FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
news

I know you were the student but how did the instructor knowingly break
the VFR visibility requirements if you were in the clouds?


Nothing in his statement suggested any rule was broken. Primary training is
not limited to VFR operations. The instructor can easily pick up an IFR
clearance or this may have happened in Class G airspace.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net...

"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.

It's actually not a change. While everybody says "known icing" every regulation
that exists says "forecast or known" icing.

What there was a furor over was that a decision was issued that PIREPS indicating
absence of ice did not have priority over forecasts.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

It's actually not a change. While everybody says "known icing" every
regulation
that exists says "forecast or known" icing.

What there was a furor over was that a decision was issued that PIREPS
indicating
absence of ice did not have priority over forecasts.


The point here is there is no such regulation.

If ice is forecast in clouds and precip from say 8000 to FL180 then there is
no ice forecast below 8000 and you are free to fly IFR there.

Mike
MU-2





,."Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Ron Natalie wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

It's illegal for him to operate IFR period.

Really? Even if you don't fly in the clouds?


If he is in a case where that reg applies to him, yes. The rules don't
say "in clouds" they say Instrument Flight Rules.



If the forecast icing isn't all the way to the ground, why isn't it
legal to file and fly below the clouds and the altitudes with forecast
or known icing?


Matt

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
It's actually not a change. While everybody says "known icing" every
regulation
that exists says "forecast or known" icing.

The 172P POH says "Flight into known icing conditions is prohibited"--no
mention of forecasts. (But there's an ambiguity between known conditions of
icing vs. conditions of known icing.)

--Gary

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
news
BTW, I actually asked my instructor to file a an IFR plan so I can
get some actual time when I was (still am since my PPL checkride
is December 17th)

What a great day for a checkride! Best wishes.

-- David Brooks (IR checkride 12/17/02)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...
|
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The published operating limitations of the aircraft, which must be
adhered
| to in accordance with the type certificate and the general prohibition
| against reckless and dangerous operation. Most modern light planes have
| specific provisions in their type certificates prohibiting flight into
| known
| icing conditions.
|
|
| What forbids those light planes that have no such specific provisions in
| their type certificates from flying into known icing conditions?

Nothing, of course. But I thought that was so obvious as to go without
saying.

"Steven P. McNicoll" said:

Forbidden by what?

For a fascinating look at the legality of flying in icing conditions, go to
Avweb.com and search for an excellent article series on icing by R. Scott
Puddy, an attorney and experienced CFII (he was tragically killed in an
aerobatics crash last year). His articles are balanced by a retired FAA
Inspector named Eric Jaderborg, who basically argues the FAA's side of the
issue. Mr. Jaderborg was actually one of the FAA Inspectors who prosecuted
one of the cases Scott chronicled in his articles.

Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched in
an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
Icing.' After you have read the article series, your whole opinion will
change about the legality of and the risks associated with launching into,
and flying at or near the freezing level in such an area.

Go to Avweb.com and read this excellent series of articles:

Icing Taking Adequate Precautions - (Articles - Jul 10 2002)
Flying Into Known Icing Is It Legal? - (Articles - Jul 10 2002)
An Icing Encounter PIC Judgment and Prosecutorial Discretion - (Articles -
Jul 10 2002)
An Icing Encounter A Former FAA Inspector Replies - (Articles - Feb 7 2001)

There doesn't have to be an FAR specifically addressing flight of a
non-icing certificated bug-smasher into known icing conditions. FAR 91.13
takes care of that. There is ample precedent in NTSB case law where the FAA
has successfully prosecuted many of those who "tested the Gods" and got into
trouble. For an eye-full, go to NTSB.gov and surf over to the aviation
administrative law decisions (search "icing"). Interesting reading.

Moreover, the NTSB has perverted the definition of "known Icing" over the
last several decades. Notice this little sidebar from a Flight Training
Magazine of many years ago:

"What is "Known Icing?"

A fundamental question that arises when instrument pilots bet together is
"What is the definition of `known icing,' and where can that definition be
found?" The truth is that the term is not defined in Part 1 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations, but the administrative law judges of the National
Transportation Safety Board have developed a solid definition of "known
icing" in their decisions on icing-related certificate actions over the
years. That definition is what you will have to live with if a load of ice
contributes to an accident or incident while you are pilot-in-command.

Beginning with a case in 1957, the NTSB has stated in its findings that when
temperatures are near or below freezing and visible moisture exists. those
are icing conditions. They have said further that because the flight service
station network states the existence of those conditions in reports and
forecasts that are available to pilots both before flight and while carouse.
when those conditions are forecast by the National Weather Service and
disseminated to the FSSs, the icing conditions become "known" to pilots who
are required to check such reports and forecasts while planning a flight.

In a 1993 case, in upholding a certificate action against a pilot who relied
on pilot reports in making his go/no go decision, the Board made it clear
that official NWS weather reports and forecasts take precedence over
"anecdotal" (their words) pilot reports.

So it is clear that a forecast meeting the NTSB definition of known icing
would have the effect of grounding all airplanes not certificated for flight
into known icing conditions. That doesn't happen, of course, because icing
conditions sufficiently severe to knock a small airplane out of the sky
occur infrequently and because almost all pilots know enough about weather
to stay on the ground when conditions conducive to icing are forecast at
their planned flight altitude and along their planned route."

Tailwinds,
Antique Examiner

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Nothing, of course. But I thought that was so obvious as to go without
saying.


So did I, but apparently it isn't.

"Barry" wrote in message hlink.net...


Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched in
an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
Icing.'

135 is a different story. There are specific rules about forecast icing
(135.227). This doesn't apply to part 91.

Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through
their own sham rulemaking process.