The NTSB issued a safety alert Wednesday urging general aviation pilots and aircraft owners to inspect their seat belts and shoulder harnesses following several accidents involving restraint failures. The agency warned that some systems may provide less protection during an accident because of aging components or outdated strength standards.
Older Restraints May Offer Less Protection
According to the alert, many older aircraft still utilize restraints manufactured under older standards allowing for assembly strength ratings of just 1,500 pounds. Updated performance requirements call for 3,000 pounds for lap belts and 2,500 pounds for shoulder harnesses.
Although lower-rated systems may still meet applicable requirements, the NTSB recommends replacing restraints that fall below those thresholds or whose strength ratings cannot be verified. The FAA raised similar concerns in a bulletin published in April that addressed restraint failures in general aviation aircraft.
Accident Investigations
The alert cites three accidents involving restraint failures. These included an April 2023 Cessna 172 accident near London, Ohio, in which a flight instructor and a student pilot were killed. Investigators found that stitching connecting the aircraft’s upper torso restraints to the airframe separated. Following another fatal June 2023 accident involving an Aeronca 7CCM near Duluth, Minnesota, investigators documented failures in both shoulder harness assemblies. Both were rated for 1,500 pounds.
The agency also recommended inspecting restraints during preflight and annual inspections for fraying, damaged stitching, discoloration and other signs of deterioration. Owners are encouraged to consult a mechanic or manufacturer to verify restraint strength ratings and replace systems that do not meet the recommended thresholds.
“Report any torn or frayed sections to your Aviation Maintenance Technician,” the FAA advises in its inspection guidance. “Any observable tearing or fraying can reduce the design protection of the shoulder harness.”
0 replies