Seatbelt question

A buddy of mine bought a used 2007 Glasair Sportsman, and has been flying it for a number of years. Fantastic airplane. Anyway, the A&P doing his condition inspection says that his seatbelts don't pass muster because their tags are illegible. I'm not actually sure legible belt tags are a requirement for an experimental airplane (don't quote me, they could be required) but in any event it's certainly worth making sure one's belts are up to snuff.

The Glasair factory is in Washington State and apparently is on lockdown for the time being. What's his best/cheapest way over this hurdle? I've never messed with aircraft belts before.

Thanks!

There is no requirement for seatbelt certification on an experimental aircraft. His only concern should be their airworthiness.

Experimental aircraft operating limitations say that the condition inspection needs to be in accordance with the scope and detail of AC 43 appendix D (condition inspections). So he is more or less bound to that for the inspection. However that part only mentions inspecting the condition of the belts, nothing about labels or markings etc.

Elsewhere in AC43 (specifically 43.13-1B 9-46 b) there is language requiring TSO'd belts and TSO identification markings on the belt. However condition inspections (and E-AB overall) are not bound to any part of AC43 except part D. So to be diplomatic perhaps your friend can suggest to the A&P that he may be confusing the parts of AC43-13 that are actually applicable to E-AB?

I'm no expert just another builder but this is how I read it. If I'm wrong someone please correct me!

Check with Crow to see if they can fix your buddy up with new belts. Their website lists RV's and Sonex aircraft but I am sure they either have what you need or can fabricate a custom set. No point in arguing with the AP doing the CI if he won't sign off on it because of the seat belt condition.
http://www.crowenterprizes.com/

9GT said:

No point in arguing with the AP doing the CI if he won't sign off on it because of the seat belt condition.
http://www.crowenterprizes.com/

Click to expand...

Assuming the belts are in good shape other than their tags, I'd be more inclined to find a different inspector if he doesn't budge on this.

A pair of those belts is going to cost $220 plus installation. And if the A&P is going to hold the owner to certified standards, who knows what else he's going to come up with before he's done. The more things he finds and you pay to fix, the more you're into it i.e. stuck with him deciding how much you're going to pay before he signs off your plane. I'd recommend cutting your losses if he doesn't back off on this one, and pay him off and find another person who knows the rules around E-AB.

9GT said:

Check with Crow to see if they can fix your buddy up with new belts. Their website lists RV's and Sonex aircraft but I am sure they either have what you need or can fabricate a custom set. No point in arguing with the AP doing the CI if he won't sign off on it because of the seat belt condition.
http://www.crowenterprizes.com/

Click to expand...

I've got the Crow Harnesses and I love them. The problem is that they are not TSO/PMA approved, so chances are his mechanic won't like those either.

Dugaru said:

...
The Glasair factory is in Washington State and apparently is on lockdown for the time being. What's his best/cheapest way over this hurdle? I've never messed with aircraft belts before.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

If you can't convince the A&P that the tag doesn't mean anything, send the harnesses back to the factory for re-webbing. That will save him a bunch of money.

Thanks to all for the info

This site is an amazing resource. To the A&P's great credit, he admitted he was wrong about the need for tags in a certified.

rv6n6r said:

Experimental aircraft operating limitations say that the condition inspection needs to be in accordance with the scope and detail of AC 43 appendix D (condition inspections). So he is more or less bound to that for the inspection. However that part only mentions inspecting the condition of the belts, nothing about labels or markings etc.

Elsewhere in AC43 (specifically 43.13-1B 9-46 b) there is language requiring TSO'd belts and TSO identification markings on the belt. However condition inspections (and E-AB overall) are not bound to any part of AC43 except part D. So to be diplomatic perhaps your friend can suggest to the A&P that he may be confusing the parts of AC43-13 that are actually applicable to E-AB?

I'm no expert just another builder but this is how I read it. If I'm wrong someone please correct me!

Click to expand...

close but some corrections.
1. condition inspections are to be done under scope of FAR43 appendix D. not AC43. two different things entirely.


§43.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any—

(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;

(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or carriage of mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter; and

(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and component parts of such aircraft.

(b) This part does not apply to—

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft;

the only reason appendix D is applicable is because it is spelled out in your op limits.

2. seat belts are in AC43-13b change 1b in section 9-64 PAGE 9-36.

3. even though AC43-13 is acceptable data to the FAA no AC is regulatory.therefore, AC 43-13 cannot require anything even on a type certificated aircraft. where the requirement for a tso belt comes from the certification fars. most light aircraft were certified under car3.

CAR3.715

Safety belts. Safety belts shall be of a type certificated in accordance with Part 15 of this chapter

having a TSO is how that met.
aircraft certified under part 23 have wording in the fars also that support it.

your points were on, but your references were not quite right.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB