Non-installed shoulder harnesses.

[cliffy]

Agreed, apples to oranges and I still feel the "non-installed" design has merit. I would want to make sure the stitching met TSO standards but other than that it ain't a bad idea at all.  I did like 5 points in Boeings! :-)

[Mooneymite]

..... I did like 5 points in Boeings! :-)

All my aviation experience has been with 4, or 5 pt harnesses. They just feel more secure. I'm sure there is a reason aerobatic aircraft are not generally equipped with a diagonal automotive 3 pt. style belts. :-)

[cliffy]

Can't pull negative Gs with a diagonal harness. :-)

[Marauder]

So... At the end of this thread, it seems that no one makes a certified 4 or 5 point harness for our planes. Is that what I am reading?

[aviatoreb]

Yesterday I got a ride in a friends 194? Taylorcraft tail dragger with a 65hp Lycoming.  I doubt that thing had any seat belts at all when it was first built.  But it had some nice, and very simple 4 pt seat belt system installed.  Dumb we cannot have similar seat belts in our airplanes at this point.

[MB65E]

I've done a few of the BMS or BPS (don't remember the brand name) I-reel 4-point installs in C-185 and C-182s. They use the sheet metal area around the rear spar for strength, and the reel is in the headliner. With the tube structure in our Moonies, it may be difficult to find the right spot for an Inertia reel in the headliner. I think the "non-installed" option is better than hitting the panel. However, the limitation in out airplanes is finding a place for the shoulder harness mounts to be above our shoulders. Spinal compression will occur if the mounts are below our shoulders. If a safe solution is out there, I don't know any fed that would ask one to remove a safety device. (Yes Shoulder airbag installs too). If I had them available, I would install the airbag option!

-Matt