![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Small plane noise is destroying my life | Robert Morien | General Aviation | 5 | December 1st 04 05:01 PM |
Which plane for 5 small pax? | Adam Aulick | Home Built | 46 | August 18th 04 03:44 PM |
Small plane with the best range? | Bob | General Aviation | 5 | February 20th 04 03:57 AM |
What is the single-engine small plane with the best range? | Bob | Owning | 24 | February 19th 04 04:15 AM |
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | October 2nd 03 12:17 AM |