I'm a little confused here on this helmet ruling firstly i am all for it, however...looking at skydiving helmets, I see no safety measures in reference to the building materials (i'll note right now that awesome looking carbon fibre helmet is more dangerous than you think considering carbon splinters upon substantial impact), Ie. Most are either a hard material of sort (carbon or abs, plastic) with a comfort lining, no foam to absorb / dissipate impact.. and no safety rating (mind you what is that even to skydiving, or how) now looking at the below (please note i am referring to Australian standards so apologies) in Australia the following all have and must pass a safety standard in order to be able to be sold to the public. skateboard helmets snow sport helmets motorcycling helmets now I gather helmet is not going to save my head in the unlikely event of no opening and impact (der i hear you say) when looking at skydiving helmets i see that having nothing to absorb the energy from an impact and dissipating it (either through foam or that awesome energy absorbing plastics) is within itself basically a pretty piece of plastic atop of your head nothing more. so my question is.. if we must adon a helmet within the aircraft... why is the safety of said requirement not setting a minimum safety rating? in reference to visibility of full face motorcycling helmets and causing neck / spine injuries in the event of an accident, if this being the reason why these are not being used more so, causes me to shake my head in dismay for hearsay information. anyhow, not here to argue or to feed keyboard warriors. but if a ruling is to wear a helmet in a plane or for jumping (i realise after a certain license level they're not standard requirements) lets actually adon helmets with a safety standard to absorb /disburse impact energy. cheers :) "Don't let the fear of what could happen, make nothing happen."
