Known Icing Enforcement?

RPJ

RPJ

Well-Known Member
Scenario;

A C172 departs, climbs to cruising and picks up ice then gives a PIREP stating that they were picking up ice. Lands uneventfully at destination. In pre-flight planning there was a Airmet for icing at the C172 altitude.

Question;

Could the FAA start an enforcement action against the pilot for flying into known icing conditions in an a/c that is not approved for flight into known icing? Could the FAA use the PIREP that the pilot made as evidence against him?

Thanks,
Ryan
 
PIREP would not be a report of known icing before you fly. However if the pilot were to know there's an Airmet out or a Sigmet out that would involve icing in it and they fly into that altitude you bet you that pilot could be violated. Lets just face it, anyone who does this with an GA without any icing equipment is playing Russian Rullett (eh dont know how to spell that one) and probably needs to be caught.
 
Texasspilot said:
If it wasn't known ice it wasn't known ice

I doubt youd get violated for it.
Click to expand...

Airmets ARE known ice. PIREPs are too, if there are PIREPs in your area reporting icing (even if there is no airmet) the FAA can consider that known ice.

meyers9163 said:
Lets just face it, anyone who does this with an GA without any icing equipment is playing Russian Rullett (eh dont know how to spell that one) and probably needs to be caught.
Click to expand...

Well I think it's smart to play it safe, but I've been in icing (clouds below freezing or airmet) a bunch where it would have been of questionable legality (FAA could nail me if they wanted to) but it was perfectly safe IMO. I could have just decended out of the cloud (but then I dont get actual!) or decended 1000 back where that wet snow was rain.

Also, the FAA historically wont go after you for filing a PIREP of ice. If they did they'd know people just wouldnt file them and saftey would suffer. Historically, they will go after you if you get into an accident because of the ice. I suggest going to the AOPA site and searching through their database for formal articles on the subject. The official letter of interpretation regarding icing just changed again in the past few months (from when some pencil pusher wrote below freezing and high humidity constituted known icing! Tools...)
 
Andrew_VT said:
Airmets ARE known ice. PIREPs are too, if there are PIREPs in your area reporting icing (even if there is no airmet) the FAA can consider that known ice.



Well I think it's smart to play it safe, but I've been in icing (clouds below freezing or airmet) a bunch where it would have been of questionable legality (FAA could nail me if they wanted to) but it was perfectly safe IMO. I could have just decended out of the cloud (but then I dont get actual!) or decended 1000 back where that wet snow was rain.

Also, the FAA historically wont go after you for filing a PIREP of ice. If they did they'd know people just wouldnt file them and saftey would suffer. Historically, they will go after you if you get into an accident because of the ice. I suggest going to the AOPA site and searching through their database for formal articles on the subject. The official letter of interpretation regarding icing just changed again in the past few months (from when some pencil pusher wrote below freezing and high humidity constituted known icing! Tools...)
Click to expand...

Lets just keep it simple for the young guys on the board, stay out of ICE and do your preflight accurate. Therefore you should not be in ice and or flying into ice on purpose. In addition I personally do not count a PIREP as "known" icing. Would that keep me from flying into is yes, but an Airmet, Sigmets are known icing. I've never heard of a Pirep being known icing. Now a few pireps together in the same area may cause a Airmet.
 
Like was already said, the AIRMET counts as known ice, but if there were no AIRMET and you filed a PIREP, so long as you didn't linger in it (e.g. practice shooting multiple approaches into an airport after having filed a PIREP for ice) they aren't going to violate you.

For the most part, they aren't going to violate you for known icing infractions unless something happens and you're still alive to be violated (e.g. a bunch of planes diverted so you could make your crash-dive approach out of the ice into an airport). However, there have been a few cases where the FAA will make an example of somebody.
 
And AIRMET DOES NOT count as known ice. That's forcasted, or predicted ice. You don't KNOW it's there until you see it on your wings. It's not like rain where radar can paint it, you're simply not going to know it's there until you fly through it.

Now is it SMART to start blasting through layers when the freezing layer is on the ground and the layer is really thick when you don't have boots? Nope, not at all. In fact I wouldn't do it unless I could descend down to warmer air and lose the ice. So IF you're going to decide to do it, GIVE YOURSELF AN OUT. If you're not going to do it, that's fine too, I canceled a lot of flights for this very reason.

But until there's a PIREP, there's no ice in there.

EDIT: Also guys you've gotta realize the equipment type giving the report. CRJ's don't turn their anti ice equipment on until they get below 230 knots because their wings won't accumulate ice until that point. Now a Caravan? Those things are like ice magnets!
 
meyers9163 said:
. In addition I personally do not count a PIREP as "known" icing. Would that keep me from flying into is yes, but an Airmet, Sigmets are known icing.
Click to expand...

I'd say if anything a first hand account of icing being reported is the best way to know if ice is forming.
 
jtrain609 said:
And AIRMET DOES NOT count as known ice. That's forcasted, or predicted ice. You don't KNOW it's there until you see it on your wings. It's not like rain where radar can paint it, you're simply not going to know it's there until you fly through it.

Now is it SMART to start blasting through layers when the freezing layer is on the ground and the layer is really thick when you don't have boots? Nope, not at all. In fact I wouldn't do it unless I could descend down to warmer air and lose the ice. So IF you're going to decide to do it, GIVE YOURSELF AN OUT. If you're not going to do it, that's fine too, I canceled a lot of flights for this very reason.

But until there's a PIREP, there's no ice in there.

EDIT: Also guys you've gotta realize the equipment type giving the report. CRJ's don't turn their anti ice equipment on until they get below 230 knots because their wings won't accumulate ice until that point. Now a Caravan? Those things are like ice magnets!
Click to expand...

JH I am going to disagree with you on this one. An airmet of Zulu is for icing correct? Therefore you are told ahead of time that the conditions are right for icing. And if you are stupid enough to fly into and and get ice and for some reason crash you had prior knowledge about that icing.
 
Conditions are there for icing, but that's not known icing. It's a prediction that ice *might* be there, and depending on your aiframe, speed, altitude, blah blah blah, you have the possibility of having ice stick to your airframe. But until it does, it's not known that there is ice in there.

Again, I'm not saying it's not stupid, I'm just saying you're not making a delineation between forcasted and actual.
 
But again why would one fly into an area where conditions are right? You are saying that in your post conditions are right for icing. Therefore if you fly into it you had knowledge about this condition. Therefore you flew into an area that was known to be right for icing?

Either way you are correct flying into an area where there is an Airmet for icing in a GA is very VERY stupid and ignorant, no wait not even ignorant just plain stupidity!
 
You're saying it and you're not getting it, bro.

There are two ideas at work here:

-Predicted, which would mean the possibility for.

and

-Known, the actual visceral knowledge of, absolute knowledge of it being there because you can see it.

If you have thunderstorms predicted, are they there when the TAF says they'll be there, or when they actually show up?

In the same way if ice is predicted, is it there when it's predicted to show up, or when it actually shows up?

Do you see the difference?
 
meyers9163 said:
But again why would one fly into an area where conditions are right? You are saying that in your post conditions are right for icing. Therefore if you fly into it you had knowledge about this condition. Therefore you flew into an area that was known to be right for icing?

Either way you are correct flying into an area where there is an Airmet for icing in a GA is very VERY stupid and ignorant, no wait not even ignorant just plain stupidity!
Click to expand...


Because airmets can cover thousands of square miles.

HOWEVER IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE FAA'S CURRENT DIFINITION OF KNOWN ICE.

"known icing conditions exist when visible moisture or high relative humidity combines with temperatures near or below freezing."

and then added

"flying through clouds at an altitude that is near or below freezing would constitute flight into known icing conditions."
 
jtrain609 said:
You're saying it and you're not getting it, bro.

There are two ideas at work here:

-Predicted, which would mean the possibility for.

and

-Known, the actual visceral knowledge of, absolute knowledge of it being there because you can see it.

If you have thunderstorms predicted, are they there when the TAF says they'll be there, or when they actually show up?

In the same way if ice is predicted, is it there when it's predicted to show up, or when it actually shows up?

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

John I see what you are saying but i disagree. I mean perhaps my training in the past is wrong but I've always been taught and the way I look at it an Airmet is as good as known icing. Period!
 
thats the letter that was put ,i believe last june, but is due to be overturned and head back to the 2003 ruling because it limits many flights that would have been safe to go.
 
Here's the latest LOI, published Apr 3rd. http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070405icing-letter.html I believe it's still open for comments, before being formally adopted, but it's likely to be the interpretation that's published. Cliff notes for those who don't want to read it (though there's good info, worth the read); they appear to be leaning towards the NTSB definition of known icing, written as "known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know of weather reports in which icing conditions are reported or forecast." So, according to that, both AIRMETS and PIREPS would constitute known icing.
 
That I could agree with and would see both of those being KNOWN icing. Thanks for that article link and therefore clearning this up!
 
Flight Forum

NTSB Defines "Known Icing"

[SIZE=-1]November's "Eking Out Icing Info" was in error by saying that a pilot report of an icing encounter constitutes "known icing." Although most pilots would intuitively accept it as such, the National Transportation Safety Board has said in several legal decisions that "known icing conditions" exist whenever two factors are present: temperatures below freezing and visible moisture. No pilot report is necessary - if a forecast containing these two elements exists, known icing conditions exist. Except for requiring pilots to "observe the restrictions in the pilot operating handbook," the federal aviation regulations don't offer much guidance to pilots flying under Part 91. The law, as interpreted by NTSB administrative law judges, is more specific. In 1974, the NTSB (in Administrator v. Bowen) said in part, "The Board construed the word 'known' to mean that the information regarding icing conditions was known, or reasonably should have been known by the pilot, and the term 'icing conditions' to include both reported and forecast data.
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1131
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top