A bit about wires.
Thanks for that link, Brian .. I'll go through it in detail at my leisure ... definitely likely to learn a thing or two, I'd warrant.
Quite different operational environments .. loading is static on the ground, winch is dynamic with variable loading. The former doesn't need an overly high RF .. (for me, at least) I'd be designing the winch installation for a rather more comfortable RF .. just in case I might find myself on the end of the line for some strange reason.
Advice is to fly a Bell 205, pilot seat was placarded for a minimum of 170 pounds up front - CoG related, and the inability to control pitch up in the event of an engine failure.
Quite often, when we run up a "load rules" style of loading system, we will specify minimum and/or maximum seat and baggage limits to keep the aircraft within the envelope. Long time since I looked at a 205 but I presume that the cyclic limits are incorporated into the loading data.
Load rules generally are used for small aircraft but can be seen with some of the heavier .. eg the 125 family is a pussycat for loading and usually doesn't warrant anything fancier than fairly simple load rules.
minimum? bottom line, different criteria discussed here. 170lbs is the weight for regulatory compliance such as seat testing.
Quite so. The first will be an aircraft loading restriction, the latter the airworthiness design standard load.
per square foot is much different that per seat.
As in a previous post, the seat attachment has naught to do with the distributed floor loading .. the rails or hardpoints go into a substantial frame of one sort or another.
The only time one usually sees the two related is for freight floor loading if the seat is removed .. that, usually, covers the situation that the AFM doesn't give enough detail in the loading section to allow for seat attach frame strength. If one, on the other hand, were designing a freight restraint system, one might well investigate the frame restraint and use a higher capability for a specific system.