On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:07:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote in
:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified
for flight into known ice, although the plane in question did have
boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice.
If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported ice, is
the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."


Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing in the
past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an additional
requirement for continued certification for flight into known icing
conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known icing, but I know a
few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them next time I see them.
I do remember them saying that they weren't impressed with it in icing ( I
think it has some problem with it's tail surfaces in icing) but I think it
is legal..

As previously mentioned, there are a bunch of ADs running around
mandating extra icing gear and procedures because of a number of
crashes involving Caravans and ice. From what I know, never having
flown one, they really don't seem do well in it, but that's a
different animal than a blanket statement that the Cessna Caravan type
does not have known ice certification.