Take-off performance charts are also provided for both ice vanes extended and ice vanes retracted.
BINGO!!
You'll note, perhaps with some apprehension, that the performance charts are manufacturer data...not offhand comments made by an operations inspector, and not what you remember as the "first commercial operator of King air's on the west coast." The real data...the stuff you apparently don't remember or know...supports takeoff with the ice vanes extended. Go figure.
All the rest from the same source is generally nonsense.
Apparently not. Further, your statements were in error before, and are still wrong...as are you.
Looking through type certificate 3A20 (which includes the E90 model), ice deflectors/vanes are not mentioned.
As to their use on gravel runways, recommended generally speaking, on sealed/clean runways, closed/retracted.
Flight Safety/Simuflite etc only has their recommendations, which are not regulatory.
STC's were not mentioned by the original poster, so they are of no consequence to the present discussion.
You'll not find the use of the ice vanes in the TCDS, nor will you find operating recommendations there for gravel runways. It is, after all, a type certificate, not an operating instruction.
FSI and Simuflite base their guidance quite strictly on the manufacturer data and recommendations, not their own. The issue of whether they are "regulatory" or not is irrelevant. The manufacturer data isn't regulatory either, as it's not a regulation. Compliance with manufacturer data, however is mandatory...and let's not forget that the manufacturer provides guidance, operating data, and instructions for takeoff with the vanes deployed...STC or no. The only restriction is such circumstances where the minor torque loss incurred with vane deployment cannot be tolerated for reasons of performance...otherwise, one is not prohibited from taking off with the ice vanes deployed.
Why else do you suppose the manufacturer presents data for takeoff with the vanes deployed?
As for the efficacy of the Raisebeck inlet vanes...it's quite applicable seeing as they're widely used. Further, the original poster inquired about the PT6, not just the King Air...and whereas the PT6 doesn't employ ice vanes, but they're a customer application, then each application of vanes is very much appropriate here...both the Raytheon installation and the common Raisbeck installation are each equally applicable...and neither one comes with a prohibition against use during takeoff. Again, go figure.
Wrong, they do it all the time, and have for many years.
Actually, no. Interpretation of the regulation is not, and has never been within the scope of authority of an inspector at the FSDO level. The FAA Regional and Chief Legal Counsel are authorized to interpret the regulation. An inspector is not. You make a common mistake...but you're still in error. Many airman make that mistake and it costs them their certification and even their career...when they try to rely upon the spoken or written word of someone at the FSDO level in what they believe is an interpretation of the regulation...only to find out later that it can't be relied upon, and is NOT defensible in enforcement action. Clearly you've made the same mistaken assumption in your belief that your inspector friend (even a "senior" inspector) can interpret the regulation. He cannot.
Going further, and with the referenced B200, it is noted...
Quote:
I am sure that the AFM for the B200 I used to fly (but do not have it to hand) specifically required the ice vanes closed for T/O as a limitation.
Yup, my manual says the same.
Does your manual really say this? Do you have a BE-20 AFM? I do, but I don't think you do. Your recollection is antique, as having operated the "first commercial PT-6A powered airplane on the US West Coast." As that took place in 1966, it wasn't a BE-20 now, was it? Of course not. The poster you quoted indicated that he's not looking at his AFM either...he simply thinks that the ice vanes are required to be closed as a limitation. The truth is, you're both wrong. No such limitation exists.
You've asserted that the ice vanes must be used "only when absolutely needed," and that "to suggest otherwise is poor advice." Of course, this isn't true, and neither Raytheon (BeechCraft), the FAA, or the FAA and Manufacturer-Approved training courses, and the FAA-Approved aircraft flight manual agree with you or your assertion...but as you said, fully understand, make it up as you go along. Right?