Visual Separation between departures
11-23-2008, 06:42 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,238
The issue wasn't accreting ice.
The issue was complying with the MEL.
"Do not operate aircraft in known or forecast icing conditions."
Doesn't say "fly along until you get in icing conditions, then climb/descend/turn to get back out of them."
The issue was complying with the MEL.
"Do not operate aircraft in known or forecast icing conditions."
Doesn't say "fly along until you get in icing conditions, then climb/descend/turn to get back out of them."
11-23-2008, 10:15 AM
#62
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
Agreed, I just don't think that high cirrus clouds constitute "known icing" nor would I expect to get any. Lower, slower, cumulous clouds, yes...but not cruising through cirrus at FL XXX at .82 to .84.
11-23-2008, 12:37 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
"straight from the FAA legal counsel: "Reduced to basic terms, 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. Another factor to consider, as a practical matter, is the temperature of the aircraft exterior. When the air temperature is close to but above freezing, any part of an aircraft exterior that is below freezing may cause water droplets to freeze and ice to accumulate. When the air temperature is below freezing, any part of an aircraft exterior that is above freezing (e.g., engine cowling) may cause snow or ice crystals to melt, refreeze, and further accumulate as ice. The Federal Aviation Regulations do not allow for experimentation. Flight into known
icing conditions when the airplane flight manual or pilot operating handbook prohibits such flight would constitute a violation whether the aircraft accretes ice or not."
11-23-2008, 12:56 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 777 Capt
Posts: 403
As ticky-tack as this interpretation historically has been, recently the FAA published their interpretation as to "what is known icing". Here it is for all to heed. When the FED's put it in black and white, you would be best served to comply......
"straight from the FAA legal counsel: "Reduced to basic terms, 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. Another factor to consider, as a practical matter, is the temperature of the aircraft exterior. When the air temperature is close to but above freezing, any part of an aircraft exterior that is below freezing may cause water droplets to freeze and ice to accumulate. When the air temperature is below freezing, any part of an aircraft exterior that is above freezing (e.g., engine cowling) may cause snow or ice crystals to melt, refreeze, and further accumulate as ice. The Federal Aviation Regulations do not allow for experimentation. Flight into known
icing conditions when the airplane flight manual or pilot operating handbook prohibits such flight would constitute a violation whether the aircraft accretes ice or not."
"straight from the FAA legal counsel: "Reduced to basic terms, 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. Another factor to consider, as a practical matter, is the temperature of the aircraft exterior. When the air temperature is close to but above freezing, any part of an aircraft exterior that is below freezing may cause water droplets to freeze and ice to accumulate. When the air temperature is below freezing, any part of an aircraft exterior that is above freezing (e.g., engine cowling) may cause snow or ice crystals to melt, refreeze, and further accumulate as ice. The Federal Aviation Regulations do not allow for experimentation. Flight into known
icing conditions when the airplane flight manual or pilot operating handbook prohibits such flight would constitute a violation whether the aircraft accretes ice or not."
11-23-2008, 12:58 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
You can download the FAA's legal interpretation at this weblink, look toward the bottom of the page where the article gives you an option to download the PDF file from the FED's.
Known Icing Conditions
11-23-2008, 01:01 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
You can download the FAA's legal interpretation at this weblink, look toward the bottom of the page where the article gives you an option to download the PDF file from the FED's.
Known Icing Conditions
Known Icing Conditions
Icing Update
11-23-2008, 01:05 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
And more fodder for consideration.....
"The ultimate decision whether, when, and where to make the flight rests with the pilot. A pilot also must continue to reevaluate changing weather conditions. If the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will encounter visible moisture at freezing or near freezing temperatures and that ice will adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist. If the AFM prohibits flight in known icing conditions and the pilot operates in such conditions, the FAA could take enforcement action."
Read the full article at
AOPA Online: FAA seeks pilot input on definition of 'known icing'
"The ultimate decision whether, when, and where to make the flight rests with the pilot. A pilot also must continue to reevaluate changing weather conditions. If the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will encounter visible moisture at freezing or near freezing temperatures and that ice will adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist. If the AFM prohibits flight in known icing conditions and the pilot operates in such conditions, the FAA could take enforcement action."
Read the full article at
AOPA Online: FAA seeks pilot input on definition of 'known icing'
11-23-2008, 01:11 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
[quote=990Convair;504752]And more fodder for consideration.....
On a roll here with this....man, it looks like the smart decision would be to stay at the hotel and drink some beer.....
In explaining their definition of known ice, Loretta E. Alkalay, FAA Regional Counsel, referenced Administrator v. Curtis, NTSB Order No. EA-5154 (April 29, 2005). Here, the court ruled that conditions conducive to icing exists whenever near- or below-freezing temperatures and moisture exist together in a given area. It didn't matter that there were no reports or forecasts of icing conditions at any altitude anywhere near the route of flight.
The Regional Counsel's office also referenced Administrator v. Groszer, NTSB Order No. EA-3770 (January 5, 1993), which ruled that the threat of ice need not cover the entire area at all altitudes for the threat to be known or dangerous. In short, the FAA defines known ice as any visible moisture (cloud or limiting visibility due to moisture) with temperatures at or near freezing. If you go there in a non-known-ice-certified aircraft, you are in violation. Period.
The Regional Counsel's letter to me clarified the definition of known ice. You cannot legally fly a non-known-ice-certified airplane into any cloud near or below zero degrees C or you are in violation. If the FAA learns, either by direct observation or via a filed complaint, that a non-known-ice-certified aircraft entered a freezing cloud, it will initiate the EDT process and an enforcement may, or may not, result.
http://www.ifr-magazine.com/defining...n_faa_ifr.html
---------------------------------------
Pilots should also remain aware that 14 CFR Sec. 91.13(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft for the purpose of air navigation in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life
or property of another. Meteorological information that does not evidence known icing conditions, or the extent thereof, may regardless support a finding that a pilot's operation under the circumstances was careless.
This response constitutes an interpretation of the Chief Counsel's Office and was coordinated with the FAA's Flight Standards Service.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2007.
Rebecca MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 07-1620 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...07/07-1620.htm
On a roll here with this....man, it looks like the smart decision would be to stay at the hotel and drink some beer.....
In explaining their definition of known ice, Loretta E. Alkalay, FAA Regional Counsel, referenced Administrator v. Curtis, NTSB Order No. EA-5154 (April 29, 2005). Here, the court ruled that conditions conducive to icing exists whenever near- or below-freezing temperatures and moisture exist together in a given area. It didn't matter that there were no reports or forecasts of icing conditions at any altitude anywhere near the route of flight.
The Regional Counsel's office also referenced Administrator v. Groszer, NTSB Order No. EA-3770 (January 5, 1993), which ruled that the threat of ice need not cover the entire area at all altitudes for the threat to be known or dangerous. In short, the FAA defines known ice as any visible moisture (cloud or limiting visibility due to moisture) with temperatures at or near freezing. If you go there in a non-known-ice-certified aircraft, you are in violation. Period.
The Regional Counsel's letter to me clarified the definition of known ice. You cannot legally fly a non-known-ice-certified airplane into any cloud near or below zero degrees C or you are in violation. If the FAA learns, either by direct observation or via a filed complaint, that a non-known-ice-certified aircraft entered a freezing cloud, it will initiate the EDT process and an enforcement may, or may not, result.
http://www.ifr-magazine.com/defining...n_faa_ifr.html
---------------------------------------
Pilots should also remain aware that 14 CFR Sec. 91.13(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft for the purpose of air navigation in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life
or property of another. Meteorological information that does not evidence known icing conditions, or the extent thereof, may regardless support a finding that a pilot's operation under the circumstances was careless.
This response constitutes an interpretation of the Chief Counsel's Office and was coordinated with the FAA's Flight Standards Service.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2007.
Rebecca MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 07-1620 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...07/07-1620.htm
11-27-2008, 07:04 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: MD11 Kitchen Bi*ch
Posts: 263
The key here is that the response was inappropriately worded. "Negative" would have had the same effect for the controller. No need to be confrontational, even if you are on your 25th straight night of MEM hub turns with layovers at the Motel 6 in Podunk, MT. Not to disparage the Motel 6 there, but you get the drift....
