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

All of the cases I have in my files are certificate actions based on
accidents...some fatal, some not.

When Tony Broderick was Assistant Administrator for Certification and
Regulation, I asked him specifically about any action based on a pilot
report of an icing encounter in a non-known-ice airplane. He said that if
the pilot took action to escape the icing conditions it would be a
non-event, but if the pilot remained in the icing conditions and an
accident/incident resulted, he would be subject to certificate action.

Then I asked the controller's union VP for safety about how controllers
react to reports of icing encounters from pilots of non-KI airplanes. He
said that controllers have no interest in the certification status of
airplane or pilot, and have no paperwork mechanism available anyway.

I'm going to miss the controller's union meeting in Dallas the end of this
month, so I won't be able to bang any ears.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Has there ever been a case where the FAA violated the pilot just for
flying in an area of forecasted icing?

If the FAA wants to do this, it is real easy, since all they have to do
is to automatically send tickets to all non-deiced airplanes flying in
clouds in the winter. You don't even need an inspector; a computer can
do this.

Most enforecement cases I know had an accident, or the pilot declared
an emergency. In that case, whether there was forecasted icing or
reported icing becomes a moot point. They can hang you on a variety of
charges, even if you manage to escape the icing clause.




Bob Gardner wrote:
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