View Single Post
  #10  
Old December 17th 03, 11:46 PM
Bill Zaleski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No John, the FSDO has it right. The certification basis for most
small aircraft is FAR 23. Just check the type certificate data sheets
for any model. It is either CAR 3 or 23. FAR 21 is only the
procedural requirements for the issuance of a TC. There are no
specifications in 21. An STC must meet the same certification
requirements as a TC (FAR23).



On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:58:06 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
thanks for posting that.
I am a firm believer that icing is bad, even a little ice is bad.

C J Campbell wrote:

There was an earlier thread on whether it was legal to fly an airplane

under
part 91 into known icing if there was no specific prohibition against it

in
the airplane's operating handbook. I asked the Seattle FSDO what their

take
was on the issue. This is their reply:

Dear Mr. Campbell:

Thanks for your e-mail asking where the prohibition against flight into
known icing conditions resides in the Federal Aviation Regulations

(FARs).

I am a Principal Operations Inspector with the Seattle FSDO and am

assigned
to answer your question.

Actually, until a couple of weeks ago, I, like yourself, believed that

it
resided in some dark part of Part 91 that I was not familiar with.

Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find

out
the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil

Aircraft
Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It

says,
in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying

with
the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to

the
aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have
either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook

that
flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is
facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations

of
the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue

of a
briefing).

This goes back to how the aircraft was originally "type" certificated.

In
the case of light single engine aircraft, such certification is done

under
FAR Part 23.


And you know, the FSDO was doing fine until he got to here, but Type
Certification is a Part 21 activity. A change to the Type Certificate that
adds anti-icing capability through an STC would be Part 23, which would also
change the POH. It looks to me like he was parroting rai anyway.