JohnyHachi6
JohnyHachi6 New Reader
3/1/11 2:50 p.m.

I was looking at the list of SFI approved manufacturers for head and neck restraints (SFI 38.1). And noticed that the Defnder Team Issue is no longer listed. Anyone know anything about this? I believe NASA rules say that, when the new 38.1 restraint requirement comes into effect, your restraint MUST be on this list specifically.

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

camaroz1985
camaroz1985 Reader
3/2/11 8:18 a.m.

SFI website must not be up to date. DefNder's site shows 38.1 approval.

Ranger50
Ranger50 HalfDork
3/2/11 8:37 a.m.

Unless they are using counterfeit SFI tags like Impact did......

jimbbski
jimbbski Reader
3/2/11 11:03 a.m.
Ranger50 wrote: Unless they are using counterfeit SFI tags like Impact did......

In Impacts case they sold SFI approved items but made their own tags so they didn't have to buy them from SFI. Saved them selves a few bucks that way.

LopRacer
LopRacer New Reader
3/4/11 6:39 a.m.

Canoe, wedding dresses really how do you get one on a canoe?

JohnyHachi6
JohnyHachi6 New Reader
3/4/11 9:44 a.m.

I emailed the SFI foundation about this and they got back to me with this response:

"Thank you for your email. Defnder is not listed on the SFI 38.1 manufacturer list because they are not currently participating in that program, i.e., no current testing. However, Defnder isn’t producing new restraints. They are still selling existing inventory that was certified when their testing was current, which is completely allowable by the SFI Program."

So it sounds like just because they aren't currently making anything with an SFI 38.1 tag, they won't be on that list. This is a little concerning, because in the NASA rulebook it states:

"There is an up to date list of devices that are SFI 38.1 certified located here: http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1. If the device is not on this list it will not fulfill the use mandate."

I don't think they'll actually stick to this, since the list only has currently manufactured devices, but it's very poor wording on NASA's part.

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
VN9BWY1KQhi2DKJ59WQce80vfaPg3MQxO9BQIm30DGTGfO6ScrcdGjnT5OerPRUL