View Single Post
  #10  
Old December 14th 05, 09:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flying through known or forecast icing

wrote in message
...
: No. Legally, forecast ice is "known icing."

Not to tangent too much, but doesn't that regulation regarding "prohibited
flight into known icing conditions" without certified de-ice equipment
loophole old
planes? I seem to recall something about if the POH for the aircraft does
not say the
magic words, "Flight into icing conditions prohibited," then it's not
illegal.
Certainly not a good idea and guaranteed to bite you on "careless and
wreckless" if
something happens, but strictly speaking not immediately illegal.


No, there isn't any such loophole in the wording of the FARs: "91.527(b)
Except for an airplane that has ice protection provisions that meet the
requirements in section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23, or
those for transport category airplane type certification, no pilot may
fly-(1) Under IFR into known or forecast moderate icing conditions; or (2)
Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions unless the aircraft
has functioning de-icing or anti-icing equipment...".

Notice that there is an explicit prohibition against flying into *known or
forecast* moderate icing conditions (that's under IFR; under VFR, the
prohibition applies to known (not forecast) light or moderate icing).

There is an exception though: "91.527(d) If current weather reports and
briefing information relied upon by the pilot in command indicate that the
forecast icing conditions that would otherwise prohibit the flight will not
be encountered during the flight because of changed weather conditions since
the forecast, the restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
based on forecast conditions do not apply".

So if there's a forecast for icing, but other evidence (such as PIREPs)
indicates that the predicted icing conditions have not come about, then the
forecast becomes moot. But a mere absence of PIREPs (or other evidence)
leaves the forecast-based prohibition intact--to override the forecast, you
need evidence of non-icing conditions, not just non-evidence of icing
conditions.

--Gary