wrote in
:

On Dec 3, 6:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Peter Clark wrote
:



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..

Bertie

According to
http://www.fedex.com/us/about/today/...ess/facts.html
FedEx operates 10 Caravan 208A'sand 243 208B's. If they weren't
certified for known ice there would be a lot of late packages. Weeks
late, sometimes.

Well, just because this thread is giving me a headache..


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%
5CrgAD.nsf/0/243AECE0725E4009862572DE0050A037?OpenDocument



Bertie