Chuck:

I am sending this to you so you can glean what you can from my research. I was trying to find a standard like the standards which are required for motorcycle or bicycle helmets, which we could use to determine if a helmet should be used for BF jumping in Australia . Hope you find something interesting here.

Oscar Foot Mann

Report on requiring Australian Standards (AS) for helmets used in barefoot water-ski jumping 

The “Australian Standard for Sports Helmets” is no longer in print and has been unavailable since 1983. After a lot of reading I have concluded that there is no way we can require any type of “certification” for helmets used in barefoot water-ski jumping unless we want to spend a LOT on money to do so.

The AS test and certify only those helmets that the manufacturer pays to have tested. But that is not the major obstacle in our requiring an AS certification. The fact that the AS has different standards for different helmet uses is the major flaw in using an “AS” certification as our criteria. 

The AS certification sticker is found on bicycle helmets, cricket helmets, equestrian helmets, motorcycle helmets, etc.. All of these helmets have different test criteria, but they all have AS certification. The certification number on the AS sticker is different for the specific helmet uses. There are no test criteria or certification number for helmets used in barefoot water-ski jumping. That would require our paying for laboratory testing to establish a standard and being awarded our own certification number. This expense is typically spread out and absorbed by an entire industry or by a government. This is a VERY expensive procedure. 

I found no “hockey” helmets that have been AS certified. They may exist. I did not directly contact all the hockey helmet manufacturers to query this but none appeared in my search of the AS.

I found many hockey helmets with Canadian Standards certification. Interestingly I found that there are a lot of issues and debates with the Canadian Standard for hockey helmets and helmet certifications in general. 

The shell of the helmet is not the protection and is in fact a liability due to its weight, ability to catch and cause neck/spinal cord injury, and its mass, which increases the inertia of the head. It is, in fact, the internal padding that mitigates the incidence of brain concussion and brain injury. 

Helmets with multi piece foam padding were the best for brain protection vs. a one-piece foam shock absorber. 

Helmets with a replaceable shock absorbing liners designed to crush on impact tested the highest while suspension type helmets offered no protection from severe impacts. 

Also it was stressed that even if a helmet had certification when it was sold that does not mean it will meet the certification when it is used. Helmet padding deteriorates with time and use, when it is compressed during impacts it loses efficacy, and certification standards change. 

The fit of the helmet is also vital to its efficacy. A helmet that might fit and protect one person might not be suitable for someone else.

I was also interesting to find that lacrosse helmets offer substantially more impact protection (2 to 3x) than hockey helmets. Actually the Canadian Standard for impact was highest for lacrosse helmets when compared to football and hockey helmets. 

In summary, I would recommend to our safety officials that they inspect helmets to insure there is padding and it has not deteriorated and is still resilient, that it is not a suspension type helmet, that it fits properly, and that it has good fasteners to hold it on the skier’s head in the event of an impact.

I would recommend to our skiers that if they want the most impact protection from the lightest helmet that they seek and buy a good lacrosse helmet and throw their old helmets away.