[Federal Register: April 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 15931-15932]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03ap07-103]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA-2007-27758]
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 ``known icing
conditions''. Because of the controversy surrounding this issue, the
FAA is publishing a draft of its response to seek public comment.
DATES: Send your comments on or before May 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by docket number, using
any of the following methods:
1. DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments electronically.
2. Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
3. Facsimile: (202) 493-2251.
4. Hand delivery: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Glendening, Regulations
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 17, 2006, Luis Gutierrez,
Director of Regulatory and Certification Policy for AOPA, requested the
FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel rescind a letter of interpretation
issued by the FAA's 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 ``known ice'' exists for purposes of
enforcement action.
The FAA recognizes that the term ``known icing condition'', the
term addressed in the June 2006 letter of interpretation, could be
misconstrued. Based on one's interpretation of the term, the FAA's
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
21701-4798.
Re: Legal Interpretation of Known Icing Conditions
Dear Mr. Gutierrez:
In a letter dated November 21, 2006, to the FAA Chief Counsel's
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's 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 ``known ice'' as it relates to
flight operations. We construed the request as seeking clarification of
the meaning of ``known icing conditions'' 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See e.g., Administrator v. Boger, N.T.S.B. Order No. EA-4525
(Feb. 14, 1997); Administrator v. Groszer, NTSB Order No. EA-3770
(Jan. 5, 1993); Administrator v. Bowen, 2 N.T.S.B. 940, 943 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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's 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's 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
[[Page 15932]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Enforcement action could also be taken for operation of an
aircraft into icing conditions that exceed the certification
limitations of the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M