Flight into icing conditions and Part 91

Acadia · April 4th, 2005, 17:43

Just got a call from a friend who oversees a 172 for a flying club. He had just found out that a member took the aircraft on a long cross-country (IFR) today with IMC along the entire route. Freezing levels were also below any MEA for the entire route and there of course was an airmet for ice (light to moderate rime) for the entire area. On top of that the pilot is a very low time private with the ink still drying on the instrument ticket.

He was working on new rules for the club to prevent such stupidity in the future. He also wanted to know if the pilot broke any FAR’s. I could not think of any rule under part 91 that the pilot would have broken. Am I correct or did I forget something? Also do the conditions above constitute known icing? Obviously the aircraft itself is not approved for known icing so is there a FAR bust connected to that in some way.

Sorry my FAR knowledge has gotten a bit rusty so I thought I would ask everyone.

Ralgha · April 4th, 2005, 17:46

Yeah he broke some rules because it has been officially ruled that AIRMETs constitute "known icing".

Acadia · April 4th, 2005, 17:56

The airmet looked pretty grim for a 172...

OCNL MOD RIME/MXD ICGICIP BTN FRZLVL AND 120. FRZLVL SFC-040.

cimepilot · April 4th, 2005, 18:05

Since when does an AIRMET constitute known icing? I fly known icing certified equipment so it doesn't much matter to me, but there have been several occasions that I have been in an AIRMET area and never picked up even trace icing.

Acadia · April 4th, 2005, 18:31

Found this link on the subject though I dont know how good a source it is.
Avweb Site

Ophir · April 4th, 2005, 18:51

The only known icing that I am aware of is in a PIREP. But, that can exist one minute and not be there the next. There is a big difference between a plane that is certified for known icing, which is something that is covered in Parts 121 and 135 ops, and a plane flown under Part 91 that is not covered under the turbine or large multi-engine rule. (91.5?? I think)

The biggest limitation you should be looking at is that the POH for a 172 says that the aircraft is not certified into known icing. But then again, you have to define "known".

kellwolf · April 4th, 2005, 19:18

Not sure if it's a FAR violation or not, but the 172 POH specifically says "not cetified to fly in known icing conditions." Now, the big question is what is "known icing." AIRMETs are forecasted icing, not necessarily known icing. Would I fly into an area with an AIRMET in a 172? Not really, but those are my personal miniumums. I've got a wife and a kid, so I don't want to put myself in a potentially bad situation. PIREPs are about as close as you can get, but as was mentioned earlier, that could dissipate quickly. In all honesty, the known icing has more to do with insurance and laying blame than FARs.

stuckingfk · April 4th, 2005, 19:36

[ QUOTE ]
Since when does an AIRMET constitute known icing? I fly known icing certified equipment so it doesn't much matter to me, but there have been several occasions that I have been in an AIRMET area and never picked up even trace icing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if the FAA came out depicting what is known icing and what isn't. I know if there is an AIRMET out for a particular are, that is considered flying in known icing if you are in clouds or precipiation.

Acadia · April 4th, 2005, 19:45

The article from the link above refers to FAA findings where forecast icing conditions were considered known icing even when pireps contradicted the forecast. With that 91.9(a) is also cited as the rule you would be breaking flying non-icing certified aircraft into known icing.

Not something I would normally even think about since I wont fly anywhere close to the clouds in a non-ice aircraft if there is even a remote chance of ice. This kid will probably show up in an NTSB report sooner or later.

Icelandair · April 4th, 2005, 23:13

Look at the rulings for NTSB cases and it has been consistantly ruled that an AIRMET constitutes known icing, even if PIREPS say negative icing. The FAR's may not define it but the courts have.

kellwolf · April 4th, 2005, 23:38

[ QUOTE ]
The FAR's may not define it but the courts have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. It's all about blame and insurance claims. Then again, the courts have repeatedly placed blame on manufacturers for stupid pilot tricks, too.

tonyw · April 5th, 2005, 00:53

I don't know if it's illegal or not, but it's pretty bleeping stupid!

I'm on a bleeping rant tonight. Sorry, but there is no way I'd pass the bottle to throttle test right about now and I'm on a bleeping rant about bleeping stupid things!

kellwolf · April 5th, 2005, 01:26

Oh, man. I hope Tony goes over to Arguepolitics tonight. It could be fun to watch.

Jason · April 5th, 2005, 09:29

The FAA will never define what known icing is - it's virtually impossible to define. You can make statements that are generally true such as "Visible moisture and temps freezing and below" but there are many more factors that go into it than that - cloud density, aircraft speed, airfoil design, etc.

Jason

JEP · April 5th, 2005, 09:40

From everything I have heard and been taught, if there is an Airmet for icing and the IMC is below the freezing level. That is known icing. Like the others have said though, it may be an insurance issue, not too sure.

Jason · April 5th, 2005, 14:35

I think that you mean if the IMC is ABOVE the freezing level. If you're in IMC BELOW the freezing level you shouldn't get any icing as the temperature should be warmer below the freezing level.

Jason

JEP · April 5th, 2005, 19:35

[ QUOTE ]
I think that you mean if the IMC is ABOVE the freezing level. If you're in IMC BELOW the freezing level you shouldn't get any icing as the temperature should be warmer below the freezing level.

Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, that's it. See what I get for posting when I should be sleeping (work nights). You get the picture though!

April 4th, 2005, 17:43	#1
Acadia Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: BHB - Maine Posts: 2,956	Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 Just got a call from a friend who oversees a 172 for a flying club. He had just found out that a member took the aircraft on a long cross-country (IFR) today with IMC along the entire route. Freezing levels were also below any MEA for the entire route and there of course was an airmet for ice (light to moderate rime) for the entire area. On top of that the pilot is a very low time private with the ink still drying on the instrument ticket. He was working on new rules for the club to prevent such stupidity in the future. He also wanted to know if the pilot broke any FAR’s. I could not think of any rule under part 91 that the pilot would have broken. Am I correct or did I forget something? Also do the conditions above constitute known icing? Obviously the aircraft itself is not approved for known icing so is there a FAR bust connected to that in some way. Sorry my FAR knowledge has gotten a bit rusty so I thought I would ask everyone.

April 4th, 2005, 17:46	#2
Ralgha Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fresno, CA Posts: 918	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 Yeah he broke some rules because it has been officially ruled that AIRMETs constitute "known icing".

April 4th, 2005, 17:56	#3
Acadia Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: BHB - Maine Posts: 2,956	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 The airmet looked pretty grim for a 172... OCNL MOD RIME/MXD ICGICIP BTN FRZLVL AND 120. FRZLVL SFC-040.

April 4th, 2005, 18:05	#4
cimepilot Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 231	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 Since when does an AIRMET constitute known icing? I fly known icing certified equipment so it doesn't much matter to me, but there have been several occasions that I have been in an AIRMET area and never picked up even trace icing.

April 4th, 2005, 18:31	#5
Acadia Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: BHB - Maine Posts: 2,956	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 Found this link on the subject though I dont know how good a source it is. Avweb Site

April 4th, 2005, 18:51	#6
Ophir Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: was Ophir, CO, now in SLC! Posts: 1,481	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 The only known icing that I am aware of is in a PIREP. But, that can exist one minute and not be there the next. There is a big difference between a plane that is certified for known icing, which is something that is covered in Parts 121 and 135 ops, and a plane flown under Part 91 that is not covered under the turbine or large multi-engine rule. (91.5?? I think) The biggest limitation you should be looking at is that the POH for a 172 says that the aircraft is not certified into known icing. But then again, you have to define "known".

April 4th, 2005, 19:18	#7
kellwolf Old Skool Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 13,831	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 Not sure if it's a FAR violation or not, but the 172 POH specifically says "not cetified to fly in known icing conditions." Now, the big question is what is "known icing." AIRMETs are forecasted icing, not necessarily known icing. Would I fly into an area with an AIRMET in a 172? Not really, but those are my personal miniumums. I've got a wife and a kid, so I don't want to put myself in a potentially bad situation. PIREPs are about as close as you can get, but as was mentioned earlier, that could dissipate quickly. In all honesty, the known icing has more to do with insurance and laying blame than FARs.

April 4th, 2005, 19:36	#8
stuckingfk Old Skool Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: El Forko Grande Posts: 2,601	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 [ QUOTE ] Since when does an AIRMET constitute known icing? I fly known icing certified equipment so it doesn't much matter to me, but there have been several occasions that I have been in an AIRMET area and never picked up even trace icing. [/ QUOTE ] It would be nice if the FAA came out depicting what is known icing and what isn't. I know if there is an AIRMET out for a particular are, that is considered flying in known icing if you are in clouds or precipiation.

April 4th, 2005, 19:45	#9
Acadia Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: BHB - Maine Posts: 2,956	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 The article from the link above refers to FAA findings where forecast icing conditions were considered known icing even when pireps contradicted the forecast. With that 91.9(a) is also cited as the rule you would be breaking flying non-icing certified aircraft into known icing. Not something I would normally even think about since I wont fly anywhere close to the clouds in a non-ice aircraft if there is even a remote chance of ice. This kid will probably show up in an NTSB report sooner or later.

April 4th, 2005, 23:13	#10
Icelandair Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: North Dakota, USA Posts: 247	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 Look at the rulings for NTSB cases and it has been consistantly ruled that an AIRMET constitutes known icing, even if PIREPS say negative icing. The FAR's may not define it but the courts have.

April 4th, 2005, 23:38	#11
kellwolf Old Skool Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 13,831	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 [ QUOTE ] The FAR's may not define it but the courts have. [/ QUOTE ] Yep. It's all about blame and insurance claims. Then again, the courts have repeatedly placed blame on manufacturers for stupid pilot tricks, too.

April 5th, 2005, 00:53	#12
tonyw Old Skool Join Date: May 2002 Location: Maryland Posts: 15,593	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 I don't know if it's illegal or not, but it's pretty bleeping stupid! I'm on a bleeping rant tonight. Sorry, but there is no way I'd pass the bottle to throttle test right about now and I'm on a bleeping rant about bleeping stupid things!

April 5th, 2005, 01:26	#13
kellwolf Old Skool Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 13,831	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 Oh, man. I hope Tony goes over to Arguepolitics tonight. It could be fun to watch.

April 5th, 2005, 09:29	#14
Jason Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,007	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 The FAA will never define what known icing is - it's virtually impossible to define. You can make statements that are generally true such as "Visible moisture and temps freezing and below" but there are many more factors that go into it than that - cloud density, aircraft speed, airfoil design, etc. Jason

April 5th, 2005, 09:40	#15
JEP Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Eden Prairie, MN (KFCM) (KMSP) Posts: 10,863 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 From everything I have heard and been taught, if there is an Airmet for icing and the IMC is below the freezing level. That is known icing. Like the others have said though, it may be an insurance issue, not too sure.

April 5th, 2005, 14:35	#16
Jason Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,007	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 I think that you mean if the IMC is ABOVE the freezing level. If you're in IMC BELOW the freezing level you shouldn't get any icing as the temperature should be warmer below the freezing level. Jason

April 5th, 2005, 19:35	#17
JEP Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Eden Prairie, MN (KFCM) (KMSP) Posts: 10,863 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Flight into icing conditions and Part 91 [ QUOTE ] I think that you mean if the IMC is ABOVE the freezing level. If you're in IMC BELOW the freezing level you shouldn't get any icing as the temperature should be warmer below the freezing level. Jason [/ QUOTE ] Yea, that's it. See what I get for posting when I should be sleeping (work nights). You get the picture though!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode