X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:55:43 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [69.146.254.20] (HELO arilabs.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTP id 3131662 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:13:36 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.146.254.20; envelope-from=Kevin@arilabs.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9167C.5FDDEBA2" Subject: Seat Belts Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:12:59 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <7141427652BB3049A7DBF1084B67805B1E2A2B@penumbra.arilabs.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Seat Belts Thread-Index: AckWfF9W/SlIVVs6RKyZEEIZ3MpcjQ== From: "Kevin Stallard" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9167C.5FDDEBA2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was looking on Don Barne's site (thanks Don, as many have said, your site is really nice) on the subject of seat belts. Specifically =20 http://www.lancairlegacy.com/tips_harness.html =20 I downloaded and was browsing through the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 21-34 concerning seatbelt harnesses, and it seemed to contradict Ron Brice's note about seatbelts mounted overhead.=20 =20 http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library\rgAdvisoryCircular.ns f/0/5214C6FFB14E1383862569B2005E77F9?OpenDocument =20 =20 (page 26) =20 It says that "Low attachments create spinal compression" and high attachments cause additional structural loads and poor restraint, not the other way around as Rice's note suggests.=20 =20 It seems the system Rice put in, unless greater than -8 degrees tangent with the top of your shoulder would be the dangerous one to your spine, not the overhead (over +30 degrees tangent). =20 Did I miss something? It seems that the drawback to the overhead isn't problems with spine crushing; it's insuring the structure is strong enough to keep the belts in place? Is this correct? =20 Thanks Kevin =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9167C.5FDDEBA2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was looking on Don Barne’s site (thanks Don, = as many have said, your site is really nice) on the subject of seat belts. = Specifically

http://www.lancai= rlegacy.com/tips_harness.html

I downloaded and was browsing through the FAA = Advisory Circular (AC) 21-34 concerning seatbelt harnesses, and it seemed to = contradict Ron Brice’s note about seatbelts mounted overhead. =

http://rgl.faa.= gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library\rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/5214C6FFB14E= 1383862569B2005E77F9?OpenDocument

(page 26)

It says that “Low attachments create spinal = compression” and high attachments cause additional structural loads and poor = restraint, not the other way around as Rice’s note suggests. =

It seems the system Rice put in, unless greater than -8 degrees = tangent with the top of your shoulder would be the dangerous one to your spine, = not the overhead (over +30 degrees tangent).

Did I miss something? It seems that the = drawback to the overhead isn’t problems with spine crushing; it’s = insuring the structure is strong enough to keep the belts in place? Is this = correct?

Thanks

Kevin

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9167C.5FDDEBA2--