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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
There is no doubt that forecast icing is known icing to the FAA and the NTSB. This has been beat to death many times here and in every aviation publication. The problem is (as always) the edge cases: 1. If icing is forecast at 15,000 ft, is flight at 3,000 ft considered a flight into known icing? What about a flight at 14,000 ft? 2. The U.S. Current Icing Potential is a percentage, not a boolean. Is a current icing potential of 10% equivalent to known icing? What about 25%? 3. Is VFR flight under a blue sky considered a flight into known icing when a high probability of icing was forecast at that altitude in that area? What about VFR under a high overcast with good visibility and no visible precipitation? etc. All the best, David |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"David Megginson" wrote in message . cable.rogers.com... Mike Rapoport wrote: There is no doubt that forecast icing is known icing to the FAA and the NTSB. This has been beat to death many times here and in every aviation publication. The problem is (as always) the edge cases: 1. If icing is forecast at 15,000 ft, is flight at 3,000 ft considered a flight into known icing? What about a flight at 14,000 ft? Ice is forecast in clouds and precipitation from the freezing level to some altitude. If you are below the freezing level then you are not in the area forecast for iciing. This is not an "edge case", the icing is forecast only at certain altitudes, the area outside of those altitudes has no forecast for icing. 2. The U.S. Current Icing Potential is a percentage, not a boolean. Is a current icing potential of 10% equivalent to known icing? What about 25%? Known icing is the area, altitudes and conditions in airmet Zulu. You have to be within the described area, AND in the described conditions (cloud or precip), AND between the freezing level and the upper altitude limit. Ice is not forecast (or possible) if any of the three conditions are not met. 3. Is VFR flight under a blue sky considered a flight into known icing when a high probability of icing was forecast at that altitude in that area? As above the icing is forecast in clouds and precipitiation. It is not forecast in clear air. It is imposible in clear air. What about VFR under a high overcast with good visibility and no visible precipitation? This is probably subject to interpretation. Mike MU-2 All the best, David |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Ice is "known" to be present anytime there is visible moisture in the liquid
state and the temp is below freezing. There will ALWAYS be icing under these conditions. Always, no exceptions. Mike MU-2 "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... 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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... Parts produced under an STC do not need PMA approval. Chew on that one, Tarver. Only if the STC holder is a DAS, which is of course Part 21 authority. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:56:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "CivetOne" wrote in message ... snip So, my bottom line is that the procedural requirements for obtaining design approval of either a new design or changes to an existing design are contained in part 21. For the aircraft's manufacturer. The design approval, either a TC or an STC, is issued in accordance with the procedures in part 21. No, the procedures contained in Part 23 are intended to enable a third party to receive STC Aproval, for a change to a small airplane. From the STC, with a licensing agreement in place, the parts used to make that change can get PMA aproval. The airworthiness requirements to which the design or design change must comply are contained in the airworthiness standards (e.g., part 23 for small airplanes), or part 21 for unique aircraft (e.g., primary category). |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Simply not true, John. A DAS must be tied to a repair station. There
are many STC holders that are not repair stations. They still can produce approved parts without a PMA. The reference is FAR 21.435 On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:22:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message .. . Parts produced under an STC do not need PMA approval. Chew on that one, Tarver. Only if the STC holder is a DAS, which is of course Part 21 authority. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:56:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "CivetOne" wrote in message ... snip So, my bottom line is that the procedural requirements for obtaining design approval of either a new design or changes to an existing design are contained in part 21. For the aircraft's manufacturer. The design approval, either a TC or an STC, is issued in accordance with the procedures in part 21. No, the procedures contained in Part 23 are intended to enable a third party to receive STC Aproval, for a change to a small airplane. From the STC, with a licensing agreement in place, the parts used to make that change can get PMA aproval. The airworthiness requirements to which the design or design change must comply are contained in the airworthiness standards (e.g., part 23 for small airplanes), or part 21 for unique aircraft (e.g., primary category). |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... Simply not true, John. A DAS must be tied to a repair station. There are many STC holders that are not repair stations. The Authority to self aprove parts is in CFR 14 Part 21, "DAS"; for an STC the DAS owns. They still can produce approved parts without a PMA. The reference is FAR 21.435 Who aproved the parts, if there is no PMA, or TSOA? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |