AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA
admin@airsafety.com.au Fax: 08 8276 4666 Phone: 08 8276 4600
PO Box 172 Unley South Australia 5061

AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA has responded to CASA's proposal to make it compulsory to install shoulder harnesses for all seats of all light aircraft that are used to carry fare-paying passengers. See www.airsafety.com.au/dp0109cs/overview.htm and www.airsafety.com.au/dp0109cs/technic.htm for copies of our responses. If you are not on the Internet, we will fax you copies on request. For a copy of CASA's proposal, see www.airsafety.com.au/dp0109cs/dp0109cs.pdf or call CASA on 131757 and ask them to fax you a copy.

AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA rejects the proposal to make passenger-seat shoulder harnesses compulsory, at least until an education campaign to persuade people to fit them voluntarily has been tried and has failed.

CASA claims that fitting shoulder harnesses to passenger seats will result in a huge reduction in deaths and injuries. ASA asks why, if that is true, insurance companies do not offer discounted rates on liability insurance for aircraft fitted with shoulder harnesses in passenger seats. ASA goes on to ask why, if CASA cannot PERSUADE insurance companies of the benefits of shoulder harnesses, should they be FORCED on individual owners?

This proposal applies only to aircraft which are used to carry fare-paying passengers, and is to be implemented as an Airworthiness Directive (AD). The mind boggles. Who is responsible for compliance with ADs - the owner, of course (technically called the CofR holder). But how is an owner to know if his aircraft will be used to carry fare-paying passengers? He isn't, of course - once he puts it on line with an operator, the operator determines what the aircraft will be used for.  What this means is that in the event of a crash, the owner's liability insurance will be void.

This is an example of a cunning new regulatory trend. What CASA proposes is that the person who commits the act is not liable for it - the owner is, even though he may know nothing about it and may even have a contract with the aircraft operator which forbids the use of the aircraft to carry fare-paying passengers. Neither the pilot nor the operator - the people who are in control of how the aircraft is used, are guilty of an offence. Why this is so cunning is that it means it will be very easy to get evidence from them that they used the aircraft in contravention of the AD.

And where does this leave the conscientious pilot? How can he tell if the aircraft he is about to fly has complied with this AD? He has to go and check the aircraft's technical logs. What if an operator of Navajos on a commuter service suddenly charters in another Navajo? How does the pilot tell if the substitute machine has complied with the AD? Just having shoulder harnesses is not enough, they must be "approved". And where will this all end? Will pilots eventually have to check every AD before every flight, bearing in mind the type of flight, weather, terrain and so on?

In my opinion, the real purpose of this AD is to reduce the number of private aircraft in the sky by making it more expensive to put your aircraft on line with a commercial operator. It is quite clever, really, because Australia's politically-active pilots are private pilots. People in the business simply cannot afford to speak out, because they have seen what happened to others who were foolish enough to do so.

Because the AD is initially aimed only at aircraft which carry fare-paying passengers, CASA can be certain there will be very little political reaction. The scope of the AD can then be progressively broadened, each time gathering in another small group of users so that at no stage is any significant number caught, but at the end of the day everyone is. This is what used to be called the "Russian Slice".

WHY DIDN'T AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA CONDUCT A MEMBER BALLOT ON THIS?

Because of the pressure of money, of time, and because the result was obvious. Conducting member ballots is a painstaking and expensive business. ASA will shortly introduce "user-pays" ballots, under which those members who wish to vote on a particular issue will pay the direct cost of processing the ballot. That will remove the financial pressure in future.

That said, I ask any member who would have wanted ASA to support this proposal to contact us and tell us where we went wrong. And remember that although we did not conduct a ballot, we did INFORM all members promptly.

MORE OF CASA's OLD TRICKERY

CASA's proposal makes extravagant but unsubstantiated claims for the benefits of shoulder harnesses in passenger seats. It refers to a 17-year-old study by the NTSB, namely SR85-01 (see www.airsafety.com.au/ntsb/sr85-01.pdf but be warned the download is VERY large). The entire study covered 100 accidents where the occupants wore shoulder harnesses - but page 12 reveals that 97 of those were in pilot seats. The study does not differentiate between the 97 people in pilot seats and the 3 who were in passenger seats. Since this proposal solely concerns passenger seats, the study is simply not relevant.

The original BASI recommendation was R980201 of 31st March 1999 and can be found at www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rec/r980281.cfm  It contains a lot of motherhood statements but not one whit of statistical evidence that the installation of shoulder harnesses in passenger seats has been effective in reducing injury.

The BASI recommendation points out that the passenger seat belts in the accident aircraft failed and alleges that they were improperly installed. It does not even consider the question of whether the occupants may have survived if their seat belts had not failed.

The BASI report also reveals that although the front seats were fitted with shoulder harnesses, neither occupant was wearing the harness. CASA's proposal only requires that Shoulder Harnesses be fitted, not that they be worn. Interestingly the NTSB report reveals that only 40% of people occupying seats with shoulder harnesses were wearing them.

The proposal refers to an unnamed AMA study in 1998. Small wonder it is not named! It is solely concerned with pilot seats, and this proposal is solely concerned with passenger seats. You can see the AMA study at www.airsafety.com.au/dp0109cs/amarept.htm

YOU MUST DO THIS BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA

The bottom line here is that we have been presented with no statistical evidence that there is benefit in retro-fitting shoulder harnesses to passenger seats. The fact that Insurers do not offer lower rates for aircraft which are so fitted seems to indicate that there is not a discernible benefit.

A BETTER APPROACH

AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA appeals to CASA to educate insurers about the benefits of having shoulder harnesses in passenger seats, and encourage them to offer lower rates for aircraft which are so fitted. We further appeal to CASA to educate pilots about the undoubted benefits of wearing shoulder harnesses in the front seats.

Finally we appeal to CASA to find genuine evidence that shoulder harnesses in passenger seats really do improve safety, and having found that then go out and educate owners about the benefits of installing them. We remind CASA that aircraft owners are mostly intelligent and responsible people who respond well to reasoned argument.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

You can of course write to the person apparently responsible for this ill-researched and dictatorial proposal. He is Bruce Byers (fax 02 6217 1691 or e-mail byers_b@casa.gov.au ). Be aware that responses officially closed on 1st March, but that is not the end of the world. It is, though, a complete waste of time to debate something with someone who is on the other side and is also the adjudicator. So if you are going to respond to Bruce, it is essential that you send a copy to your Federal MP and make sure that Bruce knows you have done so. Remember that CASA cannot make this rule by itself - it will eventually need the approval of Parliament. That means that CASA will have to persuade lots of MPs and Senators that this really IS a good idea - very easy if those MPs are told there is no opposition, but quite hard if the MPs know there is opposition and that there are reasonable questions which have not been answered.

AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA will tell you who your MP is, and his or her fax number (never e-mail an MP unless you know that he/she reads his/her own e-mail).

THIS ILLUSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE OF A WATCHDOG

This episode illustrates the importance of aviators having a watchdog with the guts to bark when necessary. Thank you for joining AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA, your aviation watchdog.

This document is on the internet at www.airsafety.com.au/dp0109cs/