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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
I have a printed copy of Administrator vs Bowen...it is not online to the
best of my knowledge, so I can't provide a link. The file is 15 pages, so I'm not about to keyboard the whole thing. At the risk of again being accused of taking something out of context, here is the relevant section: "In considering the phrase 'known icing conditions' as we did in order EA-585 [that was the original finding...this portion is the appeal...Bob] the Board construed (a) the word 'known' to mean that information regarding icing conditions was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the pilot, and (b) the term 'icing conditions' to include both reported and forecast data. In adapting the above construction, the Board was primarily influenced by the inherently insidious nature of icing and by the fact that icing is the type of weather phenomenon that is rarely 'known' to exist in the sense urged by respondent but rather is forecast by meteorologists when certain underlying conditions conducive to icing, e.g., near freezing temperatures and moisture, are present. Indeed, the only way in which icing can be 'known' to exist is by means of a pilot report--e.e., whn the pilot of an aircraft which has experienced icing reports that fact to the ATC system. To construe the phrase in question to mean that the pilot of an aircraft not equipped with anti-icing devices could fly into an area for which icing had been forecast, but for which there was no report of an encounter with icing, would be to render that phrase largely meaningless and of little effect as a safety measure." I have lectured on airframe icing at Oshkosh and have attended several international and domestic conferences on airframe icing. I correspond regularly with folks from the National Center for Atmospheric Research whose speciality is airframe icing. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I do think that I know more about the subject than the average pilot. Bob Gardner "Jim Carter" wrote in message et... Bob, I don't see how your response answered my question which was essentially: "is forecast icing the same a known icing"? In the article on aopa.org, the formidable piece of evidence in the case is the Pireps of rime ice. This used to mean that the icing conditions have become known because a pilot reported they actually occurred. Even if they were forecast, they weren't known until a) some pilot reported it, or b) evidence started appearing on the ground (like freezing rain or sleet). The quote by the Law Judge seems to very ambiguous when taken out of context -- if known means that icing is being reported then what difference does it make if they were "near-certain" or not? Even the large aircraft reg 91.527 only states that flight into forecast MODERATE or severe is prohibited, even though that isn't relative to this discussion. The aopa article you referenced also indicated there is no FAR covering non-commercial operation and flight into forecast icing conditions. So back to my original question, when did "forecast" come to be equivalent to "known"? -----Original Message----- From: Bob Gardner ] Posted At: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:56 PM Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr Conversation: Flying through known or forecast icing Subject: Flying through known or forecast icing You sure have been away for a few years. 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." This was updated, and re-emphasized in 2005. Read this: http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html In a case not noted in either source, the NTSB referred to pilot reports as "anectodal evidence" and said that pilots had to rely on government reports, period. This 2005 case gives pilot reports a little more slack. Bob Gardner "Jim Carter" wrote in message et... George, I've been away for a few years, but when did forecast icing become known icing without a pirep or physical indications on the ground? If they are the same thing now days, why are aircraft certified for "Flight in known icing (FIKI)" and not just flight in icing conditions? -----Original Message----- From: George Patterson ] Posted At: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:16 AM Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr Conversation: Flying through known or forecast icing Subject: Flying through known or forecast icing Bob Gardner wrote: George, your heart is in the right place...but if you think that someone at ATC has a pad of ticket forms just ready to write you up, you are sadly mistaken. I was told by an officer of the controller's union that controllers are not interested in the certification status of an airplane or a pilot. No, I don't think "they" are just waiting to write me up, but the OP asked if it was *legal*, and it's not. A former Assistant Administrator for Regulations and Certification told me that it is the pilot who encounters icing conditions and makes no attempt to escape who would get a violation...but only if that failure resulted in an accident/incident or required special handling by ATC. No one at a Center operating position knows if a pilot climbs or descends through a cloud. I've been told that too; however, I'm not going to go through clouds without an IFR clearance, and I wouldn't take either of the aircraft I've owned through an area in which icing has been reported. Now, if icing had only been *forecast* in that area but not reported, and the bottom of the cloud deck was well above minimums, I would chance it. George Patterson Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to your slightly older self. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to.
Bob Gardner "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "George Patterson" wrote in message news:GJhof.1362$Jr1.200@trnddc01... Gary Drescher wrote: So according to the AIM, forecast icing is not tantamount to known icing. Rather, only a PIREP of icing (or a pilot's own observation in flight) constitutes known icing. Here's the punch line from one of Yodice's columns in AOPA Pilot. Emphasis added. "The NTSB precedents are clear. Relevant pireps *and forecasts* constitute 'known icing conditions' into which a flight is prohibited unless the aircraft is specifically certificated by the FAA for flight into known icing conditions." Right, but the NTSB precedents cited are not recent (some are more than thirty years old), whereas the FAA's current definition of "known icing conditions"--which I quoted from the latest AIM--explicitly contradicts those precedents. --Gary |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
... "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "George Patterson" wrote in message news:GJhof.1362$Jr1.200@trnddc01... "The NTSB precedents are clear. Relevant pireps *and forecasts* constitute 'known icing conditions' into which a flight is prohibited unless the aircraft is specifically certificated by the FAA for flight into known icing conditions." Right, but the NTSB precedents cited are not recent (some are more than thirty years old), whereas the FAA's current definition of "known icing conditions"--which I quoted from the latest AIM--explicitly contradicts those precedents. Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to. No, the AOPA article he linked to says explicitly that the issue of known vs. forecast icing conditions was *not* addressed in the most recent case that the article discusses. The article goes on to say, "The board addressed this issue most recently more than a dozen years ago, and in 1974 and 1976 before that. All are old cases." Also, the article begins by saying that "the FAA offers very little guidance to pilots operating 'non-commerically'" regarding what is meant by "known icing conditions". In fact, though, the current AIM defines the term clearly (and clearly distinguishes it from "forecast icing conditions"); the article makes no mention of the AIM's definition. Therefore, either the AIM definition first appeared after the article was written, or else the article's author was unaware of the FAA's already-published definition. Either way, the article does not provide sound legal guidance in light of the FAA's current definition. (George's link again: http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html.) --Gary |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Gary
If you wait just a little, the legal definition will change again and the hapless pilot will still be shafted and left bankrupt trying to defend against the FAA steamroller legal section. While I am pleased to see some really good input from the practical standpoints, I'd hate to see it change into a legal discussion and forget the original intent was ice and how to cope with it. I've written at least a half dozen published articles on ice in general aviation and so far they have withstood the test of time. As anyone knows though, longevity lends credence to nearly any stated position if its restated enough!? Best Regards and Merry Christmas/Happy New Year Ol Shy & Bashful |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
wrote in message
oups.com... If you wait just a little, the legal definition will change again and the hapless pilot will still be shafted That seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. But if the definition does change, someone here is likely to call attention to it. While I am pleased to see some really good input from the practical standpoints, I'd hate to see it change into a legal discussion and forget the original intent was ice and how to cope with it. Yup, legality and safety are not synonymous. Still, I think it would be safe to fly IFR through a thin cloud layer (with plenty of room above and below) even if there's a forecast for occasional moderate icing in clouds. And according to the AIM's current definition of "known icing conditions", that would be legal (for Part 91), as long as there are no PIREPs that confirm the forecast. Best Regards and Merry Christmas/Happy New Year A cheerful solstice to you too! --Gary |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"Gary Drescher" wrote
Yup, legality and safety are not synonymous. Still, I think it would be safe to fly IFR through a thin cloud layer (with plenty of room above and below) even if there's a forecast for occasional moderate icing in clouds. And according to the AIM's current definition of "known icing conditions", that would be legal (for Part 91), as long as there are no PIREPs that confirm the forecast. Section 91.527: Operating in icing conditions. (b) Except for an airplane that has ice protection provisions that meet the requirements in section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23, or those for transport category airplane type certification, no pilot may fly— (1) Under IFR into known or forecast moderate icing conditions; or (2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions unless the aircraft has functioning de-icing or anti-icing equipment protecting each propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system. (c) Except for an airplane that has ice protection provisions that meet the requirements in section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23, or those for transport category airplane type certification, no pilot may fly an airplane into known or forecast severe icing conditions. (d) If current weather reports and briefing information relied upon by the pilot in command indicate that the forecast icing conditions that would otherwise prohibit the flight will not be encountered during the flight because of changed weather conditions since the forecast, the restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section based on forecast conditions do not apply. It appears that for purposes of an IFR flight the rules do not rely on any definition of "known" versus "forecast" - they're both covered right in the reg. Paragraph (d) appears to allow a pirep of no icing to supercede the forcast. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
The situation seems to be, for part 91 ops, that if it is forecast,
that is if there is an AIRMET for icing (AIRMET ZULU), then it's not legal to fly in it without approved deice equipment. But.....no one enforces it (for part 91), and it is known that part 91 aircraft do fly in it (by ATC), and so long as you don't declare an emergency or crash, I don't think there has ever been a citation for it. Having said that, I don't think its a very good idea to launch with airmet ZULU along your route, but there may be some exceptions (like when you have VFR beneath you above the MEA), or you have a pilot report from a pilot who was just in it and not only didn't he pick up ice, but he doesn't think there IS icing in those clouds. Also, decending through a thin layer of rime (like 1000' thick) and it is known that you wont get ENOUGH ice to affect your aircraft. Statistically, its not a big problem. There aren't that many crashes due to icing (there are some), but that doesn't mean its safe, just that pilots are handling the hazard (usually by not flying in it). But the fact that part 91 aircraft do it, and don't crash, doesn't make it legal. Just makes it that they are getting away with it. I think they should make icing a "percent probability" and when the probability is greater than some figure (say 30%) then it's a no go. This would allow them to given the 30% icing figure indicating ice, but keep it at 30% indicating there is VFR under it or that the layer is so thin, it is not likely to cause problems. What you really want to aviod is being trapped in it with no VFR under you, no ablity to outclimb it, and no way to turn around (although its hard to imagine NOT being able to turn around, fuel, I guess). Anyway, talk to pilots who have picked up ice and you will get the idea that it is not, in general , a good idea. In fact, avoid it. That is what I do. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"BDS" wrote in message
m... "Gary Drescher" wrote Yup, legality and safety are not synonymous. Still, I think it would be safe to fly IFR through a thin cloud layer (with plenty of room above and below) even if there's a forecast for occasional moderate icing in clouds. And according to the AIM's current definition of "known icing conditions", that would be legal (for Part 91), as long as there are no PIREPs that confirm the forecast. Section 91.527: Operating in icing conditions. Heh, I mistakenly quoted the same reg earlier in this thread. As was quickly pointed out, that section of the regs applies only to large or turbine powered planes, not to the planes that most of us fly. --Gary |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com... The situation seems to be, for part 91 ops, that if it is forecast, that is if there is an AIRMET for icing (AIRMET ZULU), then it's not legal to fly in it without approved deice equipment. But according to the FAA's definition of "known icing conditions" in the current AIM (which I quoted and linked to a few messages ago in this thread), a forecast of icing definitely does *not* count as "known icing conditions". And the only ice-related prohibition I'm aware of in the POH of typical small planes is phrased in terms of known icing conditions (not forecast icing conditions). --Gary |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Having said that, I don't think its a very good idea to launch with
airmet ZULU along your route, but there may be some exceptions (like when you have VFR beneath you above the MEA), or you have a pilot report from a pilot who was just in it and not only didn't he pick up ice, but he doesn't think there IS icing in those clouds. How do you know how good a judge of ice that anonymous pilot who's flying a different kind of plane than you is? I think they should make icing a "percent probability" and when the probability is greater than some figure (say 30%) then it's a no go. Well, is it 30% of picking up ice (but it would be everywhere) or there is ice in 30% of the cloud? And which way is out? Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Issues around de-ice on a 182 | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 87 | September 27th 05 11:46 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Have you ever... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 229 | May 6th 05 08:26 PM |
Known Icing requirements | Jeffrey Ross | Owning | 1 | November 20th 04 03:01 AM |
Wife agrees to go flying | Corky Scott | Piloting | 29 | October 2nd 03 06:55 PM |