The poor kid that crashed the 207 at Monument Valley is in Phoenix awaiting facial and cranial reconstruction. Yes, he was wearing his Cessna shoulder harness. They had to pry his head out of the panel to get him free. I know everybody thinks they will have time to tighten up, it just doesn't happen that way.

One of the fist questions I ever asked here was "what about wearing a helmet?" That question set off a 3 page thread on the subject. Having spent most of my career around really fast stuff, I know harnesses do no good unless they are tight, and the 150 I have been flying has newer harnesses, and I pull them tight. I am putting new inertial wheel harnesses in my Champ, and I intend to get a good light weight helmet.

In my research while developing an aviation product somewhat related to this discussion, I spoke to aero engineers, pilot restraint manufacturers, and both civil & military aircraft crash survivors. My first test pilot (BCP member 182 STOL) is a decorated veteran who has been through more combat related aircraft crashes than probably anybody else here. I paid close attention when he shared some of his crash stories with me.

I quickly learned that pilot restraints are only worth a crap when they are worn snug and properly. The fact that so many otherwise experienced, smart and safe pilots were wearing their shoulder harnesses loose, or not using them at all, is part of what drove the decision to certify the product. What is relevant here is that I also spoke to several people who have seen "inertia reel" harnesses fail to lock-up when they should, or lock-up when it was not wanted.

If you have spent the money on an inertia reel harness, understand that it is not fool-proof. Test it, pamper it, maintain it well, and always be certain it will lock-up when it needs to. A properly worn fixed, "standard" shoulder harness (that doesn't un-lock for convenience like an inertia reel) will also never fail to protect you by not locking up when you need it to. It's not often that the cheaper solution is the safest, but this is one of them.

I've posted this before on more than one group: Whether I get your money or whether I don't, whatever you fly and however you equip your airplane, PLEASE take shoulder harnesses seriously and use them correctly. I've learned about much-loved ten thousand hour Alaska pilots who were lost because of not wearing harnesses, and now there has been another serious injury which might have been prevented with a little more care.

you're right on EZ. still have a mark or two from my stock 182P lap belt and single shoulder harness, which helped, but didn't stop my face from kissing my 396...the new bird has the good harnesses, and i wear them damn tight...like the helmet idea...

Buy a set of BAS inertial reel harnesses. They are the best on the market, and far more reliable than most of the competition. They are also VERY comfortable to wear. If they're comfortable to wear, you'll wear them.

I parked a C 185 on a mountainside due to a failed crankshaft once. The BAS harness in that airplane kept me from decorating the instrument panel with my face. A week or so later, I was in Anchorage to pick up a loaner airplane to fill in for that airplane until it could be replaced. I looked over the "loaner" 185, and our Chief of Maintenance asked me if I thought it was ready to go to work.

I responded that based on my recent experience, I'd sure like a set of BAS harnesses in the "loaner". That airplane had a set of BAS harnesses shortly thereafter.

They can save your life.

Take a look at BAS' web site for some pictures......including one of mine. http://www.basinc-aeromod.com/

MTV

Is anyone out there using BAS in a Maule? If so how much work to install?

Cheers

I have stuffed one is with just a lap belt on. Got a few ribs with the yoke and left a good chunk of scalp on the pannel. Also went upside down with a full 4 point on and didnt get a scratch. Having met mother earth at a rapid rate of speed both ways I know without a doubt that I much prefer the 4 point. In most cases a 5 point is better and more comfortable to wear cause it wont let the lap belt ride up on you.

I set the shoulder straps so I can still lean forward a bit and get a good look around outside, but still keeps me short of hitting the pannel. I tend to snug the straps up if I am in questionable situations.

I have also fully tested the BAS Harness. They were also the very first upgrade in the 206. Can't say enough good about them!

Does anyone care to comment about the difference in safety or level of protection (upgrade or downgrade) that would be experienced if one switched back and forth between an inertia reel system and a standard shoulder harness such as the Hooker or Wag-Aero type system?

It seems to me that most of the people who say that inertia reels saved their life are certainly telling the truth, but they are also comparing the safety of an inertia reel shoulder harness versus not having a shoulder harness. That's not a fair comparison at all. Any third grader can tell you that putting ANY shoulder harness into an airplane that didn't have one previously is a huge safety upgrade.

Basically, I'm asking if anyone is willing to address an apples to apples comparison... whether that a shoulder harness using an inertia reel is more or less safe than a shoulder harness that is fixed.

Jack Hooker, Wag-Aero, and a few others manufacture pilot restraints that are certified and save lives every day. I'll bet that many more lives have been saved by their restraints than inertia reels. They are inexpensive, nearly foolproof, and pose no risk of early, failed, or late lockup.

It just seems that the standard shoulder harnesses are not getting included in the discussions at all, even though they have been saving lives for decades. Yeah, admittedly I partially have a dog in this fight, but my point is just as valid as if I didn't.

EZ you are rite buckled in tight is best, but for all around usage the bass is the safest with the best mobility thats why so many people were wearing them corectly. a 3inch 5 point and a HANS device would be best but who wants to fly like that?

EZFlap wrote:Does anyone care to comment about the difference in safety or level of protection (upgrade or downgrade) that would be experienced if one switched back and forth between an inertia reel system and a standard shoulder harness such as the Hooker or Wag-Aero type system?

It seems to me that most of the people who say that inertia reels saved their life are certainly telling the truth, but they are also comparing the safety of an inertia reel shoulder harness versus not having a shoulder harness. That's not a fair comparison at all. Any third grader can tell you that putting ANY shoulder harness into an airplane that didn't have one previously is a huge safety upgrade.

Basically, I'm asking if anyone is willing to address an apples to apples comparison... whether that a shoulder harness using an inertia reel is more or less safe than a shoulder harness that is fixed.

Jack Hooker, Wag-Aero, and a few others manufacture pilot restraints that are certified and save lives every day. I'll bet that many more lives have been saved by their restraints than inertia reels. They are inexpensive, nearly foolproof, and pose no risk of early, failed, or late lockup.

It just seems that the standard shoulder harnesses are not getting included in the discussions at all, even though they have been saving lives for decades. Yeah, admittedly I partially have a dog in this fight, but my point is just as valid as if I didn't.

The reason that inertial reels are such a good addition to any airplane is that, because they do not restrict one's movement in the cockpit, pilots WILL WEAR THEM REGULARLY. And, the BAS harness system is by far the most reliable and maintenance free inertial reel system avaialble.

Here's a little quiz for YOU: When was the last time you saw a production AUTOMOBILE that didn't come from the factory with inertial reel harnesses??

I wouldn't even consider putting straight harnesses in any airplane unless inertial reels simply weren't availble for that airplane.

MTV

I guess I don't understand what type of gymnastics take place in an airplane that you have to worry so much about having freedom of movement. Fixed shoulder harnesses only need to be tight enough to keep you from hitting the panel, you don't have to be strapped in like you are taking a ride in a rocket sled. Remember, inertial reel harnesses lock when needed from the position you are in at the time of deceleration, so if you are already close to the panel, they aren't going to jerk you up straight before the event. For a person to say they wouldn't consider anything but interial reel is a litle over the top. EZ flaps device makes it easier to reach the flap handle with a snug harness, but it doesn't take away from the effectiveness of the straps to have enough slack to get a finger or two on the flap handle if you don't have his device. The inertial reel harnesses in automobiles are designed to be used in conjuction with airbags and also go on with the seatbelt becasue the manufactures know people won't put them on if they are seperate from the seatbelt. Hopefully we don't get to the point in aviation that we have to save pilots from themselves like we have had to do with autos. In 48 years of sitting in the pointy end of aircraft, I have gone from wicker seats and dubious belts to the modern restraints of today. Shoulder restraints work, but they don't have to be expensive, just worn.

mtv wrote:
The reason that inertial reels are such a good addition to any airplane is that, because they do not restrict one's movement in the cockpit, pilots WILL WEAR THEM REGULARLY.

Let me get this straight... are you telling me that you or any other pilot wouldn't be smart enough to wear the shoulder harness in an airplane if it wasn't an inertia reel? Or that you would even occasionally not put on a straight harness? Seat belts restrict one's movement too, you know, but I don't see anyone not using them regularly just because they can't dance a Mambo while flying.

mtv wrote:
Here's a little quiz for YOU: When was the last time you saw a production AUTOMOBILE that didn't come from the factory with inertial reel harnesses??

Sorry Mike, I just can't resist ... I'll cheerfully admit that all modern cars come with inertia reels, if you admit that no car manufacturer in their right mind EVER made a car where one of the more important hand-operated controls was on the floor two feet out of the driver's reach, where they had to lean forward and put their head under the dashboard to reach it.

EZFlap wrote:

mtv wrote:
The reason that inertial reels are such a good addition to any airplane is that, because they do not restrict one's movement in the cockpit, pilots WILL WEAR THEM REGULARLY.

Let me get this straight... are you telling me that you or any other pilot wouldn't be smart enough to wear the shoulder harness in an airplane if it wasn't an inertia reel? Or that you would even occasionally not put on a straight harness? Seat belts restrict one's movement too, you know, but I don't see anyone not using them regularly just because they can't dance a Mambo while flying.


There are MANY examples in the accident databases where a pilot or passenger suffered facial injuries while wearing a fixed shoulder harness, BECAUSE they didn't have the harness snug. An example I'm familiar with was the Husky accident that Sparky Imeson was an instructor in in Montana a few years ago. Sparky was in the back seat and suffered some pretty bad facial injuries because he wasn't wearing the fixed harness in that airplane snug enough. There are many more of these kinds of examples.

mtv wrote:
Here's a little quiz for YOU: When was the last time you saw a production AUTOMOBILE that didn't come from the factory with inertial reel harnesses??

Sorry Mike, I just can't resist ... I'll cheerfully admit that all modern cars come with inertia reels, if you admit that no car manufacturer in their right mind EVER made a car where one of the more important hand-operated controls was on the floor two feet out of the driver's reach, where they had to lean forward and put their head under the dashboard to reach it.

This thread was intended to encourage installation and proper use of shoulder harnesses. I've never met an airplane that I had to "put my head under the dashboard" to operate any important control. And, I'm not built like an orangutan. There are lots of things in an automobile that require one to reach a fair bit. The automotive manufacturers were the first to recognize that shoulder harnesses wouldn't be worn unless they made them as comfortable and as utilitarian as possible. Inertial reels make harnesses more comfortable to wear, and thus more likely to be worn PROPERLY.

MTV

A few points of general response:

I will never install an EZFlap. No offense or criticism of the product, the people who have them seem to love them. I just have long arms and have no issue reaching for the flap handle and I prefer to minimize cockpit clutter. But the issues aren't really related in my opinion. Bill, I think this is the wrong battle to fight in promoting the EZflap. Its strongest feature I believe is helping to avoid bending down at all, which can be a real problem in aircraft with tall panels that obscure the pilot's vision.

So why choose between inertial reels and the EZflap? Don't, depending on your aircraft. I prefer the inertial reels simply because they allow freedom of motion until the sudden deceleration. Why be retrained so tightly the entire flight and need control extensions? Might make sense to you guys who use the device, but I prefer the inertial reel.

The only time I liked my Aerofab harnesses in the 170 more than inertial reels was in moderate turb. It was a little extra restraint, but really the up and down stuff should be handled by a lap belt.

Someone mentioned not needing shoulder harnesses to be really tight in a crash like some sort of rocket launch. Have you ever been in a crash? I have not, but it only took me 2 seconds of flying inverted to realize that loose harnesses wouldn't be much use and being really tightly restrained in the crash was far preferable. Also, I had a friend who broke her back in an auto accident in high school due to a loose non-reel lap belt in an older car. The force of being accelerated only a short distance and then suddenly stopped by a loose fitting small harness can be as damaging as hitting the panel, just in a different way (squishing vital organs, snapping vertebrae, etc.)

The Sport Cub I now fly has inertial reels that even have Amsafe airbags built into them. That's a pretty nice feature in an aircraft that stands a good chance of flipping over and beating your head about the steel fuselage tubes.

I'm no expert. However I have stuffed a Lancair 320 in a garbage dumpster. After helping my A&P friend salvage parts and avionics, we disposed of the remaining fuselage. It was noted, that the pilot experienced an engine out on take off. instead of landing straight ahead he tried to save the plane. He ended up losing altitude behind the power curve and hitting flat, with vertical impact.

I found it really weird and hard to work on a plane that I knew someone had died in. Even more weird was seeing bits of blood and hair on the panel and windscreen. My A&P friend of mine took the time to show me the seatbelt restraints. The brand was a popular brand, used in many kit aircraft ordered from a few popular supply companies. The pilot was wearing his seatbelt properly. The problem was that the stitching had clearly ripped from the pieces of seatbelt webbing. Thus allowing the head of the pilot, to hit the instrument panel and give a fatal blow to the head.

It was a shock to say the least. I am now more than ever a believer in the highest amount of safety devices I can find. I now fly new Cessna 172S with inertia reel seatbelt and amsafe airbags. Although this is more of a matter of whats available to me as a rental airplane more than anything.

Zane wrote:....The Sport Cub I now fly has inertial reels that even have Amsafe airbags built into them. That's a pretty nice feature in an aircraft that stands a good chance of flipping over and beating your head about the steel fuselage tubes.

So what's the story on the Sport Cub, Zane? Is it on a rental line somewhere, a deal with a buddy, or what? Sounds like fun, in any event. Glad you're getting in some flying time since you sold the 170.

Zane wrote:
Bill, I think this is the wrong battle to fight in promoting the EZflap.

I agree completely; that was not my primary intent for participating in this thread. Accept my apology if it came across as a business maneuver. Some posts were "selling" certain brands of inertia reels pretty hard, to be honest.

I also posted because the inertia reel evangelists accidentally position the standard harnesses as if they haven't saved lots of lives. So I threw down a glove for someone to address the fact that fixed harnesses have saved a lot more lives than inertia reels, but that was in defense of standard harnesses not an ad for control extensions. Besides, as you illustrated, the extension is equally relevant for airplanes with inertia reels, so there's not a large amount of business for me to win or lose based on the type of harness in someone's airplane.

Please forgive my being too weak to restrain myself from jousting with my Loyal Opposition. It was a smart-aleck riposte to a previous parry, not an advertisement. I already know the answer to the rhetorical question I posed

EZflap,

My response to your "riposte" got included in the shaded quote area of my previous post.....but here is one example of someone getting hurt while wearing a conventional harness:

"There are MANY examples in the accident databases where a pilot or passenger suffered facial injuries while wearing a fixed shoulder harness, BECAUSE they didn't have the harness snug. An example I'm familiar with was the Husky accident that Sparky Imeson was an instructor in in Montana a few years ago. Sparky was in the back seat and suffered some pretty bad facial injuries because he wasn't wearing the fixed harness in that airplane snug enough. There are many more of these kinds of examples"

Sparky admitted that he had the harness loosened at the time of the accident.

As Zane noted, the human body becomes VERY fluid during a severe deceleration event. Shoulder harnesses that are even slightly loosened may in fact, permit the upper body to stretch just far enough for the head to reach something hard.

I think the new generation of airbag seat belts/harnesses are going to be lifesavers as well, the only downside I see to them at the moment is they are expensive, and there's a lot to them, as far as mounting/approvals.

The people who have been expounding on the advantages of BAS harness systems are people who have USED those systems, as in been saved by them. Nevertheless, the BAS system offers advantages not found with ANY other shoulder harness system. Such as the enterie inertial reel is completely hidden inside the headliner, thus protected from dust, dirt, etc. The guide which goes in the headliner also ensures that the belts wind smoothly and consistently on the reel. Finally, the attachments available are very attractive, and can keep the belt ends from dangling out a door. THAT can damage both the airframe and the belt.

Finally, the BAS system installed in a Cessna attaches the reel to the front of the spar carry through, BUT, unlike most if not all the others, rather than just attaching them to the forward skin of that carry through, BAS has a through bolt that goes all the way THROUGH the spar carry through, and a reinforcement on the rear of the carry through. I have seen several "conventional" shoulder harness attachments, simply attached to the front of the spar carry through, that pulled out during an impact. With the BAS system, for that to happen, you're going to have to pull the whole spar carry through out of the airframe.

In other words, the BAS harnesses are MUCH more struturally robust than any of the other systems I've seen on the market.

MTV

mtv wrote:
pilot or passenger suffered facial injuries while wearing a fixed shoulder harness, BECAUSE they didn't have the harness snug.

suffered some pretty bad facial injuries because he wasn't wearing the fixed harness in that airplane snug enough.

Sparky admitted that he had the harness loosened at the time of the accident.

Shoulder harnesses that are even slightly loosened may in fact, permit the upper body to stretch just far enough for the head to reach something hard.

See, I knew we would eventually agree on something...
Shoulder harnesses should be worn snugly. Anything that allows you to move around, even a little (like a loosely worn fixed harness, or waiting for an inertia reel to lock up after a few inches of deceleration) is therefore by definition some amount less safe than something that doesn't allow you to move around, comfort and convenience notwithstanding.

Your post mentions that Mr. Imeson (a very highly experienced back country pilot) admitted that he had his harness loosened. Do you have any additional information as to why that was ?