lap belt versus harness
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 3 Degrees North
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lap belt versus harness
A question I have been asking myself lately, which someone may have an answer for.
I am now flying an R44 instead of Bell aircrafts and find the lapbelt, car lookalike, a little "unerving". That might be a personal state of mind I suppose. Do others feel the same? Is there a conversion legally approved for standard lapbelt to harness available? Or is this lapbelt as good as a harness when the crunch is up?
Tks. WLM
I am now flying an R44 instead of Bell aircrafts and find the lapbelt, car lookalike, a little "unerving". That might be a personal state of mind I suppose. Do others feel the same? Is there a conversion legally approved for standard lapbelt to harness available? Or is this lapbelt as good as a harness when the crunch is up?
Tks. WLM
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
A lap belt is only a "lower body restraint" to keep you in the seat, so the upper body is presumably not restrained at all.
In the event of a forwards or sideways impact, use your imagination about what could happen, especially if a protective helmet isn't worn.
A personal choice. Not for me, thanks.
In the event of a forwards or sideways impact, use your imagination about what could happen, especially if a protective helmet isn't worn.
A personal choice. Not for me, thanks.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WLM,
Unless they have changed recently R44s are fitted with lap and diagonal chest restraint belts. However, your point is well made that the degree of restraint is less than a full harness.
The R44 belt only has 3 hard points on the airframe per seat. This rather limits the options. I cannot imagine that Frank would be happy for you to go drilling holes in his design
I am a bit worried by the reliability of the inertia reel found in many restraints, but having them certainly makes it easier to stretch to far flung parts of the cabin.
Unless they have changed recently R44s are fitted with lap and diagonal chest restraint belts. However, your point is well made that the degree of restraint is less than a full harness.
The R44 belt only has 3 hard points on the airframe per seat. This rather limits the options. I cannot imagine that Frank would be happy for you to go drilling holes in his design
I am a bit worried by the reliability of the inertia reel found in many restraints, but having them certainly makes it easier to stretch to far flung parts of the cabin.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 3 Degrees North
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops, sorry. Yes I meant the lap and diagonal restraint seat belt system in the R44.
I will check with the local dealer about the 4 points restraint harness kit mentioned.
As a matter of personal interest, why did F. Robinson choose to use the lap/diagonal system?
Cheers
WLM
I will check with the local dealer about the 4 points restraint harness kit mentioned.
As a matter of personal interest, why did F. Robinson choose to use the lap/diagonal system?
Cheers
WLM
The latest EC135 crash in Strathclyde reported that the passengers in the back would have been much less likely to have suffered their injuries if atleast a four point harness had been fitted rather than the standard diagonal (car) seat restraint.
We have gone further and fitted the anti submarine seat restraint (5 point). For what it's worth.
A simple lap strap, in my humble opinion, is a complete waste of time. Think of all that flailing around and glancing blows to the a/c structure etc
Then you add to this, people flying in one of these mickey mouse harnesses with little or no head gear on
No thank you!
Any helos out there yet with air bags as standard?
We have gone further and fitted the anti submarine seat restraint (5 point). For what it's worth.
A simple lap strap, in my humble opinion, is a complete waste of time. Think of all that flailing around and glancing blows to the a/c structure etc
Then you add to this, people flying in one of these mickey mouse harnesses with little or no head gear on No thank you!
Any helos out there yet with air bags as standard?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Restraint systems...
Check out the following...
http://www.schroth.com/produkte/aviation/index.htm
Click on "Restraints" on the left. I don't know if they have any "approved" kits for the R44, but I'm sure they can tell you. I know that they also make "water activated" unlocking mechanisms for restraints. If you have to ditch and do not manually unlock your harness within three seconds or so, it will unlock your harness for you... pretty cool.
http://www.schroth.com/produkte/aviation/index.htm
Click on "Restraints" on the left. I don't know if they have any "approved" kits for the R44, but I'm sure they can tell you. I know that they also make "water activated" unlocking mechanisms for restraints. If you have to ditch and do not manually unlock your harness within three seconds or so, it will unlock your harness for you... pretty cool.
Probably used because there is no cyclic to headbutt and if you hit your helmet into the airframe it will give before your helmet will........
I think the lap/diagonals are inertia activated and I have seen them adequately restrain a R22 pilot who rolled along the ground at 70kts, so I guess they work.
I think the lap/diagonals are inertia activated and I have seen them adequately restrain a R22 pilot who rolled along the ground at 70kts, so I guess they work.
If they didnt work they wouldnt be fitted. Robinson helicopters were designed for civilian use, the seat belt mechanism is therefore a lot simpler to understand and passengers can fit and remove the belt easily without having to think about it too much.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 3 Degrees North
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misterbonkers
I can't see the relationship between Civilian use and Military use when you crash, I don't really think it hurts in different way....
From the various posted anwers above, we as pilots on a commercial level, generally prefer the safety and feel of a full harness. "Civilian" passengers as you mention, would probably feel the same if they were fully made aware of the subtle difference.
I am just curious on why the use of the lap/diagonal seatbelt is only used in Robinson helicopters?
I can't see the relationship between Civilian use and Military use
when you crash, I don't really think it hurts in different way....From the various posted anwers above, we as pilots on a commercial level, generally prefer the safety and feel of a full harness. "Civilian" passengers as you mention, would probably feel the same if they were fully made aware of the subtle difference.
I am just curious on why the use of the lap/diagonal seatbelt is only used in Robinson helicopters?
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, the lap belt & diagonal restraint may be simpler to use and operate for passengers but a four/five point harness is hardly a difficult concept.
A pilot should always make sure that his passengers are correctly strapped in and, if they can remember old car seat belts of the 70s, they should grasp how to use them; although the mechanism on Squirrels is v. fiddly IMHO
. I know which I prefer.
Cheers
Whirlygig
A pilot should always make sure that his passengers are correctly strapped in and, if they can remember old car seat belts of the 70s, they should grasp how to use them; although the mechanism on Squirrels is v. fiddly IMHO
. I know which I prefer.Cheers
Whirlygig
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WLM,
Lap belts and lap & diagonal belts are used in other helicopters. Most pure passenger seats have them. In general, most crew seats have harnesses of one sort or another. Perhaps the justification for no harness with the Robbos is the lack of a stick in front of the pilot that he can hit his/her head on?
I could guess that the RHC priorities might also be affected by weight and cost too - these are elements in any manufacturer's choices .......
Misterbonkers,
I would not personally have such blind faith in those involved to automatically assume that "it must be safe" - this is not a poke at RHC particularly. I just think it is naive to assume that you can be certain that people always do their jobs properly -
that's why I always do a check before flying after maintenance has been done, even when the "engineers" have signed off a daily check.
Lap belts and lap & diagonal belts are used in other helicopters. Most pure passenger seats have them. In general, most crew seats have harnesses of one sort or another. Perhaps the justification for no harness with the Robbos is the lack of a stick in front of the pilot that he can hit his/her head on?
I could guess that the RHC priorities might also be affected by weight and cost too - these are elements in any manufacturer's choices .......
Misterbonkers,
I would not personally have such blind faith in those involved to automatically assume that "it must be safe" - this is not a poke at RHC particularly. I just think it is naive to assume that you can be certain that people always do their jobs properly -
that's why I always do a check before flying after maintenance has been done, even when the "engineers" have signed off a daily check.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not very confident in the crash worthiness of the Robbie anyway. If you've ever seen post-crash pictures, the site isn't pretty. There are exceptions where the crash is hard auto to paved runway... the skids split and absorb a LOT of impact quite nicely. Dyanmic roll overs and autos into trees with any forward airspeed are pretty brutal in the Robbie.
The B47 uses lap belt with NO shoulder restraint! The B2B and 280FX uses 4-point harness systems. I feel a little safer in the 4-point harnesses vs. lap & shoulder belt alone. Looking back at my statement above, I have to ask why I'm flying the R22 without a helmet?
That's another topic for discussion, but most of my flying is "casual" (if there is such a thing). I guess the comfort and sound quality of my Bose Aviation-X is something that makes it much more enjoyable... and it's not like I'm doing line patrol or other hazardous work in the Robbie.
The B47 uses lap belt with NO shoulder restraint! The B2B and 280FX uses 4-point harness systems. I feel a little safer in the 4-point harnesses vs. lap & shoulder belt alone. Looking back at my statement above, I have to ask why I'm flying the R22 without a helmet?
That's another topic for discussion, but most of my flying is "casual" (if there is such a thing). I guess the comfort and sound quality of my Bose Aviation-X is something that makes it much more enjoyable... and it's not like I'm doing line patrol or other hazardous work in the Robbie.
Ok, let me try and explain what I was saying for those of you who blatently misunderstodd where I was coming from:
One, forget commercial flying, im talking civilian as a whole. For none commercial flights, we all know that the PPL(H) often allows his passengers to sit themselves in and fasten theyre own seatbelt, especially when people are getting in and out when rotors are running. The 'one click fastens in' approach of the robinsons (for example) is therefore more likely to ensure the seatbelt is fastened properly as opposed to the four point harness which is not often (to the amateur) an easy thing to fathom out and, once fastend, should be properly adjusted into position (lap straps first, then shoulder straps.
If the seatbelt isnt fastened properly it wont work as it should - surely you agree?
So we see the diagonal system e.g. R44 is easier to understand to the person not used to air travel.
So, now were wearing any kind of seatbelt fitted properley, were more likely to survive a crash.
The UK CAA are extremely safety conscious, perhaps too much, but nevertheless, they would never approce a restraint system that doesnt meet the crash requirements. Crikey, my new R44 had to have its fire extinguisher holder relooked at because the extinguisher would come out with 13.5G impact, and the rules say 14G. For the record, before any of you think im just a robo pilot, im rated on R22, R44, Bell206, Bell47.
so as for the harnesses, Im used to both types, and I do agree that the 4 point 'feels' safer.
Secondly, in the event of an accident, panic and confusion will occur to the passengers and pilot. The pilot is used to getting out of harnesses, seatblets etc so if rapid evacuation of incident survivees is required (e.g. ditched in water, a/c fire etc) then surely (as we all travel in cars etc that have the diagonal restraint) the passenger is quite adapt at reaching to theyre hip and undoing a seatblet?
To be fair, I think the main point is the fitting/wearing of a seatblet in the first place.
No doubt plenty of you will beg to differ (especially all you experienced commercial guys) but try and think of that person who has hardly ever flown, has to get in a helicopter, and put on a seatbelt.
One, forget commercial flying, im talking civilian as a whole. For none commercial flights, we all know that the PPL(H) often allows his passengers to sit themselves in and fasten theyre own seatbelt, especially when people are getting in and out when rotors are running. The 'one click fastens in' approach of the robinsons (for example) is therefore more likely to ensure the seatbelt is fastened properly as opposed to the four point harness which is not often (to the amateur) an easy thing to fathom out and, once fastend, should be properly adjusted into position (lap straps first, then shoulder straps.
If the seatbelt isnt fastened properly it wont work as it should - surely you agree?
So we see the diagonal system e.g. R44 is easier to understand to the person not used to air travel.
So, now were wearing any kind of seatbelt fitted properley, were more likely to survive a crash.
The UK CAA are extremely safety conscious, perhaps too much, but nevertheless, they would never approce a restraint system that doesnt meet the crash requirements. Crikey, my new R44 had to have its fire extinguisher holder relooked at because the extinguisher would come out with 13.5G impact, and the rules say 14G. For the record, before any of you think im just a robo pilot, im rated on R22, R44, Bell206, Bell47.
so as for the harnesses, Im used to both types, and I do agree that the 4 point 'feels' safer.
Secondly, in the event of an accident, panic and confusion will occur to the passengers and pilot. The pilot is used to getting out of harnesses, seatblets etc so if rapid evacuation of incident survivees is required (e.g. ditched in water, a/c fire etc) then surely (as we all travel in cars etc that have the diagonal restraint) the passenger is quite adapt at reaching to theyre hip and undoing a seatblet?
To be fair, I think the main point is the fitting/wearing of a seatblet in the first place.
No doubt plenty of you will beg to differ (especially all you experienced commercial guys) but try and think of that person who has hardly ever flown, has to get in a helicopter, and put on a seatbelt.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misterbonkers - I, too, was coming from a private flying perspective. Every time I take a passenger I check their harness and also demonstrate how to undo it in an emergency. I also show them how to operate the door.
Whether private or commercial, it is still the pilot's responsibility to look after their passengers - hence the safety brief. You might think this a little sanctimonious but I take it quite seriously as my passengers tend to be family and close friends !!
I fly a Schweizer which has a four point harness. It is not much different to an old fashioned car seat belt (only with more bits). It has a flip up release so can be undone very quickly in an emergency. Harnesses shouldn't be any more difficult for passengers to deal with given proper pilot supervision and therefore I would suggest that the reason lap belts are fitted is weight and cost alone - with emphasis on cost
Cheers
Whirlygig
Whether private or commercial, it is still the pilot's responsibility to look after their passengers - hence the safety brief. You might think this a little sanctimonious but I take it quite seriously as my passengers tend to be family and close friends !!
I fly a Schweizer which has a four point harness. It is not much different to an old fashioned car seat belt (only with more bits). It has a flip up release so can be undone very quickly in an emergency. Harnesses shouldn't be any more difficult for passengers to deal with given proper pilot supervision and therefore I would suggest that the reason lap belts are fitted is weight and cost alone - with emphasis on cost
Cheers
Whirlygig
hear hear Whirlygig. Harnesses are used everywhere nowadays:
Fast road cars / bungee jumping / rallying /.
Why they aren't considered 'essential' for flying, confuses me
If you can afford your own chopper, why not $500/restraint???
Misterbonkers, give your passengers some credibility and while you're at it, some decent restraints too
RDrickster: I can't believe you really do fly around in a lap strap and no helmet...obviously one of the "won't happen to me" brigade.
Pumpkin, mush and puncture wounds come to mind.
Fast road cars / bungee jumping / rallying /.
Why they aren't considered 'essential' for flying, confuses me
If you can afford your own chopper, why not $500/restraint???
Misterbonkers, give your passengers some credibility and while you're at it, some decent restraints too
RDrickster: I can't believe you really do fly around in a lap strap and no helmet...obviously one of the "won't happen to me" brigade.
Pumpkin, mush and puncture wounds come to mind.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet wearing R22 pilots...
TC,
What can I say, except guilty as charged! I wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but I will fly an R22 without one. However, you are statistically more likely to be in an accident in a motorcycle or car than you are flying a helicopter.
Still, I certainly believe that "it could happen to me." That's one of the reasons I'm a little more detail oriented than others I've seen in the cockpit. In the grand scheme of implementing proper control measures for the associated risk, wearing a helmet in such a small aircraft may actually create a hazard and outweigh the benefits.
That sounds good, but it isn't the real reason I don't wear a helmet when flying small helicopters. I've also flown the R22 Mariner, B2B, 280FX, and B47. During transition training from type to type, I've never witnessed a CFI wear one either. I don't think it's cockiness... it's a matter of personal preference and comfort.
I'm sure the topic of helmets in small helicopters was discussed on PPRuNe before I became a member... I'll do a search. I've met a couple R22 pilots at the RHC Safety Course that always wear helmets. In each case, they flew to remote locations and perform line patrol at low altitudes... so, it made sense for them.
What can I say, except guilty as charged! I wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but I will fly an R22 without one. However, you are statistically more likely to be in an accident in a motorcycle or car than you are flying a helicopter.
Still, I certainly believe that "it could happen to me." That's one of the reasons I'm a little more detail oriented than others I've seen in the cockpit. In the grand scheme of implementing proper control measures for the associated risk, wearing a helmet in such a small aircraft may actually create a hazard and outweigh the benefits.
That sounds good, but it isn't the real reason I don't wear a helmet when flying small helicopters. I've also flown the R22 Mariner, B2B, 280FX, and B47. During transition training from type to type, I've never witnessed a CFI wear one either. I don't think it's cockiness... it's a matter of personal preference and comfort.
I'm sure the topic of helmets in small helicopters was discussed on PPRuNe before I became a member... I'll do a search. I've met a couple R22 pilots at the RHC Safety Course that always wear helmets. In each case, they flew to remote locations and perform line patrol at low altitudes... so, it made sense for them.
You people are funny...arguing over why the Robbie's have such wimpy restraints. So silly!
I *GUARANTEE* you that it worked out this way when Frankie R. was designing the R-22:
1. What type of restraint meets the letter of the law with respect to certification?
2. What type of restraint is the cheapest?
3. What type of restraint is the lightest?
To even fantasize that Frank was concerned with making a "safe" helicopter when he designed the R-22 is just ludicrous. All he was trying to do was make it as "safe" as possible GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE DESIGN PARAMETERS.
Sure, we wish he would've given the cabin more structural integrity...or a beefier landing gear. Sure, we wish he had put in a four- or five-point harness. Maybe we should wish he'd stuck a three-blade rotor system on it! But he did not do any of those things. Why? Weight and cost, baby! Not due to a conscious neglect for ultimate safety, but the whole thing ended up being a bunch of design compromises.
As for seat belts, I've seen plenty of Bell 206 accidents where the belt assemblies pulled right out of their mounts - and the pilot lived! He was ejected, but he lived. In one case, the pilot was ejected through the windscreen and broke his shoulder on the centerpost on the way out, kind of adding insult to injury...or extra injury to injury. Made me realize that the strongest, most robust harness in the world is only as strong as the airframe it's mounted to. And in the case of the Robbie...
Given the choice, I would always prefer a full, complete five-point harness. But we are not always given that choice, are we? But as long as the particular restraints that are installed in the aircraft are properly secured and adjusted, any discussion about which type would be "better" with regard to a helicopter crash is pretty moot.
Finally, consider this: People panic. People revert to what they're used to. If you take a non-aviator and stick him/her in an aircraft with a restraint system that is unfamiliar, they absolutely will not know how to undo it if there's a crash. Heck, people can't do it even when there's *not* a crash.
I've had passengers who were distracted and eager to get out right upon landing for one reason or other (after flying with me, can you blame them?). First, they forget the belt and try to hop out. Then, when they realize that they're still "trapped," they search around frantically for the release mechanism. These are people, by the way, who've *all* flown before and have had the FAA part-135 briefings many, many times - including before that very flight. Yet they still forget. Usually I'll just sit there and watch them struggle. Finally, I'll say something smart-alecky like, "Gee, good thing we're not underwater...OR ON FIRE!"
So reassure yourself that you've thoroughly briefed and instructed your non-pilot passengers, if you like. But people forget. And in a highly stressful situation (like a crash) you simply cannot expect them to remember the particular seat-belt removal technique. ...Which is why it is probably better to have automotive-type seatbelts in aircraft.
I *GUARANTEE* you that it worked out this way when Frankie R. was designing the R-22:
1. What type of restraint meets the letter of the law with respect to certification?
2. What type of restraint is the cheapest?
3. What type of restraint is the lightest?
To even fantasize that Frank was concerned with making a "safe" helicopter when he designed the R-22 is just ludicrous. All he was trying to do was make it as "safe" as possible GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE DESIGN PARAMETERS.
Sure, we wish he would've given the cabin more structural integrity...or a beefier landing gear. Sure, we wish he had put in a four- or five-point harness. Maybe we should wish he'd stuck a three-blade rotor system on it! But he did not do any of those things. Why? Weight and cost, baby! Not due to a conscious neglect for ultimate safety, but the whole thing ended up being a bunch of design compromises.
As for seat belts, I've seen plenty of Bell 206 accidents where the belt assemblies pulled right out of their mounts - and the pilot lived! He was ejected, but he lived. In one case, the pilot was ejected through the windscreen and broke his shoulder on the centerpost on the way out, kind of adding insult to injury...or extra injury to injury. Made me realize that the strongest, most robust harness in the world is only as strong as the airframe it's mounted to. And in the case of the Robbie...
Given the choice, I would always prefer a full, complete five-point harness. But we are not always given that choice, are we? But as long as the particular restraints that are installed in the aircraft are properly secured and adjusted, any discussion about which type would be "better" with regard to a helicopter crash is pretty moot.
Finally, consider this: People panic. People revert to what they're used to. If you take a non-aviator and stick him/her in an aircraft with a restraint system that is unfamiliar, they absolutely will not know how to undo it if there's a crash. Heck, people can't do it even when there's *not* a crash.
I've had passengers who were distracted and eager to get out right upon landing for one reason or other (after flying with me, can you blame them?). First, they forget the belt and try to hop out. Then, when they realize that they're still "trapped," they search around frantically for the release mechanism. These are people, by the way, who've *all* flown before and have had the FAA part-135 briefings many, many times - including before that very flight. Yet they still forget. Usually I'll just sit there and watch them struggle. Finally, I'll say something smart-alecky like, "Gee, good thing we're not underwater...OR ON FIRE!"
So reassure yourself that you've thoroughly briefed and instructed your non-pilot passengers, if you like. But people forget. And in a highly stressful situation (like a crash) you simply cannot expect them to remember the particular seat-belt removal technique. ...Which is why it is probably better to have automotive-type seatbelts in aircraft.
Poop fart 31: never been to a fun fare, never buckled into a"harness"...never lived thats your problem.
Fact is they (pax) would panic whatever you give them to wear, they just don't think.
So may as well give them a fighting chance.
Ever heard of duty of care.....
No wonder nooneflies with you
Fact is they (pax) would panic whatever you give them to wear, they just don't think.
So may as well give them a fighting chance.
Ever heard of duty of care.....
No wonder nooneflies with you