Helmet quality

[lilchief 0]

This is my thoughts about the choice of helmet material, assuming you've already decided on getting one. I'm now sitting and waiting for my neck to heal fully and got lots of time to reflect on what happened to me.

Two and a half week ago I hit the ground hard during a landing while training for the national CP(630' hook downwind). I made two marks in the ground, one was a large ditch from where my hip hit the ground. The other one was smaller but was where my head hit the ground(see picture). I ended up tumbling and rolling another 35m(120f) before stopping. The helmet suffered a severe crack in the forehead(See picture). I however suffered 3 lines of bruised marks in the forhead, one cut over the nose and two frontal bilateral internal bleeding and a concussion from the head impact alone. The helmet is now no longer usable, but I started thinking..what if my helmet was made out of a different weaker material, what would have happened then?

The helmet is made out of thick carbon fiber and padding inside. other helmets are made out of soft plastic, normal plastic, thin or thick fiberglass, thin carbon or any combination of these. They may, or may not have padding inside. I'll from now on swear to thick carbon with padding. Maybe even a CE(safety certification in Europe) labeled ski helmet for CP training.

Often when we choose helmets, we look at how lightweight it is, how comfortable it is to wear and of course price is important. But how much are you willing to pay to prevent yourself from an unrecoverable brain damage?

When do you think of your own safety? It's very common to think that it's only the others that hooks to low, or bust a landing. If you plan on staying in the sport for a long time it's more likely that you will hit the ground along with all the others who done it in the past.

If you ask me, I'd recommend you to wait a little until you've saved up for a good and safe helmet. Please do so. You'll hopefully only need it once.

Incident:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3635255;page=unread#unread

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[virgin-burner 1]

what brand and model is the helmet!?

glad you're ok, thats some substantial divots there..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[michalm21 0]

looks like a cookie mxv

[rlucus 0]

Comfortable, Cheap, and way better impact protection

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

If you ask me, I'd recommend you to wait a little until you've saved up for a good and safe helmet. Please do so. You'll hopefully only need it once.

Disagree. Use right tools for the purpose. I would not use a frap hat where high velocity impact can be excepted, but Id rather use a light helmet if nothing radical can be expected. Its just a part of risk management, like everything else.

[jsreznor 0]

I wear a snowboarding helmet. It's got better head coverage, especially at the back of the neck It's made for impact resistance. And, it's padded and insulated for cold days at altitude.

It also only cost me $60 instead of $200.

[yoink 321]

For CP stuff, particularly groundlaunching I usually wear a paragliding helmet. I use this one: http://www.ukairsports.com/catalog/images/b_L-downhill-colours.jpg in conjunction with a Chin-Jock to keep it stable.

The protection it offers over any skydiving helmet I've seen is massive, while giving great visability.

It probably wouldn't be suitable for terminal jumps, but for hop & pops, it's great.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I would not use a frap hat where high velocity impact can be excepted, but Id rather use a light helmet if nothing radical can be expected.

How is it that you are able to predict in advance on which dives you might have a high velocity impact?
Can't that happen on any dive?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How is it that you are able to predict in advance on which dives you might have a high velocity impact?
Can't that happen on any dive?

Well, guys doing 360s (or 540s, 720s) on highly loaded canopies are going faster than I can go outside of freefall, and I'll never be able to get that much horizontal speed, where the helmet will actually make a difference.

however, is the helmet used by the OP any better than a $40 protec with ear coverage? Carbon fiber means light and pretty, doesn't necessarily mean better protection.

[kallend 1,677]

Quote

Quote

How is it that you are able to predict in advance on which dives you might have a high velocity impact?
Can't that happen on any dive?

Well, guys doing 360s (or 540s, 720s) on highly loaded canopies are going faster than I can go outside of freefall, and I'll never be able to get that much horizontal speed, where the helmet will actually make a difference.

however, is the helmet used by the OP any better than a $40 protec with ear coverage? Carbon fiber means light and pretty, doesn't necessarily mean better protection.

I have mixed feelings about CF. It is indeed light, strong, stiff and pretty (I suspect the last attribute has much to do with its selection and popularity) but it is also brittle and can break into sharp shards. IMO kevlar would be a better choice being strong and much tougher with far less tendency to form shards - except it is not pretty at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[377 21]

I've been jumping since 1968. Canopies got better and helmets got worse, from the standpoint of cereberal injury protection.

My old 1968 Bell 500 is a safer helmet than the ones I see today, but it looks uncool and blocks upward visibility, so nobody uses them or their crashworthy successors.

The Gaths are a joke from a safety standpoint, but they look good and are cheap so people wear them. I guess it's better than a frap hat or going bare headed.

Design and quality can be just as important in a helmet as in a reserve, but few see it that way. It's all about looks and price.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

My old 1968 Bell 500 is a safer helmet than the ones I see today, but it looks uncool and blocks upward visibility, so nobody uses them or their crashworthy successors.

Testify, brother. As a student in the 70s, I landed a 28' cheapo round on the paved runway, hitting my head hard enough on the pavement to crack the outer shell of the motorcycle helmet I was wearing. I was OK. I'm not sure I would have been had I worn a flimsier helmet.

[lilchief 0]

Almost. It's an ROK and I've ordered an Ozone from them and is expecting it soon.

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[Remster 24]

Helmets are SUPPOSED to get broken up on impact. If they dont, they transmit more of the energy of the impact, and the padding is the only protection you get. Thats why all certified helmets have a warning to discard the helmet after a crash. The cracks may not be visible, but they are there.

Having a very strong shell may actually raise the amount of energy transmitted before it cracks and dissipates energy.

A "cheap" plastic helmet is not a bad choice.

Kevlar and carbon might sound cool, and may be better for other aspects of our sport, but impact protection may not be one of them.

Remster

[brucet7 0]

I have only had a Brand X $35 helmet but it saved my noodle just fine. It gave itself up and had to be replaced, and I did have a concusion, but I am alive and well and still jumping. I have a new Brand X and paid a couple of bucks more for it.

POPS #10623; SOS #1672

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Helmets are SUPPOSED to get broken up on impact. If they dont, they transmit more of the energy of the impact, and the padding is the only protection you get.

It depends on the design of the helmet. Many helmets are designed to be destroyed while dissipating impact energy, but not all. For example, Pro-tec's SXP multi-impact liners can be re-used after multiple impacts and retain virtually all of their impact absorbing properties. That said, they also cost more than a standard protec helmet with a foam or EPS liner.

Quote

Thats why all certified helmets have a warning to discard the helmet after a crash. The cracks may not be visible, but they are there.

As noted above, there are materials that are certified to retain their protective properties after more than one impact, but they tend to be more expensive.

Quote

Having a very strong shell may actually raise the amount of energy transmitted before it cracks and dissipates energy.

Again, maybe, but if the padding is designed appropriately, probably not. It depends on what type of impacts you're trying to protect against, but helmets aren't like cars. We don't have large thicknesses of material around the outside of our head that can be turned into crumple zones. Adding a hard shell to a helmet adds little extra distance through which to absorb the impact - perhaps 2 to 5mm - and therefore little opportunity to absorb anything on its own. It may however, allow for a thinner padding layer to be used for a similar level of impact absorption while also adding resistance to penetration by sharp objects.

In terms of helmet design and what different components are used for, there are a variety of different impact risks to be considered including sharp objects, small blunt objects and large blunt objects.

Padding layers may provide some protection against all of the the above, although on their own are most effective against large blunt objects. Some types of padding are destroyed in the process of absorbing the impact, such as may be the case with various types of foam padding. A large blunt object would be something like a wall, the side of the plane or the ground. Padding layers provide protection by spreading the deceleration of the impacting object over a longer distance/time, thereby reducing the peak force imparted upon the head.

Small blunt objects are things like the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer, the side of a signpost or a tree branch. The force of the impact is localised to a relatively small portion of the available padding on that side of the helmet. More effective use of the padding can be obtained by a rigid shell which resists deformation from the impact and thereby spreads the impact over a larger area of padding, which thereby reduces the peak pressure imparted upon the head by the impact. This in turn allows a thinner layer of padding to be used to protect against such impacts.

Sharp objects are things like knives, sheared/torn pieces of metal or the end of a signpost. In addition to the need to spread the impact out over a wider area, there may be a need to include a layer that resists being cut or torn. An outer shell that is very hard, but brittle may crack if hit hard enough with a sharp object, allowing it to enter the crack and penetrate the softer padding layers easily due to it's sharpness. I'm not sure how good or otherwise the fibres in composite materials such a fibreglass or CF are at this, but I know that kevlar has been used for this type of purpose in bullet and knife proof clothing.

Finally, there is the neck, spine and rest of the body to consider. There are limits beyond which additional head protection is moot because the force of the impact is likely to result in mortal damage to other parts of the body or worse. Really, it comes down to fitness for a particular purpose. There are real impact risks that may require hard and/or tough outer layers in order to provide maximum protection to certain types of impact and there are other impact risks that are impractical to hope to protect against with a helmet alone. I'm not suggesting that there aren't improvements that could be made in the design of some helmets used for skydiving, but I do think that people often place far too much burden on their helmets to protect them from injury than makes sense in light of how little other body armour they are willing to wear.

[mrbiceps 0]

as you can see those helmets are useless for any sort of impact protection and a waste of money. Every cookie helmet comes with a warning sticker saying that they "offer the wearer NO impact protection".
If you want protection get yourself a bell mountainbike helmet that has 1 inch of high impact foam protecting your skull.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

as you can see those helmets are useless for any sort of impact protection

I disagree. This guy's head was subjected to an impact capable of making a sizeable divot in the ground and ripping/cracking a fairly solid carbon fibre shell. Are you suggesting that this guy would have suffered injuries no worse even if he were not wearing this helmet?

For sure there may be better helmets out there for various types of use, but to say that a Cookie/Bonehead/Sky Systems/etc provides *NO* impact protection is just false. I'm fairly sure if I tapped you on the head with a bat (baseball, cricket, whatever...), you'd notice the difference between wearing a helmet or not.

Quote

Every cookie helmet comes with a warning sticker saying that they "offer the wearer NO impact protection".

This is a legal disclaimer intended to help avert legal issues should the wearer be injured whilst wearing the helmet. It's basically telling the wearer that they assume the risks of whatever they choose to do whilst wearing the helmet and that the manufacturer does not guarantee any particular level of protection. It is not a statement of laboratory test results.

I think what you're trying to say is that most helmets used in skydiving are not made to conform to any kind of accepted standard as is the case with many/most helmets sold for use on bikes and/or snowboards and that helmets designed to conform to such standard may offer greater levels of impact protection.

[Chubba 0]

I have a Cookie Rok.

I use the helmet for

1. Audible pocket
2. Aircraft/door/exit bumps
3. Occasional RW face kick or the more frequent newbie burble torpedo into the back of the head.

I wouldn't expect this helmet to protect me in the slightest during an aircraft crash, a canopy crash (low turn, swoops, hitting hangars/trees, whatever), any type of major freefall collision.

It looks great, it's comfortable, its light and it's got great camera options... that's about it.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

1. Audible pocket
2. Aircraft/door/exit bumps
3. Occasional RW face kick or the more frequent newbie burble torpedo into the back of the head.

Yeah, pretty much what the current line of skydiving helmets are good for. Nice for keeping your head from getting cut up on a bad exit from the plane. More scrape prevention than impact protection.

[dorbie 0]

I think you're fortunate the ground was soft.

While you were gouging that hole in the earth your head and brain were decelerating, so because your helmet was able to travel INTO the soft earth an inch or two the forces stopping your head were spread significantly over time reducing the peak impact force. Had it been a harder surface the outcome may have been very different. It's good that the helmet offered some protection but a critical factor in an impact like this is the forces imparted on your head and therefore the helmet lining is at least as important as the shell.

If you want to learn another useful lesson from this go and measure the depth of that divot your head made and compare that compression zone to the thikness of the lining on the next helmet you purchase.