Hey guys i was wondering if there was a discussion about shoulder harnesses, single and dual, if one is auctually better than the other in a crash. Ie the stock single shoulder harness on a cessna vs a inertia reel dual shoulder harness.

Thanks
Tom

The stock single diagonal shoulder harness on Cessnas is better than just a lap belt. Barely.

If you own a Cessna, install a set of BAS harnesses. Here's their web site: http://www.basinc-aeromod.com/ Look through those testimonials. One of em is mine.

I have seen stock Cessna harnesses and other aftermarket harnesses pulled right out of the metal. The key to the strength of the BAS system is that the harness is attached via a through bolt that goes all the way through the main spar carry through, with a doubler on the back side. In other words, to pull it loose, you're going to have to take out the whole spar carry through.

I'm a believer. I put a set in my own airplane right after I parked that 185. And, I'd do it again to any airplane I bought.

MTV

damn good advice, mtv. dumped my first 182 with the stock side/single harness...not pretty. now have the bas duals...so worth it.

My 1953 Skywagon came with a single strap lapbelt. I knew right away I needed something better to keep me off the dash in an accident. I borrowed a single shoulder strap from my mechanic while I waited for my Hooker harnesses to be delivered. After flying with the Hookers for a few months and always having to loosen them to reach stuff in the cockpit I said screw it and bought the BAS system. Yes it cost a bit of money, but damn they are nice! Just wish I wouldn't have blown the money on the Hookers, harnesses that is.

I wanted an inertai reel shoulder harness for my airplane, but didn't wanna pony up the big dough for a BAS. So I made up a 4-point harness assembly last year using a Pacific Scientific inertia reel from a Cessna 3-point sholder/lap belt, with a Aircraft Spruce #3A "Y" style shoulder harness rigged onto it. The lap belt goes through loops sewn into the bottom of each strap, IMHO this is more comfortable & more convenient than the buckle fittings typically found on shoulder harness straps. This installation was documented as a minor alteration in the logbook, not even a 337 is required let alone a 337 or STC per the current FAA policy on shoulder harness installations. "Better a bootleg installation than none at all" seems to be their position on shoulder restraints nowadays. It does have to meet certain requirements with regards to how it attaches to the airframe, whch are spelled out in the policy statement which is available online.
A friend of mine is installing a 4-point harness out of a Husky in his Pacer. It uses an Amsafe brand inertia reel which is a cleaner looking until than the old Paficic Scientific reel. I poked around onloine but couldn't seem to find where I could buy just a reel, or even a complete harness assembly. Probably have to go through Husky or some other aircraft mfr.

Eric

Always good to have more discussion on a topic like this, but here are a few other related topics if you want some more reading:

Inertial Reel Harnesses
http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=821

BAS Inertial Reel Testimonial
http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=335

I see on the Maule website that they offer two choices in optional 4 point shoulder harnesses. Can somebody tell me why 2 rotary buckles are worth 2 grand more than the lift lever buckles?

Look at the "Schroth Harnesses" website for another option. Standard issue for Airbus aircraft and many others.

Shoulder harnesses have been neglected, abused, bought for the right reasons, the wrong reasons, and sometimes not used after they are installed. One of the big reasons the manufacturers did not put them in for a long time is that they knew how a standard shoulder harness would prevent the pilot from reaching all the controls.

In the research and testing I did while developing the EZ Flap flap handle extension, I actually spoke to pilots who did not wear the shoulder harness they already had, simply because it prevented them from getting to the flaps. Others loosened the harness to the point where it didn't do any good at all. This is completely unsafe in my opinion (and the opinion of many air safety professionals).

So whatever option you choose, OEM standard, Hooker, or inertia reel, make sure you are making the choice for the right reasons. Inertia reel units are an added convenience for sure, I hope the BAS guys sell 10 million of their units. But a standard harness can also be mounted correctly (through the spar carry-through) as well.

A properly installed and anchored standard shoulder harness will give you the same protection as an inertia reel harness in a crash. The inertia reel locks up under acceleration and then becomes a standard shoulder harness. With all respect to inertia reel manufacturers (I hope they sell 20 million), everyone whose life was saved in a crash by an inertia reel would also have been saved if they were using a (properly attached) standard harness.

If the main reason for someone buying an inertia reel system is because it lets you bend down to reach the flap handle, that's the wrong reason to buy it and contact me before you do.

Whatever you do, whoever's product you buy, please have a good quality full pilot restraint system and make sure it is anchored properly in the airframe.

EZFlap wrote: If the main reason for someone buying an inertia reel system is because it lets you bend down to reach the flap handle, that's the wrong reason to buy it and contact me before you do.

I disagree.

Are you really saying there is a disadvantage to an inertial reel shoulder harness? I think one of the reasons inertial reel harnesses are valuable is so that you don't have to mount additional levers on your flap handle.

I agree to disagree with Zane...if you drop your pen, sunglasses, or whatever, it would be easier to recover it with an inertial reel shoulder strap...the ezflap won't help in this case.

Yo- hotrod- Check out cubcrafters, they have some 4 pts with inertial reel, at reasonable prices...maybe a source for a new reel?

And, I would point out, once again, that the difference between BAS harness systems and all the other inertial reel systems is that the BAS system installs INSIDE the headliner. This prevents the conglomerations of mixed up tangles characteristic of other inertial reel systems.

Also, attachment points aren't as simple as just "choosing" a different installation procedure. There are STC's available for the BAS system, which specify the method of attachment, which is through the spar. Buy brand x, and their STC calls for a different attachment point, as in a rivnut in the front of the rear spar, for example, or the diagonal attachment to the door post. You cannot legally just decide to attach these with different hardware and in a different location. Granted, the FAA has issued guidance that supposedly encourages folks to mount even non aviation harnesses in their aircraft. Unfortunately, in some districts, the FAA has actually violated mechanics for installing harness systems like the Hooker system, which isnt' stc'd. Go figure.

Go with the BAS system. You hope to never use them for real, but if you do, you won't find better protection.

MTV

I had just bought my airplane 6 years ago, a 63 P172D, ordered and received the BAS shoulder harnesses, but had not had them installed yet, when the engine threw a rod through the top of the case and I had to land in a field. Fortunately it was the best soft field landing I've ever made, and the simple lap belt was all that was necessary--I don't even know if I snugged it up before landing, because there wasn't much time.

But I'm sold on the BAS harnesses--a sense of safety along with the ability to move around without feeling bound up.

Cary

While we are on the subject of BAS harnesses, has anyone seen them installed in the rear seats of a 182 (later models - with rear window). I want to add them back there and am looking for some ideas where to attach. The people at BAS had no info on this to help me. Thanks.

mtv wrote:....Also, attachment points aren't as simple as just "choosing" a different installation procedure. There are STC's available for the BAS system, which specify the method of attachment, which is through the spar. Buy brand x, and their STC calls for a different attachment point, as in a rivnut in the front of the rear spar, for example, or the diagonal attachment to the door post. You cannot legally just decide to attach these with different hardware and in a different location. Granted, the FAA has issued guidance that supposedly encourages folks to mount even non aviation harnesses in their aircraft. Unfortunately, in some districts, the FAA has actually violated mechanics for installing harness systems like the Hooker system, which isnt' stc'd. Go figure. ......

Google up FAA policy statement ACE-00-23.561-01 for the official FAA position on installation of shoulder harness systems. A lot of Cessna's (my 1964 150D included) have nutplates inside the aft spar carry-through which is an accepted attach point. I believe the Hooker harness for the C120/140/150 attach fitting bolts horizontally through the aft spar carry-through -- that ain't gonna pull out. I find it hard to believe that a rivnut on the forward side of the spar carry-through would be the specified attach for anyone's STC'd harness.
The inertia reel I am using was off my old 170, mounted concealed above the headliner ahead of the spar carry-through. I wanted to do something similar with the 150, but the spar carry-through is not as tall as on the 170 and so the reel would make a lump in the headliner & possibly bind it up. So the reel is mounted below the headliner, against the bottom of the carry-through.
I just checked the BAS website and they don't seem to offer a set-up for the C150. In fact, they list only Cessna, Beech, Piper & Luscombe -- I guess anyone else is out of luck. So the BAS, while a good product, is not the be-all end-all solution or even a viable choice for everyone. Personally, I like an inertia reel arrangement for not only reaching my non-EZ flap handle but also for leaning forward to look ahead of the wing. But some people use non-reel systems like the Hooker and others and seem to like them just fine.

Eric

Eric,

You're right--many of the Cessnas had a nut plate, not a rivnut. And, yes, I have seen them pulled out. This is why BAS went with a through bolt AND reinforcement of the attach point.

I don't know about the 150, obviously BAS doesn't make harnesses for every airplane. But what they do make is good stuff, and well thought out.

As to the FAA guidance, I can introduce you to a mechanic who followed that guidance to the LETTER, and was violated by an FAA maintenance inspector. They are fighting that one through the legal process right now, and that mechanic is spending a LOT of money on legal fees for doing precisely what that guidance said to do. This was with the Hooker harness, but no fault of theirs. Once again, the Flight "Standards" Division is not standardized, and nobody wants to back off. Unfortunate, but if I were installing something that wasn't STC'd, I'd be running it past the FAA FIRST.

MTV

1SeventyZ wrote:
Are you really saying there is a disadvantage to an inertial reel shoulder harness? I think one of the reasons inertial reel harnesses are valuable is so that you don't have to mount additional levers on your flap handle.

I'm saying that as convenient and worthwhile as it may be for a bunch of other things, the inertia reel does not correctly solve the built-in flap control problem, and too many people think it does. Penicillin is great too, but it doesn't cure the common cold.

The inertia reel system gives you the same freedom as the original lap-belt-only design.

Lap belts, inertia reels and loosened Hooker harnesses all give you the freedom to lean forward, take your eyes off of where you're going and put them inside the cockpit, put your face close to the instrument panel, possibly bump your chest into the yoke (slow flight with the yoke back, like in a STOL landing), and fly the airplane in a contorted position while reaching the flaps.

Are you really saying that this is the correct way to actuate the flaps?

This all takes place during the takeoff and landing phases of flight, when you might ought to be looking outside the airplane and concentrating on your LZ.

If Cessna had put the pilot's control yoke in the back seat, and the rudder pedals in the baggage compartment, you could eventually overcome this problem and fly the airplane... but if someone came up with a simple way to bolt on a device that put the controls in a more convenient place it would be a lot better.

You can all be as annoyed with me (for being a smart ass) as you want, but the device I invented works as advertised and puts the flap control in the correct location. Cessna didn't do it, for reasons that appeared valid to them in 1948, so I did it now.

Now let's have some real fun -

The big "test" that I ask people to take, to see whether the EZ Flap is worthwhile for them, is pretty simple. I challenge all of you with manual flap Cessnas and Pipers to put your ego (and mine) aside for a second and take this little test if you dare:

First, take the shoulder harness, inertia reel, Hooker, lap belt, etc. completely out of the equation. Don't wear any type of shoulder harness or pilot restraint for this test.

* Sit in your airplane with the seat adjusted for your height… flaps zero.
* Hold the yoke 2/3 aft (to simulate slow flight on takeoff and landing).
* Grab the flap handle with your thumb on the button, but DO NOT deploy flaps.

Now, while sitting there holding the flap lever at zero for a moment, HONESTLY ask yourself the following 6 questions …
1) Am I sitting upright in the correct, safe flying position?
2) How is my visibility and “situational awareness” ?
3) Am I leaning on (or too close to) the yoke for safety and maneuvering?
4) If I were landing or taking off right now, would I be able to pay full attention to the terrain, the runway, the obstacles, or other traffic?
5) If I were on a short, demanding strip hard on the brakes, would I have the same directional control and situational awareness as I had when I was sitting upright?
6) If I were taking off in this position, would I be able to "milk" the flaps back up slowly or would I be tempted to rush through it and let the airplane settle?

NOW : Sit up straight again, relax, look out the windshield, and now put your right hand just underneath the throttle knob (where the EZ Flap handle will be). Ask yourself the same 6 questions. If you can honestly say there is not a significant improvement by having the flap control in this location, then you won't benefit from the EZ Flap STC.

The inertia reel shoulder harness is a great invention. It provides additional convenience and free movement in the cockpit. But an inertia reel is not an excuse for an airplane owner to not address another problem that can be addressed.

The airplanes were built without inertia reels or flap handle extensions. If bolting on a $900 inertia reel is a valid upgrade (because it makes flying safer and more convenient), then bolting on a $500 flap handle extension is valid for the same !($*%*@# reason !

I know you have a product to sell, and you do it a little with every post, but it's starting stink a little when you start discouraging inertial reel systems to do so. Flaps aren't the only reason to lean forward.

I agree. No offense, but please do your flapping about EZ-Flap on the EZ-Flap thread.

People here seem to do their "flapping" about whatever they want in whichever forum they deem it appropriate to do so. And so shall I.

I am NOT discouraging inertia reels at all. If you look through my previous posts, you will see clearly that I often go out of my way to recommend their product, say that I hope they sell a truckload of them, etc. etc. You can see this type of comment from me over and over in just about every forum I've ever been in to discuss this subject... BCP, Cessna, Piper, and in person talking to people on the ramp.

You're either missing or side-stepping my point... not sure which. But please read this thoroughly and understand I'm not bashing BAS, never did, never will, and I support their product entirely. For the final time, I am NOT saying "don't buy an inertia reel". I think inertia reels are GREAT. I would gladly put them in my own airplane with or without the flap extension.

My point is that an inertia reel does not solve the flap control location issue. Cessna did not put the flap control at the correct location and neither does BAS.

Here's the part that "stinks" from my POV: On one hand, the airplanes were mostly built without inertia reels installed. Adding the inertia reels is a $900 upgrade. Everyone had been flying their airplanes without them for years, before they knew it existed. The inertia reel does not give you any more or less crash safety than a $100 Hooker harness. It adds convenience, but in a crash it is essentially the same thing as having a Hooker harness. Anyone whose life was saved by a BAS would have had their life saved by a Hooker harness. Because of this convenience, everyone and their brother is now advocating the BAS unit, saying that it's a worthwhile upgrade, well worth the $900, a huge safety improvement, cures Cancer, kills Al Quaida, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Now I come along, with an equally valid invention that solves a separate issue. The airplanes were built with the flap handle in the wrong location and it forced everyone to go bobbing for apples to reach the flap handle... with or without ANY and EVERY type of shoulder harness or none at all. Just like the BAS unit, the GPS, the memory foam seat cushion, and the "Flight Boss" organizer... people have been flying without a flap handle extension for years.

But when I offer the product for sale, nobody wants to give me the same fair shake. Nobody slammed the BAS people half to friggin' death saying "I've been flying this airplane for 75 years without your gadget installed!!!" Nobody slammed the the GPS manufacturers to the point of insantiy, even though we'd all been flying on charts and E6B's for years.

Did the BAS people or the GPS people offer to return the customer's money if you didn't really like the product? Neither does any other STC product manufacturers as far as I know. I've got a highly experienced former Edwards AFB test pilot that tested this device, and gave it his recommendation. I've got an experienced "human factors" evaluator who tested it on his own 180 and gave it his recommendation.

But still, many of the people here on these internet forums treat me like I'm selling "as seen on TV" junk that doesn't do what it's advertised to do. The same people who wring their hands over the death of general aviation and the general decline of innovations in aviation won't support the guy who comes up with something new and useful. That's what stinks.