Another go/no go thread

Aztec Driver

Aztec Driver

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
982
Location
Elizabethtown, PA
Display Name
Display name:
Bryon
Scenario:
Approximately 4 hour flight, taking into account expected headwinds.
Overcast layer at departure, starting at around 1500-2000 feet agl.
Overcast layer stretches for about half of the trip.
Overcast lay stretches past mountain ranges, precluding scud running.
Weather at destination is clear.
Temps right at or just below freezing at 3000 and above.
Pilot reports of trace to light rime ice from 4000-6000 feet.
Tops are reported just above 6000.
Tops expected to be around 6000 throughout the overcast layer.
Non de-iced light twin.
4.75 hours fuel capacity.
Temp on the ground just above freezing.

What are your thoughts?
 
You're looking at climbing through an ice layer for about 2-3000 ft (naturally aspirated, I'm guessing) and landing with minimum fuel assuming winds aren't worse than forecast, and that you didn't pick up some ice which you now can't shed.

Probably survivable, but not a great idea.
 
Your dick is bigger than mine, but I'd still drive. Leave that flight for another day.
 
Fuel reserves too tight. I see the plane is a non FIKI light twin. Turbo? Pirep of light ice. I do not think it would be legal. But, in the real world, if it was a turbo, and I was lightly loaded and the pirep was from a small aircraft rather than a 747 I might think about it WITH additional fuel.
 
Last edited:
Well, there is something about flight into known ice in an airplane not equipped to handle ice.
You did not say how close to destination before it goes VFR.
If I did climb up through the ice to on top, I'd still have a refuel stop alternate in my hip pocket.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You're looking at climbing through an ice layer for about 2-3000 ft (naturally aspirated, I'm guessing) and landing with minimum fuel assuming winds aren't worse than forecast, and that you didn't pick up some ice which you now can't shed.

Probably survivable, but not a great idea.
Click to expand...

With temps above freezing on the surface, you should shed the ice if encountered.
 
ronnieh said:
Fuel reserves too tight. I see the plane is a non FIKI light twin. Turbo? Pirep of light ice. I do not think it would be legal. But, in the real world, if it was a turbo, and I was lightly loaded and the pirep was from a small aircraft rather than a 747 I might think about it WITH additional fuel.
Click to expand...
Fuel reserves are always tight for this trip. Just have to have fuel alternates along the way in case of unforecast winds. Preps were all small aircraft at low altitude cruise around fifty or so miles from departure, some of which were definitely non de-iced. Non turbo non de-iced twin.
 
BillTIZ said:
Well, there is something about flight into known ice in an airplane not equipped to handle ice.
You did not say how close to destination before it goes VFR.
If I did climb up through the ice to on top, I'd still have a refuel stop alternate in my hip pocket.
Click to expand...

VFR weather starts about halfway through the trip, with available fuel alternates starting there and continuing throughout the trip.
 
In that case no. I do not do trips with 45 minute fuel reserve. Does not matter about the weather.
 
Or adjust your fuel load/legs so as to have adaquate reserves.
 
I wouldn't even think about VFR on a trip like this. I never fly with less than one hour fuel reserve and never into known icing. And here in Texas I never fly across a dry line, you just never know when or where it will break down but that's another tale. The bottom line for me is never challenge the weather, ever. Enjoy the drive. Stay off the Interstates, stick to US highways, see some hidden gems of our vast country and meet some interesting people.
 
Aztec Driver said:
Showed temps below freezing between from 4000 up and tops at around 6000.
Click to expand...
I'm concerned about getting to altitude prior to getting to mountains, but if you're 35F at the bases I'd likely go....but I need to see the slope of the merged red/blue lines on the Skew T. It's a good hint as to whether you'll get more than light rime. I'd pick a site just east of the mountains so you can get the orographic factors too.
 
bbchien said:
I'm concerned about getting to altitude prior to getting to mountains, but if you're 35F at the bases I'd likely go....but I need to see the slope of the merged red/blue lines on the Skew T. It's a good hint as to whether you'll get more than light rime. I'd pick a site just east of the mountains so you can get the orographic factors too.
Click to expand...

Long distance until mountains.

I'll give you my thoughts.
Since the temps were above freezing at the surface, the cloud deck was not forecast to be higher than 6000 tops, the pireps were showing tops at 6000, the pireps showed no more than trace to light icing, and the fact that I wouldn't need an instrument approach to come back to land, I decided to launch and see how it played out. In the climb, I encountered just a trace of rime at the corner of the windscreen, nothing anywhere else. Popped out in the clear and climbed to 8000. Winds were still stiff, But I did land with 45 minute reserves.
 
ronnieh said:
In that case no. I do not do trips with 45 minute fuel reserve. Does not matter about the weather.
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm all for safety, but I've been in aircraft that for loading purposes, I couldn't have 45 minutes of fuel reserve on top of 30 minutes for flying.
 
Wait 'til Spring. What's your hurry?
Remember, you really don't HAVE to be anywhere.
 
Aztec Driver said:
Scenario:
Approximately 4 hour flight, taking into account expected headwinds.
Overcast layer at departure, starting at around 1500-2000 feet agl.
Overcast layer stretches for about half of the trip.
Overcast lay stretches past mountain ranges, precluding scud running.
Weather at destination is clear.
Temps right at or just below freezing at 3000 and above.
Pilot reports of trace to light rime ice from 4000-6000 feet.
Tops are reported just above 6000.
Tops expected to be around 6000 throughout the overcast layer.
Non de-iced light twin.
4.75 hours fuel capacity.
Temp on the ground just above freezing.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

a go on this flight would be both illegal and dumb
 
Aztec Driver said:
VFR weather starts about halfway through the trip, with available fuel alternates starting there and continuing throughout the trip.
Click to expand...

That made a questionable trip a 'go' in my mind.... Glad you completed it safely..:yesnod::yesnod::)

Ben.
 
dell30rb said:
Illegal because of the trace pirep of ice?

Why don't you elaborate.

Was there an airmet for icing?
Click to expand...

a trace of ice is still known ice

there does not have to be a airmet
 
Last edited:
Aztec Driver said:
With temps above freezing on the surface, you should shed the ice if encountered.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my point was that you're above the clouds in cruise with ice, which is slowing down your cruise. I didn't mean you'd be landing with ice.
 
dell30rb said:
Illegal because of the trace pirep of ice?

Why don't you elaborate.

Was there an airmet for icing?
Click to expand...

a better explanation

"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.

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."


http://www.ifr-magazine.com/defining_known_ice_certification_faa_ifr.html
 
dennyleeb said:
a better explanation

"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.

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."


http://www.ifr-magazine.com/defining_known_ice_certification_faa_ifr.html
Click to expand...

Altho your comments are accurate and the legal standing is sound the concept that article covers uses a VERY broad brush to paint it as a icing issue. Whether it exists or not, the simple release of a airmat covers their a$$ in case something does happen.. On the flip side, if no ice is created, or reported ,IFR flights by planes not allowed into a projected icing area will deter alot of possible safe flights through that area just by the Airmet of possible icing forecast. On a very similar topic, out here in the rockies if one calls for a briefing it is 90% assured you will hear " VFR flight not recommended" because of mountian obscuration, by any cloud this side of the Mississippi :yesnod::yesnod:.... Sometimes a PIC has to take ALL information they can gather and make an intelligent decision on the safety of any given flight. The vast majority on the time it all works out.. On those very very few events where is turns out bad the NTSB / FAA will get to say.... Pilot error... IMHO.

Ben.
 
N801BH said:
Altho your comments are accurate and the legal standing is sound the concept that article covers uses a VERY broad brush to paint it as a icing issue. Whether it exists or not, the simple release of a airmat covers their a$$ in case something does happen.. On the flip side, if no ice is created, or reported ,IFR flights by planes not allowed into a projected icing area will deter alot of possible safe flights through that area just by the Airmet of possible icing forecast. On a very similar topic, out here in the rockies if one calls for a briefing it is 90% assured you will hear " VFR flight not recommended" because of mountian obscuration, by any cloud this side of the Mississippi :yesnod::yesnod:.... Sometimes a PIC has to take ALL information they can gather and make an intelligent decision on the safety of any given flight. The vast majority on the time it all works out.. On those very very few events where is turns out bad the NTSB / FAA will get to say.... Pilot error... IMHO.

Ben.
Click to expand...

fair enough
 
Vfr not recommended is overused IMO. It's like issuing tornado warnings willy nilly and having the public become desensitized.
 
Denny, more important that the letter of the Icing interpretation is the fact that so long as a pilot has a demonstrably good plan for avoidance, and promptly executes it (as in, surface is well above freezing) and gets the heck out, enforcement will not occur.

The key is getting pilots to not fool themselves with "i'll just climb out on top". That is the final plan of numerous heaps of aluminum investigated on a clear day....as in the TBM 700 that crashed at MMU Xmas week.

BTW the Alkalay letter has been withdrawn and replaced with a MUCH more reasonable essay. BTW, we owe the Alkalay letter to to a particular very visible CFI who thinks he is smarter than the FAA. Robert, thank you so little for the miserable winter of 2005 we had, when we had to deal with it.

Ask Ron Levy for it.....the reconsideration was requested by AOPA.
 
Last edited:
Aztec Driver said:
Scenario:
Approximately 4 hour flight, taking into account expected headwinds.
Overcast layer at departure, starting at around 1500-2000 feet agl.
Overcast layer stretches for about half of the trip.
Overcast lay stretches past mountain ranges, precluding scud running.
Weather at destination is clear.
Temps right at or just below freezing at 3000 and above.
Pilot reports of trace to light rime ice from 4000-6000 feet.
Tops are reported just above 6000.
Tops expected to be around 6000 throughout the overcast layer.
Non de-iced light twin.
4.75 hours fuel capacity.
Temp on the ground just above freezing.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Edit: Nevermind, the answer to my question is in the OP
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Denny, more important that the letter of the Icing interpretation is the fact that so long as a pilot has a demonstrably good plan for avoidance, and promptly executes it (as in, surface is well above freezing) and gets the heck out, enforcement will not occur.

The key is getting pilots to not fool themselves with "i'll just climb out on top". That is the final plan of numerous heaps of aluminum investigated on a clear day....as in the TBM 700 that crashed at MMU Xmas week.

BTW the Alkalay letter has been withdrawn and replaced with a MUCH more reasonable essay. BTW, we owe the Alkalay letter to to a particular very visible CFI who thinks he is smarter than the FAA. Robert, thank you so little for the miserable winter of 2005 we had, when we had to deal with it.

Ask Ron Levy for it.....the reconsideration was requested by AOPA.
Click to expand...

my point was that if he took this trip it was flight into know ice (pirep) with a non-equipped plane, that is illegal....... and not very smart imho.. (as his plan was to climb out, which like you said is not the best plan)
 
dennyleeb said:
my point was that if he took this trip it was flight into know ice (pirep) with a non-equipped plane, that is illegal....... and not very smart imho.. (as his plan was to climb out, which like you said is not the best plan)
Click to expand...
Guessed you missed the part about being able to descend below 3000 and get out of it. The potential layer was from 3000 to 6000, with the possibility of flying below or above. His plan was to depart and get through the clouds immediately, I'm guessing if he picked up more than a trace of ice his plan was to descend below and RTB
 
dell30rb said:
Guessed you missed the part about being able to descend below 3000 and get out of it. The potential layer was from 3000 to 6000, with the possibility of flying below or above. His plan was to depart and get through the clouds immediately, I'm guessing if he picked up more than a trace of ice his plan was to descend below and RTB
Click to expand...

I guess you did not read where he said this
"Overcast lay stretches past mountain ranges, precluding scud running"

still illegal any way you look at it
 
Bruce, I assume you mean the guy near or at Buffalo, NY. If so yes that was kind of a mess. I would be interested if someone would point out the specific changes the new essay brought. Like Denny at this point I believe the flight was technically illegal.
However, the part that bothered me was the fuel reserves. It appeared to meet the legal requirement. The OP original scenerio said about 4 hours, climb through known ice, and the hope he could fly the trip in 4 hours. Fuel exhaustion is a major factor in far too many small plane accidents. I for one do not see how fuel exhaustion could ever be a reason for an incident with the possible exception of a major breach in the fuel system. Why would a person plan a problem into a flight? True story: On the way to Bismark SD in a PA31. I had a planned fuel stop. I was number two to land at a small uncontrolled airport (weather CAVU). Severe cross wind to the only runway. The #1 plane crashed on landing, closing the runway. In this case there was a suitable airport 15 minutes away. I do not know the route the OP was useing but in the midwest it may be more than 30 minutes in a light twin to the next airport.
For me, as a professional pilot, I would never plan a trip (especially with the boss on board) where I hoped I had enough fuel. Yes you could land short take on fuel and proceed. Just seems like poor planning. For me and in the plane I fly I will have at least 800 pounds in the tanks when I shut down. That is just over an hour and a little more than 225 miles at low altitude cruise. That is an absolute minimum, etched in granite. JMHO.
 
dennyleeb said:
I guess you did not read where he said this
"Overcast lay stretches past mountain ranges, precluding scud running"

still illegal any way you look at it
Click to expand...

I guess you did not read where he said the mountains did not begin until a good ways into the trip. I took this to mean he would have plenty of time to climb through the clouds, or come back down if climbing above was not going to be an option.

If Dr. Bruce is correct about the letter of interpretation, it sounds like the FAA would not be after the OP for conducting the flight in the manner that he did. He had an out above and below, and very well could have encountered no ice at all.

Long distance until mountains.

I'll give you my thoughts.
Since the temps were above freezing at the surface, the cloud deck was not forecast to be higher than 6000 tops, the pireps were showing tops at 6000, the pireps showed no more than trace to light icing, and the fact that I wouldn't need an instrument approach to come back to land,
Click to expand...
 
dennyleeb said:
my point was that if he took this trip it was flight into know ice (pirep) with a non-equipped plane, that is illegal....... and not very smart imho.. (as his plan was to climb out, which like you said is not the best plan)
Click to expand...

So you are going to say that it's known ice if there is a PIREP for ice. No consideration for the age of the PIREP, the distance from your location and the change in weather since the PIREP.

Maybe you should just stay on the ground until its CAVU if you're that worried.
 
ronnieh said:
Bruce, I assume you mean the guy near or at Buffalo, NY. If so yes that was kind of a mess. I would be interested if someone would point out the specific changes the new essay brought. Like Denny at this point I believe the flight was technically illegal.
However, the part that bothered me was the fuel reserves. It appeared to meet the legal requirement.
Click to expand...

A few posts down the OP said that VFR began about halfway through the trip and fuel stops were readily available past that point. If thats the case, then he was planning on 4.75 hrs fuel for a trip where he would only not have fuel readily available for the first 2 hours.

I never land with less than an hour in the tanks, but if the weather is clear, you are fuel conscious and you know your airplane well, I would consider the legal minimum reserve to be safe.

I took off on a recent westbound trip with 4.5 hours fuel for a 3.5 hour flight, with expected headwinds. Picked an airport just past the mountains (2.5 hours into the trip) as a fuel stop in case the headwinds were any stronger than forecast. Weather at the fuel stop was forecasted to be CAVU. I carefully monitored my progress, the headwinds were 10 kts stronger than forecasted, so I stopped and topped off. I assume the OP had something like this in mind.
 
Last edited:
Yes it was legal. I mentioned in my post he could have stopped enroute. It was VFR. Being VFR is no guarantee of being able to land at the destination. More important he made the trip just fine.
We have all kinds of pilots on this board. From the fresh PP all the way up to pilots with multiple thousands of hours in heavy iron. We have too many light aircraft going down due to running out of fuel. Even one is too many. Also this problem seems to be more prevalent in the light aircraft with low to medium time pilots. You rarely here of turbo props and jets being flown by professional pilots having this problem. I do not want to leave the new pilot thinking that fuel reserves are no big thing. Actually they are not a big thing untill everything gets real quiet. This is more the point I was making rather than busting the OP's chops.:wink2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top