FAA letter on flight into known icing

Frank Stutzman wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:


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).


So my 1949 Bonanza that was certified under CAR 3 (I think that was
what it was called before we got part 21 or 23 or what ever it currently
is). It has no placards or verbage in the POH mentioning icing anywhere.
Therefore I am perfectly legal getting into known icing?

It would be rather stupid of me, but according to this referance I would
be legal?

You might be legal, but you'd also be a test pilot. They might throw
the book at you for impersonating a test pilot ... unless, that is, you
ARE a test pilot. :-)


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

You might be legal, but you'd also be a test pilot. They might throw
the book at you for impersonating a test pilot ...


What FAR prohibits impersonating a test pilot?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

You might be legal, but you'd also be a test pilot. They might throw
the book at you for impersonating a test pilot ...



What FAR prohibits impersonating a test pilot?

It's called "tongue in cheek", Steven.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

|
| You might be legal, but you'd also be a test pilot. They might throw
| the book at you for impersonating a test pilot ... unless, that is, you
| ARE a test pilot. :-)
|

What FAR spells out the requirements for certification of a test pilot?

C J Campbell wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

|
| You might be legal, but you'd also be a test pilot. They might throw
| the book at you for impersonating a test pilot ... unless, that is, you
| ARE a test pilot. :-)
|

What FAR spells out the requirements for certification of a test pilot?



None that I'm aware of. Looks like you didn't catch the tongue-in-cheek
nature of my comment either. I thought the smiley would give it away
for sure. I guess some folks here are just too literal...

Matt

Literal-retentive, I think.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

|
| You might be legal, but you'd also be a test pilot. They might throw
| the book at you for impersonating a test pilot ... unless, that is,
you
| ARE a test pilot. :-)
|

What FAR spells out the requirements for certification of a test pilot?



None that I'm aware of. Looks like you didn't catch the tongue-in-cheek
nature of my comment either. I thought the smiley would give it away
for sure. I guess some folks here are just too literal...

Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell wrote:
| "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
| ...
|
| |
| | You might be legal, but you'd also be a test pilot. They might throw
| | the book at you for impersonating a test pilot ... unless, that is,
you
| | ARE a test pilot. :-)
| |
|
| What FAR spells out the requirements for certification of a test pilot?
|
|
|
| None that I'm aware of. Looks like you didn't catch the tongue-in-cheek
| nature of my comment either. I thought the smiley would give it away
| for sure. I guess some folks here are just too literal...
|

The response was in the same spirit as your post.

Frank Stutzman wrote in message ...

So my 1949 Bonanza that was certified under CAR 3 (I think that was
what it was called before we got part 21 or 23 or what ever it currently
is). It has no placards or verbage in the POH mentioning icing anywhere.
Therefore I am perfectly legal getting into known icing?

It would be rather stupid of me, but according to this referance I would
be legal?

Maybe not "illegal" with respect to a known icing FAR, but probably at
risk of a violation under the infamous 91.13 "careless and reckless"
FAR.

"James L. Freeman" wrote in message
om...

Maybe not "illegal" with respect to a known icing FAR, but probably at
risk of a violation under the infamous 91.13 "careless and reckless"
FAR.


FAR 91.13 applies only if the life or property of another is endangered.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"James L. Freeman" wrote in message
om...

Maybe not "illegal" with respect to a known icing FAR, but probably at
risk of a violation under the infamous 91.13 "careless and reckless"
FAR.


FAR 91.13 applies only if the life or property of another is endangered.

I guess if you're renting the plane, it does apply.

-- David Brooks