Is a helmet mandatory for fire fighting?

[robottxt]

What are pilots objections to flight helmets?  I don't get it,  you wear gloves when refuelling, oh wait, most of you don't.   

[mcguire]

On 7/7/2023 at 9:00 PM, Beach Man said:

Then again...I have NEVER...( except in California ) been checked that I am using "required" gear... 

NSW Australia will let you fly around in a surplus Huey with an aux tank made at a boat repair shop all you want, so long as you're wearing the mandated leather boots in case of fire.

[Hanging Out]

It’s kind of like people who ride motorcycles without a helmet. Dumb people don’t know they are dumb. 🙄

[Longline]

On 7/8/2023 at 12:09 AM, slingdog said:

They might on paper but the sad reality is, its been the clients, consultants and insurance companies deciding how its gonna happen for some time now.Just like minimum hour requirements on type, BARS audits etc etc etc.

Don't comply!

[Longline]

On 7/8/2023 at 8:32 AM, robottxt said:

What are pilots objections to flight helmets?  I don't get it,  you wear gloves when refuelling, oh wait, most of you don't.   

Did you notice that Fixed Wing pilots don't wear helmets?      Oh, and how about all the people who ride bicycles .without helmets...are they all stupid? 

[Pool pilot]

23 minutes ago, Longline said:

Did you notice that Fixed Wing pilots don't wear helmets?      Oh, and how about all the people who ride bicycles .without helmets...are they all stupid? 

You have near driven downtown Vancouver if you need to ask if cyclists are stupid.

Helmet or no helmet the answer is yes.

[Icewind]

On 7/7/2023 at 9:11 AM, Longline said:

Transport Canada regulates the aviation industry ....not the BC Forest Service.

If you think that meeting Transport Canada's aviation regulations and standards is all that it takes to create a reasonable level of safety, then your standards are pretty low.  You may be safe from regulatory infractions, but is that enough?  Customers such as utilities, fire agencies and other sophisticated users have long recognized that simply meeting CAR's is woefully inadequate from a safety perspective.  This point of view is supported by the myriad of recommendations from the TSB that TC has ignored.  This is especially true for specialty flight operations typical in 702 Aerial Work.  I don't blame the customer for recognizing inadequate safety standards and attempting to raise the bar to a higher level.  And don't forget, if they make abiding by their higher standards a condition of hire and contract, then ignoring them is grounds to terminate that contract.

[simpleton]

Helmets and visors are your friend.

 

[Longline]

On 7/10/2023 at 10:33 AM, Icewind said:

If you think that meeting Transport Canada's aviation regulations and standards is all that it takes to create a reasonable level of safety, then your standards are pretty low.  You may be safe from regulatory infractions, but is that enough?  Customers such as utilities, fire agencies and other sophisticated users have long recognized that simply meeting CAR's is woefully inadequate from a safety perspective.  This point of view is supported by the myriad of recommendations from the TSB that TC has ignored.  This is especially true for specialty flight operations typical in 702 Aerial Work.  I don't blame the customer for recognizing inadequate safety standards and attempting to raise the bar to a higher level.  And don't forget, if they make abiding by their higher standards a condition of hire and contract, then ignoring them is grounds to terminate that contract.

I was not talking about safety....i was talking about who regulates the Aviation Industry.

[Longline]

On 7/8/2023 at 12:09 AM, slingdog said:

They might on paper but the sad reality is, its been the clients, consultants and insurance companies deciding how its gonna happen for some time now.Just like minimum hour requirements on type, BARS audits etc etc etc.

I agree Slingdog, but who's fault is it that the customer tells you what to do.....they did't use to.