FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

At the very least, the law that says "I will not do stupid things with
airplanes". The FARs word it thusly:

"91.13 (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No
person
may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger
the
life or property of another."


Those are not equivalent statements. I am free to do something stupid with
airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me.
That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood.



You seem to be under the misconception that the laws are limited to
statute.
They are not. Further, the laws are subject to "interpretation", and you
don't
get to do the interpreting. The FAA does.


Actually, the FARs mean what they say. Unfortunately, there are many in the
FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are
commonly "misinterpreted".



Avweb has an article at
http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184265-1.html
that provides background and citiations of actual decisions that were made
that
cemented this policy in place.

It goes on to say how the FAA and NTSB are not always in agreement, and
the
NTSB can overrule the FAA in some cases. There's a lot of case law which
you
can review. It is there that the "regulations" will be found - as
precedent
that the FAA can choose from when they investigate an event.

If this doesn't satisfy you, ask the FAA directly by calling the FSDO.
Get it
in writing, post it here, and then take a guess as to how well that will
stand
up should there be an incident.


No need for any of that, my only purpose was to show that you didn't know
what you were talking about. That you claim a law exists that you cannot
cite accomplishes that.

your options will depend on the weather, the terrain your flying over and the
plane your flying.
will the terrain allow you to decend below the icing level?
will your plane have enough power to get you above the icing level?
as for the weather, how fast is ice accumilating and how high and low does the
icing level go.
I am one of those people that like to avoid having to declare an emergency and
or deviate from an ATC clearence because I want to ignore a weather forcast. If
you get in it, you should take immediate action to get out, waiting to see if
it gets worse will only improve your chances of making the next NTSB report.
Also remember, what is considered light ice to a 777 may very well be severe
ice to a C-172

Jeff

Judah wrote:

I am just now getting my IFR, so I am no expert on icing...

But I did once get caught VFR in some light freezing rain when some ice (I
think it was Rime) started building up on my wings at around 3000'. I was
able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, but we're talking
about a very light coating, because I didn't wait very long. Interestingly
enough, I was approaching the NY Class B, and told them I had a critical
condition and required clearance into the Class B in case I would not be
able to descend before

Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into
the warmer air? I mean, presumably, even IFR, if you can recognize it
quickly, you should have options...

Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing =
known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's
disagrees. In the Sporty's IFR training videos, he says something to the
effect of, "If every time icing was forecast we decided not to fly, we
wouldn't get to fly very often." Then he spends a fair amount of time
explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure
and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least
some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the
legalities...

As for me, I was pretty nervous when that ice started up on my wings, and I
was more nervous about the possibility of ice building up on the prop that
I couldn't see or measure. So while I'm not convinced that I will cancel
every planned flight for forecast icing in the area, I am sure going to
make sure that I am pretty vigilant about watching out for it and reacting
quickly if something happens... Hopefully one day I'll be able to afford
anti-ice equipment and deal with the problem the right way anyway...

Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is naive to think you don't risk
harm to others when you fly recklessly solo. Besides the possibility of
harming someone when you hit the ground, you also harm the reputation of
the aviation community, play on the already hyper-sensitive fears of the
general public about aviation, and ultimately lead to more rules,
restrictions, and harm to the aviation community in general.

(Teacherjh) wrote in
:


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)

I am free to do something stupid with
airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me.
That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood.


I did not misunderstand it. Until you can find an airplane that stays in the
air when it crashes, flying in icing conditions without proper equipment
endangers people and property on the ground.


Actually, the FARs mean what they say. Unfortunately, there are many in the
FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are
commonly "misinterpreted".


The end result is either your certificate is lifted, or it isn't. The FAA gets
to decide. If the FAA "mis"interprets its own regulations and lifts your
certificate, your certificate is still lifted.


my only purpose was to show that you didn't know
what you were talking about.


Thanks for enlightening me. I'll go sit in the corner now.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

I don't think that Collins would disagree that forecast icing is known
icing. He might choose to launch anyway but the legalities are clear.

Mike
MU-2

"Judah" wrote in message
...
I am just now getting my IFR, so I am no expert on icing...

But I did once get caught VFR in some light freezing rain when some ice (I
think it was Rime) started building up on my wings at around 3000'. I was
able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, but we're talking
about a very light coating, because I didn't wait very long. Interestingly
enough, I was approaching the NY Class B, and told them I had a critical
condition and required clearance into the Class B in case I would not be
able to descend before

Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into
the warmer air? I mean, presumably, even IFR, if you can recognize it
quickly, you should have options...

Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing =
known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's
disagrees. In the Sporty's IFR training videos, he says something to the
effect of, "If every time icing was forecast we decided not to fly, we
wouldn't get to fly very often." Then he spends a fair amount of time
explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure
and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least
some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the
legalities...

As for me, I was pretty nervous when that ice started up on my wings, and
I
was more nervous about the possibility of ice building up on the prop that
I couldn't see or measure. So while I'm not convinced that I will cancel
every planned flight for forecast icing in the area, I am sure going to
make sure that I am pretty vigilant about watching out for it and reacting
quickly if something happens... Hopefully one day I'll be able to afford
anti-ice equipment and deal with the problem the right way anyway...


Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is naive to think you don't risk
harm to others when you fly recklessly solo. Besides the possibility of
harming someone when you hit the ground, you also harm the reputation of
the aviation community, play on the already hyper-sensitive fears of the
general public about aviation, and ultimately lead to more rules,
restrictions, and harm to the aviation community in general.



(Teacherjh) wrote in
:


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)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

I did not misunderstand it.


What you stated about it was not correct.



Until you can find an airplane that stays in the
air when it crashes, flying in icing conditions without proper equipment
endangers people and property on the ground.


Then all flight violates FAR 91.13. Again, you're misinterpreting the
regulation.



The end result is either your certificate is lifted, or it isn't. The FAA
gets
to decide. If the FAA "mis"interprets its own regulations and lifts your
certificate, your certificate is still lifted.


True, but that's another issue. If the regulations don't mean what they say
they don't mean anything.



Thanks for enlightening me. I'll go sit in the corner now.


Take the FARs with you.

What you stated about it was not correct.

What I stated about it was abbreviated, and was not incorrect. Well, maybe I
should have added "that endanger others..." but I didn't. The FAR I actually
quoted did. You could read that.

Then all flight violates FAR 91.13

Another consequence of abbreviation. All flight endangers people on the
ground. Not all flight is careless or reckless. I contend that the FAA
contends that flight into known or forecast icing in an improperly equipped
airplane is careless or reckless and therefore violates 91.13(a) The FAA and
NTSB have contended this successfully in the courts, creating case law. Case
law =IS= law.


If the regulations don't mean what they say
they don't mean anything.


This has been argued for many years. It has some merit, but not enough. I'd
like them to be better written too, but I know enough to be careful what I wish
for.

Take the FARs with you.

That's not where the law lives, though it might be its address. As a
consequence, the law can change without any statute changing. That's just the
way it works. It may make engineer types (which include me) uncomfortable, but
so does Quantum Mechanics.

Jose
dammit, the electron went SOMEPLACE, and it had to go there to get there!

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

What I stated about it was abbreviated, and was not incorrect.


What you stated with regard to flight in icing conditions is indeed
incorrect, there's no question about that. You wrote; "For us little guys,
ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft is certified for known
ice, which very few spam cans are)." There is no direct prohibition against
flight in icing conditions in "spam cans".



That's not where the law lives, though it might be its address.


No, take the FARs with you when you go to the corner and study them.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I don't think that Collins would disagree that forecast icing is known
icing. He might choose to launch anyway but the legalities are clear.

Here's an interesting footnote to this whole discussion. Since I'm planning
a trip in the U.S. next weekend, earlier this evening I was playing around
learning the Java applets at

http://adds.aviationweather.gov/java/

They're very neat, but I noticed that the U.S. CIP showed (Monday evening) a
high probability of icing all around southern and eastern Ontario and
Northern New York from the surface to 10,000 ft: definitely a no-fly day.

Just out of interest, I then glanced at the Canadian GFA for turbulence and
icing:

http://www.flightplanning.navcanada....rbc_000-e.html

It had no icing forecast at all in this part of Canada Monday evening, aside
from the boilerplate warning "GENLY LGT RIME ICGIC ABV FRLVL" which is
automatically printed on every chart: obviously a perfect night for an IFR
flight.

In the event, by late evening there were no icing PIREPS in the Montreal or
Toronto FIRs.


All the best,


David

My instructor put me in the clouds while working on the instrument
time for
my *Private* license, and we picked up a bit of ice while there.

I know you were the student but how did the instructor knowingly break
the VFR visibility requirements if you were in the clouds? It wasn't
my ass that the plane was strapped to but just wondering.

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) but he said to save it for my IFR ticket which
should begin sooner rather than later.

Gerald

I'm sorry. Time's up. I'm not allowed to argue if you haven't paid.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)