Re: FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

I don't think that Collins would disagree that forecast icing is known
icing.  He might choose to launch anyway but the legalities are clear.

Mike
MU-2

"Judah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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)
> >
>