×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

(OP)
There's something I have noticed in the current crop of all-composite aircraft (Diamond DA-40+20 is an example) where the seats are not independent units, but fastened directly to the airframe, in fact they are molded into it to a large extent, though still removable with discrete fasteners. Instead of moving the seat to the controls, these aircraft move the controls to the pilot. They deal with adjustment issues by keeping the center column very close to the pilot and moving the foot pedals instead. In the grand scheme of things, I kind-of like this (having flown a DA-20 it's easy to get used to) and some certification issues like pilot field of view may be simplified.

So now I'm wondering how this kind of seat design would be dealt with for compliance with FAR 23.562, Emergency Landing Dynamic Conditions?
Would the aircraft manufacturer have to replicate some of the airframe in the test apparatus in order to provide suitable attachments, and reactions that respond in force and deflection that corresponds to the actual thing? How much of the airframe, and how much fidelity does it need? Could the interface loads be determined in the same way as a 4-leg seat, with load transducers?

My recent reading of the AC guidance on seat certification treats the seat as a "unit", but this assumption doesn't seem to apply to the all-composite molded-in seat pan. All the figures in the AC show seats with legs that adjust back and forth on floor tracks. Again, more assumptions that aren't the case for the molded-in seat. AC 23.562-1 provides in Paragraph 9 some descriptions of alternative test fixtures for seats that don't incorporate 4 typical legs, but avoids describing what is expected. I should also note that on this size of aircraft, some of the structure supporting this seat is the spar-carry-through, and the landing gear attachments are not far away either. There's a lot going on in that one small area of the fuselage.

This is coming up because I see a project on the horizon where I will may to understand the certification of this kind of seat, and possibly need to figure out the interface loads at the attachment points.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Sparweb,
Most of thes composite aircraft coming out of europe started as motor gliders certificated and licensed under JAR 22 this was later changed to EASA
The certification basis of the Basic Model DA 40 is JAR-23 issued 11-Mar-1994, and JAR-1, at Change 5 issued 15-Jul-1996, plus elect-to-comply with NPA 23-3 ACJ Material and 23-6 Printing errors. For the DA 40 D this was upgraded to JAR-23 including Amendment 1. This is an acceptable certification basis in accordance with NZCAR ( New Zealand Civil Aviation Regulations.) Part 21B Para §21.41 and Advisory Circular 21-1A, because JAR-23 is accepted as an equivalent to FAA FAR 23, the basic standard for Normal Category Airplanes called up under Part 21 Appendix C. For the DA 40 and DA 40 F there were four Special Conditions, while for the DA 40 D six Special Conditions were complied with and there were five findings of equivalent safety. These have been reviewed and accepted.
For the most part the practice of most of the aircraft that started out under JAR22 has been to use a fixed seat pan with Adjustable rudderpedals and adjustable seat backs. this is typical of the Grob 109, the Hoffmann Dimona, the Valentin Taifun.
When working on the C70 fiberglass sailplane. The first fiberglass sailplane produced in serial production 44 years ago, we ran foul of the FAA on structural seat pans, The pan started life molded in with a fiberglass seat belt attach made from rovings glassed to the fuselage skin following european practice with a small acces door to get at the controls. First FAA question " will that seat belt anchor stay attached to the fuselage in a crash"? answer " Yes", FAA " Prove it.". At that time there was very little body of knowlege on what Fiberlass /epoxy resin could or could not do. Most of it was closely held by the bigger companies,or classified.At that point the owner decided to fit a steel cage into the forward section and mount the hardware on it , simply because the engineers at the time could handle a clip welded to a chrome moly tube, and stress it accurately which they could not do in fiberglass, next command make the access hole bigger this reduced the strength of the seat pan I found this out the hard way when I put my ass through the bottom of the pan in a hard landing on a test flight.
As far as sliding seat rails go people like Cirrus are just using part 23. They have an aluminum seat rail bolted through the cabin floor into the spar tunnel upon which the seat slides.
B.E.


You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

You mention cockpit seats. I'd've thought that 23.562 was directed towards passenger seats.

What you describe sounds "odd" ... the seats are molded together with the airframe but removable (attached with screws) ? Do they mold the structure then separate the seats ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

RB1957,
There are several different methods according to the company making the aircraft, Some single seat and tandem 2 seat companies mold the basic fuselage shell then put in a composite scaffold which holds the steering gear. Then glue in a separately molded seat pan which forms part of the structure of the aircraft. Others install re-enforced side rails as part of the structure then the seat pan is screwed to those side rails. This makes the seat pan removable which is much more convenient for maintenance. The side by side two seaters tend to use the side rail molded flanges allowing the seat pans to come out for maintenance. There is usually a lot under there. The landing gear attach brackets, steering gear, electrical, and the mainspar carry through. Depending on the type the spars may overlap with through pins on the neutral axis of the spar. or the two spars may completely overlap with spigots on the spar ends that plug into sockets on the root rib of the opposing wing, with just a safety needle to prevent them coming out. Or in the case of Grob spigots on the end of the spars with phallic looking retainer pins held with multi ball sliding collars.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

(OP)
Thank you Berkshire for the detailed descriptions. This gives me some leads for making comparisons.
Complicating matters even further is that the FAA has gone and re-written FAR 23 in its entirety. Nobody knows how to do anything any more.

Is this one of yours, perchance?



Hi RB,
The FAR's tell me that design conditions are the same for crew and passenger seats. In fact it's quite explicit in .562, while the only exception I can think of if 785 where the pilot's control forces have to be reacted by the seat, whereas such a thing is not necessary for any passenger. And, well, I admit that quoting the FAR's to you is neither necessary nor appropriate on this foreign type, sorry, but all these agencies do copy each other's texts, really...

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Sparweb,
It looks like I am being exposed. The ship in your picture is serial #6 of 21 fabricated in the USA. That ship was made just before I started with the company. I worked on or built the aircraft following that one. I also repaired that one ( #6) after it had a close encounter of the wrong kind with a fence.
I also have about 10 hours of flight time in that bird.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

(OP)
Berkshire,
Now I know what's on your resume. Check your inbox.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Sparweb,
I sent you a reply .
You realize that the picture you posted was taken at the Harris hill soaring museum, and that aircraft is now literally a museum piece.
What is even scarier is that apart from some refinement in materials, the methods and techniques used to produce that type of aircraft have not changed in 44 years.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Sparweb,
Here is a cross reference chart for new and old sections of part 23. It may or may not help.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/...

B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

except they changed the proposed para numbers by adding 2xxx to those on the table.

the new rule is (IMHO) unusable without an AC ... must read the rule making ... but the online version doesn't show the FR for the changes ??

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

(OP)
The switch to eCFR has made it harder to see the rulemaking that used to be available.
In the absence of a comprehensive set of AC's for all the new rules, your opinion is probably right - who knows how compliance is expected to be shown? There are miscellaneous comments that the "old way still works" but I haven't seen it on a compliance plan, yet.

Yes, I found that photo on the museum's collections website. If I'm ever in upstate New York...
Flipping up the full-span flaps into spoiler mode but have been a pretty dramatic event.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Sparweb,
The flaps don't work that way. They will go negative but only _5* . however for landing they come down 90*. Stall speed with the flaps down 90 is 22kts. and with the nose pointed down at 45* you will never get over 55kts . Putting the flaps negative at high speed brings the nose back up so that you do not look like you are diving into the ground. It also gets the fuselage back in line with the airflow reducing the fuselage drag. In the attachment there is a picture of an approach of a C70 with 90* flaps deployed. That's me driving that thing, that is a stabilized approach at 50kts indicated.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

at least you have a good view of the landing strip !

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

If you guys don't know, for the Final Rule for the new Part23, follow berkshire's link above, click on the "RIN" on the RH side (it's about the only link) then "Spring 2017" ... shows the Final Rule is 81 FR 96572, eff 30th Aug 2017.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

(OP)
Thank you RB. It took a lot of clicking to get there, so here's the final rule you describe: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/...

It does have the right cross-references. Also of interest is the Small Airplane Issues List (SAIL) on the RGL webpage and other stuff such as FAA Accepted Means of Compliance for Part 23 Airplanes (Amendment 23-64). So there is guidance for these aircraft, it all comes from ASTM, now (no surprise but interesting how the SAE didn't get to keep their monopoly).

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

The nemesis of certification with the FAA is uncertainty . If they have doubts about your FEA program or strength of materials choices, their fall back position is " Prove it.", this often means tests to destruction, or at least mean failure of the component involved, this can get expensive in a hurry. It is better to under design on the initial proto type than over design. You can always add stuff to structure. the Feds are very reluctant to let you take anything off.
Other countries are sometimes a little more forgiving, that is why several American designs have originated here as prototypes, then been taken to eastern Europe for quantity production, and type certification, then licensed here under a reciprocal agreement.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

(OP)
OK, thanks again - this was a bit sidetracked, but useful in its own way.

Any last thoughts about seats and how dynamic test/certification is done when composite tubs are concerned?

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Here are a few links https://www.niar.wichita.edu/niarworkshops/Portals...
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2007conference/files/C....
Also look at the Diamond Aircraft website on crash testing. You can see their crash testing for seats.
I am finding that in fact there is very little on line about this subject, and most of the paper publications on the subject that I have date back to the 1990s.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

(OP)
What a moving target "light aircraft" is becoming!
Thanks for the scuttlebutt, BE. The NIAR presentation is helpful too.
Seems corrugations are a great energy absorber in both metals and composites.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

Brian,
We had two C70s at Mid Atlantic Soaring until recently. I think one sold, not sure if the other one is still in the trailer hangar or not. Haven't seen it fly in years.

The new Part 23 is a real cluster. Nobody knows how it is supposed to work. They were supposed to be working on ASTM standards much like the Light Sport rule, but to date no standards have been written. Everything is supposed to be "Risk" based now, but no guidance on how to establish a risk based certification plan. I've asked my ACO advisor, asked at DER recurrent sessions and still blank stares. Thank goodness I'm only a Vintage DER, at least I understand CAR 3, Car 4 and Aero Bulletin 7A.

RE: Seat certification in all-composite aircraft

(OP)
A little note to "close" the subject, concerning the seats I was going to look at:
In the end, the designer chose to elevate the seat on legs after all. They invited me to "advise" and suggest improvements, and were not going to call on me to do more or to take responsibility. That was a relief. My inspection revealed some serious issues integrating the seat to the floor.
The nature of the floor structure under the seat legs in their aircraft, once they do get the details sorted out, will offer some energy absorption of its own. The seat pan is also extra deep, allowing for a soft cushion and a crushable block underneath it. The combined energy absorption will come from the combined crush of the block, legs, and floor beams. I do not believe the guidance gives credit for crushing of the floor structure itself, as a contribution to the crash energy absorption.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper - How ESI is Helping Move New Medical Device Product to Market Quicker & More Cost Effic
Early Supplier Involvement has long been a strategy employed by manufacturers to produce innovative products. Now, it almost seems like a necessity. Because decisions made in the design phase can positively affect product quality and costs, this can help add value to OEM bottom lines. This white paper will discuss many facets of ESI, including why it’s so valuable today, what challenges limit the benefits of ESI, how cost is impacted, and more. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close