The Training Value of Ice

[Kristin]

The oft repeated statement that flying in ice in a non-FIKI aircraft is illegal, is incorrect. It is only illegal if it violates a limitation in the AFM. Older aircraft have no such prohibition in the AFM and the only provision in Part 91 that might bite you is 91.13 if the operation was considered to be careless and reckless.

I have a deiced twin. It is not FIKI certified as the FAA hadn't invented the certification when it was produced. Some of the older non-FIKI aircraft will handle icing conditions better than some FIKI certified aircraft.

Having done most of my flying in the Great Lakes/Upper Midwest, I have put ice on most every aircraft I have flown, save for the Cub. If you fly IMC it will happen. There is a huge difference between a trace of rime on the wing and moderate mixed icing. Pretending they are all the same is unrealistic, though the FAA doesn't seem to have figured that out.

 

[GCA319]

f they look at the AIRMETS, FD, FA, freezing levels, and FIP/CIP, and the sum total of that look is that icing appears likely to the Inspector handing the case, your goose will be cooked. So, don't rely on the idea that the mere presence of visible moisture and freezing temps is not a guarantee of icing to be a viable defense if those conditions exist and the sum total of the weather forecasts and reports suggests that there is a significant likelihood of icing (and in a 172, it doesn't take much likelihood to be significant).

Declaring an emergency and giving a PIREP/getting a clearance to get out of the ice are two entirely different things from a legal standpoint. Though, I'll agree that any significant likelihood of ice in something slow and underpowered like a 172 is not to be messed with. My post was merely pointing out that sometimes things go contrary to forecast, ATC is going to find out when you give them a PIREP/your exit plan, and that merely giving said PIREP and obtaining the clearance you need to get out of it is not going to get you called by the FSDO.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The oft repeated statement that flying in ice in a non-FIKI aircraft is illegal, is incorrect. It is only illegal if it violates a limitation in the AFM. Older aircraft have no such prohibition in the AFM and the only provision in Part 91 that might bite you is 91.13 if the operation was considered to be careless and reckless.

Problem with that is that many older aircraft whose manufacturers are still in business, have had their AFMs revised since production to include limits against flying in known ice.

My Baron is just one example. Cessna has taken similar action. I'd be surprised if Piper hadn't followed suit.

 

[Jaybird180]

Y'all can quibble about this all you want. If you declare an emergency because you're picking up ice in your 172, and it spoils the controller's day, you're going to be given (whether you want it or not) the opportunity to explain it all to the FSDO. If they look at the AIRMETS, FD, FA, freezing levels, and FIP/CIP, and the sum total of that look is that icing appears likely to the Inspector handing the case, your goose will be cooked. So, don't rely on the idea that the mere presence of visible moisture and freezing temps is not a guarantee of icing to be a viable defense if those conditions exist and the sum total of the weather forecasts and reports suggests that there is a significant likelihood of icing (and in a 172, it doesn't take much likelihood to be significant).

Bottom line: If you want to stay out of trouble (both aerodynamic and legal), use all the tools available, think carefully about the capabilities of the plane you're flying, and make your decision as though an FAA Inspector were looking over your shoulder. Kinda like when someone asked 27 TFW Deputy Commander for Operations Colonel Howard Nixon about what he looked for in a flight lead in the wing, he said, "I want someone who'll fly as though I were on his wing even when I'm not."

I can't tell if you're either throwing "reasonable and prudent" out the window or you're providing a definition of it.

 

[Kristin]

Problem with that is that many older aircraft whose manufacturers are still in business, have had their AFMs revised since production to include limits against flying in known ice.

My Baron is just one example. Cessna has taken similar action. I'd be surprised if Piper hadn't followed suit.

They may have revised the AFM for newly produced airplanes but that has no effect on previously produced aircraft. The manufacturer has no legal ability to retroactively change the requirements for either operating or maintaining an aircraft. A new Baron has a different AFM from an older one, even though they are of the same model. So a 1970 B-58 can fly in the ice and only risk being busted on careless or reckless under 91.13, while a 1980 Baron cannot because it would violate a limitation in its AFM. That limitation is not present in the older AFM.

 

[Fearless Tower]

They may have revised the AFM for newly produced airplanes but that has no effect on previously produced aircraft. The manufacturer has no legal ability to retroactively change the requirements for either operating or maintaining an aircraft. A new Baron has a different AFM from an older one, even though they are of the same model. So a 1970 B-58 can fly in the ice and only risk being busted on careless or reckless under 91.13, while a 1980 Baron cannot because it would violate a limitation in its AFM. That limitation is not present in the older AFM.

But your statement is not true. Beechcraft issued revisions to my airplane flight manual that limit flight in known icing SINCE production of my model was discontinued.

Cessna, as I understand it, took a different approach and issued an SB against flight in known icing which the FAA recently turned into an AD.

 

[Kristin]

But your statement is not true. Beechcraft issued revisions to my airplane flight manual that limit flight in known icing SINCE production of my model was discontinued.

Where does it say that you have to obey the revision to your AFM? The manufacturers revise the maintenance manuals all the time, and owners and mechanics are not bound to follow the revision.

The manufacturers issue revisions to improve safety and to get themselves off the hook. That does not have the force of law. Only the FAA can change things like that, and they have not yet made a rule that an aircraft cannot operate in known icing conditions unless it has been certified to fly in icing conditions. To do that, the FAA is required by the Administrative Procedures Act to go through the formal rule making process. If the FAA can't make such a change without going through the APA, then certainly the manufacturer cannot. FAA legal has already stated such to be the case, in the context of maintenance manuals. The AFM is no different.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Only the FAA can change things like that, and they have not yet made a rule that an aircraft cannot operate in known icing conditions unless it has been certified to fly in icing conditions. To do that, the FAA is required by the Administrative Procedures Act to go through the formal rule making process. If the FAA can't make such a change without going through the APA, then certainly the manufacturer cannot.

You mean like this one?

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/AD-Enforces-Old-Cessna-Twin-Icing-Service-Bulletin221525-1.html

 

[Kristin]

You mean like this one?

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/AD-Enforces-Old-Cessna-Twin-Icing-Service-Bulletin221525-1.html

Exactly! The FAA issued an AD to mandate enforcement of a service bulletin. They can issue an AD enforcing the changes to your airplane, but they haven't done so yet, have they? This makes it clear that the manufacturer can suggest by issuing retroactive revisions to AFM's, but only the FAA can give it the force of law. If Cessna's bulletin had the force of law, then the FAA would not have needed to issue an AD.