Scared of mid-airs

"Frode Berg" wrote

Also, by laying it over the back seat, the bass is not resting in a good
position. It's got too much weight on the headstock, but if I can figure
out an easy way to fold down the seatback, like an estate car for example,
the Cherokee will be a perfect cargo hauler for me! :-)

You could get a big block of stiff Styrofoam, and carve out the shape of
your bass, and angle it needs on one side, and the floor on the other side.
It would be the very best way, since it would totally spread out the
pressures on it from any "air bumps," or hard landings. I know you don't do
any of them, though. g
--
Jim in NC

It doesn't say anything in my POH, so I guess it wasn't considered...

Does this mean I need an STC for it?

Frode


"Larry Dighera" skrev i melding
...
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:52:22 -0500, Journeyman
wrote in
::

Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from an Arrow.

What does the Arrow POH say about operating with the rear seats
removed? Is it approved? Does removing the rear seats require the
use of a different weight and balance chart for calculations? Does it
change the category from/to utility/normal? How is performance
affected?

"Larry Dighera" skrev i melding
.. .
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:52:22 -0500, Journeyman
wrote in
::

Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from an Arrow.

What does the Arrow POH say about operating with the rear seats
removed? Is it approved? Does removing the rear seats require the
use of a different weight and balance chart for calculations? Does it
change the category from/to utility/normal? How is performance
affected?

On Thu, 11 May 2006 22:37:30 +0200, "Frode Berg"
wrote in ::

It doesn't say anything in my POH, so I guess it wasn't considered...

Does this mean I need an STC for it?

Frode


I'm guessing, but if operation with the rear seats removed isn't
mentioned in the POH, it's not approved.

You need to make a logbook entry for the preventative
maintenance of removing and re-installing the seats. The
weight and balance data needs to be there, if not you need
an A&P the first time to make the entry.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Journeyman" wrote in message
. ..
|
| In article , Frode
Berg wrote:
|
| I've just assumed the bass would not fit in my Arrow
until yesterday.
| I took it to the hangar, and found out that it fits
perfectly though the
| door, but I need to be able to fold the back seat to
avoid it obstructing
| the flap and trim.
|
| Frode,
|
| Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from
an Arrow. There
| are 4 attach points. The rear 2 are spring-loaded and you
just pull
| forward/up. The front 2 are on a slide and come out
easily when the rear
| mounts are up. No tools required.
|
| HTH,
|
| Morris
| (BTW, welcome back. I remember you used to post a lot
around here)

Larry Dighera wrote:




I'm guessing, but if operation with the rear seats removed isn't
mentioned in the POH, it's not approved.

The POH isn't necessarily relavant. My 182 didn't mention a word about
it. The more important document is the equipment list.

In article RAN8g.18382$ZW3.4772@dukeread04, Jim Macklin wrote:
You need to make a logbook entry for the preventative
maintenance of removing and re-installing the seats. The
weight and balance data needs to be there, if not you need
an A&P the first time to make the entry.

Good point. It hadn't occurred to me because the only time
I've removed the seats was for inspection.

Of course, European rules are likely to be different.


Morris

In article , Larry Dighera wrote:

Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from an Arrow.

What does the Arrow POH say about operating with the rear seats
removed? Is it approved? Does removing the rear seats require the
use of a different weight and balance chart for calculations? Does it
change the category from/to utility/normal? How is performance
affected?

Honestly, I don't know. I've never actually flown with the rear seats
removed. I've removed them for access during maintenance, but always
put them back. Given how easy they are to remove, I assumed it should
not be a problem flying without them, modulo the weight/balance change.
I've heard of people flying with the rear seats removed, but never
specifically in the Arrow.


Morris

On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:47:58 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::

Larry Dighera wrote:


I'm guessing, but if operation with the rear seats removed isn't
mentioned in the POH, it's not approved.

The POH isn't necessarily relavant. My 182 didn't mention a word about
it. The more important document is the equipment list.

Was the revised W&B located in the equipment list also?

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:47:58 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::


Larry Dighera wrote:


I'm guessing, but if operation with the rear seats removed isn't
mentioned in the POH, it's not approved.

The POH isn't necessarily relavant. My 182 didn't mention a word about
it. The more important document is the equipment list.


Was the revised W&B located in the equipment list also?

I carried one weight and balance form with three W+B scenarios. All
seats in, rear seat removed and rear and copilot seats removed. The
equipment list gave weights and stations for the seats. I used the
station listed but used actual weight since the seats weighed a little
more with the leather interior I had installed.

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 May 2006 00:57:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

It's that "developing" that concerns me and I have to wonder what
would have triggered such a response after several hundred hours. Of
course there is such a thing as thinking about negative consequences
too much and conditioning one's self to reinforce feelings we didn't
realize were there. It would be my opinion that it's time to spend
some time with a good instructor to find out why and to allay those
fears and turn them into thoughtful concern. Done early this sort of
thing is far, far easier to handle than later after it's had a chance
to become entrenched.

This is true.
I have had several occasions in my career when I began to have doubts about
my ability to survive the airshow demonstration venue. I know it happens to
"normal" pilots as well. Usually it's exposure to an element of risk that
for some reason you never actually considered as a high risk factor before.
It causes you to step back and re-evaluate your exposure to risk.
This is a key moment in a pilot's career if it ever happens. Most of the
time it doesn't happen and you just continue on flying, but if you are
exposed suddenly to something traumatic like witnessing a crash, the effect
can be profound in some pilots. This is a point where individual
personalities take hold. Most of us who fly, especially those of us who have
flown professionally are deeply into deductive reasoning (even if we don't
know it :-) and adjust to this kind of exposure by rationalization.
I know I've watched many of my friends killed in airshow crashes. My
rationalization of these incidents was such that I recognized the errors
involved and took necessary steps to avoid making these same errors myself,
or in the case of structrual failures, I rethought my own maintainence
program and adjusted. My bottom line on fear was that I avoided it through
rationalization that barring catestrophic events, I was in control of my own
fate in the air.
I think this works well for the everyday pilot also.
Any normal deductive reasoning by a pilot should yield the rationalization
that if a serious effort is made by a pilot to avoid trouble, barring
catestrophic event, the odds are extremely favorable that one can fly an
airplane through an entire lifetime and emerge safely at the other end of
the road.
For the pilot concerned about the possibility of a mid-air; the best way to
avoid having a mid-air is simply to AVOID having a mid-air.
Dudley