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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
We have an *authorized procedure* out here in the Pacific Northwest,
developed by the FSDO Aviation Safety Manager and the folks at the TRACON, specifically for use when icing conditions are forecast. It is called "Radar Vectors for Ice" and involves vectors to climb away from the Cascades until high enough to be well above the freezing level or in the clear. Obviously, since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing conditions is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight. There is a CYA caveat, of course, that nothing in the procedure should be taken as encouragment to take off into icing conditions. Bob Gardner "Teacherjh" wrote in message ... For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft is certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are). Forbidden by what? The laws of physics, ultimately. The FARs before that (though I can't find a specific rule, it would certainly be classified as "careless and reckless" if it led to an incident - it might be in the certification rules for aircraft, same as aerobatic stuff and equipment required.) The FAA has made it clear that unless the aircraft is certificated for known ice, you can't even legally enter forecast ice. Now, to open another can of worms, the FAA has produced an excellent video on icing (which they show at various safety seminars) in which they take the viewer through several flight scenarios. Well worth watching several times. However, I take a bit of an issue with one thing - the "unprotected" (non-de-iced) airplane pilot is flying in the clouds in non-icing conditions, towards a front that contains ice (there is ice above). On takeoff the weather briefing indicated that the front would not be an issue, but the weather moved in faster. Temperatures go down, and he gets ice. Now what? IN subsequent discussion, one possibility is to climb and get on top of the overcast, and it would be reasonable if the destination were clear. (mabye also in other situations). This would be legal (he's already in ice and trying to get out). However, if he were not YET in ice, it would be illegal (deliberately entering icing conditions). Seems to me that at that point, (he's in non-icing conditions, non-icing is behind him, temps going down , his destination ahead of him, and ice ahead of him) continuing would be illegal, but the FAA guy didn't have the opinion that continuing would constitute "deliberately entering ice..." and it's all a matter of bablance. Well, yes but... Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote:
We have an *authorized procedure* out here in the Pacific Northwest, developed by the FSDO Aviation Safety Manager and the folks at the TRACON, specifically for use when icing conditions are forecast. It is called "Radar Vectors for Ice" and involves vectors to climb away from the Cascades until high enough to be well above the freezing level or in the clear. Obviously, since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing conditions is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight. Of course not -- airspace is three-dimensional. I don't cancel a flight planned for 4000 ft in the summer because there's icing forecast from 15,000 to 20,000 ft. I wonder if there is anyone in this group who is seriously arguing that I should cancel such a flight. All the best, David |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... 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? Don't ask me, I didn't write the regulation. Presumably because they have not put in procedures into the IFR rules to handle, IFR but remain clear of IMC. They presume that if you are operating IFR you are prepared to enter IMC at any time. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Obviously, since this procedure was developed by the FAA and
published in the Safety Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing conditions is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight. Hmmmm...You're saying that the Safety Program newsletter trumps the FARs? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. I think that all the icing forecasts I've seen say ICGICIP (icing in clouds and in precipitation), so if you stay out of the clouds and precip there's no forecast icing. Barry |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
There is not one word in Part 91 relating to "known icing" other than
91.527, which applies to large and turboprop aircraft. 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). The west slopes of the Cascades are notorious for icing..the Concorde was sent out here for icing certification. If you can climb (or descend) over the flatlands to the west of Seattle, you can miss the icing zone. The newsletter simply tells pilots that when ATC turns them east on departure, cleared to some altitude that will take them into the ice, they do not have to accept the clearance...nor need they descend into the clouds on the west side simply because a controller clears them to a lower altitude. Bob Gardner "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Obviously, since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing conditions is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight. Hmmmm...You're saying that the Safety Program newsletter trumps the FARs? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message .net... "Teacherjh" wrote in message ... This applies to large and turbine powered aircraft. For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft is certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are). Forbidden by what? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|