Visible moisture, below freezing temperatures, but no icing. How is this possible?

Re: Visible moisture, below freezing temperatures, but no icing. How is this possible

I have seen ice from supercooled droplets of water in cumulus clouds at 11,000' over Minnesota in May in temperatures of +2C. 70F on the ground below. It happens.
 
Re: Visible moisture, below freezing temperatures, but no icing. How is this possible

I have seen ice from supercooled droplets of water in cumulus clouds at 11,000' over Minnesota in May in temperatures of +2C. 70F on the ground below. It happens.

This is where the math deviates and the math should not be trusted... My math is based on water, air and plane surface temps being 0C but water can be supercooled without turning to ice which enables air temps and surfaces to be warmer than 0C when that supercooled water hits it and it'll still turn to ice. In theory, the +2C air plus the higher surface temperature of the plane should melt the ice but the accumulation of ice from supercooled water as you fly through the air is likely to far exceed the melting capability of the 2C air temps.

For every pound of ice the surface temp and air melts, you are probably adding 2lbs or more.

Conversely, the surface can be supercooled and when it encounters water above 0C it causes that water to convert to ice. The heat exchange occurs until equilibrium is reached, most of the time icing occurs when the equilibrium is below 0C but occasionally you get ice because other factors cause a sudden and pronounced drop in the entropy of the system and you get ice until the system can warm, melt the ice and find equilibrium again.

Its like the VSI... If you climb at 1000ft/min and then put the plan into a dive, the VSI will continue to show a climb initially, then it will 0 and then it will start to show a descent much slower than your dive before finally showing your dive descent rate (assuming you havent already pulled up or crashed) because the VSI zeroes based on an equilibrium and it shows climbs/descents based on the measurement of the rate of change to that equilibrium.
 
Last edited:
Re: Visible moisture, below freezing temperatures, but no icing. How is this possible

Well, after spending a whole career flying out of the snow belt around Cleveland I can assure you all there's just three kinds of ice: Airplane ice, refrigerator ice and ice machine ice. Airplane ice melts too slow, refrigerator ice will stick to your tongue and ice machine ice melts too fast. Refrigerator ice is best.

dtuuri
 
Re: Visible moisture, below freezing temperatures, but no icing. How is this possible

Actually there is. Check out pilot weather reports.

UA /OV HMV180010/TM 2010/FL060/TP LJ35/SK OVC048/TA UNKN/IC LGT RIME/RM DURD

Here's one at FL060. This equates to 6,000 feet MSL.

Twice a year, like the proverbial broken clock? :)
 
Re: Visible moisture, below freezing temperatures, but no icing. How is this possible

Twice a year, like the proverbial broken clock? :)

From a technical perspective, FL's are MSL at QNE (SLP of 2992) and below FL180, except on days when the altimeter happens to be 2992 our indicated altitude which is at QNH (adjusted to sea level), does not match.

For standardization, PiReps do as I did and refer to a particular altitude as FLxxx in hundred feet but PiReps are interesting...

Unlike a metar that reports clouds at QFE (AGL), a PiRep uses their indicated altitude for their report. Below 18,000 MSL this is QNH (AMSL) and above 18,000 MSL this is QNE (MSL at SLP of 2992) for their report which is still different from a metar so a PiRep and metar could conceivably report:

(NOTE: 0A9 is 2.5 NM west of the reporting point and has a field elevation of 1593)

METAR 0A9 2010Z 21004 10SM OVC032 12/0 A3092
UA /OV HMV180005/TM 2010/FL060/TP LJ35/SK OVC048
UA /OV HMV180005/TM 2010/FL190/TP LJ35/SK OVC039/TOPS FL185

So from the 3 reports, we can gather the overcast layer is:
3,200 to 17,800 FT AGL (QFE) - METAR
4,800 to 19,400 FT AMSL (QNH) - PiRep below 18,000
3,900 to 18,500 FT MSL (QNE) - PiRep above 18,000

The clouds aren't changing altitude or thickness but not knowing the difference, it would be easy to confuse the 3 reports and think they were without realizing the actual cloud cover. In this example, you could depart 0A9 on a heading of 240 to 360 without going IFR or come into 0A9 on a heading of 060 to 180 and stay under the clouds skud running out of/in to the airport from clearer skies (highly likely given this cloud cover is likely to at least partly be ruled mountain obscuration) but the terrain in any other direction is between 4800 and 6700 feet. To get out to the North to Northeast VFR, you 'd probably need another 1000 ft to clear the mountains safely and to the Northeast through southwest you need at least 2000 if not 3, to clear the mountains.

(Someone should probably check my math; have to get to work and dont have time to do a full cross check)

Below FL180, its can be very confusing to refer to it as a FL because of these differences in definition. Is FL below 18,000 QNE or QNH? It's still used for shorthand but it doesnt exist for the purpose of flying as you cant actually fly an altitude of FLXXX below 18,000 yet in my post I indicated you'd be "flying FL080 or FL100" and if that were the case, its conceivable control could tell a plane to fly FL039 and another plane to fly FL048 and the first plane flys QNE and the second flys QNH, they're at the same altitude hence, "FL's dont exist below FL180"
 
Last edited:
Re: Visible moisture, below freezing temperatures, but no icing. How is this possible

APR911 - I really enjoyed your discussions but I think the correct spelling is "thermogodamics".:D
 
Re: Visible moisture, below freezing temperatures, but no icing. How is this possible

APR911 - I really enjoyed your discussions but I think the correct spelling is "thermogodamics".:D

Probably. We had a few other choice names for it too back in school. It wasn't that long ago but like most of the formulas and rules, I've forgotten them... Entropy, a rough understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and nightmares about the derivatives, integrals and other higher maths involved is about all I really retained.

I actually wish I retained more. Or at least more of my calculus knowledge. The application correct application of derivatives, integrals, sin/cos/tan/sec/csc/cot and the like are a great help in the aviation world yet I only recall enough of it to really only work out some of the maths. Still what I do recall is some really powerful and useful stuff.

As an aside, Im pretty sure I owe my highschool Trig/Calculus teacher $10 for making use of like triangles, right triangles and unit circles in the "real world"
 
Back
Top