Ice.

[phillipsaucer]

Question.

How do you know if there is known icing?? Can you get it off a GFA or PIREPS or all of the above?? Dose the graphic depict known ice, or is that only considered forecast?? I have been led to believe that known icing conditions exist when visible moisture or high relative humidity combines with temperatures near or below freezing. Since clouds are a form of visible moisture, flying through clouds at an altitude that is near or below freezing would constitute flight into known icing conditions. So from all of the weather products that we have, do you have to interpret between all of them in order to avoid a take off into a 'potential ice situation' or is there a more definitive way to determine what and where 'known ice' may occure??

Where would Transport look to determine if you were in violation of flying into known ice?? I have tried to find something in CARS that relates to definition of known ice, but haven't come up with anything. I have also spoken with a few pilots too, and there seems to be varied opinions of where known ice conditions are found and what would actually stop an IFR flight from departing if the aircraft wasn't certified.

[ash]

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090126icing.pdf

[Cat Driver]

Where would Transport look to determine if you were in violation of flying into known ice??

If you were to fly into icing conditions in an airplane not equipped for flight into icing what Transport thinks will be your last worry.

Flying is more than worrying what the rules say and something as simple to figure out as where and when icing can be encountered is really not rocket science.

[TopperHarley]

The way it's defined in most manuals I believe is visible moisture with a TAT (total air temp) of +10, down to -40C.

[Liquid Charlie]

Where would Transport look to determine if you were in violation of flying into known ice??

During the accident investigation

Flying is more than worrying what the rules say

Exactly

[Dagwood]

Duplicate thread?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=62908
sigh...

The way it was explained to me...

If common sense says "ICE", don't go. (Temp <0, visible moisture, ect.)
If ice is forecast, don't go.
If ice is not forecast, but PIREPS indicate ice, don't go.

If ice is forecast, but PIREPs indicate no ice, it's legal to go, but may not be safe. (Be careful on this. Trace Ice to an A340 may be severe ice to a seminole.)

Plan ahead and have an out, if any doubt, don't go. As always, fly at your own risk.

[phillipsaucer]

I am well aware of how to avoid ice, if it sounded like I wasn't sure how to check weather, that was not my point here. I agree with Cat Driver, I am not however, flying planes into clouds without ice protection. I am wondering where it states in the CAR's (or elsewhere) what the definition of 'known ice' is and where they are expecting pilots to find it. I know how I would do stay clear in an unapproved A/C, but I have been trying to find something written, and I am finding it surprisingly difficult. The post from Ash was pretty informative, but it is the US regulations. Im trying to find Canada's take on the same subject.

[2R]

http://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/courses.html
enjoy

WARNING !!
You might learn something ,even if you are resistant to that sort of thing

[oldncold]

must be a ornge medic looking to work even less

[x-wind]

Cat made the important point but:

De-icing or Anti-icing Equipment

605.30 No person shall conduct a take-off or continue a flight in an aircraft where icing conditions are reported to exist or are forecast to be encountered along the route of flight unless

(a) the pilot-in-command determines that the aircraft is adequately equipped to operate in icing conditions in accordance with the standards of airworthiness under which the type certificate for that aircraft was issued; or

(b) current weather reports or pilot reports indicate that icing conditions no longer exist.

[linecrew]

A couple of months ago I watched as a Twin Comanche without any visible boots (from where I was watching at least) blasted off VFR into some freezing drizzle and low cloud. I decided to have a look at the METAR and sure enough it was known icing conditions (-FZDZ) on the hour and then the next hour's METAR said the same thing.

I'm pretty sure that TC would be able to go after them for going in known icing if they did in fact not have any means to shed the ice.

[scopiton]

A couple of months ago I watched as a Twin Comanche without any visible boots (from where I was watching at least) blasted off VFR into some freezing drizzle and low cloud. I decided to have a look at the METAR and sure enough it was known icing conditions (-FZDZ) on the hour and then the next hour's METAR said the same thing.

I'm pretty sure that TC would be able to go after them for going in known icing if they did in fact not have any means to shed the ice.

where was that ?

[GoinNowhereFast]

I'd be more worried about Darwin finding them.

[Hornblower]

You mean God ... because Darwin is known for finding those that adapted through evolution and survived.

[Strega]

If you are IFR in an aircraft that is not deiced,, and you encounter icing and you can not be assured of when you will exit the icing conditions,,, TURN AROUND!

[Dust Devil]

I'm pretty sure that TC would be able to go after them for going in known icing if they did in fact not have any means to shed the ice.

Not unless they could prove they encountered ice.

[linecrew]

I'm pretty sure that TC would be able to go after them for going in known icing if they did in fact not have any means to shed the ice.

Not unless they could prove they encountered ice.

Cold metal + freezing drizzle I guess would be the proof but I don't know how TC works. I'm sure they would pass judgment based on the proven environmental conditions that existed at the time...but again this is just my guess. It's kinda like busting someone for breaking minimums in IMC. How can you prove that the pilot didn't actually have the runway in sight at, and not below, minimums? (Assuming they landed safely).

[x-wind]

No comments on the regulation I posted?

[phillipsaucer]

De-icing or Anti-icing Equipment

605.30 No person shall conduct a take-off or continue a flight in an aircraft where icing conditions are reported to exist or are forecast to be encountered along the route of flight unless

(a) the pilot-in-command determines that the aircraft is adequately equipped to operate in icing conditions in accordance with the standards of airworthiness under which the type certificate for that aircraft was issued; or

(b) current weather reports or pilot reports indicate that icing conditions no longer exist.

That is exactly what I was looking for. I heard a couple of pilots say that 'Forcasts' had no bearing on the legality of flying into known ice, and I didnt believe it. I know common sense would dictate otherwise, but I just wanted to see it in the regs. Thanks X-wind.

[Stevo226]

The way it's defined in most manuals I believe is visible moisture with a TAT (total air temp) of +10, down to -40C.

So by that theory, you can't file IFR all winter long? (unless it's VMC)

[Darkwing Duck]

The way it's defined in most manuals I believe is visible moisture with a TAT (total air temp) of +10, down to -40C.

So by that theory, you can't file IFR all winter long? (unless it's VMC)

Visible moisture is the key word here. You can have freezing temps with not a cloud in the sky. Regardless if it is VFR conditions, why can't you still file IFR? Not picking up what you are throwing down.

[Stevo226]

In the winter, with the temperatures being below freezing most days, can you file IFR and bomb around in and out of clouds as it is visible moisture.

Or can you only fly IFR in winter if it's SKC?

[turbo-prop]

got posted under wrong title somehow.