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.

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

"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

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

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

"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.

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.

"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

"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

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.