FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

: "Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
: news :
: I know you were the student but how did the instructor knowingly break
: the VFR visibility requirements if you were in the clouds?
:

: Nothing in his statement suggested any rule was broken. Primary training is
: not limited to VFR operations. The instructor can easily pick up an IFR
: clearance or this may have happened in Class G airspace.

Exactly.... and I'm not going to specify how it was done.... just that it was
done, and I'm glad for the experience.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote in message
...

Exactly.... and I'm not going to specify how it was done.... just that it
was
done, and I'm glad for the experience.


You're not going to specify how what was done? Picking up ice in the clouds
or your instructor deliberately violating VFR weather minimums as was
assumed by Gerald Sylvester?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
: You're not going to specify how what was done? Picking up ice in the clouds
: or your instructor deliberately violating VFR weather minimums as was
: assumed by Gerald Sylvester?

That may have been what he was implying, but as pointed out, just because I was
flying in IMC with an instructor for my PPL training doesn't not automatically mean I was
flying illegally.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump"
because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or
models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about
icing).

But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when
the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing",
and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal.

Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.

And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall
back on.

Operating outside the manufacturer's specifications is a dangerous option.

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

I am free to do something stupid with
airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me.
That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood.


I did not misunderstand it. Until you can find an airplane that stays in
the
air when it crashes, flying in icing conditions without proper equipment
endangers people and property on the ground.


Actually, the FARs mean what they say. Unfortunately, there are many in
the
FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are
commonly "misinterpreted".


The end result is either your certificate is lifted, or it isn't. The FAA
gets
to decide. If the FAA "mis"interprets its own regulations and lifts your
certificate, your certificate is still lifted.

That is the magic of Administrative Law.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

"Barry" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched
in
an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
Icing.'

135 is a different story. There are specific rules about forecast icing
(135.227). This doesn't apply to part 91.

Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through
their own sham rulemaking process.

I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them authority
to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved Data.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...

Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through
their own sham rulemaking process.

I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them authority
to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved Data.

I'm referring to the application of "known icing" rules when there is no certification
data to the contrary.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going
through
their own sham rulemaking process.

I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them
authority
to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved
Data.

I'm referring to the application of "known icing" rules when there is no
certification
data to the contrary.

I suppose FAA would have to "speculate" on the airworthyness of those pre
POH required airplanes.

wrote in message
...

That may have been what he was implying, but as pointed out, just
because I was flying in IMC with an instructor for my PPL training doesn't
not automatically mean I was flying illegally.


That was MY point.

From: "Tarver Engineering"

Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.


????

Bwhahahah