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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... John: The original topic and the subject of this whole tread is/was ice certification. Those certification rules, and the basis for certification are contained within FAR 23. That is the whole subject of this thread. Non-sequitur. Part 21 deals with PRODUCTION BASIS and has nothing whatsoever to do with the criteria for determining whether an aircraft has icing approval. You chose to go off on a tangent. The FSDO guy is still correct. The only part of the letter I corrected has to do with what section of CFR 14 an aircraft's type Certificate is issued under, where the FSDO guy is wrong. The fact that you have now caught on to haw rediculess you have been, is a good reason for you to wish to change the subject, but also irrelevent. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:21 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message .. . Sure, a newsgroup is a much better way to prove the point, instead of FAR's and other documentation, which proves my position. If we were to use CFR 14 Part 23 as a starting point, the title itself gives all but the most egtotistical a clue. Then, if we look for Type Certificate, we will find it in Part 21. Simple enough for you Bill, give those FARs a read. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Hi guys,
Let me jump into the middle of this with both feet, and hope to escape without too many flames... 14 CFR part 21 contains the procedural rules for obtaining a type certificate and approval for changes to a type certificate (i.e., a Supplemental Type Certificate), and airworthiness requirements for "unique" kinds of aircraft. An applicant who applies for a Type Certificate or Supplemental Type Certifcate under this part, is granted approval under part 21 if the FAA finds that the design or change to a design shows compliance to the applicable airworthiness requirements. The airworthiness requirements to which the design, or change to a design, must show compliance may be in part 21 (for example, primary category aircraft or foreign aircraft accepted under a bilateral airworthiness agreement), or in one of the airworthiness standards such as part 23 for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. The Type Certificate Data Sheet for an aircraft shows the Certification Basis. The Certification Basis is the set of airworthiness standards to which compliance was shown. For example, U.S. manufactured normal and utility category airplanes are certificated to airworthiness standards contained in part 23 or its predecessor, CAR 3. Primary Category aircraft are certificated to airworthiness requirements listed in part 21, so part 21 would be listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet. However, procedural rules of part 21 are not shown in the Data Sheet. So, in following this thread, my impression is that you're both right. The design approvals are issued under part 21, and the airworthiness requirements to which compliance must be shown are listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet. Nothin' like muddying the waters.... Cheers, Gordon. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"CivetOne" wrote in message ... Hi guys, Let me jump into the middle of this with both feet, and hope to escape without too many flames... 14 CFR part 21 contains the procedural rules for obtaining a type certificate and approval for changes to a type certificate Yes. (i.e., a Supplemental Type Certificate), No, that is Part 23 for under 12,500 lbs. snip of rest without reading Let me be fair to the FSDO guy and agree that the icing capability is usually added after the Part 21 Type Certificate is issued. Therefore, if you have anti-icing capability for your small airplane, it is probably a Part 23 STC change. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
14 CFR part 21 contains the procedural rules for obtaining a type
certificate and approval for changes to a type certificate Yes. (i.e., a Supplemental Type Certificate), No, that is Part 23 for under 12,500 lbs. snip of rest without reading Let me be fair to the FSDO guy and agree that the icing capability is usually added after the Part 21 Type Certificate is issued. Therefore, if you have anti-icing capability for your small airplane, it is probably a Part 23 STC change. Please allow me to delve into administrative minutia for a second. I agree that, in our example, anti-icing capability added to a small airplane after manufacture is a change to the type design, and that the airworthiness rules to which the anti-icing equipment must be certificated are in part 23. In addition to the equipment, the Kinds of Operations (23.1525) would need to be changed to include flight in icing conditions. However, the procedural rules governing the approval of a Supplemental Type Certificate are in part 21. Subpart D of part 21 talks about changes to a type certificate, and subpart E deals specifically with Supplemental Type Certificates. Subpart E defines the applicable airworthiness requirements for the STC in a similar fashion to subpart B for type certificates. In our icing example, the applicable airworthiness requirements would be contained in part 23. 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. The design approval, either a TC or an STC, is issued in accordance with the procedures in part 21. 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). Like I said at the beginning, "administrative minutia." Cheers, Gordon. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Parts produced under an STC do not need PMA approval. Chew on that
one, Tarver. 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). |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |