"Known Icing" question

PanJet

PanJet

Well-Known Member
I believe it was in the November issue of IFR Magazine (don't have it handy, but I'm pretty sure it was Nov.), there was an article about "known icing" discussing a letter from the FAA about what exactly constituted known icing. According to the letter, "known icing" was any flight in conditions at or below freezing in visibile moisture. Period. The article even made a point that it didn't matter if the temperature was cold enough that icing wasn't an issue, nor if icing was forcast or even reported. If you flew through visible moisture in less than freezing air temperature, you can be violated.

My question is this: Would flying through snow, no matter how cold and frozen it already is, be considered flight into known icing conditions since it is visible moisture below freezing? I've asked several other CFI's about this who were unsure, although one believed it only mattered if you were under IFR, but wasn't sure.

Anyone's input on the regs regarding known icing especially for Part 91 stuff would be greatly appreciated.
 
PanJet said:
I believe it was in the November issue of IFR Magazine (don't have it handy, but I'm pretty sure it was Nov.), there was an article about "known icing" discussing a letter from the FAA about what exactly constituted known icing. According to the letter, "known icing" was any flight in conditions at or below freezing in visibile moisture. Period. The article even made a point that it didn't matter if the temperature was cold enough that icing wasn't an issue, nor if icing was forcast or even reported. If you flew through visible moisture in less than freezing air temperature, you can be violated.

My question is this: Would flying through snow, no matter how cold and frozen it already is, be considered flight into known icing conditions since it is visible moisture below freezing? I've asked several other CFI's about this who were unsure, although one believed it only mattered if you were under IFR, but wasn't sure.

Anyone's input on the regs regarding known icing especially for Part 91 stuff would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

According to your definition you've stated, snow is visible moisture, right? And it's almost always freezing where it snows, right? So...what's your question???

I fly known icing airplanes, and haven't looked at the regs in a while on the issue, but maybe somebody else will have more valuable input...the above only goes by your definition.
 
It's even worse than snow - look at the language regarding "high relative humidity." AOPA has written to the Regional Counsel about the letter.
 
PanJet said:
If you flew through visible moisture in less than freezing air temperature, you can be violated.
Click to expand...

You can only be violated if they catch you, and they can only catch you if you crash. ;)

I'm joking, but that is the reality of how this whole "known icing" issue works. I'm all for safety and all for keeping it legal, but I wouldn't worry too much about flying through snow. It probably does constitute known icing in the technical sense, but I don't think it is very much of a hazard in the real world.

If you're going through snow, use the same caution you would during any IFR flight...keep an eye out for ice, leave yourself an out, don't be afraid to make a 180, etc.
 
I think the point of the letter is to prevent little Ricky who got his IR yesterday from going flying in the snow with his mom in a 172. Yes snow doesn't directly present a hazard at first but the conditions are very conducive to icing.
As a side note the Van builds up snow which eventually melts and turns to ice.
 
jrh said:
You can only be violated if they catch you, and they can only catch you if you crash. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, joking aside, the article did point out that while you can be violated, in most cases the chances are slim. There was a neat chart they used to decide whether or not to violate, and mostly it came down to how severe were the consequenses and was it willful or just neglegant. Just like you said above, in most cases nothing will happen unless you crash.
 
PanJet said:
There was a neat chart they used to decide whether or not to violate, and mostly it came down to how severe were the consequenses and was it willful or just neglegant..
Click to expand...
I don't know if a flowchart for it still exists somewhere, but FAA Legal still uses the concept. If you find your way to FAA Order 2150.3A "Compliance and Enforcement Program," you'll find a discussion of the "Enforcement Decision Tool," or "EDT." It requires the appropriate personnel to evaluate a number of factors when deciding whether to take action and, if so, what type of action to take. There's even a worksheet and a bunch of matrices.
 
SteveC said:
An interesting corollary to that is that you are more likely to crash if you fly in known ice than if you don't.

:insane:
Click to expand...

Very true, but the article was talking more about situations where you weren't likely to have problems, but by definition were illegal. (e.g. descending through 200 ft. thick layer in under freezing temps).
 
I spoke to our local FSDO guy and asked him about this interpretation. Since he would be the one violating me I thought it would be good to know ;) . He said that he hadn't seen any change in the regs or the way they enforce them--if no ice is forecast or reported then there is no known ice. That being said, he did also stress the importance of avoid icing situations and the fact that if you do something stupid (e.g. fly into what will almost surely be icing situations) you will certainly get violated or crash.

I heard about an interesting case where a guy flew into an airport in IFR, picked up some ice on the approach, went missed and then tried the approach again and made it in. There was an FAA inspector on the field who violated him for flight through known icing conditions. The judge gave him a suspension because of his own report of ice on the first approach and subsequent decision to go back into that known condition for the second approach.

As it has been said earlier, if you fly a non protected aircraft (or even a protected aircraft in my opinion) into possible icing conditions always, always, always have a quick and easy out. My best out is just to stay on the ground and park the plane in the hangar--I have have never picked up ice in there :nana2:
 
had a local master cfi take some students up in a Cirrus into what many would consider "known icing" conditions, had a double alternator failure, screens supposedly started dimming and luckily made a safe landing away from homebase. there were alternator warnings going off before takeoff, decided to ignore them...and this guy recently was a speaker at a flight safety conference, his final words in his lecture..."push the envelope". needless to say after the Cirrus incident he is no longer a master CFI
 
In the planes I normally fly staying on the ground is always an option in marginal weather :)

We'll see when my charter ops startup though . . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top