Backcountry Pilot

[RanchAero offline]

I'm still looking for some used inertial shoulder belts for the Maule. If anyone has upgraded to 4 points or knows of a good source...I am interested. Seems Maule wants $600 for a pair.

[maules.com offline]

I just wrote a little disertation on belts on maulepilots.org How do I submit the same info on more than one chatroom without rewriting. I don't know the computer intricacies so if explaining, please write simple steps to take.
Jeremy

[compassheading offline]

In my M-5-235 I used the inertia shoulder harness from Cub Crafters. Attaching the tube clamps to the carry through tube in the cabin just aft of the pilot or co-pilot's head. Be sure to order the correct size tube clamp. I am using the longer lap belt.

http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/products/SeatBelts.asp

This is not STC'ed for the Maule but in my area it was not a problem for my mechanic or FSDO

[maules.com offline]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A doctor once wrote that a 5 point belt is the best, a 3 point the next best and 4 point the next and 2 point the worst.
The 3 point, at impact, tightens the lower belt across the bone structure, whereas the 4 point pulls the lower belt upwards so that it is off the bone and traumatising the internal organs, causing potential internal bleeding. The 5 point holds the lower belt down.
At most common impact, forward, the upper torso accelerates forward faster than the lower body which is in frictional contact with the seat and has downward forces also.
Jeremy
_________________
Jeremy
www.maules.com
Maule AK Worldwide

[mtv offline]

Also, you do not want the shoulder belts attached right behind the pilot's shoulders. They need to be attached a lot further aft than that to be effective.

Think about the angle of the pull on the belts. If the inertial reel is right behind the pilot, it will allow a lot of movement before the reel even thinks about locking up. In that time, your face will decorate that instrument panel.

$600 for a pair of shoulder harnesses isn't that bad.

I owe my life to a set of BAS harnesses. I bought a set for my airplane right after that, and they cost more than $600. Best money I ever spent on that airplane.

MTV

[Berk offline]

...$600 for a pair of shoulder harnesses isn't that bad...MTV

Yup. I agree. That could be the best $600 bucks you spend on your bird. Bite the bullet, and just do it. You won't miss it once they're in place, and it's a lifetime investment.
It sure is nice to be able to reach the flaps handle, and still know I've got firm restraint protections.
Check out this thread which covers why you want this system installed:
phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=335
Enjoy, Berk

[RanchAero offline]

Thanks for all the input. BAS doesn't have an STC for the Maule that I know about. I'm interested in the single shoulder, 3 point inertial system. I was and am convinced to get it done. My flap control is down there where a fixed shoulder belt wouldn't work and they seem too restrictive. Rather inexpensive insurance compared to the possible alternative

[Beaver offline]

I just recieved my new Maule and ordered them with 4 pt restaraints. Maule used Am-Safe as the supplier and they have provisions for a 5th point. We asked Maul to supply 5 pt and of course they couldn't. I intend to add the 5th point to these. For what its worth I think they are really well done and much more comfortable than the 3 pt.

[Zzz]

I have heard/read that restraint systems are something the owner has a lot of freedom with, as in they can install whatever they want and make whatever mods they want without necessarily having it STC'd or field approved. Is this true?

[Quail offline]

See my next post and read the FAA Policy letter and decide for yourself.
I did however, install the BAS harnesses in my own plane. By the time you added up the cost of new (not putting in wrecking yard salvage in my plane!!!) auto inertia reel setups and the time to design and adapt/make brackets, it was better to buy the real mcoy from Bud.

[Beaver offline]

I do not believe so FAR 23.785 address seat belts, certificated aircraft are to be maintained IAW the TCDS. All the optional restraint systems I am familiar with are only available via STC.

[Quail offline]

Beaver: I am not a rated mechanic or expert of any sort, but to my layman vocabulary, the FAA statement seemed to read so. Please read page 7 and the last few pages in particular and let me know. If I am wrong, I want to remove the previous post I made immediately. Thanks!
FAA Policy Statement Number ACE-00-23.561-01
Do a google search and will come up as the first result.

[Beaver offline]

Bob, as I read it "as long as no STC exists for your particular aircraft" you may install an additional belt in a plane older than 1977/78 which still utilizes the appropriate lap belt. That's going to rule out most planes and leave only the obscure models that BAS and others haven't covered.

[Quail offline]

So the second paragraph of page 7 is not truth?

"Installation of shoulder harnesses may be accomplished without FAA approval if the installation is a minor change to the airplane design."

Further paragraphs describe some installations of shoulder harnesses as a minor change. Others that drill through spars and such are described as major changes.

[Strata Rocketeer offline]

I just recieved my new Maule and ordered them with 4 pt restaraints. Maule used Am-Safe as the supplier and they have provisions for a 5th point. We asked Maul to supply 5 pt and of course they couldn't. I intend to add the 5th point to these. For what its worth I think they are really well done and much more comfortable than the 3 pt.

I think adding the fifth point to the four point system is a great idea that should be able to be accomplished with a log book entry for the Maule and other planes as well, but doing it correctly will require cutting a slot in the seat pan and some custom upholstery work to make it work right. Finding an anchor point is a no-brainer in the Maule.

With regards to ACE-00-23.561-01, I think the FAA left a lot of leeway for design and install of shoulder harnesses in the interest of increased safety with the intent that it be made as painless as possible in a 'red tape' regulatory sense (log book entry) as long as doesn't affect the aircraft structure. Unfortunately, many IA's are unwilling to use the latitude that ACE-00-23.561-01 gives them for fear of what the stiff collars at the FSDO might do if they might happen to disagree with the install methods.

[mtv offline]

And not without good reason. Some, if not many FSDO Inspectors are arguing that you cannot install Hooker harnesses in an airplane, for example, which seems contrary to the guidance in the subject policy guidance.

Unfortunately, this exact scenario is going on all over the country, on all sorts of issues, where it is clear to everyone except the FSDO guy that what is proposed is a minor alteration, but the FSDO guy says no.

If I were an IA, and my FSDO guy said what I proposed to do was NOT a minor, I'd sure not be putting my name on that logbook entry.

This situation really stinks. First, the FAA "encourages" all mechanics to bring proposed modifications to them, to get airplanes legal, and to make the IA's more comfortable that what they are doing is sanctioned.

Then, FSDO decides they don't want the responsibility either, so now they tell everybody to go to Engineering, which is otherwise and widely known as "The Kiss of Death" as far as approvals go.

So, with lots of feedback, the FAA brilliantly comes up with a policy paper on how field approvals will now be handled. The crux of that policy is that most stuff is a minor, and the FSDO should encourage mechanics to sign stuff off that really is a minor.

Only one small problem: Lots of FSDO guys around who argue that this or that is NOT a minor. So, what would one expect a semi intelligent IA to do?

It is the perfect Orwellian resolution to responsibility, frankly. The FAA has made themselves so invisible that we can't get anything approved in most of the world.

MTV