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.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
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.

Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...

Just looked up the TCDS:
"Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/556b576d4887764e862572430067fcaf/$FILE/A37CE-12.pdf

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:00:57 -0500, "Blueskies"
wrote:


Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...

Just looked up the TCDS:
"Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/556b576d4887764e862572430067fcaf/$FILE/A37CE-12.pdf


Which, as I said a long time ago, is a different argument than the
original poster which said the TYPE is not certified for known icing.
I asked whether they meant the specific crash aircraft wasn't properly
equipped, or whether they really were trying to say the Caravan type
wasn't certified, and we went down the rathole of people asserting,
contrary to facts presented, that the type isn't certified. The type
is clearly certified, and aircraft within are permitted when equipped
per the supplement S2, "Known Icing Equipment".

On Dec 5, 4:00 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:

Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...

Just looked up the TCDS:
"Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel...

No, they won't all have it. Some operators wouldn't often need or
use it: sightseeing and skydiving operators come to mind. There are
other airplanes the same way: you can have a 210 or many other
aircraft with or without it. De- or anti-ice equipment is expensive
and heavy and an operator wouldn't want it if he'll never need it. The
TCDS just provides the basis for certification into known ice if the
equipment is installed by either Cessna or according to whatever STC
other makers might have for it, and is maintained in an airworthy
condition.

Dan