The Training Value of Ice

[Jaybird180]

In many threads one can find evidence that CFIIs will take students into icing conditions in a non-FIKI aircraft, which clearly is not legal with the claim that the training value far exceeds the risk.

I have also read reports of the FAA burning pilots for 'you should have known there would be ice'.

Few questions:
What is the real training value? Can an exemption or waiver be obtained?

What is the requirement for staying legal with ice where there exists conflicting data (forecasts, pireps, skew-t, radiosonde, etc)?

 

[Alexb2000]

IMO if you actually use an airplane to go places on a reasonable non-retiree schedule, then you will end up flying in IMC. If you fly in IMC then sooner or later you will get into icing. First time the windshield gets covered with ice in about 10 seconds it will get your full attention and it would be ideal to have some training/experience on how to handle it.

I applaud CFI's for taking students into benign icing as part of training. It takes a lot of confidence and experience, but I'm sure it saves lives. Personally I am tired of CFI's that haven't been more than 200 miles from their base, never above 10K, never in anything bigger than a 172, and lacking the experience to teach someone what really matters. Our license to learn on your own policy is saddly costing a lot of lives.

 

[flyingron]

I disagree. Flying into known ice intentionally in a non-equipped aircraft is illegal and foolish both from a safety perspective and for the risk that CFI is doing to his certificates.]
Frankly, if a CFI attempted to pull that stunt on me, it would be the end of our relationship.
I had one CFI fly me into IMC without a clearance once and I won't deal with him either.

CFIs should be held to higher standards not lesser.

The training to handle it doesn't require actually doing it.

The rest of your CFI ennui doesn't involve unsafe and illegal operations.

 

[Alexb2000]

I'll go a little further, just to really stir it up on a Monday morning. I would like to see CFI's teach:

Spin entry and recovery

Actual engine out, key off, to landing, no second chances.

Actual in IMC spatial disorientation training even for VFR pilots

Real short field, with trees at the end kind of thing

Real hot and high flying

Night landings with NO aircraft lights

Real weather flying, no more VFR perfect morning flights

Real crosswind landings to at least 20 knots

Icing as mentioned

Etc.

There is NO substitute for the real thing. Giving pilots the real world confidence and at least some experience WOULD save lives.

 

[poadeleted20]

What is the real training value?

There isn't any. It's like having combat troops practice bleeding in training.

Can an exemption or waiver be obtained?

No.

What is the requirement for staying legal with ice where there exists conflicting data (forecasts, pireps, skew-t, radiosonde, etc)?

See this Chief Counsel letter, especially the part about the "prudent pilot".

 

[poadeleted20]

I'll go a little further, just to really stir it up on a Monday morning. I would like to see CFI's teach:

Spin entry and recovery

Actual engine out, key off, to landing, no second chances.

Actual in IMC spatial disorientation training even for VFR pilots

Real short field, with trees at the end kind of thing

Real hot and high flying

Night landings with NO aircraft lights

Real weather flying, no more VFR perfect morning flights

Real crosswind landings to at least 20 knots

Icing as mentioned

Etc.

There is NO substitute for the real thing. Giving pilots the real world confidence and at least some experience WOULD save lives.

If we did all of that, we couldn't stand the training accident rate that would result. Some of that is good, some of that is a "pointless risk". The wise and experienced instructor can tell the difference.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

In many threads one can find evidence that CFIIs will take students into icing conditions in a non-FIKI aircraft, which clearly is not legal with the claim that the training value far exceeds the risk.

I have also read reports of the FAA burning pilots for 'you should have known there would be ice'.

Few questions:
What is the real training value? Can an exemption or waiver be obtained?

What is the requirement for staying legal with ice where there exists conflicting data (forecasts, pireps, skew-t, radiosonde, etc)?

How's fishing this morning?

 

[Ted]

How's fishing this morning?

They're biting!

 

[azure]

I'll go a little further, just to really stir it up on a Monday morning. I would like to see CFI's teach:

Spin entry and recovery - agree

Actual engine out, key off, to landing, no second chances. - bzzt!

Actual in IMC spatial disorientation training even for VFR pilots - agree

Real short field, with trees at the end kind of thing - agree

Real hot and high flying - huh?

Night landings with NO aircraft lights - agree

Real weather flying, no more VFR perfect morning flights - agree

Real crosswind landings to at least 20 knots - agree with reservations

Icing as mentioned - bzzt!

Etc.

Items marked "bzzt!" are stuff that if a CFI tried on me, he would no longer be my CFI. Real dead-stick landings and flying into icing in a non-FIKI aircraft are stunts as far as I'm concerned. Landing dead stick has some value at least, but IMO is too risky to intentionally do. Flying into icing? What for? The next icing encounter will probably be completely different, and the steps needed to get out of it will also be different. Where's the value?

Thumbs down to that.

 

[Alexb2000]

Items marked "bzzt!" are stuff that if a CFI tried on me, he would no longer be my CFI. Real dead-stick landings and flying into icing in a non-FIKI aircraft are stunts as far as I'm concerned. Landing dead stick has some value at least, but IMO is too risky to intentionally do. Flying into icing? What for? The next icing encounter will probably be completely different, and the steps needed to get out of it will also be different. Where's the value?

Thumbs down to that.

Real dead stick because every aircraft flies different and sinks faster with zero power vs. idle power. Also the mental aspect of a real engine out vs. just pushing the throttle in anytime. I don't see it as dangerous glider pilots do it everyday.

I'm not talking about plowing into 5,000' of freezing rain in a 172. I'm talking about trace ice, just enough to cover the windshield, so that someone can see what it's like before it happens for real. It would have to be done in benign conditions.

Hot and High kills people all the time the mountains. Everyone gets DA knowledge, but without application most would have your reaction.

I say crosswind to 20, because if you land in say Kansas that is a distinct possibility. Also, the landings should be short since you may have to do a short crosswind in an emergency.

Fish ON!!!!

 

[flyingron]

Frankly, as long as it's not illegal or unsafe, I've got no problem with it.

Flight in to known icing without an equipped aircraft is illegal and unsafe.
Flight into IMC without operating IFR is illegal and unsafe.
Flight without POSITION lights is stupid and illegal. Now flight without a landing light or runway lights would be a different story (In fact I had neither to turn on doing my private night work).

You left out flying the plane at the gross weight. This is important if you train in a 172 or another four place where the instructor+student doesn't put you at the maximum. The first thing that pilot is going to do after he gets his ticket is load up three buddies and find out how different it flies.

Teaching students to be cavalier about busting the regulations and safe flight isn't teaching them to be better pilots!

 

[flyingron]

I'm not talking about plowing into 5,000' of freezing rain in a 172. I'm talking about trace ice, just enough to cover the windshield, so that someone can see what it's like before it happens for real. It would have to be done in benign conditions.

It is still stupid and unsafe, and it is why it is illegal.

Do you suggest you takeoff without enough fuel to get to your destination to see how the student handles that?

 

[flyingron]

I suspect he misunderstood what you were talking about with "hot and high" (high density altitude would have been better). I almost ALWAYS fly high when it's hot ... you know adiabatic loss

I had a CFI when I was doing my tailwheel transition pull the mixture. There's lots of argument on that, but frankly I'm in the camp where I suspect it's not any worse than just closing the throttle. I was about midfield downwind to runway 23 at FDK and he did that and said "Well Captain, what are you gonig to do." I said I was going to put it down on 30, and he says "Put it in the grass, it will be more realistic."

 

[James_Dean]

Happened to me and ended with a full power uncommanded decent into warmer air where it started to shed. Ruined two tires getting her stopped after a "flair" at 110kts.

I learned to respect ice......a lot.

 

[ramprat34]

The FAA is starting to become more scenario based and I think this would be a possible scenario... How do pilots end up in icing in a 172? Just flying in IMC,right? I don't think hearing a pirep and racing there is a good idea, but flying to avoid it would be a good scenario.
I too wish I would have had a CFI who would have taken me in out in situations other than severe clear.
Some requirements that should be added before a private checkride can be taken:
- A flight to the edge of the training aircraft's range(with 45 mins of fuel left!)
- Transition thorough or around class B
- 20-30 NM flight in marginal VFR
- 5 takeoffs & landings near gross weight
- Flight in moderate turbulence

We now have the Sport pilot rating for those who want to hang around the airport.

other ideas???

 

[Alexb2000]

Frankly, as long as it's not illegal or unsafe, I've got no problem with it.

Flight in to known icing without an equipped aircraft is illegal and unsafe.
Flight into IMC without operating IFR is illegal and unsafe.
Flight without POSITION lights is stupid and illegal. Now flight without a landing light or runway lights would be a different story (In fact I had neither to turn on doing my private night work).

You left out flying the plane at the gross weight. This is important if you train in a 172 or another four place where the instructor+student doesn't put you at the maximum. The first thing that pilot is going to do after he gets his ticket is load up three buddies and find out how different it flies.

Teaching students to be cavalier about busting the regulations and safe flight isn't teaching them to be better pilots!

Trace ice should be enough and not unsafe since it requires no deicing equipment by definition
Flight instructors would obviously file for IFR for IMC work, come on.
I meant no landing or taxi lights
Completely agree gross weight should be added.

I'm in favor of teaching students how to save themselves from situations they will likely face vs. teaching the bare legal minimum and hoping for the best. It has nothing to do with legalisms or indifference.

 

[flyingron]

I learned to respect ice......a lot.

I respect ice a lot, but I didn't have to go hunting for it to learn that.

I've managed to hit it twice (unsuspected). The first was at a very high altitude on an August day, so it taught me to pay attention to OATs.

 

[flyingron]

Trace ice should be enough and not unsafe since it requires no deicing equipment by definition

Incorrect. First off, there is no qualification on the flight into icing restrictions for "only trace ice." Second, there is no longer any "definition" of trace ice. The FAA did away with that over TEN years ago. In fact, they specifically got rid of it because of the implications that it was somehow "benign."

Flight instructors would obviously file for IFR for IMC work, come on.

It may be obvious to you but I have had instructors (as previously stated) who did not.

A VFR pilot is more likely to run into low fuel, darkness, crosswinds, IMC etc... than EVER to fly into icing conditions

 

[Alexb2000]

Incorrect. First off, there is no qualification on the flight into icing restrictions for "only trace ice." Second, there is no longer any "definition" of trace ice. The FAA did away with that over TEN years ago. In fact, they specifically got rid of it because of the implications that it was somehow "benign."



It may be obvious to you but I have had instructors (as previously stated) who did not.

A VFR pilot is more likely to run into low fuel, darkness, crosswinds, IMC etc... than EVER to fly into icing conditions

Icing training would obviously apply to Instrument students. Common sense here, come on.

So you got into icing unexpectedly and that taught you to respect it. I assume this was in a non-deiced aircraft or you wouldn't have cared. If we want to get regulatory about it, make it illegal to take any non-FIKI aircraft into IMC below 5 degrees. Done.

Until that happens people will inadvertently encounter ice in non-equipped aircraft and have to deal with it as I suspect you did. Why is that better than just training for it?

 

[azure]

Real dead stick because every aircraft flies different and sinks faster with zero power vs. idle power. Also the mental aspect of a real engine out vs. just pushing the throttle in anytime. I don't see it as dangerous glider pilots do it everyday.

Airplanes don't have the glide ratio of gliders, and they typically touch down at significantly higher speeds. Remember that kinetic energy goes as speed squared. I agree as to the value of the training, for exactly the reason you give -- but still, if I misjudge or conditions change at the last minute (wind shear etc.), I want that safety net.

I'm not talking about plowing into 5,000' of freezing rain in a 172. I'm talking about trace ice, just enough to cover the windshield, so that someone can see what it's like before it happens for real. It would have to be done in benign conditions.

Benign conditions == no icing, by definition. If conditions are conducive to icing, there is no way to predict with certainty whether it will be trace, light, or moderate, or even whether ice will accrete at all. If you get ice, it's happening for real. As Ron says, this is bleeding for practice. No thanks.

Hot and High kills people all the time the mountains. Everyone gets DA knowledge, but without application most would have your reaction.

My reaction was that I wasn't sure what you meant by "hot and high". Now that you've clarified it, I agree with you. Teaching the student how to determine an abort point and why it's important to have the discipline to use it, should be something a good instructor includes in their curriculum. I will add, though, that in most parts of the country, you are not going to be able to do a real high-DA takeoff and will only be able to simulate it at altitude, or in a sim.

I say crosswind to 20, because if you land in say Kansas that is a distinct possibility. Also, the landings should be short since you may have to do a short crosswind in an emergency.

There is some value to it, I agree, especially if the student doesn't yet really know how to deal with a crosswind. I just don't see any point to going out regularly and practicing in the highest crosswinds you can find. Particularly if they're gusty and variable, it's again IMO a case of practicing bleeding. Someday you get outsmarted by Mother Nature and total your airplane and get a 709 ride out of it to boot.

 

[kayoh190]

I don't have any GA experience with ice, but I have spent more time than I'd like in uncomfortable situations in airplanes supposedly more than capable of handling it.

The problem is that there's not a lot of predictability. It's kind of like turbulence. We all have our rules of thumb, procedures, or whatever, but anyone that's spent a lot of time out there knows that the rules aren't always true, and two airplanes passing through the same IMC just minutes from each other can have very different icing experiences.

That's my experience, at least.

 

[Alexb2000]

Airplanes don't have the glide ratio of gliders, and they typically touch down at significantly higher speeds. Remember that kinetic energy goes as speed squared. I agree as to the value of the training, for exactly the reason you give -- but still, if I misjudge or conditions change at the last minute (wind shear etc.), I want that safety net.

Benign conditions == no icing, by definition. If conditions are conducive to icing, there is no way to predict with certainty whether it will be trace, light, or moderate, or even whether ice will accrete at all. If you get ice, it's happening for real. As Ron says, this is bleeding for practice. No thanks.

Sometimes it's hard to communicate without writing a book. I'm not suggesting anyone turn the engine off over NYC and try to make Teterboro. I'm suggesting using something like a big long out of the way former SAC base with flat ground all around. All of us should be able to get a 172 down in 10-12 thousand feet with a perfect pre-engine out setup, I hope.

Flying above a low level stratus layer with some ice potential a CFI could get a block and dip down into the tops for a few seconds. That's often where the ice is and would be easily escapable. Surely we can find a scenario that gets the point across without excessive risk and that's all I'm saying.

 

[jesse]

Legalities aside - in this part of the country - it's not uncommon for people trying to operate in the real world that are trying to actually accomplish something with their airplanes to fly non-fiki aircraft into conditions where they might pick up ice provided there are good outs.

Thousands of feet of clear air between the cloud bases and the ground provides a pretty good out. There are certainly instructors out there that recognize the above and will expose the appropriate students to such conditions so that they can see what it looks like to take on ice and how to deal with things when it occurs.

I would rather someone see it first hand with an instructor that knows what they're doing and is ensuring there are appropriate outs versus running into it for the first time when they're solo.

Fly enough IMC and it's just a matter of time before you take on some ice. Better to have a clue then be afraid of training for that when the situations are appropriate.

To sum it up -- ice is scary but that's a pretty generic statement. The conditions, the type of aircraft you're flying, the number of outs you have, and your experience level will change how "scary" it really is. At the end of the day sometimes it's just a fact of life and you need to know how to manage it.

One thing to keep in mind, is that many aircraft with anti-ice systems are one failure away from no longer having those systems. It doesn't matter what the hell you fly you want outs.

 

[airdale]

Flying above a low level stratus layer with some ice potential a CFI could get a block and dip down into the tops for a few seconds. That's often where the ice is and would be easily escapable. Surely we can find a scenario that gets the point across without excessive risk and that's all I'm saying.

Well, this has certainly been interesting! Reasoned arguments, wild generalizations, impassioned self-rightousness, ... Ain't the internet great?

Since I think it was my post that started this, I'll comment once in this thread and then reach for the popcorn.

After 1,000+ hours, commercial and instrument ratings, and a few minor icing encounters I continue to be grateful for the experience my instructor gave me. We did pretty much what Alexb2000 suggests: Filed, got a block altitude, picked up a little ice while climbing, popped out the top and let the ice melt off. Then repeated. I was taught to be especially wary of ice near the top of a layer. We descended through the layer and landed with a clear windshield but a little ice on the leading edges. I learned that the airplane does not immediately stop flying when this occurs. The first time I accidentally got into ice on my own, I did not panic as I might have had I not gotten this training.

Does that translate into a blanket recommendation for instructors to take students up in ice? Of course not. As several have pointed out, ice is a highly variable experience and as a general principle should be avoided. But given the benign type of day and that fact that we were minutes away from at least three above-freezing airports with VFR ceilings, my conclusion is and was that on that day and in that situation it was a valuable and not at all risky experience. YMMV.

 

[flyingron]

Gee I learned all that in my instrument training and it wasn't necessary to bust the FARs to do so.

 

[azure]

Sometimes it's hard to communicate without writing a book. I'm not suggesting anyone turn the engine off over NYC and try to make Teterboro. I'm suggesting using something like a big long out of the way former SAC base with flat ground all around. All of us should be able to get a 172 down in 10-12 thousand feet with a perfect pre-engine out setup, I hope.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. In my airplane, this is a no-no. There is not a CFI out there who can promise me with 100% certainty that he could deadstick my plane undamaged at KOSC (pretty well fits your description though it was ANG I think, not SAC). It lands best with a scoach of power and again, you get a sudden loss of airspeed at the last minute, you are going to land hard. On RG gear. Non-starter as far as I'm concerned.

Flying above a low level stratus layer with some ice potential a CFI could get a block and dip down into the tops for a few seconds. That's often where the ice is and would be easily escapable. Surely we can find a scenario that gets the point across without excessive risk and that's all I'm saying.

Okay. Provided I have multiple outs, I don't have a problem with exposing myself to a low probability of trace to light icing. I've done it before and I will do it again. I base my decision on the CIP/FIP, Skew-T, lack of icing airmet, and above all OUTS. If a CFII with good weather savvy can pick a day like that when trace icing is certain, I'm all for it. I'm pretty sure my first CFII did exactly that when we went shooting approaches one day in early winter. In fact I was more afraid of ice than he was and wasn't comfortable with it at all, even questioned a clearance at one point. Except we didn't pick up ANY ice at all. So if that was the purpose of the lesson, it was a smashing failure. I suspect most of the time when it's safe enough to do what you suggest, that will be the outcome.

 

[James331]

Well, this has certainly been interesting! Reasoned arguments, wild generalizations, impassioned self-rightousness, ... Ain't the internet great?

Since I think it was my post that started this, I'll comment once in this thread and then reach for the popcorn.

After 1,000+ hours, commercial and instrument ratings, and a few minor icing encounters I continue to be grateful for the experience my instructor gave me. We did pretty much what Alexb2000 suggests: Filed, got a block altitude, picked up a little ice while climbing, popped out the top and let the ice melt off. Then repeated. I was taught to be especially wary of ice near the top of a layer. We descended through the layer and landed with a clear windshield but a little ice on the leading edges. I learned that the airplane does not immediately stop flying when this occurs. The first time I accidentally got into ice on my own, I did not panic as I might have had I not gotten this training.

Does that translate into a blanket recommendation for instructors to take students up in ice? Of course not. As several have pointed out, ice is a highly variable experience and as a general principle should be avoided. But given the benign type of day and that fact that we were minutes away from at least three above-freezing airports with VFR ceilings, my conclusion is and was that on that day and in that situation it was a valuable and not at all risky experience. YMMV.

It's a bad idea, weather changes, what was benign above that OVC layer might not be anymore, maybe you got some freezing rain now too, maybe the tops are now 4k higher, maybe maybe maybe.

It works till it doesn't.


After nearly 4,000hrs, ATP, CFI and what not ratings, currently flying a FIKI plane for work, I still try to avoid ice and that's with heated windshields, probes and boots, he11 we don't even mess with freezing rain.

For the power off stuff you can simulate it by changing configuration or torque, for ice you can explain, watch some videos with the student, incorporate your IOAT into your scan and simulate by reducing power, practice zero flap high approach speed landings, I think the red birds/MS flight sim have a ice option for weather too.

I take my students through the paces, I'll give them falling leaf stalls, and full spin training if the aircraft is able before solo. I give them different engine parameters (guess what your oil pressure is 0 and your oil temp is 170 and steady, etc) in flight for diagnosis while they are intercepting a radial and working the radios.

What I don't do is make REAL emergencies, I'm being paid to teach AND KEEP THEM SAFE.

Fail on ether front and clip your tickets and send em back to OKC IMO

Sorry for being passionate about this, I've never done meek very well

 

[poadeleted20]

Trace ice should be enough and not unsafe since it requires no deicing equipment by definition

That is not true. You need to review the regulations. There is no exception for "trace" intensity icing in the prohibition on flight into known icing conditions for non-FIKI aircraft.

I'm in favor of teaching students how to save themselves from situations they will likely face vs. teaching the bare legal minimum and hoping for the best. It has nothing to do with legalisms or indifference.

I am, too, but we don't need to do things where there is a real likelihood of someone getting killed or seriously injured in order to drive that point home. Some of the things you suggest seem too much like doing stall training at 500 AGL to make sure they can recover from a base-final stall without hitting the ground, or doing engine cuts at VMC at 400 AGL in twins (which I remember as being part of the ME PTS a very long time ago, and which I also remember killed a lot of ME instructors, trainees, and DPE's).

 

[Alexb2000]

That is not true. You need to review the regulations. There is no exception for "trace" intensity icing in the prohibition on flight into known icing conditions for non-FIKI aircraft.
I am, too, but we don't need to do things where there is a real likelihood of someone getting killed or seriously injured in order to drive that point home. Some of the things you suggest seem too much like doing stall training at 500 AGL to make sure they can recover from a base-final stall without hitting the ground, or doing engine cuts at VMC at 400 AGL in twins (which I remember as being part of the ME PTS a very long time ago, and which I also remember killed a lot of ME instructors, trainees, and DPE's).

What did I suggest that you feel will get someone killed or has an unacceptable level of risk?

 

[poadeleted20]

What did I suggest that you feel will get someone killed or has an unacceptable level of risk?

About half the things on your list. If you can't figure out which ones those are, you shouldn't be a CFI. And before you answer this post, think about whether you would tell an FAA Inspector that you are actually doing any of these things with your students.

 

[frfly172]

The idea is to teach the student about ice ,not to have them experience it. You are giving them a false sense of security,by placing them in an ice situation.

 

[Alexb2000]

About half the things on your list. If you can't figure out which ones those are, you shouldn't be a CFI. And before you answer this post, think about whether you would tell an FAA Inspector that you are actually doing any of these things with your students.

At the end of the day we all see the world through our experiences. My experience is that watching videos or safe simulations don't train the mind to deal with real emergencies. That's why we did live fire exercises in the military, to make sure you know what a real bullet sounds like right above your head. That's why we used real explosives so that you got used to working with something that would kill you if you made the slightest mistake. That made us much better and prevented much of the predictable panic when facing a life and death situation. This was all done with a bunch of 18 year old kids BTW.

Remember Geico's dead stick landing video? Why not do that at a safe location? PROVE to the student that they really can land 100% dead stick.

Icing will happen to many of us although most are too chicken to admit it. The first time it happens, the passengers are freaking out, the new pilot is freaking out, they are trying to think about what to do and what to tell ATC, because we've all got them so worried they are going to lose their ticket if they don't die in the next five minutes. That fear will kill people and does all the time.

One quick story, I was flying into Taos one afternoon and the Eastern mountains were IMC. I was dodging the worst of it by zig-zagging, but still picking up a little ice at 18. I was being followed by a guy in a new FIKI Cirrus. He was holding a straight course and giving the TKS a real workout. I got over the valley told ATC I needed to dive down through the ice as quickly as possible and I wasn't flying an approach. I knew the ceilings were about 3K so there was plenty of VFR below 10. I did that and landed with little to no airframe ice. The Cirrus flew across the valley in IMC, shot an approach from the Western side, and landed with about 1.5 inches of ice, motor screaming, out of fluid. He almost bought it because he had never been in real ice so he had the pumps running full tilt from the first hint of ice, he was scared of losing his ticket, and he thought he better just do what ATC said vs. following me in. Eliminate the fear, add a little real experience with ice, and that situation would have been a non-event in an aircraft that capable.

 

[James331]

At the end of the day we all see the world through our experiences. My experience is that watching videos or safe simulations don't train the mind to deal with real emergencies. That's why we did live fire exercises in the military, to make sure you know what a real bullet sounds like right above your head.

Allow me to let you in on a secret, those guys firing those rounds, they weren't aiming at you!!!

I know, disappointment... you thought you were pulling some matrix moves and dodging the bullets..sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

But the ice, well it doesn't give a ****, it is aiming at you and it has zero care if it kills you.

 

[Alexb2000]

Allow me to let you in on a secret, those guys firing those rounds, they weren't aiming at you!!!

I know, disappointment... you thought you were pulling some matrix moves and dodging the bullets..sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

But the ice, well it doesn't give a ****, it is aiming at you and it has zero care if it kills you.

Allow me to let you in on a secret a live Claymore doesn't care how many safety videos you watched either smart ass.

At the end of the day we can trade insults, what does that accomplish?

You choose to send students out there full of fear, that's your prerogative. I suggest an alternative, we don't have to agree.

 

[James331]

Just wanted to quash some melodrama there.

You don't need to break regs and put your students into a bad situation to eliminate fear.

My instructor never went ICO on a practice engine failure and when I had my first full engine failure I wasn't scared, I was busy! and I'm still here and I didn't even scratch the paint on the plane.

Look I could pull the hours card or ratings card, I could even tell you where I fly out of and how every other house has a snow machine, but really do I need to go there for it to make sense to you that taking a non-FIKI plane into icing is a dumb idea, that its illegal for a reason, that the Feds only make a FAR after enough folks die.

If you think you're in the right here, go down to your local FSDO and explain all this to them, have all your students write letters on how you taking them into known icing in a non-FIKI plane helped eliminate that "fear". If you honestly believe you're right then full disclosure shouldn't bother you.

 

[Alexb2000]

Just wanted to quash some melodrama there.

You don't need to break regs and put your students into a bad situation to eliminate fear.

My instructor never went ICO on a practice engine failure and when I had my first full engine failure I wasn't scared, I was busy! and I'm still here and I didn't even scratch the paint on the plane.

Look I could pull the hours card or ratings card, I could even tell you where I fly out of and how every other house has a snow machine, but really do I need to go there for it to make sense to you that taking a non-FIKI plane into icing is a dumb idea, that its illegal for a reason, that the Feds only make a FAR after enough folks die.

Whatever, you're grown, you make your own choices, just remember this conversation before you go and show someone what icing is like in that non FIKI plane.

Talk about melodrama.

Please try and keep that big logbook in your pants along with your pocket full of ratings. I'm sorry, sometimes we little people don't show enough respect for the absolute authority of an anonymous expert on the Internet.

Forums exist for conversation, people will disagree, hell many people here disagree just for the sake of disagreement. If you want to express yourself without rebuttal, try a blog, maybe, "James331's unequivocal guide to aeronautical excellence".

 

[James331]

Lets just start by not busting the FARs, and we can get into why busting the FARs is bad on that blog if mine

Don't mean to bust your balls, its just I've seen this kind of stuff turn into a ball of metal and guts and even though you're kinda annoying I don't want you to ball yourself up. Just be careful out there

 

[jordane93]

Not a CFI but I would probably not take students up to "see or feel" what icing is like. If they like, they can read it in a book, read NTSB reports, and hear youtube clips of pilots who encountered icing.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

They're biting!

I think he's caught the daily limit

 

[PPC1052]

At the end of the day we all see the world through our experiences. My experience is that watching videos or safe simulations don't train the mind to deal with real emergencies. That's why we did live fire exercises in the military, to make sure you know what a real bullet sounds like right above your head. That's why we used real explosives so that you got used to working with something that would kill you if you made the slightest mistake. That made us much better and prevented much of the predictable panic when facing a life and death situation. This was all done with a bunch of 18 year old kids BTW.

Remember Geico's dead stick landing video? Why not do that at a safe location? PROVE to the student that they really can land 100% dead stick.

Icing will happen to many of us although most are too chicken to admit it. The first time it happens, the passengers are freaking out, the new pilot is freaking out, they are trying to think about what to do and what to tell ATC, because we've all got them so worried they are going to lose their ticket if they don't die in the next five minutes. That fear will kill people and does all the time.

One quick story, I was flying into Taos one afternoon and the Eastern mountains were IMC. I was dodging the worst of it by zig-zagging, but still picking up a little ice at 18. I was being followed by a guy in a new FIKI Cirrus. He was holding a straight course and giving the TKS a real workout. I got over the valley told ATC I needed to dive down through the ice as quickly as possible and I wasn't flying an approach. I knew the ceilings were about 3K so there was plenty of VFR below 10. I did that and landed with little to no airframe ice. The Cirrus flew across the valley in IMC, shot an approach from the Western side, and landed with about 1.5 inches of ice, motor screaming, out of fluid. He almost bought it because he had never been in real ice so he had the pumps running full tilt from the first hint of ice, he was scared of losing his ticket, and he thought he better just do what ATC said vs. following me in. Eliminate the fear, add a little real experience with ice, and that situation would have been a non-event in an aircraft that capable.

Sounds like something any private pilot could benefit from. But it seems that this training should be done in a FIKI airplane.