IFR Training and Airmet Zulu

[CougarAviator]

Fellow pilots, how can you justify flying IFR student into known icing conditions?

A C172 with pitot heat, is not the same as a King Air with de-icing boots etc...

Under what conditions is it acceptable to fly in known icing? Assume Airmet Zulu, and the freezing level is from the SFC to 8000......and sky is 700 ovc.


Is it better to fly another day, or is it good experience to dance with the ice witch....

 

[gkrangers]

Its acceptable to fly into known icing when the aircraft is equipped for flight into known icing and the crew is capable.

A C172 is not authorized for flight into known icing.

 

[minitour]

A C172 is not authorized for flight into known icing.

Yep...makes this whole subject a pretty open and shut case.

If you really want to think about it even though the plane isn't certified or even remotely capable of flight in known ice...don't. I've got just enough time in ice in 172's (not known...until I found it...then of course...) to know that I don't want any more.

Ice is too unpredictable for me to take a plane with no known ice protection up there.

-mii

 

[aerobaticspilot]

Do not fly a 172 into icing conditions thats a quick way to end your flying career. Flying in icing conditions is not a requirement for a rating so there is no point to go out and practice it. When the icing conditions exist sit your student down and give him a lesson on icing.

 

[CougarAviator]

I would never, nor have I ever, flown into known icing conditions....I was just curious as to the pulse of fellow pilots on this site...Glad to see my concerns and thoughts are shared....

I know of fellow pilots, who tempt fate way too often......and their boldness scares me to death.....

I am well aware of the saying: "There are old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots....."

Clear skies, gentlemen!!!!

 

[aucfi]

I know of fellow pilots, who tempt fate way too often......and their boldness scares me to death.....

Show this to them: http://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/courses.html

Really opened up my eyes to the dangers of ice.

 

[pgcfii2002]

I believe it is illegal per FAR's to fly into "known" icing conditions. A forecast us just that.....the only real indication would be a PIREP and of course you up in the air with ice on the wings.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I would never, nor have I ever, flown into known icing conditions....

Yes you will. That is if you plan on flying for a living. You just won't do it in a 172!!

 

[-Xavier-]

I believe it is illegal per FAR's to fly into "known" icing conditions. A forecast us just that.....the only real indication would be a PIREP and of course you up in the air with ice on the wings.

It is legal if the plane is properly equipped - although obviously not advised.

 

[NoPax]

It is legal if the plane is properly equipped - although obviously not advised.

Properly equipped and certified for flight into known icing...and all the equipment must be working - not good enough to equip it only.

Airmet Zulu, isn't "known icing"...its an advisory that (upto moderate) icing has been forecast in sometimes a large geographical area. As a former poster said, if its in a PIREP, then it's "known"

If your airport was clear below 12k, or even had clouds at 7 or 5k etc., and Airmet Zulu was in effect, then I'd say fly and have fun. But, the scenario you offered - Airmet Zulu, 700ovc, below freezing on the surface and aloft, I'd say it's a good time for groundschool, and the nasa icing video.

Anybody, seen the ADDS website with the icing forecast? I like that site, and has been a really good source for flight planning purposes.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Airmet Zulu, isn't "known icing"...its an advisory that (upto moderate) icing has been forecast in sometimes a large geographical area. As a former poster said, if its in a PIREP, then it's "known".

This excerpt from a 1997 NTSB decision would appear to disagree with you.
==============================
The Board has long viewed the phrase "known icing conditions" to include predicted weather: "We do not construe the adjective 'known' to mean that there must be a near-certainty that icing will occur, such as might be established by pilot reports....Rather, we take the entire phrase to mean that icing conditions are being reported or forecast in reports which are known to a pilot or of which he should be reasonably aware."
==============================
http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3870.PDF

In fact, in that case there wre PIREPs that reported =no= icing.

BTW, the excerpt is a quote is from an older decision. As of 1974, the NTSB had "long viewed" this.

There's an even later decision (from 2005) which is even scarier than the SIGMET one. A CFII got nailed for flying in "known icing" without even an Airmet or a Sigment. There were some PIREPs away from his route of flight. The NTSB said that given even remote PIREPS, he should have asked. But it's the unnecessary addition of the following that is interesting:

==============================
Here, respondent knew that he would be flying into clouds that contained moisture, knew that the temperature on the ground at his destination was close to freezing, and knew that in the cloudy skies on the way to and above Payne Field the temperature would be colder. The risk of icing was clear. Respondent nevertheless chose to make the flight,
==============================
http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/5154.PDF

 

[NoPax]

Very interesting, thank-you for clarifying that for all of us - from the NTSB point of view (heavily weighted).

It is interesting to note that the FAA exercises the power to interpret the rules, and the NTSB exercises the power to overule the interpretations.

Taken from AvWeb.com - this is the FAA version of 'known icing'

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184265-1.html

FAA: "Known" Vs. "Forecast"?

While the board has consistently upheld its interpretation of "known icing conditions," the FAA has interpreted things differently. [For reasons beyond the scope of this article, the relationship between the FAA's power to interpret, and the NTSB's power to overrule those interpretations, is in a state of flux. Caught in the middle of this maelstrom, of course, is the individual airman.] FAA regulations and literature are full of references to "known or forecast icing conditions," suggesting that there is a difference. For example, FARs 91.527 and 135.227 do not require an aircraft to be "certified" in order to depart into "known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions," as long as anti- or deicing equipment of some sort is available to protect selected components of the airplane. Such airplanes, however, often also carry a placard prohibiting flight into known icing conditions, making them equally subject to the restrictions of FAR 91.9 (required compliance with placards and limitations). Many other aircraft of earlier vintage are marginally ice-equipped, but have never been positively tested against any standard, and yet carry no published limitation because none was required at the time the aircraft was put into service.

Weird Guidance




In 1981 — well after the board's 1974 decision — the FAA issued Advisory Circular 135-9, "FAR Part 135 Icing Limitations," in an attempt to alleviate confusion, and to provide air taxi operators with useable guidance. This document — which is still in effect — only makes matters worse, however, by endorsing a distinction between "forecast" and "known" icing that is not recognized in NTSB case law, and by conjuring up a third category it referred to as "actual" icing. In part, it states that:

Aircraft equipped with functioning equipment…and a placard prohibiting operation in icing conditions may depart on a flight when light or moderate icing is forecast or reported to exist for the intended route to be flown. However, continued flight in actual icing conditions is not permitted since such flight does not comply with the placard or the operating limitation in the aircraft flight manual.\14



​

Ironically, this Advisory Circular only tells the pilot how to paint himself into the corner, not how to get out of it. Nevertheless, the FAA further advises the operators of older aircraft that:

Aircraft equipped with functioning equipment…and not placarded restricting operations in icing conditions may fly under IFR or VFR rules in known or forecast light or moderate icing and continue flight in actual icing conditions.\15



​

But wait! There's no real difference between these aircraft! They may be identically equipped. It is strange advice, indeed, for the organization charged with "certifying safety" to endorse continued operation of an aircraft in icing conditions with equipment that has never been measured against any standard for effectiveness or reliability. Surely, if it is unsafe to operate an untested aircraft with a placard, it is equally unsafe to operate such an aircraft without one. Placards have no special magic. While it is within the FAA's power to require the retroactive installation of a placard against flight into known icing conditions in any airplane that is not certified for it (by issuing an Airworthiness Directive), the agency has simply left this loophole open.
If you're not shaking your head yet, consider that this guidance applies only to air taxi operators — who, in theory, are held to a "higher standard of safety." [Large aircraft operators have virtually the same rule under FAR 91.527, but no Advisory Circular.] Yet according to AC 135-9, a 135 operator could load passengers into a twin with an untested package of ice protection gear (which could never achieve certification even if it were tested because half the components required for certification are missing) and a placard against known icing conditions, fly all day long in known icing conditions anyway (to hell with the placard, I guess), keep his fingers crossed in hopes that ice doesn't form, and press on to the destination. But once he gets there and the passengers get off, he can't deadhead home because that would be Part 91, and the placard makes it illegal. Go figure. We may never know how many times the FAA has shrugged its shoulders rather than have to explain this contradiction to a judge.
They say it's dangerous to predict how any court will rule — and there is no appellate history focusing directly on these points that I know of — but considering the breathtaking sweep of the "Russian roulette" case it's hard to imagine that the board would not find that flight into known icing conditions in an aircraft with untested, uncertified equipment is at least careless — placard or no placard — no matter what some other rule or guidance might permit. Again, the argument is waiting to be made.

The Coming Train Wreck

To make matters still worse: After decades of bandying terms like "known icing conditions" and "forecast icing conditions," the FAA finally emerged from the mist in December 2000, defining its terms in accordance with the recommendations of an icing conference it conducted in 1996. Now, it proposes to say that "known icing conditions" are "atmospheric conditions in which the formation of ice is observed or detected in flight": the very definition that has landed so many airmen in court!\16 Thus, the FAA and the NTSB are on a head-on collision course, with the FAA permitting operations that the board long ago determined were illegal. To add further irony, the FAA has been happy over the years to use the board's definition as a bludgeon to win in court. It will be interesting to see whether its lawyers continue to haul out this weapon now that the agency proposes to put its "new-old" definition in writing. Don't bet your certificate that they won't.

http://www.avweb.com/images/clearpixel.gif
Copyright © 2002, Aviation Publishing Group. All rights reserved.