helmets

[hang_pilot]

Hi, Danny-Where’d you fly in CA?
?
~Daniel
?
Can’t play hooky Thursday.? Maybe Friday.??

?
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Brotto [mailto:dbrotto@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 4:03 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: helmets
?
>>>I actually only know of a two pilots who fly the mountains in this area who don't wear full face helmets. And one of those told me WAY BEFORE ALL OF THIS that he is buying a full face helmet. The other pilot I know of has disappeared off of the radar screen and I doubt that he will show up at the Pulpit Fly-In.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, and to think that I'm being thought of as having disappeared off the radar screen

Great flying in California last week. Hills are impossibly green and colorful with wildflowers after those weeks of deluge.

Weekend looks wet, anybody want to go flying on Thursday? If winds are light enough, I'm thinking Ridgley or possibly HR.

Danny Brotto

Code: Select all

************************************************The information transmitted is intended solelyfor the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/orprivileged material. Any review, retransmission,dissemination or other use of or taking actionin reliance upon this information by persons orentities other than the intended recipient isprohibited. If you have received this email inerror please contact the sender and delete thematerial from any computer. [ST:A234]************************************************

[Danny Brotto]

Was out there on business and brought my harness along having Wednesday afternoon free.

Flew Mission Ridge just north-east of San Jose. Last time I flew there, the Moyes CSX was the hot ticket having just come out (early 90's?). Kenny Brown set me up with one and it was the first topless glider I flew.

I've flown most of the sites in the Bay area but I'm partial to the coastal soaring at Ft Funston (west of San Fran and about 45 minutes north of Mission Ridge) While the local shop (Mission Soaring... Pat Denevan and Stacey ?... GREAT PEOPLE, COOL SHOP) would rent me a glider; they couldn't get me a ride to Ft Funston. No matter, I got a ride to the top of Mission from an old pilot friend (Carmela.) She flew nabbing about 15 minutes before losing it. I launched (self launch, warm, ligt wind, open meadow, no stress) and pretty much had the sky to myself. Got below launch about 250 ft (it's a 1500' AL site) 15 minutes into the flight and thought I was toast when I saw a swirl in the long grass working up the hill side. Cruised over to the movement and cranked that very sweet 147 US up on a wingtip gaining 800 ft saving my LWA. Had the sky to myself only sharing it trading altitude thermalling with a PG pilot who seemed to know what he was doing. Got my Mission hour landing a no-stepper next to the windsock. Carmela dropped the glider off at the shop for me the next day; door-to-door service. Sometimes it's perfect.

This month I've been in the sport for 25 years. I've had lots of flights and most I've forgotten. For better or worse, some I've remembered. This is one I'll remember for the better.

What were we talking about? Oh, right... helmets... whatever.

Danny Brotto

[hang_pilot]

self launch, warm, light wind, open meadow, no stress
??????????????????????? >>>Ahhh, springtime in the Bay area.? ?Thanks for sharing, Danny!

Code: Select all

************************************************The information transmitted is intended solelyfor the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/orprivileged material. Any review, retransmission,dissemination or other use of or taking actionin reliance upon this information by persons orentities other than the intended recipient isprohibited. If you have received this email inerror please contact the sender and delete thematerial from any computer. [ST:A234]************************************************

[John Simon]

Hi Danny,
?? I am thinking about Ridgely on Thurs. if the winds are doable.? Maybe Heather too, but not sure... she needs calm winds right now.? Maybe I'll see you there.
?
John Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Brotto [mailto:dbrotto@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 4:03 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: helmets



>>>I actually only know of a two pilots who fly the mountains in this area who don't wear full face helmets. And one of those told me WAY BEFORE ALL OF THIS that he is buying a full face helmet. The other pilot I know of has disappeared off of the radar screen and I doubt that he will show up at the Pulpit Fly-In.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, and to think that I'm being thought of as having disappeared off the radar screen

Great flying in California last week. Hills are impossibly green and colorful with wildflowers after those weeks of deluge.

Weekend looks wet, anybody want to go flying on Thursday? If winds are light enough, I'm thinking Ridgley or possibly HR.

Danny Brotto

[heaviek]

OK Mathew, it was buried in there but full face
helmets limit visibility and awareness in crowded
skies. That is a fact that most active comp pilots
realize. It is a trade off for face protection.

There is also a trade off in neck protection. I don't
personally buy it but some doctors say you should skip
the chin guard because it threatens the neck. The
spine is a much more serious injury then the face.

Kev C
--- John Harper <jharper@ceva.net> wrote:
> There are many people who think we are crazy for
> flying at all does that mean we shouldn't fly? It's
> dangerous isn't it so why do it. Wheels are safer
> in most situations should we require people to use
> them maybe they want get hurt if they fly into the
> ground. I don't think Kevin was arguing for or
> against full face helmets he was talking about
> personal preference the risk you as a pilot (you
> are accepting some risk just by hooking in)are
> willing to take. If we require full faced helmets
> what's next. Will everyone be required to have big
> orange wheels.
> ?
> Original Message -----
>
> Quote:
> From: Matthew (adventuretales@yahoo.com)
> To: hg_forum@chgpa.org (hg_forum@chgpa.org)
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:31 PM
> Subject: helmets
>
>
>
> And what exactly did Kevin say? Hyperbole is not an
> argument! Going off into wild exagerations and
> unsupported what-ifs is essentially admitting
> that you have no argument. So John and Kevin, if you
> have an actual argument in support of not
> requiring full face helmets at competitions, I'd
> love to hear them. That's how debate works. That's
> how problems are clarified and resolved.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> (end of quote)
>

[Matthew]

Hi Kevin,

That is a good argument. I hope you present it to USHGA if it comes to that.

Matthew

[mcelrah]

Chris' death doesn't seem to have been caused by lack of a full face
helmet; rather it was caused by flying close to the ground at high
speed and trying to perform a stunt. The trauma was probably too great
for any helmet to have made a difference. And I think the club is
about promoting the sport, taking care of landowners, providing mentors
for upcoming pilots, and promoting safety and community. Promoting
safety is a bit different from regulating safety. I certainly
recommend full-face helmets - just don't think it needs to be a
requirement for the fly-in. "You catch a lot more flies with honey
than with vinegar." Look at the voluntary decline in smoking in this
country... - Hugh

On 26 Apr 2005, at 10:35, kcarra wrote:

> [quote="mcelrah"]I just don't think the club should be about rules and
> requirements. -
> Hugh
>
> The club IS about rules and requirements - all meant to keep us and
> our flying sites safe. We require certain ratings, we require pilots
> to sign waivers, etc. We wouldn't allow a pilot to fly off our sites
> WITHOUT a helmet.
>
> I think we need to look at the reasonableness and the scope of the
> proposal, which was made in response to the tragic event at Quest. And
> of course we can always vote against it.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> Karen Carra
>
>
>

[mcelrah]

This thread should be re-titled "Rules". This town is all about rules.
People seem to think if they passed enough rules, life would be
better. Maybe we should pass a rule against crashing... "First thing
we do: hang all the lawyers!" - Hugh

On 26 Apr 2005, at 11:52, Matthew wrote:

> As Ralph noted, the PROPOSED requirement pertains to the Pulpit Fly-In
> competetion. Thus, during the comp launch windows each day, you must
> meet the requirement of wearing a full face helmet to launch under my
> proposal. My proposal does not exclude anyone from launching and
> flying before and after the launch window. But to set things straight,
> the launch window generally takes up the major portion of the day. And
> it is standard protocol at comps to only allow competitors to launch
> during the launch window. If you aren't signed up for the comp, you
> CANNOT launch during the competition launch window. That's an old and
> standard rule that, so far, hasn't offended anyone.
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>

[mcgowantk]

Since I may not be able to make the meeting, I wanted to add my two cents to this.? I believe the question is what line should be drawn on safety rules for the club.? I am sure every pilot understands what a helmit is for, including chin protection.? The question is when should the club step in and say that the club's position overrules an individual's choice.? The?person most?affected by what type of helmit is used is the pilot, not the club, and I don't see the need to safe these pilots from themselves.? Hang gliding is a risky sport no matter what we do, and safety to a large degree remains a matter of pilot judgement.? My position is that we should continue to emphasize pilot judgement as the way to be more safe and that judgement goes well beyond helmit issues.? Although I fly with a motorcycle helmit, I don't believe I should impose that as a requirement on others.? Encouragement to be more safe and education?will ultimately be more effective in improving safety than making rules.? The fact that the great majority of pilots already use full-face helmits just shows how effective encouragement can be to improve safety.
?
Tom McGowan

Chris' death doesn't seem to have been caused by lack of a full face
helmet; rather it was caused by flying close to the ground at high
speed and trying to perform a stunt. The trauma was probably too great
for any helmet to have made a difference. And I think the club is
about promoting the sport, taking care of landowners, providing mentors
for upcoming pilots, and promoting safety and community. Promoting
safety is a bit different from regulating safety. I certainly
recommend full-face helmets - just don't think it needs to be a
requirement for the fly-in. "You catch a lot more flies with honey
than with vinegar." Look at the voluntary decline in smoking in this
country... - Hugh

On 26 Apr 2005, at 10:35, kcarra wrote:

>

I just don't think the club should be about rules and
> requirements. -
> Hugh
>
> The club IS about rules and requirements - all meant to keep us and
> our flying sites safe. We require certain ratings, we require pilots
> to sign waivers, etc. We wouldn't allow a pilot to fly off our sites
> WITHOUT a helmet.
>
> I think we need to look at the reasonableness and the scope of the
> proposal, which was made in response to the tragic event at Quest. And
> of course we can always vote against it.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> Karen Carra
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Richard Hays]

.....and to make myself feel REALLY old, qualifying for the "Old Fart" award
of the century; I remember when just wearing a helmet was considered
optional...but recommended. First helmets were hockey helmets and those
crappy little helmets that some rock climbers wear. The hot lick helmet to
have was the Bell Trials "shortie" helmet. Most pilots complained about its
weight and cost ( around 50.00 ). Too funny!

Keep in mind back then we were flying homebuilt gliders, no parachutes, bare
feet and swing seat harness'. Half the pilot population was stoned when
flying too.

And alot of people died. All things considered, we've come a long way.
Safety has improved dramatically BECAUSE of discussions like this one. Open
discussion like this is really good.

FYI: you can purchase a really nice, well padded, excellent peripheral
vision, rated full face motor cross helmet for about 125.00 at Cycle World
in Baltimore on Route 40 / Pulaski Highway. Comes in S, M, L, and XL. Maybe
not "top of the line" like a Bell, but ( in my opinion ) a pretty decent,
affordable helmet meeting basic safety rated guidlines via DOT.

FYI: Does anyone remember that you have to retire your helmet every couple
of years? Does anyone remember that if you drop your helmet on a hard
surface, you've just reduced its ability to protect you ?

Rich Hays
MSHG, Inc.



>From: Wuffo1@aol.com
>Reply-To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Re: helmets
>Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:38:06 -0400
>
>In a message dated 4/25/05 9:51:28 PM, jharper@ceva.net writes:
>
><< Seems to me the biggest consern?should be that both pilot A and B made
>bigger mistakes in judgement by blowing their launches. >>
>
>The rebuttals to Matthew's arguments sound a lot like the old arguments
>against the mandatory use of seatbelts. I remember hearing the "what if I
>get
>stuck and can't get out of the car and it catches on fire or sinks in a
>river?"
>This latest one equates to "if they were going to get in a wreck they
>shouldn't
>have driven at all."
>
>The bottom line is, just as surely as seat belts save lives, so do full
>face
>motorcycle helmets. The folks at NASCAR require roll cages, five point
>seat
>belts, full face helmets and other safety features to particpate in their
>events. The old bootleggers who pioneered that sport probably objected to
>all of
>these changes. Does anyone seriously think automobile racing is better off
>without them? Do any of us think hang gliding is any less dangerous? If
>so we
>might take another look at the fatality statistics.
>
>I have yet to hear a rational rebuttal to Matthew's suggestion that we
>start
>the process towards improving the safety record of our sport by insisting
>that
>the participants in OUR fly-in simply "buckle up." It's a small first
>step.
>My guess is that if we take it now we will eventually see the day when we
>didn't have to scrape one more of our best friend's faces off the rocks.
>
>Dan T.
>
>Dan T.
>
>

[pink_albatross]

So, just about everybody already flies with a full faced helmet. Why make a rule? Seems to be more time and effort wasted in discussing this than the pay off.

And what is the payoff? That the one person who might want to fly the Pulpit fly-in will be turned away? Danny doesn't fly the Pulpit fly-in anyway. And you're not likely to change his position anyway.

Anyway, I am in the camp of "i fly with a full faced helmet, but don't want any rules about it". Not at the Pulpit fly-in, not ever. I just have a visceral dislike for legislating personal responsibility. Let's educate and let people make up their own minds. Let us keep rule making to a minimum, especially if the ony potential victim is the one who made the unsafe decision. Unless there is outside pressure for us to make rules, let's not. There are enough rules (some of them mindless) in our lives. Let's not add to them?

-- ellis

[rs54263]

>> Why make a rule? And what is the payoff?

The ultimate goal was to make a difference in USHGA-sanctioned
competitions; I believe that Matthew felt that setting the example at
our own local event would be helpful in moving this proposal forward
within our parent organization. There is a bigger picture here than
just our own fly-in.

~Ralph

[heaviek]

Matthew, I have to apologize for my negative attitude in all these post.? I think it stems from the way the message is presented.? In all these related flame wars there needs to be more respect in the discussions.? When ideas are proposed in a controversial and authoritative tone, it disrespects others.? Your initiative would gain 1000% more respect (and support) from me if you took the time to try and understand the small segment of the HG community that endorses open face helmets.? Here is another analogy for you,…..HG pilots don’t like it when PG pilots mandate safety rules for them and vice versa. ??
?
If you really want to understand why so many of the top pilots insist on open face…then ask them before you propose legislation from USHGA on a group you ARE NOT a member of.? ?Take the time to go out and understand the motivations of the comp pilot you are proposing to regulate.? Flying on the weekends, reading posts on the internet does not get you there.? Go to FAI.org, look up the pilot rankings and email the top 10 guys in the world and ask them what they think.?
?
None of us have the hyper sensitivity, the sensory awareness, the flight experience, and skills to feel the handicap.
?
Some respect should ?be due to the pilots who insist on wearing open face helmets.? Do the rest of us think they are idiots who can’t change their own diapers?? I personally, have the opinion that there must be some very strong personal reasons for them to make that comprimise.? These are highly skilled pilots who have been around along time, have had great safety records despite the fact that they made a different decision then you or I.?
?
Kev C
?

From: Matthew [mailto:adventuretales@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:12 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: helmets

?
Hi Kevin,

That is a good argument. I hope you present it to USHGA if it comes to that.

Matthew

[Matthew]

Hi Kevin,

I too must apologize for the often sarcastic tone in my messages. I don't always intend to be sarcastic. But it just comes out that way sometimes. I hope that some good can come of this discussion one way or the other. It seems odd to me that our hang gliders have to meet certain requirements and the two leading HG/PG parachute companies certify thier chutes for opening speeds and loads. But there are no standards in the US for certifying HG and PG hemets to meet mimimun safety standards. A helmet is far more critical than a parachute for most of the accidents we encounter, i.e. during launch or landing. Why?

And why do we continue to buy helmets that aren't designed to protect our heads and necks and spines and brains and faces and jaws and teeth?

Matthew

[Danny Brotto]

I believe that Matthew is correct; to my knowledge, there is no US certification for helmets specifically for HG/PG use. There is a European certification, however.

I just checked the Wills Wing web site. Wills offers 2 helmet styles. One is the popular ?full face? Charly Insider Helmet manufactured by Finsterwalder of Germany. From the web site ?The Insider helmet is tested and certified to CEN Standard EN 966, which is a European testing standard specifically designed for helmets used for sport aviation. This standard includes tests for shock absorption, penetration resistance, and specifications for visibility and head mobility.?

Wills also offers the open face Charly Air Control Helmet manufactured by Finsterwalder of Germany. ?The helmet uses highly effective shock absorbent foam to achieve the European Standard EN966 - Hang Gliding and Paragliding Helmet Certification?. Note that it too meets the standard.

So here are both styles of helmets, full face and open, each with similar and official certifications geared toward the specific requirements of hang gliding and paragliding.

I believe that in general, full face helmets do offer additional protection in certain types of impacts.

Danny Brotto

[brianvh]

Can anyone with a charly insider helmet estimate how thick the foam is?

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Danny Brotto wrote:

>
> One is the popular 'full face' Charly Insider Helmet... This standard
includes tests for shock absorption, penetration resistance, and specification
s for visibility and head mobility.
>

[mcelrah]

On 27 Apr 2005, at 09:59, Ralph Sickinger (R2) wrote:

>
>>> Why make a rule? And what is the payoff?
>
> The ultimate goal was to make a difference in USHGA-sanctioned
> competitions; I believe that Matthew felt that setting the example at
> our own local event would be helpful in moving this proposal forward
> within our parent organization. There is a bigger picture here than
> just our own fly-in.
>
> ~Ralph
>
>
>
>
>

[mcelrah]

But I think they are so designed - it's just that the U.S. doesn't have
an independent body setting standards. The manufacturers are trying to
balance requirements for lightness vs. crashworthiness and they seem to
be at least addressing the issues. As mentioned at the meeting, there
are a set of European standards, although they appear to be somewhat
opaque. If we can find out what the European standard is, do we have
to have a separate U.S. standard? (Maybe U.S. heads are harder...) -
Hugh

On 27 Apr 2005, at 13:33, Matthew wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> I too must apologize for the often sarcastic tone in my messages. I
> don't always intend to be sarcastic. But it just comes out that way
> sometimes. I hope that some good can come of this discussion one way
> or the other. It seems odd to me that our hang gliders have to meet
> certain requirements and the two leading HG/PG parachute companies
> certify thier chutes for opening speeds and loads. But there are no
> standards in the US for certifying HG and PG hemets to meet mimimun
> safety standards. A helmet is far more critical than a parachute for
> most of the accidents we encounter, i.e. during launch or landing.
> Why?
>
> And why do we continue to buy helmets that aren't designed to protect
> our heads and necks and spines and brains and faces and jaws and
> teeth?
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>

[Richard Hays]

When did Matthew stop flying hanggliders....???? LOL. News to me....!

>From: "Kevin" <heaviek@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: RE: helmets
>Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:23:13 -0400
>
>Matthew, I have to apologize for my negative attitude in all these post.? I
>think it stems from the way the message is presented.? In all these related
>flame wars there needs to be more respect in the discussions.? When ideas
>are proposed in a controversial and authoritative tone, it disrespects
>others.? Your initiative would gain 1000% more respect (and support) from
>me if you took the time to try and understand the small segment of the HG
>community that endorses open face helmets.? Here is another analogy for
>you,?..HG pilots don't like it when PG pilots mandate safety rules for them
>and vice versa. ??
>?
>If you really want to understand why so many of the top pilots insist on
>open face?then ask them before you propose legislation from USHGA on a
>group you ARE NOT a member of.? ?Take the time to go out and understand the
>motivations of the comp pilot you are proposing to regulate.? Flying on the
>weekends, reading posts on the internet does not get you there.? Go to
>FAI.org, look up the pilot rankings and email the top 10 guys in the world
>and ask them what they think.?
>?
>None of us have the hyper sensitivity, the sensory awareness, the flight
>experience, and skills to feel the handicap.
>?
>Some respect should ?be due to the pilots who insist on wearing open face
>helmets.? Do the rest of us think they are idiots who can't change their
>own diapers?? I personally, have the opinion that there must be some very
>strong personal reasons for them to make that comprimise.? These are highly
>skilled pilots who have been around along time, have had great safety
>records despite the fact that they made a different decision then you or
>I.?
>?
>Kev C
>?
>
>From: Matthew [mailto:adventuretales@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:12 PM
> To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
> Subject: helmets
>
>?
>Hi Kevin,
>
> That is a good argument. I hope you present it to USHGA if it comes to
>that.
>
> Matthew