Source: http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?s=0847ba05bfbfe78cb1f5e685a27025eb&t=3612
Timestamp: 2020-07-02 05:49:00
Document Index: 15623872

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 91', 'art 91', 'art 23', 'art 135', 'art 91', 'art 91', 'art 21', 'art 23', 'art 21', 'art 135']

FAA letter on flight into known icing - AviationBanter
FAA letter on flight into known icing
December 17th 03, 05:10 PM
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:
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
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
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 -----
Perotka-Moye To: Dennis Franks/ANM/[email protected]
12/06/2003 06:13 Subject: Flight into known icing conditions
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.
----- Forwarded by Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/FAA on 12/06/2003 06:10 PM -----
"Christopher J Campbell" To: Sarah Perotka-Moye/ANM/[email protected]
Subject: Flight into known icing conditions
12/01/2003 08:59
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
If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
December 17th 03, 06:48 PM
I am a firm believer that icing is bad, even a little ice is bad.
December 17th 03, 06:58 PM
There was an earlier thread on whether it was legal to fly an airplane
part 91 into known icing if there was no specific prohibition against it
the airplane's operating handbook. I asked the Seattle FSDO what their
known icing conditions resides in the Federal Aviation Regulations
I am a Principal Operations Inspector with the Seattle FSDO and am
Actually, until a couple of weeks ago, I, like yourself, believed that
Unfortunately, at that time one of our brethren pilots caused me find
the exact answer to this question. The rule is FAR 91.9 - "Civil
Flight Manual, Marking, and Placard Requirements," paragraph (a). It
in short, "... no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying
the operating limitations specified in ...." a Flight Manual specific to
either a specific placard and/or a mention in the operating handbook
facing a violation for operating contrary to the operating limitations
the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue
This goes back to how the aircraft was originally "type" certificated.
the case of light single engine aircraft, such certification is done
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.
December 17th 03, 07:07 PM
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
December 17th 03, 07:16 PM
December 17th 03, 07:31 PM
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
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
the aircraft by flying into icing conditions he knew existed (by virtue of
aircraft that has such a prohibition has been tested and failed. Of
what the prohibition in the type most likely means is that the aircraft
spread the word on how this "icing" limitation works in the FARs because
Thanks again. Please call me at (425) 227-2240 if you have other
We were talking about flight into known icing conditions the other day,
applies only to large and turbine powered aircraft, and Part 135 has its
prohibition against flight into icing conditions in the Limitations
December 17th 03, 07:33 PM
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.
December 17th 03, 10:33 PM
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.
December 17th 03, 10:35 PM
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. :-)
December 17th 03, 10:46 PM
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"
FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions O. Sami Saydjari Instrument Flight Rules 98 December 11th 03 06:58 AM