Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:04:47 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
.. .
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."

Don't know, can't say. I do know some planes have boots et al and are still not certified for flight into *known* ice.
As soon as someone pireps 'ice' the plane cannot legally fly in..

Yes, and those aircraft do not have TCDS entries et al covering flight
into known icing. They have POH supplements covering their
"Inadvertant icing exit equipment". But the Cessna Caravan type
certainly has known ice certification.