will this fly?

Roy Smith wrote:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Especially since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to
mean any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even
if you have pireps of no icing.


You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't think it is.

We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur. If our best prediction methods say "there's likely to
be ice in clouds between 5000 and 12000", just because you fly into a
cloud at 8000 and don't pick up any ice doesn't mean the predicion is
any less valid.

I think it is a bad thing. We don't know enough to know where it is
likely to occur as you say. This means that forecasting it is virtually
impossible, but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing. This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.


Matt

Roy Smith wrote:
We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.

That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.

Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.

This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.

Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.

Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the
line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you
there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal
gravity, I think that's the right way to be.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Roy Smith wrote:
We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.

That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.

Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.

This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.

Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.


I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to evaluate
and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

On the issue of icing forecasts, my experience (mostly western US), is that
there is almost always ice when it is forecast.. I can not think of a
single flight where icing was forecast and there was no icing. It may not
be forming every second at every altitude but if you fly 100nm in cloud and
icing is forecast then you will find ice. There are also a lot a senarios
where you will find icing below -20C in the West so the whole notion of
"climbing above the ice is a falicy around here (unless you have a jet).
I'm sure that there are places where it is possible to climb above the ice
in a prop driven airplane on a consistant basis but not around here.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Roy Smith wrote:

We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.

That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.


but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.

Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.


This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.

Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.



I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to evaluate
and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to
evaluate
and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt

OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to

evaluate

and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt


OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.

Mike
MU-2

So when do I get a ride in your MU-2? :-)


Matt

When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the same
time..

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to

evaluate

and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt


OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.

Mike
MU-2

So when do I get a ride in your MU-2? :-)


Matt

Roy Smith wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.


That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

Which makes it even more ludicrous to prevent a pilot taking a look.



but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.


Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.

I believe it is the FAA, in the form of the FSS, that promulgates the
forecasts though and thus endorses them, de facto at the very least.



This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.


Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

Physics prevents flying in ice, but the law prevents going out and
having a look in a area with icing forecasts, right? At least I believe
that is what you were saying. You've conveniently clipped out your
original text so I can't easily see what you wrote. Physics doesn't
prevent taking a look see.


The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.

Flying a single engine airplane at all requires taking chances. I flew
a lot of IFR flights in the northeast and have encountered ice several
times. Only one of which was of any significant concern. Icing is like
thunderstorms. You have to respect it and avoid it, but you don't stop
flying because of an imperfect forecast.


Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the
line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you
there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal
gravity, I think that's the right way to be.

I disagree. All flying involves risks. Flying in the northeast
involves the risk of an ice encounter. My experience is that at least 9
times out of 10, the ice never materializes. And the times I have
encountered ice, it was easy to find an exit. Only once, downwind of
Lake Erie at night, did I have a really nasty encounter ... and this
wasn't forecast! I picked up better than an inch of ice on my Skylane
in less than 5 minutes. Took full throttle to maintain 110 MPH and I
had to make a slow descent to 9,000 (entered the ice at 11,000) in order
to maintain altitude at that airspeed. Fortunately, the ice accretion
stopped at 9,000 and I carried most of that ice all the way home to ELM.
Made quite a racket as some it came off on the approach (it was 40 on
the ground).

I'm not suggesting that anyone force a pilot to fly when ice is a
possibility, but I also think it unwise to prevent a pilot from taking a
look when conditions are appropriate. Obviously, I'm not talking about
taking off in freezing rain or something insane like that. I'm talking
the normal rime ice conditions that prevail in much of the northeast for
much of the winter.


Matt

In article , Roy Smith
writes:

This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.


The part that bothers me, if I understand this disucssion, is the problem of
legally filing(and opening) an IFR flight plan in my Archer when there is
forcast icing. I generally file IFR when I am flying "out of my home area".
Sure does help with the TFRs and hot MOAs the pop up. In the winter I can
still avoid flying in the clouds or do so briefly thru thin layers to fly in
VMC. It is my choice to fly safely in the winter and filing IFR improves my
safety when away from my familiar home area. I will continue to do so and
don't understand the blanket ruling.

Chuck

Chuck