What constitutes know icing?

[Weasil]

part 91 does address icing conditions...

\you said correct you if you are wrong... so here goes....

91.527 Operating in icing conditions.[url="http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/e/ecfr/graphics/ret-arrow-generic-grey.gif"]http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/e/ecfr/graphics/ret-arrow-generic-grey.gif top[/url]
(a) No pilot may take off an airplane that has—

(1) Frost, snow, or ice adhering to any propeller, windshield, or powerplant installation or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system;

(2) Snow or ice adhering to the wings or stabilizing or control surfaces; or

(3) Any frost adhering to the wings or stabilizing or control surfaces, unless that frost has been polished to make it smooth.

(b) Except for an airplane that has ice protection provisions that meet the requirements in section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23, or those for transport category airplane type certification, no pilot may fly—

(1) Under IFR into known or forecast moderate icing conditions; or

(2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions unless the aircraft has functioning de-icing or anti-icing equipment protecting each propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system.

(c) Except for an airplane that has ice protection provisions that meet the requirements in section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23, or those for transport category airplane type certification, no pilot may fly an airplane into known or forecast severe icing conditions.

(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.

\nb; this is in the section for large and multi-engine turbojet airplanes but it is still in part 91. \and the \faa clearly includes forecast icing conditions. i think that should be a warning to those who say it is ok to go.

 

[philo beddoe]

I should have been more specific. I meant in the sections of part 91 that pertain to light aircraft. I am aware of the large aircraft regs addressing ice.

Other that in the 91.500's no mention of icing conditions exist that I can recall.

My statement about aircraft being certified for flight in "icing conditions" vs "known icing conditions" is correct then? No further corrections?

Another point is that the careless and reckless reg can include flight into forecast icing if they want it to.

 

[A Squared]

My statement about aircraft being certified for flight in "icing conditions" vs "known icing conditions" is correct then? No further corrections?

I don't know whether AFMs prohibit "flight into icing conditions" or "flight into known icing conditions" I don't have an AFM lying around, but it's a minor and irrelevant semantic point. The link I provided in a previous post is to an NTSB decision in which the pilot of a light plane under part 91 took off into forecast (but not verified) icing conditions. He had his certificate suspended The opinion cites *other* decisions in which pilots of light planes have flown in forcast icing condition and also had thier certificates suspended.

This gives you a pretty good indication of how the FAA interprets the words (whatever they are) how the FAA enforces the words, and how the NTSB rules on the FAA's interpretation and enforcement. I doubt that in the face of well established case law, the NTSB will find your semantic argument persuasive.

 

[philo beddoe]

It is a semantic point, but it still bugs me: "known ice certification."

 

[JAFI]

Philo,

Your question is: why does the FAA use the word “known icing” in the regulation instead of the manufactures “Icing conditions”. Without reading the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that discussed the original intent, I would be guessing, but let me give it a shot.


An aircraft is required to go through an “Icing Certification” to be legal to fly in icing conditions. If the aircraft does not conduct the Icing certification or if the manufacturer chooses not to do the certification, there is a limitation on the aircraft telling you not to operate in those conditions.



For pilots The National Weather Service provides Weather FORCASTS not Weather Guarantees. It is possible that local weather conditions do not mirror the weather forecast. You could fly into icing conditions even though the forecast predicts you won’t. If the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) said “icing conditions” then if you ever flew into “unknown” icing in an aircraft not certified for “Icing Conditions” you would be in violation.



So for flight planning you call Flight Service, get the weather, forecasts, etc. all indicate a non icing flight, then (IMO) in the eyes of the FAA you have done a proper preflight. If you encounter icing even though the forecasts indicate no icing, then you have done the best you can do. The rub comes when the forecast says icing, but pireps say no icing (remember a pirep is for a certain spot at a certain altitude at a certain time) you take off and encounter icing, some one finds out after a report, accident, incident, etc. then the courts say you did not do a proper preflight.



If you would like to change the regulation to say “Icing Conditions” and not “Known Icing Conditions” you could try (See CFR 11). Many of the aviation groups would fight you tooth and nail.



So IMO the term “Known Icing” is a preflight weather area where “Icing Conditions” is an aircraft certification area.



JAFI

 

[coolyokeluke]

There can be "forecast icing conditions" and it's CAVU outside. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen that. Are you prohibited from flying then? I wouldn't think so. But if you have an accident from icing and it was forecast icing then of course they're going to get you for enforcement action. I still think that "known icing" is only via pirep and at the same time the pirep was made.

 

[A Squared]

I still think that "known icing" is only via pirep and at the same time the pirep was made.

Based on what? that you think your opinion is more important that the FAA's and the NTSB judges?


Look, maybe you missed it. I posted a link to an NTSB decision in which the pilot claimed he was legal because it was only "Forecast" icing, not "known" icing. The FAA said "forecast" icing is "known" icing. The pilot lost, he had his certificate suspended. bear in mind that in this case, not only were there no PIREPS for icing, there were several PIREPS for *no* icing. Still, that didn't matter, the icing was forecast so the FAA and the NTSB consider it known.

Here's a quote form that decision:

"Indeed, Bowen (refers to a prior decision) holds that the lack of a PIREP forecasting icing in a particular area does not excuse the disregarding of forecast data. We stated that "known" does not mean a near-certainty of icing conditions, only that icing conditions are being reported or forecast."

OK, read that last sentence again:

"......."known" does not mean a near-certainty of icing conditions, only that icing conditions are being reported or forecast."

 

[100LL... Again!]

Logic in a vacuum

 

[A Squared]

Logic in a vacuum

Who? Him or me?

 

[100LL... Again!]

Asquared- you are correct.

We all know what we think a reg means. However, the only opinion that matters is the one that is held by the one who holds the gavel.

As you pointed out, there are too many folks who just don't research FAA enforcement actions to find out what the FARs REALLY mean.