FAA letter on flight into known icing

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

I already refered you to a newsgroup apropriate to your posts. Most prople
come to rai for the real answer.

Sure, a newsgroup is a much better way to prove the point, instead of
FAR's and other documentation, which proves my position. As I recall
you have never been wrong before Tarver. No sense arguing with you.
You know better that the FAA. Quit wasting my time. I gave you the
means to prove yourself, and you ignored the offer. Perhaps hou need
to move to the newsgroup you think is so definitive. Why can't you
name just one aircraft that fits into this nonexistant certification
basis you refer to?


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:03:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


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

I already refered you to a newsgroup apropriate to your posts. Most prople
come to rai for the real answer.

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.

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
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:

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.


Matt

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

This is interesting but the question of the legality of flying an older
plane that does not have a placard prohibiting flight into icing remains
unanswered.


How so? The question was asked with regard to a Part 91 operation other
than a large or turbine powered aircraft. The answer was FAR 91.9.

"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?

"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.

"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.

"James L. Freeman" wrote in message
om...
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.

Only if you endanger the person, or property, of another in doing so.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:33:38 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
wrote:

However, to me, a forecast isn't
"known", it is "possible", maybe even "likely", but hardly known.

I agree with your English. However, to the FAA, the forecast is "known".

The placards do not say just "known icing". They say "known icing
*conditions*". And both the FAA and NTSB hang their hat on saying that if
"icing conditions" are forecast, then they are known and you are in the
prohibited range even if "icing" does not exist.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

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. 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.


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.