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.

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.

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.

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.

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 *
************************************************** ***********************

"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

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

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.

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
|
|

"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