New known ice definition

[Nolife]

Anyone hear of the proposed definition change of "Known Icing" by the Northeastern Regional FAA. The definition supposedly will be changed to if freezing conditions exit and there is high relative humidity that will constitute "known icing." Anyone have additional info? A search of the faa.gov website turned up nothing.

 

[avbug]

AOPA is pushing back on that right now, vehemently.

This is what we've been saying for some time, however, and everybody fights it. If conditions exist that could produce ice, even if ice isn't being produced, even if it isn't being reported, even if it isn't being forecast, you have known ice, because you're in conditions known to be conducive to produce ice.

 

[A Squared]

AOPA is pushing back on that right now, vehemently.

This is what we've been saying for some time, however, and everybody fights it. If conditions exist that could produce ice, even if ice isn't being produced, even if it isn't being reported, even if it isn't being forecast, you have known ice, because you're in conditions known to be conducive to produce ice.

Avbug,

No disagreement here ... except: The current furor is about an interpretation letter that effectively woud change the definition of (to use your words) "If conditions exist that could produce ice". Previously "conditions that could produce ice" were determined in some quantitative manner by meterologists. Now, I haven't seen the actual leter itself, but as I understand it fom AOPA, the letter changes that to any time hte temp is below freezing and the relative humidity is high. If nothing else, that raises the question of what is "high relative humidity" ? Anything over 90%? 80%? 70%? High is a pretty vauge term to apply to limits on an objective quantity. One might conclude that according to the letter, it is not illegal to fly in a cloud when the OAT is freezing or lower, unless your aircraft is certificated for known icing.

 

[Rally]

I would agree with this change if it was'nt high relative humidity. What does that mean? Are we going to check temp/dew point charts along the way? How about freezing (or 34-35F what ever it is) then visible moisture. IE, Fog, clouds, precip etc.

 

[A Squared]

Interesting.

I read the letter of interpretation which started this. Not only does the letter raise the ambiguous question of what constitutes "high relative humidity", but it also states explicitly that any time you are in a cloud and the temp is freezing or below, you are in known icing conditions.

from the letter:

"Since clouds are a form of visible moisture, flying through clouds at an altitude that is at of below freezing would constitute flight into known icing conditions."

SO there you have it. unlless your airplane is certificated for known icing conditions, it's illegal to fly through a cloud when it's cold.

For those of you interested in reading this letter, go to this link on the AOPA website.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/061127icing.html

Follow the link to AOPA's Letter to FAA counsel. The original Letter of Interpretation is appended to AOPA's letter.

 

[paulsalem]

If they changed the word "known" to "forecast", then half of the issue would be resolved.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Having read the opinion, I my impression is that the unfortunate "high humidity" language is more about the "known" part than the icing part. In other words, if a pilot chooses to fly on a day when the temperatures are cold and the temperature-dewpoint spread is narrow, if clouds form ice forms, the pilot will be in no position to claim that the icing encountered was not "known."

That doesn't make it much better, but it does keep it in more or less in line with existing NTSB caselaw that forecast weather conditions that are conducive to icing, even without icing-specific forecasts or reports, is enough to nail the pilot.

 

[minitour]

How about this:

Lets teach pilots to be smart about ice from day one and NOT MESS WITH IT if you shouldn't.

Then the FAA can stop flying my airplane.

-mini

 

[avbug]

The FAA isn't flying your airplane. You are. However, you are doing so only in accordance with the regulations and policies of the FAA, who provides you the authorization to fly your airplane, and the conditions and circumstances under which you may fly it, as well as regulates the airspace in which you fly, and dictates the specifics regarding the aircraft itself, it's condition, and how it's operated. That will not change, as without the FAA, you don't have the privilege to operate the aircraft in the first place.

What is needed is better understanding of the regulation and policy, and in this case, some further dialogue and quite possibly revisitation regarding the legal counsel opinion.

 

[minitour]

The FAA isn't flying your airplane. You are.

If they keep changing the regulations that give me the privilege to operate the aircraft safely, they might as well just fly it.

But no...we can't have pilots making decisions.

-mini

 

[avbug]

The regulation is written with the intent of change over time; it's a living document. In this case, however, nobody has changed the regulation. Legal interperetations lend clarification to the regulation and it's application.

I suspect that this particular legal interpretation will be visited with additional clarification before long.

This has nothing to do with pilots making decisions; it has to do with clarification of regulation. In this particular case, evidently clarification has raised more questions than answer, but the fact is that the FAA has long held to the facts of this interpretation, save for the addition of the reference to temperature and dewpoint.

With respect to pilots making decisions on their own...if you mean that regulations prevent you from acting in the cockpit, don't ever forget that the regulation is written in blood. If you ever have a chance to look at where they started to where they are today, and to follow the history that prompted the creations and changes of regulation, you'll find that very often these changes were written based on deaths and losses which taught great lessons.

The regulation doesn't fly your airplane, but it does prescribe what you can and cannot do with the airplane. With pilot error being the leading cause of aircraft loss, damage, injury, and fatality, providing guidelines within which pilots must remain isn't a bad thing.

Pilots tend to see regulation as restrictive. A better way to view regulation may be like the string on a kite. A child believes that rules and regulations are restrictive, and laments them. A child believes that cutting the string on the kite allows it to go higher. He then learns that cutting the string means the kite blows back, has no more resistance and lift, and falls to the ground. The string, in partnership with the wind, was responsible for holding the kite up.

Pilots, allowed to their own devices and devoid of any perceptible need to honor the regulation, frequently do very stupid things...which results in more regulation to address what the pilot can and cannot do.

Regulations are frequently given interpretation and consequently clarification, as well as being updated and changed as required. This is right and proper. It does not prevent you from making decisions as a pilot. It does not prevent you from flying, using judgement, manipulating controls, or getting paid. What it does do is give you guidelines upon which to predicate your decisions, and in many cases, protects you in those decisions by giving you a defensible criteria beyond which an employer hasn't the grounds to push.

No regulation exists which states that you cannot be more conservative, and safer, than the regulations themselves. Remember that these set minimum standards...you have the perrogative of setting yours higher, but never lower. If you feel that the regulations restrict you, then perhaps a shift in focus toward higher standards is in order.