PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Engineers & Technicians
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Engineers & Technicians In this day and age of increased CRM and safety awareness, a forum for the guys and girls who keep our a/c serviceable.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 7th May 2010, 13:01   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: South of England
Posts: 1,366
Wasn't there something in the press a few months back where the German equivalent of the CAA raised an exemption from the seatbelt replacement nonsense.

How different from our own dear CAA
robin is offline   Reply
Old 9th May 2010, 16:03   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 140
http://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/sto...ct09/p5-20.pdf

Nutloose - this seems to be as official as it gets FFS!
Malcom is offline   Reply
Old 19th May 2010, 15:07   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 44
Posts: 4
no... we have had a life limit for any seatbelts of 12 years (national requirement of our NAA (LBA))

This life-limit is now canceled and we have to look for what the manufacturer tells us about the restraint.system.

But anyways... there are a few german Part-145 companies that have done an overhaul (or re-webbing) of our seat-belts. BUT... they have done it in absence of the manufacturers CMM (because they were not approved by AMsafe, Pacific Scientific or whoever was the OEM of these seat belts).

Now we have another problem: Just look for EASA SIB 2010-15

Of course this is only informational, but EASA informs us that all these re-webbed seatbelts are considered as "unairworthy"

so... please tell me what to do...
OttoB200 is offline   Reply
Old 22nd May 2010, 16:07   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a bolt
Posts: 8,853
You could get them rewebbed, what make are they? AMsafe, Pacific Scientific do have the facility to do them in house in the UK....... Possibly you have them in Germany too, they hold their own approvals under 145. you may find they can inspect them and recertify them for you.....
NutLoose is offline   Reply
Old 22nd May 2010, 16:15   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a bolt
Posts: 8,853
Malcom, isn't it stupid they cannot simply issue a statement or send out a letter, and they wonder why no one has any faith in the CAA any more....
NutLoose is offline   Reply
Old 22nd May 2010, 19:42   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On Earth
Posts: 104
There are companies in the USA that can 'Rebuild' the seatbelts and issue an 8130-3. This includes re-webbing, and inspecting - replacing as necessary (IRAN).
I've had mine done and so are a number of other folk who have contacted me.

As long as the belts have their TSO tags, there isn't a problem.
As per the Cessna Manual, rebuilt seatbelts are allowed to be refitted.
papa oscar is offline   Reply
Old 24th May 2010, 09:29   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Yeahbut, that would mean admitting they got it wrong at the outset knowing full well the regulations were still evolving,and panic set in when a few MOs who also jumped the gun with Part M started bleating.

Clarity from the CAA?
Any statements issued by the CAA are wrapped up in so much gobbledygook and spin, coupled with so much mis-information spread by their staff (and a worrying apparant lack of knowledge after a few recent phone calls on various matters) that they are clearly having troubles of their own. Blatant back-pedalling isnt an option, sweeping under carpets is.

I raise your with a
Malcom is offline   Reply
Old 24th May 2010, 19:40   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a bolt
Posts: 8,853

Its all indicitive of the way the CAA are these days Malcom.........poor, to find out what the head of policies and standards thought on the matter by having to read someones magazine is piss poor..... Indeed it is an aspect that is not viewed by all of the surveyors as legitimate I believe....

They seem to have little, no guidance or little idea as to what they are doing and it varies from one to another, so you get one company playing from a different rule book to the next, a lot of the staffing are no longer engineers but simply university fodder that simply do not have a clue......

When the first Engineering licencing guide was released I was dismayed to see under examples to qualify for twin piston pressurised metal aircraft they had listed as the examples. the Cessna 441 ( Conquest 2 Turboprop) and also the Cessna 500 ( Citation Jet )

When companies listed their types for part M approvals some were made to list such as Cessna 152, 172, 182, 210 etc where other ( different surveyors no doubt) were allowed to simply add Cessna piston single..

I was then totally dismayed at the farce of it all when I saw one company had been succesfull in having Cirrus twins on their approved listing.......... I do hope someone tells Cirrus about this imaginary aircraft.. at that point I felt like applying to put Hans Solos Millenium Falcon on our approval.. If they could have fictitious types, why can't I
NutLoose is offline   Reply
Old 9th Jun 2010, 22:44   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: states
Age: 59
Posts: 130
The 10 year replacement interval for the "restraint assembly" is only for the newer Cessna's that have airbags in the shoulder harness. This replacement interval is not applicable to older Cessna's that have seat belts.... They should be maintained "on condition".
rotormatic is offline   Reply
Old 9th Jun 2010, 23:48   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On Earth
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotormatic
The 10 year replacement interval for the "restraint assembly" is only for the newer Cessna's that have airbags in the shoulder harness. This replacement interval is not applicable to older Cessna's that have seat belts.... They should be maintained "on condition".
I suggest you go and read the maintenance manual again. It clearly states that seatbelts are to replaced with a new or rebuilt serviceable item every 10 years.
The aircraft such as my C177 never had airbags in the seatbelts, nor was it ever an option.
papa oscar is offline   Reply
Old 11th Jun 2010, 08:02   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 44
Posts: 4
correct,

you should look for the temporary revisions of the applicable maintenance manuals of your aircraft.

for example:

Cessna P210N - TR 6 dated 7th October 2002 states that restraint assy pilot, copilot and passenger seat is to be replaced every 10 yeras. As well Cessna tells you that an OVH is not allowed.

Remark: These Temporary Revisions are NOT incorporated into the Service Manuals of any aircraft - You have to look on your own where to find these Revisions.
By the way... i´m still using ATP-Microfiches with update service.

One more thing:

Cessna tells us to replace all vacuum system hoses and pitot static system hoses as well every 10 years. According to Cessna PTFE engine hoses are to be replaced every 10 years as well.
All these items are "new" to these aircraft.
OttoB200 is offline   Reply
Old 11th Jun 2010, 08:54   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 140
But they are not airworthiness limitations so are not mandatory, just need to be assessed as part of your customised maintenance program.

From the IAOPA thing earlier: ""Jim McKenna, Head of Policy and Standards, was very clear that such manufacturer’s stipulations had no legal enforceability, and the situation could be avoided by simply agreeing with the maintainer an appropriate approved amendment of the LAMP"".

On condition for me.


EDIT: This is of course only in the UK section of EASAs level playing field!
Malcom is offline   Reply
Old 11th Jun 2010, 09:50   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 44
Posts: 4
true as well, BUT...

Quote:
just need to be assessed as part of your customised maintenance program
it will not be assessed in the maintenance program if someone tells you that only new cessnas are affected.
OttoB200 is offline   Reply
Old 11th Jun 2010, 11:15   #54 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 140
They will not be assessed only if that someone is Mr Cessna.
Malcom is offline   Reply
Old 11th Dec 2012, 03:51   #55 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Warsaw
Posts: 1
2.5 years later... where do we stand?

Our 2003 C172 is coming up on 10 years and our mechanic tells us we have to do sth about those seatbelts. the quote we got if we do it through UK is close to 3000 USD!! and not much better from Germany.
I got a quote from Cessna dealer in Florida and brand new(all 4 seats) would be around 1700 usd but that doesn't include tax nor customs nor shipping to EU.
Is there any rule that finally allows common sense to take effect and not replace perfect looking seat belts?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
latajacyholender is offline   Reply
Old 28th Dec 2012, 22:24   #56 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a bolt
Posts: 8,853
The new servicing schedule we were due to get in the UK was cancelled as they are looking into the whole thing I believe to bring out a more sensible less stringent programme, as they realise it is killing the lighter side of the industry, and without that it has a knock on effect for airlines.

As for now, I have had belts rebuilt, but not at work until the end ofnext week

For now best I can say is read page 4

http://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/sto...ct09/p5-20.pdf

Last edited by NutLoose; 28th Dec 2012 at 22:32.
NutLoose is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 05:16   #57 (permalink)
jxk
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 560
@Nutloose
That PDF doesn't seem to have a page 4 and the article is dated in 2009.
It's still my understanding that the seatbelts need replacing every 10 years as it's in the Maintenance Manual.
Whether a Part M could come up with and get approved a programme amending the seatbelt replacement requirement would be interesting. But then they would probably take the legal consequences should a failure happen.
jxk is online now   Reply
Old 30th Dec 2012, 20:26   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 581
NutLoose

Re your note about the 'twin engine Cirrus' comment a few posts (and years) back. I saw the same thing when going through the Part-M Subpart F/G(I) saga.

At the time we were told we could only have on our approval, types for which we held current airworthiness data. I therefore requested (in writing) that we put Captain Scarlet's Angel Interceptors on our approval as I was sure there was more maintenance data available than for a Cirrus twin....

My understanding on the Cessna seat belt issue (comes up every CAA engineering seminar) was that if you could justify not doing them to the authority with a sound reason then that would be acceptable. A 10 year old privately owned, hangared, aircraft is unlikely to have belts suffering the same as a club hack that lives out doors in the sun and rain.

As you say, jxk, what a judge would say if there was ever a fatal involving insurance/compensation claims it would be a difficult case - especially for the engineer/organisation involved.

I do believe that there is a company in Scandanavia who can re-web Cessna seat belts and issue an EASA Form One for the work.
smarthawke is offline   Reply
Old 31st Dec 2012, 10:10   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 5,291
Amsafe in the UK have the approval to overhaul the Cessna seatbelts but won't do them, it would seem that they have a deal to supply only new seatbelts to Cessna.

I think that this is called a Monopoly and is illegal in both the UK & USA but to bring it to court it would cost a whole lot more than you would save on a few seatbelts.

Last edited by A and C; 31st Dec 2012 at 10:11.
A and C is offline   Reply
Old 31st Dec 2012, 21:35   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,078
Re- A&C's post above,- IF the company concerned is withholding services which it is licensed to perform (or making the supply of those services prohibitively expensive for the customer, )then one could argue that not only are they in a monopoly position* BUT they are abusing it with the knowledge and collusion of the license -issuing authority.

Unless the CAA are aware, they can't to anything about it.....surely it's time for a Cessna Owners' group to inform them and put a few bob in the hat to rattle their cage.

From my experience of Public Service Mandarins, they'll look for an easy way out....confrontation and adverse publicity would affect their carreer prospects.

The National Press could surely pick up a story on this legalised robbery and unjustified ecologically unsound destruction of perfectly serviceable equipment.

* I appreciate that in SOME esoteric fields, there is simply not enough business for more than one commercial undertaking, but if their profiteering becomes excessive, a competitor becomes viable,-UNTIL the original monopoly "reviews" it's costs and undercuts the competitor.

Unfortunately, I've seen it happen several times in the Motor-Trade.
cockney steve is online now   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 18:14.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network