it's below. Bear in mind that I have some questions about it, which is why I was asking about the AOPA link pilotviolin referred to in his original post.
Some of the questions are:
1. The opinion refers to 91.205(b)(12) as the seatbelt rule. In the current version it's 205(b)(13) which says "An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older." I don't know whether the "(b)(12)" is a typo or whether, if it was moved, it was also reworded. Without comparing the regs before and after the date of the opinion, can't tell whether the opinion is still good or not. Which makes me wonder since
2. FAA Legal doesn't have the Opinion in it's on-line database, which does go back far enough to include it. Was that intentional?
3. That language in the third paragraph essentially says that it's "legal but dangerous." Sounds like an invitation to a 91.13 violation or a lawsuit if someone gets hurt.
4. It doesn't answer another question - some aircraft are specifcally certified for no more than 4 persons on board.
==============================
November 5, 1990
Ms. Kathleen Brockman
Aviation Specialist
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
421 Aviation Way
Frederick, Maryland 21701-4798
Dear Ms. Brockman:
We are responding to your request for clarification of a wording change in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Section 91.205(b)(12) and whether that change affects the carriage of two children in one seat belt.
The July 15, 1986, letter you attached is an interpretation of then FAR Section 91.14, now FAR Section 91.107. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy is that the FAA does not require separate seats or separate safety belts for FAR Part 91 operations. One safety belt may be fastened around two individuals provided that the strength of the safety belt is not compromised and that the aircraft's weight and balance remain within limits. This policy is based on the Preamble to Amendment 91-89, effective in August 1971, and has not been superseded by succeeding amendments.
The change in wording of FAR Section 91.205(b)(12) reflects the current airworthiness requirements for newly manufactured, normal, utility, or acrobatic category aircraft. The change in wording does not affect the FAA's along-standing policy concerning bench seats and safety be1ts enclosing two individuals, as stated above. However, to quote from our 1986 letter, "...Experience has shown that the use of one seat belt by one occupant affords less of a chance of injury, in case of an accident, as opposed to multiple occupants using one seat belt. .."
You also asked what effect would shoulder harnesses for the rear seats have on our answer. FAR Section 91.107(b) states that, except for an airship or free balloon, each person on board a U.S. registered civilian aircraft must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and shoulder harness, if installed, fastened about the person. (Emphasis added.) If shoulder harnesses are installed on rear seats, they must be used, and this could preclude fastening one seat belt, with shoulder harness attached, about two persons.
The typical shoulder harness installed in normal or utility category aircraft is designed to provide upper body restraint for one person. Extending the shoulder harness across two people, especially children, would seriously detract from its safety purpose and could pose a safety hazard if a shoulder harness extended in this manner rests across the throat of one or both of the two persons.
If the shoulder harness is the type that can be detached from the seat belt, detaching it would not be allowed, since FAR Section 91.107 requires that if shoulder harnesses are installed, they must be used.
We trust that this has answered your questions in a manner that clarifies FAA policy.
Sincerely,
Gabriel D. Bruno
Manager, Operations Branch
==============================
