If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 Back in 1950 the FAA approved it and hasn't rescinded that approval.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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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..." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airliner Seats ... | smjmitchell | General Aviation | 6 | September 26th 04 10:00 PM |
Seat Belt Extenders | M.E. Borner | Owning | 4 | October 3rd 03 01:55 PM |
Seat cushion | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 14 | August 5th 03 07:16 PM |
Seat cushions | Big John | Home Built | 3 | July 31st 03 10:59 PM |
Seat Belt Age? | BD5ER | Home Built | 2 | July 7th 03 12:10 AM |