"Steven P. McNicoll" said:
Forbidden by what?
For a fascinating look at the legality of flying in icing conditions, go to
Avweb.com and search for an excellent article series on icing by R. Scott
Puddy, an attorney and experienced CFII (he was tragically killed in an
aerobatics crash last year). His articles are balanced by a retired FAA
Inspector named Eric Jaderborg, who basically argues the FAA's side of the
issue. Mr. Jaderborg was actually one of the FAA Inspectors who prosecuted
one of the cases Scott chronicled in his articles.
Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched in
an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
Icing.' After you have read the article series, your whole opinion will
change about the legality of and the risks associated with launching into,
and flying at or near the freezing level in such an area.
Go to Avweb.com and read this excellent series of articles:
Icing Taking Adequate Precautions - (Articles - Jul 10 2002)
Flying Into Known Icing Is It Legal? - (Articles - Jul 10 2002)
An Icing Encounter PIC Judgment and Prosecutorial Discretion - (Articles -
Jul 10 2002)
An Icing Encounter A Former FAA Inspector Replies - (Articles - Feb 7 2001)
There doesn't have to be an FAR specifically addressing flight of a
non-icing certificated bug-smasher into known icing conditions. FAR 91.13
takes care of that. There is ample precedent in NTSB case law where the FAA
has successfully prosecuted many of those who "tested the Gods" and got into
trouble. For an eye-full, go to NTSB.gov and surf over to the aviation
administrative law decisions (search "icing"). Interesting reading.
Moreover, the NTSB has perverted the definition of "known Icing" over the
last several decades. Notice this little sidebar from a Flight Training
Magazine of many years ago:
"What is "Known Icing?"
A fundamental question that arises when instrument pilots bet together is
"What is the definition of `known icing,' and where can that definition be
found?" The truth is that the term is not defined in Part 1 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations, but the administrative law judges of the National
Transportation Safety Board have developed a solid definition of "known
icing" in their decisions on icing-related certificate actions over the
years. That definition is what you will have to live with if a load of ice
contributes to an accident or incident while you are pilot-in-command.
Beginning with a case in 1957, the NTSB has stated in its findings that when
temperatures are near or below freezing and visible moisture exists. those
are icing conditions. They have said further that because the flight service
station network states the existence of those conditions in reports and
forecasts that are available to pilots both before flight and while carouse.
when those conditions are forecast by the National Weather Service and
disseminated to the FSSs, the icing conditions become "known" to pilots who
are required to check such reports and forecasts while planning a flight.
In a 1993 case, in upholding a certificate action against a pilot who relied
on pilot reports in making his go/no go decision, the Board made it clear
that official NWS weather reports and forecasts take precedence over
"anecdotal" (their words) pilot reports.
So it is clear that a forecast meeting the NTSB definition of known icing
would have the effect of grounding all airplanes not certificated for flight
into known icing conditions. That doesn't happen, of course, because icing
conditions sufficiently severe to knock a small airplane out of the sky
occur infrequently and because almost all pilots know enough about weather
to stay on the ground when conditions conducive to icing are forecast at
their planned flight altitude and along their planned route."
Tailwinds,
Antique Examiner
|