If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I am just now getting my IFR, so I am no expert on icing...
But I did once get caught VFR in some light freezing rain when some ice (I think it was Rime) started building up on my wings at around 3000'. I was able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, but we're talking about a very light coating, because I didn't wait very long. Interestingly enough, I was approaching the NY Class B, and told them I had a critical condition and required clearance into the Class B in case I would not be able to descend before Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into the warmer air? I mean, presumably, even IFR, if you can recognize it quickly, you should have options... Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing = known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's disagrees. In the Sporty's IFR training videos, he says something to the effect of, "If every time icing was forecast we decided not to fly, we wouldn't get to fly very often." Then he spends a fair amount of time explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the legalities... As for me, I was pretty nervous when that ice started up on my wings, and I was more nervous about the possibility of ice building up on the prop that I couldn't see or measure. So while I'm not convinced that I will cancel every planned flight for forecast icing in the area, I am sure going to make sure that I am pretty vigilant about watching out for it and reacting quickly if something happens... Hopefully one day I'll be able to afford anti-ice equipment and deal with the problem the right way anyway... Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is naive to think you don't risk harm to others when you fly recklessly solo. Besides the possibility of harming someone when you hit the ground, you also harm the reputation of the aviation community, play on the already hyper-sensitive fears of the general public about aviation, and ultimately lead to more rules, restrictions, and harm to the aviation community in general. (Teacherjh) wrote in : I believe you're referring to FAR 91.13, which is Careless OR Reckless Operation, not careless AND reckless. I own the aircraft and fly it solo, how does flying it into known icing conditions endanger the life or property of another? You are right - careless OR reckless. No matter. It's not legal. It's usually not smart. If you have an aircraft that is not certificated for flight into known icing (say, a typical spam can), even if it is older than the regs, doing so puts it at the very real risk of acquiring ice on the airframe. An iced up airplane does not fly very well. It is less stable, has less lift, more drag, less power (as the prop and intake get iced), and more weight. Your instruments will be less reliable, and may fail (i.e. the static port gets iced) If the tail ices up faster than the wing, you can get into a tail stall, which feels simlar to a wing stall but whose recovery is the opposite. What's more, unlike say for turbulence, cloud, or an unusual attitude, exiting the icing conditions does not fix things. The ice that you have picked up doesn't just "go away" right away, especially if it's still cold out. Sublimation is very slow, and you have to get into fairly warm temps to melt the stuff. You can't count on that. One of the big problems occurs on landing iced up... the trim (if it still works) and configuration changes may destabilize the aircraft even if it seemed to be flying "just fine" before. Further, once you're in it, you might not be able to get out. It might be that conditions are closing all over. So, you might not end up with "just a peek" but rather, a whole lot of dunk. Certification for known ice includes more than just boots. There's a whole lot of redundancy involved, and significant excess power needed in the powerplant to overcome the effects of ice. This is part of the reason why it's not safe. It endangers people and property below you, far more than simply flying. Because of this, the FAA would consider it careless. It would also consider it reckless. The FAA has already said that "forecast" icing conditions count as "known" icing conditions, even in the face of pireps to the contrary. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Saryon" wrote in message ... FWIW, my 172S POH specifically states "Flight into known icing prohibited" in the limitations section. Is doing something specifically mentioned as prohibited in the POH actionable? Absolutely. 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Natalie wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Ron Natalie just said that. I did not. I said that 91.527 didn't differentiate between IFR in VMC and IFR in IMC. My apology. Matt |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
I was able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, In freezing rain, there has to be warmer air above, with warmer water - the source of the rain that then freezes when it falls through colder air below. That helps remove ice. Though depending on conditions, that warmer water may not be reachable. Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into the warmer air? Maybe. Probably. But if conditions are getting worse all over (night is falling...) there may no longer be warmer air behind you. Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing = known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's disagrees. Many people disagree. But they are not the ones that can pull your certificate. Then he spends a fair amount of time explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the legalities... Knowing about icing (beyond "Danger Will Robinson") is a good thing - a necessary thing. Forecast or not, pilots will end up in ice and need to know what to do (and what not to do) to extricate themselves before they have gone too far the wrong way. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Teacherjh" wrote in message ... You are right - careless OR reckless. No matter. It's not legal. It's usually not smart. I agree it's not smart, but that's not the issue. What law would be violated by flying my personal aircraft, which has no mention of icing in the operating limitations, solo, in known or forecast icing conditions? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Teacherjh" wrote in message ... Spam cans are now (this is a change) forbidden to enter FORECAST icing - that is, "forecast" icing is now considered "known icing". This is a change. Cite the regulation. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Greg, the intent is not to legalize anything, simply to clarify to pilots
just what ATC will do for them when icing is forecast. They (pilots) don't have to take advantage of this procedure. At the same time, they don't have to sit on the ground because the area from 30 to 40 miles east of SEA is full of ice with clear sky above. There is a 75 percent chance that ice will be encountered somewhere in the huge volume of airspace included in an icing Airmet; there is a 15 percent chance that a pilot will encounter ice on a specific route in that airspace. Pretty good odds. The key is to take immediate action upon picking up ice rather than to steam along hoping for the best. Bob Gardner "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump" because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about icing). But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing", and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal. And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall back on. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
The court case upon which this definition is based is Adminstrator vs Bowen,
a 1957 case...hardly new info. Bob Gardner "Teacherjh" wrote in message ... There was a change in the last five? years. There are two things under discussion - the "large and turbine" reg, and the "spam can" default reg. Spam cans are now (this is a change) forbidden to enter FORECAST icing - that is, "forecast" icing is now considered "known icing". This is a change. I don't fly large and turbine powered aircraft, so don't know if that reg has changed. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
I agree it's not smart, but that's not the issue. What law would be violated by flying my personal aircraft, which has no mention of icing in the operating limitations, solo, in known or forecast icing conditions? At the very least, the law that says "I will not do stupid things with airplanes". The FARs word it thusly: "91.13 (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." that is, "forecast" icing is now considered "known icing". This is a change. Cite the regulation. You seem to be under the misconception that the laws are limited to statute. They are not. Further, the laws are subject to "interpretation", and you don't get to do the interpreting. The FAA does. The FAA has stated that "forecast icing" will be interpreted as equivalent to "known icing". Actually this goes back to 1974. Avweb has an article at http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184265-1.html that provides background and citiations of actual decisions that were made that cemented this policy in place. It goes on to say how the FAA and NTSB are not always in agreement, and the NTSB can overrule the FAA in some cases. There's a lot of case law which you can review. It is there that the "regulations" will be found - as precedent that the FAA can choose from when they investigate an event. If this doesn't satisfy you, ask the FAA directly by calling the FSDO. Get it in writing, post it here, and then take a guess as to how well that will stand up should there be an incident. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|