Icing

[TDK90]

I've asked this before but I'm still trying to get it straight in my mind.

Our airplane is a C340A with hot prop, de-ice boots, stall heat, ice lights, 100AMP alternators, pitot heat + alcohol windshield. It's not certified for known ice because of the lack of a heated windshield + probably due to the serial #.

We're based in Phoenix, AZ. If I had to fly to Oregon today, as I have to occasionally, the whole NW is covered by an Airmet Z:

OCNL MOD RIME OR MXD ICGICIP BLW 150.

Does this mean that it is illegal to fly anywhere in that Airmet area without a known ice airplane? That can't be right?

From NOAA:
These AIRMET items are considered to be widespread because they must be affecting or be forecast to affect an area of at least 3000 square miles at any one time. However, if the total area to be affected during the forecast period is very large, it could be that only a small portion of this total area would be affected at any one time.

I don't want to play in the ice because I haven't done much of that kind of flying + our boots our pretty old. But I also don't want to tell my boss we're grounded because of an Airmet that's been shotgunned over a masive area.

I know at the end of the day it's a PIC decision, but how have people handled this issue?

 

[H2OK9]

As far as the legal matter, I'd have to say that that airplane says "not intended for use in known icing" right? However, we flew those airplanes in Oklahoma and Texas for cloud seeding, granted it was in summer and when we were all iced up, all you had to do is decend and the ice would melt off. If I'm not mistaked you only have boots on the outer wing edge. The inner wing root will pick up a lot if ice that can't be thrown. I'm not going to tell you how to do your thing but if it were my boss, and my arse, I'd throw caution to the wind er....ice. and say forget it. That airplane is not intended for it. That is my 2 nickles. hope it helps.

 

[Throttlebender]

I agree with Waterdog here. not a good idea unless you have a sure-fire plan of escape...and I would still probably scrap the mission in that aircraft.

 

[Lead Sled]

Does this mean that it is illegal to fly anywhere in that Airmet area without a known ice airplane? That can't be right?

Unfortunately, it is right. Do a little research, the information is out there. I've posted a few links on this topic previously.

'Sled

 

[501261]

Does this mean that it is illegal to fly anywhere in that Airmet area without a known ice airplane? That can't be right?

Tell the boss to buy a real airplane or take America West. Sorry to sound so harsh, but you've worked to hard to get your licenses and your life to endanger them by flying an airplane not certified for icing into icing conditions.

 

[bigD]

I fly a 340A as well, and the company's flight department mandates that I don't fly (IMC of course) if there's an airmet out there for icing along the route. I've had to scrub flights while my passengers watch some freight dog in a beat up Baron launch - but the guys always just say to me, "We need to get you a King Air." And like 501261 mentioned, they get an airline ticket. Or miss the meeting.

I'm still waiting for the King Air.

 

[340drvr]

Some early 340's didn't have boots installed inboard of the engine nacelles on the wing leading edges, and never made known ice cert. If yours is one of these, you're stuck.
The ICGICIP means you essentially have a VFR only aircraft (that costs $400/hr?).

 

[seethru]

This is a Part 135 operation, correct? Because I don't find anything in 91 that specifically prohibits the flight (please provide me the reg if I have this wrong).

It would be difficult here in Oregon if all aircraft that were not approved for known ice were grounded whenever there was an icing airmet out. You can pretty much plan on one from late September through May.

We always keep several outs in our back pocket and pay particularly close attention to PIREPs. I'm happy to be in a plane now that does have known ice.

 

[501261]

This is a Part 135 operation, correct? Because I don't find anything in 91 that specifically prohibits the flight (please provide me the reg if I have this wrong).

Try 91.9 and 91.527

Most of it has been discussed on this thread:
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=40250

Here are some relevant legal opinions:
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3770.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4525.PDF

Especially interesting is footnote #9 on the second link:

"Respondent suggests that flight within icing conditions in the Cessna 310 was permissible because its operator's manual does not specifically prohibit flight into such conditions and, in fact, it gives instructions on how to use the airplane's deicing equipment correctly if icing is experienced. In the first place, while aircraft manufacturers can be expected to provide advice as to operational limits or parameters for there products, it is not within there authority to forbid operations there aircraft were not designed to accommodate....."

 

[LXJ31]

If they are going to bother being so clear in the legal opinion, they should do everyone a favor and remove the ambiguity of the phrase "known" from the term "known icing." I'll admit when I was learning how to fly that this question came up and there was no clear answer, at least from my instructors.

 

[501261]

It would be difficult here in Oregon if all aircraft that were not approved for known ice were grounded whenever there was an icing airmet out. You can pretty much plan on one from late September through May.

I think you’ll find two factors involved with this.

1., Some people have spend a lot of money (I’ve heard figures of $70K for a Baron) to put de-icing equipment on there airplanes, yet don’t want to accept that the airplane is still not “legal” for known icing. They believe that since there airplanes has all the same equipment that a“known ice certified” airplane does they are now legal, this is not so and is a violation of 91.9.

2., Is the “we’ve always flown” in it theory. Just because you’ve never dealt with enforcement action does not mean it’s legal. Look at it from the FAA side, how can you show that you’ve flown in known icing (or more importantly why would s/he care), usually not unless you have an incident or accident? Also look at the actual AIRMET, it usually states icing only in clouds or visible moisture, if you’re not in visible moisture, you’re good to go.

 

[seethru]

Thanks for the regulation numbers. Honestly I had not considered 91.9. It's a little innocuous and vague, just like I like 'em .

However, 91.527 does have an out for the aviator by allowing him/her to use their own judgement:

(d) If current weather reports and briefing information relied upon by the pilot in command indicate that the forecast icing conditions that would otherwise prohibit the flight will not be encountered during the flight because of changed weather conditions since the forecast, the restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section based on forecast conditions do not apply.

This may be a slippery slope (no pun intended), but it's there if you need it.

 

[LXJ31]

I think thats wishful thinking. Those legal opinions in the PDF files basically imply that this defense has been tried in the past and shot down. If one were to rely on 91.527-changed wx conditions, one should be able to produce documentation where it could be determined by a court that a pilot could reasonably decide the forecast was wrong in a big way.

At least in the cases cited, both guys were way wrong. One iced up in his private single and hit short of the runway at his destination, and the other came to a screeching halt halfway to his destination in a 310 with passengers on board, two of which were hurt bad. Both of the forecasts for these flights included SIGMETS for severe ice.

 

[340drvr]

So, doesn't 91.527 apply only to "Large and Turbine Powered Multi-engine Airplanes" as per Subpart F? (mind, I don't even go near a frozen margarita without known-ice equipment!)

 

[Lead Sled]

The AOPA Air Safety foundation just published a paper on this very topic. It's good reading and pretty much puts everything in black and white. www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa22.pdf

'Sled