Flying through known or forecast icing

wrote:
In rec.aviation.ifr Matt Whiting wrote:
: This has certainly been my experience also. I recently flew from
: Lebanon, NH to ELM on a day with the freezing level around 4,000 and an
: MEA of 6,000 across the mountains of southern VT. I picked up some
: light rime and requested higher and got between layers. The clouds
: again arose to smite me, so I requested higher again and broke out on
: top at 10,000. My requests were calm and matter of fact and the
: controllers were extremely accomodating. There was never even a hint
: that they questioned why I was flying an Arrow on such a day.

Because you didn't have a problem, they don't have a problem. If you had
*had* a problem, they would have found this problem and busted you. Isn't it great?

Maybe, but I really doubt it unless my problem resulted in an accident
or maybe a "deal" for the controller if I had to make a descent that
they couldn't clear quickly enough. Even though I've flown in northeast
winters for 28 years and tend to "take a look" even if icing is a
possibility, I've only once ever gotten into anything I'd call trouble.
Even then, I didn't need to declare, I just needed a block altitude
clearance so I could descend until I could maintain altitude.
Fortunately, I reached the equilibrium altitude prior to reaching ground
elevation. :-)


Matt

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..

As George said, in Adminstrator vs Bowen, in 1974, the Administrative Law
Judge said, more or less, "known does not mean a near-certainty of icing
conditions, only that icing conditions are being reported or forecast."


But that 1974 decision is at odds with the current AIM, which defines
various icing conditions in section 7-1-23
(http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23):

"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."

So according to the AIM, forecast icing is not tantamount to known icing.
Rather, only a PIREP of icing (or a pilot's own observation in flight)
constitutes known icing.

Although the AIM isn't regulatory, it does purport to furnish information
that is relevant to a pilot's understanding of FAA regulations. So when the
latest AIM defines a term that the FARs use but don't define, it would
violate due process to expect pilots to know and use some other definition
instead. (Does anyone know if the current AIM definitions were present back
when the previous rulings on known vs. forecast icing conditions were
issued?)

Gary, Gary, Gary. You are trying to apply logic to government
regulations and the agencies that write and interpret them. This is a
lost cause. :-)


Matt

The one I like is: is it "known........ icing conditions" or is it
"known icing.........conditions".
(It doesn't matter, but it's confusing enough to throw the guy off
track while he TRIES to understand the difference)

On 2005-12-15, Jim Carter wrote:
essentially: "is forecast icing the same a known icing"?

That's the wrong question, because the rule says "known icing conditions"
which starts many arguments when people parse it as "known icing" when
in fact it is "known ... conditions". The conditions are present more
than the actual icing (perpetually in the winter in the PNW).

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

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)

Bob Gardner wrote:

Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to.

No, that's the date of the article. The most recent ruling on the forecast icing
issue was about 12 years ago. There were earlier ones as well. If, however, the
AIM is in conflict with case law (and it is), the AIM is wrong.

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

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:_Qpof.17301$Jz6.14963@trnddc06...
Bob Gardner wrote:

Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking
to.

No, that's the date of the article. The most recent ruling on the forecast
icing issue was about 12 years ago. There were earlier ones as well. If,
however, the AIM is in conflict with case law (and it is), the AIM is
wrong.

The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of "known icing
conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior explicit or
implicit definitions is no longer applicable.

--Gary

The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of "known icing
conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior explicit or
implicit definitions is no longer applicable.

Well, that might be true if the AIM were regulatory. It's not. (unless
the feds want it to be).

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

AIM is non-regulatory advisory and does not constitute law.
FAA says that in the preamble to the AIM



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "George Patterson" wrote in message
| news:_Qpof.17301$Jz6.14963@trnddc06...
| Bob Gardner wrote:
|
| Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what
George was linking
| to.
|
| No, that's the date of the article. The most recent
ruling on the forecast
| icing issue was about 12 years ago. There were earlier
ones as well. If,
| however, the AIM is in conflict with case law (and it
is), the AIM is
| wrong.
|
| The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of
"known icing
| conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior
explicit or
| implicit definitions is no longer applicable.
|
| --Gary
|
|