I didn't want to hijack the flaps on landing thread, MTV brought up the FAA and removing seats so here come's this thread which I have titled "FAA's Wisdom". In their eternal search for safety the FAA has mandated:

That, 135 pilots get training on how to install and remove seats. A friend had to show an A&P how to remove and install the seats in a Beaver so the A&P could "train" my buddy on how to do same. And, you have to come up with a training program on how the pilot is trained to remove and install seats. These seats were made to be removed and installed by pilots easily....No safety added.

That, I, as a single pilot 135, cannot do the same preventive maintenance list that a 91 pilot can. I have been changing oil in various machinery since I was 12, and yet I can't change the oil in my plane unless an A&P supervises me. (I am working on my A&P). Nobody has more interest in the plane operating to perfection more than me. No safety added.

Just more gummit hogwash, right? Yet I can imagine some pilots really do need to be trained on mechanical basics, things like righty-tighty, lefty-loosey, don't force parts (that one came from my ROTC training 55 years ago ), etc. I often wonder, though, if those doing the mandating have ever had to do any of the mandated work themselves. In any event, I hope that they're not requiring anything too elaborate for something so simple.

Cary

The seat thing came up around 2003 or so. 135 pilots had been removing/installing seats in all sorts of airplanes for literally decades and to the best of anybody's knowledge, there had never been a documented incident or accident associated with it. Consider a Caravan on village runs.....the run to the first village may have four passenger seats, and the rest of the cabin filled with pampers and pop......and a couple mail bags. Most of the pampers and pop unload in the first village, but there are five pax needing to go to the next village, and subsequently back to the big city on the back haul. At the next village, all the pampers and pop are unloaded, but there are three more passengers to go to town.

The point is, pilots are installing/removing seats on almost every flight in Alaska, particularly in the larger airplanes.

I have no idea where the idea that this requires formalized training (EVERYbody was getting "training" on the process before anyway) came from, but it got plugged in with NO input from the air taxi industry, until it was a done deal, and the FAA NEVER rescinds an op order. I have removed/installed seats so many times in the airplanes I flew that I can't even guess at the number. Never did have any formal training. Amazing I didn't crash.

A number of years ago, the FAA decided that they were going to change the rules that big game guides, lodge operators and outfitters operate under regarding airplanes. Their plan was to force all these folks to acquire a 135 certificate to continue their operations. Under current rules, they nearly all operate under part 91

They had a meeting in Anchorage, then one in Fairbanks. I attended the one in Fairbanks, mostly out of curiosity. There was a long discussion by the FAA Regional representative, then they opened the discussion to the audience for questions.

The second or third gentleman who stood up with a question asked the FAA panel if they thought the point of this proposed rule making was to improve the safety of the affected aviation operations. All the FAA types nodded their heads as the head representative answered in the affirmative.

The guide who'd asked that question then pointed out to them that at the time, Part 91 operators in Alaska had a MUCH better fatal accident rate than the 135 industry in Alaska. He then asked them if the FAA's intent was to encourage the guides/outfitters and lodges to develop a fatal accident rate similar to the 135 industry with this program.

That was pretty much the end of the meeting and in fact the proposal.

Go figure.

MTV

Yes there for awhile it was pretty crazy on the paper work, Had a seat log, to enter every time you added or subtracted a seat and then had to note the seat diagram in the seat log so that you referenced the correct W&B form the accompanying W/B chart!
Was just a way to violate the pilot if he was ramped and had the wrong amount of seats in!!

mtv wrote:The guide who'd asked that question then pointed out to them that at the time, Part 91 operators in Alaska had a MUCH better fatal accident rate than the 135 industry in Alaska. He then asked them if the FAA's intent was to encourage the guides/outfitters and lodges to develop a fatal accident rate similar to the 135 industry with this program.

Some people never let reality get in the way of good intentions.

From our brave, capable, intelligent, intrepid aeromedical committee...

http://imgur.com/ajrOz7m

I think they are still under the assumption that poppy seed cake is the devil's work as well.

We've been dealing with an engineer in the ACO that appears to have English as a second language (for real).

We've done testing in the past, and are trying to make a minor change to our TSO. The CFR's say no testing is required. This engineer is asking us for additional test data. We're asking them why they want additional testing. This is part of the reply we got: "My email is “rerun” those tests. Where is in my email saying additional tests?"

This has been going on for MONTHS.

1:1 Scale wrote: We've been dealing with an engineer in the ACO that appears to have English as a second language (for real)......

"How do I hydroplaning the wheels?"

It would be great to document cases like the ones in this thread and write a letter to those people that might be able to make a difference and see what might happen. In our case, we're reluctant to make any improvements to our product for fear of becoming embroiled with the FAA over some inane BS, so they're NOT contributing to safety in our case.