"I learned about icing from that...

LDJones

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
10,998
Location
Twin Cities, MN
Display Name

Display name:
Jonesy
While doing some final Checkride prep with my student mentioned previously (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78592) we had an interesting learning experience.

We had early icing reports yesterday so stayed on the ground waiting for it to warm up or the ceilings to lift. Around noon the icing pireps were coming in well east of us and had a negative ice report to the west so we decided to launch.

Five minutes into our flight and about four minutes from our first approach intercept we started icing. Quickly. I advised approach we'd be staying on the approach only long enough to get to VMC then would head back to KFCM VFR.

We intercepted, hit the FAF and started down. A minute later we were visual, cancelled IFR and turned toward our home airport. We'd picked up about 1/2" of really rough mixed ice. I reminded my student to forego flaps and carry a little extra speed.

On short final he started slowing and pulling back on the yoke. I grabbed it, gave a firm push and told him to keep this speed til we were a foot off the runway.

As we leveled off at about a foot he was letting her slow and beginning to pull back when the Bo gave a momentary shutter and abruptly dropped onto the runway, while we were still doing 90 mph, his normal short final speed.

He looked at me in shock and said, "What was that??!" I said, "The new wing design you're test flying doesn't like to fly slow."

He has a new respect for ice and why you want to avoid.
 
While doing some final Checkride prep with my student mentioned previously (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78592) we had an interesting learning experience.

We had early icing reports yesterday so stayed on the ground waiting for it to warm up or the ceilings to lift. Around noon the icing pireps were coming in well east of us and had a negative ice report to the west so we decided to launch.

Five minutes into our flight and about four minutes from our first approach intercept we started icing. Quickly. I advised approach we'd be staying on the approach only long enough to get to VMC then would head back to KFCM VFR.

We intercepted, hit the FAF and started down. A minute later we were visual, cancelled IFR and turned toward our home airport. We'd picked up about 1/2" of really rough mixed ice. I reminded my student to forego flaps and carry a little extra speed.

On short final he started slowing and pulling back on the yoke. I grabbed it, gave a firm push and told him to keep this speed til we were a foot off the runway.

As we leveled off at about a foot he was letting her slow and beginning to pull back when the Bo gave a momentary shutter and abruptly dropped onto the runway, while we were still doing 90 mph, his normal short final speed.

He looked at me in shock and said, "What was that??!" I said, "The new wing design you're test flying doesn't like to fly slow."

He has a new respect for ice and why you want to avoid.

You don't mention Skew-Ts. As a recent convert, I wouldn't leave home without it now. It has already helped me a lot in icing avoidance.
 
Last edited:
You don't mention Skew-Ts. As a recent convert, I wouldn't leave home without it now. It has already helped me a lot in icing avoidance.

I only glanced at the Skew-Ts early and they were consistent with early icing reports. It would be nice if they did hourly skew-Ts!
 
While doing some final Checkride prep with my student mentioned previously (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78592) we had an interesting learning experience.

We had early icing reports yesterday so stayed on the ground waiting for it to warm up or the ceilings to lift. Around noon the icing pireps were coming in well east of us and had a negative ice report to the west so we decided to launch.

Five minutes into our flight and about four minutes from our first approach intercept we started icing. Quickly. I advised approach we'd be staying on the approach only long enough to get to VMC then would head back to KFCM VFR.

We intercepted, hit the FAF and started down. A minute later we were visual, cancelled IFR and turned toward our home airport. We'd picked up about 1/2" of really rough mixed ice. I reminded my student to forego flaps and carry a little extra speed.

On short final he started slowing and pulling back on the yoke. I grabbed it, gave a firm push and told him to keep this speed til we were a foot off the runway.

As we leveled off at about a foot he was letting her slow and beginning to pull back when the Bo gave a momentary shutter and abruptly dropped onto the runway, while we were still doing 90 mph, his normal short final speed.

He looked at me in shock and said, "What was that??!" I said, "The new wing design you're test flying doesn't like to fly slow."

He has a new respect for ice and why you want to avoid.

Seems like some pretty fast buildup? How did you see out of the windshield? Good job and a great lesson for your student BTW.
 
I only glanced at the Skew-Ts early and they were consistent with early icing reports. It would be nice if they did hourly skew-Ts!

They do. That's what's cool about them. You can get the hourly forecast Sqew-Ts from the day before, and compare them to the more recent forecasts as the flight gets closer (some cool apps are available for your mobile device(s)). They are an amazing tool when used properly, and I myself am still just learning.
 
Last edited:
Good thing you took control. Good lesson.
 
They do. That's what's cool about them. You can get the hourly forecast Sqew-Ts from the day before, and compare them to the more recent forecasts as the flight gets closer (some cool apps are available for your mobile device(s)). They are an amazing tool when used properly, and I myself am still just learning.

Yeah, I use the iPad app that collects up to 12 hours before and 12 hours after. But the actual soundings only occur twice a day. The rest our forecasts.
 

Regarding the windshield, the shape of the Bo's windshield is such that ice accumulated in the center third but leaves fairly decent visibility to either side. Plus we killed the cabin heat and went to full defrost which helped shed some of it before landing.
 
At the beginning of this winter, I decided to learn to use the Skew-T for tops and ice.

The ipad app is good, and the forecast feature is nice.

However, My issue is location. The only place the Skew-T can be accurate is where the sounding took place. I assume they have a way of interpolating to get other locations. Either that or they just give you the nearest sounding. Either way, I struggle to correlate what is on the graph with the weather I am actually experiencing.

Yesterday was a great example. Actual was VMC, Sky clear. The TAFS showed that was expected to stay that way all day and it did. Sigmet in my area for icing from surface to something pretty high. Sigmet for IFR. Now this isn't uncommon for Chicago, as which side of the lake you are on makes a huge difference.

So I pull up the Skew-T for my location. And it shows a convergence at about 1,000 feet and a divergence at around 5,000 feet with the temperature solidly in the icing band.

The Skew-T seems to be fine for large area cloud coverings, but I haven't found it to be all that great at telling me what is above me.
 
Your student was very lucky to have that experience with you there.
 
Did you declare an emergency before you flew into known icing in a non-certified plane?
 
The forecast soundings are *not* interpolations of the radiosonde observations. They are generated by the Rapid Refresh (RAP) numerical weather prediction model (or GFS for longer range forecast soundings). This model ingests 100s of thousands of observational data points all through the atmosphere every hour and uses very sophisticated modeling techniques to determine how those initial conditions will evolve. The result is a forecast on a grid at a time in the future. That grid has a 40 km resolution for the Op40 which is pretty darn close to just about any airport or point you may want to explore.

Scott - I didn't realize you were on this forum, that is great. Everything I have learned about Skew-T has been from reading your work.

I spent time learning how to read the graph, obviously I need to go back and understand how it is generated.

Weather products are much easier for me to understand, when I can correlate what is on the charts and what I can actually see outside.

Yesterday the Skew-T didn't make any sense for where I was, but fit Davenport pretty well, so my assumption was that it was based on the readings from that location. And however it was offset for my location, just didn't work.

Time to do some more research. Thanks.
 
Yeah, I use the iPad app that collects up to 12 hours before and 12 hours after. But the actual soundings only occur twice a day. The rest our forecasts.

Yes, the soundings are done twice daily, but there is lots of other data being fed into the model constantly, and fresh predictions are out hourly, and not only based on the soundings.
The model's predictions are generally very good, and keep getting better as the actual time nears. So if you keep tracking the predictions for your takeoff time X, it should get more and more accurate.
If I know I am headed into possible icing, the hourly SkewT is one of my primary inputs, similar to latest ceilings and visibilities at the destination and alternate.
 
Did you declare an emergency before you flew into known icing in a non-certified plane?

Nothing about this story involved flight into known icing. Quite the opposite.
 
Sorry, I thought he said he was IMC shooting an approach to get to VMC when he picked up ice.

That's not flight into known icing. Known icing would be getting seventeen PIREPs of icing, and going flying into said IMC. If you read the original post, you would see there was a PIREP of negative icing.
 
That's not flight into known icing. Known icing would be getting seventeen PIREPs of icing, and going flying into said IMC. If you read the original post, you would see there was a PIREP of negative icing.

A. There's no such thing as a PIREP for 'negative icing'.
B. The FAA would disagree. Known icing requires zero PIREPS.
 
A. There's no such thing as a PIREP for 'negative icing'.
B. The FAA would disagree. Known icing requires zero PIREPS.

I guess the PIREPs that say NEG ICE are fictional. Oh wait, they aren't.

Again, try reading the original post.

www.rif.org
 
I guess the PIREPs that say NEG ICE are fictional. Oh wait, they aren't.

Again, try reading the original post.

www.rif.org

I'm not sure how one would report what the weather isn't. The system of PIREPs is based on reporting what the weather IS. Just because there are not PIREPs reporting icing in a particular direction does not mean now it's okay to fly into visible moisture at freezing temps.

I'm not the bad guy here and I'm not accusing anyone else of being a bad guy. I'm just not clear how it's okay to fly a non-ice certified plane into visible moisture at freezing temps.
 
Last edited:
You claimed they flew into known icing. The opposite is true. You can reword it however you want. It was not flight into known icing. It was flight into conditions where no icing was expected, reported, or forecast. It happened. **** happens. They reacted well, and the student learned a valuable lesson.
 
Actually this brings up a question I've been thinking about... Being here in the Midwest & working towards my IFR, I've been told (CFI) that if there are no pireps of icing then flying into a cloud when temp is at or below freezing is not considered flight into known icing but I came across a post that said the FAA now says that flight into known FORECASTED icing is the "test" so what's considered forecasted icing??? Is flying into any moisture (cloud) when temps are below freezing breaking the rules per FAA if one is flying a plane not certified for FIKI?

If it's legal then what about from a safety perspective. Do you have a rule that states you'll never fly into visible moisture if temps are at freezing?

Just curious as this will affect me flying out of the Midwest and trying to learn.
 
I'm not the bad guy here and I'm not accusing anyone else of being a bad guy. I'm just not clear how it's okay to fly a non-ice certified plane into visible moisture at freezing temps.

You sound like a very conflicted man.
 
I'm not sure how one would report what the weather isn't. The system of PIREPs is based on reporting what the weather IS. Just because there are not PIREPs reporting icing in a particular direction does not mean now it's okay to fly into visible moisture at freezing temps.

I'm not the bad guy here and I'm not accusing anyone else of being a bad guy. I'm just not clear how it's okay to fly a non-ice certified plane into visible moisture at freezing temps.

Same as PIREPs about smooth ride.

ATC asks: "How's the ride at FL410?"
Pilot answers: "Smooth sailing"

Soon you can see a "PIREP" in that area that can look like:

"PIREP: LKV UA /OV LKV355015/TM 0305/FL410/TP B737/TB SMOOTH/RM NEG WIND SHEAR -ZSE"

So that's a "PIREP" about weather that does not exist.
 
Known Icing != Visible moisture below freezing.

No ****, I don't know how many times i have heard this one.. It is worse than slipping with flaps in a Cessna...
 
The way I understand it, based on the latest letters of interpretation from the FAA General Counsel, "known icing" means conditions that a "reasonable pilot" using all the information available to him/her, would consider likely to result in icing.
It is true that in some cases you can fly in visible moisture below freezing (and within the so-called "icing zone" temperature-wise), and the water particles won't stick. This can be because they are already frozen, not sufficiently super cooled or otherwise don't have what it takes to stick to the airplane. On the other hand it is fairly hard to predict their behavior in advance, if those icing-favorable conditions exist. If another crew passes through some stuff at your altitude, minutes ahead of you, and reports negative ice, that's usually (but not always) an "all clear", so I would personally not consider venturing into that area as penetrating "known icing" even if it's visible moisture and below freezing.
But if the freshest PIREP is a bit stale (e.g. more than an hour), and/or at the wrong altitude or location (e.g. more than a few miles), I personally wouldn't rely on it, or consider it an "all clear".
I personally consider SkewTs as a strong "forecast icing" tool. In my (limited) experience with them they have proven quite reliable, allowing me to penetrate areas I'd have been wary to venture into without them, and select ice-free altitudes and complete flights that would have been iffy otherwise.
I will be the first to admit that over thousands of hours of non-FIKI SE flying, much of it in the northeast and a lot of it IFR/IMC, I have had more exposure to ice than I would have liked. I have always kept an out, although in some cases even that out got a bit too marginal to my taste. (I have way too many "I learned about icing from that" stories to tell...)
Bottom line: use all tools at your disposal, keep a good out at all times, and don't tempt fate. If you do all that, the FAA will stay out of the picture and let you fly in peace (and safety).
 
I'm not sure how one would report what the weather isn't. The system of PIREPs is based on reporting what the weather IS. Just because there are not PIREPs reporting icing in a particular direction does not mean now it's okay to fly into visible moisture at freezing temps.

I'm not the bad guy here and I'm not accusing anyone else of being a bad guy. I'm just not clear how it's okay to fly a non-ice certified plane into visible moisture at freezing temps.

Speaking only for myself I issued a UA for negative icing and it was accepted by FSS (and later disseminated via graphical depiction on their web page) when the jack a couple 10 miles in front of me at same alt reported moderate icing. Basically I was saying that the conditions the other pilot reported just minutes before were not observed by me.
 
Funny, just last week I was looking up PIREPS on Aviationweather.org and saw a number of "neg ice" pireps. It may not be a PIREP by the book, but it still seems to make it up onto official depictions.
 
Known Icing != Visible moisture below freezing.

For your reading Captain:
http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090126icing.pdf?_ga=1.86835611.2022474220.1418260685

I've read it and it's the basis of my position. From that letter:

"Known icing conditions involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot."

The OP flew into visible moisture at freezing temps and picked up ice. A reasonable pilot might have predicted the outcome?
 
I've read it and it's the basis of my position. From that letter:



The OP flew into visible moisture at freezing temps and picked up ice. A reasonable pilot might have predicted the outcome?

I've done that many many times without picking up ice. I do that with reason, based on all the information available to me.
You might want to pay attention to what is actually written in there, in particular:
The FAA does not necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or other forms of visible moisture at temperature at or below freezing to be conducive to the formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions
Disagree with it however you'd like, but at the end of the day, that is the current FAA's published stance. Known icing conditions is not based solely on visible moisture at or below freezing.

I go into visible moisture below freezing in non-fiki aircraft every now and then. I've NEVER scared myself with ice. I know the rules, understand the weather, and gather all the information I can before doing it. It can be done safely and legally in the right conditions.
 
Last edited:
I've done that many many times without picking up ice. I do that with reason, based on all the information available to me.
You might want to pay attention to what is actually written in there, in particular:

Disagree with it however you'd like, but at the end of the day, that is the current FAA's published stance. Known icing conditions is not based solely on visible moisture at or below freezing.

I go into visible moisture below freezing in non-fiki aircraft every now and then. I've NEVER scared myself with ice. I know the rules, understand the weather, and gather all the information I can before doing it. It can be done safely and legally in the right conditions.

I agree with everything you said here and it's actually my point. As is all too often with the FAA and these interpretations the legality of something is determined by the result instead of the action.

The letter clearly states that visible moisture and freezing temperatures are NOT known icing.

So you go into the clouds on a freezing day and don't pick up ice. The letter supports what you did and says it was legal. On that same day I fly into clouds and pick up ice. I should have reasonably known I was going into icing conditions.

That's my point here really. The vagueness of the rules and the fact that results go way too far in determining the legality in the first place. The OP picked up ice and that fact alone could be used by the FAA in conjunction with the letter you linked to argue the pilot flew into known icing conditions.

This flight ended without issue. If the student had slowed and dropped out of the sky how would that accident report read? I guarantee it'd be pilot error and flight into known icing would have been mentioned. Same flight, no change except the OP doesn't correct the student and now it's known icing.

Again, results based rules blow and that's my issue.
 
The OP had an exit strategy--and it was validated. The Chief Counsel would be pleased.

dtuuri
 
We post every crash there is here. Ice is not swatting aircraft out of the sky, even those unprotected. Of course it requires being smart, taking action, and using good ADM. Just like keeping gas in the tank, which seems to be much more deadly.

About a year ago we had a big thread where I suggested that a student who got a little ice experience with an instructor would be well served. Many disagreed. Seems to me the OP is really giving his students some life saving knowledge.
 
We post every crash there is here. Ice is not swatting aircraft out of the sky, even those unprotected. Of course it requires being smart, taking action, and using good ADM. Just like keeping gas in the tank, which seems to be much more deadly.

About a year ago we had a big thread where I suggested that a student who got a little ice experience with an instructor would be well served. Many disagreed. Seems to me the OP is really giving his students some life saving knowledge.

I don't know about that big thread but I am of the persuasion that them flying the types with the Auto Detect Ice-B-Gone buttons have forgotten how the hamsters in their wee machines operate.
 
I don't know about that big thread but I am of the persuasion that them flying the types with the Auto Detect Ice-B-Gone buttons have forgotten how the hamsters in their wee machines operate.

One more time for those of us with wee hamsters?
 
Speaking only for myself I issued a UA for negative icing and it was accepted by FSS (and later disseminated via graphical depiction on their web page) when the jack a couple 10 miles in front of me at same alt reported moderate icing. Basically I was saying that the conditions the other pilot reported just minutes before were not observed by me.

So were you in a FIKI plane when you gave a PIREP of negative icing?
 
Again, results based rules blow and that's my issue.

Yes have to agree. It is deliberately vague. You can use it to legally fly in conditions that may cause icing . But if something happens, the vagueness is going to be used to pin the blame on you. :mad2:
 
So were you in a FIKI plane when you gave a PIREP of negative icing?

That is incorrect. I was VFR flight in marginal VMC. The occasion was a Mooney had passed me same direction same altitude moments before. As I had been in the habit of providing UA in that mountain pass I was listening while waiting my turn to give my UA. I heard the Mooney pilot issue mod icing report. That really ticked me off because I was only miles behind him. I didn't fib, lie, omit. I spoke the truth of what I observed. Why it ticked me off was because I felt that by his UA I would then be entering 'known icing' in a non FIKI aircraft.

Tangentially, the same could be for turb. I have heard other pilots scream like little girls that they are in 'severe' when I've been in the same area. I don't hold myself out as a super pilot or something but c'mon I think many pilots overstate the conditions. I think severe turb would be when the wing tips rise or lower out of view from the side windows. IDK, but until the wings depart from the fuselage it aint as bad as they might say.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top