Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Re: [Ron] Injury in San Diego

 


AggieDave  (D License)

Nov 25, 2003, 6:17 AM
Post #1 of 24 (1530 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Injury in San Diego Can't Post

Quote:
The talk of helmets is a very good discussion. I know several pro swoopers and they wear Pro-techs.


I truely wonder why we haven't seen the full face pro-tecs being used, then? Clicky The visor comes off, and this is only one example of whats out there. In the BMX and the downhill MTB world, there are plenty of full face helmets that are rated for the appropiate protection, and tested to show they perform correctly.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Nov 25, 2003, 6:23 AM
Post #2 of 24 (1513 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

Fixed clicky

Blue skies
Ian


alan  (D 17868)

Nov 25, 2003, 9:33 AM
Post #3 of 24 (1325 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

Pro-Tec Ace Fullface BMX Helmet
Item no: 1058367
OUR PRICE:
$59.99

Features

Hand-laminated, 1-piece, multi-layered carbon/Kevlar«
Ultra-lightweight materials and design
Head ventilation channels
Moto-x style visor
Certified to ASTM, CPSC & CE helmet standards

This is from the the information provided by Aggiedave and Ian. $60 Hmmmmmm......

It is too bad that there isn't an organization representing skydivers that could put pressure on the industry to produce a lightweight, carbon/kevlar helmet to some standards and for $60 no less!


AggieDave  (D License)

Nov 25, 2003, 9:37 AM
Post #4 of 24 (1317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alan] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

They also have the added bonus of selling to a MUCH larger market, thus simple economics take over to dictate pricing and cost.


diablopilot  (D License)

Nov 25, 2003, 9:43 AM
Post #5 of 24 (1310 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I truely wonder why we haven't seen the full face pro-tecs being used, then?

JC jumps one. I think I might replace my "Turtle Shell" as well.


Hazarrd

Nov 25, 2003, 10:07 AM
Post #6 of 24 (1289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
They also have the added bonus of selling to a MUCH larger market, thus simple economics take over to dictate pricing and cost.

whoaa starting to sound like my micro econ teacher.


trigger  (D 101390)

Nov 25, 2003, 10:19 AM
Post #7 of 24 (1280 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

Whoah!!The first time i've a pro-tec full face.........
Any thoughts on the Bonehead 'boomerang'..I have one of these but i must admit i hav't jumped with it as i brought it as a solution to freezing conditions rather than what is obviously more important saftey in mind.


freakydiver  (D 26421)

Nov 25, 2003, 10:28 AM
Post #8 of 24 (1271 views)
Shortcut
Re: [trigger] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

Its really going to come down to the question does the helmet in question provide impact protection and dispertion or not. All bicycle helmets provide impact dispertion through their compressed inch or two of styrofoam material. If your helmet in question doesn't have anything like that built into it, its protection will be minimal in comparision to what IS available out there.

Edit:

Just called bonehead - NONE of their helmets are pushed through any kind of safety certifications i.e. DOT. Its probably just like AggieDave said though, its market driven. I highly doubt any of their helmets have the same safety elements built into motorbike, bmx, mtn bike, ski helmets.


(This post was edited by freakydiver on Nov 25, 2003, 10:32 AM)


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Nov 25, 2003, 10:37 AM
Post #9 of 24 (1262 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakydiver] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

That chin protection looks great for tandem instructors!


AggieDave  (D License)

Nov 25, 2003, 10:58 AM
Post #10 of 24 (1244 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakydiver] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

I would think, though that a gear manufacture could be more likely to be sued if their helmets are actually certified and someone still gets a serious head injury.

Although, if a gear manufacture goes to the trouble to get their helmets certified then they would have one hell of a selling point!


freakydiver  (D 26421)

Nov 25, 2003, 11:01 AM
Post #11 of 24 (1242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

I just can't imagine any of the designs I've seen out there passing any kind of certifications for impact. But alas, I digress seeing as how I'm not a engineer Wink


happythoughts  (D License)

Nov 25, 2003, 4:57 PM
Post #12 of 24 (1182 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

I have personally seen where helmets have saved lives. I haven't seen an example where the injury was greater because of a helmet.

There is some occasional theorizing, but I haven't even heard of an example. I wonder why the question comes up.

The question is based on a theoretical incident where someone hits their chin on a hard surface with enough force to injure them. Comparing that with the consquences of not having a helmet on?

I have seen people hit the ground hard enough to shatter a helmet. I have seen them hit without one and shatter most of their facial bones and teeth.


genoyamamoto  (Student)

Nov 25, 2003, 5:43 PM
Post #13 of 24 (1166 views)
Shortcut
Re: [happythoughts] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

I haven't seen an example where the injury was greater because of a helmet.The only way to support this statement is to get the same person to impact the ground the same way under identical conditions with and without a helmet. I assume this isn't the case.
I think the reason there is a debate about helmets is because it is manifestly a bayesian problem. You can't do the same "experiment" twice IRL, that's why people in motorcycle accidents don't always sustain the same injuries. Sure you can test the shit out of a helmet and say it passes certain criteria but it still doesn't change the fact that every person, every helmet and every situation is different.

Having said that, I wear a styling duct-taped protec helmet on my noobie head because I've banged it at the door while climbing into the plane and also on exits. It would suck to not have a helmet and start a skydive wondering if the pulsating lump on my noggen is spurting blood all over the placePirate. At the same time I don't expect any helmet to save me from a 70mph mistake low to the ground.
I wear a helmet to put the odds more in my favor in case something happens, but don't expect it to save my life under any circumstance. As for others, i'm not their mom and it's their life so they can do whatever they want with their heads, although it pisses me off when I think some guy could have survived if he wore a helmet.

happy turkey day!


happythoughts  (D License)

Nov 25, 2003, 5:51 PM
Post #14 of 24 (1164 views)
Shortcut
Re: [genoyamamoto] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I wear a helmet to put the odds more in my favor in case something happens, but don't expect it to save my life under any circumstance.

Exactly. It isn't going to save anyone, but it may help.

I can't understand how people can make an argument that it would make an injury worse. That doesn't seem logical to begin with.


kai2k1  (B License)

Nov 25, 2003, 6:28 PM
Post #15 of 24 (1151 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

Does it seem logical to say that a "skydiving" helmet would not really help in the event of a crash towards the ground. But more to protect you from Riser slaps on unstable deployments, knocking your head on the plane on exit and being kicked in the head during RW?


All opinoins welcomed


alan  (D 17868)

Nov 25, 2003, 6:46 PM
Post #16 of 24 (1144 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I would think, though that a gear manufacture could be more likely to be sued if their helmets are actually certified and someone still gets a serious head injury.

In principal, I agree. Now I can't help but wonder, are skydivers more likely to sue than an injured BMXer, for example? Seems as if with the large market thay already have and the relatively extreme activities the target markets have, wouldn't the legal issues have surfaced by now? Maybe they have and they just don't want to add to them. Would not be logical to me, but then who knows.


alan  (D 17868)

Nov 25, 2003, 6:52 PM
Post #17 of 24 (1141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [happythoughts] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

The Navy did some studies years ago, may not be relevant. They concluded that the helmets Navy pilots were wearing at the time were the cause of death during high speed ejections. I believe they used the terminology of hangman's noose syndrome.


happythoughts  (D License)

Nov 25, 2003, 7:09 PM
Post #18 of 24 (1134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alan] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know either. The direction of the force may be different.

I figure that if you hit the ground with your head, it will bounce and cause soft tissue damage to your neck, helmet or not. The extra thickness around the chin may cause some mechanical leverage increase. I don't think that the difference is huge though. You are gonna hurt either way. I have never seen a study (like car crash test dummies) that shows any valid research into it.

Fatal impacts? If there is enough impact to break your neck while wearing a helmet, you are going to be dead from blunt impact trauma without one.

Non-fatal? The damage is a lot less. I've seen people hit and survive some wicked stuff with a helmet on. Stuff that should have been fatal. Even with a camera to provide extra momentum, the helmet saved their life.


genoyamamoto  (Student)

Nov 25, 2003, 11:44 PM
Post #19 of 24 (1096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [happythoughts] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't understand how people can make an argument that it would make an injury worse. That doesn't seem logical to begin with.
I tend to agree with you here, and figure if a helmet is somehow making an injury worse, i.e. fragments embedding chances are it's going to be a byline to a more serious situation. Unless of course a helmet is somehow focusing the collision energy instead of dissipating it, but that sounds like pp engineering to me and anything that does this should not be called a helmet.

Bottom line is i'm wearing a helmet every time I go up, as I think the chance of the helmet I use making an injury worse is vanishingly small and far outweighed by its benefits.

Happy turkey day!


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 26, 2003, 6:28 AM
Post #20 of 24 (1063 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alan] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The Navy did some studies years ago, may not be relevant. They concluded that the helmets Navy pilots were wearing at the time were the cause of death during high speed ejections. I believe they used the terminology of hangman's noose syndrome.

I heard the same thing but I can't find the source. I *guess* that is the reason most helmets are cutaway significantly at the back these days. I don't like the look of some of those heavy duty chin "straps" on camera helmets.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Nov 26, 2003, 6:49 AM
Post #21 of 24 (1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kai2k1] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Does it seem logical to say that a "skydiving" helmet would not really help in the event of a crash towards the ground. But more to protect you from Riser slaps on unstable deployments, knocking your head on the plane on exit and being kicked in the head during RW?


All opinoins welcomed

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Those are the main reasons that I wear a Protec.

My loving students have an annoying habit of jamming my head into the doorframe!
The last time Steve wore a leather hat, a tandem riser almost ripped his ear off!
The last time I wore a leather hat, my canopy collapsed at low altitude (due to turbulence) the PLF that followed left bruises all the way from my left ankle to the left side of my head. I promptly traded my leather hat for a Protec.
If professional skydiving paid a bit better, I would buy the better protection offered by a Bonehead Guner or M3T.


alan  (D 17868)

Nov 26, 2003, 1:42 PM
Post #22 of 24 (1003 views)
Shortcut
Re: [happythoughts] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

http://usff.com/...ort/3rdEditiona.html
http://www.kena.net/phd/docs/deadpilot.htm


(This post was edited by alan on Nov 26, 2003, 2:09 PM)


alan  (D 17868)

Nov 26, 2003, 2:00 PM
Post #23 of 24 (996 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post

http://usff.com/...ort/3rdEditiona.html

The source is referenced here, it should be sufficient for you to find the original if you wish. Not the gospel by any means, but enough for me to ask questions. I'm not anti helmt by any means, but have a problem with the mentality of not questioning their effectiveness and or safety. Apparently there are those that feel we should just all agree that they are a good thing based on their personal observations or experiences and let it go at that. Who needs real empirical data to eveluate. I guess we can all agree that the Earth is flat and the Sun orbits the Earth.

Tangential or rotational forces to the head/neck are the cause of the majority of head impact injuries. Most are in the frontal and lateral areas, with very few from the back.

Ah hell, here is the link to the report.
http://www.kena.net/phd/docs/deadpilot.htm


(This post was edited by alan on Nov 26, 2003, 2:11 PM)


genoyamamoto  (Student)

Nov 26, 2003, 5:14 PM
Post #24 of 24 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alan] Injury in San Diego [In reply to] Can't Post


Tell me what happens to you if you get dropped head first from 4ft high onto a curb because that's what a 10mph headplant onto a curb would feel like. The observation that "There was not another mark on him" means that his head/neck took the full force of impact so i'm not surprised that his neck broke as something had to take the load from 240lbs moving at 10mph.

Quote:
Apparently there are those that feel we should just all agree that they are a good thing based on their personal observations or experiences and let it go at that. Who needs real empirical data to eveluate.

If we observe or experience something, then isn't that empirical?

Quote:
Tangential or rotational forces to the head/neck are the cause of the majority of head impact injuries.

I think you probably meant normal (perpendicular to surface) and rotational forces. Are there any other types of impact forces in spherical coordinates?

Quote:
Ah hell, here is the link to the report.
http://www.kena.net/phd/docs/deadpilot.htm
Quote:
REFERENCES
1. Wood James F: The ideal lesion produced by judicial hanging. Lancet 1.53, 1913.
Jim must have been a sick, twisted man... Frown

I hate it when statistics are abused like in http://www.kena.net/phd/docs/ntsb.htm. So let me abuse them the other way Laugh. But seriously...

Quote:
The study in question, made by Raeder and Negri of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles in 1969, compared motorcycle accident and injury data for the years 1966 and 1967 in order to detect possible effects of the mandatory helmet law which became effective January 1, 1967.1 The study showed, first, a decrease of 39 percent in total number of accidents which were reported - - from 5184 to 3161.

So there was a 40% (~factor of 2!!!) reduction in reported accidents. Either 1) there were 40% less motorcyclists on the road because the helmet law scared them away. 2) 1966 was a really bad year(doubtful) 3) Something happened on January 1, 1967 that reduced the number of reportable (serious) accidents. hmmmmmm....

Quote:
Percentage

Severity 1966 1967

Fatal 1.6 1.6
Personal Injury 92.4 94.4
Property Damage 5.9 4.0
____ ____
99.9 100.0


Thus far, these data show no effect of the helmet; the proportion of fatality among all accidents is unchanged.

Maybe they are the same because incidents that are worth reporting have their own distribution (e.g. in accidents bad enough to report, a helmet doesn't really help you all that much).

From these numbers I would conclude that the chance of a reportable incident occurring is reduced by a factor of ~2 if you wear a helmet. If you do have a reportable incident, however, your chance of dying is 1.6% no matter whether you are wearing a helmet or not (assuming everyone riding a motorcycle in 1967 was wearing a helmet and nobody wore a helmet in 1966) with the caveat that the sample is small. In reality, the only valid number in this report IMHO is the total number of reported incidents.

You know the best way to resolve this whole helmet debate is to run an experiment. Helmet lovers and haters take turns jumping off some low object like a desk and hitting their head on the ground with/without a helmet on. The group that requires the least amount of cumulative head related hospital care after 10 rounds wins the debate. I think 100 people on each side should give us enough statistics. SmileTongue

Happy turkey day!



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)