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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
: "Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message : news : : I know you were the student but how did the instructor knowingly break : the VFR visibility requirements if you were in the clouds? : : Nothing in his statement suggested any rule was broken. Primary training is : not limited to VFR operations. The instructor can easily pick up an IFR : clearance or this may have happened in Class G airspace. Exactly.... and I'm not going to specify how it was done.... just that it was done, and I'm glad for the experience. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * The prime directive of Linux: * * - learn what you don't know, * * - teach what you do. * * (Just my 20 USm$) * ************************************************** *********************** |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... Exactly.... and I'm not going to specify how it was done.... just that it was done, and I'm glad for the experience. You're not going to specify how what was done? Picking up ice in the clouds or your instructor deliberately violating VFR weather minimums as was assumed by Gerald Sylvester? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
: You're not going to specify how what was done? Picking up ice in the clouds : or your instructor deliberately violating VFR weather minimums as was : assumed by Gerald Sylvester? That may have been what he was implying, but as pointed out, just because I was flying in IMC with an instructor for my PPL training doesn't not automatically mean I was flying illegally. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * The prime directive of Linux: * * - learn what you don't know, * * - teach what you do. * * (Just my 20 USm$) * ************************************************** *********************** |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump" because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about icing). But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing", and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal. Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing. And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall back on. Operating outside the manufacturer's specifications is a dangerous option. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Teacherjh" wrote in message ... I am free to do something stupid with airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me. That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood. I did not misunderstand it. Until you can find an airplane that stays in the air when it crashes, flying in icing conditions without proper equipment endangers people and property on the ground. Actually, the FARs mean what they say. Unfortunately, there are many in the FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are commonly "misinterpreted". The end result is either your certificate is lifted, or it isn't. The FAA gets to decide. If the FAA "mis"interprets its own regulations and lifts your certificate, your certificate is still lifted. That is the magic of Administrative Law. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message ... "Barry" wrote in message hlink.net... Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched in an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known Icing.' 135 is a different story. There are specific rules about forecast icing (135.227). This doesn't apply to part 91. Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through their own sham rulemaking process. I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them authority to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved Data. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through their own sham rulemaking process. I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them authority to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved Data. I'm referring to the application of "known icing" rules when there is no certification data to the contrary. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through their own sham rulemaking process. I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them authority to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved Data. I'm referring to the application of "known icing" rules when there is no certification data to the contrary. I suppose FAA would have to "speculate" on the airworthyness of those pre POH required airplanes. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... That may have been what he was implying, but as pointed out, just because I was flying in IMC with an instructor for my PPL training doesn't not automatically mean I was flying illegally. That was MY point. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing. ???? Bwhahahah |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|