Which plane for 5 small pax?

If you plan on flying Part 91, there is no requirement for each passenger to
have their own seatbelt.

As stupid as it sounds, you could wrap your 3 kids in one seatbelt.

Don't get me wrong, I'd never recommend it, but it was brought up to me by a
DE on my CFII oral. He asked me how many people I could put in a 4 place
aircraft and I spouted off the common answer of as many as the plane had
seat belts for. He promptly told me "wrong, now where do you find the
answer?"

I admitted that I couldn't remember reading anywhere in the FAR's any such
rule, other than the normal takeoff/landing rule, and he told me that it
wasn't in the normally printed version of the FAR's, you'd have to get the
Pre-Amble, which is about 3 inches thick.

So, he dug out his copy, and turned to a flagged page that had highlights
all over it. Basically, it went on about 135 and 121 operations must have
one seatbelt for each occupant over the age of 2, but by no means should
this be construed nor does it apply to part 91 operations as the FAR's only
say that each passenger must be seatbelted, not that each passenger have his
own seatbelt.

The lesson has nothing to do with seatbelts, it has to do with common sense
and the law. What might be legal, might not be safe, smart, or even make
sense. I personally saw a guy load up a 182 with himself, his wife, 3 kids
in the back seat, and 1 more kid in the "kiddy" seat in the baggage
compartment (who had to crawl through the baggage door). Now think about
how those kids would get out if the plane caught on fire. After hanging
around airports enough, you will come to realize one of my favorite phrases.
"You can see something stupid everyday, all you have to do is look." Get a
Cherokee 6.

Jim Burns

"Adam Aulick" wrote in message
om...
I have the opposite problem from the usual "four seats doesn't
mean four pax" problem -- I'm looking for an aircraft with typical
four-place load (and price) to carry five small passengers and
minimal baggage. What aircraft are out there on the used market
(including hombuilts!) which can safely, legally, and economically
carry two small adults (150 lbs each) three children (projected
total weight in five years at ages 9,7,5: 170 lbs), 100 lbs
baggage, and reasonable fuel, say 3 hrs? (570 lbs + fuel)

On the certificated side, it looks like a Skyhawk or its ilk would
(barely) carry the load, but I understand there's no legal way
to squeeze three kids in back of the four-place Cessnas and Pipers.
(Why not? Surely it's not that hard to add seatbelts!)

What else is out there in the world that I haven't heard of,
without moving up to a six-place plane?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/9/2004

Michelle P wrote:

The M-7-235 has the fifth seat. I believe the M-7-180 and 160 do not.

The 160hp and 180hp planes are the MX series, which is why I specifically mentioned
it as not having the seat. The 235 is the lowest powered M-7 Maule currently sells. I
just checked, and the higher powered aircraft also have the fifth seat.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

Many Beech Sierras and some Musketeers/Sundowners were built with a
child seat in the baggage area, and were certificated to carry six
people. I own a C24R Sierra (with 4 seats) and have also flown an A24R
with pax in the "way back", as my son used to call it.

The Sierra generally has about 1000 lbs useful, minus 60 gallons of fuel
leaves 640 lbs payload---plenty for two adults and three small kids. If
you stick with two 150lb adults, that leaves 340lbs for kids, dogs, and
bags, and that's only if you insist on full tanks. I should note that
the Sundowner gross is a bit less, but still plenty for your stated mission.

Additionally, these models have a huge baggage door to enable access to
the back, and the Sundowners and Sierras have a pilot's side door as
well as passenger side.

Economically? Yes, very. I get better mileage than most SUVs---my C24
cruises at 135 knots on 10.5gph, but if I throttle back just a little I
can get 131 knots on 9.5gph, close to 14nm/gal. Price-wise you can
probably locate a decent Musketeer Super III (model B23) or Sundowner
(C23) for under US$45k, or a Sierra for US$55-70k.

Fast? Not for a retract, but it's not a race. With a seat that comfy
and a view that nice, I am in no hurry. The fixed-gear Musketeers are
quite a bit slower than that, BTW, but the same logic applies.

Note that many Sierras were built with only 4 seats, and installing the
back seat retroactively is a very difficult thing.

Here is a good place to visit:

http://www.beechaeroclub.org

hope this helps

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
If you plan on flying Part 91, there is no requirement for each passenger
to
have their own seatbelt.

As stupid as it sounds, you could wrap your 3 kids in one seatbelt.

Don't get me wrong, I'd never recommend it, but it was brought up to me by
a
DE on my CFII oral.

Is it actually unsafe to have two people sitting side-by-side and sharing a
seat belt, if their combined weight is within the belt's design limit? (I
don't know; just asking.)

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:0pRSc.137433$eM2.73403@attbi_s51...

Is it actually unsafe to have two people sitting side-by-side and sharing
a
seat belt, if their combined weight is within the belt's design limit? (I
don't know; just asking.)

Piper did it for years.

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
Piper did it for years.

Didn't Bell helicopters do it with their bench seat?

(b) Each forward-facing or aft-facing seat/restraint system in normal,
utility, or acrobatic category airplanes must consist of a seat, a safety
belt, and a shoulder harness, with a metal-to-metal latching device, that
are designed to provide the occupant protection provisions required in
§23.562.

Sounds like you need a safety belt for each seat and the word occupant is
singular.

--
Cy Galley
Safety Programs Editor
EAA Sport Pilot

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:0pRSc.137433$eM2.73403@attbi_s51...

Is it actually unsafe to have two people sitting side-by-side and
sharing
a
seat belt, if their combined weight is within the belt's design limit?
(I
don't know; just asking.)

Piper did it for years.

Rich S.

"Jim Burns" writes:

If you plan on flying Part 91, there is no requirement for each passenger to
have their own seatbelt.

Hmmm...I recently got a card for an STC to stick three people in
the back of my Aztec. I'm just Part 91 so I wonder what good the
STC would do?

--kyler

"Newps" wrote in message
news

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:0pRSc.137433$eM2.73403@attbi_s51...

Is it actually unsafe to have two people sitting side-by-side and sharing

a

seat belt, if their combined weight is within the belt's design limit? (I
don't know; just asking.)

It's not legal unless the airplane is designed for that.

What regulation does it violate?

I recently asked the Boston FSDO if seatbelt sharing is legal, and they said
yes. They cited an interpretation from May 8, 1972 from the Acting Associate
General Counsel of the Regulations and Codification Division: "...as long as
approved safety belts are carried aboard the aircraft for all occupants, and
the structural strength requirements for the seats are not exceeded, the
seating of two persons whose combined weights does not exceed 170 pounds
under one safety belt where the belt can be properly secured around both
persons would not be a violation of the regulations for an operation under
Part 91."

--Gary

"Cy Galley" wrote in message
news:soUSc.138373$eM2.57714@attbi_s51...
(b) Each forward-facing or aft-facing seat/restraint system in normal,
utility, or acrobatic category airplanes must consist of a seat, a safety
belt, and a shoulder harness, with a metal-to-metal latching device, that
are designed to provide the occupant protection provisions required in
§23.562.

Sounds like you need a safety belt for each seat and the word occupant is
singular.

I think that parses as "the occupant-protection provisions", referring to a
generic occupant.

(See my reply to Newps in this thread for the legal opinion cited by the
Boston FSDO.)

--Gary



--
Cy Galley
Safety Programs Editor
EAA Sport Pilot