Harness Info Needed
Thread Starter
Harness Info Needed
Morning All,
Leonardo had this harness on Heliservices stand at European Rotors. Am trying to find out the company that manufacturers it - would anyone here know.
I checked with Heliservice and they said Leonardo just put it on display and it wasnt one of theirs so any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Leonardo had this harness on Heliservices stand at European Rotors. Am trying to find out the company that manufacturers it - would anyone here know.
I checked with Heliservice and they said Leonardo just put it on display and it wasnt one of theirs so any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Have you looked through the exhibitors list?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,825 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Thread Starter
Thanks Nut Loose - looks like its the same one. Interestingly it doesnt seem to be approved for aviation use (unless I am missing something) so why would they have it on display at European Rotors ? Any thoughts.
Thread Starter
Actually on closer inspection it might be a different one as looking at the leg straps they dont have the clips and the metal loops look different.
does it need to be aviation approved. I would think a full body climbing harness would do the job nicely. Comes down to risk assessments really. Bit like are the karabiners aviation approved ? I would very much doubt it
Thread Starter
Not when it comes to using it for shooting air to air. After the Fly NYON accident in NYC FAA and even down here there are restrictions on what you can and cant use. You cant just use a climbing harness - needs to be aviation approved.
I don’t think you would be getting out of that anytime soon when upside down and underwater. The old military ones with the quick releases were great.
Last edited by albatross; 30th Nov 2021 at 19:34.
Thread Starter
Albatross - I already have quick release tethers for the harnesses I use that dont have a quick release system so using one like this would not be an issue.
wrench1 - I already have other harnesses as well including one from Air Rescue Systems. Being the publisher of HeliOps I am always looking at what else is out there - saw photos of this one from European Rotors and wanted to find out more about it.
wrench1 - I already have other harnesses as well including one from Air Rescue Systems. Being the publisher of HeliOps I am always looking at what else is out there - saw photos of this one from European Rotors and wanted to find out more about it.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harnesses meeting TSO C-167 would not have prevented the NYC tragedy. The TSO does nothing to define standards for quick release mechanisms. That is the subject of FAA Order 8900.4, published after and in response to the NYC event.
8900.4 does not require a TSO'd harness, only an FAA "approved" harness. 8900.4 does require such a harness have a quick release system that is "FAA approved". Application for approval is made to the Office of Safety Standards who then issue an LOA if approved. Thus it would potentially be possible to use a very wide variety of harnesses, not necessarily only those that meet the TSO, although no doubt meeting the TSO would undoubtedly be helpful
It's worth noting that 9800.4 does not apply to FAA Part 133 HEC or public op's. It would appear that the FAA figures those op's already know what they are doing
BREAK
KiwiNedNZ I am curious what sort of quick release products you are using (and mind you this is strictly curiosity, I am not in the HEC or shoe-selfie business!) All of the ones I've seen advertised rely on a snap shackle mechanism. Having extensive maritime experience with snap shackles, I would NEVER trust such a mechanism for safety of life! When going aloft (up a mast) to fix something we always tied in to the halyard and never trusted the snap shackle alone (and sometimes used two halyards). I had heard rumors of a device based on the ubiquitous 3-ring release used in skydiving--that I would trust implicitly (I'm also a skydiver). But not a snap shackle, particularly one with an easily snag-able handle or lanyard.
8900.4 does not require a TSO'd harness, only an FAA "approved" harness. 8900.4 does require such a harness have a quick release system that is "FAA approved". Application for approval is made to the Office of Safety Standards who then issue an LOA if approved. Thus it would potentially be possible to use a very wide variety of harnesses, not necessarily only those that meet the TSO, although no doubt meeting the TSO would undoubtedly be helpful
It's worth noting that 9800.4 does not apply to FAA Part 133 HEC or public op's. It would appear that the FAA figures those op's already know what they are doing
BREAK
KiwiNedNZ I am curious what sort of quick release products you are using (and mind you this is strictly curiosity, I am not in the HEC or shoe-selfie business!) All of the ones I've seen advertised rely on a snap shackle mechanism. Having extensive maritime experience with snap shackles, I would NEVER trust such a mechanism for safety of life! When going aloft (up a mast) to fix something we always tied in to the halyard and never trusted the snap shackle alone (and sometimes used two halyards). I had heard rumors of a device based on the ubiquitous 3-ring release used in skydiving--that I would trust implicitly (I'm also a skydiver). But not a snap shackle, particularly one with an easily snag-able handle or lanyard.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be wary of 3 ring releases on a safety strop. RNZAF had an Iroquios crash where the survivor found the extreme forces on it kinked the cable to the point release was impossible.
SGT xxxxxxxx was unable to release himself from the wreckage due to damage to the plastic sheath of the release cable. He used a survival knife to cut the closing loop of the 3-ring release, allowing the tail unit to separate from the garment strop.
152. The Court of Inquiry is concerned that, while the ALP acted as designed to progressively decelerate SGT xxxxxxx sufficiently to permit his survival, the 3- ring release was rendered inoperative during that sequence. Had the aircraft caught fire, or rolled into water, he would have been unlikely to have been able to release himself from the wreckage quickly enough to avoid further injury.
199. ALP Garment Strops and Tail Units. CPL xxxxx was still attached to NZ3806’s uppermost LHS pylon forward bulkhead cargo anchor point after the accident. The garment strop and tail unit from SGT xxxxxxx ALP were found connected to NZ3806’s uppermost RHS pylon forward bulkhead cargo anchor point. As discussed earlier, damage to the three ring quick release mechanism on the tail unit prevented it from being operated by SGT xxxxxxxx
SGT xxxxxxxx was unable to release himself from the wreckage due to damage to the plastic sheath of the release cable. He used a survival knife to cut the closing loop of the 3-ring release, allowing the tail unit to separate from the garment strop.
152. The Court of Inquiry is concerned that, while the ALP acted as designed to progressively decelerate SGT xxxxxxx sufficiently to permit his survival, the 3- ring release was rendered inoperative during that sequence. Had the aircraft caught fire, or rolled into water, he would have been unlikely to have been able to release himself from the wreckage quickly enough to avoid further injury.
199. ALP Garment Strops and Tail Units. CPL xxxxx was still attached to NZ3806’s uppermost LHS pylon forward bulkhead cargo anchor point after the accident. The garment strop and tail unit from SGT xxxxxxx ALP were found connected to NZ3806’s uppermost RHS pylon forward bulkhead cargo anchor point. As discussed earlier, damage to the three ring quick release mechanism on the tail unit prevented it from being operated by SGT xxxxxxxx
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. Do you have a link to the report available?
This is a well known failure mode for parachute applications, although more normally caused by poor maintenance as opposed to high forces on the equipment, but I'm sure you know that given your screen name
One hopes they re-engineered that specific design in light of this particular accident because it is a superior cut-away system compared to other approaches.
Of course nothing is perfect. Are there not examples of every system under the sun failing at one time or another? This is just one event. I'd still take a 3-ring over any other cut-away system, assuming it was properly sized and engineered. Larger rings and even four ring systems are used where forces are (or may be) higher.
This is a well known failure mode for parachute applications, although more normally caused by poor maintenance as opposed to high forces on the equipment, but I'm sure you know that given your screen name
One hopes they re-engineered that specific design in light of this particular accident because it is a superior cut-away system compared to other approaches.
Of course nothing is perfect. Are there not examples of every system under the sun failing at one time or another? This is just one event. I'd still take a 3-ring over any other cut-away system, assuming it was properly sized and engineered. Larger rings and even four ring systems are used where forces are (or may be) higher.
I believe in AUZ and NZ the aviation regulator takes this further but in my experience aviation regulators simply don't have the knowledge in harness design and manufacture to actually know what is right for the task or to keep up with the speed of such a specialist industry like fall and arrest, never mind the medical considerations.
Thread Starter
The EU does not certify harness for use in aviation but rather by what they do for the wearer.
Certain aircraft OEMs can specify what equipment is supposed to be used with the hoist when fitted to the aircraft but that is an OEM restriction not an EASA certification. I would be interested (but not pleased) to see an EASA certified harness if anyone can produce the evidence?
There are plenty of harnesses manufactured to EN standards but that is totally different to regulator (EASA) certification...
There are plenty of harnesses manufactured to EN standards but that is totally different to regulator (EASA) certification...
I could have been clearer with my previous post.
The 3 ring release on the harnesses that we bought from SES is mounted on the harness and releases the lanyard from the back of the harness. The tube is on the harness.
It may be possible to kink the release tube during an accident, but I think you would probably be passed caring by that point.
The 3 ring release on the harnesses that we bought from SES is mounted on the harness and releases the lanyard from the back of the harness. The tube is on the harness.
It may be possible to kink the release tube during an accident, but I think you would probably be passed caring by that point.
Survival Equipment Services make a restraint harness with a 3 ring release on the lanyard.
https://ses-safety.com/
https://ses-safety.com/