FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

[O. Sami Saydjari]

I KNOW this is a big can of worms, but I have a specific question
relating to sub-paragraphs b.1 and b.2 of this regulation regarinding
operating in icing conditions.

It says "...no pilot may fly--
(1) Under IFR into konwn or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
(2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions..."

This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for IFR
and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a pilots
ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how instrument training
allows one to venture into worse conditions.

So, if there is an airmet for "light icing", then it is legal for an IFR
pilot to enter the clouds (of course, on a valid IFR flight plan)?

What perectnage of the time, during winter, do icing forecasts get
issued whenever there are IFR conditions? In other words, in y'alls
experience, if you get 100 briefings during the winter time that include
IFR conditions, what perecntage of those will also have icing forecast.
My intuition says that it will be upwards of 90-100% (I am a
relatively new IFR pilot, so I do not have the experience base to
say...looking for other opinions here). If it is close to 100%, should
I just hang up my IFR certificate from Sept to May (I live in Wisconsin,
so we only have about 30 minutes of summer here per year :)).

-Sami

[Greg Esres]

The FAR reference is 91.527, not what's in the title.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Ooops, yes, thanks. -Sami

Greg Esres wrote:
> The FAR reference is 91.527, not what's in the title.

[Jeff]

I have to read the AIM again, but last year I thought it said that you were
not allowed to fly into known or forcasted icing in a plane not equipped for
icing.

As for percent of time, anytime you have visible moisture or are in the
clouds, and the outside temp is freezing. weather reports will give you the
freezing level.

The smart thing to do is to avoid icing like the plague. Its bad stuff and
can build up quick on your windscreen and wings.
Alot of people will tell you you can fly into it, and when you pick up ice
you can go up or down and get out of it. Read the NTSB reports this winter
see how many people bet their life on it and lost.

Last winter I took a flight into clouds, icing was forcasted at 10,000 ft,
we went up to 9000, broke out in between some layers, I was with my first
instrument instructor, he wanted to be in the clouds, so he asked control
for 11,000 so we would be in the clouds again, I told him icing was reported
at 10k, he said dont worry, we will be ok, we can always go up or down...I
told him ok, but if you kill me I will come back and haunt you forever. I
will tell you right now, its a big mistake to go into known or forcasted
icing. I wont do it again. I told him after we encountered some problems
that I was going back and called center. He was mad, but it didnt matter, I
fired his ass as soon as we were on the ground.

Jeff


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I KNOW this is a big can of worms, but I have a specific question
> relating to sub-paragraphs b.1 and b.2 of this regulation regarinding
> operating in icing conditions.
>
> It says "...no pilot may fly--
> (1) Under IFR into konwn or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
> (2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions..."
>
> This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for IFR
> and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a pilots
> ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how instrument training
> allows one to venture into worse conditions.
>
> So, if there is an airmet for "light icing", then it is legal for an IFR
> pilot to enter the clouds (of course, on a valid IFR flight plan)?
>
> What perectnage of the time, during winter, do icing forecasts get
> issued whenever there are IFR conditions? In other words, in y'alls
> experience, if you get 100 briefings during the winter time that include
> IFR conditions, what perecntage of those will also have icing forecast.
> My intuition says that it will be upwards of 90-100% (I am a
> relatively new IFR pilot, so I do not have the experience base to
> say...looking for other opinions here). If it is close to 100%, should
> I just hang up my IFR certificate from Sept to May (I live in Wisconsin,
> so we only have about 30 minutes of summer here per year :)).
>
> -Sami

[Teacherjh]

>> 91.527
I KNOW this is a big can of worms, but I have a specific question
relating to sub-paragraphs b.1 and b.2 of this regulation regarinding
operating in icing conditions.

It says "...no pilot may fly--
(1) Under IFR into konwn or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
(2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions..."
<<

This applies to large and turbine powered aircraft.

For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft is
certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are). Ice is insidious, and
very dangerous. It creeps up on you a little at a time like quicksand, and if
you don't get out quickly, it can easily become too late.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[[email protected]]

Jeff > wrote:
: Last winter I took a flight into clouds, icing was forcasted at 10,000 ft,
: we went up to 9000, broke out in between some layers, I was with my first
: instrument instructor, he wanted to be in the clouds, so he asked control
: for 11,000 so we would be in the clouds again, I told him icing was reported
: at 10k, he said dont worry, we will be ok, we can always go up or down...I
: told him ok, but if you kill me I will come back and haunt you forever. I
: will tell you right now, its a big mistake to go into known or forcasted
: icing. I wont do it again. I told him after we encountered some problems
: that I was going back and called center. He was mad, but it didnt matter, I
: fired his ass as soon as we were on the ground.

I don't think that this was an unreasonable thing for an
instructor to do (assuming you weren't in Colorado at the time). If
you've got at least a few thousand feet between the freezing level and the
MEA, you've got an out. This is assuming light rime ice, of course. My
instructor put me in the clouds while working on the instrument time for
my *Private* license, and we picked up a bit of ice while there. At the
time it freaked me out, but in retrospect it was pretty safe (at least
3000' of clear, above-freezing air below), and made me realize how
dangerous ice could be.

What kills people is when they fly in it with either a disregard
for its danger, and/or without a safety out.

-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ron Natalie]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message ...
>
> This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for IFR
> and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a pilots
> ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how instrument training
> allows one to venture into worse conditions.

VFR pilots are less likely to fly (legally) in to precip or clouds. You got to
have mositure to form ice.

> So, if there is an airmet for "light icing", then it is legal for an IFR
> pilot to enter the clouds (of course, on a valid IFR flight plan)?

It's illegal for him to operate IFR period.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> This applies to large and turbine powered aircraft.
>
> For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft is
> certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are).
>

Forbidden by what?

[Teacherjh]

>>
> For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft is
> certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are).
>

Forbidden by what?
<<

The laws of physics, ultimately. The FARs before that (though I can't find a
specific rule, it would certainly be classified as "careless and reckless" if
it led to an incident - it might be in the certification rules for aircraft,
same as aerobatic stuff and equipment required.) The FAA has made it clear
that unless the aircraft is certificated for known ice, you can't even legally
enter forecast ice.

Now, to open another can of worms, the FAA has produced an excellent video on
icing (which they show at various safety seminars) in which they take the
viewer through several flight scenarios. Well worth watching several times.

However, I take a bit of an issue with one thing - the "unprotected"
(non-de-iced) airplane pilot is flying in the clouds in non-icing conditions,
towards a front that contains ice (there is ice above). On takeoff the weather
briefing indicated that the front would not be an issue, but the weather moved
in faster. Temperatures go down, and he gets ice. Now what?

IN subsequent discussion, one possibility is to climb and get on top of the
overcast, and it would be reasonable if the destination were clear. (mabye
also in other situations). This would be legal (he's already in ice and trying
to get out). However, if he were not YET in ice, it would be illegal
(deliberately entering icing conditions). Seems to me that at that point,
(he's in non-icing conditions, non-icing is behind him, temps going down , his
destination ahead of him, and ice ahead of him) continuing would be illegal,
but the FAA guy didn't have the opinion that continuing would constitute
"deliberately entering ice..." and it's all a matter of bablance.

Well, yes but...

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> The laws of physics, ultimately. The FARs before that (though I can't
find a
> specific rule, it would certainly be classified as "careless and reckless"
if
> it led to an incident - it might be in the certification rules for
aircraft,
> same as aerobatic stuff and equipment required.)
>

The FARs come before the laws of physics?


>
> The FAA has made it clear
> that unless the aircraft is certificated for known ice, you can't even
legally
> enter forecast ice.
>

What law, other than a natural law, would such an action violate?

[Dave Butler]

Teacherjh wrote:
>>For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft is
>>certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are).
>>
>
>
> Forbidden by what?
> <snip> (though I can't find a
> specific rule, it would certainly be classified as "careless and reckless" if
> it led to an incident - it might be in the certification rules for aircraft,
> <snip>

It's usually the aircraft's type certificate that specifies whether it can be
flown in ice, but older types don't have any statement about ice in the type
certificate.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave

[Teacherjh]

>> The FARs come before the laws of physics?

Sometimes the FAA will smite you first. Other times they don't get there in
time, and you are left facing teh Grand Canonical Ensemble.

>> What law, other than a natural law, would such an action violate?

The type certificate.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> The type certificate.
>

I see. So if a type certificate does not mention icing at all then there is
no prohibition against flight into known icing conditions in that aircraft,
other than, of course, the laws of physics?

[Teacherjh]

>>
So if a type certificate does not mention icing at all then there is
no prohibition against flight into known icing conditions in that aircraft,
other than, of course, the laws of physics?
<<

Careless and reckless.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> I KNOW this is a big can of worms, but I have a specific question
> relating to sub-paragraphs b.1 and b.2 of this regulation regarinding
> operating in icing conditions.
>
> It says "...no pilot may fly--
> (1) Under IFR into konwn or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
> (2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions..."
>
> This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for IFR
> and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a pilots
> ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how instrument training
> allows one to venture into worse conditions.

Well, I make no claim to understand that minds of the FAR writers, but
here's my opinion. It is more likely to inadvertantly encounter icing
when flying IFR in IMC. Pretty hard to accumulate ice if you aren't
flying in visible moisture (clouds or precip), so if you are VFR you
really have no excuse to get into even light icing conditions. However,
if you are flying legally in the clouds, it is easy to get into light
conditions inadvertantly. Wouldn't make a lot of sense to try to bust
every IFR pilot who strays into light icing.

However, you raise a good question and if you find an official answer,
please post it here.


> So, if there is an airmet for "light icing", then it is legal for an IFR
> pilot to enter the clouds (of course, on a valid IFR flight plan)?

I haven't studied the FARs on this in some time, so I can't say if the
exerpt you quoted above is all that applies, however, if it is, then it
appears that this would be legal.


> What perectnage of the time, during winter, do icing forecasts get
> issued whenever there are IFR conditions? In other words, in y'alls
> experience, if you get 100 briefings during the winter time that include
> IFR conditions, what perecntage of those will also have icing forecast.
> My intuition says that it will be upwards of 90-100% (I am a relatively
> new IFR pilot, so I do not have the experience base to say...looking for
> other opinions here). If it is close to 100%, should I just hang up my
> IFR certificate from Sept to May (I live in Wisconsin, so we only have
> about 30 minutes of summer here per year :)).

When I was flying IFR regularly (5 years ago), in the northeast you
could count on a forecast for icing almost every day from October
through April. Unless it was severe clear and below zero, you had an
icing forecast somewhere at some level. If you didn't fly whenever
there was forecast icing, you wouldn't fly in the northeast for at least
four months of the year and probably six.

Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message ...
>
>>This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for IFR
>>and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a pilots
>>ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how instrument training
>>allows one to venture into worse conditions.
>
>
> VFR pilots are less likely to fly (legally) in to precip or clouds. You got to
> have mositure to form ice.
>
>
>>So, if there is an airmet for "light icing", then it is legal for an IFR
>>pilot to enter the clouds (of course, on a valid IFR flight plan)?
>
>
> It's illegal for him to operate IFR period.

Really? Even if you don't fly in the clouds?

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Careless and reckless.
>

I believe you're referring to FAR 91.13, which is Careless OR Reckless
Operation, not careless AND reckless. I own the aircraft and fly it solo,
how does flying it into known icing conditions endanger the life or property
of another?

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
|
| "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > This applies to large and turbine powered aircraft.
| >
| > For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft
is
| > certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are).
| >
|
| Forbidden by what?

The published operating limitations of the aircraft, which must be adhered
to in accordance with the type certificate and the general prohibition
against reckless and dangerous operation. Most modern light planes have
specific provisions in their type certificates prohibiting flight into known
icing conditions.

Additionally, commercial operators flying under part 135 are prohibited from
flying into known icing conditions unless the aircraft is certified for it.

[Ron Natalie]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
> >
> > It's illegal for him to operate IFR period.
>
> Really? Even if you don't fly in the clouds?
>
If he is in a case where that reg applies to him, yes. The rules don't
say "in clouds" they say Instrument Flight Rules.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> The published operating limitations of the aircraft, which must be adhered
> to in accordance with the type certificate and the general prohibition
> against reckless and dangerous operation. Most modern light planes have
> specific provisions in their type certificates prohibiting flight into
known
> icing conditions.
>

What forbids those light planes that have no such specific provisions in
their type certificates from flying into known icing conditions?

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
>>>It's illegal for him to operate IFR period.
>>
>>Really? Even if you don't fly in the clouds?
>>
>
> If he is in a case where that reg applies to him, yes. The rules don't
> say "in clouds" they say Instrument Flight Rules.
>
>

If the forecast icing isn't all the way to the ground, why isn't it
legal to file and fly below the clouds and the altitudes with forecast
or known icing?


Matt

[Bob Gardner]

We have an *authorized procedure* out here in the Pacific Northwest,
developed by the FSDO Aviation Safety Manager and the folks at the TRACON,
specifically for use when icing conditions are forecast. It is called "Radar
Vectors for Ice" and involves vectors to climb away from the Cascades until
high enough to be well above the freezing level or in the clear. Obviously,
since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety
Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing conditions
is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight.

There is a CYA caveat, of course, that nothing in the procedure should be
taken as encouragment to take off into icing conditions.

Bob Gardner

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> > For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft
is
> > certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are).
> >
>
> Forbidden by what?
> <<
>
> The laws of physics, ultimately. The FARs before that (though I can't
find a
> specific rule, it would certainly be classified as "careless and reckless"
if
> it led to an incident - it might be in the certification rules for
aircraft,
> same as aerobatic stuff and equipment required.) The FAA has made it
clear
> that unless the aircraft is certificated for known ice, you can't even
legally
> enter forecast ice.
>
> Now, to open another can of worms, the FAA has produced an excellent video
on
> icing (which they show at various safety seminars) in which they take the
> viewer through several flight scenarios. Well worth watching several
times.
>
> However, I take a bit of an issue with one thing - the "unprotected"
> (non-de-iced) airplane pilot is flying in the clouds in non-icing
conditions,
> towards a front that contains ice (there is ice above). On takeoff the
weather
> briefing indicated that the front would not be an issue, but the weather
moved
> in faster. Temperatures go down, and he gets ice. Now what?
>
> IN subsequent discussion, one possibility is to climb and get on top of
the
> overcast, and it would be reasonable if the destination were clear.
(mabye
> also in other situations). This would be legal (he's already in ice and
trying
> to get out). However, if he were not YET in ice, it would be illegal
> (deliberately entering icing conditions). Seems to me that at that point,
> (he's in non-icing conditions, non-icing is behind him, temps going down ,
his
> destination ahead of him, and ice ahead of him) continuing would be
illegal,
> but the FAA guy didn't have the opinion that continuing would constitute
> "deliberately entering ice..." and it's all a matter of bablance.
>
> Well, yes but...
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[David Megginson]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> We have an *authorized procedure* out here in the Pacific Northwest,
> developed by the FSDO Aviation Safety Manager and the folks at the TRACON,
> specifically for use when icing conditions are forecast. It is called "Radar
> Vectors for Ice" and involves vectors to climb away from the Cascades until
> high enough to be well above the freezing level or in the clear. Obviously,
> since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety
> Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing conditions
> is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight.

Of course not -- airspace is three-dimensional. I don't cancel a flight
planned for 4000 ft in the summer because there's icing forecast from 15,000
to 20,000 ft. I wonder if there is anyone in this group who is seriously
arguing that I should cancel such a flight.


All the best,


David

[Ron Natalie]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ...

>
> If the forecast icing isn't all the way to the ground, why isn't it
> legal to file and fly below the clouds and the altitudes with forecast
> or known icing?

Don't ask me, I didn't write the regulation. Presumably because they have not
put in procedures into the IFR rules to handle, IFR but remain clear of IMC.
They presume that if you are operating IFR you are prepared to enter IMC at any
time.

[Greg Esres]

<<Obviously, since this procedure was developed by the FAA and
published in the Safety Program newsletter every year at this time, a
forecast of icing conditions is not, in and of itself, a bar to
flight.>>


Hmmmm...You're saying that the Safety Program newsletter trumps the
FARs?

[Teacherjh]

>>
I believe you're referring to FAR 91.13, which is Careless OR Reckless
Operation, not careless AND reckless. I own the aircraft and fly it solo,
how does flying it into known icing conditions endanger the life or property
of another?
<<

You are right - careless OR reckless. No matter. It's not legal. It's
usually not smart.

If you have an aircraft that is not certificated for flight into known icing
(say, a typical spam can), even if it is older than the regs, doing so puts it
at the very real risk of acquiring ice on the airframe. An iced up airplane
does not fly very well. It is less stable, has less lift, more drag, less
power (as the prop and intake get iced), and more weight. Your instruments will
be less reliable, and may fail (i.e. the static port gets iced) If the tail
ices up faster than the wing, you can get into a tail stall, which feels simlar
to a wing stall but whose recovery is the opposite.

What's more, unlike say for turbulence, cloud, or an unusual attitude, exiting
the icing conditions does not fix things. The ice that you have picked up
doesn't just "go away" right away, especially if it's still cold out.
Sublimation is very slow, and you have to get into fairly warm temps to melt
the stuff. You can't count on that.

One of the big problems occurs on landing iced up... the trim (if it still
works) and configuration changes may destabilize the aircraft even if it seemed
to be flying "just fine" before.

Further, once you're in it, you might not be able to get out. It might be that
conditions are closing all over. So, you might not end up with "just a peek"
but rather, a whole lot of dunk.

Certification for known ice includes more than just boots. There's a whole lot
of redundancy involved, and significant excess power needed in the powerplant
to overcome the effects of ice.

This is part of the reason why it's not safe. It endangers people and property
below you, far more than simply flying. Because of this, the FAA would
consider it careless. It would also consider it reckless. The FAA has already
said that "forecast" icing conditions count as "known" icing conditions, even
in the face of pireps to the contrary.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Barry]

> > > It's illegal for him to operate IFR period.
> >
> > Really? Even if you don't fly in the clouds?
> >
> If he is in a case where that reg applies to him, yes. The rules don't
> say "in clouds" they say Instrument Flight Rules.

I think that all the icing forecasts I've seen say ICGICIP (icing in clouds
and in precipitation), so if you stay out of the clouds and precip there's no
forecast icing.

Barry

[Bob Gardner]

There is not one word in Part 91 relating to "known icing" other than
91.527, which applies to large and turboprop aircraft. The closest you can
come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump" because the POH wording is not
consistent between manufacturers or models (and, as some have pointed out,
some POHs say nothing about icing).

The west slopes of the Cascades are notorious for icing..the Concorde was
sent out here for icing certification. If you can climb (or descend) over
the flatlands to the west of Seattle, you can miss the icing zone. The
newsletter simply tells pilots that when ATC turns them east on departure,
cleared to some altitude that will take them into the ice, they do not have
to accept the clearance...nor need they descend into the clouds on the west
side simply because a controller clears them to a lower altitude.

Bob Gardner

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Obviously, since this procedure was developed by the FAA and
> published in the Safety Program newsletter every year at this time, a
> forecast of icing conditions is not, in and of itself, a bar to
> flight.>>
>
>
> Hmmmm...You're saying that the Safety Program newsletter trumps the
> FARs?
>

[Richard]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This applies to large and turbine powered aircraft.
> >
> > For us little guys, ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft
is
> > certified for known ice, which very few spam cans are).
> >
>
> Forbidden by what?
>
>

[Greg Esres]

<<The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump"
because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or
models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about
icing).>>

But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when
the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing",
and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal.

And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall
back on.

[Icebound]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>
>>...snip...
>>
>> It says "...no pilot may fly--
>> (1) Under IFR into konwn or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
>> (2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions..."
>>
>> This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for
>> IFR and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a
>> pilots ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how instrument
>> training allows one to venture into worse conditions.
>
>
> Well, I make no claim to understand that minds of the FAR writers, but
> here's my opinion. It is more likely to inadvertantly encounter icing
> when flying IFR in IMC. Pretty hard to accumulate ice if you aren't
> flying in visible moisture (clouds or precip), so if you are VFR you
> really have no excuse to get into even light icing conditions. ... snip...


You can easily be in VMC, ceiling 2000 feet, visibility 3 miles, and be
flying in freezing rain.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
>
>>If the forecast icing isn't all the way to the ground, why isn't it
>>legal to file and fly below the clouds and the altitudes with forecast
>>or known icing?
>
>
> Don't ask me, I didn't write the regulation. Presumably because they have not
> put in procedures into the IFR rules to handle, IFR but remain clear of IMC.
> They presume that if you are operating IFR you are prepared to enter IMC at any
> time.
>
>

Is this a change in the last five years since I was flying actively?
Prior to that, this was common practice in the northeast. Otherwise, as
I said earlier, light aircraft would essentially be barred from filing
IFR for much of the winter months.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

David Megginson wrote:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> We have an *authorized procedure* out here in the Pacific Northwest,
>> developed by the FSDO Aviation Safety Manager and the folks at the
>> TRACON,
>> specifically for use when icing conditions are forecast. It is called
>> "Radar
>> Vectors for Ice" and involves vectors to climb away from the Cascades
>> until
>> high enough to be well above the freezing level or in the clear.
>> Obviously,
>> since this procedure was developed by the FAA and published in the Safety
>> Program newsletter every year at this time, a forecast of icing
>> conditions
>> is not, in and of itself, a bar to flight.
>
>
> Of course not -- airspace is three-dimensional. I don't cancel a flight
> planned for 4000 ft in the summer because there's icing forecast from
> 15,000 to 20,000 ft. I wonder if there is anyone in this group who is
> seriously arguing that I should cancel such a flight.

Ron Natalie just said that.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Barry wrote:
>>>>It's illegal for him to operate IFR period.
>>>
>>>Really? Even if you don't fly in the clouds?
>>>
>>
>>If he is in a case where that reg applies to him, yes. The rules don't
>>say "in clouds" they say Instrument Flight Rules.
>
>
> I think that all the icing forecasts I've seen say ICGICIP (icing in clouds
> and in precipitation), so if you stay out of the clouds and precip there's no
> forecast icing.
>
> Barry
>
>

That was my understanding, but I've been inactive the last five years so
I was wondering if things had changed. I've made many a safe winter IFR
flight when icing was forecast, or even known, at some place at some
altitude range.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Icebound wrote:
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>> O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>>
>>> ...snip...
>>>
>>> It says "...no pilot may fly--
>>> (1) Under IFR into konwn or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
>>> (2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions..."
>>>
>>> This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for
>>> IFR and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a
>>> pilots ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how
>>> instrument training allows one to venture into worse conditions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I make no claim to understand that minds of the FAR writers, but
>> here's my opinion. It is more likely to inadvertantly encounter icing
>> when flying IFR in IMC. Pretty hard to accumulate ice if you aren't
>> flying in visible moisture (clouds or precip), so if you are VFR you
>> really have no excuse to get into even light icing conditions. ...
>> snip...
>
>
>
> You can easily be in VMC, ceiling 2000 feet, visibility 3 miles, and be
> flying in freezing rain.
>
>

That's right. What part of "visible moisture (clouds or PRECIP)" didn't
you understand?

As soon as you see the rain, you should divert. Hopefully, before you
enter it too far. Typically, I can see rain shafts when flying in VMC,
unless if is really marginal VMC. Even if I can't see the rain before I
enter it, I can see it pretty quickly on the windshield and make a quick
180.


Matt

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:24 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote:

>If the forecast icing isn't all the way to the ground, why isn't it
>legal to file and fly below the clouds and the altitudes with forecast
>or known icing?


It is.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:22:44 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote:

>Is this a change in the last five years since I was flying actively?
>Prior to that, this was common practice in the northeast. Otherwise, as
>I said earlier, light aircraft would essentially be barred from filing
>IFR for much of the winter months.
>

There's no change. Don't forget the regulation we've been discussing
applies only to Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Teacherjh]

There was a change in the last five? years.

There are two things under discussion - the "large and turbine" reg, and the
"spam can" default reg.

Spam cans are now (this is a change) forbidden to enter FORECAST icing - that
is, "forecast" icing is now considered "known icing". This is a change.

I don't fly large and turbine powered aircraft, so don't know if that reg has
changed.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Natalie]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ...

> Is this a change in the last five years since I was flying actively?
> Prior to that, this was common practice in the northeast. Otherwise, as
> I said earlier, light aircraft would essentially be barred from filing
> IFR for much of the winter months.

The rule quoted has nothign to do with light non-turbine powered aircraft.

[Ron Natalie]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ...

>
> Ron Natalie just said that.
>
>
I did not. I said that 91.527 didn't differentiate between IFR in VMC and IFR in IMC.

[Judah]

I am just now getting my IFR, so I am no expert on icing...

But I did once get caught VFR in some light freezing rain when some ice (I
think it was Rime) started building up on my wings at around 3000'. I was
able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, but we're talking
about a very light coating, because I didn't wait very long. Interestingly
enough, I was approaching the NY Class B, and told them I had a critical
condition and required clearance into the Class B in case I would not be
able to descend before

Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into
the warmer air? I mean, presumably, even IFR, if you can recognize it
quickly, you should have options...

Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing =
known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's
disagrees. In the Sporty's IFR training videos, he says something to the
effect of, "If every time icing was forecast we decided not to fly, we
wouldn't get to fly very often." Then he spends a fair amount of time
explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure
and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least
some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the
legalities...

As for me, I was pretty nervous when that ice started up on my wings, and I
was more nervous about the possibility of ice building up on the prop that
I couldn't see or measure. So while I'm not convinced that I will cancel
every planned flight for forecast icing in the area, I am sure going to
make sure that I am pretty vigilant about watching out for it and reacting
quickly if something happens... Hopefully one day I'll be able to afford
anti-ice equipment and deal with the problem the right way anyway...


Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is naive to think you don't risk
harm to others when you fly recklessly solo. Besides the possibility of
harming someone when you hit the ground, you also harm the reputation of
the aviation community, play on the already hyper-sensitive fears of the
general public about aviation, and ultimately lead to more rules,
restrictions, and harm to the aviation community in general.



(Teacherjh) wrote in
:

>>>
> I believe you're referring to FAR 91.13, which is Careless OR Reckless
> Operation, not careless AND reckless. I own the aircraft and fly it
> solo, how does flying it into known icing conditions endanger the life
> or property of another?
> <<
>
> You are right - careless OR reckless. No matter. It's not legal.
> It's usually not smart.
>
> If you have an aircraft that is not certificated for flight into known
> icing (say, a typical spam can), even if it is older than the regs,
> doing so puts it at the very real risk of acquiring ice on the
> airframe. An iced up airplane does not fly very well. It is less
> stable, has less lift, more drag, less power (as the prop and intake
> get iced), and more weight. Your instruments will be less reliable, and
> may fail (i.e. the static port gets iced) If the tail ices up faster
> than the wing, you can get into a tail stall, which feels simlar to a
> wing stall but whose recovery is the opposite.
>
> What's more, unlike say for turbulence, cloud, or an unusual attitude,
> exiting the icing conditions does not fix things. The ice that you
> have picked up doesn't just "go away" right away, especially if it's
> still cold out. Sublimation is very slow, and you have to get into
> fairly warm temps to melt the stuff. You can't count on that.
>
> One of the big problems occurs on landing iced up... the trim (if it
> still works) and configuration changes may destabilize the aircraft
> even if it seemed to be flying "just fine" before.
>
> Further, once you're in it, you might not be able to get out. It might
> be that conditions are closing all over. So, you might not end up with
> "just a peek" but rather, a whole lot of dunk.
>
> Certification for known ice includes more than just boots. There's a
> whole lot of redundancy involved, and significant excess power needed
> in the powerplant to overcome the effects of ice.
>
> This is part of the reason why it's not safe. It endangers people and
> property below you, far more than simply flying. Because of this, the
> FAA would consider it careless. It would also consider it reckless.
> The FAA has already said that "forecast" icing conditions count as
> "known" icing conditions, even in the face of pireps to the contrary.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Saryon" > wrote in message ...
> FWIW, my 172S POH specifically states "Flight into known icing
> prohibited" in the limitations section. Is doing something
> specifically mentioned as prohibited in the POH actionable?
>
Absolutely.
91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying
with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and
placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
>
>>Ron Natalie just said that.
>>
>>
>
> I did not. I said that 91.527 didn't differentiate between IFR in VMC and IFR in IMC.
>

My apology.

Matt

[Teacherjh]

>>
I was able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly,
<<

In freezing rain, there has to be warmer air above, with warmer water - the
source of the rain that then freezes when it falls through colder air below.
That helps remove ice. Though depending on conditions, that warmer water may
not be reachable.

>>
Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into
the warmer air?
<<

Maybe. Probably. But if conditions are getting worse all over (night is
falling...) there may no longer be warmer air behind you.

>>
Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing =
known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's
disagrees.
<<

Many people disagree. But they are not the ones that can pull your certificate.

>>
Then he spends a fair amount of time
explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure
and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least
some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the
legalities...
<<

Knowing about icing (beyond "Danger Will Robinson") is a good thing - a
necessary thing. Forecast or not, pilots will end up in ice and need to know
what to do (and what not to do) to extricate themselves before they have gone
too far the wrong way.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are right - careless OR reckless. No matter. It's not legal. It's
> usually not smart.
>

I agree it's not smart, but that's not the issue. What law would be
violated by flying my personal aircraft, which has no mention of icing in
the operating limitations, solo, in known or forecast icing conditions?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Spam cans are now (this is a change) forbidden to enter FORECAST icing -
> that is, "forecast" icing is now considered "known icing". This is a
change.
>

Cite the regulation.

[Bob Gardner]

Greg, the intent is not to legalize anything, simply to clarify to pilots
just what ATC will do for them when icing is forecast. They (pilots) don't
have to take advantage of this procedure. At the same time, they don't have
to sit on the ground because the area from 30 to 40 miles east of SEA is
full of ice with clear sky above.

There is a 75 percent chance that ice will be encountered somewhere in the
huge volume of airspace included in an icing Airmet; there is a 15 percent
chance that a pilot will encounter ice on a specific route in that airspace.
Pretty good odds. The key is to take immediate action upon picking up ice
rather than to steam along hoping for the best.

Bob Gardner

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump"
> because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or
> models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about
> icing).>>
>
> But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when
> the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing",
> and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal.
>
> And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall
> back on.
>

[Bob Gardner]

The court case upon which this definition is based is Adminstrator vs Bowen,
a 1957 case...hardly new info.

Bob Gardner

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> There was a change in the last five? years.
>
> There are two things under discussion - the "large and turbine" reg, and
the
> "spam can" default reg.
>
> Spam cans are now (this is a change) forbidden to enter FORECAST icing -
that
> is, "forecast" icing is now considered "known icing". This is a change.
>
> I don't fly large and turbine powered aircraft, so don't know if that reg
has
> changed.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
I agree it's not smart, but that's not the issue. What law would be
violated by flying my personal aircraft, which has no mention of icing in
the operating limitations, solo, in known or forecast icing conditions?
<<

At the very least, the law that says "I will not do stupid things with
airplanes". The FARs word it thusly:

"91.13 (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person
may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the
life or property of another."

>>
> that is, "forecast" icing is now considered "known icing".
> This is a change.

Cite the regulation.
<<

You seem to be under the misconception that the laws are limited to statute.
They are not. Further, the laws are subject to "interpretation", and you don't
get to do the interpreting. The FAA does. The FAA has stated that "forecast
icing" will be interpreted as equivalent to "known icing". Actually this goes
back to 1974.

Avweb has an article at
http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184265-1.html
that provides background and citiations of actual decisions that were made that
cemented this policy in place.

It goes on to say how the FAA and NTSB are not always in agreement, and the
NTSB can overrule the FAA in some cases. There's a lot of case law which you
can review. It is there that the "regulations" will be found - as precedent
that the FAA can choose from when they investigate an event.

If this doesn't satisfy you, ask the FAA directly by calling the FSDO. Get it
in writing, post it here, and then take a guess as to how well that will stand
up should there be an incident.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jeff]

MEA was 9000 ft - there were other things he did also that I did not go into like
when center told me to intercept 394, so he goes looking on the OBS for 394
degrees, I told him there was no such thing as 394 degrees and they ment V394, he
wouldnt believe me till I showed him the map. then there was a few other things he
did.

Jeff

wrote:

> Jeff > wrote:
> : Last winter I took a flight into clouds, icing was forcasted at 10,000 ft,
> : we went up to 9000, broke out in between some layers, I was with my first
> : instrument instructor, he wanted to be in the clouds, so he asked control
> : for 11,000 so we would be in the clouds again, I told him icing was reported
> : at 10k, he said dont worry, we will be ok, we can always go up or down...I
> : told him ok, but if you kill me I will come back and haunt you forever. I
> : will tell you right now, its a big mistake to go into known or forcasted
> : icing. I wont do it again. I told him after we encountered some problems
> : that I was going back and called center. He was mad, but it didnt matter, I
> : fired his ass as soon as we were on the ground.
>
> I don't think that this was an unreasonable thing for an
> instructor to do (assuming you weren't in Colorado at the time). If
> you've got at least a few thousand feet between the freezing level and the
> MEA, you've got an out. This is assuming light rime ice, of course. My
> instructor put me in the clouds while working on the instrument time for
> my *Private* license, and we picked up a bit of ice while there. At the
> time it freaked me out, but in retrospect it was pretty safe (at least
> 3000' of clear, above-freezing air below), and made me realize how
> dangerous ice could be.
>
> What kills people is when they fly in it with either a disregard
> for its danger, and/or without a safety out.
>
> -Cory
> --
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * The prime directive of Linux: *
> * - learn what you don't know, *
> * - teach what you do. *
> * (Just my 20 USm$) *
> ************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> At the very least, the law that says "I will not do stupid things with
> airplanes". The FARs word it thusly:
>
> "91.13 (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No
person
> may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger
the
> life or property of another."
>

Those are not equivalent statements. I am free to do something stupid with
airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me.
That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood.


>
> You seem to be under the misconception that the laws are limited to
statute.
> They are not. Further, the laws are subject to "interpretation", and you
don't
> get to do the interpreting. The FAA does.
>

Actually, the FARs mean what they say. Unfortunately, there are many in the
FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are
commonly "misinterpreted".


>
> Avweb has an article at
> http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184265-1.html
> that provides background and citiations of actual decisions that were made
that
> cemented this policy in place.
>
> It goes on to say how the FAA and NTSB are not always in agreement, and
the
> NTSB can overrule the FAA in some cases. There's a lot of case law which
you
> can review. It is there that the "regulations" will be found - as
precedent
> that the FAA can choose from when they investigate an event.
>
> If this doesn't satisfy you, ask the FAA directly by calling the FSDO.
Get it
> in writing, post it here, and then take a guess as to how well that will
stand
> up should there be an incident.
>

No need for any of that, my only purpose was to show that you didn't know
what you were talking about. That you claim a law exists that you cannot
cite accomplishes that.

[Jeff]

your options will depend on the weather, the terrain your flying over and the
plane your flying.
will the terrain allow you to decend below the icing level?
will your plane have enough power to get you above the icing level?
as for the weather, how fast is ice accumilating and how high and low does the
icing level go.
I am one of those people that like to avoid having to declare an emergency and
or deviate from an ATC clearence because I want to ignore a weather forcast. If
you get in it, you should take immediate action to get out, waiting to see if
it gets worse will only improve your chances of making the next NTSB report.
Also remember, what is considered light ice to a 777 may very well be severe
ice to a C-172

Jeff

Judah wrote:

> I am just now getting my IFR, so I am no expert on icing...
>
> But I did once get caught VFR in some light freezing rain when some ice (I
> think it was Rime) started building up on my wings at around 3000'. I was
> able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, but we're talking
> about a very light coating, because I didn't wait very long. Interestingly
> enough, I was approaching the NY Class B, and told them I had a critical
> condition and required clearance into the Class B in case I would not be
> able to descend before
>
> Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into
> the warmer air? I mean, presumably, even IFR, if you can recognize it
> quickly, you should have options...
>
> Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing =
> known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's
> disagrees. In the Sporty's IFR training videos, he says something to the
> effect of, "If every time icing was forecast we decided not to fly, we
> wouldn't get to fly very often." Then he spends a fair amount of time
> explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure
> and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least
> some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the
> legalities...
>
> As for me, I was pretty nervous when that ice started up on my wings, and I
> was more nervous about the possibility of ice building up on the prop that
> I couldn't see or measure. So while I'm not convinced that I will cancel
> every planned flight for forecast icing in the area, I am sure going to
> make sure that I am pretty vigilant about watching out for it and reacting
> quickly if something happens... Hopefully one day I'll be able to afford
> anti-ice equipment and deal with the problem the right way anyway...
>
> Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is naive to think you don't risk
> harm to others when you fly recklessly solo. Besides the possibility of
> harming someone when you hit the ground, you also harm the reputation of
> the aviation community, play on the already hyper-sensitive fears of the
> general public about aviation, and ultimately lead to more rules,
> restrictions, and harm to the aviation community in general.
>
> (Teacherjh) wrote in
> :
>
> >>>
> > I believe you're referring to FAR 91.13, which is Careless OR Reckless
> > Operation, not careless AND reckless. I own the aircraft and fly it
> > solo, how does flying it into known icing conditions endanger the life
> > or property of another?
> > <<
> >
> > You are right - careless OR reckless. No matter. It's not legal.
> > It's usually not smart.
> >
> > If you have an aircraft that is not certificated for flight into known
> > icing (say, a typical spam can), even if it is older than the regs,
> > doing so puts it at the very real risk of acquiring ice on the
> > airframe. An iced up airplane does not fly very well. It is less
> > stable, has less lift, more drag, less power (as the prop and intake
> > get iced), and more weight. Your instruments will be less reliable, and
> > may fail (i.e. the static port gets iced) If the tail ices up faster
> > than the wing, you can get into a tail stall, which feels simlar to a
> > wing stall but whose recovery is the opposite.
> >
> > What's more, unlike say for turbulence, cloud, or an unusual attitude,
> > exiting the icing conditions does not fix things. The ice that you
> > have picked up doesn't just "go away" right away, especially if it's
> > still cold out. Sublimation is very slow, and you have to get into
> > fairly warm temps to melt the stuff. You can't count on that.
> >
> > One of the big problems occurs on landing iced up... the trim (if it
> > still works) and configuration changes may destabilize the aircraft
> > even if it seemed to be flying "just fine" before.
> >
> > Further, once you're in it, you might not be able to get out. It might
> > be that conditions are closing all over. So, you might not end up with
> > "just a peek" but rather, a whole lot of dunk.
> >
> > Certification for known ice includes more than just boots. There's a
> > whole lot of redundancy involved, and significant excess power needed
> > in the powerplant to overcome the effects of ice.
> >
> > This is part of the reason why it's not safe. It endangers people and
> > property below you, far more than simply flying. Because of this, the
> > FAA would consider it careless. It would also consider it reckless.
> > The FAA has already said that "forecast" icing conditions count as
> > "known" icing conditions, even in the face of pireps to the contrary.
> >
> > Jose
> >
> > --
> > (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
> >

[Teacherjh]

>>
I am free to do something stupid with
airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me.
That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood.
<<

I did not misunderstand it. Until you can find an airplane that stays in the
air when it crashes, flying in icing conditions without proper equipment
endangers people and property on the ground.

>>
Actually, the FARs mean what they say. Unfortunately, there are many in the
FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are
commonly "misinterpreted".
<<

The end result is either your certificate is lifted, or it isn't. The FAA gets
to decide. If the FAA "mis"interprets its own regulations and lifts your
certificate, your certificate is still lifted.

>>
my only purpose was to show that you didn't know
what you were talking about.
<<

Thanks for enlightening me. I'll go sit in the corner now.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't think that Collins would disagree that forecast icing is known
icing. He might choose to launch anyway but the legalities are clear.

Mike
MU-2

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> I am just now getting my IFR, so I am no expert on icing...
>
> But I did once get caught VFR in some light freezing rain when some ice (I
> think it was Rime) started building up on my wings at around 3000'. I was
> able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, but we're talking
> about a very light coating, because I didn't wait very long. Interestingly
> enough, I was approaching the NY Class B, and told them I had a critical
> condition and required clearance into the Class B in case I would not be
> able to descend before
>
> Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into
> the warmer air? I mean, presumably, even IFR, if you can recognize it
> quickly, you should have options...
>
> Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing =
> known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's
> disagrees. In the Sporty's IFR training videos, he says something to the
> effect of, "If every time icing was forecast we decided not to fly, we
> wouldn't get to fly very often." Then he spends a fair amount of time
> explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure
> and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least
> some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the
> legalities...
>
> As for me, I was pretty nervous when that ice started up on my wings, and
I
> was more nervous about the possibility of ice building up on the prop that
> I couldn't see or measure. So while I'm not convinced that I will cancel
> every planned flight for forecast icing in the area, I am sure going to
> make sure that I am pretty vigilant about watching out for it and reacting
> quickly if something happens... Hopefully one day I'll be able to afford
> anti-ice equipment and deal with the problem the right way anyway...
>
>
> Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is naive to think you don't risk
> harm to others when you fly recklessly solo. Besides the possibility of
> harming someone when you hit the ground, you also harm the reputation of
> the aviation community, play on the already hyper-sensitive fears of the
> general public about aviation, and ultimately lead to more rules,
> restrictions, and harm to the aviation community in general.
>
>
>
> (Teacherjh) wrote in
> :
>
> >>>
> > I believe you're referring to FAR 91.13, which is Careless OR Reckless
> > Operation, not careless AND reckless. I own the aircraft and fly it
> > solo, how does flying it into known icing conditions endanger the life
> > or property of another?
> > <<
> >
> > You are right - careless OR reckless. No matter. It's not legal.
> > It's usually not smart.
> >
> > If you have an aircraft that is not certificated for flight into known
> > icing (say, a typical spam can), even if it is older than the regs,
> > doing so puts it at the very real risk of acquiring ice on the
> > airframe. An iced up airplane does not fly very well. It is less
> > stable, has less lift, more drag, less power (as the prop and intake
> > get iced), and more weight. Your instruments will be less reliable, and
> > may fail (i.e. the static port gets iced) If the tail ices up faster
> > than the wing, you can get into a tail stall, which feels simlar to a
> > wing stall but whose recovery is the opposite.
> >
> > What's more, unlike say for turbulence, cloud, or an unusual attitude,
> > exiting the icing conditions does not fix things. The ice that you
> > have picked up doesn't just "go away" right away, especially if it's
> > still cold out. Sublimation is very slow, and you have to get into
> > fairly warm temps to melt the stuff. You can't count on that.
> >
> > One of the big problems occurs on landing iced up... the trim (if it
> > still works) and configuration changes may destabilize the aircraft
> > even if it seemed to be flying "just fine" before.
> >
> > Further, once you're in it, you might not be able to get out. It might
> > be that conditions are closing all over. So, you might not end up with
> > "just a peek" but rather, a whole lot of dunk.
> >
> > Certification for known ice includes more than just boots. There's a
> > whole lot of redundancy involved, and significant excess power needed
> > in the powerplant to overcome the effects of ice.
> >
> > This is part of the reason why it's not safe. It endangers people and
> > property below you, far more than simply flying. Because of this, the
> > FAA would consider it careless. It would also consider it reckless.
> > The FAA has already said that "forecast" icing conditions count as
> > "known" icing conditions, even in the face of pireps to the contrary.
> >
> > Jose
> >
> > --
> > (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
> >
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did not misunderstand it.
>

What you stated about it was not correct.


>
> Until you can find an airplane that stays in the
> air when it crashes, flying in icing conditions without proper equipment
> endangers people and property on the ground.
>

Then all flight violates FAR 91.13. Again, you're misinterpreting the
regulation.


>
> The end result is either your certificate is lifted, or it isn't. The FAA
gets
> to decide. If the FAA "mis"interprets its own regulations and lifts your
> certificate, your certificate is still lifted.
>

True, but that's another issue. If the regulations don't mean what they say
they don't mean anything.


>
> Thanks for enlightening me. I'll go sit in the corner now.
>

Take the FARs with you.

[Teacherjh]

>> What you stated about it was not correct.

What I stated about it was abbreviated, and was not incorrect. Well, maybe I
should have added "that endanger others..." but I didn't. The FAR I actually
quoted did. You could read that.

>> Then all flight violates FAR 91.13

Another consequence of abbreviation. All flight endangers people on the
ground. Not all flight is careless or reckless. I contend that the FAA
contends that flight into known or forecast icing in an improperly equipped
airplane is careless or reckless and therefore violates 91.13(a) The FAA and
NTSB have contended this successfully in the courts, creating case law. Case
law =IS= law.

>>
If the regulations don't mean what they say
they don't mean anything.
<<

This has been argued for many years. It has some merit, but not enough. I'd
like them to be better written too, but I know enough to be careful what I wish
for.

>> Take the FARs with you.

That's not where the law lives, though it might be its address. As a
consequence, the law can change without any statute changing. That's just the
way it works. It may make engineer types (which include me) uncomfortable, but
so does Quantum Mechanics.

Jose
dammit, the electron went SOMEPLACE, and it had to go there to get there!

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> What I stated about it was abbreviated, and was not incorrect.
>

What you stated with regard to flight in icing conditions is indeed
incorrect, there's no question about that. You wrote; "For us little guys,
ANY ICE AT ALL is forbidden. (unless the aircraft is certified for known
ice, which very few spam cans are)." There is no direct prohibition against
flight in icing conditions in "spam cans".


>
> That's not where the law lives, though it might be its address.
>

No, take the FARs with you when you go to the corner and study them.

[David Megginson]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> I don't think that Collins would disagree that forecast icing is known
> icing. He might choose to launch anyway but the legalities are clear.

Here's an interesting footnote to this whole discussion. Since I'm planning
a trip in the U.S. next weekend, earlier this evening I was playing around
learning the Java applets at

http://adds.aviationweather.gov/java/

They're very neat, but I noticed that the U.S. CIP showed (Monday evening) a
high probability of icing all around southern and eastern Ontario and
Northern New York from the surface to 10,000 ft: definitely a no-fly day.

Just out of interest, I then glanced at the Canadian GFA for turbulence and
icing:

http://www.flightplanning.navcanada.ca/Latest/gfa/anglais/Latest-gfacn33_turbc_000-e.html

It had no icing forecast at all in this part of Canada Monday evening, aside
from the boilerplate warning "GENLY LGT RIME ICGIC ABV FRLVL" which is
automatically printed on every chart: obviously a perfect night for an IFR
flight.

In the event, by late evening there were no icing PIREPS in the Montreal or
Toronto FIRs.


All the best,


David

[Gerald Sylvester]

> My instructor put me in the clouds while working on the instrument
time for
> my *Private* license, and we picked up a bit of ice while there.

I know you were the student but how did the instructor knowingly break
the VFR visibility requirements if you were in the clouds? It wasn't
my ass that the plane was strapped to but just wondering.

BTW, I actually asked my instructor to file a an IFR plan so I can
get some actual time when I was (still am since my PPL checkride
is December 17th) but he said to save it for my IFR ticket which
should begin sooner rather than later.

Gerald

[Teacherjh]

I'm sorry. Time's up. I'm not allowed to argue if you haven't paid.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I know you were the student but how did the instructor knowingly break
> the VFR visibility requirements if you were in the clouds?
>

Nothing in his statement suggested any rule was broken. Primary training is
not limited to VFR operations. The instructor can easily pick up an IFR
clearance or this may have happened in Class G airspace.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message k.net...
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Spam cans are now (this is a change) forbidden to enter FORECAST icing -
> > that is, "forecast" icing is now considered "known icing". This is a
> change.
> >
>
> Cite the regulation.
>
It's actually not a change. While everybody says "known icing" every regulation
that exists says "forecast or known" icing.

What there was a furor over was that a decision was issued that PIREPS indicating
absence of ice did not have priority over forecasts.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's actually not a change. While everybody says "known icing" every
regulation
> that exists says "forecast or known" icing.
>
> What there was a furor over was that a decision was issued that PIREPS
indicating
> absence of ice did not have priority over forecasts.
>

The point here is there is no such regulation.

[Mike Rapoport]

If ice is forecast in clouds and precip from say 8000 to FL180 then there is
no ice forecast below 8000 and you are free to fly IFR there.

Mike
MU-2





,."Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>>It's illegal for him to operate IFR period.
> >>
> >>Really? Even if you don't fly in the clouds?
> >>
> >
> > If he is in a case where that reg applies to him, yes. The rules don't
> > say "in clouds" they say Instrument Flight Rules.
> >
> >
>
> If the forecast icing isn't all the way to the ground, why isn't it
> legal to file and fly below the clouds and the altitudes with forecast
> or known icing?
>
>
> Matt
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> It's actually not a change. While everybody says "known icing" every
regulation
> that exists says "forecast or known" icing.

The 172P POH says "Flight into known icing conditions is prohibited"--no
mention of forecasts. (But there's an ambiguity between known conditions of
icing vs. conditions of known icing.)

--Gary

[David Brooks]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
link.net...

> BTW, I actually asked my instructor to file a an IFR plan so I can
> get some actual time when I was (still am since my PPL checkride
> is December 17th)

What a great day for a checkride! Best wishes.

-- David Brooks (IR checkride 12/17/02)

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > The published operating limitations of the aircraft, which must be
adhered
| > to in accordance with the type certificate and the general prohibition
| > against reckless and dangerous operation. Most modern light planes have
| > specific provisions in their type certificates prohibiting flight into
| known
| > icing conditions.
| >
|
| What forbids those light planes that have no such specific provisions in
| their type certificates from flying into known icing conditions?

Nothing, of course. But I thought that was so obvious as to go without
saying.

[Barry]

"Steven P. McNicoll" said:

> Forbidden by what?

For a fascinating look at the legality of flying in icing conditions, go to
Avweb.com and search for an excellent article series on icing by R. Scott
Puddy, an attorney and experienced CFII (he was tragically killed in an
aerobatics crash last year). His articles are balanced by a retired FAA
Inspector named Eric Jaderborg, who basically argues the FAA's side of the
issue. Mr. Jaderborg was actually one of the FAA Inspectors who prosecuted
one of the cases Scott chronicled in his articles.

Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched in
an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
Icing.' After you have read the article series, your whole opinion will
change about the legality of and the risks associated with launching into,
and flying at or near the freezing level in such an area.

Go to Avweb.com and read this excellent series of articles:

Icing Taking Adequate Precautions - (Articles - Jul 10 2002)
Flying Into Known Icing Is It Legal? - (Articles - Jul 10 2002)
An Icing Encounter PIC Judgment and Prosecutorial Discretion - (Articles -
Jul 10 2002)
An Icing Encounter A Former FAA Inspector Replies - (Articles - Feb 7 2001)

There doesn't have to be an FAR specifically addressing flight of a
non-icing certificated bug-smasher into known icing conditions. FAR 91.13
takes care of that. There is ample precedent in NTSB case law where the FAA
has successfully prosecuted many of those who "tested the Gods" and got into
trouble. For an eye-full, go to NTSB.gov and surf over to the aviation
administrative law decisions (search "icing"). Interesting reading.

Moreover, the NTSB has perverted the definition of "known Icing" over the
last several decades. Notice this little sidebar from a Flight Training
Magazine of many years ago:

"What is "Known Icing?"

A fundamental question that arises when instrument pilots bet together is
"What is the definition of `known icing,' and where can that definition be
found?" The truth is that the term is not defined in Part 1 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations, but the administrative law judges of the National
Transportation Safety Board have developed a solid definition of "known
icing" in their decisions on icing-related certificate actions over the
years. That definition is what you will have to live with if a load of ice
contributes to an accident or incident while you are pilot-in-command.

Beginning with a case in 1957, the NTSB has stated in its findings that when
temperatures are near or below freezing and visible moisture exists. those
are icing conditions. They have said further that because the flight service
station network states the existence of those conditions in reports and
forecasts that are available to pilots both before flight and while carouse.
when those conditions are forecast by the National Weather Service and
disseminated to the FSSs, the icing conditions become "known" to pilots who
are required to check such reports and forecasts while planning a flight.

In a 1993 case, in upholding a certificate action against a pilot who relied
on pilot reports in making his go/no go decision, the Board made it clear
that official NWS weather reports and forecasts take precedence over
"anecdotal" (their words) pilot reports.

So it is clear that a forecast meeting the NTSB definition of known icing
would have the effect of grounding all airplanes not certificated for flight
into known icing conditions. That doesn't happen, of course, because icing
conditions sufficiently severe to knock a small airplane out of the sky
occur infrequently and because almost all pilots know enough about weather
to stay on the ground when conditions conducive to icing are forecast at
their planned flight altitude and along their planned route."

Tailwinds,
Antique Examiner

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nothing, of course. But I thought that was so obvious as to go without
> saying.
>

So did I, but apparently it isn't.

[Ron Natalie]

"Barry" > wrote in message hlink.net...

>
> Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched in
> an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
> still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
> Icing.'

135 is a different story. There are specific rules about forecast icing
(135.227). This doesn't apply to part 91.

Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through
their own sham rulemaking process.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

: "Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
: link.net...
:>
:> I know you were the student but how did the instructor knowingly break
:> the VFR visibility requirements if you were in the clouds?
:>

: Nothing in his statement suggested any rule was broken. Primary training is
: not limited to VFR operations. The instructor can easily pick up an IFR
: clearance or this may have happened in Class G airspace.

Exactly.... and I'm not going to specify how it was done.... just that it was
done, and I'm glad for the experience. :)

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Exactly.... and I'm not going to specify how it was done.... just that it
was
> done, and I'm glad for the experience. :)
>

You're not going to specify how what was done? Picking up ice in the clouds
or your instructor deliberately violating VFR weather minimums as was
assumed by Gerald Sylvester?

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
: You're not going to specify how what was done? Picking up ice in the clouds
: or your instructor deliberately violating VFR weather minimums as was
: assumed by Gerald Sylvester?

That may have been what he was implying, but as pointed out, just because I was
flying in IMC with an instructor for my PPL training doesn't not automatically mean I was
flying illegally.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<The closest you can come is 91.9, so there is nothing to "trump"
> because the POH wording is not consistent between manufacturers or
> models (and, as some have pointed out, some POHs say nothing about
> icing).>>
>
> But some do, and the wording inconsistency doesn't seem relevent when
> the meaning is clear. My Seneca says "Not approved for known icing",
> and I don't think that ATC procedures can therefore make it legal.

Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.

> And there is always 91.13 (Careless or Reckless) for the FAA to fall
> back on.

Operating outside the manufacturer's specifications is a dangerous option.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> I am free to do something stupid with
> airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me.
> That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood.
> <<
>
> I did not misunderstand it. Until you can find an airplane that stays in
the
> air when it crashes, flying in icing conditions without proper equipment
> endangers people and property on the ground.
>
> >>
> Actually, the FARs mean what they say. Unfortunately, there are many in
the
> FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are
> commonly "misinterpreted".
> <<
>
> The end result is either your certificate is lifted, or it isn't. The FAA
gets
> to decide. If the FAA "mis"interprets its own regulations and lifts your
> certificate, your certificate is still lifted.

That is the magic of Administrative Law.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Barry" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> >
> > Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched
in
> > an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
> > still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
> > Icing.'
>
> 135 is a different story. There are specific rules about forecast icing
> (135.227). This doesn't apply to part 91.
>
> Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through
> their own sham rulemaking process.

I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them authority
to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved Data.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...

> > Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going through
> > their own sham rulemaking process.
>
> I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them authority
> to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved Data.
>
I'm referring to the application of "known icing" rules when there is no certification
data to the contrary.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > Part 91 rules on icing are invented by the FAA without even going
through
> > > their own sham rulemaking process.
> >
> > I think FAA's regulation of Manufacturers under Part 21 gives them
authority
> > to apply those same restrictions under Part 91. The POH is Approved
Data.
> >
> I'm referring to the application of "known icing" rules when there is no
certification
> data to the contrary.

I suppose FAA would have to "speculate" on the airworthyness of those pre
POH required airplanes. :)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> That may have been what he was implying, but as pointed out, just
> because I was flying in IMC with an instructor for my PPL training doesn't
> not automatically mean I was flying illegally.
>

That was MY point.

[FiPe]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
>document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.
>

????

Bwhahahah

[Tarver Engineering]

"FiPe" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
> >document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.

> Bwhahahah

The POH is an FAA approved engineering document. (Approved Data)

What is a FiPe?

[FiPe]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>
>> >Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
>> >document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.
>
>> Bwhahahah
>
>The POH is an FAA approved engineering document. (Approved Data)
>
>What is a FiPe?


Is NOT the factory that makes Senecas, that's for sure.

[Tarver Engineering]

"FiPe" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >>
> >> >Seneca is making it clear that their engineering is not approved, in a
> >> >document that is FAA Approved, for flying into known icing.
> >
> >> Bwhahahah
> >
> >The POH is an FAA approved engineering document. (Approved Data)
> >
> >What is a FiPe?

> Is NOT the factory that makes Senecas, that's for sure.

Your point would be?

The POH is a required part of the airplane's Type Certification.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Well, I KNEW this was a can of worms. The thread has been very
enlightening. Thanks.

I did check with FSS one time, when I was getting a weather briefing, to
clarify the legality of operations in forecast icing. He would not
touch my question with a ten-foot pole. He essentially refused to
answer. Now I see why. The article's at avweb, cited in this thread,
make it clear that FAA and NTSB are at odds over icing rules.

At the risk of re-starting a fire...does the generic line in weather
reports saying that there is "generally the possibility of icing above
the freezing level in clouds and perecipitation" mean that icing is
ALWAYS forecast above the freezing level (assuming there are some clouds
above the freezing level)? Or does that generic line not really count
as a forecast?

-Sami

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:

> I KNOW this is a big can of worms, but I have a specific question
> relating to sub-paragraphs b.1 and b.2 of this regulation regarinding
> operating in icing conditions.
>
> It says "...no pilot may fly--
> (1) Under IFR into konwn or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
> (2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions..."
>
> This seems odd. Why do you suppose the standards are different for IFR
> and VFR ("moderate" vs "light or moderate)? Icing affects a pilots
> ability to control the aircraft, so I do not see how instrument training
> allows one to venture into worse conditions.
>
> So, if there is an airmet for "light icing", then it is legal for an IFR
> pilot to enter the clouds (of course, on a valid IFR flight plan)?
>
> What perectnage of the time, during winter, do icing forecasts get
> issued whenever there are IFR conditions? In other words, in y'alls
> experience, if you get 100 briefings during the winter time that include
> IFR conditions, what perecntage of those will also have icing forecast.
> My intuition says that it will be upwards of 90-100% (I am a relatively
> new IFR pilot, so I do not have the experience base to say...looking for
> other opinions here). If it is close to 100%, should I just hang up my
> IFR certificate from Sept to May (I live in Wisconsin, so we only have
> about 30 minutes of summer here per year :)).
>
> -Sami
>

[Roy Smith]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote:
> I did check with FSS one time, when I was getting a weather briefing, to
> clarify the legality of operations in forecast icing. He would not
> touch my question with a ten-foot pole.

And rightly so. The briefer's job is to give you a weather briefing.
If you want an opinion on the legality of doing something, ask a laywer
(and be prepared to pay his fee).

> At the risk of re-starting a fire...does the generic line in weather
> reports saying that there is "generally the possibility of icing above
> the freezing level in clouds and perecipitation" mean that icing is
> ALWAYS forecast above the freezing level (assuming there are some clouds
> above the freezing level)? Or does that generic line not really count
> as a forecast?

I've never seen a forecast that contained the phrase "generally the
possibility", but the way I interpret "icing above X in clouds and in
precipition" is that as long as you stay out of clouds and out of
precip, you are not in the area where icing is forcast. That's just my
interpretation. If you want a legal opinion, see above :-)

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Roy,

I do not mean to be argumentative, but I thought the weather briefer is
part of the flight service system and is thus a representative of the
FAA. It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.

-Sami

Roy Smith wrote:

> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote:
>
>>I did check with FSS one time, when I was getting a weather briefing, to
>>clarify the legality of operations in forecast icing. He would not
>>touch my question with a ten-foot pole.
>>
>
> And rightly so. The briefer's job is to give you a weather briefing.
> If you want an opinion on the legality of doing something, ask a laywer
> (and be prepared to pay his fee).
>
>
>>At the risk of re-starting a fire...does the generic line in weather
>>reports saying that there is "generally the possibility of icing above
>>the freezing level in clouds and perecipitation" mean that icing is
>>ALWAYS forecast above the freezing level (assuming there are some clouds
>> above the freezing level)? Or does that generic line not really count
>>as a forecast?
>>
>
> I've never seen a forecast that contained the phrase "generally the
> possibility", but the way I interpret "icing above X in clouds and in
> precipition" is that as long as you stay out of clouds and out of
> precip, you are not in the area where icing is forcast. That's just my
> interpretation. If you want a legal opinion, see above :-)
>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote:

> Roy,
>
> I do not mean to be argumentative, but I thought the weather briefer is
> part of the flight service system and is thus a representative of the
> FAA.

He is.

> It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
> and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.

It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an expert
on weather.

[Teacherjh]

>>
At the risk of re-starting a fire...does the generic line in weather
reports saying that there is "generally the possibility of icing above
the freezing level in clouds and perecipitation" mean that icing is
ALWAYS forecast above the freezing level (assuming there are some clouds
above the freezing level)? Or does that generic line not really count
as a forecast?
<<

Say this generic line was in the forecast.
Say somebody without icing certification flies in it.
Say there's a crash and an investigation.

Think they'd want to be able to use that line in the forecast to come to the
conclusion that it was "pilot error"? I do.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[John R. Copeland]

I think the briefer's job is to be an expert in reading the appropriate
documents to us, but definitely not to be an expert on weather!
It's a meteorologist's job to be an expert on weather.
Only a few FSS briefers have meteorological training.
---JRC---

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message =
...
> In article >,
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote:
>=20
> > Roy,
> >=20
> > I do not mean to be argumentative, but I thought the weather briefer =
is=20
> > part of the flight service system and is thus a representative of =
the=20
> > FAA.
>=20
> He is.
>=20
> > It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning=20
> > and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of =
complying.
>=20
> It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an =
expert=20
> on weather.

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Roy Smith
> writes:

> It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
>> and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.
>
>It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an expert
>on weather.
>

I understand your point, Roy. But I have had discussions with briefers, on
ocasion, where the discussion has gone something like: Me, "Doesn't look good
between here and there", Him, "it looks like it is lessening to the east, if
you wait half an hour and "fly a curve" it looks better" etc. You may say he
is just giving weather info but I feel we are having a discussion that helps me
reach my decision.

Chuck

[Teacherjh]

>>
>> It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
>> and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.

>It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an expert
>on weather.

I understand your point, Roy. But I have had discussions with briefers, on
ocasion, where the discussion has gone something like: Me, "Doesn't look good
between here and there", Him, "it looks like it is lessening to the east, if
you wait half an hour and "fly a curve" it looks better" etc. You may say he
is just giving weather info but I feel we are having a discussion that helps me
reach my decision.
<<

Yes, I've had that too. But in these cases they are still in their area of
expertise (weather) and not legalities. The only time legalities gets into it
is when I ask about "legal alternates". Then they help find alternates that
match the (easy to interpret) legal requirements.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>
> I do not mean to be argumentative, but I thought the weather briefer is
> part of the flight service system and is thus a representative of the
> FAA. It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
> and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.
>

Why would flight service have any knowledge in that area?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an expert
> on weather.
>

It's his job to provide weather briefings, I think that falls a bit short of
being an "expert on weather".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Barry" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched
> in an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
> still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
> Icing.' After you have read the article series, your whole opinion will
> change about the legality of and the risks associated with launching into,
> and flying at or near the freezing level in such an area.
>

The subject line refers to Part 91 operations, not Part 135.


>
> There doesn't have to be an FAR specifically addressing flight of a
> non-icing certificated bug-smasher into known icing conditions. FAR 91.13
> takes care of that.
>

Only when the life or property of another is endangered.

[Teacherjh]

>> Only when the life or property of another is endangered.

Ok, I see you'll go that far. I'll go as far as to say that the life or
property of another is rarely not endangered. Not never, just rarely.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, I see you'll go that far. I'll go as far as to say that the life or
> property of another is rarely not endangered. Not never, just rarely.
>

Then please explain why FAR 91.13(a) states; "No person may operate an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or
property of another.", and not, "No person may operate an aircraft in a
careless or reckless manner."

[Teacherjh]

No, I won't explain why it says that. That it says that does not contradict my
contention, which is that most of the time, when flying and deliberately doing
something stupid, you do endanger the life or property of another.

Not all the time. But most of the time.

We can both think of examples where you would not be doing so. But most of the
time, flying an unprotected aircraft in the ice over most ofr the mainland
United States, most of Hawaii, and some of Alaska, there are people and there
is property below you that is endangered.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, I won't explain why it says that. That it says that does not
contradict my
> contention, which is that most of the time, when flying and deliberately
doing
> something stupid, you do endanger the life or property of another.
>
> Not all the time. But most of the time.
>
> We can both think of examples where you would not be doing so. But most
of the
> time, flying an unprotected aircraft in the ice over most ofr the mainland
> United States, most of Hawaii, and some of Alaska, there are people and
there
> is property below you that is endangered.
>

Then all flight would be in violation of FAR 91.13. Your position is
absurd.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Then all flight would be in violation of FAR 91.13. Your position is
absurd.
<<

No, only flight which is simply careless and reckless would be a violation. As
it stands, flight which is careless and reckless AND endangers people or
property on the ground is in violation. I contend that one is hard put to be
careless and reckless while NOT endangering people on the ground.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)