Heated pitot tube for IFR certification

[rkdF250]

I am currently working on knowledge for the Oral exam and I was talking to a friend last night and he stated that a Heated Pitot tube is required. He referred me to 23.1323 (d) "Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic etc...." Equipment ->

"If certification for instrument flight rules or flight in icing conditions is requested, each airspeed system must have a heated pitot tube or an equivalent means of preventing malfunction due to icing."

Now I know in parts 125 and 135 they specifically state Heated Pitot tube but I guess 23.1323 applies to all certified aircraft?

Is there someone on here that can Officially answer this question?

 

[tonycondon]

no part 23 only applies to aircraft certified under part 23

 

[rkdF250]

Correct me if I am wrong but Part 23 is for Normal (just about all GA aircraft < 7 seats) so wouldn't a 172, piper P26, Warrior etc... fit in this category?

Airworthiness standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic and Commuter category airplanes.

 

[tonycondon]

sure but part 23 didn't come to be until the 1980's. anything before that was certified to a different regulation, so part 23 doesn't apply to them.

i think the new build 172s are certified to part 23 or at least meet all the part 23 requirements

 

[rkdF250]

Ok so if I am renting an aircraft I need to find out which Part it is certified under. I can't figure out how to go about determining this since the information is not on any of the certificates. Worse yet how would the inspectors figure it out on a ramp check? I guess I would need to just go by year model?

 

[jesse]

Ok so if I am renting an aircraft I need to find out which Part it is certified under. I can't figure out how to go about determining this since the information is not on any of the certificates. Worse yet how would the inspectors figure it out on a ramp check? I guess I would need to just go by year model?

If the pitot tube heat is required for IFR operations I suspect it would state that in the POH. Pilots are not expected to know part 23. You do what's in part 91 and follow the aircrafts published limitations.

That said Imc without pitot heat would be a silly idea. It's also quite likely the former set of rules, before part 23, car 3 may have required the same thing.

You're not going to get busted as a pilot over something in part 23. You will get busted over something in 91, 61, a placard, or the POH.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Correct me if I am wrong but Part 23 is for Normal (just about all GA aircraft < 7 seats) so wouldn't a 172, piper P26, Warrior etc... fit in this category?

Airworthiness standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic and Commuter category airplanes.

sure but part 23 didn't come to be until the 1980's. anything before that was certified to a different regulation, so part 23 doesn't apply to them.

i think the new build 172s are certified to part 23 or at least meet all the part 23 requirements

Previous to 14 CFR Part 23 airplanes were certified to CAR 3 regulations. CAR 3 still stands today and most of your GA airplanes are certified in CAR 3.

CAR 3

 

[rkdF250]

I am more concerned about an insurance company finding a loop hole and backing out of claim. LOL
If I purchase an aircraft that is IFR certified I expect it to be correct and so far if it was manufactured prior to the 80's it appears it may not be. The funny thing is everyone knows that an Airspeed indicator is mandatory for IFR and 23.1323 just defines what an Airspeed indicator has to have in order to be used in IFR conditions. So with that being said the only way to be certain is to know what Part an aircraft was certified under? I cannot find any reference to Part 23 not applying to a Normal Category aircraft build prior to Part 23's inception. Can anyone point me to the exclusion list or statement saying an older aircraft does not need to conform to Part 23?

 

[jesse]

I am more concerned about an insurance company finding a loop hole and backing out of claim. LOL
If I purchase an aircraft that is IFR certified I expect it to be correct and so far if it was manufactured prior to the 80's it appears it may not be. The funny thing is everyone knows that an Airspeed indicator is mandatory for IFR and 23.1323 just defines what an Airspeed indicator has to have in order to be used in IFR conditions. So with that being said the only way to be certain is to know what Part an aircraft was certified under? I cannot find any reference to Part 23 not applying to a Normal Category aircraft build prior to Part 23's inception. Can anyone point me to the exclusion list or statement saying an older aircraft does not need to conform to Part 23?

I am not aware of a single CAR 3 certified airplane I've flown that is equipped for IFR flight and does not have pitot tube heat. I've flown LOTS of CAR 3 aircraft. See what I wrote above about what your concerns as a pilot should be. You are not responsible for knowing CAR 3 or Part 23 the aircraft manufacturer is. You're responsible for knowing what the aircraft's published limitations are, placards and the poh.

There is no "insurance loop hole" in this. Follow the POH and Part 91.

Are you flying an aircraft that is legal for IFR flight but does not have pitot heat? If so what is it?

 

[rkdF250]

I have done some research and the Piper P28 140 planes manufactured prior to the 80's may or may not come with pitot heat and are IFR certified. After checking the CAR 3 pitot heat was not required for the airspeed indicator as it is in Part 23. I have found several other instances where people have purchased these aircraft and have upgraded the pitot system to include heat. So the answer to my original question would be "Depends on the aircraft and how it was certified" and "Refer to the POH".

 

[jesse]

I have done some research and the Piper P28 140 planes manufactured prior to the 80's may or may not come with pitot heat and are IFR certified. After checking the CAR 3 pitot heat was not required for the airspeed indicator as it is in Part 23. I have found several other instances where people have purchased these aircraft and have upgraded the pitot system to include heat. So the answer to my original question would be "Depends on the aircraft and how it was certified" and "Refer to the POH".

If it was certified without pitot heat and IFR isn't prohibited then you could do it. At the end of the day though, I'd highly suggest anyone with such an airplane install pitot heat. I've never seen a IFR 140 without it.

 

[rkdF250]

A simple question has turned into a very interesting discussion. Thanks for the responses and further clarification is always welcomed.

 

[bnt83]

A simple question has turned into a very interesting discussion. Thanks for the responses and further clarification is always welcomed.

The rules that govern a particular airplane’s airworthiness is found in multiple places. The main one is a Type Certificate Data Sheet (aircraft specifications sheet if very old). This lists the exact rules the aircraft manufacturer had to SHOW COMPLIANCE with at the time of certification. These do not change. However, AD’s (part 39) and operations (part 91, 135, 121 etc) also apply to said aircraft, and have changed over time. Even the registration markings (part 45) and registration (part 47) apply. When a shop modifies an old CAR 3 airplane 50 years after it was built, the engineering data is written to SHOW COMPLIANCE with the old CAR 3 rules on the Type Certificate Data Sheet..
One example, a CAR 3 1956 Cessna 172 vs the latest and greatest whiz bang “Carbon Piston Machine”
Seat foam replacement - Assume the foam meets all burn certification requirements. Just changing the seat foam in the “Carbon Piston Machine” needs to be treated as a Major Alteration because without taking great care to ensure the foam cushion is designed properly, it may no longer meet the very detailed dynamic seat & restraints regulation (think crashworthiness) in Part 23. In the CAR 3 172, the seat foam is not considered part of the supporting structure that was designed to SHOWED COMPLIANCE with CAR 3 50 years ago.

§23.562 Emergency landing dynamic conditions.

(a) Each seat/restraint system for use in a normal, utility, or acrobatic category airplane, or in a commuter category jet airplane, must be designed to protect each occupant during an emergency landing when—​

(1) Proper use is made of seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses provided for in the design; and​

(2) The occupant is exposed to the loads resulting from the conditions prescribed in this section.​

(b) Except for those seat/restraint systems that are required to meet paragraph (d) of this section, each seat/restraint system for crew or passenger occupancy in a normal, utility, or acrobatic category airplane, or in a commuter category jet airplane, must successfully complete dynamic tests or be demonstrated by rational analysis supported by dynamic tests, in accordance with each of the following conditions. These tests must be conducted with an occupant simulated by an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) defined by 49 CFR part 572, subpart B, or an FAA-approved equivalent, with a nominal weight of 170 pounds and seated in the normal upright position.​

(1) For the first test, the change in velocity may not be less than 31 feet per second. The seat/restraint system must be oriented in its nominal position with respect to the airplane and with the horizontal plane of the airplane pitched up 60 degrees, with no yaw, relative to the impact vector. For seat/restraint systems to be installed in the first row of the airplane, peak deceleration must occur in not more than 0.05 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 19g. For all other seat/restraint systems, peak deceleration must occur in not more than 0.06 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 15g.​

(2) For the second test, the change in velocity may not be less than 42 feet per second. The seat/restraint system must be oriented in its nominal position with respect to the airplane and with the vertical plane of the airplane yawed 10 degrees, with no pitch, relative to the impact vector in a direction that results in the greatest load on the shoulder harness. For seat/restraint systems to be installed in the first row of the airplane, peak deceleration must occur in not more than 0.05 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 26g. For all other seat/restraint systems, peak deceleration must occur in not more than 0.06 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 21g.​

Goes on and on……​

 

[rkdF250]

So if I read this right I could replace the seat cushion in the 1956 aircraft without meeting the Part 23 rules however I could not do so in the newer aircraft. So the older aircraft does not need to be brought up to the Part 23 rules correct?

 

[bnt83]

So the older aircraft does not need to be brought up to the Part 23 rules correct?

Correct. It could be brought up to part 23 if desired, but not required unless there is some other regulation such an AD, or say an operations reg (think part 91, 135, 121), change saying it was required.


For instance. The 1956 Cessna 172 was not delivered with an Emergency Locator Transmitter/Beacon (ELT) when it was new, but a regulation in part 91 eventually required ELTs be installed on most airplanes so it was required later.

Cessna Citation X (750) were delivered without Flight Data Recorders. Part 91 (private) & 135 (air taxi) does not require them either. But if we were to operate the Cessna 750 under 121 (airline) rules we would have to install a Flight Data Recorder.

§121.343 Flight data recorders.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section, no person may operate a large airplane that is certificated for operations above 25,000 feet altitude or is turbine-engine powered unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that record data from which the following may be determined within the ranges, accuracies, and recording intervals specified in appendix B of this part:
(1) Time;
(2) Altitude;
(3) Airspeed;
(4) Vertical acceleration;
(5) Heading; and
(6) Time of each radio transmission either to or from air traffic control.
(b) No person may operate a large airplane type certificated up to and including September 30, 1969, for operations above 25,000 feet altitude, or a turbine-engine powered airplane certificated before the same date, unless it is equipped before May 26, 1989 with one or more approved flight recorders that utilize a digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium. The following information must be able to be determined within the ranges, accuracies, and recording intervals specified in appendix B of this part:

Goes on...

 

[JHW]

I am not aware of a single CAR 3 certified airplane I've flown that is equipped for IFR flight and does not have pitot tube heat. I've flown LOTS of CAR 3 aircraft. See what I wrote above about what your concerns as a pilot should be. You are not responsible for knowing CAR 3 or Part 23 the aircraft manufacturer is. You're responsible for knowing what the aircraft's published limitations are, placards and the poh.

There is no "insurance loop hole" in this. Follow the POH and Part 91.

Are you flying an aircraft that is legal for IFR flight but does not have pitot heat? If so what is it?

plenty of piper cherokees and cessna 170/172/etc were/are equipped and legal for IFR with no heated pitot. I had a cherokee 180 that we flew IFR quite a bit (in the summer) with an unheated pitot. Likewise a friend's cessna 170 which has no heated pitot and only venturi-powered instruments.

 

[Hank S]

If you really want to know what a particular airplane is required to have, look up the Type Certificate for that model. Everything is laid out in great detail. Be aware, though, that there have been significant changes in radios, navigation systems, instruments, etc., since many "modern" aircraft Type Certificates were issued.

For instance, even recent Mooney aircraft, made in the 2000's, are still under the original CAR 3 Type Certificate. Remember, "Google is your friend."

 

[Fearless Tower]

Likewise a friend's cessna 170 which has no heated pitot and only venturi-powered instruments.

Yep. Mine too.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

The 1976 Cherokee Cruiser was IFR and the heated pitot was an option. Mine didn't have it.

 

[Jim_R]

If it was certified without pitot heat and IFR isn't prohibited then you could do it. At the end of the day though, I'd highly suggest anyone with such an airplane install pitot heat. I've never seen a IFR 140 without it.

For what it's worth, my '73 PA-28-180 was used as an IFR trainer...in Minnesota...and it did not have pitot heat.

Interestingly, after I bought it, I learned that it had the switch in the panel, and the heated probe, and the wires had never been connected in the wing. Connecting the ground wire resulted in functional pitot heat. (It had not just come loose...it was never connected.)

 

[rkdF250]

Thanks for all the information. For someone like me that really wants to understand everything about the aircraft they fly and the systems they use navigating these regulations can be an interesting journey. Thank you all for your input....