N9149A wrote:...George, I'm trying to show how illogical your reasoning is. 4 seats is a total capacity. There will never be 5 seats. Doesn't mean there has to be 4 seats just like there doesn't have to be full tanks and 2 gallons of oil....
That does not mean that is a basis to remove unused seats any more than it would mean you can remove the left fuel tank simply because you choose not to put fuel into it, or remove the flaps simply because you chose not to use them on a particular flight.
I've said this before, but apparently I need to say it again: I'm not putting forward my personal viewpoint. I am only explaining the viewpoint of the authorities that I've visited with regarding this matter during the course of several decades of flying airplanes. Those viewpoints change with the times and with the individual inspectors who are tasked with interpreting the rules. When they get it wrong I try to get them to substantiate their position, just like you guys are all assuming ...(there's that word again).... that I should have to defend what some of you ...assume... is my personal view. (In that latter instance, you are wrong. I personally feel that removing a rear seat is a simple matter and should be dealt with simply. Alas,... it's not to be in the minds of some inspectors.)
I decided that for my own airplane, I'd gotten tired of swimming upstream and asked a friend with IA to generate a 337 for me...not so much to please the powers-that-be-in San Antonio as much as to play CYA with my insurance company. I hate paying for things that don't get delivered, and if I'd not had my medical certificate validated and my airplane's annual in effect when that airplane was
sitting on the ground in Ruidoso, NM... then the insurance company would have reminded me of those requirements (which were in effect at that time....although the policy requirements have since been altered to provide coverage as long as at the beginning of the policy-period I had a valid medical.) I still had to ask them why my medical certificate was important to provide coverage to an airplane that was unattended and not inflight.... but they simply quoted the term of the policy....and indeed that's what it said.
Anyways.... in these pages I am merely trying to establish in the reader's mind the "logic" that was passed onto me by the inspectors.
Here is their premise:
1: Removing the rear seat for purposes of flight is not allowed by the pilot under the provisions of preventive maintenance because that rule specifies that the seat may only be "replaced" by the pilot.
2: Removing the seat is an alteration of the basic airplane as described by the TCDS. This is not changed by the fact that the seat is not listed in the "required equipment" list. (Neither does that list require 3 different sets of tires to accomodate all sizes listed. The "required" equipment list defines equipment that creates various configurations of the basic airplane.)
3: If a seat is removed, it will change the empty weight and CG of the aircraft, therefore the equipment list and wt/bal must be revised. (This can be computed/revised by the pilot.) The seat removal alters the aircraft configuration from the TCDS and therefore must be documented with Form 337. If it is anticipated that the configuration will frequently move back/forth, the 337 should address both configurations. (This is the biggest contention I have personally had with them because of the actual wording of the rule. Their claim was that the re-installation of the seat was authorized under preventive maintenance. I suggested that if the aircraft was altered by seat removal, then it was also altered by seat installation, and that was my point it was incorrect to require the 337, but they were unmoved by the argument. They insisted that they did not disagree that a pilot was authorized to make the removal or the installation, but that the altered configuration of the aircraft was the issue, especially since it was unknown whether the change was temporary or permanent.)
Now it seems the fellow who so adamately stood by his opinion has moved to the Southern region (ATL) and is no longer in SAT FSDO. I learned this when I placed the latest inquiry there, so whenever they return my call perhaps we can report what the present state of mind is in my region. (Maybe Harley Pickett has inherited that inspector, in which case he may be better connected to deal with him than I.)
Addendum: Well, I've just gotten off the phone with SAT FSDO. (1:45 PM 12/17/08)
Their interpretation is absolutely unchanged. The inspector went on to say that if he performed a ramp check on a 170 with a missing rear seat the equipment list and wt/bal had better reflect it, and there had better be a Form 337 in the aircraft records or he will feel obligated to take further action. He specifically asked, "Why is the rear seat not installed?" I responded, "No particular reason, but perhaps just to carry the dog." We had a little laugh over it when he asked how the dog was restrained, and I told him my dog was named "Loose-Equipment!"
He authorized me to post his name, but I won't do that. Anyone wishing to pursue this further can request that info in a PM and I will provide it.
I hope this will help conclude this matter, but somehow I doubt it.
May there always be and Angel flying with you.
