Last month the FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SW-08-03) containing “recommendations for rotorcraft during icing conditions.” The SAIB describes “procedures to reduce the probability of an engine in-flight shutdown due to ice and snow ingestion,” including special precautions during winter pre-flights and ground power settings.
Sikorsky’s S-92 has successfully completed the artificial icing requirement of the FAA’s icing-certification program, thus preparing the aircraft for its final all-weather-operations certification phase. It has already completed more than 80 percent of the requirements for icing certification and begun natural icing trials, with several successful natural icing events flown to date.
The FAA last month released a final rule governing certification of transport-category (Part 25) airplanes for operation in icing conditions. The new rule, which takes effect October 9, effectively added new material to Part 25, Appendix C, the section that details the so-called icing envelope.
The FAA yesterday released a final rule governing certification of transport-category (Part 25) airplanes for operation in icing conditions, effective October 9. In publishing the new rules, the FAA added new material to Part 25, Appendix C, the section that details the so-called icing envelope. The new Appendix C material, however, does not address the NTSB’s desire for the icing envelope to be expanded to include larger icing droplets.
Summer is almost upon us in the northern hemisphere, but the FAA is embroiled in two significant icing-related issues: a proposed new rule for when de-ice systems are activated and a new interpretation of the term “known icing.”
Comments are due today on an FAA draft letter of interpretation released April 3 on the meaning of the term “known icing conditions.” At press time, 82 comments had been filed, mainly by individuals.
In an unusual policy step, the FAA sought comments last month on a draft letter of interpretation regarding the meaning of the term “known icing conditions,” used–but undefined–in the FARs.
An FAA draft letter of interpretation seeks public comment by May 3 on the meaning of the term “known icing conditions,” used–but undefined–in the FARs.
Every few years, a debate erupts about whether the phenomenon of ice bridging is real or something questionable that pilots discuss while hangar flying or warning of the dangers of flying in icing conditions. The issue recently resurfaced at an NTSB public meeting about the icing-related crash of a Cessna Citation 560 in Pueblo, Colo., on Feb. 16, 2005.
Cessna Citation 550, Fort Yukon, Alaska, Sept. 30, 2005–The NTSB has concluded that the University of North Dakota icing research jet accident was caused by the pilot’s improper use of anti-icing equipment during cruise, which resulted in ice ingestion into both engines and the complete loss of power. Factors were the icing conditions, inadequate crew resource management and failure to use a checklist.