Lowflybye,

I hear you.

One of the interesting things about aviation forums is how they sometimes reveal textbook examples of hazardous attitudes (the FAA's official list: macho, anti-authoritarian, resignation, impulsivity, invulnerability). Of course, some of us are better than others at concealing our own hazardous attitudes.

Here's a web site with some discussion and self-evaluation tools: [url http://www.avhf.com/html/Evaluation/Evaluation_home.htm[/url] Of course, someone who's really afflicted isn't likely to engage in this kind of introspection ("wouldn't be manly, not applicable to me, won't matter anyway, I'll wing it, not necessary") but for the rest of us, it can be an interesting exercise.

There's probably nothing that can protect me from SLOJ (how's that for a defeatist attitude?), but I believe that attempting a little candid introspection might help save me from making mistakes that look awfully dumb in hindsight, and protect my loved ones.

CAVU

CAVU wrote:Lowflybye,

One of the interesting things about aviation forums is how they sometimes reveal textbook examples of hazardous attitudes (the FAA's official list: macho, anti-authoritarian, resignation, impulsivity, invulnerability). Of course, some of us are better than others at concealing our own hazardous attitudes.

Maybe I'm missing something, but pulling out a back seat in your personal, not-for-hire airplane is hazardous because you don't bother with BS paperwork that means absolutely nothing to the safe outcome of the flight???

Absolutely frightening to me how easy we seem to give up rights and freedom for the illusion of safety and security. With the current FAA, the Wright brothers would never have been "allowed" to make that first flight, and Lindberg would have been arrested when he landed in Paris. That "hazardous attitude" is what each and every pioneer aviator had as he or she blazed those trails we travel so easily today.

Gump

N18NV wrote:Wow! From what I gather on this post I better get busy doing about 400 different wt/bal(s) on my aircraft. It seems that most of you are of the opinion that every time a seat is in a different position that a wt/bal is required. In my case I have 6 seats that all move and can be moved as much as 1-4 feet. The question is what happens when a seat sits in a track that allows a seat to move to different moments in the aircraft and that seat is moved? Do you need to have a new wt/bal for that seat location?

It would seem to me that if you can move 1 or more seats in a track a foot each, that would have an effect on the cg. I find no where in the POH about having to recalculate a wt/bal when a passenger or the pilot moves his seat in flight.

I also tend to agree with bonanzaman. With me, the FAA would need to make an appointment to see my logs. (Not to be rude to the inspector but simply I do not carry my logs in the aircraft as they are kept in a fire safe off site. Nor do I carry my pilot flight log). The only things that are available during a ramp check are my pilot license (photo Id) and medical.

To my knowledge the FAA has no authority to climb aboard your aircraft. So how would the inspector know if the radios or leather seats have a 337 without looking at the logs or calling OK City on a Sunday afternoon and doing a lot of research to yellow tag the aircraft? It seem to me that if the inspector has prior information about and aircraft not being in conformance with its TC that the inspection would not be a simple ramp check but a conformity inspection or something of that nature.

I understand that current AROW is required to be in the aircraft but I cannot find anywhere in the regs that require a pilot to produce the doc's or allow an inspector to climb on or in the aircraft during a ramp check. Maybe you can shed some light on this Mike.

Do a search for FAA Order 8700, that's the rule book for your friendly FSDO inspector. Go to the chapter on Part 91 Ramp Inspections. He may not board the aircraft without your permission. Some people have spouted off about not letting the FSDO inspector touch your certificate and/or medical under the theory that he can now keep them and you're screwed. A FSDO inspector may not, under any circumstances keep your documents. He has no power whatsoever to ground you. This has already been hashed out. Some FSDO putz tried that ploy and the pilot simply got in the plane, fired up and left. FSDO guy tried to violate him for flying without said cert and medical on his person. End result was that the FSDO manager personally returned the documents to the pilots with a written apology from the FAA. You can do a Google search for that too. They can't even call OKC and check on a 337 because even they admit that a lack of a 337 in OKC doesn't mean anything. Saw that happen to a friend of mine for a court case, FAA coudn't find the filed 337.

iceman wrote:The fact remains, and is a fact, that if you remove a rear seat you need a weight and balance for that configuration.

That is not a fact. My aircraft requires no such thing because of the way the owners manual is written and the way the W+B is designed to be calculated. My seats are no different than anything else I place in the plane. If I remove a seat I simply subtract the weight of the seat on the W+B worksheet.

BM,
I agree with you.
Ice,
I agree with you too.
BM when you simply subtract that weight and moment and recalculate the arm, you have what Iceman said you have to have.

Gump,

Pulling out the seat with or without paperwork isn't hazardous. It's refusing to cooperate with an FAA inspector who has proper authority to ask about it that shows a hazardous macho and anti-authoritarian attitude. What's the point of that, when polite cooperation will be more effective?

The public supports some lesser degree of regulation on private noncommercial flying, and has given the FAA the power to adopt, interpret and enforce the regulations. Even if I think the FSDO's interpretation of the regs is wrong, refusing to cooperate with an inspector shows poor judgment, at best, and sends a message that I think that I get to decide what the rules mean and whether apply to me. Once I've shown such poor judgment, the inspector ought to wonder where else I'll cut corners.

We're not talking about the foundations of freedom and democracy here. The Wright brothers and Lindbergh took their own risks and made huge strides, but they weren't weekend warriors and they did it without endangering anyone else. Not everyone who followed them has been so brilliant. JFK, Jr. seems like a more appropriate reference.

I'd like to see less regulation on private flying, but the way I'll pursue this is by being a conscientious operator and cultivating trust and respect with the nonflying public and the regulators, not telling them to pi$$ up a rope.

CAVU

CAVU wrote:Gump,

Pulling out the seat with or without paperwork isn't hazardous. It's refusing to cooperate with an FAA inspector who has proper authority to ask about it that shows a hazardous macho and anti-authoritarian attitude. What's the point of that, when polite cooperation will be more effective? CAVU

Oh, I know, and I'm playing Devil's Advocate here to stir things up a bit. My position is, why should the FAA have "proper" authority about my back seat paperwork in an airplane that's not for commercial use. Be like the state police holding a roadblock and checking every car on the road to make sure that the labels on the AM radio are to spec. If the general driving public was treated like general aviation was, there'd be a revolt.

If I pay money to step on an airliner or any "for-hire" vehicle, I expect the bar to be raised in standards for inspections, safety and licensure. But to me, a private airplane is like a private car, and as was noted earlier, the airplane isn't safe until the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the airplane is just nuts.

Gump

CAVU wrote:Gump,

We're not talking about the foundations of freedom and democracy here. The Wright brothers and Lindbergh took their own risks and made huge strides, but they weren't weekend warriors and they did it without endangering anyone else.

CAVU

Those guys WERE weekend warriors. There were no pros until the likes of them came along and learned how to do it. And it IS the foundation of our freedom and democracy that's being messed with. In my own airplane I have just as much right to take risks as the Wrights or Lindberg did, and I don't need some guy abusing his authority to ensure his own job security telling me what I can or can't do with my own personal property.

Gump,

In my own airplane I have just as much right to take risks as the Wrights or Lindberg did,

Add "by myself" after "airplane" in that sentence and I'll agree with you.

What's that saying? My freedom to swing my fist stops at your nose? I don't care what someone does all by themselves in their airplane or ultralight (or other places for that matter) as long as they're not endangering anyone on the ground. Pack it full of unsuspecting passengers or semi-informed participants and the morality of the situation changes.

I've always thought that's the reason why there's less regulation on ultralights and experimentals than on certified aircraft. Apparently, the public thinks they should expect a higher level of safety from certificated aircraft than they do from experimentals and ultralights. That big "EXPERIMENTAL" sign warns the public that they're about to join hands with the Wrights.

I don't know anyone who likes all of the regulations that apply to personal flying in certificated aircraft. On the other hand, there are regs that are way more lax than personal minimums (legal but stupid).

and I don't need some guy abusing his authority to ensure his own job security telling me what I can or can't do with my own personal property.

Does an FAA inspector abuse his authority by asking how the removal of a seat from an aircraft was done and documented? Seems unlikely. If an inspector does abuse his authority, that's a whole different matter.

The problem is when it's a grey area. Common sense suggests going along with the request and sorting out the authority issue later unless doing so has significant irreversible consequences. That's why most states require you to submit to a false arrest where no deadly force is used rather than resist and fight your way out. On the other hand, I wouldn't let someone search my house, car or airplane without a warrant. If they think they have probable cause, they'll come in anyway, but I wouldn't volunteer.

Answering a couple of questions about who took the seat out and how it was documented doesn't seem like Patrick Henry stuff to me. There's no downside, unlike resisting. (For the record, my airplane has a POH like BM's that already includes W/B info for all different seat configurations; the seats are all on tracks; no bolts--no log book entry or W/B required.)

Why does the FAA get to make the rules? Why can't each one of us be trusted to make our own rules? The NTSB reports are full of the answers to those questions. It's too bad, but undeniable. I doubt there's be a Part 91 if a whole bunch of passengers hadn't been killed.

Maybe the solution is to carry only one weight and balance in the airplane--the one with only the pilots seat installed. Then you can tell the FAA that you never carry passengers (inlcuding skydivers) so all of the regulations designed to protect passengers in certificated aircraft don't apply. Then you can tell the NTSB on appeal. Then you can tell the U.S. District Court Judge. Then you can tell the Circuit Court of Appeals, etc. etc.

Stir, stir.

CAVU

Look guys, I only brought this up cause I was advised by my A&P and flight instructor it had to be done. I was as incredulous as you are now, but I know that if a dunce FAA guy says I gotta have it he can make me stay put whether he's right or wrong. I flew my tripacer with the seat out for 5 years, over 600 hours. I have over a thousand hours now, although I am a rather new taildragger pilot. I flew into some strips with the tripacer in Idaho that Cessna tri gear pilots wouldn't even think of going into. I never once got ramp checked nor did I give the empty back of the airplane a second thought. But when I was advised of the W&B thing and my A&P made one out for me I just put it in the plane and forgot it. You can argue the point all you want but if it ever comes up I have only to reach into the seat back and pull out that little piece of paper, and barring any other trivial matter the FAA guy might bring up, I will then be on my way. Maybe my guys are wrong but when more than one person with more experience than me says it's so then I start to think maybe it is so. Maybe for a bonanza it isn't so. I don't fly a bonanza. I don't fly a cessna, so I therefore don't know what is and isn't so in those aircraft. As for me, My A&P says so and so does my old flight instructor, and several other FLight instructors in the past couple of days since I started this thread a couple days ago. So be it. I have it and it stays in my Maule and if it becomes an issue I have the paperwork. End of story

You knuckleheads that are arguing against this...I don't understand. The hinge of this topic is what's considered a "permanent" fixture in the aircraft. That can include avionics, skis, floats, whatever. So where does a rear seat that is bolted in fall? Is it considered permanent? If it is then you need an A&P signed W&B sheet. What do you do when you remove avionics? Just factor that into your weight and balance for the day's flight?

Shit with the attitudes I am seeing here, I don't understand why you don't just shine your annuals too... I guess if you need your little rebellions against the evil empire, this is one way to make yourself feel good. Shine the empty W&B sheet!

quicksilver wrote:You knuckleheads that are arguing against this...I don't understand. What do you do when you remove avionics? Just factor that into your weight and balance for the day's flight?

Ok, say I live in Point Hope Alaska, and the nearest A&P/IA is 150 miles away in Barrow or Kotzebue. The #2 comm radio takes a dump on me and needs to go out for repair.

What do I do then if I want to avoid being a knucklehead? Spend $400 in avgas to fly down to Kotz to have an A&P remove it, ship it to an avionics shop, then re-do a weight and balance on paper so I can legally fly home? Or, do I just pull it and ship it for $6.95 via the post office, and a week or two later put the thing back in the tray when it gets back from the shop?

And, once out, what do I do then. Ground the airplane because that 16 ounce change in weight makes me dangerous and out of the envelope? Ground the airplane because as a 15,000 hour ATP I'm not qualified to remove a KX-170 from a tray? The FAR's say so, and if caught flying without the paper the airplane gets tagged and I get a violation. That makes sense????

Something is wrong with this, and it's not with the attitude that questions the reasoning and asks why.

Gump

If asking a government official the question What gives him/her the right to perform a ramp check and that question is perceived as antagonistic, SO BE IT.

I prefer to stand up for my rights (IV amendment) unlike many of the people that live north of Iowa. I have yet to find a FAA inspector that goes by the book and doesn't interject his own agenda into the interpretation of the regs. I am the first to stand up for the law as the law is written. What I find offensive is not only the government official who uses the badge as a weapon but the sheep that just follow along without questioning why.

As far as the seat (radio) and its removal, Just Do It. Do the normal wt/bal as just like you do every flight and have a copy. If you take out x wt at a y moment and you fall in the box......FLY.

I agree it's pretty assinine but it is what is. If my A&P is right then no amount of screaming and jumping up and down about how stupid it is is gonna get you untagged. Guvmint workers play the CYA game to the hilt. If they think they may get called on a decision they'll go CYA on you and let it all get straightened out later, which in our case is a big pain in the ass. If the seat is considered permanent part of the airplane and it's removed then we know what has to be done. I'm not so sure after all that has been said here that it is but I'm covered if it is. That's all I care about.

Gump,

You answered your own question: 16 ounces, vs 30 pounds is what the FAA calls "negligible" weight change. I wouldn't worry about that example you offered.

Furthermore, since the radio comes out of the rack with a simple screw mechanism, it is not what I would consider a "complex procedure".

Note that SOME, but not all rear seats, require the removal of safetied hardware, as in AN bolts and nuts, with washers. In those cases, and that's what I'm talking about, the FAA HAS found that removal or installation is a complex procedure, and must be done by an A & P.

Now, a Cessna seat on a set of rails???? Pull the locking pin, remove a hairpin that holds the stop in place, and slide the seat off the rails. Simple, no tools required. Owner approved.

My rear seat is a Fairbanks Aircraft Services sling seat. Again, no tools required to remove or replace. Slide the cross tubes into the brackets, and your done.

Super Cub aft seat back cross tube, modified to be removable: Pull two hairpins, pull the cross tube, and reinstall after loading. Again, no tools required, not a complex process.

You will find every inspector has his or her interpretation of these things, and what constitutes a simple or complex operation.

I can tell you, though, that I'd bet you'll find VERY few inspectors who consider R and R on one of the old Cessna bench seats to be a "simple" process that can be done by an owner.

You will find folks that argue that an owner (non A & P) can switch their airplanes from floats to wheels, and vice versa also. Good luck finding an inspector who'll go along with that. Have I done that? Absolutely, dozens of times.

But at the time, I didn't carry hull insurance either, and I was in a part of the world where the liklihood of an FAA type walking up whilst I was doing the deed was nil. And, I had two weight and balances in the plane, one for wheels, one for floats.

My wheel skis get signed off every fall by a mechanic for installation, even though they've been going on that airplane every fall since well before that mechanic was born.

MTV

quicksilver wrote:You knuckleheads that are arguing against this...I don't understand. The hinge of this topic is what's considered a "permanent" fixture in the aircraft. That can include avionics, skis, floats, whatever. So where does a rear seat that is bolted in fall? Is it considered permanent? If it is then you need an A&P signed W&B sheet. What do you do when you remove avionics? Just factor that into your weight and balance for the day's flight?

Shit with the attitudes I am seeing here, I don't understand why you don't just shine your annuals too... I guess if you need your little rebellions against the evil empire, this is one way to make yourself feel good. Shine the empty W&B sheet!

I believe you hit the nail on the head, at least as far as I have been argueing anyway. What's important is what's considered "permanent".
Gump,
I agree with you in principle about removing your radio argument, unfortunately, I don't believe the regs agree with me. However your example I think brings out one reason there is a lack of standards in the enforcement arm of the FAA. They are given the authority to see your point and not violate you. Attitude would go a loooong way there.
I haven't heard back from the FAA, I will try calling him again today, but I bet the answer I get from him will mostly depend on how I ask the question and exactly what example I use.

a64pilot wrote:Gump,
I agree with you in principle about removing your radio argument, unfortunately, I don't believe the regs agree with me. However your example I think brings out one reason there is a lack of standards in the enforcement arm of the FAA. They are given the authority to see your point and not violate you. Attitude would go a loooong way there.

Like I said earlier, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. In real life stuff is squared away, and playing the Fed paperwork game is second nature. What I do in my own airplane is the same as my Part 135 equipment. I keep a can for the airplane, and in the can is a sheet with all possible seating combos listed and W/B for each on a single sheet of paper, all signed off by my A&P.

But, even though I do it, and always get along well with MY Feds, I don't like it. And the lack of standards on the Fed side is a big part of not liking it. My FAI guy might know me and my airplane, but if I go to San Diego and run across a Fed down there, it's a complete unknown as to how the regs are enforced, and I may find myself looking at a violation for something I received a blessing on already. That really drives me nuts.

Hi Gump,

What I do in my own airplane is the same as my Part 135 equipment.

Does that mean you have a drug testing program for yourself, too?

Seriously, a good friend of mine has a repair station license and various other permits and certificates to operate essentially a 2-man specialized aviation service operation. I'm continually amazed at the amount of record keeping and paperwork he has to do in order to comply with everything.

A lot of it's directly related to documenting the work that he does on airplanes, but a lot of it isn't. He has a good relationship with the FSDO. If he didn't I doubt that he could stay in business. That is as much a threat to my flying as the price of oil and the availability of TEL.

If pilots can't afford to pay shops enough to keep up with all of the paperwork and pay their insurance premiums, maintenance facilities will disappear and we'll be in a world of hurt. Then it really will be hard to find someone to sign off on an alternate W&B sheet if we need one. Guess I'll have to get my A&P at some point, go underground or give it up.

Sorry for the thread creep. Thanks for stimulating the conversation.

CAVU

OK,
Here is the truth IAW the Atl. FSDO. Other truth's may be different.
If the seat is easily removable without disassembly etc., example Cessna seat on rails or Maule seat with quick removal kit installed, then the pilot may remove the seat and log the removal in the log book as long as the seat is not listed in the aircraft's required equipment list. The aircraft apparently has to be listed in the TCDS as having configurations other than just the one with all of the seats installed, because in Atl's opinion if it isn't, then removing it is a Major alteration, which of course would require a 337. (That's a new one on me, that I didn't expect)
Any way if you meet all of those requirements, then a pilot can remove the seat. Once the seat has been removed then the PILOT MUST recompute the weight and balance to ensure no limits have been exceeded. He may have an A&P do this, but there is no requirement for it to be an A&P unless it takes an A&P to remove it.
Look at it this way. The weight and balance sheet in your airplane has 170 lb. people in it. If you put say a couple of 220 lb. people in the back seat then the PILOT must recompute the W&B to ensure no limits have been exceeded, it's the same way if you remove the back seat, IAW atl. FSDO

This should provide some interesting reading http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/part135/ac120_27e.pdf