FAA letter on flight into known icing

The FAA reply starting this thread illustrates one of the many frustrations I
have with the FAA. Given a very specific question, they responded with some
generalities and then sidestepped the answer. They also completely ignored
other implied parts of the question.

If there is NO PROHIBITION ANYWHERE for a specific aircraft, say because it was
grandfathered, then is it prohibited from flying legally in known icing? What
is the FAA's take on using the "careless and reckless" rule in this case?

There are no noises in this letter from the FAA about that. Thus, Steven P.
McNicoll and I will continue to disagree on whether or not it's legal (in most
cases).

Nothing like possibly a definate maybe from the folks that make the rules.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

I just, within the hour, was introduced to the "Tarver cronicles".
Had I known what your previous experience with dealing with rather
well known aviation issues was, I would have not wasted the bandwidth
trying to communicate with you. It seems that your primary goal as a
poster is to argue and bash. I have better things to do, John. You
never try to educate or explain. Just confuse and argue. I wish I
knew this a couple of posts earlier. Live and learn. If I am guilty
of trolling, so is everyone who tries to inform on this ng.


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:04:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"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.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
I just, within the hour, was introduced to the "Tarver cronicles".

That is an extensive archive troll and you should find it to be identical to
your own cluelessness, Bill.

Literal-retentive, I think.

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
news:bphEb.420856$275.1299498@attbi_s53:

snip

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


Perhaps complete elimination would solve the problem!

"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).

I must respectfully disagree with your statement that the procedures contained
in part 23 are intended to enable a third party to receive STC approval. The
procedures are not in part 23, but in part 21. To support my statement, let me
quote directly from 14 CFR part 21:

§ 21.111 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes procedural requirements for the issue of
supplemental type certificates.

§ 21.113 Requirement of supplemental type certificate.
Any person who alters a product by introducing a major change in type
design, not great enough to require a new application for a type
certificate under § 21.19, shall apply to the Administrator for a supplemental
type certificate, except that the holder of a type certificate for the
product may apply for amendment of the original type certificate. The
application must be made in a form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator.

§ 21.115 Applicable requirements.
(a) Each applicant for a supplemental type certificate must show that the
altered product meets applicable requirements specified in § 21.101
and, in the case of an acoustical change described in § 21.93(b), show
compliance with the applicable noise requirements of part 36 of
this chapter and, in the case of an emissions change described in § 21.93(c),
show compliance with the applicable fuel venting and exhaust emissions
requirements of part 34 of this chapter.
(b) Each applicant for a supplemental type certificate must meet §§ 21.33
and 21.53 with respect to each change in the type design.

§ 21.117 Issue of supplemental type certificates.
(a) An applicant is entitled to a supplemental type certificate if he meets
the requirements of §§ 21.113 and 21.115.
(b) A supplemental type certificate consists of -
(1) The approval by the Administrator of a change in the type design of
the product; and
(2) The type certificate previously issued for the product.

The § 21.101 rule mentioned in § 21.115(a) prescribes the applicable
airworthiness rules. In our example, the prescribed rules would be found in
part 23. There are no provisions for issuance of STCs or PMAs in part 23.

Cheers,

Gordon.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
news
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.

Bill, you remind me of the ****house lawyers (read: defendants) I used to
see that tried to tell the JUDGE what the law said.

"CivetOne" wrote in message
...

snip
The § 21.101 rule mentioned in § 21.115(a) prescribes the applicable
airworthiness rules. In our example, the prescribed rules would be found
in
part 23. There are no provisions for issuance of STCs or PMAs in part 23.

The only thing Part 23 is about is STCs. In fact, that is the title of Part
23.

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

The response was in the same spirit as your post.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote
The only thing Part 23 is about is STCs.
In fact, that is the title of Part 23.


Title 14--Aeronautics and Space
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Part 23: Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and
commuter category airplanes

Section 23.1: Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of
type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for airplanes
in the normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter categories.

(b) Each person who applies under Part 21 for such a certificate or
change must show compliance with the applicable requirements of this
part.


Ah well.............

Bob