What constitutes know icing?

[Weasil]

Cool yoke luke

Dude,
Don't you get it yet. It doesn't matter what YOU think is right... you are still wrong. Listen to A-Squared... the FAA for years has held in their opinions that Known Icing Conditions means ... Conditions that are known to be capable of producing Icing.. It does NOT mean conditions where they KNOW there is icing.

 

[philo beddoe]

There is some special guidance for 135 operators in an advisory circular that goes into more detail.

But an airplane is either certified for ice or not. Degradation of lift is the same whether you knew about it beforehand or not. They don't put this type of condition on certification.

The "known" issue applies to whether or not a pilot may operate in specific conditions.

 

[coolyokeluke]

You guys are arguing the legal interpretations of known icing and if you paid attention to my post I acknowleged that with enforcement action yes they would hang you out to dry if you flew into known icing and there was a problem.

I was in Ameriflight's ground school and we discussed known icing. There was the reading of the FAR's, reading of some enforcement actions. Then there was the decision making/fly or not fly discussion. Are all of you telling me that you've never seen the weather clear as a bell when there's "forecast icing"? That you've never flown when there was forecast icing after many other aircraft haven't even reported trace icing? I should have specified I meant known icing to be at a pragmatic level not legal in my previous post.

 

[igneousy2]

Are all of you telling me that you've never seen the weather clear as a bell when there's "forecast icing"? That you've never flown when there was forecast icing after many other aircraft haven't even reported trace icing? I should have specified I meant known icing to be at a pragmatic level not legal in my previous post.

...I'm sorry, I think everybody thought you wanted to know what the Regs said as this is a FAR's bulletin board. Next time you should post that you want the "freight dog" interpretation of the rule.

To answer your question, the answer is that I have done both. When I was younger and stupider I have gone in the situation you question. More recently, being not as stupid, I have scrubbed the flight. I ask you, how do you KNOW that there will only be a trace amount of ice in that patch of sky when you get there. I've flown in ice country for a long time and have many times encountered moderate ice where just an hour before had none. Ice is a dynamic beast it's presence/severity is constantly changing. Once I was flying over Western Mass in a Saab one day and we were doing just fine with some light to moderate mixed. 10 minutes behind us was a company Saab (with an experienced N.E. CA) that encountered severe ice and had to divert to ALB.

To use your word, the only time you have KNOWN icing pragmatically is when you are in it. All other times it is just someones best guess.

Whenever you take advice/lessons from someone/somewhere you always need to consider there agenda. When you are in a ground school at an airline, especially a freight-dog ground school, their job is to make you want to GO! Many mis-interpretations of the regulations can be attributed to airline ground schools. "legal to start-legal to finish...then came whitlow", "reserve time is not duty time" and I guess "forecast icing is not known icing"

Later

 

[A Squared]

Coolyokeluke,

Lemme get this straight .... you know that the FAA and the NTSB is wrong .... because (drumroll please) You heard it in Ameriflight groundschool ??????? Uhhhh huhhhh that will carry a lot of weight in an enforcement proceeding .Ameriflight ground school .... right up there with the supreme court.

Newsflash: Dirtbag cargo operators have all sorts of bizarre "interpretations" of the regulations, they tell them to their pilots in hopes of getting the pilots to go out and fly outside of the regulations. Mostly, the pilots are intelligent enough to see through the lies, sometimes they are not. Apparently you are a case in point. Here's a piece of advice for the future, take any legal advice an operator like Ameriflight gives you wth a grain of salt ... especially if there's a financial motive lurking behind that interpretation

You guys are arguing the legal interpretations of known icing

Uhhh, yes, that's exactly what we are arguing, the legal interpretation. the original question was " What constitutes known icing" That's a legal issue.

and if you paid attention to my post I acknowleged that with enforcement action yes they would hang you out to dry if you flew into known icing and there was a problem.

OK, lemme get this straight; you're saying that this only matters if there's enforcement. That's like saying that speed limits only matter if there's an enforcement, or it's only against the law to rob banks if you get caught. What possible other context is there other than the context of an enforcement? That's the whole frigging issue; How does the FAA interpret the term "known icing" in an enforcement action against you?

You seem to be suggesting the known icing is one thing in day to day operations, but if you get caught and the FAA starts an enforcement proceeding against you, it means another thing.

Here it is, slowly and clearly.

The FAA considers a forecast of icing to be "known icing". If you fly into forecast icing in an airplane whith no ice protection, they will violate you.

You don't have to have a "problem". True, if you crash the plane or declare an emergency because of flying into icing, your chances of an enforcement increase dramatically. However, you don't have to have a problem to get nailed. Here's another link to another pilot who got his certificate suspended for flying into forcast icing: http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4667.PDF

In this enforcement there was no accident or other problem, this guy got caught because a competing operator called the feds and ratted him out on this illegal flight.

That makes three NTSB decisions which all point to the same thing: Forecast icing conditions are known icing conditions, flight into forecast icing conditions in an aircraft not equipped for the icing is a violation The FAA will suspend your certificate if you do and they catch you.

It's that simple. Look I've shown you 3 pilots who thought that "forecast" was not "known". Each one of them got thier certificates suspended because they were wrong. Are you going to be number 4?


As for "weather clear as a bell" with a forecast for icing, ?

Have you ever read an icing forcast? What does it say? Lets take a look. Here's an actual Airmet for Icing:


***AIRMET ICE***OCNL MOD RIME ICEIC 060-180. FZLVL NEAR SFC NW/040SE. NC...


OK, now look at that word ICEIC, that translates to "Icing in clouds" that's where they are forcasting the icing, in the clouds. If it really is good weather you are perfectly legal to fly, clear of clouds. If you fly into clouds at those altitudes, and that area, you are flying into "known Icing"

 

[coolyokeluke]

To answer your question, the answer is that I have done both. When I was younger and stupider I have gone in the situation you question. More recently, being not as stupid, I have scrubbed the flight. I ask you, how do you KNOW that there will only be a trace amount of ice in that patch of sky when you get there. I've flown in ice country for a long time and have many times encountered moderate ice where just an hour before had none. Ice is a dynamic beast it's presence/severity is constantly changing. Once I was flying over Western Mass in a Saab one day and we were doing just fine with some light to moderate mixed. 10 minutes behind us was a company Saab (with an experienced N.E. CA) that encountered severe ice and had to divert to ALB.

To use your word, the only time you have KNOWN icing pragmatically is when you are in it. All other times it is just someones best guess

Igneousy you get the point I was making. And those were all very good points by Asquared, he just wanted to argue the strict legal interpretation of the rules and cases, and that is what this thread started as. I just know that in the real world pilots encounter ice. "Ice happens". The limitations of the written word; Asquared if you could see me in person make these arguments you'd realize I'm not trying to say you're wrong and I'm not trying to be a smart-arse and what not... then perhaps you wouldn't be so condescending. Take it easy.
And yes I too have scrubbed flights for ice. NTSB findings of pilot error are far reaching in their conclusions to find pilot error...we as pilots are scapegoats for a lot of things.

 

[JRSLim]

Helpful article

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


It may come as a surprise to some hangar debaters that the legal definition of "known icing conditions" has been clearly laid down and consistently upheld for at least 27 years. In 1974, an unfortunate commercial pilot came before the National Transportation Safety Board to appeal an unfavorable ruling he had received a few months earlier at the hands of an Administrative Law Judge. Having crashed a Bellanca on the airport at Marion, Ind., in December 1972, he had been judged guilty of careless operation when he violated an aircraft operating limitation that prohibited flight into "known icing conditions."
Although the cause of the accident was disputed at the trial, there was no doubt that the airplane had ice on it when it hit the ground and that the pilot had been briefed about a SIGMET for his route of flight forecasting "isolated severe and mixed icing in clouds" and precipitation along his route. In rejecting the airman's appeal, the NTSB determined that the cause of the accident was irrelevant. It also didn't matter whether the flight ever actually encountered icing. The mere fact that the pilot flew into an area of forecast icing conditions in an unequipped aircraft was enough to sustain a violation. In this landmark ruling the board announced: "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 reasonably be aware."\1 Thus the word "known" refers not to the ice that you "know" about because it is forming right now on some airplane somewhere, but to the information available to the pilot before and during the flight — and that might be any information, including a forecast.

This principle was reaffirmed three months later when the pilot petitioned the board for reconsideration of his case. This time he was joined by a prominent aviation organization that supported his effort to have the ruling overturned. Together, they argued that the board had erred in its definition of "known icing conditions." In denying this petition, however, the board noted that "to construe the phrase in question to mean that the pilot of an aircraft not equipped with anti-icing devices could fly into an area for which icing had been forecast, but for which there was no pilot report of an encounter with icing, would be to render that phrase largely meaningless and of little effect as a safety measure."\2

In its denial the board also inserted a footnote discouraging those who would use qualifying phrases such as "chance of," "occasional," and "isolated" to weasel out of a disappointing forecast. Their use, said the board, "is typical of the manner in which [icing] is commonly forecast, and does not, in our view, diminish the possibility of its actual existence to the point where a pilot could advisedly fly an aircraft, unequipped with anti-icing devices, through the area covered by such a forecas

 

[lawfly]

What constitutes known icing?

Interesting thread. Thanks for the cite to the NTSB opinion. I went ahead and read it.
91.527, cited in one of the posts, pertains to "large and turbine powered multi engine airplanes." 91.501; Subpart F.
The cited Part 91 case was based upon then 91.31, now 91.9 (a), operating in accordance with operating limitations specified in AFM, markings, placards, etc., and upon then 91.9, now 91.13, careless or reckless operation. The AFM terminology was "Flight In Known Icing Conditions Prohibited". And the Board opined that so long as icing was forecast in that case, it was "known" (the standard it applied was "reported or forecast" constituted "known"). Again, operating restrictions regarding "known" icing for Part 91 small/piston aircraft can be triggered by the AFM. "Known" icing-related restrictions/limitations for 135 operators or for large or turbine powered multi engine aircraft, can also be triggered by express language in 135 or in 91.501 et. seq, respectively.

 

[Weasil]

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


."\1 Thus the word "known" refers not to the ice that you "know" about because it is forming right now on some airplane somewhere, but to the information available to the pilot before and during the flight — and that might be any information, including a forecast.

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184265-1.html#2

Thank you Mr. Slim. That is precisely the point I was trying to make. This is published in the free handout that you can get from your local FSDO on Icing Conditions.

 

[TDK90]

De-Ice Airplane

I's like to bump this back up and ask a question about a full-de-ice airplane. Our 340 has hot props and wing/tail boots with an alchohol windshield. As I understand it we are not a known ice airplane, so despite all the equipment, I'm still grounded if there's an airmet covering half of the western us for ice 070-240?

I have no desire to break the FARs, but I also have to explain to my boss why we can't go the Wy if there's an Ice Airmet valid.