The initial impact is surely ‘firm’, visceral even on video and to me a good demonstration of the value of multi-point harnesses.
Indeed. Last summer we had an accident here with an UL cutting several tree-tops at 15 m alt before it tumbled and felled into the woods. The plane was a complete write off. The occupant that had tightened his belts, survived with only minor bruises (could walk away). The other had not tightened his belts, and died instantly due to the impact. That aircraft had 4 point harness. I was there with the accident investigation people, and seeing the site and the aircraft, I would not believe it was possible to survive that without serious injury or death. A good harness is definitely a life saver when the going gets tough.
Yes, apparently, this was now the second time it has happened to him.
So this pilot/owner has a significant share of all prop disintegration accidents in Europe in the last 20 years. Either he is extremely unlucky or he should have a serious chat with his maintenance shop …
I am not impressed that aeroplanes that have 3 or 4 point harnesses in later models are allowed to have simple lap belts in earlier ones just because they were certified that way. It makes no sense that something OK in one aeroplane is not in an identical later one.
It makes sense in terms of protecting the owner’s legal rights. Government does not have the right to manage personal property and increase cost of certification in real time, they get their opportunity to certify an aircraft for sale to the public, and once done it’s done. If it were otherwise, we would be living under a totalitarian government. What FAA does instead is encourage owners, as follows.
The whole question – at least in EASA and I guess it is not that different in FAA – is if the airframe is already prepared for the new belts. If you just install them in predefined locations it is simple both from a paperwork as well as from an installation point of view. If you have to drill new holes into the existing structure it’s almost impossible to get approval…
The FAA will readily field approve shoulder harness installations regardless of whether they were originally designed into the plane, and also STCs kits sold for the purpose.
The FAA will readily field approve shoulder harness installations regardless of whether they were originally designed into the plane,
But not if you have to drill new holes, according the Policy Statement.
It’s a minor mod (essentially no approval required) with no new holes, and a field approval with holes. FAA looks favorably on one time field approvals for harness installations, and there is plenty of approved data like the relevant AC on which one can write up the Form 337 without DER involvement. In no case must the manufacturer or TC holder be involved.
Very well done. For sure not so easy with the snow, as it can react quite differently, depending on the daytime, temperatures, exposure of sunlight etc.
I wonder why the video got pulled. Insurance/licensing issues?
If someone is out to get you, they will download the video immediately, so what’s the point in publishing it in the first place? Don’t publish something unless you are very sure it is legal.
People second guess things all the time. They might especially get cold feet when there are other pilots spreading FUD about how this video can backfire when the insurance realizes that the altimeter setting was off by half a millibar or some such. You can see that all the time when Videos or posts get much more attention than anticipated.
so what’s the point in publishing it in the first place?
Moments of excitement you like to share on that night as you just can’t sleep then regret it latter on?
Is the video of the landing available anywhere? I only see a black window with text “this video is not available” and a link to the youtube main page.