Flying above Service Ceiling?

[skidoo]

Is your question really, "Will I get caught if I bust this limitation?"

Not at all, but there are many laws that government simply does not enforce. I was wondering if this is one of them. I once read about someone who took their same type T182T to 23K, of course with ATC clearance, and I began wondering why the POH limits it to 20K. But, that why wasn't the purpose of my post. I wanted to know if it was a legal option and what other more experienced IR pilots would do. From the answers so far, it appears to be not legal.

My scenario is not such an improbable one. The forecasts here often go to 14K, to 16K, to 18K, to 20K and 22K. There are times where I could do a VFR climb to above (the lower level forecasts only) at departure, and a VFR descent at destination, but there is that forecast for the stuff in between. It would appear safest and smoothest to go on top. But, I fear such unforecast higher clouds or icing. The only way I see to 100% avoid such a situation is to never make a Go decision. I want to understand the best options available should such actually occur.

1) Climb above MOA before reaching higher clouds (apparently, not a legal option)
2) Climb above MOA after observing icing (apparently not legal, and worse with some ice already)
3) Request ATC to Divert around any clouds (it could be a long long way around.)
4) Turn around and go home if I see clouds ahead higher than 20K.
5) If it is just a trace, continue on, expecting it to be short duration (taking an extra risk here).
6) If all forecasts were not higher than 14K for icing, then continue on through any clouds because it would be so unlikely that one would experience ice that it is not worth discussion as to options for getting out.
7) Never fly IFR in the mountain west in a non-fiki aircraft limited to 20K ft.

OK, I understand that no one would not advocate something technically not legal on a public forum. I'm not looking to do illegal stuff. I'm a low time IR pilot and simply want to understand All available options that best keep me safe. It is better to consider those possibilities and know my options while on the ground.

I would like to hear from other pilots flying IFR often over the mountain west how likely or unlikely such a scenario would be. Do you fly through the clouds between 15 and 20 Kft, or do you avoid them on an IFR flight? Or, do you just not fly at those altitudes even if your aircraft is capable?

Planning to climb out of the ice at 20,000' in a 182 is not such a good idea either since your climb rate will already be marginal even if it is not the true service ceiling, and icing is generally worse right in the tops.

The T182T is capable of 725 fpm at 20Kft, standard temp. Don't know how it would do with a little ice, but if it was only 500 ft to clear air, I would think it could. Now, if at 20Kft, and the clouds, before entering, appeared thousands of feet higher, then, of course I wouldn't think that would be much of an option.

 

[Everskyward]

I would like to hear from other pilots flying IFR often over the mountain west how likely or unlikely such a scenario would be. Do you fly through the clouds between 15 and 20 Kft, or do you avoid them on an IFR flight? Or, do you just not fly at those altitudes even if your aircraft is capable?

I did it a few times before I decided I wouldn't do it again. And I was in a TU206 which was more capable than your T182. I'm talking about a solid layer, not just a few clouds.

 

[Immelman]

Rename thread: "Is it OK if I back myself into a corner, if I find a couple of people on the internet to tell me its okay to do so"?

You know the thing about the tops that look like they're just 500 feet higher... they're not.

 

[poadeleted20]

OK, I understand that no one would not advocate something technically not legal on a public forum. I'm not looking to do illegal stuff. I'm a low time IR pilot and simply want to understand All available options that best keep me safe. It is better to consider those possibilities and know my options while on the ground.

Then understand that short of a true emergency (i.e., something you could not reasonably foresee), that maximum operating altitude is a hard limitation you cannot legally exceed. The need to climb above 20,000 MSL in the scenario you describe is something I would say is reasonably foreseeable, so I think if it came to the FAA's attention, they'd bust you.

When you read all the cases, you'll see that the FAA and NTSB are pretty good about cutting pilots some slack when unforeseeable circumstances back them into a corner from which only deviation from the rules provides a safe escape. OTOH, they are absolutely death on pilots who put themselves in the jackpot by their own bad judgment/attitude and then either have an accident, violate the rules, or otherwise screw up ATC's day. The problem in your scenario is that it's real easy to see the need arising to go well above 20,000 MSL, and that puts in the "own goal" case rather than the "surprise!" case.

 

[Skylane81E]

I did it a few times before I decided I wouldn't do it again. And I was in a TU206 which was more capable than your T182. I'm talking about a solid layer, not just a few clouds.

Likely depends on weight, my non turbo 182 was still managing >200fpm at 21,000+DA (hot day in CO) but I was rather light at the time.

 

[Everskyward]

Likely depends on weight, my non turbo 182 was still managing >200fpm at 21,000+DA (hot day in CO) but I was rather light at the time.

Sure it depends on weight, but from what the OP posted it looks like he or she was referring to book numbers which might not square with reality when you are also talking about the possibility of things like mountain wave, having ice on the airplane, etc. Also the person who posted that you can be fooled into thinking the tops are not that much higher because you can see the sun through them was correct. The OP asked if anyone had experience with this and I answered. I wouldn't do it again in the airplane I was flying at the time (which didn't have a 20,000' limitation) and I wouldn't do it in the OP's either.

 

[Skylane81E]

Sure it depends on weight, but from what the OP posted it looks like he or she was referring to book numbers which might not square with reality when you are also talking about the possibility of things like mountain wave, having ice on the airplane, etc. Also the person who posted that you can be fooled into thinking the tops are not that much higher because you can see the sun through them was correct. The OP asked if anyone had experience with this and I answered. I wouldn't do it again in the airplane I was flying at the time (which didn't have a 20,000' limitation) and I wouldn't do it in the OP's either.

Would have to be case by case as far as performance goes

 

[Clark1961]

10 below freezing (either F or C) is not a magic number below which icing cannot form. There's a lot more to the problem than just temperature. In fact, icing has been documented in temperatures as low as -40C.

Do you always assume zebras when you hear hoofbeats? You're talking about exceptions to the rules of thumb, not the commonly expected behavior.

 

[Everskyward]

Would have to be case by case as far as performance goes

None of the small Cessnas would have enough performance to outclimb icing into the flight levels as far as I'm concerned, even when light, but that is just my opinion, others can and will do what they want. And I was obviously stupid enough to try at one point.

 

[poadeleted20]

Do you always assume zebras when you hear hoofbeats? You're talking about exceptions to the rules of thumb, not the commonly expected behavior.

You're speaking like icing when the temp is 10 below freezing is as rare as a Zebra at Churchill Downs. It's not a magic number, and it isn't nearly as uncommon as you suggest, as I learned when I was rather younger and more foolish. Acting on your statement would be contrary to the philosophy enshrined in the FAA's Bell interpretation letter.

 

[Palmpilot]

You know the thing about the tops that look like they're just 500 feet higher... they're not.

I have noticed that!

 

[skidoo]

I did it a few times before I decided I wouldn't do it again. And I was in a TU206 which was more capable than your T182. I'm talking about a solid layer, not just a few clouds.

I interpret what you are saying as you would not fly into clouds between 15 and 20Kft assuming temps are below 0C.

I am interested to know, when you did so before, did your weather experience match what was forecast? And, was there any probability forecast of icing? Do you choose to not fly IFR at those altitudes, or do you choose to divert around any clouds while IFR?

 

[Everskyward]

I interpret what you are saying as you would not fly into clouds between 15 and 20Kft assuming temps are below 0C.

I am interested to know, when you did so before, did your weather experience match what was forecast? And, was there any probability forecast of icing? Do you choose to not fly IFR at those altitudes, or do you choose to divert around any clouds while IFR?

This happened way too long ago for me to remember the details of the forecast but I'm sure I wouldn't have gone with icing PIREPS. I don't remember them having icing probability forecasts back then.

 

[skidoo]

You know the thing about the tops that look like they're just 500 feet higher... they're not.

I understand that cloud heights are not always as they appear. The few times I have been on top, they appear that they are higher out in the distance when, in fact they are lower.

The photo is from 19Kft, and I am exploring my options should I encounter clouds a little higher than this.

 

[Everskyward]

I understand that cloud heights are not always as they appear. The few times I have been on top, they appear that they are higher out in the distance when, in fact they are lower.

The photo is from 19Kft, and I am exploring my options should I encounter clouds a little higher than this.

I think that what Immelman is saying is that when you are inside a cloud and looking up, you think you are pretty close to the tops because you can see the sun, when in fact you aren't. So if you think you have only 500 feet to go, it might be more like a couple thousand or more.

 

[Immelman]

I think that what Immelman is saying is that when you are inside a cloud and looking up, you think you are pretty close to the tops because you can see the sun, when in fact you aren't. So if you think you have only 500 feet to go, it might be more like a couple thousand or more.

THat's what I was saying, and I agree that if you're clear of cloud and looking upon an approaching deck, the tendency is to overestimate top height because of uncertainty of where the horizon is. Sorry if I misunderstood your scenario.

 

[Alexb2000]

In my case I fly my 206 in the 20's to avoid icing below whenever necessary. I don't climb through icing, but if I can get on top through a VFR hole, you bet. I have found my aircrafts performance is very good up there. I need maybe a notch of cowl to keep the temps right, but otherwise all is well. I worry more about monitoring the O2 than the aircraft. My service ceiling is 27K, so more than I need. However, as a prior T182T owner I would say that given the choice of icing at 19 or CAVU at 21, I'm doing the later every time. This is just part of mountain flying IMO.

 

[Everskyward]

In my case I fly my 206 in the 20's to avoid icing below whenever necessary. I don't climb through icing, but if I can get on top through a VFR hole, you bet. I have found my aircrafts performance is very good up there. I need maybe a notch of cowl to keep the temps right, but otherwise all is well. I worry more about monitoring the O2 than the aircraft. My service ceiling is 27K, so more than I need. However, as a prior T182T owner I would say that given the choice of icing at 19 or CAVU at 21, I'm doing the later every time. This is just part of mountain flying IMO.

Avoiding it is a whole lot different than counting on climbing through it if you get caught in icing. I frequently flew over 20,000 in the 206, just not in the clouds. I almost never voluntarily cruised up there, though. It was because I had a job doing mapping which required us to be there.

 

[poadeleted20]

I understand that cloud heights are not always as they appear. The few times I have been on top, they appear that they are higher out in the distance when, in fact they are lower.

The photo is from 19Kft, and I am exploring my options should I encounter clouds a little higher than this.

Your legal options are to fly through them (assuming your aircraft is FIKI-certified), fly around them,, turn around and go back, or descend below the freezing level/cloud bases (assuming those are above the MEA). Climbing above the maximum operating altitude of your airplane to top them would be a legal choice only in an emergency, and finding cloud tops a bit higher than forecast doesn't constitute an excusable emergency, just careless/reckless operation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've simulated max altitude before. I recommend you do the same. Interesting exercise on handling.

How do you "simulate" max altitude?

 

[poadeleted20]

How do you "simulate" max altitude?

Limit power. If you want to simulate a takeoff at 10,000 feet, set power using MP and RPM to that which is achievable at 10,000 feet. With a c/s prop, that would mean setting the throttle to 20 inches with full high RPM on the prop (make sure you have enough runway for a 10,000-foot takeoff when you do that). Ditto simulating high elevation takeoff/departure stalls at lower elevations or operating at/near service ceiling. It's a bit trickier with a f/p prop, but you can come close if you dig into the engine manual power curves, especially if you have an MP gauge.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think that what Immelman is saying is that when you are inside a cloud and looking up, you think you are pretty close to the tops because you can see the sun, when in fact you aren't. So if you think you have only 500 feet to go, it might be more like a couple thousand or more.

The same thing seemed to apply when I have tried climbing up through a hole in the clouds.

 

[skidoo]

Your legal options are to fly through them (assuming your aircraft is FIKI-certified), fly around them,, turn around and go back, or descend below the freezing level/cloud bases (assuming those are above the MEA). Climbing above the maximum operating altitude of your airplane to top them would be a legal choice only in an emergency, and finding cloud tops a bit higher than forecast doesn't constitute an excusable emergency, just careless/reckless operation.

So, are you saying that a non-FIKI aircraft can not fly in clouds of any type when below freezing temps? Even when there are no pireps of icing, no airmets, and no forecasts of icing at the particular altitude? In the photo in post 54, that was at 19Kft, OAT was -20C there were no forecasts for icing there. The clouds below were several layers, the upper one looks to me to be some form of stratus. Below them were some scattered cumulus.

So, my original post was referring to, not climbing through icing, but cruising along and coming to an edge of clouds like the stratus pictured in the photo, but them being a little higher, the tops of which would appear just higher than the cruising altitude. If I fly through them, I am not expecting icing conditions because all weather information indicates that there would not be icing conditions. But, I also understand that sometimes forecast information can be inaccurate, and needed to consider what my options would be if I entered that layer, and sometime later, noticed icing accumulating. I understand what you are saying being unable to legally climb to clear it due to the MOA, and I appreciate your responses. I suppose that these type of layers may not be that thick and I could descend, still having at least a 7K range above MEA to work with.

But, I think there may be some dispute as to one being careless/reckless if one entered a cloud (well below freezing) on an IFR clearance in a non-FIKI aircraft when weather data showed no indication of icing conditions at the altitude of entry/cruise. Now, I may be wrong, but I am trying to learn these often disputed areas. Even the AOPA air safety videos don't appear to claim an absolute on this. I found most interesting, the one where the 182 pilot picked up a lot of ice, when he was just expecting some "flurries". That was certainly scary, and something I most likely would never have considered making a go through, But, they never said he was illegal. But, I was thinking there must have been weather info on that one...

Hence, a lot of my confusion regarding flying IFR in freezing temps.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Limit power. If you want to simulate a takeoff at 10,000 feet, set power using MP and RPM to that which is achievable at 10,000 feet. With a c/s prop, that would mean setting the throttle to 20 inches with full high RPM on the prop (make sure you have enough runway for a 10,000-foot takeoff when you do that). Ditto simulating high elevation takeoff/departure stalls at lower elevations or operating at/near service ceiling.

Well, that's part of the equation... But how can you get the prop and wing to simulate high altitude as well? A useful exercise for sure, but not a fully accurate "simulation" IMO.

 

[alfadog]

Well, that's part of the equation... But how can you get the prop and wing to simulate high altitude as well? A useful exercise for sure, but not a fully accurate "simulation" IMO.

Spoilers on the wings?

 

[poadeleted20]

So, are you saying that a non-FIKI aircraft can not fly in clouds of any type when below freezing temps?

No, I'm not. But your original premise was that you couldn't fly into them because of icing, which means you've got "known icing conditions" or you wouldn't have to avoid them in the first place, and the issue of climbing above the aircraft's maximum operating altitude would be moot.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, that's part of the equation... But how can you get the prop and wing to simulate high altitude as well? A useful exercise for sure, but not a fully accurate "simulation" IMO.

Indicated airspeed is indicated airspeed no matter what altitude you're at, and while it's not perfect, it's a close enough simulation for training purposes.

 

[skidoo]

No, I'm not. But your original premise was that you couldn't fly into them because of icing, which means you've got "known icing conditions" or you wouldn't have to avoid them in the first place, and the issue of climbing above the aircraft's maximum operating altitude would be moot.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on my original premise. My intent was to describe that there were no icing pireps, no airmets, and the LOW probability of only Light icing from 7 to 14K in the area of my cruising altitude of 20K. I would expect a VMC climb to 20K, and a VMC descent, but a small probability of light icing in clouds below 14K during cruise. Under these conditions, if I should encounter those -20C stratus clouds at the cruise altitude, like in my photo, I should be able to legally enter them because there was no forecast or expected icing at that level.

Then, my premise intended was that should I go ahead and enter those clouds (which appeared to be only about 500 ft above cruise upon entry), and say 10 minutes later, unexpected icing began to accumulate (I don't know how probable that would actually be, but just a fear I have), I was thinking the best option may be to climb. But, as you made clear, that would only be an option by declaring an emergency. And, I appreciate your responses. Never was there an intent to climb through known or forecast icing conditions.

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on my original premise. My intent was to describe that there were no icing pireps, no airmets, and the LOW probability of only Light icing from 7 to 14K in the area of my cruising altitude of 20K. I would expect a VMC climb to 20K, and a VMC descent, but a small probability of light icing in clouds below 14K during cruise. Under these conditions, if I should encounter those -20C stratus clouds at the cruise altitude, like in my photo, I should be able to legally enter them because there was no forecast or expected icing at that level.

I agree.

Then, my premise intended was that should I go ahead and enter those clouds (which appeared to be only about 500 ft above cruise upon entry), and say 10 minutes later, unexpected icing began to accumulate (I don't know how probable that would actually be, but just a fear I have), I was thinking the best option may be to climb.

It might be if you were sure you could top them before picking up so much ice you couldn't climb. Keep in mind that your max operating altitude is probably not that far below your service ceiling even under the best conditions, and now you're fighting some ice to boot. There's also the question of why that max operating altitude was set, and it may involve the reliable operation of the engine and its ability to generate desired power. Trying to climb in that case would be futile, and only lead to more ice being accumulated before you start to fall. Also, if they are stratus clouds, then the bases probably aren't very far below you. All things considered, climbing may well not be your best option, but you'd have to know well your aircraft's capability to climb in that situation and the vertical profile of the weather to make that decision.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

but you'd have to know well your aircraft's capability to climb in that situation

Which, of course, you can't really know because you'd have to do the illegal thing to know.

 

[poadeleted20]

Which, of course, you can't really know because you'd have to do the illegal thing to know.

Good point. So don't put yourself in a position where you have to become an experimental test pilot trying to expand the edge of you airplane's flight envelope in adverse conditions. Like they say, "the superior pilot uses his/her superior judgment to avoid having to demonstrate his/her superior skill."

 

[Jaybird180]

How do you "simulate" max altitude?

I did it using a PC simulator.

 

[BobThePilot]

Avoiding it is a whole lot different than counting on climbing through it if you get caught in icing. I frequently flew over 20,000 in the 206, just not in the clouds. I almost never voluntarily cruised up there, though. It was because I had a job doing mapping which required us to be there.

Got a few hours in a T206 myself, and I definitely agree it can get up there but it is not ideal. No intercooler on the turbo, so it runs hot up there too. Consistently fly in the flight levels in the 206, and I wouldn't be surprised if you will suffer from serious engine life longevity issues. That and no standard FIKI, this really is not an ideal plane for avoiding icing in the mountains in spite of what the numbers might suggest (27k ceiling which I doubt is attainable based on the anemic climbing performance I have seen in the 20s).

 

[Alexb2000]

Got a few hours in a T206 myself, and I definitely agree it can get up there but it is not ideal. No intercooler on the turbo, so it runs hot up there too. Consistently fly in the flight levels in the 206, and I wouldn't be surprised if you will suffer from serious engine life longevity issues. That and no standard FIKI, this really is not an ideal plane for avoiding icing in the mountains in spite of what the numbers might suggest (27k ceiling which I doubt is attainable based on the anemic climbing performance I have seen in the 20s).

Really? I hold over 500FPM at gross in the 20's no problem, I don't know if you consider that anemic or not, but I felt that was pretty good for a piston single. Other than a notch of cowl in cruise I haven't had any cooling issues at all. When I depart I run full out to whatever FL at Vy and no issues with cooling or performance.

 

[bbchien]

Consider this scenerio. Say I am flying at 20K, the max operating limitation for my aircraft. Obviously, I'm flying on an IFR clearance. I'm above the clouds, but ahead some cloud tops are at 20.5K. Because I'm at the operating limit, I continue and enter the clouds. After about 10 minutes, icing starts to form. If I request 21K will ATC allow that or otherwise Bust me if they do and I climb there. Or, would I need to declare an emergency to legally get there?

That is a failure of judgement on your part.

No way should you be there in the first place.
Your weather briefing was inadequate.
Your failure to....
...or never mind.

 

[Henning]

Interesting, my turboed Travelair didn't have a service ceiling, it had a placard "This aircraft not evaluated for operations above 25,000'" When I asked the guys at the FSDO next door if that was a limitation they said "no".

 

[Pilawt]

Interesting, my turboed Travelair didn't have a service ceiling

It had one; you just didn't know what it was.

 

[Henning]

It had one; you just didn't know what it was.

Actually, it made it to 33,100 and the VSI was still in the positive just a bit, OAT was -47 and we had 60 gallons of fuel and between the both of us had 300lbs in the cabin.

 

[Jeff K]

Not trying to do anything illegal. But, my box is narrower than most. With MEA's at 13K in virtually any direction from home base, I just want to understand ALL possible options.

Presuming you don't have pressurized mags, make sure your spark plug gaps are minimized and run higher RPM's and that should reduce chances of flashover at higher altitudes (misfire). You still could cause damage to the engine if you start getting misfires but that vs. some big rocks might be a better choice.

 

[cirrusmx]

Actually, it made it to 33,100 and the VSI was still in the positive just a bit, OAT was -47 and we had 60 gallons of fuel and between the both of us had 300lbs in the cabin.

what was the travelair KTAS at fl33? and how long it took to get there?