Restraint Method 5R: Restraint Looped
Around Backstrap on Right Side of
Harness.

Figure 27. Pre-Test A95077.

Test A95097, illustrated in Figures 26, 27, and 28,
evaluated attachment method 5R, which consisted of
ashort single strap anchored to the floor near the side
wall mockup and looped around the back strap on the
right side of the harness. Figure 27 shows the restraint
between the ATD and the wall fixture. The ATD
positioning was the same as the previous test. During

16

Figure 28. Post-Test A95077.

the impact, the ATD slid forward significantly, then
violently rotated counter clockwise about the center of
the pelvis. The upper torso rotated forward to 40
degrees from vertical and the legs flailed about the
vertical axis toa position 90 degrees from initial. Figure
28 shows the final position of the ATD after this test.


Figure 9. Restraint Method 1D

Restraint Method 1D: Restraint Looped
through Main Lift Web, Left and Right

Figure 10. Pre-Test A95070

was notin the desired sitting position at the start of the
impact pulse. However, there was no gross flailing or
excessive translation of the ATD in spite of the
out-of-position posture. Figure 11 shows the post-test
position of the ATD after the first test.

A stronger cord was used to support the ATD for
the third test, A95072, shown
Figure 12. The ATD remained in an upright seated
posture up to the start of the impact pulse. An

as in

10

Figure 11. Post-Test A95070

examination of the high speed films from this test
showed the ATD slid forward until the restraints
attached between the main lift webs and the floor
became taut. The ATD’s upper torso rotation was
arrested at approximately 25° from vertical. Figure 13
shows the post-test position of the ATD from test
A95072. There was no head contact with the floor.



Figure 38. Pre-Test A95081.

carries a parachute adequate for both of them. There
was no slack in the restraintsandthe ATD positioning
was the same as the previous test.

The ATD slid forward during the impact, andthe
upper torso rotated forward ontothesled floor. A head
strike on the floor plane was noted in the films. The
geometry of this tandem harness caused the pelvis to
remain upright during the test, causing obvious bend-
ing of the spine during the upper torsos flailing. This
tendency for the pelvis to remain upright, which was
exhibited to some degree on all of the tests, may bean
artifact ofthe ATD’s pelvic construction, which is flat
onthe bottom.

Observations and Conclusions

Ofthe various methods evaluated in this project,
methods 5D, 6D, and 7D appears to provide better
restraint of the ATD under the test conditions de-
scribed in this report. These methods produced the
least flailing and bending of the body segments and the
least forward translation of the pelvis. The single strap
over the lap methods, 5L and 6L, while desirable due
to their simplicity of use, did not provide the level of
restraint offered by the dual strap methods.

The TSO-C22f, 1500 pound rated, prototype re-
straints used for this series appeared adequate for use
in all of the methods evaluated. The same belts were
used on repeated tests, and no visible signs of wear or
damage were noted. Also, other than the one harness
to container separation that occurred on test A95076,
there was no damage or wear noted on the parachute

20

Figure 39. Post-Test A95081.

harnesses, which were also subjected to repeated tests.
There does not appear to bea requirement for addi-
tional maintenance or inspection procedures for the
harness, if used with these restraint methods, otherthan
thecurrent routine procedures practiced by the parachut-
ingcommunity.

Although not directly addressed by this test series,
the potential for head and neck injures may be mini-
mized for each of these methods by the limited flail
distance inherent to the “caterpillar” seating arrange-
ment. Thus, restraining the parachutist by the means
demonstrated in these tests appears to provide an
obvious improvementin safety, when compared with
the documented accident scenarios with the customary
lap belt restraints unattached to the parachute harness.

The 5D method of restraint attachment appears to
bethe best candidate for operational implementation,
among the ones tested. Routing of the restraint belt
through the parachute harnessis straightforward with
this method, and it should work well on virtually any
normal parachute. The 6D method of restraint attach-
ment, which clips onto a ring sewn into the harness, has
the advantage of being very simple and quick to use.
However, implementation of method 6D would neces-
sitate all parachutes not already incorporating a ring be
modified to adda load bearing ring attachment at the
intersection of the backstrap and main lift web. Al-
though modifying parachutes to add the ring would
obviously entail some time and expense, it may prove
to be worthwhile, since this method minimizes the
possibility of misuse. It may also enhance egress.


EVALUATION OF IMPROVED RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FOR SPORT PARACHUTISTS

Typical Cabin Arrangement for Sport Parachute Operations
Figure 1.

Introduction

Sport parachuting continues to bea popular recre-
ational and competitive activity. Recent datafromthe
United States Parachuting Association (USPA) indi-
cates that there are approximately 3,000,000 jumps per
year at the 297 jump zones operated in the US.
Membership in the USPA, which currently is over
33,000, has grown ata rate of 10% per year during the
past few years (1). The emphasis on safety in every
facet of sport parachuting operations has been the key
factor in the increasing popularity and remarkable
safety record of this aviation activity. Obviously,
effective improvements in the equipment and proce-
dures to enhance safety must be promoted by the
parachuting community as well asthe Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA.)

One of the unique operational features of sport
parachuting isthe method for occupant restraint inan
airplane. FAA regulations and guidance documents
(2,3) allow parachutists to sit on the floor of the
airplane with the passenger seats removed, as illus-
trated in Figure 1. The method of seating multiple

parachutistsin an airplane is commonly referred to as
the “caterpillar” arrangement. In this seating arrange-
ment, the most forward passenger sits aft-facing on the
floor with his/her back against acabin wall. The other
parachutists then sit between the legs of the person
behind them ina single file stretching toward the aft
end ofthe aircraft. This seating arrangement positions
the parachutists to conveniently jump out the aft door.
Italso allows more passengers on board than could be
accommodated in normal aircraft seats.

FAA regulations require that each parachutist must
be restrained by alap belt. Depending on the type of
airplane, the attachment of the lap belts to the airplane
will be to the floor or side wall of the cabin. Foran aft
facing parachutist seated on the floor, alap belt routed
over the anterior region of the pelvis does not provide
aconspicuous means of restraining the parachutist
during deceleration forces that could occur during
emergency landing conditions. And, since there are no
seat backs to restrain the parachutists from sliding
toward the front of the airplane, the person seated


Restraint Method 6D: Restraints Attached
to Metal Ring at Webbing Junction, Left
and Right Side

Figure 30. Pre-Test A95078.

Test A95078 was performed with restraint attach-
ment method 6D. This method consisted of two short
strapsanchored to the floor, oneither side of the ATD,
attached with clipsto acircular metal ring incorporated
into the harness of this particular model of parachute.
This parachute, a Rigging Innovations Flexon, uses a
metal ring to join the major straps of the harness at each
side as shown in Figures 5, 29, and 30. The ring is
located at approximately the same point asthe intersec-
tion of the straps of the conventional harness. The
restraint was clipped to the ring between the upper and

17

Figure 31. Post-Test A95078.

lower leg strap terminations. There was no slack inthe
restraints and the ATD positioning wasin the partial
“lean back” posture.

During this test, the ATD slid forward, then rotated
over completely onto the parachute pack producing a
moderate head extension but no head strike. Forward
excursion of the pelvis was much less than with the
single strap configurations. The ATD’s legs did not
flail outward. The post-test position of the ATD is
shown in Figure 31.


Restraint Method 5D: Restraints Looped
Around Horizontal Backstraps, Left and
Right.

Figure 36. Pre-Test A95080.

Test A95080, as illustrated in Figures 35 and 36,
evaluated attachment method 5D, which consisted of
two straps anchored to the floor on either side of the
ATD andlooping around the back strap of the harness.
The Sunpath Javelin parachute was used for this test.
There was no slack in the restraints and the pre-test
position of the ATD was in the “lean back” posture,
as in the previous test. Confidence in the restraint
method’s ability to adequately restrain the occupant
led to adecision to increase the impact severity to9 Gs.
During the impact, the films showed the ATD slid
forward and the upper torso rotated completely for-

19

Figure 37. Post-Test A95080.

ward onto the parachute pack. Moderate neck exten-
sion and head impact were noted on the films. The legs
did not flail sideward, as shown in Figure 37.

An additional test, A95081, was conducted with
proposed restraint method 5D, except the parachute
harness installed on the ATD wasatandem passenger
harness assembly. (The tandem harness is used for
training.) Figures 38 and 39 show pre and post photos
of this tests. The passenger harness has the same basic
strap configuration asa normal parachute harness, but
without the parachute or its container. This harness is
made to be attached to the front of an instructor who


a mee ae

Figure 21. Pre-Test A95075.

As shown in Figures 20 and 21, test A95075 was
conducted with proposed restraint method 2L, which
was comprised of aloop around the upper and lower
leg straps just below their intersection with the main
lift web on the left side of the harness. The initial
position of the ATD was slightly leaning back as
described for test A95074

14

Restraint Method 2L: Restraint Looped
Around Upper and Lower Leg Straps.

Figure 22. Post-Test A95075.

The ATD slid forward significantly during the
impacttest. Then the restraint strap slid down on the
parachute harness. Although the ATD legs remained
aligned fore and aft, the pelvis and lower spine rotated
clockwise (from above). The upper torso rotated about
60° from vertical and onto the parachute pack, produc-
ing notable neck extension. No head strike was ob-
served on the test films. The post-test position of the
ATDisshownin Figure 22.


SHOULDER TM

STANDARD strap
HARNESS fo
CONFIGURATION (RESERVE
PER JAVELIN, RISER
RACER, TALON Zid ! eo
{__)
ee MAIN LIFT WEB.
BACKPAD.
CONTAINER \ chest strap
___ UPPER LEG
STRAP
2
. y
\
HORIZONTAL \ ae ee LOWER LEG
BACK STRAP. ~~ STRAP.

Figure 6. Standard Harness Configuration


Floor Anchor Fitting

Length Adjuster

Figure 2. Floor-to-Harness Belt Restraint

Description of Tests.

Test Sled Setup. A series of 12 tests were con-
ducted on CAMP’s horizontal deceleration dynamic
impact test track. The test sled was configured to
represent the floor and side wall of aDHC-6 Twin
Otter, which is atypical jump aircraft. Figure 3 shows
aphotograph of the sled setup, and Figure 4 shows the
specific dimensions used for wall and seat track
placement. The floor was covered with carpet typical
of these aircraft. Restraint anchor locations used in this
series are also identified by test number in Figure 4.

Modified ATD. The pelvis flesh of a 50th percen-
tile male VIP-50test dummy was modified to allow the
legs to freely articulate between the upright seated
position on the floor and lying flat. The VIP-50 is
similar to the Hybrid II that is currently used for
aircraft seat testing. The ATD was outfitted with
typical sport parachutist gear consisting of ajump suit,
helmet, goggles, and lightweight shoes. No instrumen-
tation wasinstalled in the ATD since overall kinemat-
ics, as observed from high speed videos and films,
were the focus of the study.

Parachute Equipment. The parachutes and har-
nesses tested were of several makes and models
considered to be representative of those currently
used by sport parachutists. The straps that made up the
parachute harness were routed over the body of the
ATD inthe same basic fashion, regardless of model.
The names commonly used for various sections of a
parachute harness are illustrated in Figures 5, 6, and7.
Also identified in Figure 5 are the restraint attachment
methods, labeled 1 through 7, which were evaluatedin
this test series.

Test Protocol. The test plan included dual belt
restraints, i.e., belts attached to the same location
symmetrically on the left and right side of the para-
chute harness, as well as single belt tests with only one
belt attached to the harness. All of the tests were
conducted with one ATD outfitted in a parachute
harness. These single subject tests did not evaluate the
combined effects of parachutists seated forward and
aft of the test subject. The test protocol was designed
to acquire information on the ability of the
floor-to-harness belt systems to restrain a floor seated


forward of each parachutist becomes the barrier forthe
combined forces and momentum ofall the parachutists
seated aft of his/her position in the airplane.
Accident investigation reports of recent sport para-
chuting airplane crashes indicate that aft-facing floor-
seated parachutists in the “caterpillar” arrangementare
not provided adequate restraint and protection from
injury. Based on the results from these accident
investigations, the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) issued safety recommendations tothe FAA (4)
concerning restraints for sport parachuting. One of the
recommendations was that the USPA, in conjunction
with the Parachute Industry Association (PIA) and the
FAA’s Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), developan
improved means of protecting sport parachutists. In
responding to this recommendation, the FAA initiated
aproject to develop an improved means of restraining
aparachutist seated aft facing on the aircraft floor. This
program wasundertaken by the USPA, PIA, andCAMI.

USPA -PIA- FAA Parachutist Restraint Project

The participants in this project agreed to focus on
improvements in restraints for parachutists in one of
the most common cabin arrangements in airplanesused
in sport parachuting. As noted above, the attachment
of the lap belts to the airplanes used in sport parachut-
ing operations is typically to the floor or side wall of
the cabin. Many of these airplanes have seat tracks on
the floor that run parallel tothe longitudinal axis of the
cabin. Depending on the size of the airplane, there may
be one or two pairs of floor tracks normally used to
anchor seats or provide anchor points for cargo
restraints. These floor tracks are designed to withstand
significant structural loads, and in fact, arecommonly
used to anchor the lap belts in sport parachuting
airplanes. Thus, one of the key considerations of this
project was to utilize the existing structural attach-
mentsin the types of airplanes used for sport parachut-
ing.

Another factor recognized and agreed upon by the
project participants was the need to minimize the
effects any proposed restraint methods might have on
the normal activities involved in sport parachuting.
These activitiesinclude boarding the airplane, restraint

adjustment by the parachutists, and release of the
restraint in preparation for the jump. Also, the hard-
ware and webbing for the improved restraint should
not impede egress through the jump doors or emer-
gency exits.

The level of safety that might be developed by an
improved restraint method was not quantified during
the initial discussions by the participants. It was agreed
toinvestigate, by dynamicsled tests with an anthropo-
morphic test dummy (ATD), the performance of the
proposed restraint hardware. The means of assessing
the performance of the restraints would be primarily
based on observations and measurements from the
high speed films recorded during the tests. The test
severity would be adjusted based on data and obser-
vations from the initial tests, starting with a pulse
severity of approximately 6 gs.

Proposed Restraint Methods.

Participants from the USPA and PIA proposed the
alternative methods for restraint of a floor seated
parachutist. The proposed methods were based on an
adjustable-length belt attached between the floor of
the airplane anda point on the parachute harness by
means of a quick release latch or buckle. The devel-
opers of this method postulated that if the parachutist
positioned him/herself such that the proposed belt
attachment to the parachute harness was forward
(relative to the aircraft’s orientation) of the floor
anchor point for the belt, an improved method of
occupant restraint would be achieved.

Floor-to-harness belt restraints with adjustment
and anchor attachment hardware were provided as test
specimens for this project. These restraints were
fabricated with two inch wide webbing, a length
adjustment mechanism, a floor track anchor at one end,
and either aloop or aclip with a quick release on the
other end for attaching to a portion of the parachute
harness. The systems provided were rated at 1500
pounds and conformed to Technical Standards Order
(TSO) -C22f. An example is shown in Figure 2. The
restraint used were prototypes supplied by Hooker
Custom Harnesses.


Restraint Method 5L: Restraint Looped
Around Backstrap on Left Side of
Harness.

Figure 24. Pre-Test A95076.

Test A95076 evaluated attachment method 5L which
consisted of a single strap anchored to the floor near
the side wall mockup routed up and over the lap of the
ATDandloopedaround the back strap on the left side
ofthe harness. Figures 23 and 24 illustrate this method.
It was hoped this position would preclude the slipping
seen in the previoustest. The ATD positioning was the
same as the previous test.

15

Figure 25. Post-Test A95076.

The overall kinematic motion of the ATD during
this test was similar to A95075. During the test, the
parachute harness web tore loose from the pack and
rotated around the body about four inches, worsening
the overall forward translation and clockwise rotation
ofthe ATD in the horizontal plane. Figure 25 shows
the post-test position of the ATD.


RESERVE

RISER
MAIN LIFT
VERTICAL WEB
BACK SRAP
»)
HORIZONTAL
BACK STRAP
HIP :
RING _&)
LOWER LEG
STRAP

UPPER
STRAP

6 The locations identified by the
numbers on this drawing

ASSEMBLY, ’FLEXON’ ~ | indicate attachment points for
PARACHUTE the supplementary belts

FRONT described in this report

Typical Parachute Harness and Attachment Points for Floor-to-Harness Restraints
Figure 5.


Some additional operational procedures that may
improve the effectiveness of the methods described in
this project include:

a) The person most forward in the cabin should be
leaning against a bulkhead or other substantial
supportto limit flailing and head impact.

b) Each parachutist’s restraint should be anchored to
the floor aft of his/her pelvis (relative the aircraft’s
orientation) at a point on the floor near the middle
of the thigh. The restraint should be taut to reduce
forward motion and the loads transmitted to the
person behind.

The proper brace for impact position would be to

lean toward the front of the aircraft onto the person

or bulkhead behindthem.

)

21

REFERENCES

1. Needels. C.. USPA’s Executive Director’s column,
“Capital Commentary”, Parachutist magazine,
January 1997, p.5.

2. Title 14, US Code of Federal Regulations, Part 14,
Section 91.107. US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.

3. FAA Advisory Circular AC105-2C, “Sport
Parachuting”, Flight Standards Service,
FAA Headquarters, Washington,
January 1991.

4, National Transportation Safety Board,
Safety Recommendation No. A-94-017, issued
by the NTSB tothe FAA, May 1994.


DOT/FAA/AM-98/11

Office of Aviation Medicine
Washington, D.C. 20591

Evaluation of Improved
Restraint Systems for
Sport Parachutists

Van Gowdy
Richard DeWeese

Civil Aeromedical Institute
Federal Aviation Administration
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

March 1998

Final Report

This document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

@

U.S. Department
of Transportation

Federal Aviation
Administration


Belts
Test Number | Attach Number of Velocity Peak

Points * Belts Parachute Equipment (ft/sec) g's
A95070 1 Dual Sunpath Inc. - Javelin 27.8 5.5
A95071 1 Dual Sunpath Inc. - Javelin 279 5.5
A95072 1 Dual Sunpath Inc. - Javelin 27.9 6.8
A95073 7 Dual Jump Shack Inc. - Racer 27.6 6.7
A95074 4 Dual Jump Shack Inc. - Racer 27.9 6.8
A95075 2 Single - Left Rigging Innovations - Talon 27.6 6.8
A95076 5 Single - Left _| Rigging Innovations - Talon 27.7 6.8
A95077 5 Single - Right | Rigging Innovations - Talon 278 6.7
A95078 6 Dual Rigging Innovations - Flexon 27.9 6.8
A95079 6 Single - Left _| Rigging Innovations - Flexon 278 6.7
A95080 5 Dual Sunpath Inc. - Javelin 32.7 9.5
A95081 5 Dual Strong Enterprises - Dual Hawk** 32.7 9.5

* Refer to Figure 5.

** Tandem harness only, used for training, no parachute pack

Table 1. Test Matrix

parachutist. The ATD wasseated on the floor ofthe _

sled facing aft, with its right shoulder against the side
wall mockup for all of the tests presented in this report.

Test Matrix. Table 1 isa summary of the matrix of
tests conducted during this program. As shown in
Table 1, eight of the tests were performed with dual
belts attached symmetrically to the parachute harness,

and four tests were performed with only one belt. The
single belt tests were designed to evaluate the pro-
posed belt restraint in a simulated cabin interior with
only one floor track available to attach the belt.
Note also the test severity ranged from 5.5 gs@27.8
ft/sec to 9.5 gs @ 32.7 ft/sec. The impact pulses
approximated a trapezoidal shape, as shown in Figure
8. The rational for this range of test severity was based


ARTICULATED
HARNESS
CONFIGURATION
(SAVE AS FLEXON)

CONTANER \
CHEST STRAP

| a HPRNG

| Ma
:
ok ~~ \ vy
\ at
ee

Figure 7. Articulated Harness Configuration


Outboard Anchors i
! 21.25
15.75 “| Inboard Anchors |
Ite 4s
va '
FOOT REF ~\. ANCHOR LOCATION FOR TESTS A95070-073
FORALL —— ANCHOR LOCATION FOR TESTS A95075-081
TESTS BUT
‘A95074
SLED TOP VIEW
6 —
SIDEWALL MOCKUP “
| -
SLEDFLOOR “|
SLED SIDEVIEW

(DIMENSIONS IN INCHES)

Figure 4. Test Fixtures and Dimensions


Figure 33. Pre-Test A95079

Test A95079 evaluated attachment method 6L.
Method 6L, illustrated in Figure 32, consisted of a
single strap anchored to the floor near the side wall
mockup, routed up and over the lap of the ATD and
clipped to the left side hip ring of the Rigging Innova-
tions Flexon parachute harness. The restraint was
clipped to the ring between the main lift web andthe
upper leg strap terminations. There was no slack in the
restraints and the ATD positioning wasthe sameas the
previous test. Figure 33 shows the pre-test position of
the restraint over the pelvis of the ATD.

Restraint Method 6L: Restraint Attached
to Metal Ring at Webbing Junction, Left

18

Figure 34. Post-Test A95079

During the impact, the ATD slid forward as the
harness rotated around the torso of the ATD ina
similar manner to that noted in test A95076. The ATD
legs remained fore and aft and the hips swiveled
clockwise (from above). The upper torso rotated
forward onto the parachute pack producing neck
extension but no head strike. Figure 34 is a post-test
photo. The overall kinematics were similar to test
A95076.




PRE AQ5OT2

Figure 12. Pre-Test A95072

Figure 13. Post-Test A95072


Restraint Method 4D: Restraint Looped
Around Lower Leg Straps, Left and Right.

Figure 18. Pre-Test A95074

As illustrated in Figures 17 and 18, test A95074
evaluated attachment method 4D, which consisted of
two straps anchored to the floor on either side of the
ATD and looped around the lower leg straps on each
side of the harness. Because of the lower harness
attachment point, it was necessary to change the ATD’s
position relative to the restraint’s floor attachment
points. This was done to remove excessive slack from
the restraints, while keeping them at the same length
adjustment as in previous tests. The initial position of
the ATD upper torso was also changed to a leaning
back position (approximately 15 degrees to vertical) to
better represent the actual parachutist position during
takeoff.

13

Figure 19. Post Test A95074

The post-test review of the films from A95074
showedthe ATD slid forward much less than noted on
the previoustests. However, the forward rotation (c.g.,
leaning back toward the front of the airplane) of the
upper torso was more pronounced, and the rotation
‘was not stopped until the parachute pack contacted the
floor. The maximum rotation of the upper torso was
approximately 75° from vertical. Head contact onthe
floor was noted fromthe films. The rapid rotation was
due to poor upper torso restraint afforded by the low
harnessattachment point. Figure 19 isa post-test photo
from A95074.


Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.
DOT/FAA/AM-98/11

2. Goverment Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle
An Evaluation of Pilot Acceptance of the Personal Minimums Training
Program for Risk Management

8. Report Date

March 1998

6. Performing Organization Code

7, Author(s)

Gowdy, R.V., and DeWeese, R.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address
FAA Civil Aeromedical Instieute

P.O, Box 25082,

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address

Office of Aviation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20591

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplemental Notes

16. Abstract

As part of a cooperative project between the Federal Aviation Administration’s Ci

il Aeromedical

Institute, the Parachute Industries Association, and the United States Parachute Association, a series of

dynamic impact sled tests were performed to evaluate new types of restraint systems for sport parachutists.
The traditional means of restraining sport parachutists sitting aft-facing on the floor has been to provide lap
belts that are attached to the floor or sidewall of the airplane. The restraint systems evaluated in this project
were designed to route through the parachute harness and attach to the floor. Thus, occupant restraint was
provided by anchoring the parachute harness to the floor by means of the new restraint devices. Seven
methods of attaching the restraints to the parachute harness, which included both single and dual point
restraint systems, were dynamically tested. Five models of parachute pack/harnesses were included in this
project. A VIP 50” percentile anthropomorphic test dummy was modified to simulate a floor-seated aft-facing
parachutist. The impact test severity ranged from 5.5 gs @ 27.8 ft/sec to 9.5 gs @ 32.7 ft/sec.

Based on the results and observations acquired from this series of 12, three of the new restraint
methods demonstrated better restraint performance than could be expected from that provided by the
traditional lap belt method currently recommended.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Sport Parachute Document is available to the public through the
Restraints National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified

20. Security Clasai. (ofthis page)
Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

23

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Reproduction of completed page authorized





NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United States Government
assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.


onthetraditional static load requirements for seats and
restraints in airplanes: 6 g limit and 9 g ultimate static
loads. Although the association of static loads and
dynamic responses is subject to misinterpretation, this
range of dynamic test severity was selected because of
the historical regulatory significance of the 6 g and 9
gstatic load airworthiness requirements for the types
of airplanes used in sport parachuting.

Test Results and Summaries.

The following summaries describe the setup, re-
straint variation, and results noted from each of the
tests. Refer to Figure 5 and Table 1 for additional
details of the tests described below. The restraint
methods described in the following summaries are
identified by the attachment point shown in Figure 5,
and the number of belts. For example, method “1D”

indicates dual restraints were attached near the lower
end of the left and right main lift webs of the parachute
harness, denoted as point 1 on Figure 5. Likewise,
method “2L” refers to a single restraint belt attached
to the /eft side leg straps near the hip ring on the
harness, denoted as point 2 in Figure 5.

Restraint Method 1D: Restraint Looped through
Main Lift Web, Left and Right

Three tests were conducted with proposed restraint
method 1D asillustrated in Figures 9 and 10. In the first
two tests, A95070-071, the ATD’s upper body leaned
forward (relative to its body orientation) during the
acceleration phase of the test prior to impact. Light
cotton string was wrapped around the torso of the
ATDto inhibit the upper torso from rotating, but the
string broke prior to impact on bothtests. The ATD

CAMI Sled Tests
Parachutist Restraint Tests

Sled Deceleration (gs)

ie) 50 100

150
Time (milliseconds)

200 250

Examples of the 2 Impact Deceleration Pulses in the Project
Figure 8.


AgS0TS

Figure 15. Pre-Test A95073

Testnumber A95073 evaluated attachment method
7D. As shown in Figures 14 and 15, this restraint
consisted of a strap anchoredto the floor oneither side
ofthe ATD and looped around the horizontal back
strap andthe lower leg strap just behind their intersec-
tion with the main lift web, on each side of the harness.
The restraints were adjusted to their minimum length
but were still slack. The ATD was placed in the same
pre-test posture and held in place with cord as de-
scribed above for test A95072.

12

Restraint Method 7D: Restraint Looped
through Horizontal Back Strap and Lower
Leg Strap, Aft of Main Lift Web Junction,
Left and Right

POST Agso7as

Figure 16. Post Test A95073

During the impact, the ATD’s entire body slid
forward and its upper torso rotated forward in asimilar
manner to that noted from the previous test, A95072.
In this test, however, the torso rotated further, to
approximately 50° from vertical. Less neck extension
was observed when compared to the films from
95072. The reduced neck extension was most likely
due to the lower harness attachment point. The post-
test position of the ATD is shown in Figure 16.