Sorry, nutloose, I should not have been flippant. When auditing, I often come across buyers, Stores and certifying staff who are not aware of this (MIP-G) requirement when procuring for commercial operators and/or 145 AMOs. This has resulted in groundings or quarantine of expensive stock. There is a bit more alleviation under Subpart F for parts for non-large, non-commercial aircraft.
Just as a thought, what would a company have to do to be able re-web a seatbelt and issue a part 21 or equivalent? For a welder to obtain approval they have to submit samples to test-house, perhaps a seatbelt fixer needs to submit to samples to a EASA knitting circle!
Located in Maidenhead, UK and Kassel, Germany the facilities are staffed with experienced technicians fully trained on allaspects of repair and overhaul of aircraft Fire Extinguishers, Pressure Vessels, Oxygen Bottles, Crew Oxygen Masks and Crew Seat Restraints.Pacific Scientific holds the relevant approvals from the regulatory authorities in order to undertake this work.
There is two ways in which the belts could be reupholstered legally for an EASA aircraft.
1. They could be re-webbed by an appropriately approved Part 145 facility, using a C (component overhaul) rating. This is providing that they the approved data to do the work, i.e. the manufacturers repair /overhaul manual. Note: Pacific Scientific have such a manual, but it is approved only for use by their service centres, no others.
2. The work is carried out to an EASA approved minor change (modification) by a Part 145 using the fabrication of parts route or the C rating route. The change approval reference must be quoted and if the belt has an original TSO tag installed, the TSO approval must be scrubbed through as this is invalidated when another organisations change is made to it.
I can personally vouch for Pacific Scientific, having been involved with there UK and German operations in the past.
BUT this doesn't answer my question - what would I have to do to become approved to change the webbing on a seatbelt? Surely, it wouldn't be necessary to be a part 145 organisation, but if it is then what kind of process would it require?. I know that approved welders just have to submit test pieces to a test-house but as far as I know they don't have to be a part 145 organisation to do welding work.
I'll try and pose my question to the CAA - see what they say.
If you have them "rewebbed", what actually happens is you send your old belts away, they refurb the metal parts as required, re web (in your choice of colour) and they come back with an 8130 (equiv. to a form 1). So for the paper trail its looks like you've fitted new belts.
I had a set done for a 150 Aerobat (hugely expensive & difficult to obtain from Cessna), cost about £800. I used APS at Lasham (they send them somewhere in the US), door-to-door was about 14 days. Very good quality. (Aeroplane in Perth if you want to check them out).
When I did my Rocket, I put BAS belts (4 point inertia) in the front. There is no calendar life on these belts, and they are very good. B.A.S., Inc. - Aircraft Safety Equipment and Accessories There is an AAN to cover most installs, PM if quote required for supply and fitting (in North East Jockistan).
For the rear belts I used a Cessna service kit that added the previously missing shoulder belts. The cost of the all in kit is much less than buying the individual elements, and worked out cheaper than a reweb.
Just had a look for you in the R182 and TR182 manual and it is the same, overhaul no, to be replaced every ten years.
I looked into it ages ago and I believe the Makers give no such life, rumour was the CAA/EASA were looking at going back to the on condition state on this, as said earlier the Cessna 152 and 150 have the same belts, one is on condition and the other is lifed, simply because the belts were missed out of one of the manuals.....
If an aircraft is used for 1000 hours a year then over 10 years you can see it, if its used for 50 and is hangared then the other way is sensible, again this used to be down to the engineers judgement and the system now just sucks, we even used to proof load test them.
Back to your's, read this, if you can ask the manufacturer of the belt if they have a life on them, then para 4 may help you, you might be able to go by the original manufacturers life and not Cessna's
The belt won't be made by Cessna, look on the back of the lap buckles, it will normally have the makers name on it, Pacific and Amsafe both have repair facilities in the UK, of which I have listed in posts above. Again it is down to your maintenance facility if they are happy with this and you may find they will want to clarify it with their Surveyor.
Quote from Cessna MM page scanned by 140KIAS:- Replacement- Item must be replaced with a.......serviceable item that.......has been rebuilt as defined in FAR 43.2. Therefore I would definitely argue that rewebbed/overhauled belts are perfectly acceptable as a "replacement".
24 Years of flying Cessnas, never had a guy flag 'your seatbelts are out of date'....did have some guys try to pull the 'your seatbelts are rated for 1500lbs not the required 2500 lbs' or my favorite...'we can't find the load rating on your seatbelts, thus can't verify the poundage, so we will have to replace them'
This all translates into some very, very bored mechanics trying to make a buck, when more pressing items can't be found.
Further to my previous post here`s the relevant para from FAR 43.2:
(b) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being rebuilt unless it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item, using either new parts or used parts that either conform to new part tolerances and limits or to approved oversized or undersized dimensions.
So I think the No in the overhaul column is from the Cessna Legal Liability Avoidance Department!
Last edited by toolboxstickers; 3rd May 2010 at 18:17.
Reason: Adding last comment.