Is 5 People in a Cessna 172 okay/legal?
Randy Loper
three people (children) in the backseat and still be under max gross weight,
but is it okay/legal to do so? You can put one of the seat belts around
two people so I don't think that would be a problem.
Thoughts/suggesstions appreciated.
Phaedra A Hise
: Is it legal to fly with five people in a Cessna 172? It is possible to put
: three people (children) in the backseat and still be under max gross weight,
: but is it okay/legal to do so? You can put one of the seat belts around
: two people so I don't think that would be a problem.
Uh, yeah I think it most certainly *would* be a problem if they actually
had a need for that seat belt. I can only imagine how awful getting in
some turbulence would be, belted in next to another person (even if
you're a child). Much less actually *crashing*. Is this something you
really want to do with your family?? (I'm assuming it's yours).
Having said that, I did ride in the baggage compartment of my father's
C310 on a short trip once, but I was a 27-year old licensed pilot. I knew
what I was risking. Your children don't.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
* Phaedra Hise * hi...@world.std.com * phaedr...@incmag.com
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." --Buckaroo Bonzai
Alice Victoire M Liesman
Phaedra A Hise <Hi...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>Uh, yeah I think it most certainly *would* be a problem if they actually
>had a need for that seat belt. I can only imagine how awful getting in
>some turbulence would be, belted in next to another person (even if
>you're a child). Much less actually *crashing*. Is this something you
>really want to do with your family?? (I'm assuming it's yours).
I can't remember what the back seat of a 172 look like; it's been
a while. I seem to recall it's a bench seat though, so if the
childrn are small enough it should be possible to fasten a child
seat in the middle; the kind they use in cars. Then the kid in
the middle has its own harness. And that would probably save you
some "quit it! quit it! Mom, tell him to quit!" as well.
Good luck
Alice V. Liesman
avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca
Barney Schwenzer
>but is it okay/legal to do so?
I had heard it is only legal to have more people then seats is if
the child is under 2-3 like on the lap of an adult.
My self I think it is safer for two light child to be using one belt
then a child being unbelt and held. And definately safer having
a belt around adult and child with child in front.
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>In article <3ts0ak$r...@nntp.msstate.edu>,
>Randy Loper <ran...@AAC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>>Is it legal to fly with five people in a Cessna 172?
>Only if there are 5 seats.
>No. Each passenger is required by FARs (even under part 91) to have a
>separately designated seat with its own seatbelt.
Gee, Bill, does this mean I am limited to 3 people in my 172 since it
only has three "seats" (two up front and a bench in back)?
I would argue that 91.107 is unclear if a SEPARATE belt needs to
be supplied for each passenger or if each passenger simply needs to
be restrained by A belt. In any case, an exception is made for those under
two years old.
>I should note that there did exist at one time an option from Cessna for
>a child's seat that mounted in the 172's luggage compartment. I doubt
>that they still sell it, however, and I understand that they are pretty
>rare.
Yes, I've seen these. If you look very closely, at the back, it says
"coachwork by De Sade."
greg
Curtis Wheeler
> I can't remember what the back seat of a 172 look like; it's been
> a while. I seem to recall it's a bench seat though, so if the
> childrn are small enough it should be possible to fasten a child
> seat in the middle; the kind they use in cars. Then the kid in
> the middle has its own harness. And that would probably save you
> some "quit it! quit it! Mom, tell him to quit!" as well.
"Stop looking at me! Knock it off!"
Just FYI stuff on car seats:
The types of child seats used in cars usually need their own seat
belt or other "anchor". AC 91.62-1 gives guidance on the use of
"car seats' in aircraft. For general aviation it addresses many
common sense issues on seat placement. The restraint should be in a
forward facing seat, where it will not interfere with access to
exits or interfere with aircraft controls (placing the child seat in
a rear aircraft seat is preferred). Child seats made after 2/26/85
should be labeled as conforming with FMVSS No. 213 - and be labeled
"This restraint is certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft"
in red lettering. Restraints made before 2/26/95 that conform with
FMVSS No. 213 may have a label indicating compliance with TSO C100.
I used to share the back seat of our 175 with my brother and sister
until I was 8 or 9 (they are younger than me). My father added a
third belt for my sister, who sat in the center. This worked while
the three of us were reasonably small without any trouble.
If you are renting, that third seat belt option may not exist. Then
you are sharing belts. Since I missed the original question, I just
assume that you are talking about kids. The FARs allow a real small
one (under 2?) to sit on an adult's lap. I have never liked that
idea, and have never been asked to allow it while I was PIC - but it's
legit in a pinch. A "fifth" passenger sitting in someone's lap is
not a problem. You could put one child up front, one in the back and
the third on the lap of an adult, rear seat passenger - if you wanted
to. Just watch your w&b.
Good Luck.
Curtis Wheeler San Ramon, CA
KD6ELA / GROL / Pvt. Pilot
William LeFebvre
Randy Loper <ran...@AAC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>Is it legal to fly with five people in a Cessna 172?
Only if there are 5 seats.
>It is possible to put
>three people (children) in the backseat and still be under max gross weight,
Still under max gross? Probably.
>but is it okay/legal to do so?
No. Each passenger is required by FARs (even under part 91) to have a
separately designated seat with its own seatbelt.
>You can put one of the seat belts around
>two people so I don't think that would be a problem.
Not legal and also not wise.
I should note that there did exist at one time an option from Cessna for
a child's seat that mounted in the 172's luggage compartment. I doubt
that they still sell it, however, and I understand that they are pretty
rare.
William LeFebvre
lefe...@dis.anl.gov
ejvind andersen s
: Randy Loper (ran...@AAC.MsState.Edu) wrote:
: : Is it legal to fly with five people in a Cessna 172? It is possible to put
: : three people (children) in the backseat and still be under max gross weight,
: : two people so I don't think that would be a problem.
: ... I did ride in the baggage compartment of my father's
: what I was risking. Your children don't.
The risk was not limited to yourself. One of the things to be considered
is the "human collision". In an accident, especially high-speed ones, those
not belted in are most certainly lost. However, such a person can also
take a belted passenger with him/her, by impacting the passenger from behind.
In my car, I worry about those little dinky toys my kids might have placed
on the rear-window shelf -- I wouldn't like to get hit in the back of the
head by one should the vehicle suddenly decelerate for whatever reason.
Worse than a dinky toy, however, is a "loose" passenger. In a roll-over,
an unbelted passenger could kill everyone in the vehicle! The seatbelt
doesn't just protect you -- it protects the other passengers from you.
--
Niels Ejvind Andersen Internet: eand...@mach1.wlu.ca
Wilfrid Laurier University Voice: (519) 763-2985
Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3C5 ... VFR NC4
Mitchell Hodges
>I can't remember what the back seat of a 172 look like; it's been
>a while. I seem to recall it's a bench seat though, so if the
>childrn are small enough it should be possible to fasten a child
>seat in the middle; the kind they use in cars. Then the kid in
>the middle has its own harness.
Having flown a C172 with a child's seat on the bench, I can tell you there was
barely enough room left for my 5 year old beside the seat. This was a
standard child seat, and wasn't very large. I doubt if you could squeeze to
other children in there beside the seat. The best option is to get the third
seat belt added, if its your plane. It might even be worth paying for it if
it isn't, and you plan to rent from the FBO fairly reqularly.
=============================================================
Mitchel...@corp.wrgrace.com .
Manager, Global Electronic Messaging ._______|_______.
W.R. Grace & Co. \(*)/
Boca Raton, FL USA o/ \o
=================== I'd Rather Be Flying ====================
Bill Gaston
>Xref: news.indirect.com rec.aviation.piloting:16343
>Path: news.indirect.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cfa.org!infoserv.illinois.net!brutus.bright.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!nntp.msstate.edu!randyl
>From: ran...@AAC.MsState.Edu (Randy Loper)
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
>Subject: Is 5 People in a Cessna 172 okay/legal?
>Date: 10 Jul 1995 19:50:44 GMT
>Organization: Mississippi State University
>Lines: 7
>Message-ID: <3ts0ak$r...@NNTP.MsState.Edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: mad.aac.msstate.edu
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>Is it legal to fly with five people in a Cessna 172? It is possible to put
>three people (children) in the backseat and still be under max gross weight,
>but is it okay/legal to do so? You can put one of the seat belts around
>two people so I don't think that would be a problem.
Even the FAA forgot this one. When they certified the 172 they forgot to
mention how many bodies, it was legal to carry. The only regulation against
three children in the backseat is: You cannot be the pilot. I think they
specifically named you on page 295.
tfo...@house.hr.gov
belong to took the rear seat out of a 172 and insured it for two
people only to cut costs - it was a 100% training aircraft. Maybe
your 172 is only insured for four...
Tom F.
tfo...@hr.house.gov
Steve MacDougall
eand...@mach1.wlu.ca (ejvind andersen s) wrote:
>Phaedra A Hise (Hi...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: Randy Loper (ran...@AAC.MsState.Edu) wrote:
>: : three people (children) in the backseat and still be under max gross
weight,
>: : but is it okay/legal to do so? You can put one of the seat belts around
>: : two people so I don't think that would be a problem.
I've barely been able to keep under max weight with three med. sized adults
and full tanks!
Chris Murphy
>>No. Each passenger is required by FARs (even under part 91) to have a
>>separately designated seat with its own seatbelt.
>Gee, Bill, does this mean I am limited to 3 people in my 172 since it
>only has three "seats" (two up front and a bench in back)?
Strange. I've never seen a bench seat (single seat) in a 172. I've only
seen two seperate seats that are seperately attached to the airframe, but
are very close togther. The 182 is the same.
Either way, you don't need ONE seat or ONE berth per person. However...
>I would argue that 91.107 is unclear if a SEPARATE belt needs to
>be supplied for each passenger or if each passenger simply needs to
>be restrained by A belt. In any case, an exception is made for those under
>two years old.
Far 23.785 makes it clear (in it's own convoluted way) that an approved
seat and restraint is to be used by an occupant, or a 215 pound person.
It does not use the plural. I didn't read the whole thing either, so
their may be a provision that says you can't have more than one person
there. Now in the 182, there is a modification from Cessna that you can
have three seatbelts in the back seat. The mound formed by the two seats
is considered a berth seperate from the two seats. Sounds weird to me.
But anyway, under almost all circumstances, putting two people in one
restraint system is not proper use of the restraint system, and therefore
a violation of FAR 91.107 (a) (3), and possibly 91.107 (a) (1).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Murphy
C.U. Boulder CFI- ASE, IA
Chris....@Colorado.EDU COMM-AS&MEL, IA
Ron Natalie
: >Gee, Bill, does this mean I am limited to 3 people in my 172 since it
: >only has three "seats" (two up front and a bench in back)?
: Strange. I've never seen a bench seat (single seat) in a 172. I've only
: seen two seperate seats that are seperately attached to the airframe, but
: are very close togther. The 182 is the same.
The back seat is a single one both top and bottom.
-Ron
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>seen two seperate seats that are seperately attached to the airframe, but
>are very close togther. The 182 is the same.
Cessna makes three different rear seat styles for the 172. One is the
one-piece bench/one piece reclining back style (ex P/N 0514106-1),
another is the two-piece bench/one piece back style (ex 0514184-1),
and the other is the two-piece bench/split back style which is what
you're most familiar with (ex. 0514103-3).
The option price goes up in order of increasing complexity. I like
the full bench seat for a single person in the rear seats (lots O' room)
but the individual seat backs are nice for flexibility.
>Far 23.785 makes it clear (in it's own convoluted way) that an approved
>seat and restraint is to be used by an occupant, or a 215 pound person.
>It does not use the plural. I didn't read the whole thing either, so
>their may be a provision that says you can't have more than one person
>there.
Hmm, you've got me worried about the 215 pound part - I weigh more
than that!
None the less - I believe that FAR 23 doesn't apply to a large part of
the 172 population (those built before it was promulgated in 1972). But
we're splitting hairs.
>But anyway, under almost all circumstances, putting two people in one
>restraint system is not proper use of the restraint system, and therefore
>a violation of FAR 91.107 (a) (3), and possibly 91.107 (a) (1).
I thought this was the debate - what constitutes "proper use" of a
restraint system? I'm not sure that part 91 is clear in this regard.
Furthermore, is the 172 limited to four persons regardless of restraint
system or applicability of FAR 23? Could one STC a fifth seatbelt
like the 182 for a 172?
greg
TLong2
It is legal to have a child under age 2 without a seat. (Although
definitely a deathtrap for the child in an accident). This is the reason
you can carry a child on an airliner without an assigned seat.
But each passenger over 2 needs his own 'seat' and his own seatbelt. The
172 is a four passenger airplane.
Note that if you don't exceed max gross or weight/balance, you could
theoretically carry 8 legally! Pilot, front pass, front infant, two rear
pass, two rear infants, and infant in luggage compartment optional seat!
Tim Long
Mark Radovich
>three people (children) in the backseat and still be under max gross weight,
>but is it okay/legal to do so? You can put one of the seat belts around
>two people so I don't think that would be a problem.
In Australia it is legal to put put two children in one seat so long
as their combined weight does not exceed 77 kilograms and the seat
belt can fit around both chlidren.
Mich Ravera
> Is it legal to fly with five people in a Cessna 172? It is possible to put
> three people (children) in the backseat and still be under max gross weight,
> but is it okay/legal to do so? You can put one of the seat belts around
> two people so I don't think that would be a problem.
It is probably possible to put two adults and three children in a C172P (max
gross 2400, typical empty 1450). Neither of the adults may be big butts such as
myself.
Here is a sample:
Empty 1450
Fuel 240
He (not a bigbutt) 170
She (not a bigbutt) 120
Kids (50 + 60 + 70) 180
Junk + Optional Equipment 240
--------------------------------
Total 2400 = Max Gross for C172P
I don't think that you would have any CG problems loaded as stated.
The biggest legal problem would be that you would have to install a child seat
or a third seat belt in the back seat.
The problems occur when I (a bigbutt), my SO (not a bigbutt), my brother (a bigbutt) and his wife (not a bigbutt) try to pile in after a good dinner with my 70lb flashlight. Two bigbutts, full fuel, and my bag alone will put a C172N near gross even without the babes.
Ernest Timlin
letter of interpretation that said it was OK for part 91 ops. Just keep
W&B legal and keep the seatbelt(s) around all.
Andrew Boyd
>But anyway, under almost all circumstances, putting two people in one
>restraint system is not proper use of the restraint system, and therefore
>a violation of FAR 91.107 (a) (3), and possibly 91.107 (a) (1).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Words of wisdom and FAR chanting from a 23 yr old, who once accused
me of being a chicken because I didn't want to spin a twin.
Years before you were born, Chris, I was flying my maule, in which the
factory installed a rear bench seat (for any number of occupants) with
*one* seat belt.
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
Michael Gillespie
> You can put one of the seat belts around two people so I don't think
> that would be a problem.
This is a really dumb idea. Works fine so long as you never need the belts
to do their job! Read some studies on seat belts in cars and what happens
when more than one person is in one belt!!!
There "was" a clever and safe solution proposed by a pre-school car-pool
publication which involved "crossing over" the two sets of belts so that
three distinct loops were created. I will "try" and explain - the "X"
marks each child's position:
------ ------
/ \/ \
/ /\ \
/ / \ \
/ X / X \ X \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
=====================================
Michael.
----------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Michael Gillespie | mich...@freenet.mb.ca
Secretary to Telecommunities Canada Inc. | mich...@gray.mb.ca
Vice-President, Blue Sky Community Networks | Compuserve: 70631,155
----- No good deed will go unpunished. ------- Standard Disclaimers Apply ---
patterson,george r
>Years before you were born, Chris, I was flying my maule, in which the
>factory installed a rear bench seat (for any number of occupants) with
>*one* seat belt.
I believe this sort of thing is quite common in older aircraft. I know
some of the old Wacos had a two person front seat, and I think it's
also the case with the Piper Supercruiser (at least, I don't remember
seeing a second belt back there).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| May you be in Heaven two hours before the devil
George Patterson - | knows you're dead.
| Irish toast
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Bateman
>
>......<snip>.....
>
>There "was" a clever and safe solution proposed by a pre-school car-pool
>publication which involved "crossing over" the two sets of belts so that
>three distinct loops were created. I will "try" and explain - the "X"
>marks each child's position:
>
> ------ ------
> / \/ \
> / /\ \
> / / \ \
> / X / X \ X \
> / \ / \
> / \ / \
> =====================================
>
>Michael.
>
This may be better that nothing, but I'd still be concerned about the
child in the middle in the case of an accident. Seems to me that
this arrangement would tend the "scissor" the middle child in a
forward G accident.
^ ^ ^ forward force vector
| | | = on each child during
____|___ ____|____ | crash
/ (A) \ / (B) \
/ X \
/ / \ \
/ / \ \ --> side force
/ / ^ \ \ }= vectors on
/ / | \ \ <-- inner loop
/ / | \ \ due to child
/ /--> (C) <--\ \ A & B being
/ \ / \ thrown forward
/ \ / \ against belts.
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
==============================================
During the crash, children A and B are thrown forward against the
belts, stretching the belts forward. This causes the belts to
try to take up the slack currently going around child C. (This
assumes that the middle anchor points (buckles?) for the two
belts are reasonably close together, as shown in the diagram,
rather that spaced far enough apart that child C is actually
sitting between the anchor points.) This taking up of slack
will pull the center loop together, squeezing child C in the
middle. In a high-G accident, this "squeeze" could be pretty
severe.
This would be much more acceptable if child C were actually
in a child seat of some sort, with the belts looped as shown
around the seat shell, and the child held in the seat by the
seat's own restraints. Of course this would require the
"correct" type of child seat and pretty long seat belts.
Even then, in most planes I've flown in, this would leave
very little room on each side for children A and B.
This is why I ended up getting checked out in my club/FBO's
Cherokee 6. Err...., sorry about that, I mean in my
club/FB0's PA-34. :-)
Bruce Bateman
MikeT nyc
>don't think that would be a problem.
Actually, you can put TWO of the seat belts around two people -- i.e., you
can pair the middle kid with both left and right kids so s/he won't be
squashed against either one.
This has nothing to do with legality, but if I remember correctly, it's
what I did when I was a kid in a car with two seatbelts in the back.
R. Kyle Schmidt
>Chris Murphy <mur...@ucsub.colorado.edu> intoned:
>
>>But anyway, under almost all circumstances, putting two people in one
>>restraint system is not proper use of the restraint system, and therefore
>>a violation of FAR 91.107 (a) (3), and possibly 91.107 (a) (1).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Words of wisdom and FAR chanting from a 23 yr old, who once accused
>me of being a chicken because I didn't want to spin a twin.
>
>factory installed a rear bench seat (for any number of occupants) with
>*one* seat belt.
>
youth and training I must point out that just because the Maule factory
installed one seat belt for numerous occupants doesn't mean that this is
the wisest course of action.
If we were to carry on the mistakes and errors of our forefathers, there
would never be any progress.
So, while you may feel free to place your entire family in the rear lap
belt, and drive around town in your '55 Dodge that doesn't require seat
belts. I will feel safe in knowing that a seatbelt just miht save my life
when used properly, and for that reason treat them with respect. Blame my
youth and inexperience, but I just don't see how using a safety device
designed and stressed for one person can properly be safe for more than one.
R. Kyle Schmidt