FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

"FiPe" wrote in message
...
From: "Tarver Engineering"

Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.

Bwhahahah

The POH is an FAA approved engineering document. (Approved Data)

What is a FiPe?

From: "Tarver Engineering"

From: "Tarver Engineering"

Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.

Bwhahahah

The POH is an FAA approved engineering document. (Approved Data)

What is a FiPe?


Is NOT the factory that makes Senecas, that's for sure.

"FiPe" wrote in message
...
From: "Tarver Engineering"

From: "Tarver Engineering"

Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.

Bwhahahah

The POH is an FAA approved engineering document. (Approved Data)

What is a FiPe?

Is NOT the factory that makes Senecas, that's for sure.

Your point would be?

The POH is a required part of the airplane's Type Certification.

Well, I KNEW this was a can of worms. The thread has been very
enlightening. Thanks.

I did check with FSS one time, when I was getting a weather briefing, to
clarify the legality of operations in forecast icing. He would not
touch my question with a ten-foot pole. He essentially refused to
answer. Now I see why. The article's at avweb, cited in this thread,
make it clear that FAA and NTSB are at odds over icing rules.

At the risk of re-starting a fire...does the generic line in weather
reports saying that there is "generally the possibility of icing above
the freezing level in clouds and perecipitation" mean that icing is
ALWAYS forecast above the freezing level (assuming there are some clouds
above the freezing level)? Or does that generic line not really count
as a forecast?

-Sami

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:

I KNOW this is a big can of worms, but I have a specific question
relating to sub-paragraphs b.1 and b.2 of this regulation regarinding
operating in icing conditions.

It says "...no pilot may fly--
(1) Under IFR into konwn or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
(2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions..."

This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for IFR
and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a pilots
ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how instrument training
allows one to venture into worse conditions.

So, if there is an airmet for "light icing", then it is legal for an IFR
pilot to enter the clouds (of course, on a valid IFR flight plan)?

What perectnage of the time, during winter, do icing forecasts get
issued whenever there are IFR conditions? In other words, in y'alls
experience, if you get 100 briefings during the winter time that include
IFR conditions, what perecntage of those will also have icing forecast.
My intuition says that it will be upwards of 90-100% (I am a relatively
new IFR pilot, so I do not have the experience base to say...looking for
other opinions here). If it is close to 100%, should I just hang up my
IFR certificate from Sept to May (I live in Wisconsin, so we only have
about 30 minutes of summer here per year ).

-Sami

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
I did check with FSS one time, when I was getting a weather briefing, to
clarify the legality of operations in forecast icing. He would not
touch my question with a ten-foot pole.

And rightly so. The briefer's job is to give you a weather briefing.
If you want an opinion on the legality of doing something, ask a laywer
(and be prepared to pay his fee).

At the risk of re-starting a fire...does the generic line in weather
reports saying that there is "generally the possibility of icing above
the freezing level in clouds and perecipitation" mean that icing is
ALWAYS forecast above the freezing level (assuming there are some clouds
above the freezing level)? Or does that generic line not really count
as a forecast?

I've never seen a forecast that contained the phrase "generally the
possibility", but the way I interpret "icing above X in clouds and in
precipition" is that as long as you stay out of clouds and out of
precip, you are not in the area where icing is forcast. That's just my
interpretation. If you want a legal opinion, see above :-)

Roy,

I do not mean to be argumentative, but I thought the weather briefer is
part of the flight service system and is thus a representative of the
FAA. It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.

-Sami

Roy Smith wrote:

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

I did check with FSS one time, when I was getting a weather briefing, to
clarify the legality of operations in forecast icing. He would not
touch my question with a ten-foot pole.


And rightly so. The briefer's job is to give you a weather briefing.
If you want an opinion on the legality of doing something, ask a laywer
(and be prepared to pay his fee).


At the risk of re-starting a fire...does the generic line in weather
reports saying that there is "generally the possibility of icing above
the freezing level in clouds and perecipitation" mean that icing is
ALWAYS forecast above the freezing level (assuming there are some clouds
above the freezing level)? Or does that generic line not really count
as a forecast?


I've never seen a forecast that contained the phrase "generally the
possibility", but the way I interpret "icing above X in clouds and in
precipition" is that as long as you stay out of clouds and out of
precip, you are not in the area where icing is forcast. That's just my
interpretation. If you want a legal opinion, see above :-)

In article ,
"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

Roy,

I do not mean to be argumentative, but I thought the weather briefer is
part of the flight service system and is thus a representative of the
FAA.

He is.

It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.

It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an expert
on weather.

At the risk of re-starting a fire...does the generic line in weather
reports saying that there is "generally the possibility of icing above
the freezing level in clouds and perecipitation" mean that icing is
ALWAYS forecast above the freezing level (assuming there are some clouds
above the freezing level)? Or does that generic line not really count
as a forecast?


Say this generic line was in the forecast.
Say somebody without icing certification flies in it.
Say there's a crash and an investigation.

Think they'd want to be able to use that line in the forecast to come to the
conclusion that it was "pilot error"? I do.

Jose

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

I think the briefer's job is to be an expert in reading the appropriate
documents to us, but definitely not to be an expert on weather!
It's a meteorologist's job to be an expert on weather.
Only a few FSS briefers have meteorological training.
---JRC---

"Roy Smith" wrote in message =
...
In article ,
"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
=20
Roy,
=20
I do not mean to be argumentative, but I thought the weather briefer =
is=20
part of the flight service system and is thus a representative of =
the=20
FAA.
=20
He is.
=20
It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning=20
and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of =
complying.
=20
It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an =
expert=20
on weather.

In article , Roy Smith
writes:

It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.

It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an expert
on weather.


I understand your point, Roy. But I have had discussions with briefers, on
ocasion, where the discussion has gone something like: Me, "Doesn't look good
between here and there", Him, "it looks like it is lessening to the east, if
you wait half an hour and "fly a curve" it looks better" etc. You may say he
is just giving weather info but I feel we are having a discussion that helps me
reach my decision.

Chuck