Glaze Ice

[Brian Whatcott]

I did an Oxford instrument ground school long ago.
One of the weather topics was glaze ice. This was described as extremely
dangerous, in that supercooled rain could impact and flow to a glassy
ice layer over the wing in seconds, which tended to pull the aircraft
down pronto.

In the last three days, I actually witnessed an event. It was a ground
forecast of "freezing rain". It was devastating. As you know, most of
the US distributes power almost entirely on overhead lines.
In the local (SW Oklahoma) counties, there are trees quite close to
power lines. Tree branches sagged to the ground in minutes and the
majority shed limbs into the road and onto power lines before your eyes.

Many power poles could not hold up the half-inch coat of ice on the
lines, in a moderate crosswind and splintered - often a half dozen in a
row. One county (Harmon) estimated about 3 to 4 weeks to repair the 2000
or so power lines that were down on broken poles before electric power
could be restored there.

For people who are used to living in Tornado Alley and don't easily
shock - this was a new one on them! There was a rush on motor
generators. There was no gasoline to be had for a day or more after, til
the generator sets were set up at strategic gas stations to serve huge
lines of customers.
Some small towns are reporting sewage farm pump failures, others say
went drinking water pump stations out.
The local AM radio station used for emergency reporting, went out after
a while - its antenna was glazed, which mismatched the transmitter,
which then fried.

The city set up strategic industrial generator sets - of which the
smartest siting after the water and sewage utilities, was at a 24 hour
diner - where the utility crews could go to rest and eat.

Moral: If you fly into glaze ice, fly down or fly up, but fly OUT quick
as you can!

Brian W

[Mxsmanic]

brian whatcott writes:

> Moral: If you fly into glaze ice, fly down or fly up, but fly OUT quick
> as you can!

True for all types of icing.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> brian whatcott writes:
>
>> Moral: If you fly into glaze ice, fly down or fly up, but fly OUT quick
>> as you can!
>
> True for all types of icing.


which reminds me...

ALL take-offs are optional.

Landings are not.



--

Richard Lamb

[BT[_3_]]

Fly out of it.. if you fly into it.. turn around.. it was warmer where you
were before..
If it's supercooled rain.. then it is warmer above.. where the rain formed..
try to climb into warmer air.

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...

>
> Moral: If you fly into glaze ice, fly down or fly up, but fly OUT quick as
> you can!
>
> Brian W

[Gary Boggs]

How about get a decent weather forecast before you go flying and don't
even think about trying to fly in this kind of weather?

[Mark]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:38:02 -0800, BT wrote:

> Fly out of it.. if you fly into it.. turn around.. it was warmer where you
> were before..
> If it's supercooled rain.. then it is warmer above.. where the rain formed..
> try to climb into warmer air.

Wrong.

Buy a plane that has a de-icer. They are only $500,000
or so.
--
Mark inventor/artist/pilot/guitarist/scientist/philosopher/
scratch golfer/cat wrangler and observer of the mundane.
And much much more including wealthy beyond anything you can imagine.
My website http://www.hosanna1.com/ www.myspace.com/gayincarolina

[Tom De Moor]

In article <d3fdfb1b-7f7f-40ae-9735-85b9cb159680
@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> How about get a decent weather forecast before you go flying and don't
> even think about trying to fly in this kind of weather?


Correct but we still remain humans who make mistakes.


02/01/2010 Maria Cornelis (76 year of age, 30 years a pilot) took off
from EBUL (Ursel Airport) in Belgium in her own C172 OO-TRB. She was
accompagned by the president of the local flying club, to which she also
belonged. Maria was looked at as expermented and carefull frequent
flyer.

TAF EBOS (Ostend Airport is some 30 NM away) was

METAR EBOS 021550Z 22009KT 8000 FEW020 SCT032 01/M01 Q1017 R08/290095
TEMPO 3000 -SHSNRA BKN012=


8 planes took off that afternoon from EBUL: 5 returned and landed
without problems, 2 landed on another airfield.

OO-TRB crashed around 10 minutes after TO in the woods about 1 km from
EBUL. 2 fatalities.


Tom De Moor

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> Wrong.
>
> Buy a plane that has a de-icer. They are only $500,000
> or so.

Deicing equipment protects you while you find your way out of icing
conditions. It does not allow you to fly through icing conditions indefinitely
with impunity.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> In article <d3fdfb1b-7f7f-40ae-9735-85b9cb159680
> @k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
> >
> > How about get a decent weather forecast before you go flying and don't
> > even think about trying to fly in this kind of weather?
>
>
> Correct but we still remain humans who make mistakes.
>
>
> 02/01/2010 Maria Cornelis (76 year of age, 30 years a pilot) took off
> from EBUL (Ursel Airport) in Belgium in her own C172 OO-TRB. She was
> accompagned by the president of the local flying club, to which she also
> belonged. Maria was looked at as expermented and carefull frequent
> flyer.
>
> TAF EBOS (Ostend Airport is some 30 NM away) was
>
> METAR EBOS 021550Z 22009KT 8000 FEW020 SCT032 01/M01 Q1017 R08/290095
> TEMPO 3000 -SHSNRA BKN012=

OK sure - but one should surely reading something more into that temp
and dew point. Too close for me. What do others think?

--
Duncan.

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> > METAR EBOS 021550Z 22009KT 8000 FEW020 SCT032 01/M01 Q1017 R08/290095
> > TEMPO 3000 -SHSNRA BKN012=
>
> OK sure - but one should surely reading something more into that temp
> and dew point. Too close for me. What do others think?
>
>
>

SHSNRA

Showers Snow Rain.

In our club are now two camps: 1 person, convinced that dry snow will
not cause freezing ice and all the rest who don't know the differance by
sight between a cloud full of dry snow or freezing rain and who will
chicken out by not flying through.

I am with the rest ;-)

Where is the summer staying?

Tom De Moor

[bildan]

On Feb 2, 7:38*am, Tom De Moor >
wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> > > METAR EBOS 021550Z 22009KT 8000 FEW020 SCT032 01/M01 Q1017 R08/290095
> > > TEMPO 3000 -SHSNRA BKN012=
>
> > OK sure - but one should surely reading something more into that temp
> > and dew point. *Too close for me. *What do others think?
>
> SHSNRA
>
> Showers Snow Rain.
>
> In our club are now two camps: 1 person, convinced that dry snow will
> not cause freezing ice and all the rest who don't know the differance by
> sight between a cloud full of dry snow or freezing rain and who will
> chicken out by not flying through.
>
> I am with the rest ;-)
>
> Where is the summer staying?
>
> Tom De Moor

With nearly a lifetime of flying real IFR in light aircraft, I've
found almost all generalities about ice accumulating on aircraft to be
wrong on occasion. Ultimately, you get what you get. If you have a
well thought out escape route, you'll probably survive. If not.....

Examples:

Ice CAN accumulate in clear air. It's usually Graupel but can be just
very light supercooled mist. Neither block visibility enough to be
easily seen from a distance.

The kind of freezing rain described by the first poster is rare but
almost always fatal to an aircraft. As a result there are few 1st
person stories of encounters with freezing rain.

The only real ice removal strategy for aircraft is to find warm air -
FAST. De-Ice equipment just buys a little time. Simply recording
temperature layers while climbing has saved me several times.

Usually, but not always, if the air temperature is -10C or lower,
virtually all supercooled water droplets have already frozen out and
the resulting snow will just bounce off the airplane. I've seen
significant ice at -30C.

Icing is always worse over mountains.

It's amazing how much ice you can pick up flying through a cooling
tower plume.

[Tom De Moor]

In article <138c6dc9-ee47-45c4-8033-6e8906aae222
@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> With nearly a lifetime of flying real IFR in light aircraft, I've
> found almost all generalities about ice accumulating on aircraft to be
> wrong on occasion. Ultimately, you get what you get. If you have a
> well thought out escape route, you'll probably survive. If not.....
>
>

I am with you.

Concerning the accident of 02 jan (EBUL, OO-TRB) the PIC had 30 years of
VFR-experience but how much in marginal VFR, how much in icing
conditions? VFR-pilots - I am one- tend to be 'good weather'-pilots.

We get close to no prolonged icing conditions in our region, so
accidents happened when even carburrettor icing was not detected by the
pilot untill he smashed his (school)Cessna to the ground.

Not pointing a finger: it might happen to any privat pilot but the
person concerned will sure not feel good afterwards.

http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/aero/accidents/AA-8-2.pdf

But sometimes it must be admitted that some errors or misconceptions are
very very hard to understand. On top of that: this is the age of you
tube and other video sites...

http://airsafety.info/wp/?p=138

'What's that beeping? I get the plane down quickly...'

Tom De Moor

[et]

>
> Ice CAN accumulate in clear air. *It's usually Graupel but can be just
> very light supercooled mist. *Neither block visibility enough to be
> easily seen from a distance.
>
> The kind of freezing rain described by the first poster is rare but
> almost always fatal to an aircraft. *As a result there are few 1st
> person stories of encounters with freezing rain.

Let me relate an iceing story that happened to me. I was on a cross
country in my PA 140 across the cascades. The weather was clear, the
winds calm. The temp was well below freezing. As I let down on the
west side of the mountains I encountered scattered clouds with light
showers. The temp. was well above freezing. After landing at
Longview I pulled up to the fuel pump to top off the tanks for the
return flight. To my surprise the fuel tanks were covered in ice.
The fuel had retained the cold temps enough to freeze the light rain
showers contacting the tank area. I felt no loss of lift as the rest
of the wing was clear. I wondered what the outcome might have been
with a large leading edge tank.

Ed

[Anyolmouse]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> I did an Oxford instrument ground school long ago.
> One of the weather topics was glaze ice. This was described as
extremely
> dangerous, in that supercooled rain could impact and flow to a glassy
> ice layer over the wing in seconds, which tended to pull the aircraft
> down pronto.
>
> In the last three days, I actually witnessed an event. It was a ground
> forecast of "freezing rain". It was devastating. As you know, most of
> the US distributes power almost entirely on overhead lines.
> In the local (SW Oklahoma) counties, there are trees quite close to
> power lines. Tree branches sagged to the ground in minutes and the
> majority shed limbs into the road and onto power lines before your
eyes.
>
> Many power poles could not hold up the half-inch coat of ice on the
> lines, in a moderate crosswind and splintered - often a half dozen in
a
> row. One county (Harmon) estimated about 3 to 4 weeks to repair the
2000
> or so power lines that were down on broken poles before electric power
> could be restored there.
>
> For people who are used to living in Tornado Alley and don't easily
> shock - this was a new one on them! There was a rush on motor
> generators. There was no gasoline to be had for a day or more after,
til
> the generator sets were set up at strategic gas stations to serve huge
> lines of customers.
> Some small towns are reporting sewage farm pump failures, others say
> went drinking water pump stations out.
> The local AM radio station used for emergency reporting, went out
after
> a while - its antenna was glazed, which mismatched the transmitter,
> which then fried.
>
> The city set up strategic industrial generator sets - of which the
> smartest siting after the water and sewage utilities, was at a 24 hour
> diner - where the utility crews could go to rest and eat.
>
> Moral: If you fly into glaze ice, fly down or fly up, but fly OUT
quick
> as you can!
>
> Brian W

I was attending a AOPA sponsored CFI renewal clinic in Albuquerque
(1986) when an example was given of how fast clear ice could form on a
supercooled airframe in a very short time.

A DC-3/C-47 was landing in the Pacific Northwest. (Washington or Oregon)
They were clear of ice until inside of the outer marker. The ice formed
so fast that adding full power only slowed their sink rate. They crash
landed short of the runway and the rescue crew had to use fire axes to
get the flight crew out. The ice was over 1/4 inch thick over the entire
airplane.

Assuming a 120 mph approach speed and a distance between 3 to 4 miles
from the outer marker to the runway threshold the entire event took less
than two minutes.

I have been searching for information but have not found anything so
far. Since this was part of the course I wonder if anyone else might
recall the story?

--
A man is known by the company he keeps- Unknown

Anyolmouse

[Brian Whatcott]

Like me, You may have missed Rogallo's obit late last year.
He died near the first flight site in North Carolina.
How appropriate!
He gave his Rogallo patents to the Country at the time of Sputnik.

His design gave birth to hang-gliding, ultra lights, powered parachutes,
Light Sport Aircraft and a new birth of enthusiasm for flying (just) in
reach of the average person.

Francis Rogallo - 2009

Brian W

[Private]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Like me, You may have missed Rogallo's obit late last year.
> He died near the first flight site in North Carolina.
> How appropriate!
> He gave his Rogallo patents to the Country at the time of Sputnik.
>
> His design gave birth to hang-gliding, ultra lights, powered parachutes,
> Light Sport Aircraft and a new birth of enthusiasm for flying (just) in
> reach of the average person.
>
> Francis Rogallo - 2009
>
> Brian W

Thank you for this posting, it motivated a search
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/us/05rogallo.html

more at
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Francis+Rogallo&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=&fp=7564381002806979

Happy landings,

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > > METAR EBOS 021550Z 22009KT 8000 FEW020 SCT032 01/M01 Q1017 R08/290095
> > > TEMPO 3000 -SHSNRA BKN012=
> >
> > OK sure - but one should surely reading something more into that temp
> > and dew point. Too close for me. What do others think?
> >
> >
> >
>
> SHSNRA
>
> Showers Snow Rain.

Yeah, but it's broken at 1200'. So I wouldn't be flying in it (who
would?). I'm far more concerned about the possibility of fog and carb
icing due the dew-point and temp. If the WX deteriorated to IMC I'd be
on the ground already.

If the plane and pilots are IMC/IFR (and it was me), I wouldn't fly in
that - not in a 172 with no de-icing.

>
> In our club are now two camps: 1 person, convinced that dry snow will
> not cause freezing ice and all the rest who don't know the differance by
> sight between a cloud full of dry snow or freezing rain and who will
> chicken out by not flying through.
>
> I am with the rest ;-)

I on your side on that.

> Where is the summer staying?

Pretty nice in NZ at the mo, 20C here at present.

--
Duncan.

[Mark]

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:12:36 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Mark writes:
>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> Buy a plane that has a de-icer. They are only $500,000
>> or so.
>
> Deicing equipment protects you while you find your way out of icing
> conditions. It does not allow you to fly through icing conditions indefinitely
> with impunity.

Shutup, I'm a pilot, you're not. They even allowed me to skip the 40hrs
minimum rule.
--
Mark inventor/artist/pilot/guitarist/scientist/philosopher/
scratch golfer/cat wrangler and observer of the mundane.
And much much more including wealthy beyond anything you can imagine.
My website http://www.hosanna1.com/ www.myspace.com/gayincarolina

[Dave[_19_]]

There are many stories like this, and they are to be heeded...

I listened to a pilot tell his story about landing with 1/4 inch of
ice on his Archer...

10 Years later, telling his story, his hands were shaking... He
oviously did everything right, and was very lucky he was within the
range of a long runway, as he was decending 300 fpm at full power!

Burned it on at 90 knots, no flaps.

I had no idea a Cherokee could fly at all with that much ice...

The speed with which it can accumulate is legendary.

Cheers!

Dave


On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:17:55 -0600, "Anyolmouse"
> wrote:

>
>"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
>> I did an Oxford instrument ground school long ago.
>> One of the weather topics was glaze ice. This was described as
>extremely
>> dangerous, in that supercooled rain could impact and flow to a glassy
>> ice layer over the wing in seconds, which tended to pull the aircraft
>> down pronto.
>>
>> In the last three days, I actually witnessed an event. It was a ground
>> forecast of "freezing rain". It was devastating. As you know, most of
>> the US distributes power almost entirely on overhead lines.
>> In the local (SW Oklahoma) counties, there are trees quite close to
>> power lines. Tree branches sagged to the ground in minutes and the
>> majority shed limbs into the road and onto power lines before your
>eyes.
>>
>> Many power poles could not hold up the half-inch coat of ice on the
>> lines, in a moderate crosswind and splintered - often a half dozen in
>a
>> row. One county (Harmon) estimated about 3 to 4 weeks to repair the
>2000
>> or so power lines that were down on broken poles before electric power
>> could be restored there.
>>
>> For people who are used to living in Tornado Alley and don't easily
>> shock - this was a new one on them! There was a rush on motor
>> generators. There was no gasoline to be had for a day or more after,
>til
>> the generator sets were set up at strategic gas stations to serve huge
>> lines of customers.
>> Some small towns are reporting sewage farm pump failures, others say
>> went drinking water pump stations out.
>> The local AM radio station used for emergency reporting, went out
>after
>> a while - its antenna was glazed, which mismatched the transmitter,
>> which then fried.
>>
>> The city set up strategic industrial generator sets - of which the
>> smartest siting after the water and sewage utilities, was at a 24 hour
>> diner - where the utility crews could go to rest and eat.
>>
>> Moral: If you fly into glaze ice, fly down or fly up, but fly OUT
>quick
>> as you can!
>>
>> Brian W
>
>I was attending a AOPA sponsored CFI renewal clinic in Albuquerque
>(1986) when an example was given of how fast clear ice could form on a
>supercooled airframe in a very short time.
>
>A DC-3/C-47 was landing in the Pacific Northwest. (Washington or Oregon)
>They were clear of ice until inside of the outer marker. The ice formed
>so fast that adding full power only slowed their sink rate. They crash
>landed short of the runway and the rescue crew had to use fire axes to
>get the flight crew out. The ice was over 1/4 inch thick over the entire
>airplane.
>
>Assuming a 120 mph approach speed and a distance between 3 to 4 miles
>from the outer marker to the runway threshold the entire event took less
>than two minutes.
>
>I have been searching for information but have not found anything so
>far. Since this was part of the course I wonder if anyone else might
>recall the story?

[Jim Logajan]

Dave > wrote:
> OK...
>
> So you are a pilot, and Mx is not?

Just FYI, you are responding to a troll that hangs out in
rec.aviation.piloting and many other groups. The perp can be IDed by
viewing all headers of a post and looking for an "X-Authenticated-User"
header, and if it has one, has the following value:

X-Authenticated-User: $$gwx18quhxz9-wu_g$qv3bkmank

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> Shutup, I'm a pilot, you're not.

No.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Just FYI, you are responding to a troll that hangs out in
> rec.aviation.piloting and many other groups.

Whatever you might call me, the fact remains that I'm right.

If you disagree, try a flight through continuous icing conditions, and make me
a liar.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>
>>Just FYI, you are responding to a troll that hangs out in
>>rec.aviation.piloting and many other groups.
>
>
> Whatever you might call me, the fact remains that I'm right.
>
> If you disagree, try a flight through continuous icing conditions, and make me
> a liar.

It depends upon the airplane, Mr. Microsloft Simulator "pilot." Some of
us are actually pilots, and some of us flew both light airplanes and big
jet airliners with hot wings and all that good stuff, which can easily
handle light to moderate continuous icing conditions.

[Robert Moore]

Sam Spade wrote
> It depends upon the airplane, Mr. Microsloft Simulator "pilot." Some
> of us are actually pilots, ........

Sam, I am sure that you are well aware that the FAA does not require a
person to be a pilot in order to hold a Ground Instructor or Instrument
Ground Instructor Certificate. In fact, my first instrument instructor
in the good ole Link Trainer had never set foot inside an airplane.
While is is true that MX is usually off base when trying to provoke an
argument amongst the pilots here, his lack of a pilot certificate does
not mean that he does not posses any aeronautical knowledge.

I'm not supporting MX, just pointing out that "you're not a pilot" is not
a valid counter to his sometimes misguided assertations.

Bob Moore
AGI IGI

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 7:23*am, Robert Moore > wrote:

> I'm not supporting MX, just pointing out that "you're not a pilot" is not
> a valid counter to his sometimes misguided assertations.

On the other hand Bob, sometimes street knowledge far outweighs book
knowledge. (I.E. PIREPS)

I personally won't fly in any cloud in temps below freezing but I have
had a couple of friends that had better "street knowledge" to know
they could make the trip safely and did so as they are here to talk
about it.

MX has no street knowledge and when Sam says he is not a pilot, it's a
very important distinction to let the readership know he doesn't know
what he is talking about with regards to the real world AND he does
not talk from experience. MSFS is not real world experience.

Good ground instructors would acknowledge this I am sure.

[Sam Spade]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote
>
>>It depends upon the airplane, Mr. Microsloft Simulator "pilot." Some
>>of us are actually pilots, ........
>
>
> Sam, I am sure that you are well aware that the FAA does not require a
> person to be a pilot in order to hold a Ground Instructor or Instrument
> Ground Instructor Certificate. In fact, my first instrument instructor
> in the good ole Link Trainer had never set foot inside an airplane.
> While is is true that MX is usually off base when trying to provoke an
> argument amongst the pilots here, his lack of a pilot certificate does
> not mean that he does not posses any aeronautical knowledge.
>
> I'm not supporting MX, just pointing out that "you're not a pilot" is not
> a valid counter to his sometimes misguided assertations.
>
> Bob Moore
> AGI IGI

In my early days I was a certificated Link Trainer Operator before the
days of AGI and IGI. I held a private certificate at the time. I was
qualified to teach instrument procedures but not qualified to teach
about flight in icing conditions. I later added a metro rating to the
old ground instructor's certificate. I suspose that qualified me on
paper, but not in fact, to teach about flying in ice.

[Jim Logajan]

Someone claiming to be Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Just FYI, you are responding to a troll that hangs out in
>> rec.aviation.piloting and many other groups.
>
> Whatever you might call me,

Whoever you are, you need to improve your reading comprehension since
nothing in my post or its context indicates I was talking about you or your
previous post.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> It depends upon the airplane, Mr. Microsloft Simulator "pilot."

No, it doesn't. Do it and post the video to YouTube, and make me a liar.

> Some of us are actually pilots, and some of us flew both light
> airplanes and big jet airliners with hot wings and all that good
> stuff, which can easily handle light to moderate continuous icing
> conditions.

If you can keep the icing light, which you have no way of doing.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I personally won't fly in any cloud in temps below freezing but I have
> had a couple of friends that had better "street knowledge" to know
> they could make the trip safely and did so as they are here to talk
> about it.

Or they were just lucky.

> MX has no street knowledge and when Sam says he is not a pilot, it's a
> very important distinction to let the readership know he doesn't know
> what he is talking about with regards to the real world AND he does
> not talk from experience. MSFS is not real world experience.

You don't learn how to fly on the street.

I don't get my aviation knowledge from MSFS. MSFS is where I _apply_ my
aviation knowledge (since I don't have the means to fly a real aircraft).

> Good ground instructors would acknowledge this I am sure.

Good ground instructors know that a pilot's license is about as much a
guarantee of competence in aviation as a driver's license is a guarantee of
competence in Formula 1 racing.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Whoever you are, you need to improve your reading comprehension since
> nothing in my post or its context indicates I was talking about you or your
> previous post.

So whom were you talking about?

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Whoever you are, you need to improve your reading comprehension since
>> nothing in my post or its context indicates I was talking about you
>> or your previous post.
>
> So whom were you talking about?

All the information you need to answer that trivially simple question is
already available.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>It depends upon the airplane, Mr. Microsloft Simulator "pilot."
>
>
> No, it doesn't. Do it and post the video to YouTube, and make me a liar.
>
>
>>Some of us are actually pilots, and some of us flew both light
>>airplanes and big jet airliners with hot wings and all that good
>>stuff, which can easily handle light to moderate continuous icing
>>conditions.
>
>
> If you can keep the icing light, which you have no way of doing.

What part of "light to moderate" don't you understand?

[Dave[_19_]]

Agreed Jm...

I am aware of that.

But sometimes, when I see correct information challenged by others
(troll or not) someone has to register their support for the correct
information, if for no other reason to insure that new
pilots/subscribers do not see the wrong info go unchallenged.

Here we are talking about ice.

This is important.

It is DEADLY.

You often don't know you have a proplem until it is too late.

There is an early (VERY early) "point of no return".

In this case , MX's comments were correct.

HOW he got his information, is not relevent... I learned, (was
taught) BEFORE I became a licenced pilot. One does not HAVE to be a
pilot and be lucky enough to "escape" icing to be knowledgable about
it. The NASA engineer who wrote that very comprensive paper about
icing was not a pilot either, but he has probably forgotten more about
it than most "pilots" will ever know.

So, a feeble attempt to correct..

Yea, I kow about these guys, - I have been a subscriber to this group
since 1992, but mostly lurk now...

Tonight it is up to -20C here... A heat wave! :)

Cheers!

Dave








On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:57:13 -0600, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Dave > wrote:
>> OK...
>>
>> So you are a pilot, and Mx is not?
>
>Just FYI, you are responding to a troll that hangs out in
>rec.aviation.piloting and many other groups. The perp can be IDed by
>viewing all headers of a post and looking for an "X-Authenticated-User"
>header, and if it has one, has the following value:
>
>X-Authenticated-User: $$gwx18quhxz9-wu_g$qv3bkmank

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> What part of "light to moderate" don't you understand?

All of it. It's the unspoken "to severe" part that worries me (although
moderate can be bad, too).

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> All the information you need to answer that trivially simple question is
> already available.

If it's trivially simple, you can answer it in fewer words than it took to
avoid answering.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave writes:

> HOW he got his information, is not relevent... I learned, (was
> taught) BEFORE I became a licenced pilot. One does not HAVE to be a
> pilot and be lucky enough to "escape" icing to be knowledgable about
> it. The NASA engineer who wrote that very comprensive paper about
> icing was not a pilot either, but he has probably forgotten more about
> it than most "pilots" will ever know.

Yes. Some of the stuff from NASA is extremely interesting.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>What part of "light to moderate" don't you understand?
>
>
> All of it. It's the unspoken "to severe" part that worries me (although
> moderate can be bad, too).

How many times have you operated jet transports into a place like
Chicago O'Hare (KORD) when ATC has you slowed down to 160 knots and
number 20 in line for the approach in light to moderate icing conditions?

Heavy icing conditions are quite unusual except during freezing rain or
sleet. No air carrier is allowed to operate in or out of an airport
reporting heaving freezing rain. Of course you knew that.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Dave writes:
>
>
>>HOW he got his information, is not relevent... I learned, (was
>>taught) BEFORE I became a licenced pilot. One does not HAVE to be a
>>pilot and be lucky enough to "escape" icing to be knowledgable about
>>it. The NASA engineer who wrote that very comprensive paper about
>>icing was not a pilot either, but he has probably forgotten more about
>>it than most "pilots" will ever know.
>
>
> Yes. Some of the stuff from NASA is extremely interesting.

He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
observations out of his backside.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> How many times have you operated jet transports into a place like
> Chicago O'Hare (KORD) when ATC has you slowed down to 160 knots and
> number 20 in line for the approach in light to moderate icing conditions?

I stay away from parts of the U.S. that have Siberian weather patterns. And I
avoid flying on commercial flights in poor weather, because I know that
airlines push the envelope.

> Heavy icing conditions are quite unusual except during freezing rain or
> sleet. No air carrier is allowed to operate in or out of an airport
> reporting heaving freezing rain. Of course you knew that.

Yup. Then again, sometimes you find out about freezing rain by flying through
it.

How many encounters have you had with freezing rain?

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
> access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
> observations out of his backside.

But he and I agree. So I cannot be wrong if he is right.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>How many times have you operated jet transports into a place like
>>Chicago O'Hare (KORD) when ATC has you slowed down to 160 knots and
>>number 20 in line for the approach in light to moderate icing conditions?
>
>
> I stay away from parts of the U.S. that have Siberian weather patterns. And I
> avoid flying on commercial flights in poor weather, because I know that
> airlines push the envelope.
>
>
>>Heavy icing conditions are quite unusual except during freezing rain or
>>sleet. No air carrier is allowed to operate in or out of an airport
>>reporting heaving freezing rain. Of course you knew that.
>
>
> Yup. Then again, sometimes you find out about freezing rain by flying through
> it.
>
> How many encounters have you had with freezing rain?

Plenty, but it's never been heavy, which was not allowed. And, if it
was icing up the runway we went somewhere else. Often though, you would
fly out of it prior to the airport.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
>>access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
>>observations out of his backside.
>
>
> But he and I agree. So I cannot be wrong if he is right.

You're missing the point. You have no experience flying a real
airplane, not even student pilot pre-solo training. So, you can't
possibly know about the variables of serious instrument flying, which
has one set of skill requirements and operating limitations for light
aircraft IFR, and a different but related skill set and operating
limitations for flying transport jet aircraft. And, you don't have a
support system of highly trained and experienced test pilots; which
wouldn't do you any good in any case.

The gentleman to which you refer had a full team of technical experts
and equipment for testing and experimentation. And, he brought
considerable academic credentials to the table. I am sure he would be
thrilled to learn that you agree with him, for he could rest knowing
that the world's greatest PC pilot has validated his work.

[Dave[_19_]]

Sam..

Do you remember that guys name?
I would like to find that article again...

Dave



On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:41:49 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Dave writes:
>>
>>
>>>HOW he got his information, is not relevent... I learned, (was
>>>taught) BEFORE I became a licenced pilot. One does not HAVE to be a
>>>pilot and be lucky enough to "escape" icing to be knowledgable about
>>>it. The NASA engineer who wrote that very comprensive paper about
>>>icing was not a pilot either, but he has probably forgotten more about
>>>it than most "pilots" will ever know.
>>
>>
>> Yes. Some of the stuff from NASA is extremely interesting.
>
>He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
>access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
>observations out of his backside.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Sam Spade writes:
> >
> >
> >>He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
> >>access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
> >>observations out of his backside.
> >
> >
> > But he and I agree. So I cannot be wrong if he is right.
>
> You're missing the point. You have no experience flying a real
> airplane, not even student pilot pre-solo training.

As I've just said, since I agree with him, I cannot be wrong if he is right.
Either we are both wrong (unlikely given his research and experience), or we
are both right (much more probable).

It doesn't matter what experience I have with a real airplane. I got my
knowledge from him. He is a much more reliable source than you are. And the
information in question is unrelated to real flying experience, anyway. Pilots
can fly a real airplane for decades without ever understanding how icing works
.... until they get stuck in it, and then it's too late.

> So, you can't possibly know about the variables of serious instrument
> flying ...

You're wasting a lot of time concentrating on the poster rather than the post.
What I say is either right or wrong. In this case, since I merely echo what
all the experts say, inevitably I am right. Quarreling with me simply because
you cannot separate your personal animosity towards me from objective reality
is counterproductive and immature. The facts remain the same. Icing is bad.

> I am sure he would be
> thrilled to learn that you agree with him, for he could rest knowing
> that the world's greatest PC pilot has validated his work.

I suspect that he might not have his judgement clouded by the same
preoccupation with personality that appears to be afflicting you.

I'm tired of accommodating your issues. Unless you are willing to discuss only
the topic of the thread, rather than me, my interaction with you has ended.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>Sam Spade writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
>>>>access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
>>>>observations out of his backside.
>>>
>>>
>>>But he and I agree. So I cannot be wrong if he is right.
>>
>>You're missing the point. You have no experience flying a real
>>airplane, not even student pilot pre-solo training.
>
>
> As I've just said, since I agree with him, I cannot be wrong if he is right.
> Either we are both wrong (unlikely given his research and experience), or we
> are both right (much more probable).
>
> It doesn't matter what experience I have with a real airplane. I got my
> knowledge from him. He is a much more reliable source than you are. And the
> information in question is unrelated to real flying experience, anyway. Pilots
> can fly a real airplane for decades without ever understanding how icing works
> ... until they get stuck in it, and then it's too late.
>
>
>>So, you can't possibly know about the variables of serious instrument
>>flying ...
>
>
> You're wasting a lot of time concentrating on the poster rather than the post.
> What I say is either right or wrong. In this case, since I merely echo what
> all the experts say, inevitably I am right. Quarreling with me simply because
> you cannot separate your personal animosity towards me from objective reality
> is counterproductive and immature. The facts remain the same. Icing is bad.
>
>
>>I am sure he would be
>>thrilled to learn that you agree with him, for he could rest knowing
>>that the world's greatest PC pilot has validated his work.
>
>
> I suspect that he might not have his judgement clouded by the same
> preoccupation with personality that appears to be afflicting you.
>
> I'm tired of accommodating your issues. Unless you are willing to discuss only
> the topic of the thread, rather than me, my interaction with you has ended.

Your personality IS the issue. You are so full of ****.

[Sam Spade]

Dave wrote:

> Sam..
>
> Do you remember that guys name?
> I would like to find that article again...
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:41:49 -0800, Sam Spade >

I have view the NASA tail plane film but not read the author's work.
That is Maniac's claim.

[Gezellig]

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:05:03 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> All the information you need to answer that trivially simple question is
>> already available.
>
> If it's trivially simple, you can answer it in fewer words than it took to
> avoid answering.

Trolls Are Attracted To Idiots; Idiots Respond to Trolls