FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

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)

"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.

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

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)

"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?

"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.

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.

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)

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)

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$) *
************************************************** ***********************