Originally Posted by
john_tullamarine
I would have thought that a very high value of longitudinal deceleration would have been against it. More damage to the fuselage would have been desirable.
Concur with those thoughts.
And of course the vintage of the seats and restraints (9G longitudinal).
I have no idea what standards applied to the original Beaver certification (and am not overly interested in searching them out) but, being of ancient vintage, it might even predate the 9G static restraint.
re the seats... they may be of a rated G but what are the floor tracks?
Depending on the seat certification, one would expect that the seats are matched to the more restrictive of the aeroplane certification requirements and the seating standards of the day. Certainly that was the process at Ansair (an Ansett subsidiary, now long defunct) when, for many years, I was the certification delegate for aircraft seat manufacture.
accident (turbine DC3) that stalled on takeoff in ground effect and slid across the snow to a halt. Everyone survived, still safely in their seats. Except they were neatly piled up in the front end of the fuselage...
Again, one would need to know the relevant standards for the particular aircraft. The original DC3s had 6g static seats.
BCAR dated 1947 with a technical letter which purported to be harmonisation with CAR3 CAR3.386 specifies 9G forward for NUA. Seats coming out of fuselage structure has always been a problem, but particularly so with the Beaver and hence AD/DHC-2/26. Civil Aviation Medical Institute in OKC is having a bit of a review of FAR2?.562, but the industry will not be happy if the requirements go up (lets face it any tightening of the rules is not going to happen)