If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
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. Depends on how you interpret icing. I've flown for more than an hour through ice crystals that were visible in the air, but which did not accumulate on the airframe of my C-182. If I'm not accumulating ice on the airframe, I don't consider it to be "icing conditions." Same as flying through snow. I've flown through snow for literally hours and never accumulated any on the airframe. Matt |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:00:45 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "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? The FAA does, under FAR 21.119 There are 11 ways to produce an approved part. The PMA process is just one of them. You don't need to hold a DAS to sell approved parts. You are clouding the issue. Why can't you stick to one topic? You will gain a better understanding by not confusing yourself. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
I think post this is generally well understood. The question has
always been how to parse the phrase "Known icing conditions". Is it "(Known icing) conditions" or "Known (icing conditions)". It makes a huge difference whether its illegal to fly in any thing that is known to maybe make ice (we understand very little about why ice forms) or is it ok as long as you know the conditions aren't making ice (i.e. PIREP). BTW: Accoring to your FSDO, it is legal for a J-3 cub to fly in "Known Icing Conditions" because no such limitation exists in its certification. -Robert, CFI |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message snip The FAA does, under FAR 21.119 There are 11 ways to produce an approved part. The PMA process is just one of them. You don't need to hold a DAS to sell approved parts. No, you need to have a DAS to self Approve parts. You are clouding the issue. Why can't you stick to one topic? All of the thread drift is you, Mr. Zaleski. Once you were wrong about my initial post to this thread, you have been franticly flailing about wanting to be right about something. You will gain a better understanding by not confusing yourself. I am in the Aproved parts business, you are the only one confused, Mr. Zaleski. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Please reread the word "liquid".
Mike MU-2 "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: 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. Depends on how you interpret icing. I've flown for more than an hour through ice crystals that were visible in the air, but which did not accumulate on the airframe of my C-182. If I'm not accumulating ice on the airframe, I don't consider it to be "icing conditions." Same as flying through snow. I've flown through snow for literally hours and never accumulated any on the airframe. Matt |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message om... I think post this is generally well understood. The question has always been how to parse the phrase "Known icing conditions". Is it "(Known icing) conditions" or "Known (icing conditions)". It makes a huge difference whether its illegal to fly in any thing that is known to maybe make ice (we understand very little about why ice forms) or is it ok as long as you know the conditions aren't making ice (i.e. PIREP). BTW: Accoring to your FSDO, it is legal for a J-3 cub to fly in "Known Icing Conditions" because no such limitation exists in its certification. And you used to be able to buy cigarretes without a warning label, it didn't make smoking safe. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Please reread the word "liquid". Mike MU-2 "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: 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. Depends on how you interpret icing. I've flown for more than an hour through ice crystals that were visible in the air, but which did not accumulate on the airframe of my C-182. If I'm not accumulating ice on the airframe, I don't consider it to be "icing conditions." Same as flying through snow. I've flown through snow for literally hours and never accumulated any on the airframe. Matt Gotcha, however, I don't think that is the criterion the NWS uses when making forecasts of icing conditions. If it is, I'm impressed. Certainly hasn't been my experience in the northeast during the winter months. Matt |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
The existance of moisture in the liquid state is, of course, the heart of
the problem. Since liquid water is unstable below 0C it will always be somewhat hit and miss but my own experience is that if there is any lifting activity then there will be ice in the (cumulus type) clouds. Also any clouds with "hard" (as opposed to feathered) edges are full of ice. Mike MU-2 edges "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: Please reread the word "liquid". Mike MU-2 "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: 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. Depends on how you interpret icing. I've flown for more than an hour through ice crystals that were visible in the air, but which did not accumulate on the airframe of my C-182. If I'm not accumulating ice on the airframe, I don't consider it to be "icing conditions." Same as flying through snow. I've flown through snow for literally hours and never accumulated any on the airframe. Matt Gotcha, however, I don't think that is the criterion the NWS uses when making forecasts of icing conditions. If it is, I'm impressed. Certainly hasn't been my experience in the northeast during the winter months. Matt |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
You can't spell approved, but you are in that business, eh? The
holder of an STC has the approval to produce and sell parts used in that STC. He does not have to hold a DAS. The STC method of parts production is a much less painful way vs. the PMA route, and is used quite often to avoid having to comply with the added QC of the PMA process. But of course you know that John, being in the "Aproved parts business". I gave you the cite and you ignored it. You quote things that are not supported by FAR's . Why don't you quit generalizing and cite some accurate references that are on point? Never mind, I have no more time to dwell on this. Have a nice day. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:19:34 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message snip The FAA does, under FAR 21.119 There are 11 ways to produce an approved part. The PMA process is just one of them. You don't need to hold a DAS to sell approved parts. No, you need to have a DAS to self Approve parts. You are clouding the issue. Why can't you stick to one topic? All of the thread drift is you, Mr. Zaleski. Once you were wrong about my initial post to this thread, you have been franticly flailing about wanting to be right about something. You will gain a better understanding by not confusing yourself. I am in the Aproved parts business, you are the only one confused, Mr. Zaleski. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message news snip But of course you know that John, being in the "Aproved parts business". I gave you the cite and you ignored it. Dude, head somplace else to troll CFR 14. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 03:26 PM |
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 | Mark Oliver | Aerobatics | 1 | October 5th 04 10:20 PM |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 98 | December 11th 03 07:58 AM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 08:47 AM |