I'm new to flying IFR.I have about 5 hours actual, but this morning
was going to be my first IFR flight without a safety pilot.

CRQ to SBP

I'm flying a C172RG

The weather forecast:

Cloud bases vary from 1500 to 6000 ft over the route.

Rain reported all over the region.,.

Freezing level (From winds aloft) between 6000 and 9000

No icing airmets or sigmets for the route.

No Pireps availible.

MEA 6000 ft with one 16mile segment of 6400 ft.


Now three hours after I cancled I review the weather, there are two
pireps availible with light rime ice at 9000 ft.

Still no airmets or sigmets.

This was a very close decision for me, and I opted for the No-Go.
I also releaized that I don't feel I know enoguh about making this
decision.

How do the rest of you make the "Ice" decision.


What are your rules?

Any guidance on making this decision would be helpful.

wrote:

> I'm new to flying IFR.I have about 5 hours actual, but this morning
> was going to be my first IFR flight without a safety pilot.
>
> CRQ to SBP
>
> I'm flying a C172RG
>
> The weather forecast:
>
> Cloud bases vary from 1500 to 6000 ft over the route.
>
> Rain reported all over the region.,.
>
> Freezing level (From winds aloft) between 6000 and 9000
>
> No icing airmets or sigmets for the route.
>
> No Pireps availible.
>
> MEA 6000 ft with one 16mile segment of 6400 ft.

I don't like the smell of that forecast. Sounds like at the MEA you've
got a very good chance of being in clouds in freezing temperatures.
Beats me why there's no airmet for icing.

> This was a very close decision for me, and I opted for the No-Go.
> I also releaized that I don't feel I know enoguh about making this
> decision.

One of the factors that goes into a go/no-go decision is where are your
outs if the real weather is worse than the forecast.

What's the MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude)? If the MOCA is significantly
below the MEA, and you're going to be in radar coverage (local knowledge
helps here), you can reasonably expect that you might get assigned an
altitude below the MEA based on the MVA. Unfortunately, to the best of
my knowledge, the MVA is not knowable by pilots ahead of time. If
you're out of radar coverage, the MEA is as low as you'll get.

Do you know what the tops are? Maybe it's just a thin layer and you'll
be on top before you climb into freezing temperatures? You didn't give
enough information to tell.

Also, what kind of clouds are we talking about? Broken CU, or a thick
stratus overcast layer that stretches for 100's of miles. Based on the
reports of widespread rain, I'm guessing the latter.

I'm thinking of "worst case" scenarios. Based on the information you
gave, that sounds like the freezing level being a little lower than
forecast and the MEA being the MIA. So, imagine yourself at 7000
(lowest westbound altitude above the MEA), unable to get lower due to
terrain. OAT is 30 degrees, and you're in freezing rain. Sounds pretty
bad to me.

I don't understand why there's no icing airmet.

I think you made a good decision to cancel.




wrote:

> I'm new to flying IFR.I have about 5 hours actual, but this morning
> was going to be my first IFR flight without a safety pilot.
>
> CRQ to SBP
>
> I'm flying a C172RG
>
> The weather forecast:
>
> Cloud bases vary from 1500 to 6000 ft over the route.
>
> Rain reported all over the region.,.
>
> Freezing level (From winds aloft) between 6000 and 9000
>
> No icing airmets or sigmets for the route.
>
> No Pireps availible.
>
> MEA 6000 ft with one 16mile segment of 6400 ft.
>
> Now three hours after I cancled I review the weather, there are two
> pireps availible with light rime ice at 9000 ft.
>
> Still no airmets or sigmets.
>
> This was a very close decision for me, and I opted for the No-Go.
> I also releaized that I don't feel I know enoguh about making this
> decision.
>
> How do the rest of you make the "Ice" decision.
>
> What are your rules?
>
> Any guidance on making this decision would be helpful.

More information...
It was a good decision to cancel.
I just got a phone call, and the airplane I was going to use
had an alternator/electrical system failure, today, while someone else
was flying it in the pattern.


On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:42:26 -0800, wrote:

>I'm new to flying IFR.I have about 5 hours actual, but this morning
>was going to be my first IFR flight without a safety pilot.
>
>CRQ to SBP
>
>I'm flying a C172RG
>
>The weather forecast:
>
>Cloud bases vary from 1500 to 6000 ft over the route.
>
>Rain reported all over the region.,.
>
>Freezing level (From winds aloft) between 6000 and 9000
>
>No icing airmets or sigmets for the route.
>
>No Pireps availible.
>
>MEA 6000 ft with one 16mile segment of 6400 ft.
>
>
>Now three hours after I cancled I review the weather, there are two
>pireps availible with light rime ice at 9000 ft.
>
>Still no airmets or sigmets.
>
>This was a very close decision for me, and I opted for the No-Go.
>I also releaized that I don't feel I know enoguh about making this
>decision.
>
>How do the rest of you make the "Ice" decision.
>
>
>What are your rules?
>
>Any guidance on making this decision would be helpful.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

wrote:

> It was a good decision to cancel.
> I just got a phone call, and the airplane I was going to use
> had an alternator/electrical system failure, today, while someone else
> was flying it in the pattern.

Hmmm... not so fast! :) Hindsight is 20-20. While certainly true
that you were lucky it wasn't you in IMC during this aircraft's
alternator failure, IMO you cannot use this incident to validate your
go/no go decision.

Rather, I believe that you made the right decision based on the facts at
the time of the decision; that is, that you concluded there was a good
chance of icing and you had no perceivable "out" to escape the ice.

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

To me, at least, this is an absolute no brainer. MEA at the freezing level -
no go. Ice is very scary stuff. Especially in a 172.

Michael

> wrote in message
...
> I'm new to flying IFR.I have about 5 hours actual, but this morning
> was going to be my first IFR flight without a safety pilot....
<snip>

> What are your rules?

This tends to be a very heated subject, but I hear your frustration,
it is hard to get substantial, realistic advice about ice. Not really
having enough experience to contribute anything meanigful yet, I will
just recommend reading Buck's "Weather Flying" (a refreshingly candid
discussion of ice flying strategies, I thought), and for what its
worth, offer some personal perspective:

PIREPs are very important to me, if kerosene burners bother to
sprinkle the wings and pass it on to center as "moderate", its
probably some pretty serious s**t for us. Remember these guys spend so
little time at one altitude block that the accretion had to be pretty
impressive to get noticed, and you are dealing with fairly uniform
experience level, too. With lighter GA craft, its a little tougher
call, very different ideas what "moderate" is sometimes. "Severe", on
the other hand, usually means "you really don't want to go there",
even when its reported by a 172. On the other hand, (and I may get
chastised for this), I take reports of trace or light to mean, "we,
too were told there was ice, but its not that bad". At least that's
how I think when I give them myself.

OK, enough beating around the bush, what are some examples of my go/no
go's:

GO: PDX->SEA, late November, C177B (180hp/CS prop), fly this route
4-5x year. Layered according to the radar, tops confirmed at 9,000,
the usual daily SCAIRMET for occasional mixed in clouds/precipitation.
Freezing level at 3K, MEA is 5000, mostly over valleys and several
airports with approaches. Picked up some trace/light mixed between
5-7K feet. Had to put on sunglasses once on top, beatiful trip.

NO-GO: West Yellowstone->Boise, C177(older 150hp model) (long trip
away from home), September, but unusually cold morning. Obstacle DP
was climbing via localizer with something like a 300' minimum climb
gradient to 10K with ~1500 ceiling. Freezing level at 8-9K, no PIREPs.
I have also experienced ice in this airplane before and knew it would
struggle to maintain much above 8K with any significant accretion.

I am sure you are getting a wind of the difference - the former had
plenty of outs with little better equipment, while the latter would
have been a truly optionless existence. I guess my point is you have
to think about the big weather/performance/terrain picture. I don't
think there are any hard and fast rules, in the end it boils down to
personal risk tolerance and previous experience with similar
circumstances...


Martin

I'm certainly not one of the "if you touch ice your plane will end up
in flames" guys. However, you always want to have an out anytime there
is any chance of ice. The way you described it, it doesn't sounds like
there was much of an out. Now, if the weather was clear at departure
you may have been able to climb above it or if the MEAs were below the
freezing level things could have been different.
I would have opted for the no-go myself.

However, I would highly recommend going up into the 1500 if you can
locally and experience some close to home IMC. Just tell the
controllers you want to fly to foobar intersection and hold. I do it
all the time with students. I honestly believe that the single thing
that most pilots need is spending 30 minute solid crusing in the
clouds. We spent way to much time on approaches where things are busy
and not enough spining around where you can relax and get a feel for
the plane in IMC.

-Robert, CFI


wrote in message >...
> I'm new to flying IFR.I have about 5 hours actual, but this morning
> was going to be my first IFR flight without a safety pilot.
>
> CRQ to SBP
>
> I'm flying a C172RG
>
> The weather forecast:
>
> Cloud bases vary from 1500 to 6000 ft over the route.
>
> Rain reported all over the region.,.
>
> Freezing level (From winds aloft) between 6000 and 9000
>
> No icing airmets or sigmets for the route.
>
> No Pireps availible.
>
> MEA 6000 ft with one 16mile segment of 6400 ft.
>
>
> Now three hours after I cancled I review the weather, there are two
> pireps availible with light rime ice at 9000 ft.
>
> Still no airmets or sigmets.
>
> This was a very close decision for me, and I opted for the No-Go.
> I also releaized that I don't feel I know enoguh about making this
> decision.
>
> How do the rest of you make the "Ice" decision.
>
>
> What are your rules?
>
> Any guidance on making this decision would be helpful.

wrote in message >...

Have you found the icing prediction stuff on ADDS
(search for ADDS aviation on google)? Very helpful...

> The weather forecast:
> Cloud bases vary from 1500 to 6000 ft over the route.
> Rain reported all over the region.,.
> Freezing level (From winds aloft) between 6000 and 9000
> No icing airmets or sigmets for the route.

OK, FWIW: airmet or no airmet, if the clouds are moist
enough to produce rain, I think you pretty much have
to assume that if you're in a cloud below the freezing
level there's a chance of ice.

So then the question becomes:

1) will your route require you to be in a cloud below
freezing level? to answer this you need to know the
freezing level and the MIAs (which might be lower than
MEA if you're in radar contact -- but MEAs are a good
place to start). Then be aware you can't count on
getting the lowest MEA. You need to be able to go
2000 ft higher

2) if you do encounter ice, what is your "out"?
Could you descend out of the clouds and continue
the trip VFR? Can you land under VFR or would
you have to shoot an approach?

If the MEA is 6000 ft because of an antenna farm,
but most of the route is over 2000 ft hills, you're
in a different situation than if the MEA is 6000 ft
over 4000 ft hills studded with occasional towers.

Anyway, it sounds to me like your answers to the above
would be: the MEA would put you in a cloud, the cloud
might be below freezing level, and there might not be
a good "out" (bases down to 1500 ft in an area w/ 6000
ft MEA). I wouldn't go.

> How do the rest of you make the "Ice" decision.

Conservative. If I don't feel I can plan the trip
with a reasonable probablility to stay out of clouds
below freezing, I don't go. If I don't feel I have
good "outs", I don't go.

On my IFR checkride, the DE asked if we had anti-icing
equipment installed on our plane. I answered "the
pilot. stay out of the ice. like that 'parents --
the anti-drug' ad campaign". She liked that answer.

HTH,
Sydney

In article >, Peter R.
> writes:

>It was a good decision to cancel.
>> I just got a phone call, and the airplane I was going to use
>> had an alternator/electrical system failure, today, while someone else
>> was flying it in the pattern.
>
>Hmmm... not so fast! :) Hindsight is 20-20. While certainly true
>that you were lucky it wasn't you in IMC during this aircraft's
>alternator failure, IMO you cannot use this incident to validate your
>go/no go decision.
>
>Rather, I believe that you made the right decision based on the facts at
>the time of the decision; that is, that you concluded there was a good
>chance of icing and you had no perceivable "out" to escape the ice.
>

Good thought, Peter. The wife and I call these "mid Lake decisions" and we are
not allowed to make them. Comes from sailing across large lakes (we have a
boat on Lake Erie). When you are on one shore and going to the other, you
decide about the weather, etc. but when you are in the middle of the lake you
don't second guess your decision.

A good decision was made not to go because of POSIBLE ice. When your are in
"the middle of the lake" you can't decide whether to go or not. Also, be sure
not to "beat up" on yourself if the decision turns out to be wrong. Just learn
from it. Experience is surviving your mistakes and learning.

I would not have gone. It looks like a high probability of ice and nothing
you could do about it if you found any.

Some of us in this group live and fly in the Great Lakes Ice Machine.
We have all learned that local knowledge alerts us to whether the
conditions forecast for this area are flyable or not.

Put us in the middle of a trip in another geographical area of the
country and our local knowledge of the Great Lakes is still applicable,
but moderated.

As an example, say we want to fly from Michigan or Ohio to the East
Coast. If we have read Ernie Gann's books, we know the Alleghanies are
also know for their ice producing capabilities, but in a different way.

Moisture can come up with a warm, low level, Low pressure system from
the Gulf and collide with an upper level cold High pressure system from
the northwest. The lifting action on the front side of the Low and the
mountains creates an unpredictable, unstable air mass. The High may
move fast and push the Low quickly off to the E-NE, or the Low may be
the stronger of the two and stall over the mountains.

Then the pumping action begins. Warm moist air from the Atlantic Gulf
Stream gets sucked in to the NE and mixed with the cold air from Canada
to the W-NW, and warm southern air and it is anyones guess where the
rain ends and the snow begins. There are alot of dynamics.

Or an upper level, closed Low aloft coming down from Canada will really
mess with the forecast as it did this past week. The forecasts
beginning a week ago Sunday changed every day with each issuance as the
week progressed.

Saturday was supposed to be cloudy with freezing rain moving up from
Kentucky. That didn't happen until Sunday, and Saturday was cold,
clear, windy day for flying.

As others have posted, you have to understand the terrain beneath you.
In Michigan and Ohio, you have vast stretches of flat land. Central
Pennsylvania is quite hilly with some MEA's up to 4,000 and 5,000 MSL.

In Ohio and Michigan, there are airports or landing strips everywhere
(except SE OH) but in Central PA, it may be 50-60 nm between flat spots
to land.

Personally, I watch the temperature/dewpoint spreads at the surface and
the freezing level. The smaller the range, the less likely I am to fly.
With the consolidation of Flight Service Stations, the weather
available to you is less reliable than it was 25-30 years ago.
AWOS/ASOS give you a snapshot of the weather, not an image.

Sorry for the rambling nature, I couldn't figure out a comprehensive
manner to arrange it, so it is a "stream of thought" posting.

wrote
> Cloud bases vary from 1500 to 6000 ft over the route.
> Rain reported all over the region.,.
> Freezing level (From winds aloft) between 6000 and 9000
> MEA 6000 ft with one 16mile segment of 6400 ft.
> This was a very close decision for me, and I opted for the No-Go.
> I also releaized that I don't feel I know enoguh about making this
> decision.

Let's start with the basic rule. Always have an ironclad out.

A descent below the freezing level is an ironclad out. Remaining
clear of clouds is an ironclad out, except for the special case of
freezing rain which can only occur if there is a temperature
inversion. That's it.

So here you are, looking at flying IMC without the ability to descend
below the freezing level safely, and without the ability to remain
clear of clouds. No ironclad out. You chose not to go. Makes sense
to me.

The only question is - is that MEA really a hard floor? There are
routes where the MEA is 6000 and the MOCA is 2000, due to
communication/navaid reception issues. If you have GPS/LORAN you can
trust, then a descent below the MEA may be viable. Sometimes you can
get a descent to the MVA from ATC. Basically, the MEA is not
necessarily the last word in how low you can go - but it is a good
start.

PIREPs are basically worthless when it comes to ice. So are AIRMET's
- except for what happens AFTER. If there is visible moisture and
subfreezing temperature, you can get ice. That's all there is to it.
Someday the predictive methods may get better than that, but they're
not there yet.

Under normal operating conditions, you may not be able to get a
descent to the MEA, never mind below that to the MVA. The altitude
may not be available. If you declare an emergency, you CAN get it.
However, a flight assist report will be filed by ATC. This is where
it's going to matter if icing was in the forecast - if there was an
AIRMET. If it's forecast, it's known. You flew into it. The POH for
your airplane almost certainly forbids it. You're busted. If the
icing was unforecast, you will get away with it. Keep that in mind.

There are people who ignore the above rules, and will operate in IMC,
above the feezing level, and without the option of descending below
it. Very rarely does anyone get busted, but every year a few of them
fall out of the sky.

These are not idiots - these are mostly people who choose to take a
calculated risk - that being that the ice won't be bad enough to force
them out of the sky at the wrong time. They base those choices on
their experiences with the airplane and the weather. Sometimes the
risk goes sour, and no amount of skill will help.

I won't telll you not to do this - but you might, at that point,
consider other options. If the bases are 1500 ft AGL and higher along
the route, it seems to me that it would be a lot safer to go VFR
rather than IFR. If VFR below a 1500 ft ceiling seems terribly
difficult or dangerous to you, you might consider investing a fraction
of the time and money you spent on instrument training and get some
good low-VFR training.

Finally, in regard to your update. The fact that the alternator
failed on that particular plane at that particular time neither
validates nor invalidates your decision. Alternators fail with
depressing regularity on airplanes - far more often than they do on
cars. A battery is SUPPOSED to have adequate capacity to power the
stuff you need to fly IFR for 30 minutes (though you will find that
this is not a rule that applies to most of the GA fleet - it's often
quoten but not generally applicable) but in reality, I can assure you
that most rental operations will not replace the battery until it is
unable to start the airplane. You have to assume that the alternator
could fail on any flight. If alternator failure on a particular
flight can kill you, you just need to decide how much you trust the
maintenance (wrt battery and alternator), how long you will be
exposed, and how badly you need to make the trip.

Personally, I won't get into an airplane for an IFR flight without a
battery-powered GPS unless it has a fully redundant electrical system
- one where no single point failure will take it out. This is
exceedingly rare in singles, and not universal even on twins.

With a decent handheld GPS, you can (with the proper training) fly any
VOR or NDB approach with a higher level of accuracy than is available
from the underlying navaid, so alternator failure (and the total
electrical failure that will soon follow) is not a huge problem.

Michael

(PaulaJay1) wrote in message >...
> Good thought, Peter. The wife and I call these "mid Lake decisions" and we are
> not allowed to make them. Comes from sailing across large lakes (we have a
> boat on Lake Erie). When you are on one shore and going to the other, you
> decide about the weather, etc. but when you are in the middle of the lake you
> don't second guess your decision.

Agreed. You also can't make good weather decisions a day or even a
half day in advance. I can't tell you the number of times the weather
looked no-go 6 hours before the flight and ended up wonderful. Weather
guessing is still an almost random art. Its very common to hear about
crappy weather for the next week and then get CAVU. I try not to make
decisions until about an hour before departure. I'm flying around a
family with hotel reservations etc but I can honestly say the no-go
has been very rare despite forcasts of many no-gos.

-Robert

In article >,
Michael > wrote:
>However, a flight assist report will be filed by ATC. This is where
>it's going to matter if icing was in the forecast - if there was an
>AIRMET. If it's forecast, it's known. You flew into it.

At an aviation safety seminar (the gist of which was "please declare an
emergency if you need to, and do it soon enough that we can help") an
inspector from the FSDO stood up and said that the flight assist reports
end up on his desk, and as a matter of policy he does not pursue
certificate action based on them. Makes sense to me.

I'm not saying "go fly in ice!" I just wouldn't want your comment to
discourage people from declaring an emergency if they do.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

The same feather is here...

I was considering to IFR solo from EMT to PAO (similar trip) on
Saturday, the next day after I get the IFR ticket.

Although I did not fly that day. In my mind I had confident that I
would go if time and plane were available, giving the following
reasons:

1. The weather was not that bad, by analyzing satellite images, airmat
(no ice), ADDS and TAF in the previous night and the morning. Also,
the actual weather was better than the forcast.

2. The trend was getting beter instead of getting worse toward the end
of day. (TAF, Prog chart and weather.com) Actually, to prove that,
all Bay area airports were clear of cloud in the Saturday evening.

3. -SHRA does not mean too much unless you have to fly through the
warm front and lower level is freezing (clear ice). This will most
likely not happen in south west but east coast or south (warm moisture
from the ocrean south move north met with super-cold airmass) I only
have to worry about the rime ice if it happen. Sorry I did not call
FSS to get the actual freezing level step down. Therefore I can't
answer whether it will freeze at 6k. However, it does not look like
it will freeze at 6k from my past experience with forcast given that
relative high ground temporatures on that day. (so the PIREPs were at
9k instead of 6k)

4. I am familiar with terrian along the route. I flew the same victor
airways and approaches many times even I was only a VFR pilot. You
can fly as low as 5500 VFR. Most of MEFs (max elevation figure, the
big number on each block of sectional chart, which is max elevation +
500)) are lower than 5000, mostly 2k to 4k. Note that there is no MIA
but MVA (max vectoring alt, controller use to vector the a/c). The
MVA has 500' obstacle clearance during radar vectors. As you can see
from those low MEF numbers then you can figure out how low the MVAa
also are. When I was VFR, controllers could vector me and provide
traffic warning when I was only 5500.

Also, San Joaquin valley (0 msl) is few minutes away along my route
for my icing get-off back door. For the CRQ to SBP trip, basically
ocean (0 msl) is within few miles away.

5. SJC is right next to PAO for the alternate.

The reasons that I did not go:
1. I have too much of the other things have to finish. That's a
nightmare after put off too much of my regular duty to completed the
checkride.

2. Don't have the current approach charts for North CA.


-cpu

(Ben Jackson) wrote
> Michael > wrote:
> >However, a flight assist report will be filed by ATC. This is where
> >it's going to matter if icing was in the forecast - if there was an
> >AIRMET. If it's forecast, it's known. You flew into it.
>
> At an aviation safety seminar (the gist of which was "please declare an
> emergency if you need to, and do it soon enough that we can help") an
> inspector from the FSDO stood up and said that the flight assist reports
> end up on his desk, and as a matter of policy he does not pursue
> certificate action based on them. Makes sense to me.

My experience is that this is simply not true. BTDT. Narrowly
avoided a certificate action. What's more, the inspector in question
waited 3 months before following up, thus ensuring that weather
reports and forecasts from that time were no longer available for me
to prove my case. That happens to be against their rules (got that
from another inspector at the same FSDO) but they do it anyway because
the courts have not been agressive about slapping them down for it.

Michael

Personally I will confess to a high level of superstition in this matter.
When "something just doesn't feel right" and I can't figure out what it is I
stick to ground-pounding. We absorb and synthesize tremendous amounts of
information that we don't recall individually and I think a lot of that is
returned to us in the form of "gut feelings" etc. Now I know there was no
causal connection here whatsoever, but you know what, man doesn't live by
reason alone.

-cwk.


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > It was a good decision to cancel.
> > I just got a phone call, and the airplane I was going to use
> > had an alternator/electrical system failure, today, while someone else
> > was flying it in the pattern.
>
> Hmmm... not so fast! :) Hindsight is 20-20. While certainly true
> that you were lucky it wasn't you in IMC during this aircraft's
> alternator failure, IMO you cannot use this incident to validate your
> go/no go decision.

I'm on Ben's side. I've said the E word three times over the years and never
even got a "call the tower." Your experience was the exception, not the
rule. I have it directly from the safety guy at the controller's union that
they have no interest in filing paperwork.

Bob Gardner

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Ben Jackson) wrote
> > Michael > wrote:
> > >However, a flight assist report will be filed by ATC. This is where
> > >it's going to matter if icing was in the forecast - if there was an
> > >AIRMET. If it's forecast, it's known. You flew into it.
> >
> > At an aviation safety seminar (the gist of which was "please declare an
> > emergency if you need to, and do it soon enough that we can help") an
> > inspector from the FSDO stood up and said that the flight assist reports
> > end up on his desk, and as a matter of policy he does not pursue
> > certificate action based on them. Makes sense to me.
>
> My experience is that this is simply not true. BTDT. Narrowly
> avoided a certificate action. What's more, the inspector in question
> waited 3 months before following up, thus ensuring that weather
> reports and forecasts from that time were no longer available for me
> to prove my case. That happens to be against their rules (got that
> from another inspector at the same FSDO) but they do it anyway because
> the courts have not been agressive about slapping them down for it.
>
> Michael

I declared an emergency under somewhat questionable circumstances (I
lost a magneto at night, felt like an emergency to me). All I got was
excellent flight following to touchdown and then a week later a letter
from the FSDO asking me if everything came out allright. I wrote back
a nice thank you note telling them that everything ended up fine and
commending them on their excellent response. My impression is they
probably showed it to their supervisors. There was never any question
of any hearing or certificate action against me, never even a hint.

My advice, if it feels like an emergency and you think it will help.
Go ahead and declare it.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:<X7gSb.178538$I06.1833391@attbi_s01>...
> I'm on Ben's side. I've said the E word three times over the years and never
> even got a "call the tower." Your experience was the exception, not the
> rule. I have it directly from the safety guy at the controller's union that
> they have no interest in filing paperwork.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Ben Jackson) wrote
> > > Michael > wrote:
> > > >However, a flight assist report will be filed by ATC. This is where
> > > >it's going to matter if icing was in the forecast - if there was an
> > > >AIRMET. If it's forecast, it's known. You flew into it.
> > >
> > > At an aviation safety seminar (the gist of which was "please declare an
> > > emergency if you need to, and do it soon enough that we can help") an
> > > inspector from the FSDO stood up and said that the flight assist reports
> > > end up on his desk, and as a matter of policy he does not pursue
> > > certificate action based on them. Makes sense to me.
> >
> > My experience is that this is simply not true. BTDT. Narrowly
> > avoided a certificate action. What's more, the inspector in question
> > waited 3 months before following up, thus ensuring that weather
> > reports and forecasts from that time were no longer available for me
> > to prove my case. That happens to be against their rules (got that
> > from another inspector at the same FSDO) but they do it anyway because
> > the courts have not been agressive about slapping them down for it.
> >
> > Michael

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<LlgRb.123519$sv6.664419@attbi_s52>...
> In article >,
> Michael > wrote:
> >However, a flight assist report will be filed by ATC. This is where
> >it's going to matter if icing was in the forecast - if there was an
> >AIRMET. If it's forecast, it's known. You flew into it.
>
> At an aviation safety seminar (the gist of which was "please declare an
> emergency if you need to, and do it soon enough that we can help") an
> inspector from the FSDO stood up and said that the flight assist reports
> end up on his desk, and as a matter of policy he does not pursue
> certificate action based on them. Makes sense to me.
>
> I'm not saying "go fly in ice!" I just wouldn't want your comment to
> discourage people from declaring an emergency if they do.

Sounds like the FAA has given their safety seminar guys the official
CYA course. Unless ATC is refusing to give you lower, why do you care?
If I'm picking up ice, I'll ask for lower. That works 99% of the time.
If it doesn't you probably choose the wrong place to get ice (really
buys airspace, high MEAs, etc). If they won't give it to me I'll say
something like, "I'm picking up ice and need to get lower, do you need
me to turn for the decent?". If you don't get a response I guess you
could declare but I can't imagine the controller who would hold your
balls to the fire with that one. Perhaps if you're dumb enough to
flirt with ice next to DFW or somewhere you wouldn't expect much
cooperation.

-Robert