Flying through known or forecast icing

I have a printed copy of Administrator vs Bowen...it is not online to the
best of my knowledge, so I can't provide a link. The file is 15 pages, so
I'm not about to keyboard the whole thing. At the risk of again being
accused of taking something out of context, here is the relevant section:

"In considering the phrase 'known icing conditions' as we did in order
EA-585 [that was the original finding...this portion is the appeal...Bob]
the Board construed (a) the word 'known' to mean that information regarding
icing conditions was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the
pilot, and (b) the term 'icing conditions' to include both reported and
forecast data. In adapting the above construction, the Board was primarily
influenced by the inherently insidious nature of icing and by the fact that
icing is the type of weather phenomenon that is rarely 'known' to exist in
the sense urged by respondent but rather is forecast by meteorologists when
certain underlying conditions conducive to icing, e.g., near freezing
temperatures and moisture, are present. Indeed, the only way in which icing
can be 'known' to exist is by means of a pilot report--e.e., whn the pilot
of an aircraft which has experienced icing reports that fact to the ATC
system. To construe the phrase in question to mean that the pilot of an
aircraft not equipped with anti-icing devices could fly into an area for
which icing had been forecast, but for which there was no report of an
encounter with icing, would be to render that phrase largely meaningless and
of little effect as a safety measure."

I have lectured on airframe icing at Oshkosh and have attended several
international and domestic conferences on airframe icing. I correspond
regularly with folks from the National Center for Atmospheric Research whose
speciality is airframe icing. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I do
think that I know more about the subject than the average pilot.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
et...
Bob,
I don't see how your response answered my question which was
essentially: "is forecast icing the same a known icing"? In the article
on aopa.org, the formidable piece of evidence in the case is the Pireps
of rime ice. This used to mean that the icing conditions have become
known because a pilot reported they actually occurred. Even if they were
forecast, they weren't known until a) some pilot reported it, or b)
evidence started appearing on the ground (like freezing rain or sleet).

The quote by the Law Judge seems to very ambiguous when taken
out of context -- if known means that icing is being reported then what
difference does it make if they were "near-certain" or not?

Even the large aircraft reg 91.527 only states that flight into
forecast MODERATE or severe is prohibited, even though that isn't
relative to this discussion.

The aopa article you referenced also indicated there is no FAR
covering non-commercial operation and flight into forecast icing
conditions. So back to my original question, when did "forecast" come to
be equivalent to "known"?



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Gardner ]
Posted At: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:56 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Flying through known or forecast icing
Subject: Flying through known or forecast icing

You sure have been away for a few years. As George said, in
Adminstrator
vs
Bowen, in 1974, the Administrative Law Judge said, more or less,
"known
does
not mean a near-certainty of icing conditions, only that icing
conditions
are being reported or forecast."

This was updated, and re-emphasized in 2005. Read this:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

In a case not noted in either source, the NTSB referred to pilot
reports
as
"anectodal evidence" and said that pilots had to rely on government
reports,
period. This 2005 case gives pilot reports a little more slack.

Bob Gardner


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
et...
George,
I've been away for a few years, but when did forecast icing
become known icing without a pirep or physical indications on the
ground? If they are the same thing now days, why are aircraft
certified
for "Flight in known icing (FIKI)" and not just flight in icing
conditions?


-----Original Message-----
From: George Patterson ]
Posted At: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:16 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Flying through known or forecast icing
Subject: Flying through known or forecast icing

Bob Gardner wrote:
George, your heart is in the right place...but if you think that
someone
at
ATC has a pad of ticket forms just ready to write you up, you are
sadly
mistaken. I was told by an officer of the controller's union that
controllers are not interested in the certification status of an
airplane or
a pilot.

No, I don't think "they" are just waiting to write me up, but the
OP
asked
if it
was *legal*, and it's not.

A former Assistant Administrator for Regulations and
Certification
told
me
that it is the pilot who encounters icing conditions and makes no
attempt to
escape who would get a violation...but only if that failure
resulted
in
an
accident/incident or required special handling by ATC. No one at
a
Center
operating position knows if a pilot climbs or descends through a
cloud.

I've been told that too; however, I'm not going to go through
clouds
without an
IFR clearance, and I wouldn't take either of the aircraft I've
owned
through an
area in which icing has been reported. Now, if icing had only been
*forecast* in
that area but not reported, and the bottom of the cloud deck was
well
above
minimums, I would chance it.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights
belong
to
your slightly older self.