Rear Seat Removal

[bagarre]

(a) Cabin interiors.
Only materials which are flash resistant shall be used.
In compartments where smoking is to be permitted, the materials of the
cabin lining, floors, upholstery, and furnishings shall be flame-resistant.
Such compartments shall be equipped with an adequate number of self
contained ash trays. All other compartments shall be placarded against smoking.

A placard is required if you don't have ashtrays.
Also, if you have ashtrays and flame-resistant materials you'd still have to put a No Smoking placard in the plane if you don't want to allow smoking.

[T. C. Downey]

I spoke with David Jensen in the airworthiness dept of the Oakland FSDO (510-748-0122), and he referred to the type certificate which lists 4 seats (2 at +36, 2 at +70). His response was that the aircraft would require a field approval on a 337 as a major alteration if the type cert or AFM does not explicitly state that the aircraft can be operated with any seats removed. Once the field approval on the 337 is granted, it would require a 16 step ICA (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) which would have to be executed along with a new W&B and log book entry.

That is precisely the guidance I was given at the last IA seminar I attended. and what I have been saying here. As for the 16 step ICAs that is directly from AC 43-210 but can be by-passed with a simple statement that "the maintenance of the aircraft will not change". or I have also seen " this aircraft will be maintained IAW the Cessna 100 service manual"

Although the 1956 owners manual makes a hint at the aircraft being suitable to operate the aircraft with all the seats out, the aforementioned 337 would need to be based on some data. He asked me if anyone asked Cessna if they have data for this change, and I told him I'm not sure. He spoke with another seasoned inspector at the office and he did confirm that the seat cannot be removed as a minor alteration. He mentioned an AC that outlines for aircraft less than 5000 lbs, any alteration that results in more than 1 lb change would be a major alteration.

He also mentioned that during a ramp check, it's all up to the discretion of the person from the FAA that is looking at your plane. He thought it was unlikely that they would focus on that since the seat could have been removed for maintenance, but if there was evidence that the aircraft was actually operated without the seat then that could give them something to bite onto.

Keep in mind, they will not ramp check any one unless they have seen you flying or getting ready to.

On the other hand, if there was an incident, he says that they would probably focus less on the actual removal of the seat and instead look closely at the W&B and any weight shift that could have contributed to the incident. He did acknowledge that they are aware of some folks taking out the seats and having their A&P make a log book entry and new W&B, but he said that doesn't cut it.

All in all, he made it plain that if there isn't a 337 filed, and there is no data/instructions in the type cert or AFM that specifically addresses operation of the aircraft with seats removed, it will result in a violation. He also mentioned that there are STCs that exist for removal of seats and other items from aircraft (he gave an example of a King Air STC that has seats removed for a stretcher), but he isn't aware of one available for 170s.

Please keep in mind, I am just passing on all the above info as a data point from one person, at one FSDO office! Personally, I will be leaving all my seats in the plane

Thanks for taking the time to get this info.

[GAHorn]

(a) Cabin interiors.
Only materials which are flash resistant shall be used.
In compartments where smoking is to be permitted, the materials of the
cabin lining, floors, upholstery, and furnishings shall be flame-resistant.
Such compartments shall be equipped with an adequate number of self
contained ash trays. All other compartments shall be placarded against smoking.

A placard is required if you don't have ashtrays.
Also, if you have ashtrays and flame-resistant materials you'd still have to put a No Smoking placard in the plane if you don't want to allow smoking.

Thanks for the correction.

[cfzxo]

I don't have my parts book handy but in the back of it I am sure that there is a reference to placing or rigging for stretcher which would mean that seats would have to be removed. Just an observation to ponder,and not sure what the correct proceedure would be
Bill CFZXO

[cfzxo]

Sorry about that, it has been a long day
Bill CFZXO

[falco]

Isn't it great that we have a Government that cares so much about removal of the 30 pound nonstructural seat upon which I routinely load 300 pounds of people? That seat is 1.3 percent of your gross weight. OK, that should be logged, but MAJOR alteration?? You get to load about 1/3 of the gross every time in passengers and baggage and fuel, but you need a 337 to pull out the back seat.

sad state of affairs this is.

[voorheesh]

I am an FAA employee (not an inspector) and I have been following this for over 4 years. I emailed David Jensen today and asked him to clarify what he is being quoted as saying here. If he responds, I will pass it along to you. I asked inspectors in my office which is next to Oakland and my boss who is based in LA. They responded unanimously that removal of the rear seat in a Cessna 170 is not a major alteration. The rear seat serves no structural function. It does not affect the flight characteristics, its removal does not "result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft". There are no restrictions in the TCDS regarding its installation or removal. The Cessna 170 AFM does not mention the rear seat or contain any limitations on its installation or use. Removal is a minor alteration that should be recorded in the airframe maintenance records along with an amendment to the empty weight and C.G record. This should be accomplished by a certificated mechanic with at least an airframe rating. Because the rear seat does not involve complex assembly or disassembly, It could also be argued after initial alteration by a mechanic, the seat could be re-installed or removed again as preventive maintenance (43 Appendix A (c.) 15). This could be documented in the maintenance records by the pilot/owner.

This is an example of how our agency has different answers from different employees and offices which is unfortunate and not fair to aviators who are obviously trying to do the right thing. The FAA is well aware of this and is honestly trying to improve performance. I am not saying here that David Jensen and SAT FSDO are wrong and I am right. I am just saying there are 2 opinions. To process an FAA violation, you have to cite a specific rule and demonstrate how a condition such as seat removal does not comply. You can not just make subjective statements based on personal opinions. So if I am wrong, someone please cite the rule that would make this subject a major alteration.

The real safety issues here regard ensuring that the new empty weight and CG are accurately calculated and then making sure that any cargo placed in the rear is properly secured and is not able to get into the rear fuselage and get tangled up with the flight controls. I believe we should exercise care in loading our airplanes. It is very easy to toss stuff in and just go. We have seen more than a few accidents here in CA involving Cessna 170s and I can tell you that proper loading of this airplane is more critical than an unnecessary 337.

Having said that, if you feel more comfortable getting a field approval for this, go for it. If I have time, I am going to submit this question to the FAA Office of General Counsel, Washington DC and request a legal opinion. Maybe that might end this thread. Think so??

Harlow Voorhees
Fresno, CA

[mit]

Boy I have been trying to ignore this thread! Since I already posted what my FSDO said years ago! But as an Association Member I would like to see a us come together to fight for the least restrictive operation of this issue! Which should be obvious!

[blueldr]

I think that anyone that would remove the rear seat of a Cessna 170 should be taken to court and be permanently marked as a criminal felon and be disallowed owning an assualt rifle.

How about you guys chewing on that one for a while.

[falco]

I think that anyone that would remove the rear seat of a Cessna 170 should be taken to court and be permanently marked as a criminal felon and be disallowed owning an assualt rifle.

How about you guys chewing on that one for a while.

jeez Dick, what are they gonna do to me about my lack of a no smoking placard and missing and unlabled inop ashtrays?

[T. C. Downey]

David did also emphasize this point to me. I think he was erring on the side of caution when he mentioned that any changes over 1 lb is a major alteration.

I believe he was simply quoting the AC 43-13 1b Chapter 10- para 2 c

c. Negligible Weight Change is any change of one pound or less for aircraft whose weight empty is less than 5,000 pounds; two pounds or less for aircraft whose weight empty is more than 5,000 and 50,000 pounds; and five pounds or less for aircraft whose weight empty is more than 50,000 pounds. Negligible c. g. change is any change of less than 0.05% MAC for fixed wing aircraft, 0.2 percent of the maximum allowable c. g. range for rotary wing aircraft.

Do the math.. is it a major or minor using the weight as the determining factor.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Harlow, please take the time to ask for an opinion of the general counsel. A definitive opinion either way would be better than what we have now.

One thing you did get into a bit though Harlow that in my opinion is a separate issue. If any cargo is loaded and how it is secured is a completely separate issue from seat removal. Maybe I just want to remove my seat and not load anything for example. There is no difference in significance or importance of loading cargo with or without the seat. As noted loading 300 lb of people in the seat or 300 lb of cargo on the floor makes little difference. It is still 300 lb.

[blueldr]

Geeze!! Fourteen pages about pulling the back seat out of a sixty five year old airplane. Almost everyone does it, and I don't think anyone else gives a damn.

[voorheesh]

AC 43-13 1b Chapter 10 contains standard (accepted) practices for weight and balance and has nothing to do with defining major alterations. The information in para 2 c is criteria for defining small vs large weight changes. As far as I am aware, the rules concerning major alterations are found in 14 CFR 43 and 14 CFR 91 Subpart E. The answer to the question with respect to a potential violation must be contained in one of those regulations. My reference to securing cargo was only related to safety not to a regulatory requirement involving the rear seat.

I am going to discuss this with my boss and see if I should pursue a legal opinion. His discussion with me yesterday involved his shaking his head in disbelief that this was even a controversy. He told me that Appendix A speaks for itself and if an alteration does not fit the criteria therein, IT IS NOT MAJOR ALTERATION. He believes there are a lot of people in aviation including many FAA inspectors that like to argue stuff like this and I believe he may be in Bluelder's camp meaning that this whole discussion is a waste of time. We may be better served by referring this to our headquarters policy division and suggesting that all field offices be updated on the definition of major alterations. He is also very discouraged that the FAA continues to express different explanations in different offices. I realize the FAA is not popular with many of you on this forum but I want to assure all of you that the majority of our employees sincerely want to support all of aviation and we are working diligently to improve our quality and performance. With that in mind, I apologize again for controversies such as this.

Harlow Voorhees
Fresno, CA

[bagarre]

Geeze!! Fourteen pages about pulling the back seat out of a sixty five year old airplane. Almost everyone does it, and I don't think anyone else gives a damn.

This highlights what I think is the biggest problem with General Aviation and the main reason I'm making plans to start building an RV-7 next year.

Removing the back seat, LED Nav lights, ash trays, mounting a handheld GPS, putting 8.00's on vs 6.00s or the myriad of other trivial things that people do every day don't amount to a hill of beans.

No one should give a damn and no one might ever give a damn.

BUT if someone from the FAA or an IA WANTS to make a big deal out of it they CAN decide to care about these silly things and cause a TON of grief for the owner of the airplane.

If the regulations or 'approved data' don't explicitly and specifically approve YOUR exact configuration/procedure/maneuver; you leave yourself exposed to someone claiming you are un-airworthy and you need to near be a lawyer to prove otherwise and there is no exception for simple common sense.

It really takes the fun out of airplanes.