Narrative:

The flight was made into an area of forecast light to moderate icing. According to my FAA approved small transport poh, this is legal. I subsequently learned that since the airplane does not have deice boots inboard of the engines, this flight may not be legal. After considerable research I found that several small transport's with identical equipment also have approval in the poh for light to moderate icing conditions. There seems to be a misunderstanding and/or a lack of information among certain small transport owners and pilots concerning equipment required for flight in forecast or known icing conditions. If inboard boots are required for light to moderate icing conditions on small transport's manufactured prior to 1979, there are several owners, operators and pilots unaware. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states flcs have been hassled by FAA inspectors on check rides regarding this situation. One inspector claimed illegal to fly. After reporter showed poh information, inspector not so sure. Second FAA inspector claims first inspector out of line since poh authorized flight. Later model poh have different list of deice equipment. Reporter aware more recent models have deice boots inboard of the engines about 18 inches or so. Reporter has done a great deal of research on this situation including checking the microfiche information. It refers to a type certificate data sheet which lists serial numbers of aircraft involved. Reporter has never been able to obtain a type certificate data sheet. This should be available from the manufacturer. Reporter's major concern is did manufacturer come out with a conversion kit? If so, is it required? He would like to help other owners/pilots avoid this problem as well as clarify for himself.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT FLC USES POH INFO FOR FLT INTO KNOWN ICING CONDITIONS. FAA QUESTIONS PROC.

Narrative: THE FLT WAS MADE INTO AN AREA OF FORECAST LIGHT TO MODERATE ICING. ACCORDING TO MY FAA APPROVED SMT POH, THIS IS LEGAL. I SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED THAT SINCE THE AIRPLANE DOES NOT HAVE DEICE BOOTS INBOARD OF THE ENGS, THIS FLT MAY NOT BE LEGAL. AFTER CONSIDERABLE RESEARCH I FOUND THAT SEVERAL SMT'S WITH IDENTICAL EQUIP ALSO HAVE APPROVAL IN THE POH FOR LIGHT TO MODERATE ICING CONDITIONS. THERE SEEMS TO BE A MISUNDERSTANDING AND/OR A LACK OF INFO AMONG CERTAIN SMT OWNERS AND PLTS CONCERNING EQUIP REQUIRED FOR FLT IN FORECAST OR KNOWN ICING CONDITIONS. IF INBOARD BOOTS ARE REQUIRED FOR LIGHT TO MODERATE ICING CONDITIONS ON SMT'S MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO 1979, THERE ARE SEVERAL OWNERS, OPERATORS AND PLTS UNAWARE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES FLCS HAVE BEEN HASSLED BY FAA INSPECTORS ON CHK RIDES REGARDING THIS SITUATION. ONE INSPECTOR CLAIMED ILLEGAL TO FLY. AFTER RPTR SHOWED POH INFO, INSPECTOR NOT SO SURE. SECOND FAA INSPECTOR CLAIMS FIRST INSPECTOR OUT OF LINE SINCE POH AUTHORIZED FLT. LATER MODEL POH HAVE DIFFERENT LIST OF DEICE EQUIP. RPTR AWARE MORE RECENT MODELS HAVE DEICE BOOTS INBOARD OF THE ENGS ABOUT 18 INCHES OR SO. RPTR HAS DONE A GREAT DEAL OF RESEARCH ON THIS SITUATION INCLUDING CHKING THE MICROFICHE INFO. IT REFERS TO A TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET WHICH LISTS SERIAL NUMBERS OF ACFT INVOLVED. RPTR HAS NEVER BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN A TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET. THIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FROM THE MANUFACTURER. RPTR'S MAJOR CONCERN IS DID MANUFACTURER COME OUT WITH A CONVERSION KIT? IF SO, IS IT REQUIRED? HE WOULD LIKE TO HELP OTHER OWNERS/PLTS AVOID THIS PROBLEM AS WELL AS CLARIFY FOR HIMSELF.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.