Flying through known or forecast icing

wrote:

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.

Right. The prohibition is not in the FARs, it's in the aircraft's airworthiness
certificate. The POH is derived from the airworthiness certificate.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1134595839.771861@sj-nntpcache-3...
wrote:

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.

Right. The prohibition is not in the FARs, it's in the aircraft's
airworthiness certificate. The POH is derived from the airworthiness
certificate.

No, the prohibition is in the FARs--specifically, 91.527, quoted in my
previous note in this thread.

--Gary

No, the prohibition is in the FARs--specifically, 91.527, quoted in my
previous note in this thread.

That applies only to "large or turbine powered multi-engine" aircraft.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

Gary Drescher wrote:

No, there isn't any such loophole in the wording of the FARs: "91.527(b)

Sorry Garry...91.527 doesn't apply unless you are flying a large or
turbine powered aircraft.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:

No, there isn't any such loophole in the wording of the FARs: "91.527(b)

Sorry Gary...91.527 doesn't apply unless you are flying a large or
turbine powered aircraft.

Oops, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

--Gary

According to Scott Dennstaedt's article in the latest IFR magazine, we won't
be seeing Airmets (or Area Forecasts) after early 2006. Better graphic
displays will take their place. Big plus is that the forecast area is more
precisely defined in both scope and time.

Bob Gardner

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.

With the scAIRMETS for icing constituting "known-icing" everywhere north
of
the Carolinas for significant chunks out of the year, most GA planes are
operating
illegally.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

The general icing AIRMET always contains the qualifier "in clouds and
precipitation". You're perfectly legal if you stay out of the clouds
and precipitation.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:33:31 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

John Doe wrote:

1) If the cloud layer is forecast to potentially have icing, can you legally
and would you climb through the layer to get up high for your trip? how
thick a layer, type of forecast, time spent in the layer, etc. What would
you be willing to risk transition through possible icing?

No. Legally, forecast ice is "known icing."

A bit of a distortion.
The phrase in the regulations is "known icing conditions". A forecast that
mentions icing satisfies this as the conditions (leading to potential) icing
are indeed known -- if you have read the forecast -- and you are required by
regulations to obtain all relevant information for the flight which includes
a weather forecast.

Many pilots try to parse the requirement as "known-icing conditions" whereas
the FAA has defined it to mean "known icing-conditions" -- a subtle but
inportant difference when it comes to defending oneself against a
certificate action. A forecast of icing constitutes "known
icing-conditions."

4) Let's say yoru trip starts off VFR but by the time you get to your
destination, a cloud layer has formed that has reported icing in it. Can or
or would you be willing to transit this layer to land at this destionation
or would you turn around or divert to land someplace to stay out of the
clouds?

If I want to stay VFR, I won't be transiting any clouds. Being unwilling to risk
a violation if I file IFR and then fly through reported icing, I would divert.

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

--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
...
A bit of a distortion.
The phrase in the regulations is "known icing conditions". A forecast
that
mentions icing satisfies this as the conditions (leading to potential)
icing
are indeed known -- if you have read the forecast -- and you are required
by
regulations to obtain all relevant information for the flight which
includes
a weather forecast.

Many pilots try to parse the requirement as "known-icing conditions"
whereas
the FAA has defined it to mean "known icing-conditions" -- a subtle but
inportant difference when it comes to defending oneself against a
certificate action. A forecast of icing constitutes "known
icing-conditions."

What you say appears to have been true in the past, but not currently. As
noted earlier in this thread, the FAA now defines the terms as follows:

"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."

(AIM 7-1-23, http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23)

--Gary