What's the latest on "forecast icing = known icing"

Has there ever been a case where the FAA violated the pilot just for
flying in an area of forecasted icing?

If the FAA wants to do this, it is real easy, since all they have to do
is to automatically send tickets to all non-deiced airplanes flying in
clouds in the winter. You don't even need an inspector; a computer can
do this.

Most enforecement cases I know had an accident, or the pilot declared
an emergency. In that case, whether there was forecasted icing or
reported icing becomes a moot point. They can hang you on a variety of
charges, even if you manage to escape the icing clause.




Bob Gardner wrote:
The latest on known icing is a 2004 case...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

In all my years of lecturing on icing and attending FAA icing conferences I
have never heard anyone, FAA or NWS, put forward the argument that you
espouse. It is bogus. Even before the 2004 case it was well established by
the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that forecast conditions of moisture plus
below-freezing temps constitut known icing. You are late to the party, Gary.

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...

I apologise in advance as this is a topic done to death in the past,
but I have heard various bits of info on this recently, some quoting
FAA or NTSB rulings etc, and others disputing that they are relevant
because there have been more recent events including a clarification
in the AIM.

I am in Europe but this is potentially relevant to me because I fly an
N-reg aircraft (not certified for any icing conditions).

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

The current AIM (7-1-23) explicitly states that "forecast icing
conditions" are *not* "known icing conditions":

"Forecast Icing Conditions: Environmental conditions expected by a
National Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be
conducive to the formation of inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of
ice is observed or detected in flight."

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23

--Gary

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
The latest on known icing is a 2004 case...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

In all my years of lecturing on icing and attending FAA icing conferences
I have never heard anyone, FAA or NWS, put forward the argument that you
espouse. It is bogus.

I said something original, therefore it must be bogus?

Bob, the AIM definitions that my due-process argument depends on are very
recent (2005), so *of course* you haven't heard my argument in all your
prior years of lecturing. It wasn't applicable then.

Every precedent cited in the AOPA article you point to above also precedes
the new AIM definitions, so the due-process argument I raised is simply not
addressed in those cases. (And the article itself was obviously based on
older versions of the AIM, because the article says that "the FAA offers
very little guidance" as to the meaning of "known icing conditions"--which
was true of previous versions of the AIM, but no longer.)

Even before the 2004 case

The 2004 case cited in the AOPA article is doubly irrelevant to my argument,
because 1) it precedes the new AIM definitions; and 2) in the 2004 case, the
NTSB found that the flight instructor continued to fly (despite an
opportunity to land) even after observing ice on the aircraft; that
observation establishes "known icing" under *both* the new and old
definitions.

it was well established by the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that forecast
conditions of moisture plus below-freezing temps constitute known icing.

Again, you are citing cases that long precede the new AIM definitions, so of
course those cases do not address my due-process argument, which depends on
the FAA's publication of those definitions.

You are late to the party, Gary.

No, I'm just keeping abreast of recent developments, rather than assuming
incorrectly that nothing has changed.

Regards,
Gary

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...

I apologise in advance as this is a topic done to death in the past,
but I have heard various bits of info on this recently, some quoting
FAA or NTSB rulings etc, and others disputing that they are relevant
because there have been more recent events including a clarification
in the AIM.

I am in Europe but this is potentially relevant to me because I fly an
N-reg aircraft (not certified for any icing conditions).

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

The current AIM (7-1-23) explicitly states that "forecast icing
conditions" are *not* "known icing conditions":

"Forecast Icing Conditions: Environmental conditions expected by a
National Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be
conducive to the formation of inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of
ice is observed or detected in flight."

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23

--Gary

Doug wrote:

Just use the airmets. If there is an airmet for icing, you can't go. If
there is no airmet, you might be able to go if conditions allow it.

In lieu of the new type of icing forecasts that are supposedly going to
grace your local FSS and DUATs this year, one could assume that the FAA is
aware the current icing AIRMETs are too broad-brushed in their coverage for
your advice to be practical to any pilot downwind of the Great Lakes who
desires some utility out of his aircraft October through May.



--
Peter

I still think you are reading something into the AIM that isn't there, even
if the AIM could be used as a defense in a certificate action. Judges seem
to like precedents, however old, and IMHO would lean toward their fellow
judges rather than toward the anonymous writers of the AIM.

Bob

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
The latest on known icing is a 2004 case...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

In all my years of lecturing on icing and attending FAA icing conferences
I have never heard anyone, FAA or NWS, put forward the argument that you
espouse. It is bogus.

I said something original, therefore it must be bogus?

Bob, the AIM definitions that my due-process argument depends on are very
recent (2005), so *of course* you haven't heard my argument in all your
prior years of lecturing. It wasn't applicable then.

Every precedent cited in the AOPA article you point to above also precedes
the new AIM definitions, so the due-process argument I raised is simply
not addressed in those cases. (And the article itself was obviously based
on older versions of the AIM, because the article says that "the FAA
offers very little guidance" as to the meaning of "known icing
conditions"--which was true of previous versions of the AIM, but no
longer.)

Even before the 2004 case

The 2004 case cited in the AOPA article is doubly irrelevant to my
argument, because 1) it precedes the new AIM definitions; and 2) in the
2004 case, the NTSB found that the flight instructor continued to fly
(despite an opportunity to land) even after observing ice on the aircraft;
that observation establishes "known icing" under *both* the new and old
definitions.

it was well established by the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that
forecast conditions of moisture plus below-freezing temps constitute
known icing.

Again, you are citing cases that long precede the new AIM definitions, so
of course those cases do not address my due-process argument, which
depends on the FAA's publication of those definitions.

You are late to the party, Gary.

No, I'm just keeping abreast of recent developments, rather than assuming
incorrectly that nothing has changed.

Regards,
Gary

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...

I apologise in advance as this is a topic done to death in the past,
but I have heard various bits of info on this recently, some quoting
FAA or NTSB rulings etc, and others disputing that they are relevant
because there have been more recent events including a clarification
in the AIM.

I am in Europe but this is potentially relevant to me because I fly an
N-reg aircraft (not certified for any icing conditions).

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

The current AIM (7-1-23) explicitly states that "forecast icing
conditions" are *not* "known icing conditions":

"Forecast Icing Conditions: Environmental conditions expected by a
National Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be
conducive to the formation of inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation
of ice is observed or detected in flight."

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23

--Gary

All of the cases I have in my files are certificate actions based on
accidents...some fatal, some not.

When Tony Broderick was Assistant Administrator for Certification and
Regulation, I asked him specifically about any action based on a pilot
report of an icing encounter in a non-known-ice airplane. He said that if
the pilot took action to escape the icing conditions it would be a
non-event, but if the pilot remained in the icing conditions and an
accident/incident resulted, he would be subject to certificate action.

Then I asked the controller's union VP for safety about how controllers
react to reports of icing encounters from pilots of non-KI airplanes. He
said that controllers have no interest in the certification status of
airplane or pilot, and have no paperwork mechanism available anyway.

I'm going to miss the controller's union meeting in Dallas the end of this
month, so I won't be able to bang any ears.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Has there ever been a case where the FAA violated the pilot just for
flying in an area of forecasted icing?

If the FAA wants to do this, it is real easy, since all they have to do
is to automatically send tickets to all non-deiced airplanes flying in
clouds in the winter. You don't even need an inspector; a computer can
do this.

Most enforecement cases I know had an accident, or the pilot declared
an emergency. In that case, whether there was forecasted icing or
reported icing becomes a moot point. They can hang you on a variety of
charges, even if you manage to escape the icing clause.




Bob Gardner wrote:
The latest on known icing is a 2004 case...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

In all my years of lecturing on icing and attending FAA icing conferences
I
have never heard anyone, FAA or NWS, put forward the argument that you
espouse. It is bogus. Even before the 2004 case it was well established
by
the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that forecast conditions of moisture
plus
below-freezing temps constitut known icing. You are late to the party,
Gary.

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...

I apologise in advance as this is a topic done to death in the past,
but I have heard various bits of info on this recently, some quoting
FAA or NTSB rulings etc, and others disputing that they are relevant
because there have been more recent events including a clarification
in the AIM.

I am in Europe but this is potentially relevant to me because I fly an
N-reg aircraft (not certified for any icing conditions).

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

The current AIM (7-1-23) explicitly states that "forecast icing
conditions" are *not* "known icing conditions":

"Forecast Icing Conditions: Environmental conditions expected by a
National Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be
conducive to the formation of inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation
of
ice is observed or detected in flight."

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23

--Gary

Check this out...especially the last paragraph. It is the Introduction to
the AIM:

"The following is in essence, the statement issued by the FAA Administrator
and published in the December 10, 1964, issue of the Federal Register,
concerning the FAA policy as pertaining to the type of information that will
be published as NOTAMs and in the Aeronautical Information Manual.
a. It is a pilot's inherent responsibility to be alert at all times for and
in anticipation of all circumstances, situations, and conditions affecting
the safe operation of the aircraft. For example, a pilot should expect to
find air traffic at any time or place. At or near both civil and military
airports and in the vicinity of known training areas, a pilot should expect
concentrated air traffic and realize concentrations of air traffic are not
limited to these places.
b. It is the general practice of the agency to advertise by NOTAM or other
flight information publications such information it may deem appropriate;
information which the agency may from time to time make available to pilots
is solely for the purpose of assisting them in executing their regulatory
responsibilities. Such information serves the aviation community as a whole
and not pilots individually.
c. The fact that the agency under one particular situation or another may or
may not furnish information does not serve as a precedent of the agency's
responsibility to the aviation community; neither does it give assurance
that other information of the same or similar nature will be advertised,
nor, does it guarantee that any and all information known to the agency will
be advertised.
d. This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which
reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be
requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made
available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities
required by other publications.
Consistent with the foregoing, it shall be the policy of the Federal
Aviation Administration to furnish information only when, in the opinion of
the agency, a unique situation should be advertised and not to furnish
routine information such as concentrations of air traffic, either civil or
military.

The Aeronautical Information Manual will not contain informative items
concerning everyday circumstances that pilots should, either by good
practices or regulation, expect to encounter or avoid."

I subscribe to the Summit Aviation CD-ROM that contains just about every
piece of paper issued by the FAA, regularly updated, and as I look at the
list of changes to the AIM I do not find 7-1-22 (used to be 7-1-23) listed
anywhere. Admittedly, there is a lag between when the FAA does something and
when Summit publishes it.

Bob Gardner


Bob Gardner


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
I still think you are reading something into the AIM that isn't there, even
if the AIM could be used as a defense in a certificate action. Judges seem
to like precedents, however old, and IMHO would lean toward their fellow
judges rather than toward the anonymous writers of the AIM.

Bob

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
The latest on known icing is a 2004 case...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

In all my years of lecturing on icing and attending FAA icing
conferences I have never heard anyone, FAA or NWS, put forward the
argument that you espouse. It is bogus.

I said something original, therefore it must be bogus?

Bob, the AIM definitions that my due-process argument depends on are very
recent (2005), so *of course* you haven't heard my argument in all your
prior years of lecturing. It wasn't applicable then.

Every precedent cited in the AOPA article you point to above also
precedes the new AIM definitions, so the due-process argument I raised is
simply not addressed in those cases. (And the article itself was
obviously based on older versions of the AIM, because the article says
that "the FAA offers very little guidance" as to the meaning of "known
icing conditions"--which was true of previous versions of the AIM, but no
longer.)

Even before the 2004 case

The 2004 case cited in the AOPA article is doubly irrelevant to my
argument, because 1) it precedes the new AIM definitions; and 2) in the
2004 case, the NTSB found that the flight instructor continued to fly
(despite an opportunity to land) even after observing ice on the
aircraft; that observation establishes "known icing" under *both* the new
and old definitions.

it was well established by the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that
forecast conditions of moisture plus below-freezing temps constitute
known icing.

Again, you are citing cases that long precede the new AIM definitions, so
of course those cases do not address my due-process argument, which
depends on the FAA's publication of those definitions.

You are late to the party, Gary.

No, I'm just keeping abreast of recent developments, rather than assuming
incorrectly that nothing has changed.

Regards,
Gary

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...

I apologise in advance as this is a topic done to death in the past,
but I have heard various bits of info on this recently, some quoting
FAA or NTSB rulings etc, and others disputing that they are relevant
because there have been more recent events including a clarification
in the AIM.

I am in Europe but this is potentially relevant to me because I fly an
N-reg aircraft (not certified for any icing conditions).

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

The current AIM (7-1-23) explicitly states that "forecast icing
conditions" are *not* "known icing conditions":

"Forecast Icing Conditions: Environmental conditions expected by a
National Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be
conducive to the formation of inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation
of ice is observed or detected in flight."

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23

--Gary

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
I still think you are reading something into the AIM that isn't there,

Eh? As I quoted earlier, the AIM now makes the following crystal-clear
distinction (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 inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of
ice is observed or detected in flight."

How am I reading anything into those definitions that isn't explicitly
stated?

even if the AIM could be used as a defense in a certificate action.
Judges seem to like precedents, however old, and IMHO would lean
toward their fellow judges rather than toward the anonymous writers
of the AIM.

Bob, that's not how precedents work. A precedent only applies when the
material facts of the new case sufficiently resemble the facts of the old
case. The new content of the AIM is a material fact that is crucially
different from the previous cases. So it's not a contest between what the
precedent says and what the AIM says. Rather, the AIM bears on whether the
precedent is even applicable.

But ok, let's imagine you're right that the FAA could argue in court, with a
straight face, that the true definition of "known icing conditions" is
completely different from the definition that the FAA now publishes in the
AIM (which is the *only* definition of that term that the FAA publishes
*anywhere*). And let's even imagine (though this is *very* far-fetched) that
an appeals court would just accept the FAA's assertion about the true
definition.

Even *given* those (rather wild) assumptions, the FAA *still* couldn't win
on appeal, for the reason I explained earlier: according to the FAA's own
argument, they have persuaded the pilot in question to commit an infraction
by advising the pilot (via the AIM) to interpret the regs using a false
definition. And it is a bedrock principle of Constitutional law the
government cannot hold someone liable for an infraction that the government
itself persuaded that person to commit (and that the person was not already
inclined to commit).

In any event, I don't understand why any pilot should worry about the
possibility of becoming the first person in the history of aviation to be
prosecuted by the FAA for complying with the AIM! It's like worrying about
being hit by a meteor. Chill; it's just not going to happen to you.

--Gary

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
Check this out...especially the last paragraph. It is the Introduction to
the AIM:

"...The Aeronautical Information Manual will not contain informative items
concerning everyday circumstances that pilots should, either by good
practices or regulation, expect to encounter or avoid."

Sure--as I explicitly pointed out earlier in the thread, it would often (but
not always) be careless and reckless to fly a non-icing-certified plane in
foreceast icing conditions, even if they're not *known* icing conditions
(under the AIM's current definition). So yes, there are many times when a
pilot should avoid forecast icing conditions, even if no specific regulation
requires that avoidance, and even if the AIM doesn't explicitly say so. But
that doesn't bear on what we've been discussing, does it?

I subscribe to the Summit Aviation CD-ROM that contains just about every
piece of paper issued by the FAA, regularly updated, and as I look at the
list of changes to the AIM I do not find 7-1-22 (used to be 7-1-23) listed
anywhere. Admittedly, there is a lag between when the FAA does something
and when Summit publishes it.

Bob, the current definitions (in 7-1-23) are on the FAA's web site:
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23.
To verify that the definitions are new, just look in any pre-2005 copy of
the AIM, or else just Google "FAA AIM changes 7-1-23" and look at the cached
(no longer online) copy of "AIM Change 2" (2nd search result).

--Gary

Bob Gardner wrote:
All of the cases I have in my files are certificate actions based on
accidents...some fatal, some not.

When Tony Broderick was Assistant Administrator for Certification and
Regulation, I asked him specifically about any action based on a pilot
report of an icing encounter in a non-known-ice airplane. He said that if
the pilot took action to escape the icing conditions it would be a
non-event, but if the pilot remained in the icing conditions and an
accident/incident resulted, he would be subject to certificate action.

Then I asked the controller's union VP for safety about how controllers
react to reports of icing encounters from pilots of non-KI airplanes. He
said that controllers have no interest in the certification status of
airplane or pilot, and have no paperwork mechanism available anyway.

I'm going to miss the controller's union meeting in Dallas the end of this
month, so I won't be able to bang any ears.

Bob Gardner



Unless the FAA is handing out tickets to pilots who fly in icing
conditions, all this discussion about certificate action simply
academic.

If the icing is light, then no one will find out, or even care. If the
icing is severe, and he lives to face FAA actions, then he is one lucky
soul.

Bob Gardner wrote:
The latest on known icing is a 2004 case...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

In all my years of lecturing on icing and attending FAA icing conferences I
have never heard anyone, FAA or NWS, put forward the argument that you
espouse. It is bogus. Even before the 2004 case it was well established by
the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that forecast conditions of moisture plus
below-freezing temps constitut known icing. You are late to the party, Gary.

So are you saying that he misquoted the AIM or are you saying that the
AIM is wrong?


Matt