A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAA letter on flight into known icing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 17th 03, 05:10 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FAA letter on flight into known icing

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/[email protected]

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/[email protected]

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.



Ads
  #2  
Old December 17th 03, 06:48 PM
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. 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/[email protected]

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/[email protected]

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.


  #3  
Old December 17th 03, 06:58 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #4  
Old December 17th 03, 07:07 PM
Frank Stutzman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?



--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

  #5  
Old December 17th 03, 07:16 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
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?


Si.


  #6  
Old December 17th 03, 07:31 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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/[email protected]

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/[email protected]

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.





  #7  
Old December 17th 03, 07:33 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #8  
Old December 17th 03, 10:33 PM
Matthew S. Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #9  
Old December 17th 03, 10:35 PM
Matthew S. Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #10  
Old December 17th 03, 10:46 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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 Mark Oliver Aerobatics 1 October 5th 04 10:20 PM
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP vvcd Home Built 0 September 22nd 04 07:16 PM
FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions O. Sami Saydjari Instrument Flight Rules 98 December 11th 03 06:58 AM
Sim time loggable? [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 12 December 6th 03 07:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.