Seat restraint U/s
 

I posted the following (below) perhaps to the wrong forum and have no response.

"Another newbie (to the subject & forums) searching in the wilderness....Have spent hours and hours trawling on line in respect to EASA regulations in respect to a/c which are exempt cited as exempt from Upper Torso Restraints and the effect, if any a u/s P1 harness (diagonal) restraint would have regarding airworthiness in operating a/c for hire.

There appears some grey area (in my mind) in respect of if the a/c should be withdrawn from service or if a period is required for remedial action to be carried out.

A/c is under 2000kg category.

I trust this to be posted in the correct forum area....(I see a tag box below for 5 threads....what ever that means."


It appears to me that a some days earlier reported unserviceable item should receive some response from the hiring organisation, only seat harness but may have been mag, governor, fuel pump...etc.or am I mistaken?

CAT.IDE.A.205(b)(2) / OPS.GEN.480 Seat belts and harnesses (FAA)

Regards

Nearly no GA aircraft are provided with an approved Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Therefore it is very difficult for a pilot to assert that the aircraft is airworthy with ANY defect. At least with an MEL, the pilot can point to it, and say I can fly for x hours with this defect under y condition. As the pilot, you really don't want to be explaining how a person became injured for lack of an airworthy seatbelt - that would mean that you were flying an unairworthy aircraft.

As for any form of restraint, I would not fly the aircraft until it is entirely serviceable, it is your last line of personal defense from injury.

Thank you for reply, apologies for tardy response ...had jotted down p/w somewhere "safe"....

The saga continues ..had booked a/c for a week with promise of X amount of flying hours subject to MET, 50% paid in advance via card.

My understanding is a/c shall be classed unserviceable with P1 harness inop,
indeed it is entered in "service" log couple of days before as faulty.

Upon preflight the system was activated and tested and the inertia system checked perhaps 6 or 8 times and found to function as expected, the POH proclaims if fitted must be fastened.

Early start....Upon takeoff the diagonal unclipped and wound in ...and would not pull out to allow refastening........ so did circuit & returned....much pulling and messing the thing is locked and fully wound in the inertia system.

The aerodrome is un attended and no reply to phone calls so parked up & called it a day.

Operator believes I should forfeit the 50% paid as it was my decision to abort and they had turned down other bookings over the period....(allegedly)

I maintain the a/c had intermittent unserviceability issues and should have been withdrawn when fault first entered (simple ...withdrawn i.e take keys off the hook & prevent use, or place message on P1 seat as is custom & practice)

I do not agree to forfeit any sum the a/c went tech....end

I am I unjust in this stance?

To get some light in that dark tunnel - was this a aircraft, which requires a diagonal harness part or not? For example, if this happens in an older C172/F172 it is not a matter of unairworthiness, because the design is based on basic belly harness. Another one - when were the harnesses last changed? They do have a lifetime expired date. The diagonal upper body restraint harness is a known issue with 172s, same as the lever lock mechanism of the doors for newer ones ...

How often do we say "do not pay up front"?

You can't have been that keen to fly. It's not something I would have deemed a No-Go.


Many times I have simply clipped the lap strap and not bothered with the diagonal. I've known a number of pilots who do the same. I certainly wouldn't cancel my flying, but Hey-Ho, each to his own.

Risk v reward is a very personal thing, and I too would have aborted the flight knowing that if bad stuff happened I would not be as protected as I could have been.

Imagine someone having to explain to your child that "Daddy didn't come home because his head got smashed in during a crash, and that had he been wearing the full belt he would have survived."

That's my perspective, and yes, others will differ.

As for getting cash back, thats a tricky one as I suspect you had to pay something to secure the booking. The challenge is a purely legal one I suspect, and centres around what is classed as U/S. If the belt is not part of the required kit then I suspect you're not gonna win...

POH says that if fitted, it must be fastened, so if it cannot be fastened, the A/C is unservicable: = You were correct to return, and refuse to fly the aircraft again.

If you saw that the seatbelt had been reported faulty on a previous flight, and there was no evidence of the fault having been addressed: = You shouldn't have flown the aircraft in the first place.

Either way, they did not present you with a servicable aircraft, and so you should get your deposit back.

Just how you can do that depends on the rental agreement and the French legal system.


MJ:ok:

Ps. If you are ever asked to pay anything upfront in GA: = Probably best walk away.

Assuming that it was a private flight, Part-CAT is not relevant. You need to refer to Part-NCO:

This assumes that the state in which it all occurred had implemented Part-NCO (the UK hasn't). If Part-NCO had been implemented then the aircraft was not fit to fly without a serviceable torso restraint system in the flight crew seat. If Part-NCO had not been implemented, you would need to examine national legislation (if any).

You decided to abort as you discovery that the aircraft went U/S. Returning an aircraft which you are unwilling to fly due to U/S is the only thing to do. Tell them that they are lucky that you returned it to home base! Other bookings? The aircraft would have been unserviceable for them too.

A fully functioning seat belt is your last protection when everything else has gone wrong. What compensation would you take to not have that effective protection available? Tell the rental outfit that by returning the aircraft right away, you reduced their legal exposure to a lawsuit for injuries you sustained in their aircraft, which became U/S.

A "proper" rental agency would not stick you with costs beyond the operation of the aircraft, when you returned it upon discovery of what anyone would agree is a safety deficiency.

For years now, I have refused to fly in aircraft which do not have shoulder harnesses. The facts are overwhelming that their effective use prevents injuries. National authorities and aircraft manufacturers are busy making shoulder belts mandatory, so their is no argument to be raised to not require their use.

I also refuse to fly in an aircraft that does not have shoulder harnesses for the front seat. A friend of mine had the brakes fail and the aircraft went off the end of the runway and down a ditch. Because he had no shoulder belts his face smashed into the instrument panel. A year and 5 operations later his face was almost back to normal. Had he had a shoulder belt he would have sustained no injuries........

". A friend of mine had the brakes fail and the aircraft went off the end of the runway and down a ditch".


If a risk assessment was carried out on the likelihood of that happening I think it would be very low indeed. Would you abandon your car in the middle of nowhere because the inertia reel packed in?


I think not, though your chances of ending up in a ditch are far higher.

Nearly no GA aircraft are provided with an approved Minimum Equipment List (MEL). I know only a few without it and usually it is part of the POH. Where comes the idea for this statement from? Never looked in the POH? For example, the most prominent GA plane C172 has it as Part 5 in the POH. Or did I miss something in the discussion?

Regarding the trend towards fully comprehensive coverage for all situations in life - why? If you protect everything, or nearly everything, you provoke situations where you have to deal with nasty things otherwise statistically rare. If there is a harness, you survive more accidents, yes, but you will also survive much more severe crashes with heavier injuries, thus suffering heavier recovery situations and more likely things which will be unrecoverable. Life by all means and in all circumstances? No, not for me. If there is a serious crash and my odds are to die or to survive as being human vegetable later on, I choose to die in honor and dignity instead.

I've looked in each of the more than 40 POH/Flight Manuals in my library, before flying those aircraft, and at times to support my statements here.

Section 5 of the 172 POH (and every other modern Flight Manual is "Performance". Section 6 of Flight Manuals, "Weight and Balance" may contain an "Equipment List". This list does not constitute an approved "Minimum Equipment List" (MEL).

The MEL differs from a weight and balance "Equipment List" in that an MEL will allow the pilot to make a determination that the aircraft can be flown with a defect for a limited period of time. Sometimes compensating action or other required serviceability requirements are imposed.

Transport Canada presents MEL information:

In the absence of an MEL (which will be distinctly "Approved"), a pilot has very little grounds to fly an aircraft with a defect. One of the few examples which does go through okay would be "a nav light is U/S, but I'm only flying during the day". Otherwise, pilots are not qualified to perform the certification assessment as to the impact of a defect on the operation of an aircraft.

From my certification work, including Flight Manual and MEL development, I can assert that the only way an aircraft could be released to service with a U/S seatbelt would be if that seat was prohibited use, and that is done on airliners.

I recognize this argument as being the same one to justify not wearing helmets while riding motorcycles. Yes, I suppose it is up to you. If you are an adult, and knowingly choose to not be restrained in the cabin of an aircraft, that is your right (as long as you don't hit someone else when you fly around). I entirely don't agree with that way of thinking, but I respect individual choice. But please, once you have made that choice, and are preventably injured or killed, please don't prevail upon the common health care system. The costs are incredible.

So, to the OP, you're right to not fly an aircraft with a known safety defect. You have no authority to declare it flight worthy with a seatbelt defect. An operator would be wrong to charge you for your use of a U/S aircraft.

Interesting, I just had a look at the eight planes to be rented out here and they all have section five labelled mel. I was not aware that POHs are different from country to country?

Very interesting! What aircraft types are these? What registry? , If I may ask....

I know that MEL's can be nationally approved (meaning not a part of the original type design) but commonly they originate from the manufacturer, who is the presumed expert on the basic plane. An MEL which meets the North American certification requirement will include a "time" for rectification, they are never open ended. I suppose that another nation could do it differently, I only know North American MEL's

Flight Manual format evolved over the decades. In the 1970's GAMA (GA Manufacturer's Association) participated with the FAA to set a common Flight Manual fomat to allow predicable compliance with the FAR Part 23.1581 "Flight Manual" requirement. The accepted format is now: Section 1, General, Section 2, Limitations, Section 3, Emergency Procedures, Section 4 Normal Procedures, Section 5, Performance, Section 6, Weight and Balance, and Section 7, Systems information. When I submit a Flight Manual Supplement for approval, it must conform to that format. There can be some variance for larger aircraft with the inclusion of a section for "Abnormal Procedures" between Emerg, and Normal, but I've never seen one like that for a GA aircraft.

The key is to make the use of the Flight Manual very predictable for pilots. Interestingly, some Pipers (including the Twin Comanche) have both a "POH" and an FAA approved Flight Manual. The Flight Manual is the authoritative document for the operation of the aircraft. The POH is a very flashy, and wildly optimistic marketing document. Cessna, on the otherhand, has always provided only one, and it's accurate. Pilots just have to accept the variances of the older pre GAMA POH's, and similar documents, where no Flight Manual exists for an aircraft.

Thank you the a/c is not a Cessna of any type, do not propose to identify make of model for reasons which will be obvious.

Have actually flown into some North Yorkshire aerodromes Wombleton, Bagby (recall has northerly (ish) uphill rwy grass, also Rufforth and Sorborne in Elmeit.

Quite a difference is recognised from such as Rome Campino, Corcica Ajaccio, Nice Cote d’Azure, or even Vancouver Int, Blaine WA. and Kota Kinablu Int.

Is there not an old aviation anecdote …about there are bold or old pilots………?may be mistaken.

However, current dilemma with rental organisation is a first ...…if it’s in the POH and included in the rental organisations free issued check list, then call me fussy….as stated previously what if a intermittent mag of governor fault? or faulty DI ...may have landed @ RAF Linton instead of Wombleton?

I'm not quite sure I understand the question Lindberg, what information would help you?

I don't have anything to add on the legalities but I'd put in another vote for not flying without an upper torso restraint. In the course of 30 years of PPL flying I've known 4 pilots affected by 'sudden deceleration events' which, as a class, must surely rank as one of the more likely types of accident. The one fatal accident was particularly gruesome and involved pilot chest and head contact with the controls and instrument panel.

I'm definitely not averse to manged risks in aviation but I rate a proper restraint as a 'must have'. It's not that difficult: even my VLA bug smasher has a passable 4-point harness.

A very sad tale which serves as a reminder that upper torso restraint is essential:


Mother relives horror of 'white-knuckle' plane crash to Angel Falls that killed six-year-old son | Daily Mail Online