Seat belt tags

[Stephen Stilkey]

Just finished the annual inspection on my 1963 172 this afternoon. It was
the first time I had used this A+P to inspect my plane. I assisted and
things went smoothly. It's interesting that a "new" set of eyes can see
things that have been overlooked in the past. Anyway, the seat belts no
longer have "tags" that designate them approved. He said they must either be
replaced or refurbished for the plane to be considered airworthy. Any
thoughts on who might recondition the belts? Do I have to spring for new
replacement ones?

Thanks,
Steve

[Blanche Cohen]

Try Wag-Aero for the seat belts. There are others, but this
is the only one I remember.

[Ron Natalie]

"Stephen Stilkey" > wrote in message ...
> Anyway, the seat belts no
> longer have "tags" that designate them approved. He said they must either be
> replaced or refurbished for the plane to be considered airworthy

He's wrong. The belts probably never had tags. There's no requirement for
older planes to have the TSO tags on them.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:25:37 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Stephen Stilkey" > wrote in message ...
>> Anyway, the seat belts no
>> longer have "tags" that designate them approved. He said they must either be
>> replaced or refurbished for the plane to be considered airworthy
>
>He's wrong. The belts probably never had tags. There's no requirement for
>older planes to have the TSO tags on them.

Hmmm, I might buy that.

The FAA's ramp inspection "guide" useta have an item for seatbelt
tags.

Pretty sure it referenced 91.205 (b) something-or-other which calls
for "an approved safety belt".

I'm just not sure how you can convince the FAA that a seat belt
without a data tag, or other identifying markings is "approved".

TC

[Dennis O'Connor]

No tags on the belts in Fat Albert, and he was used by many a pilot to take
his multi/ifr/cfi check ride over a 40 year period... Apparently the
inspectors never blinked...
denny

> wrote in message > >He's wrong. The belts
probably never had tags. There's no requirement for
> >older planes to have the TSO tags on them.
>
> Hmmm, I might buy that.
>
> The FAA's ramp inspection "guide" useta have an item for seatbelt
> tags.
>
> Pretty sure it referenced 91.205 (b) something-or-other which calls
> for "an approved safety belt".
>
> I'm just not sure how you can convince the FAA that a seat belt
> without a data tag, or other identifying markings is "approved".
>
> TC
>

[[email protected]]

Stephen Stilkey > wrote:
: Just finished the annual inspection on my 1963 172 this afternoon. It was
: the first time I had used this A+P to inspect my plane. I assisted and
: things went smoothly. It's interesting that a "new" set of eyes can see
: things that have been overlooked in the past. Anyway, the seat belts no
: longer have "tags" that designate them approved. He said they must either be
: replaced or refurbished for the plane to be considered airworthy. Any
: thoughts on who might recondition the belts? Do I have to spring for new
: replacement ones?

: Thanks,
: Steve

Yet another example of how ridiculous, tedious and completely misguided the
FAA regulations and their enforcement has become. While I don't necessarily fault the
A&P since it's his ticket on the line, the knee-jerk ruling ("... of course that's
illegal!") is the fundamental problem.

WRT your problem, I'd find a set from a junkyard.. Wentworth (MN) or Aircraft
Salvage (TN) come to mind. Even they aren't cheap though. Got a replacement rear
belt for our Cherokee... Something like $50 for a moldy old thing. Ridiculous.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ron Natalie]

> wrote in message ...

> The FAA's ramp inspection "guide" useta have an item for seatbelt
> tags.
>

It used to have a lot of stuff in it that didn't apply to all situations. Besides
if some ignorant inspector wants to ground your plane, he'll come up with
some reason.

> Pretty sure it referenced 91.205 (b) something-or-other which calls
> for "an approved safety belt".

The ones that are in my plane were APPROVED when the Type Certificate
of the plane was issued....no AD has come out to invalidate them.

[Steve]

Additional checking on my part today. One of the rear belts still has a tag
so I assume the front ones must have also had one at some point in time. I
checked with Aircraft Spruce today and they sell "FAA Certified Personal
Restraints" for about $ 35.00- $ 50.00 each. That's the route I'll go.

Thanks for your responses,
Steve


"Stephen Stilkey" > wrote in message
...
> Just finished the annual inspection on my 1963 172 this afternoon. It was
> the first time I had used this A+P to inspect my plane. I assisted and
> things went smoothly. It's interesting that a "new" set of eyes can see
> things that have been overlooked in the past. Anyway, the seat belts no
> longer have "tags" that designate them approved. He said they must either
be
> replaced or refurbished for the plane to be considered airworthy. Any
> thoughts on who might recondition the belts? Do I have to spring for new
> replacement ones?
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:03:58 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor"
> wrote:

>No tags on the belts in Fat Albert, and he was used by many a pilot to take
>his multi/ifr/cfi check ride over a 40 year period... Apparently the
>inspectors never blinked...
>denny
>

The reference here is to what? That since it hasn't been "caught" is
must be OK?

I once had to fly to Cleveland to rescue a CFI applicant that had
loose carpet in the pilot's footwell.

The inspector and I came to an agreement that the carpet wasn't
"required equipment", so I tore it out and threw in the trash can so
the prospective CFI could take his ride.

TC

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:24:48 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message ...
>
>> The FAA's ramp inspection "guide" useta have an item for seatbelt
>> tags.
>>
>
>It used to have a lot of stuff in it that didn't apply to all situations. Besides
>if some ignorant inspector wants to ground your plane, he'll come up with
>some reason.
>
>> Pretty sure it referenced 91.205 (b) something-or-other which calls
>> for "an approved safety belt".
>
>The ones that are in my plane were APPROVED when the Type Certificate
>of the plane was issued....no AD has come out to invalidate them.
>

OK, I'll stay in, how does the reg I referenced (in pt 91) not "apply"
the given situation?

And the "APPROV"-al can be verified how? Are you telling me that you
still have the original seat belts in your aircraft, or that you can
provide documentation to verify that they have been properly
repaired/altered?

I'm afraid that even this ignorant mechanic can look at the seat belts
in a 41 year-old aircraft and tell whether or not they are "original".

I am by no means trying to tell you that you are wrong, or that a
TSO'd belt is categorically required by the CFR, or by your Type
Certificate.

I am afraid I have to disagree with the ignorant inspector comment. In
twenty years I have never had anyone successfully "ground" an aircraft
that I was maintaining.

Have been in confrontations with quite a few, reference my response to
the Fat Albert thread.

Regards;

TC

[Roger Bartholomee]

My 1965 C150E came with a web seat belt that was not metal to metal. IE the
strap on one side was put into a clamp on the other end. I think all
aircraft including commerical airplanes had an AD to replace them with the
metal to metal types we have now in airplanes and autos. I think all this
happen around 20 some years ago.

Roger @ MD43 C150E

[Ron Natalie]

> wrote in message ...

> >The ones that are in my plane were APPROVED when the Type Certificate
> >of the plane was issued....no AD has come out to invalidate them.
> >
>
> OK, I'll stay in, how does the reg I referenced (in pt 91) not "apply"
> the given situation?.

I didn't say it didn't apply, but you should try reading the regulation. It doesn't
say anything about approved safety belts. It says approved seat/bearth.
Even so, that approval is conformance with the type certificate. Back in 1950
the FAA approved it and hasn't rescinded that approval.


>
> I am by no means trying to tell you that you are wrong, or that a
> TSO'd belt is categorically required by the CFR, or by your Type
> Certificate.
>
Then what are you arguing?


> I am afraid I have to disagree with the ignorant inspector comment. In
> twenty years I have never had anyone successfully "ground" an aircraft
> that I was maintaining.
>

He would be ignorant if he grounded an older aircraft based on the lack of TSO
tags for the seat belt. It was a hypothetical.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:06:45 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message ...
>
>> >The ones that are in my plane were APPROVED when the Type Certificate
>> >of the plane was issued....no AD has come out to invalidate them.
>> >
>>
>> OK, I'll stay in, how does the reg I referenced (in pt 91) not "apply"
>> the given situation?.
>
>I didn't say it didn't apply, but you should try reading the regulation. It doesn't
>say anything about approved safety belts. It says approved seat/bearth.

You wanna rephrase? I hadn't read it for a couple years, so I re-read
it. Just now. " You should try reading" it and point out any
substantial errors in my earlier reference to it.

straight from the GPO web site:

>
>[Code of Federal Regulations]
>[Title 14, Volume 2]
>[Revised as of January 1, 2001]
>From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
>[CITE: 14CFR91.205]
>
>[Page 209-211]
>
> TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
>
>CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
> (Continued)
>
>PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES--Table of Contents
>
> Subpart C--Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate Requirements
>
>Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.

snip

> (b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the
>following instruments and equipment are required:

snip

> (13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal
>latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older.

(14) goes on to cover the requirement for shoulder harnesses for newer
aircraft, clearly not applicable.

>Even so, that approval is conformance with the type certificate. Back in 1950
>the FAA approved it and hasn't rescinded that approval.

No dispute. So lets say your hypothetical seatbelts are original, have
never been replaced or re-webbed. Indeed they are still "approved".

>> I am by no means trying to tell you that you are wrong, or that a
>> TSO'd belt is categorically required by the CFR, or by your Type
>> Certificate.
>>
>Then what are you arguing?

I'm not "arguing" anything, just pointing out that my "right" answer
may not be identical to yours. And the odds are, that in the 41 year
old Cessna originally in question, the seatbelts installed are not
original.

>> I am afraid I have to disagree with the ignorant inspector comment. In
>> twenty years I have never had anyone successfully "ground" an aircraft
>> that I was maintaining.
>>
>
>He would be ignorant if he grounded an older aircraft based on the lack of TSO
>tags for the seat belt. It was a hypothetical.

No one except you has brought up a "TSO". I was referring to the
airplane originally referenced, perhaps he was referring specifically
to a "TSO". In the original posting, "refurbishing" the seatbelts was
mentioned. While I could possibly find a properly licensed facility to
repair his original belts (if they are indeed original) and provide a
suitable service release, they aren't likely to put on a "TSO tag".

Contrary to what a lot of people in GA tend to think, keeping a GA
aircraft "legal" isn't really that difficult. I can assure you, if one
has to work within these regs daily, it is relatively easy to acquire
a working knowledge superior to that of the inspector.

An inspector cannot step outside of the regs to "ground" an aircraft,
technically he cannot "ground" anything. After finding a legitimate
discrepancy, he can however attach a condition notice to your aircraft
making it impossible for you to operate it legally.

Unless he/she is performing a required periodic inspection, an AP/IA
can do NOTHING. Even in this instance, they cannot legally stop you
from getting in it and flying away.

TC

--

You don't need a license to fly an airplane,
but it sure helps if you are trying to rent one...

[Steve]

Gene you are correct. After further contact with Airplane Spruce they
clarify that the belts are certified to FAA TSO-C22f but in fact do not have
TSO tags. This is not going to solve my problem. Cessna Pilots Association
has pointed me to ABI out of Kemah, Texas. I just gave them a call and they
will provide belts with the tags I need.


"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:27:24 GMT, "Steve" >
> wrote:
>
> >Additional checking on my part today. One of the rear belts still has a
tag
> >so I assume the front ones must have also had one at some point in time.
I
> >checked with Aircraft Spruce today and they sell "FAA Certified Personal
> >Restraints" for about $ 35.00- $ 50.00 each. That's the route I'll go.
> >
> >Thanks for your responses,
> >Steve
> >
>
> You may not be in any better shape unless they have a TSO tag on them.
> Aircraft Spruce specifically does not provide an FAA-8130 and the form
> is available only with an upcharge of $25-$75 and a possible delay in
> delivery.
>
> They provide their own "Certificate of Conformance" which may or may
> not satisfy the situation and/or your IA.
>
> The FAA often catches installation of "FAA Approved" stuff that isn't
> approved for *that* airplane. It is up to you and your mechanic to
> verify that "FAA Approved" article isn't an "authentic replica."
>

[Dennis O'Connor]

OK, not looking to pick a fight with the TC for fear of dismemberment...
But, the seats and the belts are original Piper equipment, came from the
factory under CAR regs... They are old but serviceable... I suspect if I do
get ramped we are gonna have a nose to nose over that...
So, under Part 91 (which didn't exist then) do I have to be able to prove
that the steel in the airframe is 'approved', and the magnesium, and
aluminum, and the yokes, etc., etc., none of which have any kind of tags, or
serial numbers?
denny

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in > That is pretty much the
size of it. FAR 91.205(b)(12) requires "An
> approved safety belt..."

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Dennis O'Connor"
> wrote:

> So, under Part 91 (which didn't exist then) do I have to be able to prove
> that the steel in the airframe is 'approved', and the magnesium, and
> aluminum, and the yokes, etc., etc., none of which have any kind of tags,
> or
> serial numbers?

but they have part numbers, don't they?

--
Bob Noel

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:15:02 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor"
> wrote:

>OK, not looking to pick a fight with the TC for fear of dismemberment...
>But, the seats and the belts are original Piper equipment, came from the
>factory under CAR regs... They are old but serviceable... I suspect if I do
>get ramped we are gonna have a nose to nose over that...

Come on Denny, put 'em up!

I typically think (at least a little) prior to posting, and I don't
think I've made any specific statements contrary to what you are
saying.

A portion of my follow-up to your original post specifically mentioned
a "nose to nose". The other portion was specifically intentioned to
twist your tail a little.

I know I didn't advise the owner to do anything (shame on me), which
kinda means I didn't tell him he needed to run out and buy TSO'd
belts.

>So, under Part 91 (which didn't exist then) do I have to be able to prove
>that the steel in the airframe is 'approved', and the magnesium, and
>aluminum, and the yokes, etc., etc., none of which have any kind of tags, or
>serial numbers?
>denny

If you wanna use the mentality of an FAA inspector, if it was listed
in their little checklist-yes, they would expect you to prove it. Do I
doubt that you could cause 'em to back down? Nope.

If you want another "nose-to-nose" (actually, telephone-to-ear)
discourse, I once had a company pilot fly a customer's 172 back to TDZ
from the East Coast with a condition notice stuffed into the seat
back.

I had tried for two days prior to reach the inspector-no joy. This
inspector had edicted this particular aircraft unfit to aviate because
when he had a line guy grab a wingtip and move it up and down (an
inspired piece of ramp inspecting, eh?) he noted that the wing was
moving slightly in relation to the windshield top "seam".

This clearly being a symptom of hidden wing spar carry-through damage,
and certain impending structural failure (to paraphrase the verbosity
on the condition notice), the aircraft could not be safely operated.

I'm afraid that I wasn't very nice to the inspector on the phone when
I finally reached him, and attempted to explain to him the dynamic of
the Cessna high-wing/suspended fuselage construction/windshield
installation. When that failed, I not so politely suggested that he
tear his copy/copies up and discard them, as that was what I was doing
with the ones in my possession, and did just that.

I might have also mentioned that by pressing the matter, and by
subsequently being found to be an embarrassment to the FAA, he would
have succeeded in making my mundane life interesting for a change.

When I hung up the phone, I wuz grinning from ear-to-ear, kinda like I
do 99.9% of the time I screw around in the 'groups.

Regards;

TC

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> I might have also mentioned that by pressing the matter, and by
> subsequently being found to be an embarrassment to the FAA, he would
> have succeeded in making my mundane life interesting for a change.

Sounds like the same guy who grounded the plane with "Q-tip" props, since it
had "obviously" had a prop strike.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Yup, the airframe manual calls them out with a Piper part number - ahhh
hahhh, including me seat belts! great tip....
So, I just wave the airframe manual under the inspectors nose, eh?
denny...

"Bob Noel" > > but they have part
numbers, don't they?
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[BTIZ]

> That is pretty much the size of it. FAR 91.205(b)(12) requires "An
> approved safety belt..." Your A&P/IA can't justify installation of a
> safety belt that he can *prove* is "approved." And toecutter is also
> correct in his recollection that TSO tags on safety belts are
> specifically mentioned as a step in a ramp check in the Airworthiness
> Inspector's Handbook(8300.10).
>

What is he doing looking inside the airplane on a "ramp check"??.. last I
read, only thing that can be checked on the "ramp", is my pilot certificate
in my possession and my medical. (Part 91, not 135 or 121) and he gets to
see my certificate, but not handle it.

He has no authority to look in the aircraft other than through the windows.
And any paper work on the aircraft he wants to see can be done by
appointment at the local FSDO nearest my home.

BT

[dave]

BTIZ wrote:
>>That is pretty much the size of it. FAR 91.205(b)(12) requires "An
>>approved safety belt..." Your A&P/IA can't justify installation of a
>>safety belt that he can *prove* is "approved." And toecutter is also
>>correct in his recollection that TSO tags on safety belts are
>>specifically mentioned as a step in a ramp check in the Airworthiness
>>Inspector's Handbook(8300.10).
>>
>
>
> What is he doing looking inside the airplane on a "ramp check"??.. last I
> read, only thing that can be checked on the "ramp", is my pilot certificate
> in my possession and my medical. (Part 91, not 135 or 121) and he gets to
> see my certificate, but not handle it.
>
> He has no authority to look in the aircraft other than through the windows.
> And any paper work on the aircraft he wants to see can be done by
> appointment at the local FSDO nearest my home.
>
> BT
>
>

Good Answer!!

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:18:31 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

snip

>What is he doing looking inside the airplane on a "ramp check"??.. last I
>read, only thing that can be checked on the "ramp", is my pilot certificate
>in my possession and my medical. (Part 91, not 135 or 121) and he gets to
>see my certificate, but not handle it.

Not sure what you read. Depending on the level of "surveillance" he
deems necessary, he/she can to see just about anything directly
pertaining to operations under 91. There are only a few additional
items that might be requested for 135 ops.

>He has no authority to look in the aircraft other than through the windows.
>And any paper work on the aircraft he wants to see can be done by
>appointment at the local FSDO nearest my home.

"He has no authority to look in the aircraft" without your permission.
He also has no authority to delay you in going about your business.

TC

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:33:22 -0500, wrote:

snip
>Not sure what you read. Depending on the level of "surveillance" he
>deems necessary, he/she can to see just about anything directly
>pertaining to operations under 91. There are only a few additional
>items that might be requested for 135 ops.

sorry-make that "he/she can ASK to see..."

snip

[Dennis O'Connor]

The two times in the past that I have been 'ramped' I have said no, and
simply walked away...
Happened again the summer after 9/11 at my home field... I pulled the plane
out, closed my hangar door, got in the plane and ran my prestart list... As
I looked up to clear the port prop before hitting the starter here comes
this guy trotting across the ramp waving at me... I am half suspicious of
who he is, and I see no reason to stop, so I wave back, smile, and proceed
to start the engines... He stands there with his hands on his hips as I
taxi out...
Later, I asked the airport manager who that ding dong was...
FAA, he replies... Wanted to ramp check you and he was ****ed when he came
back inside... As you were taking off a canadian registered business jet
came in... He got even by doing a rectal check on those pilots that would
have made a proctologist proud... He had their documents spread out on the
table for 40 minutes....

Ahh yes, I feel so much safer now that those terrorist canadian pilots were
properly sodomized...

denny

> wrote in message > He also has no authority to
delay you in going about your business.
>
> TC
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:18:31 -0800, "BTIZ" >
> wrote:
>
> >> That is pretty much the size of it. FAR 91.205(b)(12) requires "An
> >> approved safety belt..." Your A&P/IA can't justify installation of a
> >> safety belt that he can *prove* is "approved." And toecutter is also
> >> correct in his recollection that TSO tags on safety belts are
> >> specifically mentioned as a step in a ramp check in the Airworthiness
> >> Inspector's Handbook(8300.10).
> >>
> >
> >What is he doing looking inside the airplane on a "ramp check"??.. last I
> >read, only thing that can be checked on the "ramp", is my pilot
certificate
> >in my possession and my medical. (Part 91, not 135 or 121) and he gets
to
> >see my certificate, but not handle it.
> >
> >He has no authority to look in the aircraft other than through the
windows.
> >And any paper work on the aircraft he wants to see can be done by
> >appointment at the local FSDO nearest my home.
> >
> >BT
> >
>
> I don't know where you picked up on this urban legend, but if you want
> to enter the real world of aviation, I suggest you get FAA Order
> 8100.3 (The Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook) and read it.
>
> Popular hangar myths notwithstanding, this is the ASI's Bible.....

You might want to read it yourself. The FAA ramp rat has no authority to
enter the airplane unless given permission by the owner/operator. Nor can
they delay your departure.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gene Kearns wrote:
>
> Popular hangar myths notwithstanding, this is the ASI's Bible.....

Maybe, but nobody has the right to enter an aircraft without either the owner's
permission or a search warrant.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Paul Millner]

>> I know of cases where the ASI called ahead to the point of destination to
make sure he had a crony there to inspect the A/C

You mean he told him where he really intended to fly, and not the
destination that got changed "in flight"? How careless!

Paul

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gene Kearns wrote:
>
> I know of cases where the ASI
> called ahead to the point of destination to make sure he had a crony
> there to inspect the A/C and not "inconvenience" the owner by delaying
> his departure.

Then *that* inspector is going to have to get a search warrant.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gene Kearns wrote:
>
> If not, what's the point? Procrastination doesn't last forever.

The point is that he has to get a warrant to get in my plane. If he does so,
that's fine, but he will HAVE to do that. It NEVER pays to allow bureaucrats to
exceed what is allowed under law. If you do, they begin to regard it as a right.
And it's not "procrastination". That inspector has to abide by the law, as do I.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.