Rear Seat Removal

[Joe Moilanen]

My opinion on rear seat removal:

1) if you need room in the back, take it out.

2) if you need to take more than one passenger, put it in.

[blueldr]

Joe, you're entirely too practical for this lengthy thread. That kind of advice could terminate this discussion.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Good thing to because this thread has gone nova at 6 pages. Using the rule of thumb I've noticed over the years that most threads by the end of page 3 have come full circle, I think we should erase the last 3 pages. Of course I'm assuming all my good advice was given in the first 3 pages.

[GAHorn]

Trivia: the original configuration utilized the rear seat, with it's latching back as a method of confining baggage and cargo from injuring occupants in a crash. (When was the last time you thought about the pilot's seat-backs which so-readily fold forward should they be struck from behind? 9-G's are the design standard for cargo and baggage restraints)

At one time it was a common thing for children sitting in the front seat of the car, to be slapped in the chest by one's mother's extended forearm as she slammed on the brakes. This was because cars mfr'd prior to 1964 were not required to have seat belts and anyone driving with children always extended their arms across the front of children as a knee-jerk reaction when slamming on the brakes to prevent the kids from cracking their skulls on the unforgiving metal dashboards that all autos had at that time. The first auto that had a little, flat piece of rubber cushion along the top of the instrument panel was our '64 Dodge station wagon. It was considered a high-tech advancement in safety-design.
It's amazing how accustomed we become to such things. No modern auto has an all-metal dashboard, and no young mothers today have even the slightest tendency to extend their arms across the chests of front-seat children. In fact, infants never stand in the front seat of moving automobiles anymore...they are all sitting in the rear seat in NTSB-approved child-seats these days and unlike days gone by, it's a rare sight to see youngsters riding in the open backs of pickup trucks. We would likely be all aghast should we observe such things in todays society. And if we were to enter a modern auto today and find that it's seat-belts and shoulder harnesses had been removed we'd feel absolutely naked in today's traffic. How many would be willing to take a ride across town in traffic with anyone who'd done such a thing?
Yet, here we are ridiculing the silly folks who take into consideration the safety aspects of removing the rear seat of a 60 year old airplane in order to haul a load of cargo... without questioning whether it would be commensurately ridiculous to remove the same airplane's seat belts... an action we would doubtless never consider in our automobiles. Yet the comparison is not without merit, and the hazards to ourselves and our passengers are certainly greater. (Not to mention the fact that the negative-differences effect due to CG changes upon handling are certainly without comparison.)

The documentation excersizes the "authorities" hassle us with are partially intended to cause our reflection/consideration of alterations we commit in the privacy of our little worlds. If we must comply with such silly little rules....then we are also required to duly consider our actions.
I wonder how many that have removed their rear seats have considered what alternative methods of cargo restraint are as effective as the original rear seat, and how those methods are installed, along with the legality of those systems?

Not criticising...Just tossing a little thought out there for consideration when we carry junk in big empty cabins... (I recall a time I was carrying an antique Edison gramophone in the back of the company's 172 on pipeline patrol in the west Texas desert and it began to get a little rough and that heavy piece of furniture began shifting in the rough air that was common at a couple-hundred feet above the desert floor. There'd not be much I could do if it got all the way forward and jammed the yoke. I'd need more than my right arm to move that heavy thing back away from the controls. Got lucky. Got smarter. I'm still around. )

[Showboatsix]

Hey all, if you want to fly with the rear seat out....... Buy a Cessna T-41, they came with no seat... and they are a civilian plane too!

PS: the tail wheel is up front!

[GAHorn]

My local FSDO (actually ONE person at this FSDO office) agrees with George. I copy and paste his reply here, and then I'll comment.

LIT FSDO reply:
"If the aircraft is operated FAR 91 the owner/operator is
allowed by FAR 43.3 (g) to perform preventative maintenance.
FAR 43 Appendix A (c)(15) "replacing seats". It allows for one seat
to be replaced with another. [Webster New World Dictionary of American
English]- [replacing: to provide a substitute or equitant for]. If the
FAA flight manual allows the pilot to change seating configuration by
removing seats that would be permissiable via the flight manual. The
preventative maintenance referred to above does not allow for the change
of configuration then operate the aircraft in the new configuration. It
allows one seat to be replaced with another, (seat swapping-replacing).

A FAR 91 pilot/owner who removes seats (change in configuration) dose so
contrary to the FARs.43.7 and others.
Any change to the empty weight by the removal of seats is defined in 43.
Appendix A (a) (xi) is a major alteration.
The FARs is clear and the highest order pertaining to this subject"

Well, my comment is this; "clear in the highest order" my a**. In describing the types of alterations that would be defined as major, Appendix A(a)(xi) says:
"Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft"

This definition contrast greatly with the LIT FSDO's opinion that "Any change to the empty weight...."

I want some real answers, real regulatory information, not FSDO departmental policies or opinions.

There are a couple of errors that may be introduced due to poor-wording/syntax.

One example is in the explanation offered by your LIT FSDO guy when he suggests that Appdx A allows "seat swapping-replacing". That unfortunate choice of words would imply that it was not necessary for Richard's STC for installing C-206 middle seats as replacements to the original seat. (Of course, the word which hopefully would/should be used in writing an FAR with such approval would be "substitute"... and the FAR does not say "substitute"...it says "replacing".... which does not imply any seat change that involves redesign, substitution, or removal.)

The present FAR description of major alteration supported by Appdx A, (a) (xi) ("Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft") could also be interpreted as encompassing three distinct types of weight and balance changes:
1. Changes to the empty weight.
2. Changes to the empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight.
3. Changes to the center of gravity limits of the aircraft.

Rear seat removal would not meet the rule using the word "replacing", yet would meet the first description of Appdx A, (a)(xi) above. Therefore such removal would be required to be entered into the aircraft records as a major alteration and would require a Form 337.

Wishing it were different, don't make it so. A west-coast FSDO inspector's incorrect interpretation does not make improper seat removal legal, nor does it provide a defense to prosecution or guarantee payment for loss or liability under an insurance policy. A LIT FSDO inspector's belief that seat substitution is preventive maintenance does not make that activity legal. The only way to make things different would be to cause FAA to re-write the FARs to specify seat "replacement and/or removal" in their description of preventive maintenance actions, or to issue a written legal opinion stating that as the intent of the rule.

(Or, we might wait until the end of this summer's convention auction and see if Harley Pickett is in proper condition to re-write the rule specifically as applicable to 170's and submit it to OKC.)

[canav8]

I wanted to be part of the 6 pages I guess. I would like to offer this.

Each FSDO is responsible for its own interpretation of the regs. Just because one FSDO approves something doesnt mean that another has to agree. Now having said that, if you get ramp checked somewhere and a Fed says your illegal, if you have the documentation he has to accept it. If you do not, then you are subject to that FSDO's interpretation. You should see when working in the airline industry and getting a Principal Ops Inspector come out looking at a plane. They love to try to find things wrong. Perfect example. A number of years ago, I was in Fort Worth. Fed comes on board and turns on my Emergency Lights. Fed found two consecutive sections of lights burned out. He wanted to ground the aircraft. Well our maintenance dept. showed the Fed where it was allowed in the Minimum Equipment List. Well the Fed said that our equipment list was illegal. The Maintenance department faxed over the front cover of the MEL and showed where my local FSDO POI approved it. The Fed said "That aint right, that just aint right!" Well we left ontime.

[170C]

Has anyone called the coroner to pronounce this poor horse dead I know by now he has to be dead as much as he has been beat up Seriously though, I think this kind of discussion is beneficial to those who choose to read and/or participate. We, as readers, may learn something and those who choose to participate "might" learn something, or if not and they choose to disagree with other participants, at least some facts and a lot of opinions have been given. As one who has followed this thread, I find it interesting. I would like to see what the final conclusion is, if there can be one, but I don't think there will be one final agreed opinion (unfortunately). I happen to fly my C-172 TD, most of the time, with my one place back seat removed and I believe that in the eyes of the FAA, I may be doing so illegally. I have asked around my airport and the "feeling" seems to be that if a seat or seats are removed that one should have a weight & balance showing the various configerations, but that a 337 is not required. I have yet to inquire of my IA on this subject although he has repeadly signed off my Annuals with the back seat in or out. I realize that doesn't make me legal however. I sure would like to know for sure if I need the 337 and would I need one for just the rear seat (single in my case) being removed or would I need one for the back & passenger seats removed or if some reason I wanted to leave the single seat in and take the copilot seat our????? Does one have to have a second form 337 if he has one for the removal of the rear seat and still a second one if he decides to reinstall the back seat? WOW what a can of worms

[GAHorn]

The situation for Part 121 and Part 135 operators is different than for our Part 91 aircraft operations, so while the story related by canav8 is interesting and humorous it does not apply to the majority of our aircraft.

Frank, in the line of reasoning forwarded by SAT FSDO, the owner may "replace" seats under preventive maintenance rules, therefore if a Form 337 documents any/all variations anticipated the pilot may re-install seats previously documented as removed, provided a record is made in the aircraft records and the wt/bal updated by him. So your Form 337 should address all combinations of seating, and should provide the new empty wts and CG of those configurations.

[Showboatsix]

This photo says it all!

Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

[hilltop170]

Someone should call the IRS. We need some new opinions.

[Brad Brady]

Someone should call the IRS and get their opinion. I'm sure they could give us a definite answer.

Yea but would it be understandable?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George I don't follow how one could interpreted Appendix A(a)(xi) as encompassing three distinct types when the whole sentence is read.

Appendix A(a)(xi) says:
"Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft"

I've highlighted the 3 words that make the difference in the FAR above. In other words it says changes you want to increase the max weight limit or to increase the CG envelope are a major alteration.

Think about it. To interprete this sentence to say just an empty weight change or just an empty balance change would mean that ANY change to the aircraft would be a major alteration. An example is a change from 6x6:00 tires to 8x6:00 allowed under the TCDS. This would increase the weight of the A/C and it will shift the CG. Under this expanded thinking this a major alteration and we know this is not true.

[voorheesh]

Unfortunately, George is just plain wrong here. The removal of the seat does not result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or the center of gravity limits. It does not affect the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics either. It is not a major alteration. Where are the IAs on this forum?? What a pilot does in loading the aircraft after the change is made and it is returned to service is completely irrelevant in this case. A pilot could load a 170 over weight, out of cg, with cargo unrestrained, or in excess of floor loading limits with or without the seat installed. Appendix A to part 43 is informational. It can not be enforced by itself. The information contained in Appendix A must be used with some other rule in Part 43 to be enforceable. Can you imagine an FAA attorney arguing to an NTSB law judge that the alleged violator illegally "removed" the seat which he was able to legally "replace"? Give me a break!! "Replacing" a seat clearly implies the acts of removing it. Is George telling us we need to get a mechanic to remove the seat before a pilot can replace it? That is absurd. The legitimate question in this thread: Is removal of the seat preventative MX which can be performed and returned to service by a pilot? Or is it an alteration (NOT A MAJOR ALTERATION) which must be performed by at least a mechanic? The boys on the West Coast are not going to take this sitting down! More later.

[Brad Brady]

Unfortunately, George is just plain wrong here. The removal of the seat does not result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or the center of gravity limits. It does not affect the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics either. It is not a major alteration. Where are the IAs on this forum?? What a pilot does in loading the aircraft after the change is made and it is returned to service is completely irrelevant in this case. A pilot could load a 170 over weight, out of cg, with cargo unrestrained, or in excess of floor loading limits with or without the seat installed. Appendix A to part 43 is informational. It can not be enforced by itself. The information contained in Appendix A must be used with some other rule in Part 43 to be enforceable. Can you imagine an FAA attorney arguing to an NTSB law judge that the alleged violator illegally "removed" the seat which he was able to legally "replace"? Give me a break!! "Replacing" a seat clearly implies the acts of removing it. Is George telling us we need to get a mechanic to remove the seat before a pilot can replace it? That is absurd. The legitimate question in this thread: Is removal of the seat preventative MX which can be performed and returned to service by a pilot? Or is it an alteration (NOT A MAJOR ALTERATION) which must be performed by at least a mechanic? The boys on the West Coast are not going to take this sitting down! More later.

George is right here....the removal of seats, constitutes a change from the TCDS sheet.....It's as simple as that...
To put into perspective.....if you are helping me with your annual, after we pull your back seat...you can reinstall it, cool, if you as an owner find a broken tube on your seat bottom.....you can replace the seat with a yellow tag...usable seat...other than that, you cannot remove or replace a rear seat.....(not in my opinion)....but as per FAR's......Brad