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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FAA letter on flight into known icing
There was an earlier thread on whether it was legal to fly an airplane under
part 91 into known icing if there was no specific prohibition against it in the airplane's operating handbook. I asked the Seattle FSDO what their take was on the issue. This is their reply: Dear Mr. Campbell: Thanks for your e-mail asking where the prohibition against flight into known icing conditions resides in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). I am a Principal Operations Inspector with the Seattle FSDO and am assigned to answer your question. Actually, until a couple of weeks ago, I, like yourself, believed that it resided in some dark part of Part 91 that I was not familiar with. Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find out the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It says, in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to the aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook that flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations of the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of a briefing). This goes back to how the aircraft was originally "type" certificated. In the case of light single engine aircraft, such certification is done under FAR Part 23. I think the tendency most of us have is to think that an aircraft that has such a prohibition has been tested and failed. Of course, what the prohibition in the type most likely means is that the aircraft has not been tested in a known hazard. In the case of icing, it was probably wisely assumed that such an operation with such an aircraft would likely have a negative result. If you consider the opposite situation, aircraft approved for flight into known icing conditions have had specific testing, specific additional equipment, and specific limitations added to the basic aircraft. We are hoping that you will help us and the rest of the flying community spread the word on how this "icing" limitation works in the FARs because our experience tells us that there are folks flying who firmly believe that if it's not written down, it must be okay to do it. Thanks again. Please call me at (425) 227-2240 if you have other questions. Dennis Franks, Seattle FSDO ----- Forwarded by Dennis Franks/ANM/FAA on 12/09/2003 05:26 PM ----- Sarah Perotka-Moye To: Dennis Franks/ANM/FAA@FAA cc: 12/06/2003 06:13 Subject: Flight into known icing conditions PM Dennis-- I overlooked this message, so it is coming to you late. Please respond to Mr. Campbell and cc me on your response. I'll print out the question and response for the files, so you don't need to. Thanks, Sarah ----- Forwarded by Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA on 12/06/2003 06:10 PM ----- "Christopher J Campbell" To: Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA@FAA Subject: Flight into known icing conditions 12/01/2003 08:59 AM Sarah, We were talking about flight into known icing conditions the other day, and someone asked where it is actually prohibited by the FARs. FAR 91.527 applies only to large and turbine powered aircraft, and Part 135 has its own language prohibiting flight into known icing conditions, but there appears to be no specific prohibition that applies to general aviation aircraft under part 91. The only thing that I can find on the subject is the prohibition against flight into icing conditions in the Limitations section of the operating handbook in most modern light aircraft. It would be helpful if I had any additional references that I could direct my students to. Or am I wrong on this matter? Christopher Campbell, CFII -- Christopher J. Campbell World Famous Flight Instructor Port Orchard, WA If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
thanks for posting that.
I am a firm believer that icing is bad, even a little ice is bad. C J Campbell wrote: There was an earlier thread on whether it was legal to fly an airplane under part 91 into known icing if there was no specific prohibition against it in the airplane's operating handbook. I asked the Seattle FSDO what their take was on the issue. This is their reply: Dear Mr. Campbell: Thanks for your e-mail asking where the prohibition against flight into known icing conditions resides in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). I am a Principal Operations Inspector with the Seattle FSDO and am assigned to answer your question. Actually, until a couple of weeks ago, I, like yourself, believed that it resided in some dark part of Part 91 that I was not familiar with. Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find out the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It says, in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to the aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook that flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations of the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of a briefing). This goes back to how the aircraft was originally "type" certificated. In the case of light single engine aircraft, such certification is done under FAR Part 23. I think the tendency most of us have is to think that an aircraft that has such a prohibition has been tested and failed. Of course, what the prohibition in the type most likely means is that the aircraft has not been tested in a known hazard. In the case of icing, it was probably wisely assumed that such an operation with such an aircraft would likely have a negative result. If you consider the opposite situation, aircraft approved for flight into known icing conditions have had specific testing, specific additional equipment, and specific limitations added to the basic aircraft. We are hoping that you will help us and the rest of the flying community spread the word on how this "icing" limitation works in the FARs because our experience tells us that there are folks flying who firmly believe that if it's not written down, it must be okay to do it. Thanks again. Please call me at (425) 227-2240 if you have other questions. Dennis Franks, Seattle FSDO ----- Forwarded by Dennis Franks/ANM/FAA on 12/09/2003 05:26 PM ----- Sarah Perotka-Moye To: Dennis Franks/ANM/FAA@FAA cc: 12/06/2003 06:13 Subject: Flight into known icing conditions PM Dennis-- I overlooked this message, so it is coming to you late. Please respond to Mr. Campbell and cc me on your response. I'll print out the question and response for the files, so you don't need to. Thanks, Sarah ----- Forwarded by Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA on 12/06/2003 06:10 PM ----- "Christopher J Campbell" To: Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA@FAA Subject: Flight into known icing conditions 12/01/2003 08:59 AM Sarah, We were talking about flight into known icing conditions the other day, and someone asked where it is actually prohibited by the FARs. FAR 91.527 applies only to large and turbine powered aircraft, and Part 135 has its own language prohibiting flight into known icing conditions, but there appears to be no specific prohibition that applies to general aviation aircraft under part 91. The only thing that I can find on the subject is the prohibition against flight into icing conditions in the Limitations section of the operating handbook in most modern light aircraft. It would be helpful if I had any additional references that I could direct my students to. Or am I wrong on this matter? Christopher Campbell, CFII -- Christopher J. Campbell World Famous Flight Instructor Port Orchard, WA If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff" wrote in message ... thanks for posting that. I am a firm believer that icing is bad, even a little ice is bad. C J Campbell wrote: There was an earlier thread on whether it was legal to fly an airplane under part 91 into known icing if there was no specific prohibition against it in the airplane's operating handbook. I asked the Seattle FSDO what their take was on the issue. This is their reply: Dear Mr. Campbell: Thanks for your e-mail asking where the prohibition against flight into known icing conditions resides in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). I am a Principal Operations Inspector with the Seattle FSDO and am assigned to answer your question. Actually, until a couple of weeks ago, I, like yourself, believed that it resided in some dark part of Part 91 that I was not familiar with. Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find out the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It says, in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to the aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook that flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations of the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of a briefing). This goes back to how the aircraft was originally "type" certificated. In the case of light single engine aircraft, such certification is done under FAR Part 23. And you know, the FSDO was doing fine until he got to here, but Type Certification is a Part 21 activity. A change to the Type Certificate that adds anti-icing capability through an STC would be Part 23, which would also change the POH. It looks to me like he was parroting rai anyway. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find out the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It says, in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to the aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook that flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations of the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of a briefing). So my 1949 Bonanza that was certified under CAR 3 (I think that was what it was called before we got part 21 or 23 or what ever it currently is). It has no placards or verbage in the POH mentioning icing anywhere. Therefore I am perfectly legal getting into known icing? It would be rather stupid of me, but according to this referance I would be legal? -- Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message ... C J Campbell wrote: Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find out the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It says, in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to the aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook that flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations of the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of a briefing). So my 1949 Bonanza that was certified under CAR 3 (I think that was what it was called before we got part 21 or 23 or what ever it currently is). It has no placards or verbage in the POH mentioning icing anywhere. Therefore I am perfectly legal getting into known icing? It would be rather stupid of me, but according to this referance I would be legal? Si. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This is interesting but the question of the legality of flying an older
plane that does not have a placard prohibiting flight into icing remains unanswered. Mike MU-2 "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... There was an earlier thread on whether it was legal to fly an airplane under part 91 into known icing if there was no specific prohibition against it in the airplane's operating handbook. I asked the Seattle FSDO what their take was on the issue. This is their reply: Dear Mr. Campbell: Thanks for your e-mail asking where the prohibition against flight into known icing conditions resides in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). I am a Principal Operations Inspector with the Seattle FSDO and am assigned to answer your question. Actually, until a couple of weeks ago, I, like yourself, believed that it resided in some dark part of Part 91 that I was not familiar with. Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find out the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It says, in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to the aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook that flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations of the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of a briefing). This goes back to how the aircraft was originally "type" certificated. In the case of light single engine aircraft, such certification is done under FAR Part 23. I think the tendency most of us have is to think that an aircraft that has such a prohibition has been tested and failed. Of course, what the prohibition in the type most likely means is that the aircraft has not been tested in a known hazard. In the case of icing, it was probably wisely assumed that such an operation with such an aircraft would likely have a negative result. If you consider the opposite situation, aircraft approved for flight into known icing conditions have had specific testing, specific additional equipment, and specific limitations added to the basic aircraft. We are hoping that you will help us and the rest of the flying community spread the word on how this "icing" limitation works in the FARs because our experience tells us that there are folks flying who firmly believe that if it's not written down, it must be okay to do it. Thanks again. Please call me at (425) 227-2240 if you have other questions. Dennis Franks, Seattle FSDO ----- Forwarded by Dennis Franks/ANM/FAA on 12/09/2003 05:26 PM ----- Sarah Perotka-Moye To: Dennis Franks/ANM/FAA@FAA cc: 12/06/2003 06:13 Subject: Flight into known icing conditions PM Dennis-- I overlooked this message, so it is coming to you late. Please respond to Mr. Campbell and cc me on your response. I'll print out the question and response for the files, so you don't need to. Thanks, Sarah ----- Forwarded by Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA on 12/06/2003 06:10 PM ----- "Christopher J Campbell" To: Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA@FAA Subject: Flight into known icing conditions 12/01/2003 08:59 AM Sarah, We were talking about flight into known icing conditions the other day, and someone asked where it is actually prohibited by the FARs. FAR 91.527 applies only to large and turbine powered aircraft, and Part 135 has its own language prohibiting flight into known icing conditions, but there appears to be no specific prohibition that applies to general aviation aircraft under part 91. The only thing that I can find on the subject is the prohibition against flight into icing conditions in the Limitations section of the operating handbook in most modern light aircraft. It would be helpful if I had any additional references that I could direct my students to. Or am I wrong on this matter? Christopher Campbell, CFII -- Christopher J. Campbell World Famous Flight Instructor Port Orchard, WA If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... This is interesting but the question of the legality of flying an older plane that does not have a placard prohibiting flight into icing remains unanswered. There is no written prohibition to the activity in question. Such a suicide would be legal and we would miss the operator greatly, but in case of survival, there would be no prosecution; except Administratively. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
There was an earlier thread on whether it was legal to fly an airplane under part 91 into known icing if there was no specific prohibition against it in the airplane's operating handbook. I asked the Seattle FSDO what their take was on the issue. This is their reply: I think the issue is one of what constitutes known icing. Is it from a pirep, weather balloon, etc., that has actually seen/encountered the icing or is a forecast from some weather guy on the ground who thinks ice might occur sufficient to constitute known icing. Most pilots of light aircraft know it is both dumb and illegal to fly into a location where icing is REALLY know to exist. However, to me, a forecast isn't "known", it is "possible", maybe even "likely", but hardly known. Matt |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Stutzman wrote:
C J Campbell wrote: Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find out the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It says, in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to the aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook that flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations of the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of a briefing). So my 1949 Bonanza that was certified under CAR 3 (I think that was what it was called before we got part 21 or 23 or what ever it currently is). It has no placards or verbage in the POH mentioning icing anywhere. Therefore I am perfectly legal getting into known icing? It would be rather stupid of me, but according to this referance I would be legal? You might be legal, but you'd also be a test pilot. They might throw the book at you for impersonating a test pilot ... unless, that is, you ARE a test pilot. :-) Matt |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
No John, the FSDO has it right. The certification basis for most
small aircraft is FAR 23. Just check the type certificate data sheets for any model. It is either CAR 3 or 23. FAR 21 is only the procedural requirements for the issuance of a TC. There are no specifications in 21. An STC must meet the same certification requirements as a TC (FAR23). On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:58:06 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message ... thanks for posting that. I am a firm believer that icing is bad, even a little ice is bad. C J Campbell wrote: There was an earlier thread on whether it was legal to fly an airplane under part 91 into known icing if there was no specific prohibition against it in the airplane's operating handbook. I asked the Seattle FSDO what their take was on the issue. This is their reply: Dear Mr. Campbell: Thanks for your e-mail asking where the prohibition against flight into known icing conditions resides in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). I am a Principal Operations Inspector with the Seattle FSDO and am assigned to answer your question. Actually, until a couple of weeks ago, I, like yourself, believed that it resided in some dark part of Part 91 that I was not familiar with. Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find out the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It says, in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to the aircraft, by markings or placards, or ".... otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority." Most light aircraft (i.e., Cessna 172s) have either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook that flight into known icing is forbidden. The unhappy pilot in question is facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations of the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of a briefing). This goes back to how the aircraft was originally "type" certificated. In the case of light single engine aircraft, such certification is done under FAR Part 23. And you know, the FSDO was doing fine until he got to here, but Type Certification is a Part 21 activity. A change to the Type Certificate that adds anti-icing capability through an STC would be Part 23, which would also change the POH. It looks to me like he was parroting rai anyway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 | Mark Oliver | Aerobatics | 1 | October 5th 04 10:20 PM |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 98 | December 11th 03 06:58 AM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |