TC:Thomas, please repeat that again in a language that is understandable. Your "thoughts" (and I use that term very, VERY loosely) are usually incomprehensible. This time even more so.Duty of care. Yes. My passengers wear the restraints provided in the helicopters furnished by my employer. If that somehow makes me negligent in my "duty of care" to my passengers, I fail to see it. If on the other hand you are proposing that my employer replace all of the seatbelts in all of our various ships with five-point harnesses, and private owners of R-22's replace their factory-stock restraints with five-point harnesses and furnish helmets to their passengers because that is the minimum "duty of care," I might suggest that you lay off the crack pipe. (Judging from your other various posts, I might suggest that anyway.)Oh, how wonderfully witty! You're a regular Oscar Wilde, aren't you? Probably in more ways than one.

TC - ive flown enough people so far in my career to know how they respond to their first flight in helicopters. Naturally, on AOC work, it is mandatory to give breifings on doors, seatbelts, locations of first aid kit, fire extinguisher, evacuation procedures, but no matter how long you spend with them, how convincing they seem when they 'understand' and can actually open the doors, remove seatbelts etc, many have forgotten when it comes to the end of the flight, when their adrenaline (sp?), is rushing, so please dont try and convince me otherwise - its easy for all of us regalur users to assume, but now and again, just take a step back and look from a wider perspective.

A common device full stop in all transport modes would obviously be a good solution, but this is the real world after all, and we know that aircraft design is about comprimise.

As for Rally Cars, fast sports cars, bungee jumping, I dont see everyone participating in these all day every day in numbers on a par with the normal everyday car.

If a device is easy to use and understand, its more likely to be used and used correctly with or without supervision. A four point harness still has to be adjusted to fit properly.

I agree with four point harnesses been safer when worn correctly, but what about the wider picture for the helicopter and 'Jo Public' .

I fully agree with 'misterbonkers'. Realism must pay an important role in everything and passengers are sure to be in a panic and confused and making a seat belt 'common' is a good way to go.
If all the keypads on mobile phones, desk phones, computers and calculators were all to the same desige layout how much easier it would be. And in this instance we have plenty of time to work out the differences - not millisecond as would be in an emergency.
May I add that some B47's do have 4 point restraints.

Misterbonkers and head turner:

Maybe something is lost when relaying conversations on this forum, I don't know.
But the simple point I want to get across is this:

When 'passengers' are strapped in, I admit anything other than a lap strap might be beyond them. BUT, time is in your favour, no one is panicking, so the job can get done properly.

However, should/could anything go wrong, and a crash ensue, then the important thing to remember is that no matter how 'sophisticated' the 4 point (accept 5 point over the top), 'harness' is/was to fit when they climbed in, it is
RIDICULOUSLY SIMPLE TO REMOVE. You simply twist (some models) or flick a lever to escape. NOT DIFFICULT AND AS EASY AS ANY LAP STRAP MECHANISM.

In the interim, these 'passengers' enjoy the added safety benefits associated with proper harnesses compared to car lap straps borrowed from a renault or GM:uhoh:

Well said TC:ok:

One thing to remember is that undoing a harness is impossible if you are disabled due to a severe head injury


Prune Fan#1,

You are right about folk forgetting the safety brief by the end of the flight but I can't imagine YOU making a smart-alecky comment, surely that's not something you're prone to, is it? (p.s. got my harness done up, helmet on - and a book down my trousers as a backup!) :E

Shy Torquay asked:Heavens, no! But it is something that I am sometimes...<ahem> "pprune" to. (Sorry.)

everbody's dead
 

In a situation where the helicopter hits the ground/water and autorotation hasn’t sufficiently slowed the descent/impact rate its going to make little difference if it’s a lap strap or a 3,4 or 5 point harness or if your seat is full back length or just up to lumbar region. All your rules go out the window, literally, because everybody is dead.

The seats are bucket type, bolted to the main deck and the skids may have some shocks to reduce ground resonance. The seats and harnesses on small helicopters, civilian or parapublic are a minimum requirement to comply with safety regulations and as has been said a design compromise. Weight saving and product cost is always going to be more of a priority than safety with operators. Compare the engineering in a Martin Baker crash resistant seat and crumple zones on combat helicopter hulls. The effort that goes into ensuring crew survivability is of another magnitude.

True, when your family of sightseers come cantering hesitantly in a stooped position to embark the helicopter, the noise and downwash & confusion of this new environment makes it difficult for a novice to figure out a 4 point harness, which means that someone has to show them. Twist to release four point seems to make people feel more secure than some airline style lap buckle harness.

I wonder if they made it mandatory to have crash resistant seats and 5 point harnesses, if they would allow more heliports to open in London. Kind of like a compromise?

I think we may be diverting from my original question here. I personally feel safer with a four point harness.
In some posting above, comparison made between aircraft and motor vehicle, is a little unfair. An aircraft travels at a higher speed, and height of course; a sudden decelaration or even abrupt stopping, ends with serious consequences.
Your average motor vehicle may travel at say 50-100km/h average most of the time, with a lap/diagonal belt quite adequate. However, a faster racing motorvehicle always has a four or five points harness. I wonder why......
So if an aircraft is faster, with a lot less crash protection around its occupants, to my eyes, SHOULD have the minimum of a four points harness. But eh, I am only the pilot here....:D

my car goes as fast as a jetranger and it only has standard seatbelts!

I agree a four point harness is safer. But haven spoken to a a very experienced pilot yesterday, and learning he never tightens the shoulder straps on his four point harness anyway, it proves a point for the R44 type device.

There are pros and cons all round, and, as we've seen, some strong opinions.

As far as safety I prefer the four point. In the R44 though, the shoulder belts are not able to be locked unless fully extended which is too loose for me. So they are gently pulling the lap belt up. Not a big deal but not as comfortable as a standard belt.

Copter Driver

Interesting reply from you since you work for F.R.:p Now seriously, is there a retro fit kit available for a four point harness available as mentioned in the above early replies?
Tks
WLM:ok: