Re: FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

I am just now getting my IFR, so I am no expert on icing...

But I did once get caught VFR in some light freezing rain when some ice (I 
think it was Rime) started building up on my wings at around 3000'. I was 
able to climb above it and it was gone fairly quickly, but we're talking 
about a very light coating, because I didn't wait very long. Interestingly 
enough, I was approaching the NY Class B, and told them I had a critical 
condition and required clearance into the Class B in case I would not be 
able to descend before

Even if climbing wouldn't have removed it, can't you just turn around into 
the warmer air? I mean, presumably, even IFR, if you can recognize it 
quickly, you should have options...

Interestingly enough, while you say the FAA considers forecast icing = 
known icing, it would seem that at least Richard L. Collins of Sporty's 
disagrees. In the Sporty's IFR training videos, he says something to the 
effect of, "If every time icing was forecast we decided not to fly, we 
wouldn't get to fly very often." Then he spends a fair amount of time 
explaining the characteristics of icing, its relationship to Low pressure 
and fronts, and escape tactics... This would strongly imply that at least 
some pilots fly into forecast icing conditions, regardless of the 
legalities...

As for me, I was pretty nervous when that ice started up on my wings, and I 
was more nervous about the possibility of ice building up on the prop that 
I couldn't see or measure. So while I'm not convinced that I will cancel 
every planned flight for forecast icing in the area, I am sure going to 
make sure that I am pretty vigilant about watching out for it and reacting 
quickly if something happens... Hopefully one day I'll be able to afford 
anti-ice equipment and deal with the problem the right way anyway...


Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is naive to think you don't risk 
harm to others when you fly recklessly solo. Besides the possibility of 
harming someone when you hit the ground, you also harm the reputation of 
the aviation community, play on the already hyper-sensitive fears of the 
general public about aviation, and ultimately lead to more rules, 
restrictions, and harm to the aviation community in general. 



[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Teacherjh) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

>>>
> I believe you're referring to FAR 91.13, which is Careless OR Reckless
> Operation, not careless AND reckless.  I own the aircraft and fly it
> solo, how does flying it into known icing conditions endanger the life
> or property of another?
> <<
> 
> You are right - careless OR reckless.  No matter.  It's not legal. 
> It's usually not smart.
> 
> If you have an aircraft that is not certificated for flight into known
> icing (say, a typical spam can), even if it is older than the regs,
> doing so puts it at the very real risk of acquiring ice on the
> airframe.  An iced up airplane does not fly very well.  It is less
> stable,  has less lift, more drag, less power (as the prop and intake
> get iced), and more weight. Your instruments will be less reliable, and
> may fail (i.e. the static port gets iced)   If the tail ices up faster
> than the wing, you can get into a tail stall, which feels simlar to a
> wing stall but whose recovery is the opposite. 
> 
> What's more, unlike say for turbulence, cloud, or an unusual attitude,
> exiting the icing conditions does not fix things.  The ice that you
> have picked up doesn't just "go away" right away, especially if it's
> still cold out. Sublimation is very slow, and you have to get into
> fairly warm temps to melt the stuff.  You can't count on that.
> 
> One of the big problems occurs on landing iced up... the trim (if it
> still works) and configuration changes may destabilize the aircraft
> even if it seemed to be flying "just fine" before.
> 
> Further, once you're in it, you might not be able to get out.  It might
> be that conditions are closing all over.  So, you might not end up with
> "just a peek" but rather, a whole lot of dunk.
> 
> Certification for known ice includes more than just boots.  There's a
> whole lot of redundancy involved, and significant excess power needed
> in the powerplant to overcome the effects of ice.
> 
> This is part of the reason why it's not safe.  It endangers people and
> property below you, far more than simply flying.  Because of this, the
> FAA would consider it careless.  It would also consider it reckless. 
> The FAA has already said that "forecast" icing conditions count as
> "known" icing conditions, even in the face of pireps to the contrary.
> 
> Jose
> 
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
>