AvSafety: New Definition of Known Icing

thanks for the post tim.

after my initial read, it actually seems reasonable. I look forward to the discussion as well
 
While it is reasonable, it is also (perhaps purposely) vague in many respects. In particular, it speaks repeatedly of what a "reasonable and prudent pilot" would do, and that will be determined jointly by the FAA, the ALJ, and potentially the NTSB -- all of whom are already on record about what they think is unacceptable regarding flight into icing. Caveat aviator.
 
Okay, so they seem to have backed off from the "actual definition", which people didn't like, and thought was too restrictive, and reverted back to the previous "non-definition", which people (for some reason) seem to like.

So, once again, "known icing conditions" is defined in the same way pornography is, i.e. "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it".

The current non-definition is roughly that if all the possible information available indicates to a "reasonable and prudent" pilot that conditions will cause ice to adhere, that known icing conditions "likely exist".

Can you find two pilots who agree on what is reasonable and prudent when it comes to flying in icing conditions?

So, in other words, if you want to know if there are "known icing conditions", go fly, and if we decide to bust you, the judge will tell you afterwards.
-harry
 
Either way, I don't think it makes much of a difference. People fly in icing conditions in non-FIKI airplanes all the time and they fly FIKI airplanes into icing thinking that FIKI = FIKI.

Enforcement action is not going to be their main problem...
 
sba55 said:
Either way, I don't think it makes much of a difference. People fly in icing conditions in non-FIKI airplanes all the time and they fly FIKI airplanes into icing thinking that FIKI = FIKI.

Enforcement action is not going to be their main problem...
Click to expand...

Personally, I never understood the need for FIKI regs outside of "for hire" operations. To me it is a lot like thunderstorm avoidance being addressed by a regulation that requires radar to fly if TRW are forecast.
 
I'm based just outside the ADIZ at FDK. My brother lives in near INT, and I make the trip fairly often. The ATC preferred route is west to MRB, then V143 along the Shenandoah Valley. Well, that valley this time of year IMC is often a real icemaker. Head down the east side of the mountains, and you're fine.

The problem is, I can never get that CSN, GVE LYH eastern route clearance right out of the box, even though I'm /G and have the route filed and accepted via DUATS. Departure always clears me the V143 route down the valley no matter what I file, or what the icing forecast is. The other option is then to go way east around BAL, or try and negotiate something in enroute.

So apparently it's file what you need to stay out of the ice, get cleared right into the teeth of it. Hate that.
 
mantakos said:
Can you find two pilots who agree on what is reasonable and prudent when it comes to flying in icing conditions?
Click to expand...
That's not the issue -- it's what the FAA, ALJ's, and ultimately the NTSB think is "reasonable and prudent," and they're pretty well on record on that subject in Curtis and all the cases leading up to it. All I see from this is a situation in which it's harder to argue with idiots about whether or not it's safe/legal to fly into icing conditions in non-FIKI planes. Outside of Scott Dennstaedt, I don't know many pilots (including me) with sufficient meteorological knowledge to figure all the issues discussed in that letter (droplet sizes, etc).
 
I had the same reaction as Bruce (and it's borne out of my experience). Plan to avoid ice, plan for an escape, and if you indavertently get into ice and execute your escape plan, EVEN if you declare an emergency to do it, the FAA will not violate you unless there are other factors at work.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's not the issue -- it's what the FAA, ALJ's, and ultimately the NTSB think is "reasonable and prudent," and they're pretty well on record on that subject in Curtis and all the cases leading up to it. All I see from this is a situation in which it's harder to argue with idiots about whether or not it's safe/legal to fly into icing conditions in non-FIKI planes. Outside of Scott Dennstaedt, I don't know many pilots (including me) with sufficient meteorological knowledge to figure all the issues discussed in that letter (droplet sizes, etc).
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you must have an accident or require ATC assistance before any of the provisions apply. No one is going to scrutinize a pilot's pre-flight search for possible icing unless one of the two occur. When I re-write that portion of THE COMPLETE ADVANCED PILOT, I am going to caution my readers to retain a paper trail of sites visited, conclusions drawn, etc, plus a notation as to where to go for the "golden out."

I think that in Curtis, the fact that icing did occur and was noted takes it out of the "icing conditions" arena and into "known icing."

Bob Gardner
 
bobmrg said:
It seems to me that you must have an accident or require ATC assistance before any of the provisions apply.
Click to expand...
Or be seen with ice on your plane after landing, or be seen taking off into potential icing conditions (that's what triggered my go-round with the FAA legal system 30 years ago).
No one is going to scrutinize a pilot's pre-flight search for possible icing unless one of the two occur.
Click to expand...
The Louisville GADO did with me, without either, but as I said, that was a long time ago.
When I re-write that portion of THE COMPLETE ADVANCED PILOT, I am going to caution my readers to retain a paper trail of sites visited, conclusions drawn, etc, plus a notation as to where to go for the "golden out."
Click to expand...
Documentation is always good unless you're documenting a bad or illegal decision -- ask Richard Nixon about that.
 
TMetzinger said:
I had the same reaction as Bruce (and it's borne out of my experience). Plan to avoid ice, plan for an escape, and if you indavertently get into ice and execute your escape plan, EVEN if you declare an emergency to do it, the FAA will not violate you unless there are other factors at work.
Click to expand...
A pilot can plan a winter IFR flight to avoid icing while utilizing a non approved aircraft, however ATC constrictions may place a pilot in icing conditions, however slight. That's why I think .gov may be retaining some vaugness in regards to this issue.

It also goes on to say, if there is ice on an aircraft, that is not the only factor FAA will consider. ….The FAA will evaluate those actions taken by the pilot …to determine if they were reasonable….” Essentially cases will be judged on their merits.
Click to expand...

If a pilot reasonbly believed...
 
Fr8Dawg said:
A pilot can plan a winter IFR flight to avoid icing while utilizing a non approved aircraft, however ATC constrictions may place a pilot in icing conditions, however slight.
Click to expand...

This is why I rarely file IFR in airplanes without de-ice equipment in winter. I just pick up flight following and leave it at that. I do, however, keep my IFR charts and approach plates with me. First off I like having the information on them (even when VFR), but also if conditions deteriorate unexpectedly, I still need to get on the ground.
 
Fr8Dawg said:
A pilot can plan a winter IFR flight to avoid icing while utilizing a non approved aircraft, however ATC constrictions may place a pilot in icing conditions, however slight.
Click to expand...
That's why the word "unable" is in the dictionary. Use it when needed! 91.3(b) is in the FAR's, and the word "emergency" is used several times in 91.123, intentionally and for good reason.
 
I have also used the unable word in weather with building cells when Center directed me into one. Actually, I just told center I needed to deviate as that would put me right into building cells. Once, on the way to San Diego I had to go off airway to avoid some very bad weather; center became concerned when the deviation would put me over a restricted area. I was just able to stay clear, but everyone was deviating, not just little P-Barons.

I would start asking for a deviation with a reason so the controller understands. Offer an alternative if you can: like 322KS can accept a 15 degree deviation right. If that isn't working, unable would be my next step. If you use unable, be ready to get alternate instructions you might not like. It's better to offer a reasonable alternative first, especially when the frequency is busy.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I have also used the unable word in weather with building cells when Center directed me into one. Actually, I just told center I needed to deviate as that would put me right into building cells. Once, on the way to San Diego I had to go off airway to avoid some very bad weather; center became concerned when the deviation would put me over a restricted area. I was just able to stay clear, but everyone was deviating, not just little P-Barons.

I would start asking for a deviation with a reason so the controller understands. Offer an alternative if you can: like 322KS can accept a 15 degree deviation right. If that isn't working, unable would be my next step. If you use unable, be ready to get alternate instructions you might not like. It's better to offer a reasonable alternative first, especially when the frequency is busy.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

I hate getting squished between cells and restricted areas. I wish there was a policy that allowed penetration when an escape route that looked quite feasible until the last minute without declaring an emergency. Has anyone else ever gotten away with that?
 
91.3(b) applies, and penetration of the active R-area is an emergency option, but the problem is that the controller may not be in direct contact with the folks operating in the R-area, so you have no idea how fast the controller can get them to stop shooting, bombing, rocketing, or whatever else it is they're doing in there. That means there is a risk you're penetrating something potentially as lethal as that TRW cell. Then you have to pick one of two bad choices, and that's when you really earn your PIC pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top