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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Bob, et al,
Disregard my immediately previous post please. Here is the important excerpt from that article that indicates known is the same a forecast: The law on 'known icing' BY JOHN S. YODICE (From http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/ AOPA Pilot, August 2005.) The board, squarely facing the issue, held that "known does not mean a near-certainty of icing conditions, only that icing conditions are being reported or forecast." A forecast of "the potential" for icing is "known icing conditions" to a pilot. The 1974 and 1976 cases hold the same way. 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. So it sounds like the mere mention of icing anywhere near the route of flight means no-go without FIKI certification. I wonder if the first flight out on an IFR day that broadcast a fake-pirep of known icing just slams the door for everyone lined up behind him? The way this is worded known, forecast, it doesn't really matter. All you have to do is mention the word ice and someone's the loser. -----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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
The general icing AIRMET always contains the qualifier "in clouds and
precipitation". You're perfectly legal if you stay out of the clouds and precipitation. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
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? -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
What if anything happens to the whole "known versus forecast" issue if there
is a pirep for "negative icing in clouds". "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... John Doe wrote: Ok, I know this is one of those "it depends" answers, but I'm curious as to what folks are willing to do in the winter time. Assumptions: Single engine piston aircraft with NO de-icing equipment. Situation: It's wintertime. You want to fly XC and there are midlevel clouds in the forecast with the potential for icing to occur. It looks like the band is thin enough to climb through and cruise in the clear above the weather. SO: 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? I believe the recent interpretations is that this would be illegal as the cloud layer at below freezing temps would constitute an area of "known" icing and thus penetrating it would not be legal. As to what I would do personally ... well, I won't answer that here! :-) 2) Would that change any if those same conditions were now reported icing from a recent PIREP? It would change my personal view of the situation, but I don't think it changes the legality. 3) If it's reported, can you transit the cloud layer legally? I don't believe you can do so legally. 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? Again it depends, but if I had sufficient fuel, I'd probably divert. If I was low on fuel, I'd descend through the layer. Matt |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
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." AOPA members can view the entire article here http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html George Patterson Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to your slightly older self. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Under current FAA/NTSB rules, nothing, the forecast stands
until officially amended. The old joke, summer time forecast... Chance of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes along and 1,000 miles either side of a line from 150 miles south of Washington, DC to 300 miles north of San Francisco, CA. Tops to FL600. Winter forecast, same line from an unknown location to an unknown location, with this... Blizzard and whiteout conditions over the continent and coastal waters, chance of moderate to severe icing from the surface to FL240. The forecast calls "wolf" so many times that pilots and ground pounders became complacent. At least here in Kansas, the new standard for issuing a "severe thunderstorm warning" was changed for the 2005 season. They increased the size of the hailstones and the winds that trigger a warning so there would be fewer warnings. Since Kansas can have steady winds of 25 to 40 knots and higher gusts, without being associated with any storm, the severe T storm warning of gusts to 60 mph didn't really alert most locals. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P "pgbnh" wrote in message . .. | What if anything happens to the whole "known versus forecast" issue if there | is a pirep for "negative icing in clouds". | "Matt Whiting" wrote in message | ... | John Doe wrote: | Ok, I know this is one of those "it depends" answers, but I'm curious as | to what folks are willing to do in the winter time. | | Assumptions: | | Single engine piston aircraft with NO de-icing equipment. | | Situation: | | It's wintertime. You want to fly XC and there are midlevel clouds in the | forecast with the potential for icing to occur. | | It looks like the band is thin enough to climb through and cruise in the | clear above the weather. | | SO: | | 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? | | I believe the recent interpretations is that this would be illegal as the | cloud layer at below freezing temps would constitute an area of "known" | icing and thus penetrating it would not be legal. As to what I would do | personally ... well, I won't answer that here! :-) | | | 2) Would that change any if those same conditions were now reported icing | from a recent PIREP? | | It would change my personal view of the situation, but I don't think it | changes the legality. | | | 3) If it's reported, can you transit the cloud layer legally? | | I don't believe you can do so legally. | | | 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? | | Again it depends, but if I had sufficient fuel, I'd probably divert. If I | was low on fuel, I'd descend through the layer. | | Matt | | |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"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 |
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 |