Touch and go in icing conditions
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 417
Likes: 20
From: D(Emona)
Touch and go in icing conditions
In legal language, is it illegal to perform a touch and go with even slighest trace of contamination on top of the wings?
As we all know, boots are not capable of shedding the ice completely.
As we all know, boots are not capable of shedding the ice completely.
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: Out of radar space
Most probably yes. Even a little bit icing on wings dramatically increases drags/reduces lift, taking-off before aircraft is completely de-iced is also prohibited. I know an accident about that, a Canadian Fokker F-28 instantly stalled after take-off in 1989.
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 359
Likes: 1
From: chicago
its an interesting question to be sure.
imagine the following...you are making an approach in above conditions...you bounce your landing and go around...are you illegal?
I would not do touch and goes as a planned maneuver in such conditions.
remember one thing, on a touch and go, when speed does not decrease more than a few knots you are a still flying.
hmmm
imagine the following...you are making an approach in above conditions...you bounce your landing and go around...are you illegal?
I would not do touch and goes as a planned maneuver in such conditions.
remember one thing, on a touch and go, when speed does not decrease more than a few knots you are a still flying.
hmmm
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Right here
If I'm understanding you right, you mean touch with your hand on the wing and discover a tiny bit of contamination and then go.
Consult your books, in my company, it's a NO go with any contamination on top of the wings. A bit of rime on the underside of the wing in the fuel-area and on airframe is ok, as long as you can see the paint (read letters and so on).
Consult your books, in my company, it's a NO go with any contamination on top of the wings. A bit of rime on the underside of the wing in the fuel-area and on airframe is ok, as long as you can see the paint (read letters and so on).
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,775
Likes: 353
From: UK
There is no legal language which will protect you from a course of action, which after the event cannot be justified. Thus you should justify the action beforehand - to yourself, with thoughts as indicated in many posts above.
It unlikely that the manufacturer will have done touch and go tests (aborted landing with ice shapes); at best, takeoff, and approach and landing with ice shapes would have determined the need for changed procedures, increased speeds, restricted configurations, trim, etc.
IIRC Saab, like many other aircraft adjust the stall warning boundaries when anti-ice systems are used, other manufacturers might increase the icing air bleed or boot cycle for landing in severe icing conditions, where neither might be acceptable for takeoff and climb out.
Manufacturers would probably have considered a GA, if so operators would be advised whether any speed increase for the approach should be applied to the GA/climb out – including V2 (e.g. hold the existing climb speed if above the non-ice V2).
Don’t search for legal outlets – there are none in the real world, only justifiable actions.
If you don’t know, don’t go. Consider, ‘should we be doing this’, not how to do it (don’t seek ways to circumvent common sense – airmanship).
It unlikely that the manufacturer will have done touch and go tests (aborted landing with ice shapes); at best, takeoff, and approach and landing with ice shapes would have determined the need for changed procedures, increased speeds, restricted configurations, trim, etc.
IIRC Saab, like many other aircraft adjust the stall warning boundaries when anti-ice systems are used, other manufacturers might increase the icing air bleed or boot cycle for landing in severe icing conditions, where neither might be acceptable for takeoff and climb out.
Manufacturers would probably have considered a GA, if so operators would be advised whether any speed increase for the approach should be applied to the GA/climb out – including V2 (e.g. hold the existing climb speed if above the non-ice V2).
Don’t search for legal outlets – there are none in the real world, only justifiable actions.
If you don’t know, don’t go. Consider, ‘should we be doing this’, not how to do it (don’t seek ways to circumvent common sense – airmanship).
Last edited by safetypee; 30th October 2013 at 19:25. Reason: typo
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 658
Likes: 1
From: Ankh Morpork, DW
Most probably yes. Even a little bit icing on wings dramatically increases drags/reduces lift, taking-off before aircraft is completely de-iced is also prohibited. I know an accident about that, a Canadian Fokker F-28 instantly stalled after take-off in 1989.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
14 CFR § 91.13
I've never seen it specifically prohibited, but should something unusual happen, you'd be in violation of 14 CFR § 91.13
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
Remember, nowhere does it say that the gear must be down for landing either...
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Last edited by Check Airman; 31st October 2013 at 04:34.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
imagine the following...you are making an approach in above conditions...you bounce your landing and go around...are you illegal?
