FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

We have an *authorized procedure* out here in the Pacific Northwest,
developed by the FSDO Aviation Safety Manager and the folks at the TRACON,
specifically for use when icing conditions are forecast. It is called "Radar
Vectors for Ice" and involves vectors to climb away from the Cascades until
high enough to be well above the freezing level or in the clear. Obviously,
since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety
Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing conditions
is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight.

There is a CYA caveat, of course, that nothing in the procedure should be
taken as encouragment to take off into icing conditions.

Bob Gardner

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft
is
certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are).


Forbidden by what?


The laws of physics, ultimately. The FARs before that (though I can't
find a
specific rule, it would certainly be classified as "careless and reckless"
if
it led to an incident - it might be in the certification rules for
aircraft,
same as aerobatic stuff and equipment required.) The FAA has made it
clear
that unless the aircraft is certificated for known ice, you can't even
legally
enter forecast ice.

Now, to open another can of worms, the FAA has produced an excellent video
on
icing (which they show at various safety seminars) in which they take the
viewer through several flight scenarios. Well worth watching several
times.

However, I take a bit of an issue with one thing - the "unprotected"
(non-de-iced) airplane pilot is flying in the clouds in non-icing
conditions,
towards a front that contains ice (there is ice above). On takeoff the
weather
briefing indicated that the front would not be an issue, but the weather
moved
in faster. Temperatures go down, and he gets ice. Now what?

IN subsequent discussion, one possibility is to climb and get on top of
the
overcast, and it would be reasonable if the destination were clear.
(mabye
also in other situations). This would be legal (he's already in ice and
trying
to get out). However, if he were not YET in ice, it would be illegal
(deliberately entering icing conditions). Seems to me that at that point,
(he's in non-icing conditions, non-icing is behind him, temps going down ,
his
destination ahead of him, and ice ahead of him) continuing would be
illegal,
but the FAA guy didn't have the opinion that continuing would constitute
"deliberately entering ice..." and it's all a matter of bablance.

Well, yes but...

Jose

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

Bob Gardner wrote:

We have an *authorized procedure* out here in the Pacific Northwest,
developed by the FSDO Aviation Safety Manager and the folks at the TRACON,
specifically for use when icing conditions are forecast. It is called "Radar
Vectors for Ice" and involves vectors to climb away from the Cascades until
high enough to be well above the freezing level or in the clear. Obviously,
since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety
Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing conditions
is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight.

Of course not -- airspace is three-dimensional. I don't cancel a flight
planned for 4000 ft in the summer because there's icing forecast from 15,000
to 20,000 ft. I wonder if there is anyone in this group who is seriously
arguing that I should cancel such a flight.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote:
Bob Gardner wrote:

We have an *authorized procedure* out here in the Pacific Northwest,
developed by the FSDO Aviation Safety Manager and the folks at the
TRACON,
specifically for use when icing conditions are forecast. It is called
"Radar
Vectors for Ice" and involves vectors to climb away from the Cascades
until
high enough to be well above the freezing level or in the clear.
Obviously,
since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety
Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing
conditions
is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight.


Of course not -- airspace is three-dimensional. I don't cancel a flight
planned for 4000 ft in the summer because there's icing forecast from
15,000 to 20,000 ft. I wonder if there is anyone in this group who is
seriously arguing that I should cancel such a flight.

Ron Natalie just said that.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ...


Ron Natalie just said that.


I did not. I said that 91.527 didn't differentiate between IFR in VMC and IFR in IMC.

Ron Natalie wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ...


Ron Natalie just said that.



I did not. I said that 91.527 didn't differentiate between IFR in VMC and IFR in IMC.


My apology.

Matt

Obviously, since this procedure was developed by the FAA and
published in the Safety Program newsletter every year at this time, a
forecast of icing conditions is not, in and of itself, a bar to
flight.


Hmmmm...You're saying that the Safety Program newsletter trumps the
FARs?

There is not one word in Part 91 relating to "known icing" other than
91.527, which applies to large and turboprop aircraft. The closest you can
come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump" because the POH wording is not
consistent between manufacturers or models (and, as some have pointed out,
some POHs say nothing about icing).

The west slopes of the Cascades are notorious for icing..the Concorde was
sent out here for icing certification. If you can climb (or descend) over
the flatlands to the west of Seattle, you can miss the icing zone. The
newsletter simply tells pilots that when ATC turns them east on departure,
cleared to some altitude that will take them into the ice, they do not have
to accept the clearance...nor need they descend into the clouds on the west
side simply because a controller clears them to a lower altitude.

Bob Gardner

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
Obviously, since this procedure was developed by the FAA and
published in the Safety Program newsletter every year at this time, a
forecast of icing conditions is not, in and of itself, a bar to
flight.


Hmmmm...You're saying that the Safety Program newsletter trumps the
FARs?

The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump"
because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or
models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about
icing).

But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when
the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing",
and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal.

And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall
back on.

Greg, the intent is not to legalize anything, simply to clarify to pilots
just what ATC will do for them when icing is forecast. They (pilots) don't
have to take advantage of this procedure. At the same time, they don't have
to sit on the ground because the area from 30 to 40 miles east of SEA is
full of ice with clear sky above.

There is a 75 percent chance that ice will be encountered somewhere in the
huge volume of airspace included in an icing Airmet; there is a 15 percent
chance that a pilot will encounter ice on a specific route in that airspace.
Pretty good odds. The key is to take immediate action upon picking up ice
rather than to steam along hoping for the best.

Bob Gardner

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump"
because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or
models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about
icing).

But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when
the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing",
and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal.

And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall
back on.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump"
because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or
models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about
icing).

But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when
the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing",
and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal.

Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.

And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall
back on.

Operating outside the manufacturer's specifications is a dangerous option.