Seat belt tags

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

wrote in message news
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the FAA approved it and hasn't rescinded that approval.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.

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


wrote in message news
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...

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."

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..."

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

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

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.

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

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