View Single Post
Old 11-23-2008 | 01:11 PM
  #68  
990Convair's Avatar
990Convair
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
Likes: 3
From: Heavily Involved
Default

[quote=990Convair;504752]And more fodder for consideration.....



On a roll here with this....man, it looks like the smart decision would be to stay at the hotel and drink some beer.....

In explaining their definition of known ice, Loretta E. Alkalay, FAA Regional Counsel, referenced Administrator v. Curtis, NTSB Order No. EA-5154 (April 29, 2005). Here, the court ruled that conditions conducive to icing exists whenever near- or below-freezing temperatures and moisture exist together in a given area. It didn't matter that there were no reports or forecasts of icing conditions at any altitude anywhere near the route of flight.

The Regional Counsel's office also referenced Administrator v. Groszer, NTSB Order No. EA-3770 (January 5, 1993), which ruled that the threat of ice need not cover the entire area at all altitudes for the threat to be known or dangerous. In short, the FAA defines known ice as any visible moisture (cloud or limiting visibility due to moisture) with temperatures at or near freezing. If you go there in a non-known-ice-certified aircraft, you are in violation. Period.

The Regional Counsel's letter to me clarified the definition of known ice. You cannot legally fly a non-known-ice-certified airplane into any cloud near or below zero degrees C or you are in violation. If the FAA learns, either by direct observation or via a filed complaint, that a non-known-ice-certified aircraft entered a freezing cloud, it will initiate the EDT process and an enforcement may, or may not, result.

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/defining...n_faa_ifr.html

---------------------------------------

Pilots should also remain aware that 14 CFR Sec. 91.13(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft for the purpose of air navigation in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life
or property of another. Meteorological information that does not evidence known icing conditions, or the extent thereof, may regardless support a finding that a pilot's operation under the circumstances was careless.

This response constitutes an interpretation of the Chief Counsel's Office and was coordinated with the FAA's Flight Standards Service.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2007.
Rebecca MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 07-1620 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...07/07-1620.htm
Reply