Rear Seat Removal

[lowNslow]

The point is: I don't necessarily LIKE the answers I must give. But I feel compelled when asked such questions to research the question and provide the BEST answer I can, which will apply in ALL cases, and which comply with the regulations and law. Now it just so happens I have personal knowlege of this specific matter and how at least one FSDO regards the matter. They explained it to me just like I am relating it here. I am quite confident that even an inspector at ANC who smells like whale blubber and hunts in a Super Cub with a kayak and a harpoon lashed to the struts will accept a 170 whose rear seat removal was documented with a Form 337 that all those kooks down in the lower-48 FSDO's think is necessary for flight. In other words, it is the "most correct" answer that I can provide that I know will pass muster.

Once again George you provide nothing but anecdotal stories and opinion. You seem to always refer to this mystery FSDO guy (again, I assume the same one you claim told you we needed MMELs) who is giving you the straight scoop dispite what the regulations say. So far all the regulations and Advisory Circulars I can find do not support your arguement. Show us the the regulations that support your claim.

[flyguy]

............I am quite confident that even an inspector at ANC who smells like whale blubber and hunts in a Super Cub with a kayak and a harpoon lashed to the struts........

OK George, one more time, we've been thru this before............................................where in the heck is ANC?

ANCRA TURKEY OH NOOOOOOO I JES GOOGLEY IT AN EVUN WHEN I THOT IT SPELL WIT A C BUT ITSA K SORI RICH IWUZ JUS TRIN TU HEP, SO ISA DOANT NO WHER ANC IS TOO BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT AIR NAV DUZ

FAA Identifier: ANC
Lat/Long: 61-10-27.7000N / 149-59-46.9000W
61-10.461667N / 149-59.781667W
61.1743611 / -149.9963611
(estimated)
Elevation: 152 ft. / 46.3 m (surveyed)
Variation: 21E (2005)
From city: 4 miles SW of ANCHORAGE, AK
Time zone: UTC -9 (UTC -8 during Daylight Savings Time)
Zip code: 99502

HOPE THIS HELPS BUT U JES CANT MAKE GEORGE GO AWAY

[mit]

It should be the same every where and the association maintenance guru should advocate for the simplest most practical method that benefits association members and owners. FSDO's do get in trouble, for making up their own rules from time to time.

[voorheesh]

This discussion seems like splitting hairs and beating dead horses. In reality, there are airplanes flying all over the place who's owners have modified them and documented or not documented them as they choose. Most pilots have little contact with FSDOs and I suspect it is rare that the FAA actually enforces any of the issues being discussed on this thread. The FAA sees airplanes when they show up for checkrides or need to be placed in some kind of service like 141 or 135. Then the FAA looks at them carefully and writes condition notices if they do not conform. Ramp checks happen but they are rare. IAs have standards that run the gamut. Some carefully research this stuff while others just sign off annuals and go on to the next fun thing on their schedule. So whats the big deal?? I have been on this forum since 2005 and, as a 170 owner, I am pretty happy with this website and all of the 170 association's endeavors. I may not agree with George all the time, but of all the opinions I have heard in this and similar discussions, he usually makes the most sense.

[GAHorn]

[... I assume the same one you claim told you we needed MMELs)....

The only discussion I recall on MELs was in reference to installed equipment must be operational or must be deferred under an approved MEL. (MMEL is the master, not the one an operator might obtain approval for a specific operation, but you probably know that, and are simply trying to cast dispersion on matters because you want to make this a personal argument?)

And there's no "mystery" about who it is. I just don't plan to post his name in a public place any more than I'd mention Karl Kunz when I talk to FSDO. On the other hand, maybe that would be a good way to get information in your hands in a first-hand sort of way?

I give enough of my time without having to teach you how to look up regs. Look 'em up yourself (and while you're at it, take a gander at the TCDS.)

As for the other questions about "basis of approval" of "field approvals" and the one about "approved data"... If you guys don't know those simple answers then you shouldn't be too concerned about this discussion. I teach enough school already. Call your local FSDO directly and pose that question. It'll do you good.

As for the Owners Manual (once again, there is no POH for a 170).... it was not approved by anyone other than the Cessna marketing department. But it might be of interest to notice that on page 9 of the 170-A manual (and on page 37 of the 170-B owners manual) in the Weight and Balance section the following statement: "Changes in the original equipment affecting weight empty c.g. are required by the CAA to be recorded in the repair and alteration Form 337."

[hilltop170]

SO ISA DOANT NO WHER ANC IS TOO

Thanks flyguy, I was just pokin' old George in the ribs with a sharp stick to see if he would bite on it. I live in Anchorage.

[lowNslow]

The only discussion I recall on MELs was in reference to installed equipment must be operational or must be deferred under an approved MEL. (MMEL is the master, not the one an operator might obtain approval for a specific operation, but you probably know that, and are simply trying to cast dispersion on matters because you want to make this a personal argument?)

If you are taking this personally, I apoligize, it did not mean this to sound like a personnal attack. I was only trying to make the point that as sharp as MOST of these FSDO guys are, they are not always right. This is why I try to go by the FAAs published information as my reference.

And there's no "mystery" about who it is. I just don't plan to post his name in a public place any more than I'd mention Karl Kunz when I talk to FSDO. On the other hand, maybe that would be a good way to get information in your hands in a first-hand sort of way?

Geesh,is this a threat?

As for the Owners Manual (once again, there is no POH for a 170).... it was not approved by anyone other than the Cessna marketing department. But it might be of interest to notice that on page 9 of the 170-A manual (and on page 37 of the 170-B owners manual) in the Weight and Balance section the following statement: "Changes in the original equipment affecting weight empty c.g. are required by the CAA to be recorded in the repair and alteration Form 337."

All I asked George was some "official reference" (i.e. FAA) to support your arguement to support your claim.

[W.J.Langholz]

all

I don't know forsure who all is in this thread however It may be benifical at this point to move this to the Members Only pages.

If I were just starting to visit this site, I could see this as a bit intimidating, and does not show the comradery that is generaly present here in this forum.

W.

[mit]

I installed 185 jump seats in my 170 with a field approval. Used all Cessna parts and installed the the same as in the 180/185. The FAA inspector that signed it was happy with what I had. This was before they declared War on field approvals. If I remove the jump seats will that be a major? I have a W/B, for configurations with the original seat, one jump seat, or two jump seats, and no rear seat, Can't remember now if I did one with the copilots seat out. Is it a major Alteration every time I change the configuration?

[Showboatsix]

I am beginning to wonder if "G" is the FAA type guy I have been refering to, because if "G" WAS or IS a FAA guy...... none of us would be flying today.... we would all have been grounded a long time ago!

George is just the canary in the coal mine a lot of the time, even if he doesn't agree with it he's seen what HIS FAA office wants and reports same to us. But, each FAA office is their own little kingdom, they can decide to enforce or interpret what they want. sometimes that depends on whomever went to school lately in OK City and got another part of their brain removed. IMHO

PS: HA what part of ND are you? Me...formerly from Ellendale, ND which is tecnically South North Dakota (5 miles from the border HWY 281)

[GAHorn]

...Geesh,is this a threat? ....

Of course NOT. It was an example of how it might appear intimidating to an inspector who hasn't given permission to post his name (after you appeared to imply that I had a "mystery" person I refused to name.)

...All I asked George was some "official reference" (i.e. FAA) to support your arguement to support your claim.

I've given the references that led to my decision to document my airplane. The reference to the Owner's Manual was a response to Showboatsix who used Owners Manuals from other aircraft to support his "proof" that this is not a major alteration. If HIS OWN examples are logical to him...then he should certainly have no further question about the Cessna 170 manuals that specifically state that a Form 337 is required when removing a seat.

"Dubya"..... several of the most prolific contributors of this message thread are not members and it would remove their ability to participate if I moved the thread. I posted my long-winded disclaimer earlier in an effort to de-fuse the volatility of this discussion and I certainly do hope that everyone is willing to allow strong feelings to be politely expressed without taking offense at individual viewpoints.

Tim, it's my belief that if you have documented all the configurations you operate your airplane, then you have met the intent. I have a 337 which documents the configuration with the seat both installed and removed, and my Equipment List and WT/BAL document references that 337.

[lowNslow]

Of course NOT. It was an example of how it might appear intimidating to an inspector who hasn't given permission to post his name (after you appeared to imply that I had a "mystery" person I refused to name.)

I knew that. It was not my intent for you "out" this inspector.

Tim, it's my belief that if you have documented all the configurations you operate your airplane, then you have met the intent. I have a 337 which documents the configuration with the seat both installed and removed, and my Equipment List and WT/BAL document references that 337.

The sad part is that a pilot can do a whole host of "preventive maintenace" items (including removing and replacing the seats) but is not allowed to fly his aircraft without the seat and without documention for that occasional camping trip. The calculations required are no more involved than those used to figure the wt. & balanced with people, fuel and cargo that a pilot normally does. I know many 170 owners are doing this anyway but may find themselves in trouble if they get ramp checked. I to carry two versions of the wt. and balance.

[voorheesh]

Hey low & slow, what is sad about this? He is telling you that if you have a W&B for both configurations and document it on a 337 and mail it in to the FAA, you are covered. Do you know what a 337 is? It is a two sided document that takes minimal time to fill out and most A&Ps will help you with it for minimal charge. I don't think "G" said it needed to be field approved by the FAA. In the very unlikely event you ever get ramp checked, tell the FAA you have a W&B for that configuration and go about your business. What kind of "trouble" do you think the FAA will give you for that? I do not understand what this argument is about.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I am beginning to wonder if "G" is the FAA type guy I have been refering to, because if "G" WAS or IS a FAA guy...... none of us would be flying today.... we would all have been grounded a long time ago!

Showboatsix you have no idea how wrong you are. I will only ask that you trust me on this..

I remain neutral in this discussion only because I don't care to dive into the research AGAIN to argue any point.

Bottom line is that George's opinion is based on the best knowledge he has and right or wrong it won't hurt anyone to follow it. If you don't care to follow it fine.

I think we've pretty much covered both sides here and are beating a dead horse.

W. I appreciate your suggestion to move the thread but to tell you the truth in most cases I hate that. No where does it say we aren't going to discuss difficult subjects and have a difference of opinion. Unfortunitly many many times disagreements here look like they are large knock down drag em out fights when in reality if the same discussion took place face to face over a beer the total discussion would last less than 5 minutes and be forgotten when the participants had to think what kind of beer they were drinking to reorder.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Now if your still reading this thread and wondering what to do if you want to remove your seats and have your but covered. Get with an IA or A&P and go through the exercise of writing and 337 to remove the seat and adjust the W&B. This will be an education for many. Ask the IA/A&P then to forward it to their (your) local FSDO for evaluation.

If the FSDO sends it back saying it's not needed then you have that documented. If they send it back approved then you have that covered.

Just going through this exercise you will learn a lot about the climate and thinking of your local FSDO.

I myself have removed my rear seat as well as the passenger seat and flown around without much worry. I did do and would do a W&B and adjust my equipment list when I did it.

At some point I might write a 337 and send it through my IA to the FSDO and see what they have to say. Either way I will be amused as I baffle the FAA with their own paperwork BS. Sometimes I get a big kick out of outsmarting them at their own game and being squeaky legal.