Upper Torso Restaints in GA Aircraft
Thread Starter
Upper Torso Restaints in GA Aircraft
The latest from our mates in the ATSB:
To Whom It May Concern:The ATSB is issuing a safety advisory notice to owners and operators of small aeroplanes manufactured before December 1986 and helicopters manufactured before September 1992 currently without upper torso restraints (shoulder strap or harness) fitted to all seats.The safety advisory notice strongly encourages operators and owners of these aeroplanes and helicopters to fit upper torso restraints to all seats in their aircraft. Accident experience provides substantial evidence that the use of upper torso restraints reduces the risk of serious injuries to the head, neck, and upper torso of aircraft occupants, and reduces the rate of fatalities for occupants involved in otherwise survivable aircraft accidents. A full copy of the safety advisory is available on the ATSB website (AO-2017-005-SAN-028). We have endeavoured to send this email to the owners of all potentially applicable aircraft. We apologise if this advice does not apply to your current aircraft.Any questions about the notice can be forwarded to: [email protected]
Anyone hazard a guess as to how much the engineering would costs involved to retro fit your average 4 seater GA bugsmasha? Surely the same risks would apply to occupants in the cattle class seats of your A320, 737 etc. My guess is that someone in that office is behind on their KPIs and had to come up with something - anything.
To Whom It May Concern:The ATSB is issuing a safety advisory notice to owners and operators of small aeroplanes manufactured before December 1986 and helicopters manufactured before September 1992 currently without upper torso restraints (shoulder strap or harness) fitted to all seats.The safety advisory notice strongly encourages operators and owners of these aeroplanes and helicopters to fit upper torso restraints to all seats in their aircraft. Accident experience provides substantial evidence that the use of upper torso restraints reduces the risk of serious injuries to the head, neck, and upper torso of aircraft occupants, and reduces the rate of fatalities for occupants involved in otherwise survivable aircraft accidents. A full copy of the safety advisory is available on the ATSB website (AO-2017-005-SAN-028). We have endeavoured to send this email to the owners of all potentially applicable aircraft. We apologise if this advice does not apply to your current aircraft.Any questions about the notice can be forwarded to: [email protected]
Anyone hazard a guess as to how much the engineering would costs involved to retro fit your average 4 seater GA bugsmasha? Surely the same risks would apply to occupants in the cattle class seats of your A320, 737 etc. My guess is that someone in that office is behind on their KPIs and had to come up with something - anything.
Anyone hazard a guess as to how much the engineering would costs involved to retro fit your average 4 seater GA bugsmasha?
I notice it doesn't appear to be mandatory - 'strongly encourages' rather than 'requires'. It is a simple fact that you're less likely to be seriously injured or worse if you have a combined shoulder harness and lap belt rather than just the lap belt, so it seems like good advice to me?
I fly an aircraft type that has an exceptionally good record for occupant protection. In fact, short of normal/high speed CFIT events, the number of deaths in said aircraft type could be counted on less than one hand, despite it being a common type. (Insert stats here, say the peanuts)
I chose that aircraft type deliberately for that reason.
I can see the day when aircraft are given ancap style ratings and airbags like in a Cirrus become standard equipment. Even the A330 has airbags on selected seats seatbelts.
75% of fatalities in motor vehicles in Victoria last year, were in vehicles 10 years or older. The average age of vehicles in Australia is circa 10.2 years. 25% of fatalities in Victoria this year were persons not wearing seat belts. That figure could be a lot higher as many were undetermined.
Safety features do actually save lives!
Last edited by Squawk7700; 17th Oct 2019 at 04:44.
But there are still accidents involving deaths in those aircraft. So what’s the point of your rhetorical question: “How much does it replace to cost a life? Oh wait... you can’t!”, in response to YPJT’s comment on costs?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under Class C
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this is a no-brainer? It is a strongly recommend, so not mandatory. But if you could afford to do it, and wanted to, why wouldn't you. In a way its just stating the bleeding obvious, you are safer with a upper body restraint, so hey folks, you should consider it. Seems a totally reasonable thing for them to put out. Or is anyone really going to try and argue it makes you unsafer so they are trying to force a stupid requirement on you.
Moderator
The preference for upper body restraint goes back many years.
The principal concern relates to head injuries in a mishap with a useful measure being the Head Injury Criterion (or HIC).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_injury_criterion for some basic discussion.
The use of upper body restraint doesn't necessarily prevent head impact but it reduces the velocity and likely damage due to impact.
On a side note, the other concern relates to sidefacing seats where the use of standard seat belts and harnesses is a bit deficient in respect of upper body restraint. The typical flight attendent style of harness is far better for sidefacing restraint and does a much better job of protecting the occupant.
As to the OP's question -
Anyone hazard a guess as to how much the engineering would costs involved to retro fit your average 4 seater GA bugsmasha? Surely the same risks would apply to occupants in the cattle class seats of your A320, 737 etc. My guess is that someone in that office is behind on their KPIs and had to come up with something - anything.
(a) the engineering costs should be at the lower end of the scale as the design work is pretty straightforward. The harness/belt assembly will be a reasonably predictable cost. The maintenance cost, in all probability, will be the major component depending on how much work needs to be done on the aircraft to create suitable hardpoints for the hardware attachments. The usual problem concern is the change in load paths and whether the extant structure is up to the job. That is to say, there are no simple answers until an appropriate design engineer has a good review of the structure on offer.
Keep in mind it is not just a matter of bolting in a harness to a rigid structure and flying off merrily. What one is trying to do is provide a useful energy absorbing system with an intent to reduce peak and average mishap head accelerations to more sustainable levels.
(b) so far as the heavies are concerned, of course the risks are similar in concept. Where there may be a difference lies in the extent of lethality inherent in the structures - hence the use of such workarounds as delethalisation foam assemblies. The overarching concern is the HIC assessment - there are various ways which one can pursue this goal.
(c) as for someone in a back office considering their KPIs, I think not. The subject is fairly well understood and such a recommendation (presumably as an education effort) is to be applauded.
The principal concern relates to head injuries in a mishap with a useful measure being the Head Injury Criterion (or HIC).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_injury_criterion for some basic discussion.
The use of upper body restraint doesn't necessarily prevent head impact but it reduces the velocity and likely damage due to impact.
On a side note, the other concern relates to sidefacing seats where the use of standard seat belts and harnesses is a bit deficient in respect of upper body restraint. The typical flight attendent style of harness is far better for sidefacing restraint and does a much better job of protecting the occupant.
As to the OP's question -
Anyone hazard a guess as to how much the engineering would costs involved to retro fit your average 4 seater GA bugsmasha? Surely the same risks would apply to occupants in the cattle class seats of your A320, 737 etc. My guess is that someone in that office is behind on their KPIs and had to come up with something - anything.
(a) the engineering costs should be at the lower end of the scale as the design work is pretty straightforward. The harness/belt assembly will be a reasonably predictable cost. The maintenance cost, in all probability, will be the major component depending on how much work needs to be done on the aircraft to create suitable hardpoints for the hardware attachments. The usual problem concern is the change in load paths and whether the extant structure is up to the job. That is to say, there are no simple answers until an appropriate design engineer has a good review of the structure on offer.
Keep in mind it is not just a matter of bolting in a harness to a rigid structure and flying off merrily. What one is trying to do is provide a useful energy absorbing system with an intent to reduce peak and average mishap head accelerations to more sustainable levels.
(b) so far as the heavies are concerned, of course the risks are similar in concept. Where there may be a difference lies in the extent of lethality inherent in the structures - hence the use of such workarounds as delethalisation foam assemblies. The overarching concern is the HIC assessment - there are various ways which one can pursue this goal.
(c) as for someone in a back office considering their KPIs, I think not. The subject is fairly well understood and such a recommendation (presumably as an education effort) is to be applauded.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under Class C
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like it came from the report linked in another thread today on a C172M crash at Agnes Waters:
CASA has stated that it will not be mandating the fitment of upper torso restraints, even for air transport flights in small aircraft. Given that a significant number of small aircraft in Australia still do not have upper torso restraints in non-front row seats, the ATSB has issued a safety recommendation to CASA. The ATSB recommends that CASA consider mandating the fitment of upper torso restraints for all seats in small aircraft, particularly those used for air transport operations and/or aircraft where the manufacturer has issued a mandatory service bulletin to fit upper torso restraints for all seats. While this is being considered by CASA, the ATSB has issued a safety advisory notice to encourage all owners and operators of small aircraft to fit upper torso restraints for all passenger seats to minimise injury risk. CASA has also advised that air transport operators of small aeroplanes will be required to brief passengers about when and how to adopt a brace position. Finally, the ATSB has issued a safety recommendation to CASA to improve its procedures and guidance for scoping surveillance events.
CASA has stated that it will not be mandating the fitment of upper torso restraints, even for air transport flights in small aircraft. Given that a significant number of small aircraft in Australia still do not have upper torso restraints in non-front row seats, the ATSB has issued a safety recommendation to CASA. The ATSB recommends that CASA consider mandating the fitment of upper torso restraints for all seats in small aircraft, particularly those used for air transport operations and/or aircraft where the manufacturer has issued a mandatory service bulletin to fit upper torso restraints for all seats. While this is being considered by CASA, the ATSB has issued a safety advisory notice to encourage all owners and operators of small aircraft to fit upper torso restraints for all passenger seats to minimise injury risk. CASA has also advised that air transport operators of small aeroplanes will be required to brief passengers about when and how to adopt a brace position. Finally, the ATSB has issued a safety recommendation to CASA to improve its procedures and guidance for scoping surveillance events.
Squawk:
Again showing your excellent grasp of statistics and cost benefit analysis(not).
1. Insurance companies have these professional employees called actuaries. Their job is precisely to put a cost on peoples lives, a process that happens every time an insurance premium is computed. This is obviously unknown to you. I include the Wiki reference for you.
2. By your simple and incorrect logic, we should all be wearing crash helmets and have our cars fitted with four point harnesses and roll cages. Obviously we don't, so that should have triggered the thought that perhaps something else is going on here. Pity it didn't.
3. That "something else" is called risk management which involves cost benefit analysis. The billions in materials and lost time involved in making all cars and drivers adopt Bathurst race safety standards outweigh the cost of the vehicle accidents. The converse - we wear mandatory bicycle helmets, cheap protection from serious and frequent injury.
4. As for "ancap style " safety ratings, dream on. We don't have enough data.
5. Then there is the problem of "risk shifting" which is code for people doing dumb things in Cirrus aircraft because they thought the parachute would save them.
What can perhaps be said is that if the ATSB can prove that there is a measureable improvement in safety to back seat passengers which would result in the saving of "x" lives or serious injuries costing "Z" dollars, and the total cost of implementing such safety measures is less than "Z" on a discounted cash flow basis, then it makes sense to do it. My guess is it doesn't.
As for road fatalities versus vehicle age. You fail to understand that correlation does not imply causation.
Lest anyone think these are new ideas specific to cars and aircraft, the horse era had its own set of accidents and attempts at mitigation. Then there was Samuel Plimsoll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causation
How much does it replace to cost a life? Oh wait... you can’t!
I can see the day when aircraft are given ancap style ratings and airbags like in a Cirrus become standard equipment. Even the A330 has airbags on selected seats seatbelts.
75% of fatalities in motor vehicles in Victoria last year, were in vehicles 10 years or older. The average age of vehicles in Australia is circa 10.2 years. 25% of fatalities in Victoria this year were persons not wearing seat belts. That figure could be a lot higher as many were undetermined.
Safety features do actually save lives!
75% of fatalities in motor vehicles in Victoria last year, were in vehicles 10 years or older. The average age of vehicles in Australia is circa 10.2 years. 25% of fatalities in Victoria this year were persons not wearing seat belts. That figure could be a lot higher as many were undetermined.
Safety features do actually save lives!
1. Insurance companies have these professional employees called actuaries. Their job is precisely to put a cost on peoples lives, a process that happens every time an insurance premium is computed. This is obviously unknown to you. I include the Wiki reference for you.
2. By your simple and incorrect logic, we should all be wearing crash helmets and have our cars fitted with four point harnesses and roll cages. Obviously we don't, so that should have triggered the thought that perhaps something else is going on here. Pity it didn't.
3. That "something else" is called risk management which involves cost benefit analysis. The billions in materials and lost time involved in making all cars and drivers adopt Bathurst race safety standards outweigh the cost of the vehicle accidents. The converse - we wear mandatory bicycle helmets, cheap protection from serious and frequent injury.
4. As for "ancap style " safety ratings, dream on. We don't have enough data.
5. Then there is the problem of "risk shifting" which is code for people doing dumb things in Cirrus aircraft because they thought the parachute would save them.
What can perhaps be said is that if the ATSB can prove that there is a measureable improvement in safety to back seat passengers which would result in the saving of "x" lives or serious injuries costing "Z" dollars, and the total cost of implementing such safety measures is less than "Z" on a discounted cash flow basis, then it makes sense to do it. My guess is it doesn't.
As for road fatalities versus vehicle age. You fail to understand that correlation does not imply causation.
Lest anyone think these are new ideas specific to cars and aircraft, the horse era had its own set of accidents and attempts at mitigation. Then there was Samuel Plimsoll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causation
Vag, I’m not surprised that STC’d mods are available. Perhaps they are a good idea if you regularly carry back seat pax. What annoys me is the emotive use of pseudo statistics.
P . S. I’m also very mindful of the old jewish saying:. “from your lips to Gods ears”. I will probably die in an accident in the back of a C172, unrestrained by a torso harness.
P . S. I’m also very mindful of the old jewish saying:. “from your lips to Gods ears”. I will probably die in an accident in the back of a C172, unrestrained by a torso harness.
Many of the Cessna and I think some Piper have the hard point for the shoulder harness already in place.
In many countries it would be very simple and cheap to just fit the shoulder harness buy drilling the hole/s in the trim to reveal the anchor nut/s.
Unless a STC covers this then you will need a EO for Australia to do the same and that seems to start at $1,000 per aircraft.
For aircraft without the already fitted hard points, I see two simple (but not cheap in Australia) ways to fit a shoulder harness. A bracket fitted to the back of the seat base or to the seat track.
The later the easiest as it can be like a current cargo net restraint fitted to a seat track.
CASA could give general rules that are considered accepted, as they have in the past for heater disablement. But they will not.
In many countries it would be very simple and cheap to just fit the shoulder harness buy drilling the hole/s in the trim to reveal the anchor nut/s.
Unless a STC covers this then you will need a EO for Australia to do the same and that seems to start at $1,000 per aircraft.
For aircraft without the already fitted hard points, I see two simple (but not cheap in Australia) ways to fit a shoulder harness. A bracket fitted to the back of the seat base or to the seat track.
The later the easiest as it can be like a current cargo net restraint fitted to a seat track.
CASA could give general rules that are considered accepted, as they have in the past for heater disablement. But they will not.
Squawk:
Again showing your excellent grasp of statistics and cost benefit analysis(not).
1. Insurance companies have these professional employees called actuaries. Their job is precisely to put a cost on peoples lives, a process that happens every time an insurance premium is computed. This is obviously unknown to you. I include the Wiki reference for you.
2. By your simple and incorrect logic, we should all be wearing crash helmets and have our cars fitted with four point harnesses and roll cages. Obviously we don't, so that should have triggered the thought that perhaps something else is going on here. Pity it didn't.
3. That "something else" is called risk management which involves cost benefit analysis. The billions in materials and lost time involved in making all cars and drivers adopt Bathurst race safety standards outweigh the cost of the vehicle accidents. The converse - we wear mandatory bicycle helmets, cheap protection from serious and frequent injury.
4. As for "ancap style " safety ratings, dream on. We don't have enough data.
5. Then there is the problem of "risk shifting" which is code for people doing dumb things in Cirrus aircraft because they thought the parachute would save them.
What can perhaps be said is that if the ATSB can prove that there is a measureable improvement in safety to back seat passengers which would result in the saving of "x" lives or serious injuries costing "Z" dollars, and the total cost of implementing such safety measures is less than "Z" on a discounted cash flow basis, then it makes sense to do it. My guess is it doesn't.
As for road fatalities versus vehicle age. You fail to understand that correlation does not imply causation.
Lest anyone think these are new ideas specific to cars and aircraft, the horse era had its own set of accidents and attempts at mitigation. Then there was Samuel Plimsoll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causation
Again showing your excellent grasp of statistics and cost benefit analysis(not).
1. Insurance companies have these professional employees called actuaries. Their job is precisely to put a cost on peoples lives, a process that happens every time an insurance premium is computed. This is obviously unknown to you. I include the Wiki reference for you.
2. By your simple and incorrect logic, we should all be wearing crash helmets and have our cars fitted with four point harnesses and roll cages. Obviously we don't, so that should have triggered the thought that perhaps something else is going on here. Pity it didn't.
3. That "something else" is called risk management which involves cost benefit analysis. The billions in materials and lost time involved in making all cars and drivers adopt Bathurst race safety standards outweigh the cost of the vehicle accidents. The converse - we wear mandatory bicycle helmets, cheap protection from serious and frequent injury.
4. As for "ancap style " safety ratings, dream on. We don't have enough data.
5. Then there is the problem of "risk shifting" which is code for people doing dumb things in Cirrus aircraft because they thought the parachute would save them.
What can perhaps be said is that if the ATSB can prove that there is a measureable improvement in safety to back seat passengers which would result in the saving of "x" lives or serious injuries costing "Z" dollars, and the total cost of implementing such safety measures is less than "Z" on a discounted cash flow basis, then it makes sense to do it. My guess is it doesn't.
As for road fatalities versus vehicle age. You fail to understand that correlation does not imply causation.
Lest anyone think these are new ideas specific to cars and aircraft, the horse era had its own set of accidents and attempts at mitigation. Then there was Samuel Plimsoll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causation
I have no idea what your posts means Sunfish. Unsubscribe.
Posters here including myself are advocating that safety features save lives. That’s it. Nothing to do with insurance, causation, reckless behaviour or otherwise.
If you crash and have no safety features you are at a greater risk of injury or death.
If you crash with safety features, such as airbags, helmets or harnesses, you are more likely to survive.
You only get one life, so look after it and buy the best and most safe vehicle or aircraft that you can afford.
Precisely. We all make decisions, every day, that the cost of mitigating some risks is not worth paying, so we take them.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish:
Fun fact: 100% of Cirrus pilots who pulled the parachute during an emergency survived to fly again. Just ask any of them how much they valued their parachute in that very moment and I think you'll find a figure somewhat off of what actuaries and other mathematicians came up with.
As for actuaries, yes you're right: their work is to value, price and hedge human lives and scores of other things. You're welcome to include a digression to that effect in your next passenger brief, if you see fit. I personally still find it easier to explain to my passengers that wearing the shoulder strap is a mandatory precaution in my aircraft because knocking their head on the yoke would obviously leave an unwelcome bloodstain on the latter and a punch a hole in the former.
If my memory serves me right, wasn't it you (Sunfish), who, not so long ago, were decrying how bordering suicidal flying coastal from Melbourne to Brisbane for the average GA pilot was? Drawing on those comments, I would have expected your aircraft had at least two parachutes, airbags, a spare prop and rudder, life jackets and 3 ELTs.
5. Then there is the problem of "risk shifting" which is code for people doing dumb things in Cirrus aircraft because they thought the parachute would save them.
As for actuaries, yes you're right: their work is to value, price and hedge human lives and scores of other things. You're welcome to include a digression to that effect in your next passenger brief, if you see fit. I personally still find it easier to explain to my passengers that wearing the shoulder strap is a mandatory precaution in my aircraft because knocking their head on the yoke would obviously leave an unwelcome bloodstain on the latter and a punch a hole in the former.
If my memory serves me right, wasn't it you (Sunfish), who, not so long ago, were decrying how bordering suicidal flying coastal from Melbourne to Brisbane for the average GA pilot was? Drawing on those comments, I would have expected your aircraft had at least two parachutes, airbags, a spare prop and rudder, life jackets and 3 ELTs.
Last edited by Okihara; 17th Oct 2019 at 23:59.
Good friend flew his Baron into the side of a hill at night following take off at Port Lincoln, survivable crash if only he had the shoulder strap on. Found five hours after the crash, his body still warm, bled to death from head impacting instrument panel. If only he had worn the shoulder strap fitted.
Okihara:
The first rule of safety is not to put yourself in a position where you need all those gadgets. my understanding is that early on, Cirrus had a bad accident rate which has now been fixed by extra training.
If my memory serves me right, wasn't it you (Sunfish), who, not so long ago, were decrying how bordering suicidal flying coastal from Melbourne to Brisbane for the average GA pilot was? Drawing on those comments, I would have expected your aircraft had at least two parachutes, airbags, a spare prop and rudder, life jackets and 3 ELTs.
