For the text of the proposal itself as at 1st March 2002, see airsafety.com.au/dp0109cs/dp0109cs.pdf and for the text of the proposed Airworthiness Directive, see airsafety.com.au/dp0109cs/ad0109cs.pdf

The proposal is not acceptable under any circumstances for the following reasons.

The proposal is extravagant, and far more wide ranging than the recommendation contained within Air Safety Recommendation R9802830 as made in 1999.

The recommendation called for the mandating of "all manufacturers' service bulletins relating to the provision of upper body restraint to the occupants of FAR 23 certified aircraft engaged in fare-paying passenger operations, and emphasise compliance with their instructions on the correct use of the restraint systems".

This proposal seeks to ensnare all aircraft used for even "ad hoc" (1.5 refers) charter rather than only those for which a manufacturers' Service Bulletin exists.

This will place an unintended and unwarranted impost on a proportion of owners/operators that even CASA cannot define the extent of.

The application of Dynamic Test Criteria to this proposal is flawed. (1.13 and 1.14 refer)

The dynamic test criteria described was issued in 1988, long after many of the subject aircraft were built, and refers to, and sets requirements for, seat and restraint systems as a package.

To apply later rules in relation to a harness system over a seat, support structure and rails built to a lesser standard may in fact, on the balance of probability, create an unsafe circumstance.

Support for this view can be found in the numerous AD's promulgated for seat and seat rail problems in older aircraft.  Your own para 1.20 refers and yet the possibility is not canvassed in the discussion paper.

The use of statistical data is flawed.

The statistics used at 1.24 are silent on the issues of seating position, aircraft type and nature of accident.  Further, and perhaps more revealing, is the use of "A similar study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998......." at para 1.25.  That study was carried out solely in relation to pilots.  Front seat occupants are already required to be provided with shoulder type restraints.

No useful statistical information has been provided to justify this proposal.

The "Issue" has not been fully considered.

AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA fully accepts that, in certain circumstances shoulder restraint may be of benefit.  We believe however that an holistic approach to the safety case should have been undertaken and distributed before a cost/benefit was even considered.

Many of the aircraft likely to be the subject action should this proposal go ahead are fitted with seats that to all intents and purposes have "loose" backrests.  That is, the seat backs are designed to tilt forward for a variety of reasons, not the least being entry and egress.

It is likely that this design feature will mean the requirement for shoulder restraints to be fitted to the airframe, separate to the lap portion of the belt system.  Aside from any engineering considerations it is irrefutable fact that many aircraft, both in number and type, have passenger seating positions aligned with doors and emergency exits.

The safe egress of survivors has not been considered.  The effect on escape routes with individual airframe types has not been considered

The expected costs and benefits discussion is flawed.

Many manufacturers of aircraft affected no longer exist as trading entities.  We understand that a number of seat manufacturers have also closed.  

Through its own research and enquiries AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA believes the notional allowance of $1,000-00 per seat to be completely inadequate.  AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA also questions, and registers serious doubt, that only 3200 seats are affected by this proposal.  We estimate the number of LCRPT and charter seats available in affected aircraft to be in the order of 11,000.   Arithmetic errors aside, we estimate the cost to industry to be more likely in the order of $15.0 M spread over the proposed year for compliance.

AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA welcomes the opportunity to comment on this proposal.    

For further information please contact:

Jim Dawson

Research Officer