Multi-engine and Multi-IFR Freelance Training Instructor (with aircraft)

[photofly]

^ True, but a GFA also reports severe turbulence for large areas which, as far as I know, planes aren't certified for. You could argue that you're grounded anytime you see that too.

There’s no specific regulation that says don’t fly into areas where turbulence (of whatever level) is forecast. If there were…

[Bede]

^ True, but a GFA also reports severe turbulence for large areas which, as far as I know, planes aren't certified for. You could argue that you're grounded anytime you see that too.

There’s no specific regulation that says don’t fly into areas where turbulence (of whatever level) is forecast. If there were…

602.07 No person shall operate an aircraft unless it is operated in accordance with the operating limitations

?

Same would go for severe icing in jets. No aircraft is certified for flight into severe icing, but GFA's call for severe icing somewhat regularly. I fly through those areas regularly. If I get into severe icing (very rare), I leave.

[airway]

^ True, but a GFA also reports severe turbulence for large areas which, as far as I know, planes aren't certified for. You could argue that you're grounded anytime you see that too.

So legally, if you saw this in a FA, you could not take off into, or fly through this huge area (in any airplane) until the FA or PIREP says something less than severe turbulence?





.

[digits_]

^ True, but a GFA also reports severe turbulence for large areas which, as far as I know, planes aren't certified for. You could argue that you're grounded anytime you see that too.

There’s no specific regulation that says don’t fly into areas where turbulence (of whatever level) is forecast. If there were…

602.07 No person shall operate an aircraft unless it is operated in accordance with the operating limitations

?

Same would go for severe icing in jets. No aircraft is certified for flight into severe icing, but GFA's call for severe icing somewhat regularly. I fly through those areas regularly. If I get into severe icing (very rare), I leave.

Interesting. So technically you won't know then if there actually is severe turbulence or severe icing, until you have encountered it, and have exceeded the limitations of your aircraft.

Which would be the equivalent of a 172 flying into a cloud with forecasted icing, and only turning back when it is iced up.

[photofly]

^ True, but a GFA also reports severe turbulence for large areas which, as far as I know, planes aren't certified for. You could argue that you're grounded anytime you see that too.

There’s no specific regulation that says don’t fly into areas where turbulence (of whatever level) is forecast. If there were…

602.07 No person shall operate an aircraft unless it is operated in accordance with the operating limitations

?

Same would go for severe icing in jets. No aircraft is certified for flight into severe icing, but GFA's call for severe icing somewhat regularly. I fly through those areas regularly. If I get into severe icing (very rare), I leave.

The turbulence thing is clearly distinguishable, and is a red herring. There’s no prohibition on on operating an aircraft in an area where a forecast of not being able to operate within turbulence limitations exists.

The severe icing thing is also a red herring. If you have a plane that is “adequately equipped to operate in icing conditions in accordance with the standards of airworthiness” then you can fly in any and all icing conditions and it’s not a breach of 605.30 even if the ice is too much for your equipment.


In a non-FIKI plane you are however forbidden to fly into an area where (any) icing conditions are “forecast to be encountered”. You don’t have to encounter any ice to commit the offence. It’s unlawful even to take a look-see.

[Bede]

The severe icing thing is also a red herring. If you have a plane that is “adequately equipped to operate in icing conditions in accordance with the standards of airworthiness” then you can fly in any and all icing conditions and it’s not a breach of 605.30 even if the ice is too much for your equipment.

You absolutely cannot. No aircraft (as far as I know of) is certified for flight in severe icing.

(It's somewhat tautological though as the definition of severe icing is icing that exceeds the deicing capability of the plane.)

[photofly]

As you say, but it’s not 605.30 you break. And whatever regulation you do break it doesn’t refer to forecasts.

[Bede]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that if you encounter icing you shouldn't immediately leave the icing conditions, I'm just arguing that IMC below 0 is not de facto flight into known icing and is therefore prohibited or unsafe in all circumstances.

[photofly]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that if you encounter icing you shouldn't immediately leave the icing conditions, I'm just arguing that IMC below 0 is not de facto flight into known icing and is therefore prohibited or unsafe in all circumstances.

Leaving "unsafe" for another time, I want to be (but am not) convinced that the line on the GFA "nil to light rime icing above freezing level unless otherwise noted" doesn't constitute a forecast that icing conditions are going to be encountered as referred to in CAR605.30, and if does, then it does prohibit flight in the same in a non FIKI aircraft.

[CpnCrunch]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that if you encounter icing you shouldn't immediately leave the icing conditions, I'm just arguing that IMC below 0 is not de facto flight into known icing and is therefore prohibited or unsafe in all circumstances.

Leaving "unsafe" for another time, I want to be (but am not) convinced that the line on the GFA "nil to light rime icing above freezing level unless otherwise noted" doesn't constitute a forecast that icing conditions are going to be encountered as referred to in CAR605.30, and if does, then it does prohibit flight in the same in a non FIKI aircraft.

I think the ASEP would constitute "otherwise noted".

What about a nice VFR day with scattered clouds at 3000ft+ AGL that might be just below 0C. Is it really unreasonable to fly IFR in those conditions? My last IPC was done in conditions like that, and the examiner didn't bat an eyelid (I did look at the ASEP). I think forbidding yourself from flying in any conditions where there might be <0C in cloud is a bit extreme. If you check the forecasts properly and have an easy escape plan I don't think it's much of an issue.

[photofly]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that if you encounter icing you shouldn't immediately leave the icing conditions, I'm just arguing that IMC below 0 is not de facto flight into known icing and is therefore prohibited or unsafe in all circumstances.

Leaving "unsafe" for another time, I want to be (but am not) convinced that the line on the GFA "nil to light rime icing above freezing level unless otherwise noted" doesn't constitute a forecast that icing conditions are going to be encountered as referred to in CAR605.30, and if does, then it does prohibit flight in the same in a non FIKI aircraft.

I think the ASEP would constitute "otherwise noted".

It's pretty clear to me that "unless otherwise noted" means "unless otherwise noted on this page".

Does the ASEP specifically say "icing conditions will not be present on this route"? Otherwise it sounds like you may be confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

What about a nice VFR day with scattered clouds at 3000ft+ AGL that might be just below 0C. Is it really unreasonable to fly IFR in those conditions? My last IPC was done in conditions like that, and the examiner didn't bat an eyelid (I did look at the ASEP). I think forbidding yourself from flying in any conditions where there might be <0C in cloud is a bit extreme. If you check the forecasts properly and have an easy escape plan I don't think it's much of an issue.

The question isn't whether it's unreasonable, whether it's much of an issue, or whether an examiner batted an eyelid during a PPC, or whether or not you have an easy or difficult escape plan. The question is does it break the rules?

I'd like to be persuaded that it doesn't, but none of those other things are relevant to that.

[digits_]

Does the ASEP specifically say "icing conditions will not be present on this route"? Otherwise it sounds like you may be confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

It says 'icing unlikely'.

[photofly]

How unsatisfying!

[Bede]

Photofly, I get what you’re saying but I tend to agree with CpnCrunch on this. There’s more flexibility and common sense in CAR’s than people think. If your suspicions were held by TC there would be dozens of these types of enforcement actions and resulting TATC cases in the database.