Icing Conditions Known or Otherwise

[minitour]

Do y'all think there should be a separate endorsement for flight into known icing conditions? (Assuming the plane is authorized for such flight)

I've been doing lots of reading lately on icing and the general stuff we got in the Instrument Ground school wasn't nearly as in depth as this stuff...

Just wondering if you think maybe the FAA is missing something here.

-mini

 

[2000flyer]

I don't really see how it would be possible. If, for example, you have to have "x" number of encouters or hours in icing to stay "current," does that mean guys and gals will go out looking for icing to stay "current?"

I think the first thing you're going to see is the FAA taking a different approach to icing, frost, etc. Just this week the EASA (Euro-FAA) wrote the FAA recommending a change in the use of the phrase "polished frost" in the FARs.

I agree that icing must be thoroughly covered in training. In the simulator, we train, usually one session or two, in "cold weather ops" during a recurrent. More emphasis must be put on deicing on the ground, a better knowledge of the affects of ice on the airframe. However, the young folks who do their training and early career flying in south Florida may go 1,000 hours without ever seeing ice or frost. Even a busy student turned instructor, thats nearly two years of flying.

I live in an area of the country where we might see snow once or twice a year. Usually, due to lack of snow removal equipment, what little snow we might get shuts everything (airports, school, business) down for at least a day if not more. Therefore, I have far fewer encounters with snow on an exposed aircraft before departure than say my brethren in Chicago or New York. That is why each year during our safety meetings within the department, we discuss issues that may be encountered for a given season. Icing in the winter, thunderstorms in the summer. We have a nice library of information and video tapes that are reviewed as a reminder of weather we may encounter.

I've seen the FAA do some, what I consider, odd things before. I just don't think creating yet another endorsement is the way to correct the problems we're seeing these days.

Regards,
2000Flyer

 

[GravityHater]

Mini, I see where you are coming from but the FAA has pretty much regulated us out of existence as it is. For the non-pro pilot (myself included) it really is not that hard to completely avoid. And I believe pro pilots have access to plenty of training on the topic as they acquire advanced ratings and certificates.
Think of it this way... OK now we have an icing endorsement... next there will be a high-wind landings endorsement, a TZ avoidance endorsement....

 

[minitour]

...Think of it this way... OK now we have an icing endorsement... next there will be a high-wind landings endorsement, a TZ avoidance endorsement....

good point

 

[Daveman]

The only required icing endorsement per se,(I know of), was a video we had to watch for the MU-2. Required by an AD. Every two years we had to watch, then it was required yearly.

 

[FN FAL]

Do y'all think there should be a separate endorsement for flight into known icing conditions? (Assuming the plane is authorized for such flight)

I've been doing lots of reading lately on icing and the general stuff we got in the Instrument Ground school wasn't nearly as in depth as this stuff...

Just wondering if you think maybe the FAA is missing something here.

-mini

Interesting thought mini. I think that would be pretty hard to quantify. I have been flying 135 in known icing aircraft in the Great Lakes region for about 6 years and add in an additional 5 years of avoiding icing in non known icing aircraft.

One thing I can say for sure, is it is a science project each and every time you decide to pursue flight in known icing conditions. Winter flying operations is one thing...de-icing and anti-icing a plane and using good winter flying procedures in your pre-flight is pretty much cut and dried and makes common sense. It's the known icing flying that is such a mixed bag.

In this scheme of endorsement, you would have additional known icing flight training? That's a tough one...you could fly three winters in a row and get nothing more than trace icing or impact snow during the few flights you might make in training...then get endorsed and feel all fat, dumb and happy and find yourself in conditions that put a quarter inch of clear ice on your wing from the trailing edge of the boot, all the way down the bottom of the wing to the trailing edge of the flaps. And as you look down at that football sized shape of ice that grew on your brake caliper, you'll be learning things an endorsement related course will ever give you.

I'm still learning each and every time I go up in that stuff...in fact, I think the day that I think I know everything about flight in known icing...is the day I'm going to hang it up while I'm ahead and open up a gun shop or a massage parlor.

 

[minitour]

Good call on that one guys...I guess I didn't think it through logically.

I thought "**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, ice kinda freaked me out...I wonder how many people get killed from it each year" and then thought "I wonder why there isn't required training (at least ground) on the subject" but never really thought about how you would train for the endorsement...

Plus, I like the one comment about having a "high wind landing" endorsement...or hell how about a "low wing, retractable tricycle gear, normally aspirated, two axis auto-pilot, five seat, leather interior, built in dual PTT" endorsement...I never even really considered the "over regulation" side of things...

interesting stuff guys...thanks!

-mini

 

[FN FAL]

Good call on that one guys...I guess I didn't think it through logically.

I thought "**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, ice kinda freaked me out...I wonder how many people get killed from it each year" and then thought "I wonder why there isn't required training (at least ground) on the subject" but never really thought about how you would train for the endorsement...

Plus, I like the one comment about having a "high wind landing" endorsement...or hell how about a "low wing, retractable tricycle gear, normally aspirated, two axis auto-pilot, five seat, leather interior, built in dual PTT" endorsement...I never even really considered the "over regulation" side of things...

interesting stuff guys...thanks!

-mini

I have to thank my lucky stars mini, I work for a company where they spent a large portion of the ground school emphasizing the dangers of icing and the limitations of our plane in icing conditions (C208). We do icing scenarios in the level D sim, which include flying with acretion until you're on the verge of a tail stall...which is a great reminder of where you don't want to be.

Also, it is fortunate for us that there is no pushing in icing conditions where we feel that more information is necessary to make a more informed "go" decision and when we say "no go" there are never repercussions. Other than some mistaken outstation managers that make smart but "unlawful" remarks, we never get the third degree when we put the brakes on.

Lack of respect of ice on an airframe can doom aircraft from the largest and most powerful jet airliner, to a piper cub.

All scaryness aside...with some adult education, you'd be surprised when you can fly and not get the ice you'd expect. I know I am...but like I told the wife today about friday's flying, never get cocky about ice. We launched after a one hour weather hold and flew in some stuff that would have been text book conducive to the worst icing conditions. After almost two hours of flight, I had clean boots and just a smidgeon on non-protected surfaces. It required a good choice of altitudes and altitude changes during the flight, but that comes with experience.

 

[TurboS7]

I operated a 135 with 10 aircraft out of DPA for 12 years. You learn a lot about icing, we had 206's, PA-32, Aztecs, and Navajos. You can fly a lot of ice in a single engine but you have to know exactly what to do and when. That is very hard. We had a contracted weather company that would analysis every flight before we left and told us exactly where to fly to stay out of the ice. When we did what we said usually all we ever got was a trace. For us it was well worth the money. Some nights we cancelled all single engine flying and flew the twins, some nights we cancelled all together. Pilot reports are hard to count on in a competitive enviroment. I know that at YIP the Connie Kalitta pilots used to report severe icing on climbout so that all other aircraft flying automotive would be grounded, or at least risk a violation by the FAA if the flew. The reality was that there was no ice at all just idiot pilots. That is why we had to hire the professional weather guru's to help us out.