Corking thread about airjackets over on COTH

[Goldenstar]

I have not bought an air jacket ,I have been cautious mainly because I am fairly sure the wedge fracture I suffered wearing a convential BP may have been caused bacause I could not curl up in theBP.
My fall was an extremely awkward one I was on the horse all the way to ground only being pitched out the front at the last moment , I had little time to roll or curl.
The front on my head hit the ground first I felt the moment the impact met the force of gravity pushing me forward it was at T5 and I felt it give way I feel my BP did contribute to the fact that all the force was taken by one vertebra .
I did not like my BP and although it was professionally fitted I was never happy in it I now have another brand and feel happier in it .
I wish I had chucked the first one straight away but hey ho that's how it goes.
This experiance made me cautious about investing in an air jacket,I read the thread on COTH last and a now even more undecided.
The pictures of OT under his horse with the jacket inflated were impressive basically I am totally confused and am not sure what to do for the best.

 

[BeckyD]

I feel like a lot of people are missing the point, but not all on here thankfully. Air jackets AREN'T DESIGNED to prevent a crush injury. So I see little point in testing them for that.

They are merely going to give you a softer landing by distributing the force around the body, and by having a squishy profile they will absorb a lot of the impact before it even reaches the body. The side effect of this is that there may be some benefits that will help in a crush injury situation, up to a point.

I've fallen off in mine 5 times this year (!) and on 4 of those occasions I walked away from some quite nasty falls without so much as a bruise or ache. None of my falls were horse falls or in any way rotational but all involved impact at speed with either a XC fence, a tree, or the ground. The 5th time I did end up with a bruised hip and I don't know if that's because the speed with which I hit the ground pushed the air jacket to the side or some other reason (maybe it didn't inflate in time?). I know people say they rush to get them off but mine is perfectly comfortable inflated (Hit Air over Kan) and I have even managed to run across fields after a loose Bill, without any concerns beyond the fact that it's a bit cumbersome inflated so I probably didn't run as quickly as I'd have liked.

I do worry about being attached to the horse and when I first do my clip up I always panic slightly about that, but it's soon forgotten. If you have a slow fall with the horse I don't think it would inflate as I've managed to dismount twice (slowly) without setting it off, but I've also leapt off at the end of a XC round, and set it off.

I wear one purely to have a softer landing as I have a good job and would be in big trouble if I was constantly taking time off work being battered and bruised. And as you can tell, I fall off a lot It may slightly increase my chances of a catastrophic injury but that's something I've weighed against the comparatively gentle non-catastrophic falls I have whilst wearing it. That's my choice, my considered decision, and I don't feel that I need test results that to be honest, will never replicate every single fall that could ever happen.

Each to their own. Wear one or don't wear one. But don't expect them to bother with huge amounts of testing when so many people are wearing them without the testing. The econonomics doesn't add up.

 

[kerilli]

Yes was defo a genuine cylinder as for fitted correctly well fitted as shown by seller and she had been using jacket for a good while and it had gone off a few times before. 2 point just said it malfunctioned

I totally agree with you nothing is fool proof

It's about assessing risk and trying to reduce it best we can.

I am getting a hit air for my Xmas to use on horse & motorbike. My fireman friend who has attended many biking accidents said those with them jackets on had far less spinal injuries. That's all the proof I need to buy one.

Yes, I think the design of the HitAir is good, I like the extra protection at neck and coccyx, of the 2 designs. Motorbike falls are hugely different to horserider falls though - very different speeds and trajectories.

It's not about being "fool proof" - if your sister was using the correct cylinder, and had fitted the lanyard in the correct way (as shown, and as previously worked correctly) then she obviously wasn't being a fool! A malfunction that can tie you to the horse so you get dragged is not reassuring.
It is about the difference between (forgive me if this isn't perfectly worded, I'm paraphrasing how it was explained to me by someone v technical) "fail safe" (passive protection system such as a regular bp, which just is what it is, as long as you put it on it just does its job until you take it off, with no prompts etc) and "fail dangerous" (active system that requires something to happen to trigger it).

Mike, there are enough variables that are pretty much constant for this sort of testing to be valid, surely? Weight of horse, speed of horse, approx height horse falls from, sort of trajectory. The horse isn't suddenly going to weigh 3x as much, be doing 90mph, etc. The big problem is the cost - crash test dummies cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, apparently.
I still think a valid test could be done with watermelons in body protectors. they would show whether they'd been squashed or not! (sorry, very low-tech thinking!) Or, someone on here (was it kit279?) suggested using pig carcasses with sensors in.

Goldenstar, re: the OT pics, there were enough frame-by-frame pics at the time to show that because he was still in the saddle as the horse turned over, the airjacket did not inflate before the fall, it was only when it rolled off him that it did so. That's not the fault of the airjacket, it's just the design - the lanyard has to be pulled by the rider being far enough from the horse. His Champion hat saved his life, 100%, imho, that and the fact that his head was resting on the edge of the step and not his neck.

BeckyD's final sentence is the clincher in this argument, unfortunately.

 

[cptrayes]

Someone asked if anyone knew someone who had injury falling off in air jacket

Yes my sister fell off at XC fence in 2 point air jacket the lanyard thing did not deploy and she was dragged under the horse for quite a distance until the jacket actually was ripped from her back

She was badly bruised and shaken up , I guess it could of been a lot worse had she been hit in face my hoof.

Anyway she rang 2 point who swiftly replaced the jacket along with her ripped open new ariat riding boots and told her they were sorry , nothing more was said.

That has also happened to me with the first version of the trigger. Mine thankfully pulled free with sufficient force to weld the plastic lanyard coating together How old was the jacket?

The trigger has been upgraded. Anyone who has a plastic plug at the bottom which screws in should send it back to P2 for an upgrade. The new trigger is also much easier to reload.

 

[cptrayes]

My first question would be,Was it a genuine point2 gas cylinder and had it been fitted corrrectly?.

Mike the pulling of the trigger has very little to do with the cannister. If the trigger did not pull out of the hole and the girl was dragged it wouldn't matter what was screwed into the top, as long as it was screwed in. It is just possible that a cannister with too long a neck might increase the pressure to release, but it would be difficult to find one to buy in the first place. All the lookalikes I found have a standard neck.

Please people, don't use lookalikes even if they are much cheaper. The seal on the top is thicker and if it does puncture at all (my test one didn't, it broke the trigger casing and blunted the hammer.) then the hole may be too small to inflate quickly.

 

[MegaBeast]

I think some key points have been raised on here:

1) People shouldn't expect air jackets to prevent crush injuries, they won't, they're not miracle garments.

2) Mike makes a very valid point about the type of fall and the saddle used. I personally hate saddles with big knee rolls that hold you in place and have long believed they can contribute to worse falls as you stay in the plate for longer so are more likely to go down with the horse in the event of a horse fall rather than being thrown clear. It has somewhat to do with stirrup length too.

3) The jury is still out and neither side can prove either way so it's a matter of doing your research (yes, most of it is anedotal) and making personal choice.

I would personally choose the HitAit over the Point2, if I had to choose one. It inflates outwards (big plus) and is less bulky until it is needed. They also don't have an aggressive advertising campaign! Currently I don't own an air jacket and have no plans to buy one.

If you wear an air jacket then don't put it on expecting it to "save" you in the event of a rotational. I personally believe they are of most use when you fall off a horse rather than when a horse falls. So probably great if you do a lot of breaking, schooling of rogues etc or just have a tendency to plop off!

I agree with BeckyD's statement "I wear one purely to have a softer landing as I have a good job and would be in big trouble if I was constantly taking time off work being battered and bruised. And as you can tell, I fall off a lot It may slightly increase my chances of a catastrophic injury but that's something I've weighed against the comparatively gentle non-catastrophic falls I have whilst wearing it."

 

[glamourpuss]

Ok, I know I said I wasn't going to post again but I'm getting a little fed up with the notion being banded about that air jackets have never been tested. They have using crash test dummies containing sensors.
http://www.point-two.co.uk/index.php/safety

http://www.point-two.co.uk/index.php/safety/2-en-gb/articles/69

http://www.point-two.co.uk/images/pdf/final trl report may 2010 adult pro air.pdf

And from Hit Air
award winning technology from the founding fathers of air vests
all models are CE certified. The specific certified models supplied by Hit-Air UK Ltd include SV2, LV, MLV, H, KV.
complies with 89/686/EC*96/58EC and EN 340:2003
patented technology EP 1 323359 B1
rigorously tested by the Japanese Automobile Research institution and TUV. Independently tested by the French, Spanish, Korean and Japanese Police
6,000 supplied to the French mounted and motorcycle police in 2011
gold medal for safety in the World Exhibition of Inventors
Salon du Cheval award for innovation in safety in 1998 and 2010

Seriously this is quantifiable research done by independent institutes. It's all written there.

FWIW - I looked at the websites of several body protectors & skull caps (including ones I have purchased) & none of them show this level of testing.

So all of you crying 'we want more testing' what do you actually want testing?

 

[kerilli]

I'd like to see the results of BETA's own testing, which was done but the results were never released. Why not?
I'd like to see x-rays taken during and after inflation (if that can be done?) which I believe B.E. requested of P2 when they first came on the market, and which I gather has never been done. This would show if there is any effect on the spine, no? Or is that too simplistic? Genuine question.
I'd like to know if the involuntary stiffening of the torso as the jacket inflates can increase the risk of a serious spinal injury. Pepo Puch and his medics have argued that it did. (Eventing magazine article).
I'd like to know whether the airjacket going off, and/or its automatic slow deflation, could worsen an injury that has just occurred.
For me it isn't only about protection from external things (which I believe those tests were about, along with inflation times), it is about the airjacket NOT potentially causing other things to happen, which might make things worse.
And obviously I'm answering that question just as a lay person, I'd love to hear what Reed would say in answer to that question...!

 

[glamourpuss]

So the statement from the TRL impact performance assessment of Point 2 which read:
"There is no evidence that the PTJ would exacerbate spinal injury & in fact, during rear impact testing, it provided the greatest reduction in the neck & pelvis loading"
Just isn't enough. Jeez seriously you keep saying you don't have a mission against air jackets yet you seem determined to find something!
This testing was accepted by BE instead of the X-rays it requested as it was deemed less subjective BTW.

 

[SpottedCat]

I'd like to know if the involuntary stiffening of the torso as the jacket inflates can increase the risk of a serious spinal injury. Pepo Puch and his medics have argued that it did. (Eventing magazine article).
I'd like to know whether the airjacket going off, and/or its automatic slow deflation, could worsen an injury that has just occurred.

These are the two things which concern me most - the deflation (or inflation after a fall) which could destabilise an existing injury and make it work. So say a rotational where horse lands next to/partially on rider and air jacket doesn't go off until horse gets up, or the deflation of the jacket after a fall.

My biggest concern is that everything you are taught about first aid tells you to keep people still if you are at all concerned about a spinal injury - just don't let them move. So I am concerned about wearing something which causes you to move (via deflation) and doesn't allow medics to stabilise you completely until it is removed/deflated. They can cut your BP off you if required - do that to an airjacket and you'll get rapid deflation and movement.

It's not even that I'd rule out wearing one if they did show that the movement is bad news in some types of accident, it's that I'd like to make a fully informed decision about the risks before I buy one, which I can't do currently.

 

[SpottedCat]

So the statement from the TRL impact performance assessment of Point 2 which read:
"There is no evidence that the PTJ would exacerbate spinal injury & in fact, during rear impact testing, it provided the greatest reduction in the neck & pelvis loading"
Just isn't enough. Jeez seriously you keep saying you don't have a mission against air jackets yet you seem determined to find something!
This testing was accepted by BE instead of the X-rays it requested as it was deemed less subjective BTW.

The TRL testing was all about impact, and nothing about destabilisation of injury during deflation. I'd like to know more about that side of things.

 

[glamourpuss]

Kerilli when you buy a car do you go to the car salesman & say:
'I want to see X-rays on a spine before & after impact to see if the airbag affects it'
'I want full testing on the seatbelt to assess the likelihood of internal injuries'
.'... and I want cup holders!'

Or do you accept the industry standard of testing & drive your new car aware that as much safety equipment your car contains there is the likelihood that in an accident you might still get injured?

That is a genuine question.

I've just emailed BETA to ask whether or not they've tested air jackets. I believe under the freedom of information act 2000 if there are results surely they would have to show them to me. But I'm no legal bid & may have that wrong

 

[glamourpuss]

Spotted cat if the spine is held in alignment as the jacket deflates (so that would be it deflating slowly & evenly) there would be little risk of destabilisation of injury. We move spinal injured/potentially injured patients a fair amount in a resus situation. It's not the movement as such but keeping the alignment....however this is just my gut feeling on this. I will, when I've done my lecture this PM have a look at some trauma research & see if I can find something more definitive.

 

[glamourpuss]

....and by definitive I mean either way. If I find that I am wrong & the jacket deflating could destabilise injury then I promise to show that as well

 

[SpottedCat]

It would be interesting to know GP - I know they inflate quickly and deflate slowly, but I'd always assumed (perhaps erroneously?) that there were two aspects to the deflation - one being that areas with more pressure on them would deflate more quickly and the other being that the deflation would not be even because the gas goes in one way (under high pressure) and comes out the same way (under lower pressure). Therefore there is a risk of movement = worsening an injury. I agree with what you say about alignment and that was what I meant, I just didn't express it v clearly.

 

[kerilli]

Kerilli when you buy a car do you go to the car salesman & say:
'I want to see X-rays on a spine before & after impact to see if the airbag affects it'
'I want full testing on the seatbelt to assess the likelihood of internal injuries'
.'... and I want cup holders!'

Or do you accept the industry standard of testing & drive your new car aware that as much safety equipment your car contains there is the likelihood that in an accident you might still get injured?

That is a genuine question.

No, because the airbag in a car is very large in relation to the body and very soft, and pushes you back into the seat, no? We aren't talking about something fitted snugly around the body with limited surface area. I'm not explaining that very well, but the scenarios are totally different. There's a head restraint in a car, too, which is a HUGE deal when we consider hyperflexion of the neck... albeit it needs to be fitted at the correct height and angle for the height of the person. But airbags in cars are totally different to airjackets, if it was explained to me correctly.
Seatbelts - I know they can cause internal injuries, and lots of bruising, especially if incorrectly fitted. However, as said up there somewhere, those are less likely to be fatal than going headfirst through the windscreen.
Not too fussed about cup holders, actually.

I've just emailed BETA to ask whether or not they've tested air jackets. I believe under the freedom of information act 2000 if there are results surely they would have to show them to me. But I'm no legal bid & may have that wrong

Oh good, that'll be interesting. Does BETA work primarily for the industry members or for the public? I really don't know. The whole mess about which testing facilities they will accept data from, and not, really confuses me.

 

[SpottedCat]

Doesn't FOI only apply to government departments and quangos? Maybe I am dreaming that!

 

[meardsall_millie]

Doesn't FOI only apply to government departments and quangos? Maybe I am dreaming that!

FOIA is applicable only to public authorities. I believe BETA is a trade association so would not be required to comply.

 

[Mike007]

Yes, I think the design of the HitAir is good, I like the extra protection at neck and coccyx, of the 2 designs. Motorbike falls are hugely different to horserider falls though - very different speeds and trajectories.

It's not about being "fool proof" - if your sister was using the correct cylinder, and had fitted the lanyard in the correct way (as shown, and as previously worked correctly) then she obviously wasn't being a fool! A malfunction that can tie you to the horse so you get dragged is not reassuring.
It is about the difference between (forgive me if this isn't perfectly worded, I'm paraphrasing how it was explained to me by someone v technical) "fail safe" (passive protection system such as a regular bp, which just is what it is, as long as you put it on it just does its job until you take it off, with no prompts etc) and "fail dangerous" (active system that requires something to happen to trigger it).

Mike, there are enough variables that are pretty much constant for this sort of testing to be valid, surely? Weight of horse, speed of horse, approx height horse falls from, sort of trajectory. The horse isn't suddenly going to weigh 3x as much, be doing 90mph, etc. The big problem is the cost - crash test dummies cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, apparently.
I still think a valid test could be done with watermelons in body protectors. they would show whether they'd been squashed or not! (sorry, very low-tech thinking!) Or, someone on here (was it kit279?) suggested using pig carcasses with sensors in.

Goldenstar, re: the OT pics, there were enough frame-by-frame pics at the time to show that because he was still in the saddle as the horse turned over, the airjacket did not inflate before the fall, it was only when it rolled off him that it did so. That's not the fault of the airjacket, it's just the design - the lanyard has to be pulled by the rider being far enough from the horse. His Champion hat saved his life, 100%, imho, that and the fact that his head was resting on the edge of the step and not his neck.

BeckyD's final sentence is the clincher in this argument, unfortunately.

I think you explained about active and passive protection quite well actualy. As for the jacket that failed to fire ,I can think of at least two reasons immediately,neither of which would be the fault of the jacket design or fault in manufacture. If dust were to build up in the firing mechanism it could jam the lanyard ,as could ice.Particles of grit also. I see enough fairly lethal tack being used regularly ,even by competition riders to suspect that a somewhat higher tech piece of equipment is not going to get the care and attention it needs......As for testing ,first of all we have to decide which part of the horse is going to hit the rider. If it comes crashing down on its withers on top of you , the force exerted is going to be exponentialy greater than if it lands on its side,even if you do take the full load for a moment.The elasticity of the horses rib cage will extend the period of deceleration as you get flattend .This reduces the peak load. It is not the actual mass of the horse that is the problem ,it is how quickly the Kinetic energy of the Horse /rider,complex,comes to zero.So whilst horses may not suddenly be doing 90 mph and their MASS will remain constant, their effective weight will vary enormously. Then you have to add in factors such as being hit by the cantle of the saddle or a stirrup iron caught betwean horse and rider... As for that OT fall.I have watched that so many times and slowed it, looked at individual frames etc .I am convinced that even though the jacket didnt fully deploy before the crush from the horse started, it was having a significant effect in extending the period that the kinetic energy was being absorbed and also eventualy actualy tipped the horse off of him. A very lucky escape there and the margin between the possible outcomes was so slight that anything that helped even slightly ,might have tipped the ballance.

 

[Mike007]

Mike the pulling of the trigger has very little to do with the cannister. If the trigger did not pull out of the hole and the girl was dragged it wouldn't matter what was screwed into the top, as long as it was screwed in. It is just possible that a cannister with too long a neck might increase the pressure to release, but it would be difficult to find one to buy in the first place. All the lookalikes I found have a standard neck.

Please people, don't use lookalikes even if they are much cheaper. The seal on the top is thicker and if it does puncture at all (my test one didn't, it broke the trigger casing and blunted the hammer.) then the hole may be too small to inflate quickly.

When I refer to whether the cannister was fitted correcly,I dont simply mean re fiting the lanyard and screwing another cannister on. One has to assume that if the jacket has fired ,the rider has hit the dirt,quite literaly. If particles of grit get into the trigger mechanism there is every possibility of it jamming the next time it is used. Anyone who has done any military trtaining will know how obsessive we are about cleaning our guns and preventing dirt and dust getting into the works.The same attitude should apply to any active safety device. It needs to be checked before it is used.As an aircraft engineer ,I would have to check all sorts of odd things on a daily basis simply to authorise the aircraft for flight. It didnt matter if they hadnt been used . If an incident had occured ,such as a heavy landing,you would be amazed at what would have to be done before that aircraft could be certified fit for flight.

 

[kerilli]

I think you explained about active and passive protection quite well actualy. As for the jacket that failed to fire ,I can think of at least two reasons immediately,neither of which would be the fault of the jacket design or fault in manufacture. If dust were to build up in the firing mechanism it could jam the lanyard ,as could ice.Particles of grit also. I see enough fairly lethal tack being used regularly ,even by competition riders to suspect that a somewhat higher tech piece of equipment is not going to get the care and attention it needs......As for testing ,first of all we have to decide which part of the horse is going to hit the rider. If it comes crashing down on its withers on top of you , the force exerted is going to be exponentialy greater than if it lands on its side,even if you do take the full load for a moment.The elasticity of the horses rib cage will extend the period of deceleration as you get flattend .This reduces the peak load. It is not the actual mass of the horse that is the problem ,it is how quickly the Kinetic energy of the Horse /rider,complex,comes to zero.So whilst horses may not suddenly be doing 90 mph and their MASS will remain constant, their effective weight will vary enormously. Then you have to add in factors such as being hit by the cantle of the saddle or a stirrup iron caught betwean horse and rider... As for that OT fall.I have watched that so many times and slowed it, looked at individual frames etc .I am convinced that even though the jacket didnt fully deploy before the crush from the horse started, it was having a significant effect in extending the period that the kinetic energy was being absorbed and also eventualy actualy tipped the horse off of him. A very lucky escape there and the margin between the possible outcomes was so slight that anything that helped even slightly ,might have tipped the ballance.

Ah, right, good point - horse people are pretty terrible about keeping complicated kit in good shape. I wonder how many DO have their airjacket serviced every year, as recommended, or rather say 'it's only gone off x times, i'll save the money'...? Do the manufacturers recommend that the firing mechanism be checked and cleaned out regularly? Blasted with compressed air maybe?

Testing... ah yes, I see. Test for worst case scenario I guess. Cantle onto rider must be one of the worst. I can't see why nobody has designed a cut-down tree (flat) with a deformable foam cantle fixed on. It'd have the same feel and security for the rider, I think, but should be so much safer if the worst came to the worst - no curved wooden 'blade' between you...

Interesting about the OT fall. I, too, pored over the photos, and it never occurred to me that the airjacket inflating (a few inches, I guess, from flat to full inflation?) could have "eventually actually tipped the horse off him", I was sure that the horse's hindend landed half over the step down and that the direction of its movement carried on and tipped it down the step. I'll have to look again, if I can find them... food for thought.

 

[*hic*]

Kerilli - I can only assume you've never hit an airbag with your face

They're not soft. If they were you'd travel straight through them into whatever they were trying to protect. They are a rigidly inflated balloon - rigidly inflated with the same explosive force employed by air jackets.

My poor daughter thought they were soft and comfy, not only are they hard but the fabric is abrasive, she got what can only be described as carpet burn on her face from hers. She was also permanently scarred by the safety belt

Having said that, I'd never recommend that she didn't use a safety belt or choose a car without airbags.

 

[kerilli]

Kerilli - I can only assume you've never hit an airbag with your face

They're not soft. If they were you'd travel straight through them into whatever they were trying to protect. They are a rigidly inflated balloon - rigidly inflated with the same explosive force employed by air jackets.

My poor daughter thought they were soft and comfy, not only are they hard but the fabric is abrasive, she got what can only be described as carpet burn on her face from hers. She was also permanently scarred by the safety belt

Having said that, I'd never recommend that she didn't use a safety belt or choose a car without airbags.

I have hit one, actually, and you're wrong, sorry. They are designed to start deflating immediately, as soon as they are inflated (which takes approximately 50 milliseconds) and the deflation is what slows the body down. The gas cools and they start going down - they don't deflate fully immediately, of course, but they have multiple tiny holes so they start to deflate very FAST, so you sort of squish into them. This vid shows the sort of thing I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I5y53tioCY&feature=related
In the very early days of airbags in cars they were much firmer and caused quite a lot of fatalities until scientists worked out that they needed to be softer to absorb the energy (of a body still doing, say, 60mph) not try to just arrest it sharply. They are definitely not a 'rigidly inflated balloon', if they were then a person wouldn't have burns, they'd have a broken nose, probably no teeth intact, maybe fractures to jaw or eye sockets, skull...

 

[*hic*]

"Rigid" was maybe too strong a term. Soft however they are not! Mind you daughter's accident was some 13 years ago now so maybe things have changed, at the time she was so shocked to find that the nice big comfy pillow she was expecting certainly was not that.

 

[kerilli]

"Rigid" was maybe too strong a term. Soft however they are not! Mind you daughter's accident was some 13 years ago now so maybe things have changed, at the time she was so shocked to find that the nice big comfy pillow she was expecting certainly was not that.

I'm pretty sure they ironed out the main problems with rigidity early on in the late '70s and the 1980s. The fabric isn't at all soft, I agree (I think it's flameproof nylon) but I meant that the bag itself is soft not solid, it is really squishy by the time the person hits it (as in the vid).
Either way, coupled with a seatbelt, it's usually a lifesaver... thank heavens.

 

[glamourpuss]

Maybe Kerilli you would like to look at this study http://m.emj.bmj.com/content/19/6/490.full
Which shows that injuries can & have been caused by airbags in cars including cervical spine injuries, a decapitation & an aortic dissection. Still I'd rather have an air bag in my car
Likewise this article http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/11/1/23.full.pdf
And this paper
http://www.ajronline.org/content/111/4/833
On injuries caused by seatbelts....again though you wouldn't catch me not wearing my seatbelt either. The crux is although there were injuries caused by air bags & seat belts I'm sure without them the injuries would've been much worse (although I am struggling to think of something worse than decapitation lol ) In fact all 3 papers report that since legislation change surrounding seat belts/air bags fatalities in RTC's have decreased despite there being more volume of cars used.

Anyway I also had an interesting chat with some junior doctors....we've come up with a fab experiment & I'm going to make enquiries to see if its possible

 

[alwaysbroke]

if the spine is held in alignment as the jacket deflates (so that would be it deflating slowly & evenly) there would be little risk of destabilisation of injury.

This is what stands out to me, how many by standers would know/ be trained to hold a spine in alignment as a jacket deflates?

Fair enough there maybe a BE medic on hand immediately if you happened to fall at a fence where they happen to be, what about at home, out hacking, hunting, xc schooling etc. Years ago I was ATLS trained I bet I am hugely out of date now though (although I have had the pleasure of stabilising my own daughters neck while waiting for an ambulance and spinal board at a local show) not sure I would want to take responsibility for immobilization again

 

[Daytona]

My sisters jacket that failed and dragged her was purchased not that long after they hit the market or became well know, I'd say she got it maybe 3 odd years ago, accident was about 1 year after having it. They replaced the jacket no problem and gave her £200 to replace her new ariat boots that had been ripped open from her being dragged.

 

[glamourpuss]

Spotted cat I haven't been able to find anything really relevant about destabilisation of spinal injuries. Most of my papers etc are just about the correct method of maintaining alignment so not really relevant.
I did find something on the use of vacuum mattress' instead of spinal boards - this is a mattress filled with tiny polystyrene balls. It is placed around the patient then the air sucked out so it forms a rigid support. I did wonder if the removal of air from this device could be similar to the deflation of an Airjacket...but I'm not sure & wouldn't be happy to throw that out as any sort of proof TBH.
I will continue to look & if I can get the go ahead for my experiment it should be interesting

 

[dieseldog]

Spotted cat I haven't been able to find anything really relevant about destabilisation of spinal injuries. Most of my papers etc are just about the correct method of maintaining alignment so not really relevant.
I did find something on the use of vacuum mattress' instead of spinal boards - this is a mattress filled with tiny polystyrene balls. It is placed around the patient then the air sucked out so it forms a rigid support. I did wonder if the removal of air from this device could be similar to the deflation of an Airjacket...but I'm not sure & wouldn't be happy to throw that out as any sort of proof TBH.
I will continue to look & if I can get the go ahead for my experiment it should be interesting

Last time I fell off I was put on an inflatable spinal board.