Descending through a thin icing layer

You use "would" in both sentences. That denotes supposition. Are you
unsure about what you are saying?

"Wyatt Emmerich" wrote in message
...
Your condition is EXACTLY the same as that of a VFR pilot who relied
on a forecast of clear skies over his destination, went over the top,
had the forecast go bust, and is now trapped above a solid layer. The
only difference is that he's more likely to come out of this unscathed
than you.

I would think a well trained IFR pilot could descend through 2,000 feet of
below freezing visible moisture far more safely than a VFR pilot through
non-freezing visble moisture.

I would think in most case, the descent would just pick up a little light
ice and not affect the flight much at all.

"Wyatt Emmerich" wrote
I would think a well trained IFR pilot could descend through 2,000 feet of
below freezing visible moisture far more safely than a VFR pilot through
non-freezing visble moisture.

I don't agreee at all.

A VFR pilot still has had 3 hours of instrument training, and ought to
have no problem at all mnaintaining wings level as he descends through
a layer for 5 minutes. Unless he screws up hideously, he ought to be
able to complete the descent safely 100% of the time.

Icing is unpredictable.

I would think in most case, the descent would just pick up a little light
ice and not affect the flight much at all.

Yes, in most cases there will only be a little ice. In some cases, it
will be a lot - and at that point, the plane will fall out of the sky
and no amount of training will help.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message om...


A VFR pilot still has had 3 hours of instrument training, and ought to
have no problem at all mnaintaining wings level as he descends through
a layer for 5 minutes. Unless he screws up hideously, he ought to be
able to complete the descent safely 100% of the time.

Perhaps. If you know you are going to need to fly instruments, you can usually
handle a straight descent ok. (at least for a short time). I suspect the major
killer is the tendency to continue to look out the window into the abyss rather
than hunkering down and getting on the instruments. Then you're safe until
the leans set in.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:22:44 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"Michael" wrote in message om...


A VFR pilot still has had 3 hours of instrument training, and ought to
have no problem at all mnaintaining wings level as he descends through
a layer for 5 minutes. Unless he screws up hideously, he ought to be
able to complete the descent safely 100% of the time.

Perhaps. If you know you are going to need to fly instruments, you can usually
handle a straight descent ok. (at least for a short time). I suspect the major
killer is the tendency to continue to look out the window into the abyss rather
than hunkering down and getting on the instruments. Then you're safe until
the leans set in.

Those leans are bad enough even when you are current and rated. :-))

Possibly... IF the pilot has recently had some hood time, but I think
you will find a lot of rated instrument pilots can be uncomfortable
with the idea of being "on the gauges" for 5 minutes if they haven't
had any real, or simulated instrument time in a couple of years.

In the above scenario, IF the pilot has the plane trimmed for straight
and level, then reduces the power for a straight and level descent AND
believes the gauges, AND makes no more than the necessary inputs to
keep the wings level he, or she *probably* would make it, but I'd not
want to wager more than pocket change. There are just too many things
to go wrong.

The 3 hours is minimal and without any recurrent training doesn't come
any where near preparing the pilot for real instrument conditions.
Just ask any instrument student with 3 hours of hood time how they are
doing. As it's recent, they should handle straight ahead climbs and
descents, but three hours some years back is not exactly comforting.

I have the rating, I haven't flown much in the last couple of years,
and I'm not IFR current. I am getting ready to go take a competency
check. The point is, prior to starting on the competency check, I'd
have been extremely uncomfortable with the idea of 5 minutes on the
gauges. I'd be confident I could do it, but I'd still be
uncomfortable and I have quite a few hours in actual. I had near 10
and many approaches down to minimums prior to taking the check ride.
I was far more proficient the first time I went into actual on my own
than I was just a few weeks ago, maybe even now.

I'd say a pilot who only has the 3 hours required for the PPL with no
recent hood time is a long way of being assured of completing a 5
minute descent in IMC 100% of the time.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

"Wyatt Emmerich" wrote:
Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?

The basic thread of legality is that the FARs say you cannot do anything
with the POH says is prohibited, and modern POH's for planes which are
not approved for icing have a statement along the lines of "flight in
known icing conditions is not approved". There's nothing in there which
differentiates between conditions which were forecast to exist at the
time you did your pre-flight planning and conditions which unexpectedly
popped up during the flight.

That being said, section 91.3(b) allows you great leeway in dealing with
emergencies:

"In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency."

Notice the "to the extent required", however. You can do anything you
HAVE to, not anything you WANT to.

So, is this an emergency? Yeah, stuck above a 2000 foot icing layer
while low on fuel in a no-ice airplane sounds like an emergency to me.
I assuse by "low on fuel" you mean you don't have enough to get to
someplace else.

If I was stuck in such a situation, I would declare an emergency to make
sure ATC knew my predicament. I would get them to solicit pireps from
people in the air right now to make sure I knew where the floor of the
clouds were. Then I would get a clearance to descend, pilots
discretion, to an altitude known to be below the clouds.

Then I would get down though the layer as fast as I possibly could.
Pitot heat on, carb heat on, enough engine power to keep the carb warm,
and push the nose down. In smooth air, I'd let the airspeed climb well
into the yellow arc. Gear down in a retract will help get you down
faster. You should be able to get 1500 fpm down with no trouble. It's
hard to imagine anything could happen to you in the time it takes to
puch through a 2000 foot layer at that descent rate.

A slip or steep turn will add drag too, but I'm not sure I'd advise
either of those in a high-speed IMC descent.

I'm sure some people will poo-poo the idea of declaring an emergency.
Well, there's two reasons for doing so. One is that it gets you the
legal authority to violate the POH. The other (more important in my
mind) is that it makes sure ATC knows what's up. If you were to just
say "request 4000", and ATC gave it to you, you would be in a pickle if
in the middle of your descent, the controller came back with, "ammend
altitude, maintain 6000 for now, I'll have lower for you in 5 miles".

But, the biggest piece of advice is to NOT get into such a situation to
begin with.

Make sure you've got enough fuel to get to an alternate, whether it's
legally required or not. And make it a real alternate, not a paper one.
An alternate 5 minutes away from your destination is a stupid alternate
because whatever weather is happening at one is likely to be happening
at the other at the same time.

Also, keep up with the weather during the flight. On a long X/C with
any significant weather at all, I'm talking to flight watch once an hour
to get weather updates. Getting a weather update is usually the first
item on my agenda once I'm settled into cruise. If the forecast goes
bad, the sooner you know about it, the sooner you can do something about
it.

Roy Smith wrote:
"Wyatt Emmerich" wrote:

Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?


The basic thread of legality is that the FARs say you cannot do anything
with the POH says is prohibited, and modern POH's for planes which are
not approved for icing have a statement along the lines of "flight in
known icing conditions is not approved". There's nothing in there which
differentiates between conditions which were forecast to exist at the
time you did your pre-flight planning and conditions which unexpectedly
popped up during the flight.

That being said, section 91.3(b) allows you great leeway in dealing with
emergencies:

"In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency."

Notice the "to the extent required", however. You can do anything you
HAVE to, not anything you WANT to.

So, is this an emergency? Yeah, stuck above a 2000 foot icing layer
while low on fuel in a no-ice airplane sounds like an emergency to me.
I assuse by "low on fuel" you mean you don't have enough to get to
someplace else.

Assuming that you got low on fuel through ATC delays, a fuel leak or
something else largely out of your control. To me, getting low on fuel
in deteriorating weather is preventable and doesn't thus constitute a
bona fide emergency. It constitutes stupidity. I wonder if the FAA
would really buy the emergency authorization argument for a pilot who
had flown past airports that had fuel. I have to admit, if I was the
FAA or an NTSB administrative judge, I don't think I'd buy it.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
To me, getting low on fuel in deteriorating weather is preventable
and doesn't thus constitute a bona fide emergency. It constitutes
stupidity.

Of course it's an emergency. I agree with you that it's most probably
stupidity and preventable, but that doesn't make it not an emergency.
It's just an emergency of your own making.

The feds may still bust your butt for careless and reckless, but in the
the here and now, it's an emergency.

Roy Smith wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

To me, getting low on fuel in deteriorating weather is preventable
and doesn't thus constitute a bona fide emergency. It constitutes
stupidity.


Of course it's an emergency. I agree with you that it's most probably
stupidity and preventable, but that doesn't make it not an emergency.
It's just an emergency of your own making.

The feds may still bust your butt for careless and reckless, but in the
the here and now, it's an emergency.

I agree it is an emergency and should be dealt with as such, but I
wouldn't be surprised if the Feds didn't accept it as a reason to fly
into known icing conditios.


Matt

In article ,
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

To me, getting low on fuel in deteriorating weather is preventable
and doesn't thus constitute a bona fide emergency. It constitutes
stupidity.


Of course it's an emergency. I agree with you that it's most probably
stupidity and preventable, but that doesn't make it not an emergency.
It's just an emergency of your own making.

The feds may still bust your butt for careless and reckless, but in the
the here and now, it's an emergency.

I agree it is an emergency and should be dealt with as such, but I
wouldn't be surprised if the Feds didn't accept it as a reason to fly
into known icing conditios.

Well, if I'm running out of fuel, I don't give a rats ass what the feds
are going to do to me once I get my sorry butt safely on the ground.

Roy Smith wrote:
I'm sure some people will poo-poo the idea of declaring an emergency.
Well, there's two reasons for doing so. One is that it gets you the
legal authority to violate the POH.

I think declaring an emergency may make good sense in this situation,
but I don't see that you need to do so legally. If as PIC you have
determined there *is* an emergency, then you have emergency authority
to deal with the situaation. If you are planning to deviate from an
ATC instruction, you need to tell them about the emergency, but
is there anything in the FARs to require you to declare an emergency
just because you are, in fact, acting outside the usual FARs to deal
with the emergency? (By "declare an emergency", I'm assuming you
mean calling up ATC and saying "Cessna 123 is declaring an emergency",
as opposed to turning to the person flying in the right seat and
saying "Hey, this is an emergency".)

--
David Rind