Weight & Balance: Front seat, pilot and passenger

[MattPilot]

Adding a 3rd seatbelt for a child has to be preferable and safer than adding an aux seat in the baggage compartment, but has anyone done it?


STC Holder: Waring Robert Contact:
Address: 8645 Windsong Court ~ Springfield ~ VA ~ 22153 ~ United States Phone:
STC No.: SA1-426 Reissued,10/25/2001 E-Mail: Web Site:
TC Nos.: 3A12, 3A13, 3A17, 5A6, A-799,
Models:
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 172B;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 172A;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 172;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 182;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 175A;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 175B;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 175;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 180A;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 180;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 170B;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 170A;
Cessna Aircraft Company, The -- 170 Series;
ACO: New York Aircraft Certification Office (ANE-170), Tel: (516) 228-7300

Auxiliary seat in baggage compartment.

[MattPilot]

Thanks for the encouragement Aryana. I just found an STC for the early models of the 182 which allow for this and have been in contact with a few DERs today who have been encouraging. I also found the DER who got the approval on the 182, and am establishing contact with him.

Truth be told, I don't even own a 170 yet. I am planning on purchasing one in the near future as long as I can make the airplane fit my missions. I am fully aware that my children will grow up and grow out of the 170 but that is many years out on the horizon.

[johneeb]

I think you will be the first. Blaze a trail and get this field approved from the FAA.

If it were me and I had to put 3 kids in the back of my 170, I'd just go rent a Cherokee Six instead. If this is something that you plan on doing regularly, then you may have bought the wrong plane because even with 3 belts in the back seat your kids will eventually grow too big for the plane.

Would it work, when the kids get to big, if the bicycles on the bike rack mounted on the roof had seatbelts?

[GAHorn]

Find a Cherokee Six owner who regrets not having a taildragger to fly (and is fed up with crawling around on his hands and knees to drain fuel sumps) and swap some flight time.

It only took ONE hour in a rental Cherokee to show a buddy the advantages of a high-wing airplane. (Easy pre-flight vs incomplete pre-flights due to difficulty. Cool, shaded cockpit. Better stability when airborne. Better view when airborne. Drier loading/unloading/standing place when drizzling. Less maintenance landing gear vs oleo struts.
Etc. Etc. Etc.)

[MattPilot]

Are there any others that would be interested in pursuing a field approval on this?

Also, are the 170 cabin dimensions identical to the 180 cabin dimensions?

Thanks!

[170C]

The 170, early 172 & early 180 cabin dimensions are identical as are most of the other dimensions (wingspan, etc).

[MattPilot]

So, it's the same for the early 182's also? Pre 1962?

Thanks!

[170C]

I believe you will find the early (pre 1962) C-182 to have the same cabin width as the 170, 172, 175 & 180. That figure is about 40 " although some spec's show 39 1/4". In '62 the 182 got a 4 " width increase in the floor according to the data I have read. That increase makes a lot of difference.

[MattPilot]

An STC is now available to allow for 3 kids to be seated on the rear bench of the Cessna 170, Cessna 180 and Cessna 182 narrow body models. If you have any interest, please email me at matt.grondin@hotmail.com.

Thanks!

Matt

[MattPilot]

The STC applies to all models of the Cessna 170. The STC also applies to all models of the Cessna 180 up to and including 180E as well as the 182 up to and including the 182E.

The STC is for the paperwork only, for one Cessna serial number only and is available now for $500. The STC is basically the legal means to add a third lap belt to the rear bench. Parts are less than $200 (the hardware is about $50, the rest is the cost of a lap belt and depends on the buckle/options). Labor is estimated at 2 hours or less, going shop rates around here are $85 approx. The total investment to purchase and install the a STC is estimated at less than $1000.

As part of the STC, there is a weight limitation for the rear seat occupants, but only when the seat is occupied by three passengers. Here is the official weight limitation of the rear seat that will be placarded as part of the STC:
"When the center position of the rear seat is occupied:
max weight of rear seat center occupant - 85 lbs -
max weight of each rear seat outboard occupant is - 115 lbs

I have pictures available and would be happy to entertain any and all questions. You may PM me or email me at matt.grondin@hotmail.com.

[ghostflyer]

I have seen a third seat in the baggage area of a 170b . The owner told me it was a STC . He said it was all up max weight normally . Not a full fuel load but good enough for the short trip he does . PLUS he has a cargo pod underneath . This was in 1991 in British Columbia . Lake Teslin.. Too long ago to remember .

[GAHorn]

One of our former Members (Russ Farris I believe it was) owned a 170 which had been involved in a mid-air with a Continental DC-3, while grandpa was carrying 4 of his grandkids. Nothing much noted about any violations... but the CAA might have been a bit looser than FAA....

[MattPilot]

There was an accident a couple years ago (2009?) involving a Pilatus with way too many people on board (13 I think). This has driven a lot of change in the FARs and the FAAs interpretation and enforcement of them. Prior to this accident the rules were, in fact, very loose; but, as with most rules in aviation, this one was written in blood. This STC makes it legal (and safer) to do what many have already done for years ... carry three passengers on the rear seat.

[voorheesh]

The Pilatus accident involved a flight where the pilot failed to add an ice inhibitor to the fuel. This resulted in a fuel valve malfunction, presumably due to ice formation and a subsequent imbalance between the two wing fuel tanks. The pilot then delayed recognizing the severity of the problem and diverted to a non towered airport in Montana versus a towered airport closer to the position when he realized he was in serious trouble. The imbalance went beyond limits as the aircraft approached the airport resulting in loss of control and multiple fatalities. A factor in that accident (which did not have any effect on the cause) was the number of passengers aboard. If you read the report, there were more passengers then seats. Despite the number of occupants, I believe the NTSB found the aircraft to be loaded within weight and balance limits. This pilot elected to operate his aircraft in violation of the flight manual and type certificate data sheet. All passengers must have a proper seat, seatbelt and the airplane should not carry more passengers than specified by the manufacturer or as amended though a proper change. There is nothing new about that.

I am not aware of any rule changes or heightened attention to Part 91 operators that resulted from this accident. The rules were not loose prior to this accident and it had more to do with the rules of physics than the FARs. Think gravity. The aviation system provides pilots with the information to safety operate aircraft and then trusts them to follow guidance and make good decisions. The FAA and the NTSB do not patrol airports and check on how pilots are loading their aircraft. It is possible that an inspector conducting ramp "surveillance" might spot an unsafe situation such as happened with the Pilatus but there is little he can do about it. The FAA does not have police powers, again because of the trust and professionalism presumed to be attributed to certificated pilots. I know there are exceptions to the above statement and probably horror stories about how the FAA targets pilots and treats them unfairly, but I think most would agree that we operate on our own and are ultimately responsible for our decisions. The Pilatus accident was a tragedy involving many children (passengers) who's parents trusted the pilot. The pilot was a professional who appeared to totally neglect his responsibilities on that day.

If there is a lesson written in blood it should be a reminder to all of us of the consequences of this type of neglect. Accidents are seldom the result of a single error or event. They are usually the end of a series of factors that compound to a point where the pilot runs out of opportunities to maintain a safe operation. We should start seeing red flags when we let little things slip and compromise our standards. That will inevitably lead to trouble. My theory is that we can enjoy aviation and get the job done by paying attention to the details and identifying error before we get in too deep. And we can accomplish this with minimal interference from our overseers.

[MattPilot]

It is true that weight and balance had nothing to do with this accident. This accident occurred on a Part 91 flight and the accident also had nothing to do with having 14 people (1 pilot & 13 passengers) in a 10 place airplane. However, the deaths of 14 people in a 10 place airplane brought attention to the fact that the FAA had previously allowed, under official interpretation of the FARs, the shared use of a seatbelt by multiple passengers. This is what is not allowed anymore except under a very specific set of circumstances dealing with the airplanes original certification. The rules were much looser than they are today - the rules and interpretation thereof changed because of this accident. The aircraft covered under this STC do not fall within these circumstances.

Here is a link to the official "Clarification of Prior Interpretation" from the Office of the Federal Register that discusses this in more detail ... It's not some made up story just to sell this STC ...
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... or-general

The FAA might not have police powers, but they have enforcement powers and can and will pull your license from you. Not knowing better is not a valid defense.

Trust me, if it were still legal to do this, I wouldn't have invested my time or money towards getting this STC - nor would the DER / A&P, IA. It is not only the safest way to carry 5 people in 170, it's the legal way.