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.

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.

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.

On 2005-12-15, Jim Carter wrote:
essentially: "is forecast icing the same a known icing"?

That's the wrong question, because the rule says "known icing conditions"
which starts many arguments when people parse it as "known icing" when
in fact it is "known ... conditions". The conditions are present more
than the actual icing (perpetually in the winter in the PNW).

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Bob, et al,



Disregard my immediately previous post please. Here is the
important excerpt from that article that indicates known is the same a
forecast:




The law on 'known icing'


BY JOHN S. YODICE (From http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/ AOPA
Pilot, August 2005.)

The board, squarely facing the issue, held that "known does not mean a
near-certainty of icing conditions, only that icing conditions are being
reported or forecast." A forecast of "the potential" for icing is "known
icing conditions" to a pilot. The 1974 and 1976 cases hold the same way.



The NTSB precedents are clear. Relevant pireps and forecasts constitute
"known icing conditions" into which a flight is prohibited unless the
aircraft is specifically certificated by the FAA for flight into known
icing conditions.









So it sounds like the mere mention of icing anywhere near the
route of flight means no-go without FIKI certification. I wonder if the
first flight out on an IFR day that broadcast a fake-pirep of known
icing just slams the door for everyone lined up behind him? The way this
is worded known, forecast, it doesn't really matter. All you have to do
is mention the word ice and someone's the loser.





-----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.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
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."

But that 1974 decision is at odds with the current AIM, which defines
various icing conditions in section 7-1-23
(http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23):

"Forecast Icing Conditions--Environmental conditions expected by a National
Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be conducive to the
formation of in-flight icing on aircraft."

"Known Icing Conditions--Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of
ice is observed or detected in flight."

So according to the AIM, forecast icing is not tantamount to known icing.
Rather, only a PIREP of icing (or a pilot's own observation in flight)
constitutes known icing.

Although the AIM isn't regulatory, it does purport to furnish information
that is relevant to a pilot's understanding of FAA regulations. So when the
latest AIM defines a term that the FARs use but don't define, it would
violate due process to expect pilots to know and use some other definition
instead. (Does anyone know if the current AIM definitions were present back
when the previous rulings on known vs. forecast icing conditions were
issued?)

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

So according to the AIM, forecast icing is not tantamount to known icing.
Rather, only a PIREP of icing (or a pilot's own observation in flight)
constitutes known icing.

Here's the punch line from one of Yodice's columns in AOPA Pilot. Emphasis added.

"The NTSB precedents are clear. Relevant pireps *and forecasts* constitute
'known icing conditions' into which a flight is prohibited unless the aircraft
is specifically certificated by the FAA for flight into known icing conditions."

AOPA members can view the entire article here
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

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

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:GJhof.1362$Jr1.200@trnddc01...
Gary Drescher wrote:

So according to the AIM, forecast icing is not tantamount to known icing.
Rather, only a PIREP of icing (or a pilot's own observation in flight)
constitutes known icing.

Here's the punch line from one of Yodice's columns in AOPA Pilot. Emphasis
added.

"The NTSB precedents are clear. Relevant pireps *and forecasts* constitute
'known icing conditions' into which a flight is prohibited unless the
aircraft is specifically certificated by the FAA for flight into known
icing conditions."

Right, but the NTSB precedents cited are not recent (some are more than
thirty years old), whereas the FAA's current definition of "known icing
conditions"--which I quoted from the latest AIM--explicitly contradicts
those precedents.

--Gary

Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to.

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:GJhof.1362$Jr1.200@trnddc01...
Gary Drescher wrote:

So according to the AIM, forecast icing is not tantamount to known
icing. Rather, only a PIREP of icing (or a pilot's own observation in
flight) constitutes known icing.

Here's the punch line from one of Yodice's columns in AOPA Pilot.
Emphasis added.

"The NTSB precedents are clear. Relevant pireps *and forecasts*
constitute 'known icing conditions' into which a flight is prohibited
unless the aircraft is specifically certificated by the FAA for flight
into known icing conditions."

Right, but the NTSB precedents cited are not recent (some are more than
thirty years old), whereas the FAA's current definition of "known icing
conditions"--which I quoted from the latest AIM--explicitly contradicts
those precedents.

--Gary

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:GJhof.1362$Jr1.200@trnddc01...
"The NTSB precedents are clear. Relevant pireps *and forecasts*
constitute 'known icing conditions' into which a flight is prohibited
unless the aircraft is specifically certificated by the FAA for flight
into known icing conditions."

Right, but the NTSB precedents cited are not recent (some are more than
thirty years old), whereas the FAA's current definition of "known icing
conditions"--which I quoted from the latest AIM--explicitly contradicts
those precedents.

Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to.

No, the AOPA article he linked to says explicitly that the issue of known
vs. forecast icing conditions was *not* addressed in the most recent case
that the article discusses. The article goes on to say, "The board addressed
this issue most recently more than a dozen years ago, and in 1974 and 1976
before that. All are old cases."

Also, the article begins by saying that "the FAA offers very little guidance
to pilots operating 'non-commerically'" regarding what is meant by "known
icing conditions". In fact, though, the current AIM defines the term clearly
(and clearly distinguishes it from "forecast icing conditions"); the article
makes no mention of the AIM's definition.

Therefore, either the AIM definition first appeared after the article was
written, or else the article's author was unaware of the FAA's
already-published definition. Either way, the article does not provide sound
legal guidance in light of the FAA's current definition.

(George's link again:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html.)

--Gary