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

"Peter" wrote in message
...

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

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

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

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

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

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

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

--Gary

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

Has there been a case yet where the FAA has agreed with this definition
in an enforcement action?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The AIM is NOT regulatory nor official legal doctrine. The
AIM seems to be logical and reasonable, but I think there
needs to be an official FAA legal opinion stated.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
| The current AIM (7-1-23) explicitly states that "forecast
icing conditions"
| are *not* "known icing conditions":
|
| Has there been a case yet where the FAA has agreed with
this definition
| in an enforcement action?
|
| Jose
| --
| Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:jBIVf.877$t22.865@dukeread08...

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

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

Has there been a case yet where the FAA has agreed with
this definition in an enforcement action?

The AIM is NOT regulatory nor official legal doctrine. The
AIM seems to be logical and reasonable, but I think there
needs to be an official FAA legal opinion stated.

The AIM is not regulatory, but the FAA does tell pilots to use the AIM's
information to understand their regulatory responsibilities. I'm not aware
of any relevant case law since the adoption of the definitions I cited. But
it would constitute blatant entrapment for the FAA to instruct pilots to
interpret official terminology in a particular way, and then bust them for
complying with that instruction. (Appeals courts may defer to the FAA on the
interpretation of the rules, but *not* on questions of due process; and
entrapment is a serious violation of due process.)

This question has come up here before, and no one has been able to cite any
case, ever, in which the FAA has even *tried* (let alone successfully) to
bust someone for complying with the AIM. So I don't think the possibility is
worth worrying about, but of course everyone needs to evaluate that for
themselves.

--Gary

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

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just use the airmets. If there is an airmet for icing, you can't go. If
there is no airmet, you might be able to go if conditions allow it.

An airmet for icing consititutes forecast icing, not known icing, according
to the AIM definition I cited.

Of course, if there isn't a sound immediate escape option in the event that
the forecast is right, the flight would be unsafe (in a plane that's not
certified for known icing) and (incidentally) therefore illegal.

--Gary

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:23:56 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

Of course, if there isn't a sound immediate escape option in the event that
the forecast is right, the flight would be unsafe (in a plane that's not
certified for known icing) and (incidentally) therefore illegal.

I agree the flight would be unsafe, and possibly illegal under the careless
and reckless clause. But I think the issue of whether it would be
otherwise illegal hinges not on whether the a/c is certified for known
icing, but rather whether there is a prohibition in the POH/AFM against
flight into known icing conditions.

My "mature" Mooney, and many other older small a/c, do not have such a
prohibition in their documents.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:23:56 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

Of course, if there isn't a sound immediate escape option in the event
that
the forecast is right, the flight would be unsafe (in a plane that's not
certified for known icing) and (incidentally) therefore illegal.

I agree the flight would be unsafe, and possibly illegal under the
careless
and reckless clause.

Yup.

But I think the issue of whether it would be
otherwise illegal hinges not on whether the a/c is certified for known
icing, but rather whether there is a prohibition in the POH/AFM against
flight into known icing conditions.

Yup, an AFM prohibition (rather than icing certification) would be what's
relevant to legality apart from the safety issue. But the scenario under
discussion involves forecast icing rather than known icing, so (according to
the AIM definitions I cited earlier) the only legality problem would be from
unsafe flight.

--Gary

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
The one I like is, is it "known icing-conditions" or "known-icing
conditions"?

The current AIM definition removes any ambiguity.

--Gary

The latest on known icing is a 2004 case...

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

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

Bob Gardner

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

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

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

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

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

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

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

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

--Gary