents caused by birds crashing through the windshield. Yes,
it is possible to hit a large bird during cruise flight at high
altitude, but given the low likelihood of such an event I don't see the
discomfort of wearing a crash helmet is really necessary.
--
Andrew Sarangan
CP-ASEL-IA
http://lights.chtm.unm.edu/~sarangan/aviation
Steven C Litke
First you should consider the wisdom of flying at 10'. A slight error would
have fatal results to you.
Windshields in small airplanes are not designed for ANY birdstrike
requirements. There have been several accidents due to bird strike, many of
them fatal. The windshield is only design to keep the wind out of your
face. Even the thicker 1/4" windshields are only installed to reduce noise,
not keep birds out.
In other words, y'all be careful!
John Herlihy wrote in message ...
>I was cruising 10' off the deck (central pacific) in the mooney ('64E) the
>other day, indicating 180, dodging seagulls.
>A crop duster pointed out the danger (decapitation) of this. I had
>incorrectly assumed that the plexiglass would deflect a bird, but that is
not
>the case. The gory real life examples he gave me definitely beg the
question.
>
>We take precautions against mac with other planes, but there's way more
birds,
>especially at airports, that could just as easily kill us. It turns out
that
>there is no protection since even 'bird proof' plexiglass cannot always
stop
>or deflect a 1 pound bird with an impact speed of over 250 feet/second.
This
>crop duster's advice is to not go over 100 when down low. I haven't heard
of
>anyone else, including my original cfi, heed this advice. Does anyone out
>there?
>John
Bob Noel
Herlihy) wrote:
> I was cruising 10' off the deck (central pacific) in the mooney ('64E) the
> other day, indicating 180, dodging seagulls.
> A crop duster pointed out the danger (decapitation) of this. I had
> incorrectly assumed that the plexiglass would deflect a bird, but that is not
> the case. The gory real life examples he gave me definitely beg the question.
>
> We take precautions against mac with other planes, but there's way more
birds,
> especially at airports, that could just as easily kill us. It turns out that
> there is no protection since even 'bird proof' plexiglass cannot always stop
> or deflect a 1 pound bird with an impact speed of over 250 feet/second. This
> crop duster's advice is to not go over 100 when down low. I haven't heard of
> anyone else, including my original cfi, heed this advice. Does anyone out
> there?
> John
how much help is a crash helmet in a birdstrike?
a friend suffered a birdstrike in a F-111 (ya know, a plane with
some protection requirements of the windscreen). He was wearing a
helmet and visor, and still lost partial vision in one eye.
isn't one of the dangers of birdstrikes that the bird survives the
strike and is one hurt, very annoyed, bird? how much help would
a crash helmet be?
of course, a crash helmet could provide a little bit of help in
an actual crash...but an even better arguement could be made
for requiring people to wear helmets and firesuits in their car.
fat chance of *that* ever happening.
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
Bob Gardner
above the water. Better check the statistics on unwarranted low flying, and make
sure that your insurance broker does not lurk in this newsgroup.
Bob Gardner
Dale
<rdha...@tm.net> wrote:
I saw what was left of a "migratory waterfowl" that had punched through
the leading edge of the horizontal stab on a 737. Left a pretty neat
hole.
> Two years ago we (editorial we) had a Cherokee take a bird strike on
> takeoff.
> The bird came through the prop and then whipped around and came through the
> side window. It pretty much removed most of the side window.
>
> This was a bird about the size of a pigeon.
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
Roger Halstead
takeoff.
The bird came through the prop and then whipped around and came through the
side window. It pretty much removed most of the side window.
This was a bird about the size of a pigeon.
--
Roger (K8RI)
N833R CD-2 (World's Oldest Debonair?)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
Andrew Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in message
news:37AC9CFE...@unm.edu...
> John Herlihy wrote:
> >
> >
> > We take precautions against mac with other planes, but there's way more
birds,
> > especially at airports, that could just as easily kill us. It turns out
that
> > there is no protection since even 'bird proof' plexiglass cannot always
stop
> > or deflect a 1 pound bird with an impact speed of over 250 feet/second.
This
> > crop duster's advice is to not go over 100 when down low. I haven't
heard of
> > anyone else, including my original cfi, heed this advice. Does anyone
out
> > there?
>
Capt.Doug
watching birds while flying low. If you are under about 100 knots, most
birds will recognize and avoid the threat of an airplane. Above 100 knots,
they don't recognize the threat in time to take evasive action. Most GA
planes are well below 100 knots when they fly low enough to encounter birds
(like in the traffic pattern) and the birds can avoid the planes. This
doesn't always work. A friend had a goose come through the windscreen of
his Cardinal. It went between the front seaters' heads and impaled the rear
seat. Made a mess of the interior. My friend gave up flying shortly after.
One day, I saw a hawk eating his catch about midway down the runway when I
was on final. When the hawk stopped eating and looked up, there I was. He
took off and thumped into the bottom of the wing. Thankfully, he is still
flying around.
Crash helmuts are uncomfortable. Fly high and you will avoid most of the
birds anyway.
D.
HFu6982010
George Black
>I was cruising 10' off the deck (central pacific) in the mooney ('64E) the
>other day, indicating 180, dodging seagulls.
>A crop duster pointed out the danger (decapitation) of this. I had
>incorrectly assumed that the plexiglass would deflect a bird, but that is not
>the case. The gory real life examples he gave me definitely beg the question.
>
>especially at airports, that could just as easily kill us. It turns out that
>there is no protection since even 'bird proof' plexiglass cannot always stop
>or deflect a 1 pound bird with an impact speed of over 250 feet/second. This
>crop duster's advice is to not go over 100 when down low. I haven't heard of
>anyone else, including my original cfi, heed this advice. Does anyone out
>there?
My first worry is your indicated altitude.
My second is your 'dodging seagulls'
Low flying over water put a Wanganui Commercial Pilot trainee (and aeroplane,
a C150) into the sea slightly north of Wanganui a number of years back.
Tomorrow is only a day away.
George
Jim Sokoloff
> isn't one of the dangers of birdstrikes that the bird survives the
> strike and is one hurt, very annoyed, bird? how much help would
> a crash helmet be?
If there's a bird out there that can come through my windscreen at 130
knots and still bother me, then INDEED, I DO HAVE A BIG PROBLEM. :-)
---Jim
firmwithyou
ten feet
and 180 mph??
Dave Mould
flying at a more usual altitude, but which many more pilots than would
openly admit it have considered worthwhile, and have tried it. Low flying
is also done regularly by crop dusters and the military as part of their
job. In a suitable area, it is not illegal for a GA PPL. Unfortunately it
carries such a stigma of foolhardiness and recklessness that it is rarely
discussed as being something than anyone should consider doing, and so a PPL
pilot trying it for the first time will not usually have the benefit of dual
instruction, or even a briefing beforehand. Birds are a very real danger
for a low flying aircraft, as are wires and sudden severe turbulence due to
local terrain. Over water, judgement of height can become difficult or
impossible. A pilot trying low-flying should choose the area beforehand
very carefully, and wait for a calm day. Don't go directly for an ultra-low
pass, but do several passes, getting a bit lower each time. Look for
dangers on each pass. Specifically wires, poles, fences, trees and small
hills, or areas of rising ground. None of which may be visible from higher
up. Best is to get a briefing from someone who knows about it, such as a
crop duster.
None of which means that I'm advocating that anyone tries low flying, but if
someone does decide to take on the extra risk involved, better to know
something than nothing. Low-flying is also likely to create many irate
complaints which will ultimately have a bad effect on GA in general, so
think carefully about this aspect.
Dave Mould
DuncanMcC
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk says...
> firmwithyou <wn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The question begs an answer: exactly what the hell are you doing flying at
> > ten feet
> > and 180 mph??
> >
> Probably practicing low-flying. An activity which carries more risk than
> flying at a more usual altitude, but which many more pilots than would
> openly admit it have considered worthwhile, and have tried it. Low flying
> is also done regularly by crop dusters and the military as part of their
> job. In a suitable area, it is not illegal for a GA PPL. Unfortunately it
> carries such a stigma of foolhardiness and recklessness that it is rarely
> discussed as being something than anyone should consider doing, and so a PPL
> pilot trying it for the first time will not usually have the benefit of dual
> instruction, or even a briefing beforehand. Birds are a very real danger
Gosh - over here in Kiwiland low flying is a manditory part of the PPL.
Dual only (of course).
I make sure I get to go to the low flying area when doing my BFR's - it's
the only time I get to do it! - and it's lots of fun.
--
Regards Duncan
(remove nosmeggingspam to reply email)
Tina Marie
In article <934185263.10308.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Dave Mould <da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>instruction, or even a briefing beforehand. Birds are a very real danger
>local terrain. Over water, judgement of height can become difficult or
And over water, watch out for barges! They can be really tall, and
if you're doing this over a waterway, you can come around a corner
and be face-to-face with one.
Tina Marie
--
skydiver - PP-ASEL - N860SG \*\ An apostrophe does not mean, "Yikes!
http://www.neosoft.com/~tina \*\ Here comes an 's'!" - Dave Barry
Bob Gardner
Bob Gardner
Dave Mould wrote:
> firmwithyou <wn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The question begs an answer: exactly what the hell are you doing flying at
> > ten feet
> > and 180 mph??
> >
> Probably practicing low-flying. An activity which carries more risk than
> flying at a more usual altitude, but which many more pilots than would
> openly admit it have considered worthwhile, and have tried it. Low flying
> is also done regularly by crop dusters and the military as part of their
> job. In a suitable area, it is not illegal for a GA PPL. Unfortunately it
> carries such a stigma of foolhardiness and recklessness that it is rarely
> discussed as being something than anyone should consider doing, and so a PPL
> pilot trying it for the first time will not usually have the benefit of dual
> instruction, or even a briefing beforehand. Birds are a very real danger
> for a low flying aircraft, as are wires and sudden severe turbulence due to
> local terrain. Over water, judgement of height can become difficult or
Bob Noel
not all of us get to fly that fast...heck, people occasionally
wonder if I'll get hit from behind.
Brett Rabe
> Gosh - over here in Kiwiland low flying is a manditory part of the PPL.
How low is low?
Brett
--
Brett Rabe br...@uswest.net / 612.664.3078
Title Too Long (core dumped) U S WEST - Internet Services
Great minds travel in the same sewers.
Jim Sokoloff
>
> The question begs an answer: exactly what the hell are you doing flying at
> ten feet and 180 mph??
Trying to tie the record for low-flying, maybe? :-)
---Jim
DuncanMcC
> DuncanMcC wrote:
>
> > Gosh - over here in Kiwiland low flying is a manditory part of the PPL.
>
> How low is low?
As low as the instructor feels you should be.
Normally around 150-200 agl. But includes some approaches (simulated bad
weather) to land. So you go pretty much to ground level.
Ain't that what you meant to do ???
From memory.. we do stuff like:
* firstly: the low flying configuration suitable for the a/c type.
Lights on, flaps, speed.
* fly round a point (helps to have a wind, idea being to maintain same
radius).
* find some points and use it as a small area that you must remain in.
* (the low flying areas I use includes a riverbed) - we fly up the river,
following a stream - idea being co-ordination with the increased
sensation of inertia at that altitude.
* suss out a landing. Check the "strip". Fly-by and estimate the
length. Actually do the approach.
* practice a "there's a cloud bank in front of you - turn around now!"
I think that's most of it.
Dave Mould
> I'm not a duster pilot, but I think that they do indeed wear helmets.
>
> Bob Gardner
IMHO, a good idea too. I also wear a helmet for certain types of flight.
OTOH a helmet will not protect the face.
Dave Mould
George Black
Dun...@Adrock.nosmeggingspam.com (DuncanMcC) wrote:
>Gosh - over here in Kiwiland low flying is a manditory part of the PPL.
>
>Dual only (of course).
>
>I make sure I get to go to the low flying area when doing my BFR's - it's
>the only time I get to do it! - and it's lots of fun.
As it used to be :-)))
But the original post claimed to be 10 foot off water at 180Kts
Brett Rabe
>
> As low as the instructor feels you should be.
>
> Normally around 150-200 agl. But includes some approaches (simulated bad
> weather) to land. So you go pretty much to ground level.
>
> Ain't that what you meant to do ???
To each his/her own. :)
I just wasn't sure what you meant. When we practice
engine-out procedures over here, some instructors
take it down quite low -- to the 20-foot "ok, now
go around" point. Others just do it to the point of
knowing whether the landing would have been made at
the desired point. It varies. I personally prefer
not to fly low unless there's a point, so my once-per-
year concession to the enjoyment of flying low is
cruising up the California coast at 500 feet for
45 minutes or so and loving the view.
It's damn fun, no argument there. But it'd be silly
to deny that it increases risk if only because of
the fewer options in an engine-out scenario. Not to
mention the heightened chance of a bird strike or the
obvious possibility of hitting an obstacle.
> * find some points and use it as a small area that you must remain in.
Interesting. What is the point of this exercise?
Brett
--
Brett Rabe br...@uswest.net / 612.664.3078
Man in the Pointy Hat U S WEST - Internet Services
Are you going to come quietly, or do I have to use earplugs?
DuncanMcC
> DuncanMcC wrote:
> >
> > In article <37AF522F...@uswest.net>, br...@uswest.net says...
> > > How low is low?
> >
> > As low as the instructor feels you should be.
> >
> > Normally around 150-200 agl. But includes some approaches (simulated bad
> > weather) to land. So you go pretty much to ground level.
> >
> > Ain't that what you meant to do ???
>
> To each his/her own. :)
>
> I just wasn't sure what you meant. When we practice
> engine-out procedures over here, some instructors
> take it down quite low -- to the 20-foot "ok, now
> go around" point. Others just do it to the point of
> knowing whether the landing would have been made at
> the desired point. It varies. I personally prefer
> not to fly low unless there's a point, so my once-per-
> year concession to the enjoyment of flying low is
> cruising up the California coast at 500 feet for
> 45 minutes or so and loving the view.
I normally minimise my time at 500 AGL - and agree, there's got to be a
good point to it. And indeed, at such a height, one's extra precautious
about engine out. Always gotta have a place to go.
>
> It's damn fun, no argument there. But it'd be silly
> to deny that it increases risk if only because of
> the fewer options in an engine-out scenario. Not to
> mention the heightened chance of a bird strike or the
> obvious possibility of hitting an obstacle.
>
> > * find some points and use it as a small area that you must remain in.
>
> Interesting. What is the point of this exercise?
I guess just a coordination thing again - being so visibly close to the
ground - same as following a river braid.
'nother thing you raise - indeed the dangers of engine out is much more
real. My last instructor for my BFR made sure I had carb heat on on any
setting below 2'200 odd.
Makes sense too - as you point out - engine out at that height - things
happen fast. Better it minimised from any angle possible.
Without an instructor (and I'm sure there's a few of us that have broken
this one) it's nothing below 500' AGL. Now this may not be low enough
for a student pilot to judge wheter he/she's in or not - hence I think a
few of us - in our SPL days, busted this rule.
John Herlihy
pilot, of the very real fatal risk of a bird strike at any speed over
even 100mph. His example was of having his head gear sliced off one side
after a bird went through the 'bird proof' plexi at 120 mph.
Re the 10' off the water and instruction, my first insructor routinely sent
me off on solos over the water in 100' overcast with 2 miles vis in fog. I
learned the low flying from my second instructor, who took me over the high
desert in a 172rg by following train tracks and hiways at 25--50'. Watch the
wingtips on those tight curves. We climbed off to the side when cars came.
If an engine quits over the water--big deal, the momentum of 180mph will
easily carry the plane to 1500' ignoring prop drag, and i can ditch it near
the shore if necessary. The insurance will pay now or pay later regardless of
exclusions.
Regarding statistics, I am aware that over 50% of low flying related accidents
involve SOBER, white male pilots between the ages of 16 and 92! Don't
worry though, that's why I always fly well lubed, the one thing I can do to
keep myself out of that high risk bracket!
Best regards,
John
In article <37ACDF77...@halcyon.com>, Bob Gardner <bob...@halcyon.com>
wrote:
>I'll bet your original instructor never dreamed that you would be flying at 10'
>above the water. Better check the statistics on unwarranted low flying, and
> make
>sure that your insurance broker does not lurk in this newsgroup.
>
>Bob Gardner
>
William Watson
> always fold their wings and drop.
Never say always! I was flying with a 'borrowed' CFI one day, and while
I had my head turned to verify the correct time to turn base, the CFI
suddenly pushed the yoke *all the way* forward. Thinking I had done
something really wrong I queried his action, and he told me it was for
bird avoidance. I mentioned that it was my understanding that birds
always dived in this scenario, and why hadn't we climbed. His response
was "this one didn't - it climbed"....
- bill
bi...@thekid.com
Dan Nafe
pat...@DONTSPAMME.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> When crossing powerlines, fly over the towers, not the
> wires. Wires are hard to see, and you may see only the
> lower wires, not the higher ones.
He he he he, you are assuming that when crossing the powerlines, we are
going _OVER_ them!
Dewayne Hight
>I suppose "always" was a bit strong, but since they can't
>climb very fast, I'd still go over if I could.
>
>Todd Pattist
The redtail hawks in my area just stare back at me when confronted, they
don;t even ruffle a wing feather.
I have flown fast and low over land and water with a film crew hanging out
the door hole in a C210. Everyone was wearing a helmet to block the wind
noise. I've also been the pilot (C180) while inventorying wildfowl for fish
and game again with a helmet in case of bird strikes. Puddle ducks tend to
fly off the water if a large shadow passes over them (again the hawks) Much
of the work was at 500 AGL or less to see under trees and brush. The only
incident was flying through a flock of mallards at 800 feet. Took six
strikes and had to fly looking out the side window because of the debris on
the windshield.
I don't know why having a CFI along would be any better, by the time he
could do anything , you would prabably be a smear on the landscape anyway.
Most important are extra eyes to watch for surprises. Before flying low I
had flown the course at least four times to become familiar with the terrain
and had flaggers on the ground to keep me on course (an idea borrowed from
the cropdusters)
This was work but also the biggest hoot. My clothes were soaked by the end
of the last run. We made six runs at 150 to 200 KTs to make sure we had the
shot. After all that work the sequence was cut
d.
Charles Downing
A helmet other than to hold the headset in place and to protect your noggin'
while make contact with the interior of the flight station. also has other
duties;
1: To secure the Oxygen Mask in place if one is needed or worn.
2: To afix a boom mounted microphone in the proper postion for transmitting
to other people.
3: To act as a noise reduction devise in aircraft that unfortunatly have
high background noise environments.
4: To help a pilot look Cool; however, they sure are not cool Temp' wise.
5: To ease cockpit communication duties during high activity periods.
6: To protect against flyind small debris items within the flight station
area; Bugs, dirt, hardware, but only if the visor is down will the helmet
protect you eyes.
7: The helment is not ment to protect you in case of a bird thru the
windshield, ther have been several documented accounts the show no
protection whatever would have saved the pilot, or co-pilot from the
intruder.
In most cases these unfortunate people were all fatally injured, In most
cases decapitated.
So a Crash! Helmet is not for bird strike protection.
But the main question I have is.
What the hell were you doing at ten feet at cruise airspeed.
Only an idiot, better yet a moron would pull such an idiotic/moronic stunt
such as this.
-**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?b ****-
Real Discussions for Real People
Armand A. Medeiros
about 29 years old and he wore a helmet. He said "because his girl friend
(maybe wife?) wanted him to wear it". I wondered what good it would be. To
this day, I can't think of a good reason... in fact, in my mind, the added
weight could make a neck injury more likely in the event of a "quick stop".
JMHO
Armand
Charles Downing <Cast...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:CIBR3.1511$_u6.606358@WReNphoon4...
Bob Noel
(Charles Downing) wrote:
> 7: The helment is not ment to protect you in case of a bird thru the
> windshield, ther have been several documented accounts the show no
> protection whatever would have saved the pilot, or co-pilot from the
> intruder.
A friend at work suffered a birdstrike in his F-111. Good luck convincing
him that his helmet didn't save his right eye.
Dale
<zar...@concentric.net> wrote:
If you can't think of a good reason for a helmet you haven't thought it
through far enough. I lot of people are seriously/injured or killed in
vehicle accidents because they hit there head on part of the vehicle
structure during the crash. Super Cubs are a specific airplane that has a
history of head injuries due to the cross bracing in the overhead. Talk
to an NTSB investigator. He'll quite likely recommend a 5 point harness
and a helmet.
The helmet won't help you in the high impact crash....but will help you
survive the "survivable" crash.
> I met a man in southern California that flew a 1-26. I would guess he was
> about 29 years old and he wore a helmet. He said "because his girl friend
> (maybe wife?) wanted him to wear it". I wondered what good it would be. To
> this day, I can't think of a good reason... in fact, in my mind, the added
> weight could make a neck injury more likely in the event of a "quick stop".
>
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
John Herlihy
the deck felt like.
Years ago my certificated instructor took us up and we flew several hundred
miles at 10-50' agl in a 172rg at cruise speed, being careful not to catch the
wingtips during steep turns as we followed the train tracks from Nevada into
Tahoe. Those 172 controls stay mushy at any speed though, and there's not
much power left when you pull the nose up.
I didn't realize that a seagull would go right through the windscreen and
through my head and out the tail :(
The helmet idea would hopefully address the fact that you could hit a bird at
any altitude. This weekend, while backpacking at 14k', I saw several birds
flapping around up there.
Taking off from the airport, I routinely climb out at 120-130mph indicated,
thus more exposure, and more need for protection.
Many people feel that only an idiot or moron would even take flight in a ga
plane. And you can't change their point of view, btw.
I feel that many pilots are unaware that if they hit a bird head on then
they're both dead. I'm curious what other risks are lurking out there that
while rare, are definite killers.
For example, skydivers will surely kill you if you hit them, and they're
always hanging around the airport.
I had a nmac with one in SFO Class Bravo last week. Skydiver with parachute
deployed and I in said mooney were both at 4'k on the vor radial defining the
northern border over the bay (while I was talking to center). Is that even
legal? Doesn't the 30nm mode c apply??
Regards,
John
In article <CIBR3.1511$_u6.606358@WReNphoon4>, Cast...@sprintmail.com
(Charles Downing) wrote:
>To Answer the original question if anyone remebers it!
>
>A helmet other than to hold the headset in place and to protect your noggin'
>while make contact with the interior of the flight station. also has other
>duties;
>
>1: To secure the Oxygen Mask in place if one is needed or worn.
>2: To afix a boom mounted microphone in the proper postion for transmitting
>to other people.
>3: To act as a noise reduction devise in aircraft that unfortunatly have
>high background noise environments.
>4: To help a pilot look Cool; however, they sure are not cool Temp' wise.
>5: To ease cockpit communication duties during high activity periods.
>6: To protect against flyind small debris items within the flight station
>area; Bugs, dirt, hardware, but only if the visor is down will the helmet
>protect you eyes.
>7: The helment is not ment to protect you in case of a bird thru the
>windshield, ther have been several documented accounts the show no
>protection whatever would have saved the pilot, or co-pilot from the
>intruder.
>
Jim Sokoloff
> For example, skydivers will surely kill you if you hit them, and they're
> always hanging around the airport.
>
> I had a nmac with one in SFO Class Bravo last week. Skydiver with parachute
> deployed and I in said mooney were both at 4'k on the vor radial defining the
> northern border over the bay (while I was talking to center). Is that even
> legal? Doesn't the 30nm mode c apply??
Sure, but few skydivers are equipped with an alternator/electrical
system, so they get an exemption.
---Jim
David B. Schober
helmets, I almost always wore a helmet when I was towing banners. The only time I
didn't was when I couldn't fit in the airplane with a helmet(in the
TriPacer/Pacer, my head hit the top if I had a helmet and I would have to hunch
over, very uncomfortable) When flying for transportation or fun, I don't wear
one. Just like wearing one in the family car going to the grocery store or out on
the race track. Look at the risks and prepare for them accordingly.
Tina Marie
In article <bAdS3.32$V32....@news.callamer.com>,
John Herlihy <herl...@fix.net> wrote:
>I had a nmac with one in SFO Class Bravo last week. Skydiver with parachute
>deployed and I in said mooney were both at 4'k on the vor radial defining the
>northern border over the bay (while I was talking to center). Is that even
>legal? Doesn't the 30nm mode c apply??
Nope. 30nm Mode C is only applicable to aircraft with electrical systems.
I dunno what new parachutes they're jumping in California, but I certainly
don't have an electrical system in mine.
Jumpers with open canopies are big, brightly colored, slow moving
targets. You've got to be _really_ out of it to hit one...
Cub driver
>I had a nmac with one in SFO Class Bravo last week. Skydiver with parachute
>deployed and I in said mooney were both at 4'k on the vor radial defining the
>northern border over the bay (while I was talking to center). Is that even
>legal? Doesn't the 30nm mode c apply??
The mode C veil has exceptions for gliders and aircraft never
certified with an electrical system. I assume the parachutist would
qualify under one of those exceptions :)
all the best - Dan
see Nothing New About Death at http://www.danford.net
and the Annals of Military Aviation forum at http://www.delphi.com/annals
(send private emails to danford at alumni dot unh dot edu)
Ron Natalie
Cub driver wrote:
>
> >I had a nmac with one in SFO Class Bravo last week. Skydiver with parachute
> >deployed and I in said mooney were both at 4'k on the vor radial defining the
> >northern border over the bay (while I was talking to center). Is that even
> >legal? Doesn't the 30nm mode c apply??
>
> The mode C veil has exceptions for gliders and aircraft never
> certified with an electrical system. I assume the parachutist would
> qualify under one of those exceptions :)
>
Parachutists are not aircraft have their own regs. They need
authorization to jump into class class B, C, or D airspace,
but the 30 mile veil means nothing to them. The jump ship it
supposed to be talking to ATC (and presumably also has a transponder).
captorb
motorcycle accidents. What the statistics from the Journal of Trauma and
the American Board of Emergency Medicine never address is the quality of
life after the accident. Of these "survival" motorcycle and plane
accidents how many victims are left in a vegetative state?
captorb
Class B?
1) I only see one jump center, Byron(C83) on the OAK 060 radial.
2) Did you check NOTAMs for special skydiving activity on that day?
3) Your chances are very remote of hitting a skydiver falling at 120 mph
or one under canopy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What was the point of this thread, anyway? Not many GA pilots are going
to buy helmets themselves or their passengers. It reminds me of the
backpackers on rec.backcountry worried about bears and mountain lions.
If you can't accept the risks of flying or backpacking, stay home and
watch TV.
mike regish
vertical stabilizer which evidently jammed the rudder. Jumper broke his
ankle and pilot and passenger in the plane died.
Chances are remote, but not nonexistent.
mike regish
PP-ASEL
John Herlihy
radial, Sausalito Vor, outbound. I was on the edge of the Class Bravo,
approximately over Richmond, when the spotted the canopy level, descending, at
1-2 o'clock and 1/4 to 1/2 mile.
I never expected to see a canopy, and it could have been a paraglider.
I did not check skydiving notams, I just assume there will be diving at Byron
and Marina every day, and listen in appropriately.
______________________________________________________________________________
__
Regarding risks, living on the coast it seems we have more than our share of
big birds. In the pattern at Santa Maria, we have to dodge big hawks often.
They don't seem scared of you, and seem to tuck and dive at the last minute,
so I always climb.
The point of the thread was to discuss the dangers of bird strikes. I found
myself dodging flocks of seagulls as I strafed the beach at 180+ mph. After
landing, a duster chastised me, lecturing that a bird strike was a good way to
get killed, or at least ruin the plane.
As it turns out, many dusters wear helmets for just this reason. At 275+ feet
per second, when the mooney hits the bird, it might as well be hitting a
cannon ball. So they say...
Regarding risks, I'm sure someday all pilots will don helmets (and 4 point
harnesses) again, and we'll think back to those wild and reckless days when,
like car seat belts, they weren't even required by reg.
Regarding my chances of hitting something, I don't think statistics are
helpful in determining the danger of birdstrikes in this case, because there's
not a large enough sample of people who strafe the beach in a high speed
airplane. Unless of course we include duster pilots who fly similarly, and
who coincidentally often wear helmets.
Duster's use of helmets begs the question, why don't we all wear helmets? And
the answer is, because we don't see anyone else getting whacked by birds.
Nevertheless, most people who know of the risk, agree that if a bird strikes
your windscreen directly in front of you at cruise speed (180nm/hr+?), you're
dead. A helmet may help…I personally had never thought of that
way to die, but instead thought the bird would be deflected by the
windscreen..
Btw, after backpacking to the summit of Mt. Langley, next to Mt. Whitney, this
weekend, the '64 mooney made it from Lone Pine (3.6k) to 14k feet at full
gross (4 adults and 4 full packs) in under 21 minutes. (avg 500 fpm)
Regards,
John 1, Birds 0, Bears 0, tv--I killed it a long time ago. who needs it when
there's the net?
In article <381B2F1D...@hotmail.com>, captorb <cap...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>John, to what radial are you referring as the northern border of the SFO
>Class B?
>1) I only see one jump center, Byron(C83) on the OAK 060 radial.
>2) Did you check NOTAMs for special skydiving activity on that day?
>3) Your chances are very remote of hitting a skydiver falling at 120 mph
>or one under canopy.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
captorb
>
>After being denied a Class Bravo transition, I was tracking the 035 >degree radial, Sausalito Vor, outbound. I was on the edge of the Class >Bravo, approximately over Richmond, when the spotted the canopy level, >descending, at 1-2 o'clock and 1/4 to 1/2 mile.
>I never expected to see a canopy, and it could have been a paraglider.
>I did not check skydiving notams, I just assume there will be diving at >Byron and Marina every day, and listen in appropriately.
skydiver. Skydivers are fairly young, uninhibited, and the sport has a
lot of rule breakers.
________________________________________________________________________
>The point of the thread was to discuss the dangers of bird strikes.
someone originally wanted to know why pilots don't wear helmets all the
time.
---------------------
>Regarding risks, I'm sure someday all pilots will don helmets (and 4 >point harnesses) again, and we'll think back to those wild and reckless >days when, like car seat belts, they weren't even required by reg.
aspects of helmets and still many ignore the warnings.
-------------
> Regarding my chances of hitting something, I don't think statistics >are helpful in determining the danger of birdstrikes....
I agree. My reference was only to the remote chance of hitting a
skydiver. The chance of hitting a bird is quite high. I fly out of
LaVerne (POC) which is next to Puddingstone Reservoir. There are large
flocks of gulls, ducks, and the occasional airplane hawk.
> Btw, after backpacking to the summit of Mt. Langley, next to Mt. >Whitney, this weekend, the '64 mooney made it from Lone Pine (3.6k) to >14k feet at full gross (4 adults and 4 full packs) in under 21 >minutes. (avg 500 fpm)
David B. Schober
prop (vegomatic) prior to impact with the windshield. A helmet would only protect from impact, the hardest part would be seeing with
The only advantage of a helmet would be to reduce the injure sustained during a crash. Not an inflight buird problem!
captorb wrote:
> Hi John, Herlihy wrote:
> >
> >After being denied a Class Bravo transition, I was tracking the 035 >degree radial, Sausalito Vor, outbound. I was on the edge
> >I never expected to see a canopy, and it could have been a paraglider.
> >I did not check skydiving notams, I just assume there will be diving at >Byron and Marina every day, and listen in appropriately.
> Interesting comment about the paraglider...quite probable, or a rogue
> skydiver. Skydivers are fairly young, uninhibited, and the sport has a
> lot of rule breakers.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> >The point of the thread was to discuss the dangers of bird strikes.
> Thanks for reminding me. I got confused reading all the posts. I guess
> someone originally wanted to know why pilots don't wear helmets all the
> time.
> ---------------------
> >Regarding risks, I'm sure someday all pilots will don helmets (and 4 >point harnesses) again, and we'll think back to those wild
> Probably not. Murdercylcle drivers have been told about the safety
> aspects of helmets and still many ignore the warnings.
> -------------
> > Regarding my chances of hitting something, I don't think statistics >are helpful in determining the danger of birdstrikes....
> I agree. My reference was only to the remote chance of hitting a
> skydiver. The chance of hitting a bird is quite high. I fly out of
> LaVerne (POC) which is next to Puddingstone Reservoir. There are large
> flocks of gulls, ducks, and the occasional airplane hawk.
>
> > Btw, after backpacking to the summit of Mt. Langley, next to Mt. >Whitney, this weekend, the '64 mooney made it from Lone Pine (
POSSE 00
As I recall the original helmets we wore were listed as "Helmet, Anti Buffet".
I know of a situation where there was a midair and one of the aircraft was cut
in two pieces and the other tore a wing off. Both pilots had trouble getting
out. Their helmets had blue paint logo painted on a white background. In the
canopy wreckage the pieces of glass were covered with blue paint and the
helmets were a mess. Neither pilot recalled any buffet. In so far as bird
strikes are concerned-I know of several (mostly seagulls and buzzards). All
pilots returned to flying status. The worse injury was a dislocated shoulder.
At low altitude such as strafing, bombing etc we always had both the clear and
smoked visor (daytime operations) down and the dual visors kept a couple of
pilots I know of from receiving eye damage. Birds can do a lot of damage to an
aircraft. A full grown, male seagull can destroy even a J-57 engine. (They told
me it was the drumstick knuckle that the blades couldn't handle.) In crashes
the helmet keeps you from being knocked out so you can assist in your own
rescue or get out before you are burned to death. I wouldn't ride my motorcycle
around the block with out a fullface helmet on my head.
Semper Fi, speed is life, and check everywhere,
Marv Garrison <Pos...@aol.com>
Flight.com
"David B. Schober" wrote:
> A helmet isn't going to help much in a bird strike.
Old joke:
Q: Why was the co-pilot included in the design of modern jets?
A: Bird-strike protection for the Flight Engineer.
Cordially,
Richard