Known Icing In GA Survey

[spatsch]

So I was just filling out the GA survey for my RV and they asked me if flight in known icing was prohibited. First I thought it surely must be as I have no de icing equipment whatsoever and it would be really stupid to fly into known icing condition.

However, when I said yes to the question it asked me if it was prohibited by poh, placard or both. Now As I wrote the poh and the placards I didn't think about explicitly prohibiting it.

So does that mean you can legally fly into known icing condition without any de icing equipment in your RV?

[ERushing]

It definitely does not. Regs prohibit flying into known icing conditions or icing conditions forecast above trace unless the airplane is equipped for it. I was recently told by an FAA Examiner that the Cessna 310's that were equipped for FIKI have now been had that approval revoked. I was told a harrowing story about how the examiner flew a Cessna 310 into un-forecasted icing conditions, used the equipment correctly and and still barely survived. Landed successfully (barely) at a nearby Airforce base just a few miles from the departure airport.

From Advisory Circular 91-51A:
For an airplane to be approved for flight into icing conditions, the airplane must be equipped with systems which will adequately protect various components. There are two regulatory references to ice protection: the application to airplane type certification in 14 CFR parts 23 and 25 and the operating rules contained in 14 CFR parts 91 and 135.

If you want to equip your wings and tailplane with boots or your airplane with "weeping wings", you'd probably have a lot of build log readers!!

[spatsch]

Originally Posted by ERushing

It definitely does not. Regs prohibit flying into known icing conditions or icing conditions forecast above trace unless the airplane is equipped for it. I was recently told by an FAA Examiner that the Cessna 310's that were equipped for FIKI have now been had that approval revoked. I was told a harrowing story about how the examiner flew a Cessna 310 into un-forecasted icing conditions, used the equipment correctly and and still barely survived. Landed successfully (barely) at a nearby Airforce base just a few miles from the departure airport.

From Advisory Circular 91-51A:
For an airplane to be approved for flight into icing conditions, the airplane must be equipped with systems which will adequately protect various components. There are two regulatory references to ice protection: the application to airplane type certification in 14 CFR parts 23 and 25 and the operating rules contained in 14 CFR parts 91 and 135.

If you want to equip your wings and tailplane with boots or your airplane with "weeping wings", you'd probably have a lot of build log readers!!

Hm as far as I can tell none of this applies to me. The type certification clearly does not apply as my RV is not type certified. I am not operating under part 135 and with my experimental cert couldn't if I wanted to. The only part 91 rule I could find is in subpart F which is for large turbine and multi engine aircraft so again does not apply to my RV.... .

Now most cert airplanes I have seen have a POH entry dealing with this which I don't .... . So a Cessna 310 is an entirely different problem... .

[BobTurner]

There is no Part 91 reg (for small non turbojet aircraft) forbidding operating in known icing. Instead, the FAA has handled it indirectly by requiring type certified aircraft built since (1965?? sometime ago) to have an explicit placard (older) or POH (newer) either allowing it or forbidding it. For the latter, pilots entering known ice can be charged with violating their operating limitations. So the question really wanted to know if you have a newer (POH) plane, an older (placard) plane, or an even older plane (no explicit known ice statement). The survey did not consider EAB most likely.
Regardless of the lack of explicit prohibition, the FAA can always pull out the 'careless and reckless' card.

[Charles in SC]

I know that this discussion is about the law and regs and such but I just thought that I might add that "known icing conditions" can mean a lot of things. Ice comes in many varying degrees so just because you think you are legal and your plane is equipped it does not mean you should go off riding in the ice. A heated pitot might be enough to handle some situations but not many. Have you thought how you would defrost the windshield in your RV for landing?

[spatsch]

Originally Posted by Charles in SC

I know that this discussion is about the law and regs and such but I just thought that I might add that "known icing conditions" can mean a lot of things. Ice comes in many varying degrees so just because you think you are legal and your plane is equipped it does not mean you should go off riding in the ice. A heated pitot might be enough to handle some situations but not many. Have you thought how you would defrost the windshield in your RV for landing?

No as I don't intent to fly into known icing just wanted to make sure I fill in the GA survey correctly so now I selected that flight into known icing is allowed and then when they gave me a list of de icing equipment I marked not installed for all of them.... . Maybe I am taking that survey to serious.... .

[John RV8]

I have always understood that "known ice" is an geographic area where actual Icing has been reported as having accumulated on an aircraft by a pilot/flight crew member. This should not be confused with "icing conditions" which are weather conditions that are favorable for ice to develop/accrue on the aircraft. Icing conditions are considered by most big aircraft operators as "TAT of +10 degrees C (50f) or colder with visible moisture present" OAT (vs TAT) is likely fine in an RV as fast as they are it will not cause much of a temperature difference due to RAM rise.


I did put a statement in my POH that flight into "know icing" is PROHIBITED

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by John RV8

I have always understood that "known ice" is an geographic area where actual Icing has been reported as having accumulated on an aircraft by a pilot/flight crew member. This should not be confused with "icing conditions" which are weather conditions that are favorable for ice to develop/accrue on the aircraft. Icing conditions are considered by most big aircraft operators as "TAT of +10 degrees C (50f) with visible moisture present" OAT (vs TAT) is likely fine in an RV as fast as they are it will not cause much of a temperature difference due to RAM rise.


I did put a statement in my POH that flight into "know icing" is PROHIBITED

This is way too logical. (!) In fact the NTSB - which acts as judge and jury if one appeals an FAA enforcement action - has ruled that 'known icing' means the pilot should have known that it was there, based on forecasts!!

+10 C seems a bit conservative to me. Where and how can there be a 10 C drop along an RV airframe?

[BobTurner]

I just finished the same survey. I marked 'no prohibition', then 'pitot heat'.
Kind of fun:
Flight director - 2
HSI - 2
moving map - 3
They probably think I own a Gulfstream!

[John RV8]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

This is way too logical. (!) In fact the NTSB - which acts as judge and jury if one appeals an FAA enforcement action - has ruled that 'known icing' means the pilot should have known that it was there, based on forecasts!!

+10 C seems a bit conservative to me. Where and how can there be a 10 C drop along an RV airframe?

I should have said +10C OR COLDER in my first post. (I edited my original post)

+10 May seem conservative, but I mentioned this is from operators of Large airplanes, and Jet engines suck in a LOT of air which creates a large pressure/temperature drop at the intake and could cause icing on the engine inlets in those conditions.

It would likey need to be a little cooler to get ICE elsewhere on the airframe