![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've been watching the icing airmets for some time now, and it seems
to be getting more and more conservative to the point of being unrealistic. For example, right now the freezing level is at 5000 ft, MEA is at 2500 ft, yet we have an airmet Z that goes all way from SFC to 18k. How could you possibly justify such an airmet? Even though the conditions appear to be quite good for an IFR training flight, we still have to cancel the flight because we don't want to teach the students that airmets can be ignored. Yet I am at a loss to explain to them why there is an airmet when the ingredients for icing is just not there. The ADDS icing potential charts appear to be more realistic, but they warn you that it supplements the Airmet and should not be used as a substitute for icing intensity. Any thoughts? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Descending through a thin icing layer | Wyatt Emmerich | Instrument Flight Rules | 70 | December 31st 03 05:17 AM |
FAA letter on flight into known icing | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 78 | December 22nd 03 07:44 PM |
Supercooled Water - More on Icing | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 50 | December 11th 03 01:20 PM |
FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 98 | December 11th 03 06:58 AM |
snow and icing | Teacherjh | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | December 10th 03 04:00 AM |