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/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.

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/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.

"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.

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.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
No John, the FSDO has it right. The certification basis for most
small aircraft is FAR 23.

No, Bill, all Type Certificates are Part 21. Part 23 can only change an
existing Type Certificate, that is to say, the is no Law through which a
Type certificate can be issued under Part 23.

Look at any modern small aircraft type certificate data sheet and note
the certification basis. You will not find a single one that is
certified under FAR 21 They are all FAR 23. The original FSDO letter
you slammed mentioned "certified under FAR 23" You said he was wrong.
The certification basis IS FAR 23. Cite me one aircraft (small) that
has a certification basis of FAR21, as shown on it's TCDS.


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:03:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .
No John, the FSDO has it right. The certification basis for most
small aircraft is FAR 23.

No, Bill, all Type Certificates are Part 21. Part 23 can only change an
existing Type Certificate, that is to say, the is no Law through which a
Type certificate can be issued under Part 23.

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.

"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.

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

"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.