I don't think that Collins would disagree that forecast icing is known
icing. He might choose to launch anyway but the legalities are clear.

Mike
MU-2

"Judah" wrote in message
...
I am just now getting my IFR, so I am no expert on icing...

But I did once get caught VFR in some light freezing rain when some ice (I
think it was Rime) started building up on my wings at around 3000'. I was
able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, but we're talking
about a very light coating, because I didn't wait very long. Interestingly
enough, I was approaching the NY Class B, and told them I had a critical
condition and required clearance into the Class B in case I would not be
able to descend before

Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into
the warmer air? I mean, presumably, even IFR, if you can recognize it
quickly, you should have options...

Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing =
known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's
disagrees. In the Sporty's IFR training videos, he says something to the
effect of, "If every time icing was forecast we decided not to fly, we
wouldn't get to fly very often." Then he spends a fair amount of time
explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure
and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least
some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the
legalities...

As for me, I was pretty nervous when that ice started up on my wings, and
I
was more nervous about the possibility of ice building up on the prop that
I couldn't see or measure. So while I'm not convinced that I will cancel
every planned flight for forecast icing in the area, I am sure going to
make sure that I am pretty vigilant about watching out for it and reacting
quickly if something happens... Hopefully one day I'll be able to afford
anti-ice equipment and deal with the problem the right way anyway...


Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is naive to think you don't risk
harm to others when you fly recklessly solo. Besides the possibility of
harming someone when you hit the ground, you also harm the reputation of
the aviation community, play on the already hyper-sensitive fears of the
general public about aviation, and ultimately lead to more rules,
restrictions, and harm to the aviation community in general.



(Teacherjh) wrote in
:


I believe you're referring to FAR 91.13, which is Careless OR Reckless
Operation, not careless AND reckless. I own the aircraft and fly it
solo, how does flying it into known icing conditions endanger the life
or property of another?


You are right - careless OR reckless. No matter. It's not legal.
It's usually not smart.

If you have an aircraft that is not certificated for flight into known
icing (say, a typical spam can), even if it is older than the regs,
doing so puts it at the very real risk of acquiring ice on the
airframe. An iced up airplane does not fly very well. It is less
stable, has less lift, more drag, less power (as the prop and intake
get iced), and more weight. Your instruments will be less reliable, and
may fail (i.e. the static port gets iced) If the tail ices up faster
than the wing, you can get into a tail stall, which feels simlar to a
wing stall but whose recovery is the opposite.

What's more, unlike say for turbulence, cloud, or an unusual attitude,
exiting the icing conditions does not fix things. The ice that you
have picked up doesn't just "go away" right away, especially if it's
still cold out. Sublimation is very slow, and you have to get into
fairly warm temps to melt the stuff. You can't count on that.

One of the big problems occurs on landing iced up... the trim (if it
still works) and configuration changes may destabilize the aircraft
even if it seemed to be flying "just fine" before.

Further, once you're in it, you might not be able to get out. It might
be that conditions are closing all over. So, you might not end up with
"just a peek" but rather, a whole lot of dunk.

Certification for known ice includes more than just boots. There's a
whole lot of redundancy involved, and significant excess power needed
in the powerplant to overcome the effects of ice.

This is part of the reason why it's not safe. It endangers people and
property below you, far more than simply flying. Because of this, the
FAA would consider it careless. It would also consider it reckless.
The FAA has already said that "forecast" icing conditions count as
"known" icing conditions, even in the face of pireps to the contrary.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)