Just prop deice... why?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Barons are not Known Icing approved because of their age; there having been no concept of known icing approval at the time of their manufacture.
Some Baron owners lived in sunny States and didn't select the Known Icing Option, even when it was available.
Many Barons are known icing approved.
Some Baron owners lived in sunny States and didn't select the Known Icing Option, even when it was available.
Many Barons are known icing approved.
Originally Posted by slim_slag
A very short thread actually. If you are exercising the privileges of your FAA IR, and this is especially relevant for those people where the ink is not yet dry on the temporary certificate 
, "forecast ice" means "known ice".
, "forecast ice" means "known ice".Known Icing Conditions
Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of ice is observed or detected in flight.
Potential Icing Conditions
Atmospheric icing conditions that are typically defined by airframe manufacturers relative to temperature and visible moisture that may result in aircraft ice accretion on the ground or in flight. The potential icing conditions are typically defined in the Airplane Flight Manual or in the Airplane Operation Manual.
I believe the definition postdates all the cases you cite, and one motivation may have been to clarify the rather screwy interpretation of "known" that the ALJs had adopted. That interpretation came from a need to demonstrate that some aspect of the law was enforceable against pilots who had done some very stupid things.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HI bookworm,
What the AIM actually says is.
The AIM is advisory. Do you have any case law which is more recent than the case law already established? I think it was established that a PIREP is anecdotal. Besides, I mentioned forecast icing, not potential icing.
What the AIM actually says is.
Known Icing Conditions
Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of ice is observed or detected in flight.
Note-
Because of the variability in space and time of atmospheric conditions, the existence of a report of observed icing does not assure the presence or intensity of icing conditions at a later time, nor can a report of no icing assure the absence of icing conditions at a later time.
Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of ice is observed or detected in flight.
Note-
Because of the variability in space and time of atmospheric conditions, the existence of a report of observed icing does not assure the presence or intensity of icing conditions at a later time, nor can a report of no icing assure the absence of icing conditions at a later time.
Last edited by slim_slag; 10th Mar 2006 at 19:57.
I think it is abundantly clear from the AIM that the FAA does not equate "known icing" with "forecast icing". If I'm not to look to the FAA for an interpretation of the terms in the FAA-approved and -originated AFM, what use is the AIM?
"Forecast icing" does play a part in for Part 135 operators in 135.227.
I'm not aware of a case of a Part 91 pilot having their certificate suspended in circumstances that were other than very poor airmanship and a lamentable lack of appreciation for the risk management of icing. If I were a UK-based pilot operating an N-reg in the UK on an FAA certificate, I'm not sure that the rather weird interaction between NTSB case law and Met Office icing warnings would be at the top of my priority list.
"Forecast icing" does play a part in for Part 135 operators in 135.227.
I'm not aware of a case of a Part 91 pilot having their certificate suspended in circumstances that were other than very poor airmanship and a lamentable lack of appreciation for the risk management of icing. If I were a UK-based pilot operating an N-reg in the UK on an FAA certificate, I'm not sure that the rather weird interaction between NTSB case law and Met Office icing warnings would be at the top of my priority list.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bookworm
I think it is abundantly clear from the AIM that the FAA does not equate "known icing" with "forecast icing". If I'm not to look to the FAA for an interpretation of the terms in the FAA-approved and -originated AFM, what use is the AIM?
d. This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities required by other publications.
Who has ever said the FAA equates known icing = forecast icing? I haven't, I have said the NTSB have, and they are the ones with the judges who will suspend your ticket.
Originally Posted by bookworm
I'm not aware of a case of a Part 91 pilot having their certificate suspended in circumstances that were other than very poor airmanship and a lamentable lack of appreciation for the risk management of icing.
We stated that "known" does not mean a near certainty of icing conditions, only that icing conditions are being reported or forecast
Is that clear enough for you? Known = Forecast
Originally Posted by bookworm
If I were a UK-based pilot operating an N-reg in the UK on an FAA certificate, I'm not sure that the rather weird interaction between NTSB case law and Met Office icing warnings would be at the top of my priority list.
Cheers
Originally Posted by slim_slag
Who has ever said the FAA equates known icing = forecast icing? I haven't, I have said the NTSB have, and they are the ones with the judges who will suspend your ticket.
Originally Posted by slim_slag
That is an opinion which you are entitled to. I have cited five NTSB cases to back up my argument.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe what I am reading here. Are pilots really flying in known icing (ie IMC/visible moisture above the 0 deg C thermocline) in light singles with no icing clearance?
Do they have pitot heat?
Are the Static ports heated?
Are they aware of the weight of ice that might accumulate?
Are they aware of how suddenly and how quickly ice can accumulate?
Have they seen the damage chunks of ice do when they disembark?
Are they sure that control surfaces won't freeze up?
Can you accurately measure how much ice you have accumulated?
Are you sure the carb heat is still doing its job?
Maybe you can get away with playing in light icing, but you can't be sure that the next bit of cloud isn't an iceberg waiting to happen. Quite frankly IMHO icing is one of the most dangerous aspects to IF.
Do they have pitot heat?
Are the Static ports heated?
Are they aware of the weight of ice that might accumulate?
Are they aware of how suddenly and how quickly ice can accumulate?
Have they seen the damage chunks of ice do when they disembark?
Are they sure that control surfaces won't freeze up?
Can you accurately measure how much ice you have accumulated?
Are you sure the carb heat is still doing its job?
Maybe you can get away with playing in light icing, but you can't be sure that the next bit of cloud isn't an iceberg waiting to happen. Quite frankly IMHO icing is one of the most dangerous aspects to IF.
What single engine aircraft are certified for flight in icing conditions? (That means a flight manual allowing flight in light ising conditions or worse - not simply manufacturer promotional info / optional equipment)?
conversions for several models too. There are others, just leaf through
Trade-A-Plane. I believe that when the Columbia 400 deice becomes available it will be KI, though I'm not certain.
The difference between KI and non-KI is pretty small. For example TKS will sell you either on a 210, with about a factor of two in the price. Primarily KI requires:
-- duplicate pump (for TKS) and electric backup (i.e. second alternator)
-- must have been testing in icing conditions, i.e. flying behind a tanker. Now THAT must be an interesting job...
Ice is the main reason I've pretty much given up trying to use the plane to get anywhere serious in winter, after having to leave it in Las Vegas for a week and fly home (and back there) commercial due to the risk of ice.
n5296s
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do they have pitot heat?
What do you think?
Are the Static ports heated?
Not normally a problem where they are.
Are they aware of the weight of ice that might accumulate?
If you load your plane like the average Warrior with 4 people crossing the Channel on a sunny Sunday on the way to LeTouquet, that might well be a problem
Are they aware of how suddenly and how quickly ice can accumulate?
In stratus cloud, not all that "suddenly"
Have they seen the damage chunks of ice do when they disembark?
Disembark from where?
Are they sure that control surfaces won't freeze up?
They would if you do nothing about it
Can you accurately measure how much ice you have accumulated?
You could climb out with a tape measure, I suppose.
Are you sure the carb heat is still doing its job?
Now, that one gives the game away. I hate to be impolite but you should get back to FS2004
Carb icing is not the same thing as structural icing. Carb icing is caused by the temperature drop in the carb venturi. Structural icing is caused by flying through air containing supercooled water droplets.
What do you think?
Are the Static ports heated?
Not normally a problem where they are.
Are they aware of the weight of ice that might accumulate?
If you load your plane like the average Warrior with 4 people crossing the Channel on a sunny Sunday on the way to LeTouquet, that might well be a problem
Are they aware of how suddenly and how quickly ice can accumulate?
In stratus cloud, not all that "suddenly"
Have they seen the damage chunks of ice do when they disembark?
Disembark from where?
Are they sure that control surfaces won't freeze up?
They would if you do nothing about it
Can you accurately measure how much ice you have accumulated?
You could climb out with a tape measure, I suppose.
Are you sure the carb heat is still doing its job?
Now, that one gives the game away. I hate to be impolite but you should get back to FS2004
Carb icing is not the same thing as structural icing. Carb icing is caused by the temperature drop in the carb venturi. Structural icing is caused by flying through air containing supercooled water droplets.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
Do they have pitot heat?
What do you think?
What do you think?
Are the Static ports heated?
Not normally a problem where they are.
Not normally a problem where they are.
Are they aware of the weight of ice that might accumulate?
If you load your plane like the average Warrior with 4 people crossing the Channel on a sunny Sunday on the way to LeTouquet, that might well be a problem
If you load your plane like the average Warrior with 4 people crossing the Channel on a sunny Sunday on the way to LeTouquet, that might well be a problem
Are they aware of how suddenly and how quickly ice can accumulate?
In stratus cloud, not all that "suddenly"
In stratus cloud, not all that "suddenly"
Have they seen the damage chunks of ice do when they disembark?
Disembark from where?
Disembark from where?
Are they sure that control surfaces won't freeze up?
They would if you do nothing about it
They would if you do nothing about it
Can you accurately measure how much ice you have accumulated?
You could climb out with a tape measure, I suppose.
You could climb out with a tape measure, I suppose.
Are you sure the carb heat is still doing its job?
Now, that one gives the game away. I hate to be impolite but you should get back to FS2004
Carb icing is not the same thing as structural icing. Carb icing is caused by the temperature drop in the carb venturi. Structural icing is caused by flying through air containing supercooled water droplets.
Now, that one gives the game away. I hate to be impolite but you should get back to FS2004
Carb icing is not the same thing as structural icing. Carb icing is caused by the temperature drop in the carb venturi. Structural icing is caused by flying through air containing supercooled water droplets.
. Besides real flying is far more fun. Having had the pleasure of flying an aircraft with a carb heat gauge, I have noticed times when the carb heat needle doesn't get out of the yellow, even with full carb heat. OK so it is rare, but might well be an issue, depending on the sort of a/c you are flying.I don't particularly care whether or not you fly in icing and whether you licence and/or aircraft allow it. I am merely pointing out various points that are brought up when icing is discussed. If you are confident that you have the experience, qualifications and equipment to answer all these points (and others I might have missed) then good luck to you.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, a Mac or Linux user, I presume?
The general idea with icing, as I have written before a number of times, is to always have an escape route (generally a descent into warmer air) and a plan for the flight which avoids IMC altogether if the temperature at the relevant level is in the 0C to -15C band.
Nobody wants to sit in IMC for hours, whether you have a KI aircraft or not. It's boring at best, unpleasant for passengers, freezing cold because most unpressurised planes don't have a heater that can give you +20C inside with -15C outside and no solar gain, and eventually you may collect too much ice no matter what and then have to do something about it.
But with a decent plane (say TB20 and similar) you can flight plan a flight at say FL160 (obviously you need an IR for that, in most places, due to Class A) and this would usually take you into VMC. Any freezing IMC encountered en route is dealt with by asking for a climb or a descent "due to icing", etc before you enter it. Then, you have to make sure that the climb and descent at the ends is OK and often this is what drops the spanner into the works and prevents you going - not the en route section which is relatively easier to deal with.
Obviously you need oxygen.
If you are flying a C150 or even a PA28, you can't do any of this, because the thing won't be able to climb high enough to be VMC on top with reasonable probability. It also doesn't have the range to make it worth doing. A plane with 1000nm range (with IFR reserves) can take you from a CAVOK area, over 2 or 3 completely different weather systems, into another CAVOK area. One problem here is that perhaps most people reading this are indeed flying spamcans which are unsuitable for this kind of flying in the first place, but that should not prevent a reasonable debate, absent of "ice will kill you, must avoid it totally" hysterics.
As to the details: every half decent plane has a heated pitot tube, never heard of static ports icing up (and there is alternate static from the cockpit), W&B is not a problem with ice until you have so much of it you are going to plummet anyway due to having no lift, decent IFR tourers, especially ones that come in KI versions, have big enough gaps around the control surfaces, carb icing is nothing to do with any of this (also any half decent plane is fuel injected and doesn't have a carb, but could get intake icing for which there is an alternate inlet), and one would avoid flight if CBs are forecast (you wouldn't fly through a front, for example, in potential IMC) unless VMC can be reasonably assured in the relevant section. Various other things like that.
I don't mean to minimise this subject; just trying to make the point that with decent planning it isn't something that is going to kill you, because you had your escape route planned before you set off.
The general idea with icing, as I have written before a number of times, is to always have an escape route (generally a descent into warmer air) and a plan for the flight which avoids IMC altogether if the temperature at the relevant level is in the 0C to -15C band.
Nobody wants to sit in IMC for hours, whether you have a KI aircraft or not. It's boring at best, unpleasant for passengers, freezing cold because most unpressurised planes don't have a heater that can give you +20C inside with -15C outside and no solar gain, and eventually you may collect too much ice no matter what and then have to do something about it.
But with a decent plane (say TB20 and similar) you can flight plan a flight at say FL160 (obviously you need an IR for that, in most places, due to Class A) and this would usually take you into VMC. Any freezing IMC encountered en route is dealt with by asking for a climb or a descent "due to icing", etc before you enter it. Then, you have to make sure that the climb and descent at the ends is OK and often this is what drops the spanner into the works and prevents you going - not the en route section which is relatively easier to deal with.
Obviously you need oxygen.
If you are flying a C150 or even a PA28, you can't do any of this, because the thing won't be able to climb high enough to be VMC on top with reasonable probability. It also doesn't have the range to make it worth doing. A plane with 1000nm range (with IFR reserves) can take you from a CAVOK area, over 2 or 3 completely different weather systems, into another CAVOK area. One problem here is that perhaps most people reading this are indeed flying spamcans which are unsuitable for this kind of flying in the first place, but that should not prevent a reasonable debate, absent of "ice will kill you, must avoid it totally" hysterics.
As to the details: every half decent plane has a heated pitot tube, never heard of static ports icing up (and there is alternate static from the cockpit), W&B is not a problem with ice until you have so much of it you are going to plummet anyway due to having no lift, decent IFR tourers, especially ones that come in KI versions, have big enough gaps around the control surfaces, carb icing is nothing to do with any of this (also any half decent plane is fuel injected and doesn't have a carb, but could get intake icing for which there is an alternate inlet), and one would avoid flight if CBs are forecast (you wouldn't fly through a front, for example, in potential IMC) unless VMC can be reasonably assured in the relevant section. Various other things like that.
I don't mean to minimise this subject; just trying to make the point that with decent planning it isn't something that is going to kill you, because you had your escape route planned before you set off.
Last edited by IO540; 12th Mar 2006 at 12:11.
