Descending through a thin icing layer

For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it would be
equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition, which would draw nearly the
same amount of attention from ATC, but since you don't necessarily require
priority at this point, you don't need to do that yet.

I disagree. "Critical condition" isn't in the AIM's Pilot/Controller
Glossary, so there's no accepted meaning.

There are two levels of emergency, distress and urgency. The AIM (para.
6-1-2) says:

"An aircraft is in at least an urgency condition the moment the pilot becomes
doubtful about position, fuel endurance, weather, or any other condition that
could adversely affect flight safety."

I think that being stuck above icy clouds, low on fuel, certainly qualifies.
If you use the word emergency, you know that the controller will understand
that your situation is serious. Using your own language like "critical" might
not make it clear.

Your other option is to declare "minimum fuel":

"Indicates that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where, upon
reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an
emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible
should any undue delay occur."

I much prefer "emergency" for the case we're discussing.

Barry

Well I "know" there's likely to be ice if it's a cloud layer at 30 F.


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
If you dont have reports of ice then its not known to you, so decending
wouldnt
be a problem, if you start picking up ice while decending, then you report
it to
ATC and then its known to the next person behind you.
its only against the law to fly known or forcasted icing. If others have
landed
ahead of you and not reported ice then you have no worry.


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?

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Somehow, I think the lawyers have more ammunition to give your heir's
inheretance to whatever victims there may be.


How so?

Judah wrote in message . ..
For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it would be
equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition ...

With all due respect, I think this detail is bad advice.

The word "critical" in this context has no specific meaning to air
traffic control. Describing your situation as critical may lead to
confusion.

Pilots can declare a state of distress or urgency. Both states are
emergencies to ATC, and are handled as such.

If you describe your situation as "critical," ATC may believe an
emergency exists and handle it as such, or may not believe an
emergency exists. This could be confusing. Confusion is bad. You
might get asked if it's an emergency or not, and you'll tie up the
airwaves explaining, "Well, sorta, but not really, I don't wanna
declare an emergency, but if I don't get this I'll crash, but I don't
want to inconvenience anyone ..."

Either declare an emergency or don't. Don't hesitate to declare an
emergency if safety is at risk.

From my perspective, if you tell the controller what you have and what you
are concerned about, they will do their best to cooperate even if you don't
declare an Emergency...

This is true, and is very GOOD advice!

Somehow, I think the lawyers have more ammunition to give your heir's
inheretance to whatever victims there may be.


How so?


I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But I try to give them a wide berth.

Jose

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

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?

No. You must remain above the icing layer until your fuel is exhausted.

I'm not sure where I read it or heard it, but I thought that "Critical" was
actually an ATC term. Perhaps I confused it with Distress or Urgent.

But yes, the bottom line is if you tell ATC exactly what's going on, and
exactly what you want to do, it alleviates confusion regardless of whether
you declare an emergency or use improper FAA language.


(Brien K. Meehan) wrote in
om:

Judah wrote in message
. ..
For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it
would be equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition ...

With all due respect, I think this detail is bad advice.

The word "critical" in this context has no specific meaning to air
traffic control. Describing your situation as critical may lead to
confusion.

Pilots can declare a state of distress or urgency. Both states are
emergencies to ATC, and are handled as such.

If you describe your situation as "critical," ATC may believe an
emergency exists and handle it as such, or may not believe an
emergency exists. This could be confusing. Confusion is bad. You
might get asked if it's an emergency or not, and you'll tie up the
airwaves explaining, "Well, sorta, but not really, I don't wanna
declare an emergency, but if I don't get this I'll crash, but I don't
want to inconvenience anyone ..."

Either declare an emergency or don't. Don't hesitate to declare an
emergency if safety is at risk.

From my perspective, if you tell the controller what you have and what
you are concerned about, they will do their best to cooperate even if
you don't declare an Emergency...

This is true, and is very GOOD advice!

Perhaps I confused Critical with Urgent. But I was fairly certain at some
point I read or heard that the term Critical was a legitimate FAA/ATC term
that came short of declaring an emergency, but made the point.

I'll have to look it up and see if I can find where I came up with that.



"Barry" wrote in :

For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it
would be equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition, which would
draw nearly the same amount of attention from ATC, but since you don't
necessarily require priority at this point, you don't need to do that
yet.

I disagree. "Critical condition" isn't in the AIM's Pilot/Controller
Glossary, so there's no accepted meaning.

There are two levels of emergency, distress and urgency. The AIM
(para. 6-1-2) says:

"An aircraft is in at least an urgency condition the moment the pilot
becomes doubtful about position, fuel endurance, weather, or any other
condition that could adversely affect flight safety."

I think that being stuck above icy clouds, low on fuel, certainly
qualifies. If you use the word emergency, you know that the controller
will understand that your situation is serious. Using your own
language like "critical" might not make it clear.

Your other option is to declare "minimum fuel":

"Indicates that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where,
upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This
is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency
situation is possible should any undue delay occur."

I much prefer "emergency" for the case we're discussing.

Barry

You do not know that, you assume that, you wont actually know that untill you or
someone else goes through it and finds out, then its known.

Weather can do strange and unexpected things sometimes.

Wyatt Emmerich wrote:

Well I "know" there's likely to be ice if it's a cloud layer at 30 F.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
If you dont have reports of ice then its not known to you, so decending
wouldnt
be a problem, if you start picking up ice while decending, then you report
it to
ATC and then its known to the next person behind you.
its only against the law to fly known or forcasted icing. If others have
landed
ahead of you and not reported ice then you have no worry.


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?

And as a controller (retired) I'm going to help in every way I can.
Al


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
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.