Cameraman Harnesses - Legal or Not - Input Needed.
 

Okay. Have a question for members here. Just got told by someone in the USA that the below harness I am buying is not actually legal to use in the USA because its a one action ripcord type harness. Can anyone in the USA tell me if the is correct or not. See photos below. It is made in Australia and certified by CASA - Aussie version of FAA.


S012 Aircrew Safety Harness
This was originally developed as a Camerapersons Harness for media personnel filming from helicopters. It was later modified to incorporate a 3-ring quick release into the rear attachment strap that is activated from a pillow handle at the front. (The 3-ring is widely used on sport parachutes to release the main parachute in an emergency.)

This S012 is popular with Air Dispatchers, Helicopter Winch Operators and others who, during flight, are close to an open hatch.

The S012 has been tested to Australian Standard AS 1891:1983 and approved by CASA under the provisions of CAR (1998) 21.305A. Application to an individual aircraft requires separate approval. Not approved for take off or landing.

Surely it's a question of whether they have an FAA STC? Anything attached to the aircraft will need one I think. Or there's a lower level of approval but can't recall the Form number.

Not sure that's the case. The harness wouldn't require an STC as it is inside the aircraft and requires no tools to remove/install, doesn't interface with the electrical system, and would only attach to existing hardpoints. Don't see why it would require a 337 either.

To KiwiNedNZ's question, I believe it's more a question of if the equipment would meet TSO standards: https://www.rotor.org/news/tso.pdf

However, that TSO only applies to HEC (133D) / "dope-on-a-rope" operations, not for those with the personnel inside the airframe.

The only FAA harness requirements I've seen are part of a Part 133 certificate/OpSpec. Since your not a crew member for hoist ops then any FAA requirements should not apply.

Now if your harness were to replace the existing aircraft seatbelts then there would need to be some sort of part approval via a PMA. An STC would only be needed if the harness install were a major change to the TC or was used for approved data for a major alteration.

If like in the NYC Astar the pax used the existing seatbelts along with the harness, then the harness should fall under "loose equipment" like the life vest pouches they were wearing.

There might also have been an insurance requirement for the harnesses???

Ring the Manufacturer. The Director Craig is always happy to talk harnesses and legalities.. +61418258105 Details are on their website.



And if you need two action - it can be added. Their wander leads use two action by means of adding a velcro sandwitch. Give him a call or email.

These are not the only criteria for possibly requiring an STC. Restraint means for occupants are a "major mod", and also must comply with TSO's. Restrain of items of mass in the cabin require approval. There would be responsibility for a pilot who allowed the use of "alternate" restraint means during their flight. I would be sure that approvals are correct for the aircraft and operation.

Even if youre using existing restraint hardpoints already for the seatbelts?

The regulations require approved restraint for take-off and landing. Your rig might not qualify for that, and you intend to use the aircraft-installed seat belt for TO/Landing. The regs do not require any restraint when in flight. Therefore whatever you chose to wear when in flight and legally "unrestrained" - even something that is linked to an existing hard-point - is "free choice".


I think Wrench1 gave the relevant regulations. He also gave the very relevant "check your insurer".

I'm aware those aren't the sole criteria. As the harnesses attach to existing points, don't replace existing equipment, and aren't legally required at any phase of flight, why would they require an STC? Seatbelts are still used for takeoff and landing. In the US, seatbelts are not required for passengers during flight.

Hello Ned. There is no such operating limitation that requires dual action devices. That is in the certification requirements for part 27, Since harnesses are required to be certified, its a moot point. What may be an issue is where you hook it up to. A seat belt evenly divides weight between 2 hard points with minimal slack and therefore shockload. Those hard points aren't rated for a fall, or as a single point. If you are hooked to a certified Class A external load attachment point you are an external load, whether you are sitting on the floor, or on the skid, and you are legal, if you hook it up to a seatbelt hardpoint possibly not, though I've never seen it cited.

Skywerx in Melbourne Australia manufacture full body harnesses that are used in rescue helicopter operations. They are tested to CASA TSO standards but do require CAR 35 engineering approval for each aircraft that they are to be used in.
Happy to chat +61418 394820
Nigel

How about taking the discussions about the NYC accident over to that thread rather than here. This one I am getting opinions from members about the harnesses I am looking at, Thanks.

The harness you are looking at is a good one.
I have used it many times for film/photo work.

BELT, SAFETY DISPATCHER
 

Hi,

I prefer, have bought and still use the AIRBORNE SYSTEMS LTD Belt Dispatcher MRIIGQ2036 which is the standard military flight dispatcher's harness ('Monkey Harness') for all filming work as it keeps the cameraman properly restrained by a proper aviation-standard harness belt with good restraint, adjustable reach (adjust it before flight so that he/she can't fall out of the helicopter doorway!) and quick release buckle with double tabs. This is the standard military helicopter crewman's harness in many countries. Cost when I last ordered some in 2010 was GBP 1060 without shipping. If you contact me direct I can send you info and also an SOP for its installation, adjustment and use (based on Bell 202/212/412 use). see www.airborne-sys.com website. You would have to check your local CAA/CASA for approvals for your own local use.

Cheers,

O