I have had a crash with a pretty good forward impact. I was wearing a 5 point harness and I’m pretty convinced that the outcome would have been very different if I was wearing a standard seat belt. I would prefer a 5 point harness and I think all airplanes should have them.
Since that isn’t available an airbag could improve your chances in a sudden stop of your airplane.
Every airliner I have flown has a 5 point harness for the pilots. Think about that.
Also back in the day when many airplanes had only lap belts there were a lot of people killed that would be alive if they had a simple shoulder harness.
I think of each safety measure as a layer of defense that looks like a piece of Swiss cheese. Every layer has holes in it. Stack up the layers and the holes are less likely to line up.
Colin wrote:There was an accident off SMO when I was first flying. A guy in his Bonanza would have lived if he had installed the shoulder belts.
Colin, if that is the same accident that I am thinking of, the pilot failed to remove a makeshift phillips screwdriver gust lock and went off the end of the runway? That said, does anyone know of any studies or white papers of GA aircraft accidents where airbags were installed? It would be an interesting read.
Funny thing about safety items like air bags. If you are the type of guy that is willing to pay extra for them you are also the type of guy that is less likely to be involved in an accident. A safety mindset has many benefits.
Don, it wasn't a makeshift gustlock, that was in a Cessna and the guy was having an affair with his student and had a few drinks with her at Typhoon.
This was an Angel Flight. The pilot was an old game show host. The plane had just been worked on at the shop I was using on the field. The NTSB report found them partially at fault for not re-fastening something. I stopped using them after that except to fill my O2 bottle and change a flat.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The failure of an aviation maintenance technician to properly torque and cotter pin the number 2 connecting rod bolts at their attach point to the crankshaft, which resulted in the separation of the connecting rod in flight, and complete power loss.
The engine lost power during the takeoff-initial climb and the pilot ditched the airplane in the ocean. Examination showed that the number 2 connecting rod fractured from the crankshaft. Metallurgical examination of the connecting rod, and associated bolts, nuts, and bearings, showed that following the first nut and bolt separation, the overall separation was not instantaneous. After the first nut unthreaded from its respective bolt, subsequent increased loads on the opposite bolt then stripped the threads of the other nut that had partially unthreaded from its bolt. Furthermore, there was no evidence of cotter pin installation. In general, a properly torqued nut and connecting rod bolt will not loosen under normal operational conditions. The engine underwent a field overhaul 735.31 hours prior to the accident. At 233.59 hours prior to the accident, the cylinders were removed for a blow by condition during an annual inspection; however, the aviation maintenance technician who performed this work stated that he did not remove the connecting rods from the crankshaft. Review of the autopsy results and impact damage to the wreckage indicated that the occupants' use of shoulder harnesses would have significantly increased their chances of survival.
Some time ago, it was pointed out that airline passenger seats that were not positioned behind another seat (as in a bulkhead row) may not comply with the crash survivability requirements of 14 CFR Part 25.562. Airlines quickly moved to adopt seatbelt airbags as a solution, with 150,000 installed so far. Some very impressive videos online about testing the systems to meet specs. A mature technology, operationally they seem to be working out quite well.
Happy to have airbag seatbelts in mine. Layers (literally) of protection and all that...
Colin wrote:Don, it wasn't a makeshift gustlock, that was in a Cessna and the guy was having an affair with his student and had a few drinks with her at Typhoon.
This was an Angel Flight. The pilot was an old game show host. The plane had just been worked on at the shop I was using on the field. The NTSB report found them partially at fault for not re-fastening something. I stopped using them after that except to fill my O2 bottle and change a flat.
Thanks Colin. Yes, I recall that one too. He ditched the plane in the surf line. Sad story.
As for the CFI taking off after drinking, I guess you can say there is always going to be stupid people.
Keith M wrote:There are running costs associated with the standard seatbelts as well, at least in EASA-land. My DA40 TDI is 12 years old next week, so has to have its seatbelts replaced, otherwise I can no longer fly it.
If you operate your aircraft exclusively according to Part-NCO, you can deviate from the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA), as long as the maintenance task is not included in the Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) of the ICA – even in EASA-land. To my knowledge, the "life limit" of the seat belts is not in the ALS of the ICA (Chapter 4 of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual), but in Chapter 5 (05-10-00 page 6).
Depending on the CAMO and/or the competent authority, you may need to self-declare the maintenance programme in case you want to apply a deviation to the seat belt replacement interval, but for ELA-1 aircraft self-declaration is an option. Please refer to Part-M, M.A.302 (h) (3) to identify the legal basis. You can download Part-M here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 017%29.pdf:
Question about AmSafe belts?? My airplane is in for annual and the shop tells me the Am Safe inflator bottle have expired and also this renders the airplane Un-airworthy ?? Does anyone know if there is a possibility of a waiver or some other method of making it legal to fly while waiting for parts and install?? The word I am getting is 4 to 6 weeks for parts to arrive??
Thanks, Mert
