FAA letter on flight into known icing

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.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.

In the past, the FAA has taken a very broad interpretation of what
constitutes endangerment of life and property, and it only needs to be
potential, not actual. For example, in Administrator vs. Holter, et.
al., 5 NTSB 826 (1985), it was applied to a pilot who landed at the
wrong airport. And in Administrator vs. Feldman, EA-2913 (1989), it
was applied to a pilot who flew IFR without an instrument rating. It
seems to me it would be easy to argue potential endangerment in almost
any circumstance involving flight, hence the risk of a 91.13 violation
anytime the FAA decides to go after you, and especially if it is an
issue of judgement or "good practice" rather than a clear violation of
a specific FAR. That's why I think someone would be at risk of a
91.13 violation for flying in conditions conducive to icing, even if
he or she were legal only due to the old age of thier aircraft.

It would be interesting to know what percent of cases involve the
charge of a 91.13 violation, alone and in combination with other FARs,
and in what percent of cases the 91.13 violation was eventually
upheld.

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

Only if you endanger the person, or property, of another in doing so.

This is interesting but the question of the legality of flying an older
plane that does not have a placard prohibiting flight into icing remains
unanswered.

Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
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. I think the tendency most of us have is to think that an
aircraft that has such a prohibition has been tested and failed. Of
course,
what the prohibition in the type most likely means is that the aircraft
has
not been tested in a known hazard. In the case of icing, it was probably
wisely assumed that such an operation with such an aircraft would likely
have a negative result.

If you consider the opposite situation, aircraft approved for flight into
known icing conditions have had specific testing, specific additional
equipment, and specific limitations added to the basic aircraft.

We are hoping that you will help us and the rest of the flying community
spread the word on how this "icing" limitation works in the FARs because
our
experience tells us that there are folks flying who firmly believe that if
it's not written down, it must be okay to do it.

Thanks again. Please call me at (425) 227-2240 if you have other
questions.



Dennis Franks, Seattle FSDO



----- Forwarded by Dennis Franks/ANM/FAA on 12/09/2003 05:26 PM -----


Sarah

Perotka-Moye To: Dennis Franks/ANM/FAA@FAA

cc:

12/06/2003 06:13 Subject: Flight into known icing conditions

PM

Dennis--

I overlooked this message, so it is coming to you late. Please respond to
Mr. Campbell and cc me on your response. I'll print out the question and
response for the files, so you don't need to.

Thanks,

Sarah

----- Forwarded by Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA on 12/06/2003 06:10 PM -----


"Christopher J Campbell" To: Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA@FAA

Subject: Flight into known icing conditions


12/01/2003 08:59

AM

Sarah,

We were talking about flight into known icing conditions the other day,
and
someone asked where it is actually prohibited by the FARs. FAR 91.527
applies only to large and turbine powered aircraft, and Part 135 has its
own
language prohibiting flight into known icing conditions, but there appears
to be no specific prohibition that applies to general aviation aircraft
under part 91. The only thing that I can find on the subject is the
prohibition against flight into icing conditions in the Limitations
section
of the operating handbook in most modern light aircraft.

It would be helpful if I had any additional references that I could direct
my students to. Or am I wrong on this matter?

Christopher Campbell, CFII


--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
This is interesting but the question of the legality of flying an older
plane that does not have a placard prohibiting flight into icing remains
unanswered.

There is no written prohibition to the activity in question. Such a suicide
would be legal and we would miss the operator greatly, but in case of
survival, there would be no prosecution; except Administratively.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

This is interesting but the question of the legality of flying an older
plane that does not have a placard prohibiting flight into icing remains
unanswered.


How so? The question was asked with regard to a Part 91 operation other
than a large or turbine powered aircraft. The answer was FAR 91.9.

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:

I think the issue is one of what constitutes known icing. Is it from a
pirep, weather balloon, etc., that has actually seen/encountered the
icing or is a forecast from some weather guy on the ground who thinks
ice might occur sufficient to constitute known icing. Most pilots of
light aircraft know it is both dumb and illegal to fly into a location
where icing is REALLY know to exist. However, to me, a forecast isn't
"known", it is "possible", maybe even "likely", but hardly known.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
I think the issue is one of what constitutes known icing. Is it from a
pirep, weather balloon, etc., that has actually seen/encountered the
icing or is a forecast from some weather guy on the ground who thinks
ice might occur sufficient to constitute known icing. Most pilots of
light aircraft know it is both dumb and illegal to fly into a location
where icing is REALLY know to exist. However, to me, a forecast isn't
"known", it is "possible", maybe even "likely", but hardly known.

Are there really any AOMs that refer to "known icing"? The Cessna 152/172
AOMs I've seen prohibit flight in "known icing conditions". That's most
plausibly parsed as known icing-conditions, that is, known conditions that
are conducive to icing. So the icing itself doesn't have to be known, just
the conditions. And a forecast tells you of those conditions.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I think the issue is one of what constitutes known icing. Is it from a
pirep, weather balloon, etc., that has actually seen/encountered the
icing or is a forecast from some weather guy on the ground who thinks
ice might occur sufficient to constitute known icing. Most pilots of
light aircraft know it is both dumb and illegal to fly into a location
where icing is REALLY know to exist. However, to me, a forecast isn't
"known", it is "possible", maybe even "likely", but hardly known.


Are there really any AOMs that refer to "known icing"? The Cessna 152/172
AOMs I've seen prohibit flight in "known icing conditions". That's most
plausibly parsed as known icing-conditions, that is, known conditions that
are conducive to icing. So the icing itself doesn't have to be known, just
the conditions. And a forecast tells you of those conditions.

Well, I have no idea what Cessna was thinking or intending when they
wrote that, but, I'd interpret it as known - icing conditions. I don't
think parsing it your way is at all the most plausible. It is like
saying not to land if it conditions exist that might cause a crosswind
in excess of the demonstrated crosswind. We worry about the actual
crosswind, not what might exist. To me, it is much more plausible that
they would be consistent with all such limitations and apply them to
actual prevailing circumstances, not based on conditions which might
lead to such circumstances. Just my opinion though, as I said I don't
claim to know what Cessna intended.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Are there really any AOMs that refer to "known icing"? The Cessna
152/172
AOMs I've seen prohibit flight in "known icing conditions". That's most
plausibly parsed as known icing-conditions, that is, known conditions
that
are conducive to icing. So the icing itself doesn't have to be known,
just
the conditions. And a forecast tells you of those conditions.

Well, I have no idea what Cessna was thinking or intending when they
wrote that,

They could certainly have stated it more clearly, I agree.

but, I'd interpret it as known - icing conditions. I don't
think parsing it your way is at all the most plausible. It is like
saying not to land if it conditions exist that might cause a crosswind
in excess of the demonstrated crosswind.

It *would* be like saying that if the AOM's demonstrated-crosswind statement
were a limitation (it's not, at least for 152s and 172s) and, more to the
point, if it were stated as a prohibition against flying in "known
excessive-crosswind conditions". Presumably, the other AOM limitations are
not stated that way precisely because they would then have the wrong
meaning.

We worry about the actual
crosswind, not what might exist. To me, it is much more plausible that
they would be consistent with all such limitations and apply them to
actual prevailing circumstances, not based on conditions which might
lead to such circumstances.

First, the very fact that they phrase the icing limitation differently than
other limitations strongly suggests that they intend something different for
that one. Second, it's not at all plausible to have a "consistent" response
to very different sorts of circumstances. There's no reason to prohibit
landing in conditions that are merely conducive to excessive crosswinds,
because (even if the demonstrated-crosswind statement were a limitation, and
even if there were no weather reporting at the destination) it would still
be reasonable to attempt a landing and find out if the crosswind is in fact
excessive. If not, the pilot can simply go around and try again, or divert
to a better-aligned runway. But conditions conducive to icing are usually
dangerous to probe empirically--by the time you get your answer, you may
already be in trouble. That's not always the case, but it is the case often
enough that it's reasonable to prohibit such probes (or at least much more
reasonable than it would be to prohibit you from probing the crosswind
conditions).

Just my opinion though, as I said I don't claim to know what Cessna
intended.

Yup, the FARs and AOMs are overdue for a massive rewrite. Maybe by the next
Centennial.

--Gary



Matt

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Are there really any AOMs that refer to "known icing"? The Cessna

152/172

AOMs I've seen prohibit flight in "known icing conditions". That's most
plausibly parsed as known icing-conditions, that is, known conditions

that

are conducive to icing. So the icing itself doesn't have to be known,

just

the conditions. And a forecast tells you of those conditions.

Well, I have no idea what Cessna was thinking or intending when they
wrote that,


They could certainly have stated it more clearly, I agree.


but, I'd interpret it as known - icing conditions. I don't
think parsing it your way is at all the most plausible. It is like
saying not to land if it conditions exist that might cause a crosswind
in excess of the demonstrated crosswind.


It *would* be like saying that if the AOM's demonstrated-crosswind statement
were a limitation (it's not, at least for 152s and 172s) and, more to the
point, if it were stated as a prohibition against flying in "known
excessive-crosswind conditions". Presumably, the other AOM limitations are
not stated that way precisely because they would then have the wrong
meaning.


We worry about the actual
crosswind, not what might exist. To me, it is much more plausible that
they would be consistent with all such limitations and apply them to
actual prevailing circumstances, not based on conditions which might
lead to such circumstances.


First, the very fact that they phrase the icing limitation differently than
other limitations strongly suggests that they intend something different for
that one. Second, it's not at all plausible to have a "consistent" response
to very different sorts of circumstances. There's no reason to prohibit
landing in conditions that are merely conducive to excessive crosswinds,
because (even if the demonstrated-crosswind statement were a limitation, and
even if there were no weather reporting at the destination) it would still
be reasonable to attempt a landing and find out if the crosswind is in fact
excessive. If not, the pilot can simply go around and try again, or divert
to a better-aligned runway. But conditions conducive to icing are usually
dangerous to probe empirically--by the time you get your answer, you may
already be in trouble. That's not always the case, but it is the case often
enough that it's reasonable to prohibit such probes (or at least much more
reasonable than it would be to prohibit you from probing the crosswind
conditions).


Just my opinion though, as I said I don't claim to know what Cessna

intended.

Yup, the FARs and AOMs are overdue for a massive rewrite. Maybe by the next
Centennial.

You're an optimist, obviously!

Matt