Rear Seat Removal

[GAHorn]

I've already answered that question (from their point of view) several times in this thread.

[mit]

I've already answered that question (from their point of view) several times in this thread.

I must have missed it?

[GAHorn]

OK, well, this has been so cussed and discussed and I have been blamed (incorrectly) so many times supposedly for promoting and/or accused of defending their position that I am feeling like the best thing everyone can do is simply call them and get it straight from the horse's mouth.

Here's where you can find all the FSDO's phone numbers, including San Antonio.
http://www.airresearch.com/fsdodir.htm

[mit]

OK, well, this has been so cussed and discussed and I have been blamed (incorrectly) so many times supposedly for promoting and/or accused of defending their position that I am feeling like the best thing everyone can do is simply call them and get it straight from the horse's mouth.

Here's where you can find all the FSDO's phone numbers, including San Antonio.
http://www.airresearch.com/fsdodir.htm

Several folks already told you they did and SAT is wrong.

[GAHorn]

SAT is very well respected (when I specifically asked inspectors at FTW, DAL, and OKC about SAT's opinions.... they all deferred to SAT) and they sit in the middle of the state, and they regulate quite a few Airlines, GA, and several major airframe mfr's and heavy modification shops. They are the guys I see more than anyone else, and until they have a different opinion.... I must comply with them. If you fly here, You will have to deal with them too.

[NateRydman]

Wow! I was contemplating removing my rear seat and boy was this thread something! I know I'm 4 years late for this great debate but I found it mostly relevant. But in the end I have decided to go the long way and will look in to the 337. However, does anyone know of an STC for some tie down hooks once the seat is removed?

[blueldr]

There seems to be a group of people that just don't like mole hills.

[T. C. Downey]

I'm late to this discussion also.
but here goes.

point one, the general accepted guidance from the FAA on removing any thing is " if a person can remove the item with out the use of tools" it is a minor alteration. Seats on many aircraft are designed for easy configuration of the cabin. they can be removed as the pilot sees fit. and the weight and balance recalculated. Plus these seats have a "O" by there items on the equipment list. a C-207 is a very good example. So, removing or reconfiguring them isn't even a minor alteration, because it was designed to do that.

The Cessna 100 series is not that way, the rear seat is installed with bolts, and not designed to be removed by the pilot or operator. Plus there is no "Rear seat" item on the equipment list, nor does the seat have a weight to use to recalculate the W&B. So the FAA believes that the rear seat is a portion of the aircraft, same as any other part that is bolted in.

But it can be removed and the aircraft operated on a 337 field approval and a new weight and balance listing the Empty weight and CG with out the seat, and a separate one for the empty weight and CG with the seat installed.

Then both sets of data are entered in the Owners manual on page 10 *** at the bottom of the page where "Empty Weight (Licensed) that way you can compute the CG as loaded for that flight.

*** = the 1948 owners manual.

I know of 2 A&P-IAs that lost their certificates over signing off an annual as airworthy with the back seat removed and no paper work. One was caught by a DPE on an inspection of the aircraft prior to a check ride, the other by a pre-buy inspector at a FBO, who was nasty enough to call FSDO and get them involved.

[GAHorn]

Things must have been different back in the day. I have some original Cessna sales literature touting the carrying capacity of the 170 when all but the pilots seat is removed.

Pretty lame to lose your certificate over something like that IMO.

Sales literature can make all sorts of claims about the possibilities available to an owner/operator.
The problem is....sales literature is not approved data ....and any airplane in the configuration advertised, must still have an "approval basis" for that configuation.
Example: Cessna 170's can be flown in instrument conditions. Does that mean each/every one produced is in such an approved configuration?

However, ....I don't believe it's necessary for Block 3 (Field Approval) to be signed by FAA to operate with the back seat removed. It only requires that the major alteration be documented with a Form 337 carried in the aircraft.

[N2625U]

There seems to be a group of people that just don't like mole hills.

Yes, I've noticed that.

[T. C. Downey]

Not every 170 produced had the items for IFR instruments installed, but certainly every one of them built is capable of having the rear seat removed.

What about the stretcher installation? Would Cessna require you to get FAA approval to unbolt the original rear seat back and replace it with the 1/2 wide unit when installing their parts?

Can you tell it's late and I'm bored?

Optional equipment with instructions for installations Is acceptable data for the FAA.

If anyone out in 170 land has an equipment list that shows the rear seat as optional equipment please scan it in, and post it. I'd love to jamb it on my PMI at SEA FSDO.

[T. C. Downey]

If you can operate the 170 with the back seat removed with out paper work, why would the FAA require Atlee Dodge to have an STC to remove and replace the back seat with their jump seats?

Cabin doors are only bolted to the airframe, can you remove them and fly the aircraft legally?

The only time a 337 can be approved for return to service with out block3 signed by the ASI, is when the A&P-IA is returning it to service with previously approved data such as an STC. other wise the FAA Airworthiness inspector must approve the data by signing block 3. Then the data becomes "field approved"

[bigrenna]

delete

[GAHorn]

Not every 170 produced had the items for IFR instruments installed, but certainly every one of them built is capable of having the rear seat removed. ...

They're also capable of having the instrument panel removed...but that doesn't qualify it for VFR flight! (That may be the silliest response ever written, Aryana!)

The 337 does not require FAA approval in block 3 because all it does is revise the wt/bal...which IS data.

[T. C. Downey]

The 337 does not require FAA approval in block 3 because all it does is revise the wt/bal...which IS data.

please tell me why you would use a 337 to revise the W&B of an aircraft, when the AC (43,9-1E) says this ..


(4) Showingweight and balance computations under this item is not required; however, it may be done. In all cases where weight and balance of the aircraft are affected, the changes should be entered in the aircraft ’
weight and balance records with the date, signature, and reference to the work performed on the FM Form 337 that required the changes.

337's are for major repairs and alterations, when these repairs or alterations change the W&B, the W&B info should be placed in the aircraft maintenance records.

In the case of this topic, we are removing the rear seat, that in its self is a alteration to the basic design of the aircraft, which requires a 337. Changes to the W&B info. caused by this alteration goes in the aircraft maintenance records.

Remember there are two parts to airworthiness, the aircraft must be in compliance with its type certificate or its properly altered condition, and be in a condition for safe operation.