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

Doug wrote:

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.

In lieu of the new type of icing forecasts that are supposedly going to
grace your local FSS and DUATs this year, one could assume that the FAA is
aware the current icing AIRMETs are too broad-brushed in their coverage for
your advice to be practical to any pilot downwind of the Great Lakes who
desires some utility out of his aircraft October through May.



--
Peter

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

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

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