C172 into Known Icing?

Well, this thread sounds like 2006 and a certain well known blogger all over again.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Just from glancing at these posts:

1. It seems most IFR pilots have gotten into some ice in a non-FIKI aircraft at one time or another.

2. No one intended to get into icing, but that didn't stop it from happening.

3. It was a scary experience for many, one most were not trained to deal with.

If all that is true it might not be a crazy notion for a CFI to show someone a little ice in conditions where you can easily get out of it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the accident database is full of reports of bad outcomes from icing encouters involving light singles, especially where the pilot though "I'll take a chance on a little ice because I think I can easily get out of it" and they were wrong. That suggests it might indeed be pretty crazy to do that intentionally just to show folks what it looks like.

I am NOT advocating that, only suggesting that there might be an argument to give students a little experience in icing (especially in certain parts of the country). Even just to show how serious it is so they don't act cavalier about it.
Click to expand...
If you want to do that, do it in a FIKI airplane so you can shed the stuff after the point is made. Otherwise, just teach your trainees how to use all the weather tools we have available (and there's a ton more than when I started instrument flying 40-some years ago) so they can avoid the conditions where icing has any reasonable likelihood of occurring -- AIRMETs, SIGMETs, FA's, FD's, temperature aloft charts, CIP/FIP, PIREPs, etc. I think I can honestly say I've never picked up ice when I didn't think there was a good chance it might happen, and I can definitely say I don't take those chances any more.
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
Just wondering. If you are flying IFR and then start to pick up ice. At that moment, does it become flight into known ice? In other words, if you don't take action to get out of the cloud, is it against the FARs to continue?
Click to expand...
Basically, yes. See the Bell letter for more, including these two parts:

In determining whether enforcement action is warranted, the FAA will evaluate those actions taken by the pilot (including both pre-flight actions and those taken during the flight) to determine if the pilot's actions were, in fact, reasonable in light of §§ 91. 9(a), 91. 13(a), and 91.103. The FAA will specifically evaluate all weather information available to the pilot and determine whether the pilot's pre-flight planning took into account the possibility of ice formation, alternative courses of action to avoid known icing conditions and, if ice actually formed on the aircraft, what steps were taken by the pilot to exit those conditions.
...


If ice is detected or observed along the route of flight, the pilot should have a viable exit strategy and immediately implement that strategy so that the flight may safely continue to its intended destination or terminate at an alternate landing facility.
​
Click to expand...
[emphasis added]​
 
I appreciate all the information and perspectives shared, and have passed this thread on to my friend. Some of the things I've read here and elsewhere have reinforced my decision not to pursue an IFR rating, and increased my respect for those who have earned and safely use one. Thank you!
 
JohnSBA said:
I appreciate all the information and perspectives shared, and have passed this thread on to my friend. Some of the things I've read here and elsewhere have reinforced my decision not to pursue an IFR rating, and increased my respect for those who have earned and safely use one. Thank you!
Click to expand...
I'm not understanding how recommending that folks not intentionally fly non-FIKI airplanes into icing would discourage you from pursuing an instrument rating. If anything, the Beaty letter has made it considerably easier to fly IFR in cold weather legally as long as you learn how to intelligently use the mass of weather data now available to us, and the new weather products and their improved accuracy make it safer. Can you elucidate?
 
Last edited:
So what I was taught in the first weeks of PPL has not changed.
If you have a nonFIKI plane stay away from ice. Do not fly into known icing conditions. If inadvertantly finding oneself in icing whether in FIKI or non FIKI plane, get the heck out ASAP. If help is needed call for help.

Sounds simple to me. Why the confusion? Is it me or do we sometimes try to reinvent the wheel to make it conform to our antiauthority and macho personalities?
 
douglas393 said:
Sounds simple to me. Why the confusion? Is it me or do we sometimes try to reinvent the wheel to make it conform to our antiauthority and macho personalities?
Click to expand...
If you really think about it, aviation has a strong attraction for people with those attitudes, so we shouldn't be surprised that we have a lot of them flying.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you really think about it, aviation has a strong attraction for people with those attitudes, so we shouldn't be surprised that we have a lot of them flying.
Click to expand...
Not surprised.
 
For a more-complete answer, you should expand your research to include the inherent and well-demonstrated proclivity for half-ass theories. ;)

douglas393 said:
So what I was taught in the first weeks of PPL has not changed.
If you have a nonFIKI plane stay away from ice. Do not fly into known icing conditions. If inadvertantly finding oneself in icing whether in FIKI or non FIKI plane, get the heck out ASAP. If help is needed call for help.

Sounds simple to me. Why the confusion? Is it me or do we sometimes try to reinvent the wheel to make it conform to our antiauthority and macho personalities?
Click to expand...
 
douglas393 said:
So what I was taught in the first weeks of PPL has not changed.
If you have a nonFIKI plane stay away from ice. Do not fly into known icing conditions. If inadvertantly finding oneself in icing whether in FIKI or non FIKI plane, get the heck out ASAP. If help is needed call for help.

Sounds simple to me. Why the confusion? Is it me or do we sometimes try to reinvent the wheel to make it conform to our antiauthority and macho personalities?
Click to expand...

Count me confused, who has come across as anti-authority and macho? I don't see one post where anyone advocated flying a 172 into known icing.

Of course the topic of icing has been covered ten thousand times before as I'm sure you know. It still gives people a chance to call a pilot they don't know stupid or lecture on legality. We all know that on the Internet every landing is a greaser, never a FAR is violated, and everyone is an above average to exceptional pilot. That's what keeps the lights on.:)
 
Alexb2000 said:
Count me confused, who has come across as anti-authority and macho? I don't see one post where anyone advocated flying a 172 into known icing.

Of course the topic of icing has been covered ten thousand times before as I'm sure you know. It still gives people a chance to call a pilot they don't know stupid or lecture on legality. We all know that on the Internet every landing is a greaser, never a FAR is violated, and everyone is an above average to exceptional pilot. That's what keeps the lights on.:)
Click to expand...
The CFII the OP discusses. And my guess is he is not alone.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's bloody stupid as well as illegal to intentionally fly a C-172 into conditions where you know you will pick up ice.
Click to expand...

:yes:

bobmrg said:
Darwin Award candidate. Icing conditions are too unpredictable and are not repeatable. The absolute worst reason for doing something is because an instructor did it...instructors are perfectly capable of being stupid.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

:yes:

Lance F said:
Some years ago I got caught in rapidly accumulating ice (absolutely unforecast) in a 160hp 172 on an extended ILS approach. Airspeed decreasing and unable to maintain assigned altitude. Landed but with a bunch of ice on every surface. Had a very experienced CFI in the right seat. Scared both of us. I can't imagine doing it on purpose.
Click to expand...

The day before my private check ride my CFI (who was a CFII) and I were bringing a 182 back to OLM from the Oregon coast. We ran into some clouds we couldn't get over, so he air filed an instrument plan. We punched into a cloud at about 12,000 MSL and the windshield went opaque NOW. Ice on all leading edges. It wasn't until we got under the clouds and into warmer air that we got rid of it. Neither of us wanted to do that again. I also encounted ice in that 182 on an instrument lesson at night with a different CFII a number of years later. Light rime and we got out of it fairly quickly, but it gets your attention. I had horsepower in the 182 that you don't have in a 172 and it still wasn't fun. Both encounters were accidental. Do it deliberately? Are you crazy? Violation or no violation, I plan on dying in bed, not in a ball of twisted aluminum.
 
Ron Levy said:
...not intentionally fly non-FIKI airplanes into icing would discourage you from pursuing an instrument rating... elucidate?
Click to expand...
First off Ron, I'm of course in total agreement on avoiding ice, and in my case that would include in a FIKI-rated a/c. My choice not to get IFR rating starts with mission: low & slow VFR sightseeing over N. America now that I'm retired (see my blog). Given that, flying in clouds is not attractive and I have the time to wait for VMC (a week in PEI until wx allowed the hop to Newfoundland for example). The cost of an IFR ticket will easily pay for a "Big Adventure" flying SoCA to Bahamas we may launch into in a week or two. As for why this thread reinforces my decision not to get IFR ticket, reading some of the icing stories here both reinforces my enjoyment of the relative ease, safety and freedom in VFR; and my respect for those of you whose mission is served by or dictates flying IFR legally, expertly and safely. So again, thank you. :)
 
Don't you get a lot of coastal stratus in Santa Barbara? You're very unlikely to get ice in that type of cloud where you live.
 
JohnSBA said:
A highly skilled CFII repeatedly flew into icing in a C172 shooting approaches. Moderate icing at 3k'AGL, thawing at 1k'AGL.

Does anyone here have definitive knowledge or experience on this topic?
Click to expand...
"Moderate icing"? Who made the call, the student or highly skilled CFII? Light icing, on the other hand, might also be illegal, yet perfectly safe if you consider the definition (my em):

Intensity of icing:

a. Trace- Ice becomes perceptible. Rate of accumulation is slightly greater than the rate of sublimation. Deicing/anti-icing equipment is not utilized unless encountered for an extended period of time (over 1 hour).

b. Light- The rate of accumulation may create a problem if flight is prolonged in this environment (over 1 hour). Occasional use of deicing/anti-icing equipment removes/prevents accumulation. It does not present a problem if the deicing/anti-icing equipment is used.

c. Moderate- The rate of accumulation is such that even short encounters become potentially hazardous and use of deicing/anti-icing equipment or flight diversion is necessary.

d. Severe- The rate of accumulation is such that deicing/anti-icing equipment fails to reduce or control the hazard. Immediate flight diversion is necessary.​
bobmrg said:
If you look at Appendix C to Part 25 (Part 23 is included by reference), to see just how limited FIKI certification is, you will see that the maximum droplet size contemplated is 40 microns...smaller than a human hair...so if you can see the droplets you are in conditions beyond which FIKI applies; if I recall the distance correctly, if the cloud you are in is stratus and extends more than 17 miles, you are once again outside of FIKI standards. All FIKI certification buys you is time to escape, not permission to continue.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...
My take on that is different, Bob. Although I'd, too, be thinking about how to remove myself from icing anytime I'm in it, I'm sure you agree that doing so isn't always in the cards. In those cases, it's nice to know you aren't necessarily limited to 17.4 miles until catastrophe. If I understand it, there's a sliding scale out to 310 miles for "continuous maximum icing"--the longer the distance the less water it takes to constitute it. As for the micron size, "intermittent maximum icing" can be up to 50 microns in diameter. None of which is particularly useful information for the pilot. If it's building on the unprotected surfaces faster than a pilot is comfortable waiting for it to stop--it's time for a change: Climb, descend, turn around or get out of the air.

dtuuri
 
LearDriver said:
Go over the hill north of SBA and you can get a bunch of ice when the situation is right.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you can't get ice in that part of the state, but I would be very surprised if you would be getting it while punching through the marine layer.
 
dtuuri said:
"Moderate icing"? Who made the call, the student or highly skilled CFII? Light icing, on the other hand, might also be illegal, yet perfectly safe if you consider the definition (my em):
Intensity of icing:

a. Trace- Ice becomes perceptible. Rate of accumulation is slightly greater than the rate of sublimation. Deicing/anti-icing equipment is not utilized unless encountered for an extended period of time (over 1 hour).

b. Light- The rate of accumulation may create a problem if flight is prolonged in this environment (over 1 hour). Occasional use of deicing/anti-icing equipment removes/prevents accumulation. It does not present a problem if the deicing/anti-icing equipment is used.

c. Moderate- The rate of accumulation is such that even short encounters become potentially hazardous and use of deicing/anti-icing equipment or flight diversion is necessary.

d. Severe- The rate of accumulation is such that deicing/anti-icing equipment fails to reduce or control the hazard. Immediate flight diversion is necessary.​
My take on that is different, Bob. Although I'd, too, be thinking about how to remove myself from icing anytime I'm in it, I'm sure you agree that doing so isn't always in the cards. In those cases, it's nice to know you aren't necessarily limited to 17.4 miles until catastrophe. If I understand it, there's a sliding scale out to 310 miles for "continuous maximum icing"--the longer the distance the less water it takes to constitute it. As for the micron size, "intermittent maximum icing" can be up to 50 microns in diameter. None of which is particularly useful information for the pilot. If it's building on the unprotected surfaces faster than a pilot is comfortable waiting for it to stop--it's time for a change: Climb, descend, turn around or get out of the air.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that disaster lurks at the 17.4 nm mark... just that the FIKI certification limit has been reached. The manufacturer did not extend continuous icing tests beyond what is called for in the reg because he wasn't required to. IOW, a pilot becomes a test pilot of sorts (not a statistic) when that limit is exceeded...

Bob
 
bobmrg said:
I'm not saying that disaster lurks at the 17.4 nm mark... just that the FIKI certification limit has been reached. The manufacturer did not extend continuous icing tests beyond what is called for in the reg because he wasn't required to. IOW, a pilot becomes a test pilot of sorts (not a statistic) when that limit is exceeded...

Bob
Click to expand...
By no means do I consider myself an expert on icing testing procedures, but my reading of Appendix C is that 17.4 miles is not a limit as you state. Rather, it is a standard reference for just one combination of droplet size and water density in the test cloud. For other lengths, they provide a chart of multiplication factors to be applied to that standard reference. The less dense the cloud is for a given temperature and droplet size, the longer the test run needs to be in order to be considered "maximum continuous icing" conditions. It makes sense to me in that airborne testing might not lend itself to perfect control of the icing conditions.

At least that's my take on it. It makes no sense to call something "maximum continuous" if it's really only a few minutes.

dtuuri
 
Alexb2000 said:
I don't see one post where anyone advocated flying a 172 into known icing.
Click to expand...
How about the first post of this thread?
A highly skilled CFII repeatedly flew into icing in a C172 shooting approaches. Moderate icing at 3k'AGL, thawing at 1k'AGL. My friend says it's a great way to learn how an aircraft handles with ice and would do it for the experience.
Click to expand...
 
JohnSBA said:
First off Ron, I'm of course in total agreement on avoiding ice, and in my case that would include in a FIKI-rated a/c. My choice not to get IFR rating starts with mission: low & slow VFR sightseeing over N. America now that I'm retired (see my blog). Given that, flying in clouds is not attractive and I have the time to wait for VMC (a week in PEI until wx allowed the hop to Newfoundland for example). The cost of an IFR ticket will easily pay for a "Big Adventure" flying SoCA to Bahamas we may launch into in a week or two. As for why this thread reinforces my decision not to get IFR ticket, reading some of the icing stories here both reinforces my enjoyment of the relative ease, safety and freedom in VFR; and my respect for those of you whose mission is served by or dictates flying IFR legally, expertly and safely. So again, thank you. :)
Click to expand...
Good answer. Fly safe.
 
Seems crazy to me, especially to play with it so low. There is a CFII who I may use for my instrument that mentioned it is good to experience it on the right day. Different layers with freezing level above 5k, so you can experience it, get out of it, etc.

I would rather experience it for the first time with a CFII during training then with my friends or family on board. And obviously try to avoid it and not FIKI conditions.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Count me confused, who has come across as anti-authority and macho? I don't see one post where anyone advocated flying a 172 into known icing.
Click to expand...
JohnSBA said:
I've been discussing with a pilot friend something I heard about. A highly skilled CFII repeatedly flew into icing in a C172 shooting approaches. Moderate icing at 3k'AGL, thawing at 1k'AGL.

My friend says it's a great way to learn how an aircraft handles with ice and would do it for the experience. I say there are excellent reasons that the C172 POH prohibits flight into known icing.
Click to expand...
Then, Alex, you don't read so well.
 
bbchien said:
Then, Alex, you don't read so well.
Click to expand...

The OP asked a humble question based on an experience from his friend. That does not equal anyone HERE advocating flying a 172 into mod. icing.

Slow night, nothing on TV, just kicking over rocks?
 
Ron Levy said:
Bruce: Have you noticed Alexb2000's stated occupation? "Parolee" 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

OH NO, I'm being ganged up on!

Come on, let's see if one of you can make a good insult. That one above is just lame. Maybe you two should PM each other and work through it before posting.
 
Three aircraft that are in my logbook have crashed. One ran out of gas and was ditched into Lake Michigan. One took off with the control lock installed, and...

One of them was a 172 that flew into ice, couldn't climb out, couldn't maintain altitude, and ended up crashing during their attempt to land on a visual approach, with less than 1/2" of ice.
 
Alexb2000 said:
OH NO, I'm being ganged up on!

Come on, let's see if one of you can make a good insult. That one above is just lame. Maybe you two should PM each other and work through it before posting.
Click to expand...
Lighten up, Francis....I don't see that I responded to that comment in post 68. But I will now.

You ARE maybe a tad paranoid.
 
Alexb2000 said:
OH NO, I'm being ganged up on!

Come on, let's see if one of you can make a good insult. That one above is just lame. Maybe you two should PM each other and work through it before posting.
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing the final link in my point about pilot attitudes.

And no, neither that nor my remark about your stated occupation were intended as insults -- just observations.
 
Alex has some of the least hazardous attitudes of pilots on this board, per my experience.
 
Ron Levy said:
Thank you for providing the final link in my point about pilot attitudes.

And no, neither that nor my remark about your stated occupation were intended as insults -- just observations.
Click to expand...

Pilot attitude, you lost me there???

SO.... you can't have a laugh here once in a while? I didn't take any of it seriously. I just figured you guys were looking to mix it up a little last night and I obliged. Sadly it wasn't real entertaining.

Bruce: er Sgt. Hulka, you are a madman.
 
I may do a lot of things many people on this board would never do, but knowingly heading into ice and thunderstorms are two I will not do.
 
Inside jokes without smilies sometimes lead to misunderstanding on the part of us outsiders.
 
Having recently picked up a small amount of rime on an Arrow III, and deciding after examining the aircraft on the ground for a good hour that non-FIKI flying in ice just isn't for me, I'm trying to decide what kind of bird to get that can get me through a small layer in the right circumstances (I'm a big fan of Scott's work on learning about ice, and really enjoyed the CFIcast he was on with Bruce and Ron). Living in Minnesota there's year-round ice potential almost any time we don't have a huge high pressure system parked here.

I'm not sure what's a practical aircraft for my geography short of an airbus. There are a few heavy singles and more FIKI light twins available today, but I'm not sure how much more utility I'd get from one versus a non-FIKI plane that just stays in the hangar.
 
koehn said:
Having recently picked up a small amount of rime on an Arrow III, and deciding after examining the aircraft on the ground for a good hour that non-FIKI flying in ice just isn't for me, I'm trying to decide what kind of bird to get that can get me through a small layer in the right circumstances (I'm a big fan of Scott's work on learning about ice, and really enjoyed the CFIcast he was on with Bruce and Ron). Living in Minnesota there's year-round ice potential almost any time we don't have a huge high pressure system parked here.

I'm not sure what's a practical aircraft for my geography short of an airbus. There are a few heavy singles and more FIKI light twins available today, but I'm not sure how much more utility I'd get from one versus a non-FIKI plane that just stays in the hangar.
Click to expand...

First post..................

Welcome to POA...:cheers:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top