Return-Path: Received: from m3.boston.juno.com ([205.231.100.198]) by ns1.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-64832U3500L350S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 20:15:02 -0400 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"7LRIubhLn1VLcKB8GrXnbRmJuVgqJzshBNEF6IaG2c4h5ByCzZFgrXZi1mLNksSs"> Received: (from earl_schroeder@juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id E5TMQKCP; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 20:20:10 EDT To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:18:19 -0500 Subject: Re:shoulder belt attach points Message-ID: <20000416.191848.-1966077.0.Earl_Schroeder@juno.com> From: earl_schroeder@juno.com X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Stu wrote: (why Lancair straps the seat belts to the back of the luggage compartment instead of somewhere down low is still beyond me!). A ex-AF fighter pilot and Lancair builder/flyer thought the attach point was too low (the normal attach point on the 'hat' shelf) and would cause spine compaction in a 'hard' landing due to the down force caused by the shoulder straps. He built an attach point on the roof and ran the belts through a bracket to prevent pulling the shoulders down. I admit I did not follow his advice but the thought of spinal injuries still haunts me... Anyway, this possible problem may have influenced the present location. I certainly would not consider any lower attach point. My 2-cents worth... Earl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>