FAA letter on flight into known icing

"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.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
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.

That is impossible, perhaps you are confusing changes to a type certificate
with the type certificate. A Part 21 entity has Authority well in excess of
what can be done under Part 23.

The original FSDO letter
you slammed mentioned "certified under FAR 23" You said he was wrong.

Nope, what I corrected is a referece to a "Type Certificate" issued under
Part 23, which is impossible.

The certification basis IS FAR 23. Cite me one aircraft (small) that
has a certification basis of FAR21, as shown on it's TCDS.

Non-sequitur.

John, you either have not or cannot provide me with an aircraft type
that is certificated under FAR 21. Why is this? Could it be that
perhaps, you are mistaken? Current small aircraft certification is
being done under FAR 23. The TCDS of modern aircraft confirms this.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Non-sequitur is not a valid way out. I
have provided the citation, you provide only your mouth.


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:27:11 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .
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.

That is impossible, perhaps you are confusing changes to a type certificate
with the type certificate. A Part 21 entity has Authority well in excess of
what can be done under Part 23.

The original FSDO letter
you slammed mentioned "certified under FAR 23" You said he was wrong.

Nope, what I corrected is a referece to a "Type Certificate" issued under
Part 23, which is impossible.

The certification basis IS FAR 23. Cite me one aircraft (small) that
has a certification basis of FAR21, as shown on it's TCDS.

Non-sequitur.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
John, you either have not or cannot provide me with an aircraft type
that is certificated under FAR 21. Why is this?

All aircraft are Type Certificated under Part 21, there is no other means to
do so.

Well then John, why don't you look at any modern type cetificate data
sheet, note the certification basis, and report back to me how many
you find type certificated under FAR 21 vs. FAR 23, as I have told you
a couple of times already is the only current basis, for small
aircraft. Afraid to look, or don't know how to find a TCDS? If there
is no other means to TC an aircraft under, then the FAA needs to be
told, as there are hundreds certified under FAR 23. Just look.


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:55:31 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .
John, you either have not or cannot provide me with an aircraft type
that is certificated under FAR 21. Why is this?

All aircraft are Type Certificated under Part 21, there is no other means to
do so.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
Well then John, why don't you look at any modern type cetificate data
sheet, note the certification basis, and report back to me how many
you find type certificated under FAR 21 vs. FAR 23, as I have told you
a couple of times already is the only current basis, for small
aircraft.

No, but you are welcome to be so deluded.

Now, the rules of Part 23 can be used as a basis of certification, but there
is no way to issue a Type Certificate except under Part 21. In fact, as a
help for you to find a number of Part 21 only issued Type Certificated
aircraft, I'll refer you to RAH.

"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.

--Gary

Just name one of me, John, show me the certification basis as such in
the TCDS, and quit playing games.


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:46:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .
Well then John, why don't you look at any modern type cetificate data
sheet, note the certification basis, and report back to me how many
you find type certificated under FAR 21 vs. FAR 23, as I have told you
a couple of times already is the only current basis, for small
aircraft.

No, but you are welcome to be so deluded.

Now, the rules of Part 23 can be used as a basis of certification, but there
is no way to issue a Type Certificate except under Part 21. In fact, as a
help for you to find a number of Part 21 only issued Type Certificated
aircraft, I'll refer you to RAH.

Frank Stutzman wrote in message ...

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?

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.