X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:38:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms048pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1992733 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:45:25 -0400 Received: from [192.168.111.2] ([70.19.44.28]) by vms048.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JGP00IHTWMZHCP1@vms048.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:45:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:44:57 -0400 From: Kevin Kossi Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?FAA's_draft_letter_of_interpretation_=91=91know?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?n_icing_condition=92=92?= X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-79-1064201974 --Apple-Mail-79-1064201974 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed This is an improvement! Kevin Kossi Legacy N77PX DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No. FAA=962007=9627758] Known Icing Conditions AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of draft letter of interpretation. SUMMARY: This draft letter of interpretation addresses a request by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) that the FAA rescind a letter of interpretation dated June 6, 2006 regarding =91=91known icing conditions=92=92. Because of the controversy surrounding this issue, the FAA is publishing a draft of its response to seek public comment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 17, 2006, Luis Gutierrez, Director of Regulatory and Certification Policy for AOPA, requested the FAA=92s Office of the Chief Counsel rescind a letter of interpretation issued by the FAA=92s Office of the Regional Counsel, Eastern Region, regarding flight in known icing conditions. The letter of interpretation, dated June 6, 2006, responded to a request by Robert Miller that the FAA clarify when =91=91known ice=92=92 exists for purposes of enforcement action. The FAA recognizes that the term =91=91known icing condition=92=92, the term addressed in the June 2006 letter of interpretation, could be misconstrued. Based on one=92s interpretation of the term, the FAA=92s prohibitions against flying into known icing conditions under certain circumstances could either have the effect of placing severe constraints on when individuals in aircraft without deicing equipment could fly or allowing these individuals to fly in conditions where there is a real risk of ice accretion with no means of removing the ice. Because the FAA has been asked to rescind the June 6, 2006 letter of interpretation, we have decided to publish a draft of our response in the Federal Register and seek comment on it. Based upon comments received in the docket, the FAA may decide to reevaluate its position on known icing conditions. The text of the draft response is as follows: Luis M. Gutierrez, Director, Regulatory and Certification Policy, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701=96 4798. Re: Legal Interpretation of Known Icing Conditions Dear Mr. Gutierrez: In a letter dated November 21, 2006, to the FAA Chief Counsel=92s Office, you requested the rescission of a letter of interpretation regarding flight in known icing conditions, issued by this office on June 6, 2006. The Chief Counsel=92s Office has referred your letter to us for response. After considering the points you and other stakeholders have raised, we are replacing our June 6 letter through the issuance of this revision. Our letter of June 6, 2006, responded to a request by Robert J. Miller for a legal interpretation of =91=91known ice=92=92 as it relates to flight operations. We construed the request as seeking clarification of the meaning of =91=91known icing conditions=92=92 as that term appears in the Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM) or Pilot Operating Handbooks for many general aviation aircraft. That is also the term addressed in legal proceedings involving violations of FAA safety regulations that relate to in-flight icing. The NTSB has held that known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know of weather reports in which icing conditions are reported or forecast.1 While various FAA regulations contain limitations on flight in known icing conditions, the regulatory provision that most commonly affects general aviation operators in this respect applies the term only indirectly. 14 CFR 91.9 precludes pilots from operating contrary to the operating limitations in their aircraft=92s approved AFM. The operating limitations identify whether the aircraft is equipped to operate in known icing conditions and may prohibit or restrict such flights for many general aviation aircraft. 14 CFR 91.103 requires pilots to become familiar with all available information concerning their flights before undertaking them. Permutations on the type, combination, and strength of meteorological elements that signify or negate the presence of known icing conditions are too numerous to describe exhaustively in this letter. Any assessment of known icing conditions is necessarily fact-specific. However, the NTSB=92s decisionmaking reflects the common understanding that the formation of structural ice requires two elements: visible moisture and an aircraft surface temperature at or below zero degrees Celsius. Even in the presence of these elements, there are many variables that influence whether ice will actually form on and adhere to an aircraft. The size of the water droplets, the shape of the airfoil, or the speed of the aircraft, among other factors, can make a critical difference in the initiation and growth of structural ice. Whether a pilot has operated into known icing conditions contrary to any limitation will depend upon the information available to the pilot, and his or her proper analysis of that information in connection with the particular operation (e.g., route of flight, altitude, time of flight, airspeed, and aircraft performance characteristics), in evaluating the risk of encountering known icing conditions. The FAA, your own association, and other aviation- or weather-oriented organizations offer considerable information on the phenomenon of aircraft icing. Pilots are encouraged to use this information for a greater appreciation of the risks that flying in potential icing conditions can present. Likewise, a variety of sources VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:30 Apr 02, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 =20 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 =20 with NOTICES 15932 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / =20 Notices 2 Enforcement action could also be taken for operation of an aircraft into icing conditions that exceed the certification limitations of the aircraft. provide meteorological information that relates to forecast and actual conditions that are conducive to in-flight icing. Pilots should carefully evaluate all of the available meteorological information relevant to the proposed flight, including applicable surface observations, temperatures aloft, terminal and area forecasts, AIRMETs, SIGMETs, and pilot reports. As new technology becomes available, pilots should incorporate use of that technology into their decision-making process. The ultimate decision whether, when, and where to make the flight rests with the pilot. A pilot also must continue to reevaluate changing weather conditions. If the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will encounter visible moisture at freezing or near freezing temperatures and that ice will adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist. If the AFM prohibits flight in known icing conditions and the pilot operates in such conditions, the FAA could take enforcement action.2 Pilots should also remain aware that 14 CFR =A4 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=92s operation under the circumstances was careless. This response constitutes an interpretation of the Chief Counsel=92s Office and was coordinated with the FAA=92s Flight Standards Service. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2007. Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. [FR Doc. 07=961620 Filed 4=962=9607; 8:45 am] --Apple-Mail-79-1064201974 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
This is an = improvement!

Kevin Kossi
Legacy = N77PX

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA=962007=9627758]
Known Icing Conditions
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of draft letter of
interpretation.
SUMMARY: This draft letter of
interpretation addresses a request by = the
Aircraft Owners = and Pilots Association
(AOPA) that the = FAA rescind a letter of
interpretation dated June 6, 2006
regarding =91=91known icing = conditions=92=92.
Because of the = controversy surrounding
this issue, the FAA is publishing a = draft
of its response to = seek public comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: = On
November 17, 2006, = Luis Gutierrez,
Director of = Regulatory and Certification
Policy for AOPA, requested the = FAA=92s
Office of the = Chief Counsel rescind a
letter of interpretation issued by = the
FAA=92s Office of = the Regional Counsel,
Eastern Region, = regarding flight in
known icing = conditions. The letter of
interpretation, dated June 6, = 2006,
responded to a = request by Robert Miller
that the FAA clarify when =91=91known = ice=92=92
exists for = purposes of enforcement
action.
The FAA recognizes = that the term
=91=91known icing = condition=92=92, the term
addressed in the June 2006 letter = of
interpretation, = could be misconstrued.
Based on one=92s = interpretation of the
term, the FAA=92s = prohibitions against
flying into known = icing conditions
under certain = circumstances could
either have the = effect of placing severe
constraints on when individuals in
aircraft without deicing equipment
could fly or allowing these = individuals
to fly in = conditions where there is a real
risk of ice accretion with no means = of
removing the ice. = Because the FAA has
been asked to = rescind the June 6, 2006
letter of interpretation, we have = decided
to publish a draft = of our response in the
Federal Register = and seek comment on
it. Based upon = comments received in
the docket, the = FAA may decide to
reevaluate its = position on known icing
conditions. The text of the draft
response is as follows:
Luis M. Gutierrez, Director, = Regulatory
and Certification = Policy, Aircraft
Owners and Pilots = Association, 421
Aviation Way, = Frederick, MD 21701=96
4798.
Re: Legal = Interpretation of Known Icing
Conditions
Dear Mr. = Gutierrez:
In a letter dated = November 21, 2006,
to the FAA Chief = Counsel=92s Office, you
requested the rescission of a letter = of
interpretation = regarding flight in known
icing conditions, issued by this office = on
June 6, 2006. The = Chief Counsel=92s Office
has referred your letter to us for
response. After considering the = points
you and other = stakeholders have raised,
we are replacing our June 6 letter
through the issuance of this = revision.
Our letter of June = 6, 2006, responded
to a request by = Robert J. Miller for a
legal = interpretation of =91=91known ice=92=92 as = it
relates to flight = operations. We
construed the = request as seeking
clarification of = the meaning of =91=91known
icing conditions=92=92 as that term = appears
in the Airplane = Flight Manuals (AFM)
or Pilot Operating = Handbooks for many
general aviation = aircraft. That is also the
term addressed in legal = proceedings
involving = violations of FAA safety
regulations that relate to in-flight = icing.
The NTSB has held = that known icing
conditions exist = when a pilot knows or
reasonably should = know of weather
reports in which = icing conditions are
reported or = forecast.1
While various FAA = regulations
contain = limitations on flight in known
icing conditions, the regulatory
provision that most commonly = affects
general aviation = operators in this respect
applies the term only indirectly. 14 = CFR
91.9 precludes = pilots from operating
contrary to the = operating limitations in
their aircraft=92s approved AFM. = The
operating = limitations identify whether
the aircraft is equipped to operate = in
known icing = conditions and may
prohibit or = restrict such flights for many
general aviation aircraft. 14 CFR = 91.103
requires pilots to = become familiar with
all available = information concerning
their flights = before undertaking them.
Permutations on the type,
combination, and strength of
meteorological elements that signify = or
negate the = presence of known icing
conditions are too numerous to = describe
exhaustively in = this letter. Any
assessment of = known icing conditions is
necessarily fact-specific. However, = the
NTSB=92s = decisionmaking reflects the
common understanding that the
formation of structural ice requires = two
elements: visible = moisture and an
aircraft surface = temperature at or below
zero degrees Celsius. Even in the
presence of these elements, there = are
many variables = that influence whether
ice will actually = form on and adhere to
an aircraft. The = size of the water
droplets, the = shape of the airfoil, or the
speed of the aircraft, among other
factors, can make a critical difference = in
the initiation and = growth of structural
ice.
Whether a pilot = has operated into
known icing = conditions contrary to any
limitation will depend upon the
information available to the pilot, = and
his or her proper = analysis of that
information in = connection with the
particular = operation (e.g., route of flight,
altitude, time of flight, airspeed, = and
aircraft = performance characteristics), in
evaluating the risk of = encountering
known icing = conditions. The FAA, your
own association, and other aviation- = or
weather-oriented = organizations offer
considerable = information on the
phenomenon of = aircraft icing. Pilots are
encouraged to use this information for = a
greater = appreciation of the risks that
flying in potential icing conditions = can
present. Likewise, = a variety of sources
VerDate = Aug<31>2005 18:30 Apr 02, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt = 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 ycherry on = PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
15932 = Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / = Notices
2 = Enforcement action could also be taken = for
operation of an = aircraft into icing conditions that
exceed the certification limitations of the = aircraft.
provide = meteorological information that
relates to forecast and actual = conditions
that are conducive = to in-flight icing.
Pilots should = carefully evaluate all of
the available meteorological = information
relevant to the = proposed flight,
including = applicable surface
observations, = temperatures aloft,
terminal and area = forecasts, AIRMETs,
SIGMETs, and pilot = reports. As new
technology becomes = available, pilots
should incorporate = use of that
technology into = their decision-making
process.
The ultimate = decision whether, when,
and where to make the flight rests = with
the pilot. A pilot = also must continue to
reevaluate = changing weather conditions.
If the composite information = indicates
to a reasonable = and prudent pilot that he
or she will encounter visible moisture = at
freezing or near = freezing temperatures
and that ice will = adhere to the aircraft
along the proposed = route and altitude of
flight, then known = icing conditions
likely exist. If = the AFM prohibits flight
in known icing conditions and the = pilot
operates in such = conditions, the FAA
could take = enforcement action.2
Pilots should also = remain aware that
14 CFR =A4 = 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=92s operation under
the circumstances was careless.
This response constitutes an
interpretation of the Chief = Counsel=92s
Office and was = coordinated with the
FAA=92s Flight = Standards Service.
Issued in = Washington, DC, on March 27,
2007.
Rebecca = MacPherson,
Assistant Chief = Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 07=961620 Filed 4=962=9607; 8:45 = am]


= --Apple-Mail-79-1064201974--