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.

:8

Dunno about illegal, but seems pretty stupid....

It would probably be not entirely unhelpful to know what sort of an aircraft and/or operation we're talking about here. Care to share that information?

Saab 340 and L-410.

And what do the FCOMs of the types say regarding take off with wing contamination?

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.

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

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).

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).

Saab 340 and F-28 are really quite different in their stall characteristics. Fat straight wing Saab can handle bit of ice. The F-28 ( and DC-9-10srs), not so much.

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...

Nobody is saying not to GA in icing conditions. I would however, question the judgement of someone who would intentionally do a touch and go.

A serious question on pprune?