FAA letter on flight into known icing

C J Campbell 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 ... unless, that is, you
| ARE a test pilot. :-)
|

What FAR spells out the requirements for certification of a test pilot?



None that I'm aware of. Looks like you didn't catch the tongue-in-cheek
nature of my comment either. I thought the smiley would give it away
for sure. I guess some folks here are just too literal...

Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
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,

They could certainly have stated it more clearly, I agree.

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.

It *would* be like saying that if the AOM's demonstrated-crosswind statement
were a limitation (it's not, at least for 152s and 172s) and, more to the
point, if it were stated as a prohibition against flying in "known
excessive-crosswind conditions". Presumably, the other AOM limitations are
not stated that way precisely because they would then have the wrong
meaning.

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.

First, the very fact that they phrase the icing limitation differently than
other limitations strongly suggests that they intend something different for
that one. Second, it's not at all plausible to have a "consistent" response
to very different sorts of circumstances. There's no reason to prohibit
landing in conditions that are merely conducive to excessive crosswinds,
because (even if the demonstrated-crosswind statement were a limitation, and
even if there were no weather reporting at the destination) it would still
be reasonable to attempt a landing and find out if the crosswind is in fact
excessive. If not, the pilot can simply go around and try again, or divert
to a better-aligned runway. But conditions conducive to icing are usually
dangerous to probe empirically--by the time you get your answer, you may
already be in trouble. That's not always the case, but it is the case often
enough that it's reasonable to prohibit such probes (or at least much more
reasonable than it would be to prohibit you from probing the crosswind
conditions).

Just my opinion though, as I said I don't claim to know what Cessna
intended.

Yup, the FARs and AOMs are overdue for a massive rewrite. Maybe by the next
Centennial.

--Gary



Matt

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.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.

In the past, the FAA has taken a very broad interpretation of what
constitutes endangerment of life and property, and it only needs to be
potential, not actual. For example, in Administrator vs. Holter, et.
al., 5 NTSB 826 (1985), it was applied to a pilot who landed at the
wrong airport. And in Administrator vs. Feldman, EA-2913 (1989), it
was applied to a pilot who flew IFR without an instrument rating. It
seems to me it would be easy to argue potential endangerment in almost
any circumstance involving flight, hence the risk of a 91.13 violation
anytime the FAA decides to go after you, and especially if it is an
issue of judgement or "good practice" rather than a clear violation of
a specific FAR. That's why I think someone would be at risk of a
91.13 violation for flying in conditions conducive to icing, even if
he or she were legal only due to the old age of thier aircraft.

It would be interesting to know what percent of cases involve the
charge of a 91.13 violation, alone and in combination with other FARs,
and in what percent of cases the 91.13 violation was eventually
upheld.

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

Gary Drescher wrote:

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


They could certainly have stated it more clearly, I agree.


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.


It *would* be like saying that if the AOM's demonstrated-crosswind statement
were a limitation (it's not, at least for 152s and 172s) and, more to the
point, if it were stated as a prohibition against flying in "known
excessive-crosswind conditions". Presumably, the other AOM limitations are
not stated that way precisely because they would then have the wrong
meaning.


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.


First, the very fact that they phrase the icing limitation differently than
other limitations strongly suggests that they intend something different for
that one. Second, it's not at all plausible to have a "consistent" response
to very different sorts of circumstances. There's no reason to prohibit
landing in conditions that are merely conducive to excessive crosswinds,
because (even if the demonstrated-crosswind statement were a limitation, and
even if there were no weather reporting at the destination) it would still
be reasonable to attempt a landing and find out if the crosswind is in fact
excessive. If not, the pilot can simply go around and try again, or divert
to a better-aligned runway. But conditions conducive to icing are usually
dangerous to probe empirically--by the time you get your answer, you may
already be in trouble. That's not always the case, but it is the case often
enough that it's reasonable to prohibit such probes (or at least much more
reasonable than it would be to prohibit you from probing the crosswind
conditions).


Just my opinion though, as I said I don't claim to know what Cessna

intended.

Yup, the FARs and AOMs are overdue for a massive rewrite. Maybe by the next
Centennial.

You're an optimist, obviously!

Matt

Mike Rapoport wrote:

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.

The problem is (as always) the edge cases:

1. If icing is forecast at 15,000 ft, is flight at 3,000 ft considered a
flight into known icing? What about a flight at 14,000 ft?

2. The U.S. Current Icing Potential is a percentage, not a boolean. Is a
current icing potential of 10% equivalent to known icing? What about 25%?

3. Is VFR flight under a blue sky considered a flight into known icing when
a high probability of icing was forecast at that altitude in that area?
What about VFR under a high overcast with good visibility and no visible
precipitation?

etc.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

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.

The problem is (as always) the edge cases:

1. If icing is forecast at 15,000 ft, is flight at 3,000 ft considered a
flight into known icing? What about a flight at 14,000 ft?


Ice is forecast in clouds and precipitation from the freezing level to some
altitude. If you are below the freezing level then you are not in the area
forecast for iciing. This is not an "edge case", the icing is forecast only
at certain altitudes, the area outside of those altitudes has no forecast
for icing.

2. The U.S. Current Icing Potential is a percentage, not a boolean. Is a
current icing potential of 10% equivalent to known icing? What about 25%?


Known icing is the area, altitudes and conditions in airmet Zulu. You have
to be within the described area, AND in the described conditions (cloud or
precip), AND between the freezing level and the upper altitude limit. Ice
is not forecast (or possible) if any of the three conditions are not met.

3. Is VFR flight under a blue sky considered a flight into known icing
when
a high probability of icing was forecast at that altitude in that area?

As above the icing is forecast in clouds and precipitiation. It is not
forecast in clear air. It is imposible in clear air.

What about VFR under a high overcast with good visibility and no visible
precipitation?

This is probably subject to interpretation.

Mike
MU-2


All the best,


David

Ice is "known" to be present anytime there is visible moisture in the liquid
state and the temp is below freezing. There will ALWAYS be icing under
these conditions. Always, no exceptions.

Mike
MU-2

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

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
Parts produced under an STC do not need PMA approval. Chew on that
one, Tarver.

Only if the STC holder is a DAS, which is of course Part 21 authority.

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).

Simply not true, John. A DAS must be tied to a repair station. There
are many STC holders that are not repair stations. They still can
produce approved parts without a PMA. The reference is FAR 21.435


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:22:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .
Parts produced under an STC do not need PMA approval. Chew on that
one, Tarver.

Only if the STC holder is a DAS, which is of course Part 21 authority.

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).

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
Simply not true, John. A DAS must be tied to a repair station. There
are many STC holders that are not repair stations.

The Authority to self aprove parts is in CFR 14 Part 21, "DAS"; for an STC
the DAS owns.

They still can
produce approved parts without a PMA. The reference is FAR 21.435

Who aproved the parts, if there is no PMA, or TSOA?