Declaring icing to ATC

Peter wrote:

Some blame is attached to the NWS’s “inaccurate icing forecast” …

I guess that’s because they always try to blame everything on someone else. They could as well blame BRS for not providing a chute that works at higher deployment speeds.

Peter wrote:

That SR22 had TKS but was not the FIKI version, which may have been a factor in not declaring icing till too late.

I don’t know. I guess every pilot knows that the controller he talks to does not know what his aircraft is allowed to do and what it isn’t. Maybe he didn’t notice the ice until it was too late? AFAIK, one of the differences added by a FIKI approved installation is a means to detrmine if there is ice or not. Usually wing inspection lights, lights shining against the windscreen or ice sensors. On a white aircraft at night, white ice is almost invisible otherwise.

What this story tells me is to issue PIREPS when encountering ice. Usually I don’t bother to be honest. I report unforcast turbulence, but I always thought that at this time of the year ice encounter is to be expected, so why report it…

Don’t remember the US rules, but is it that you have to be “certified” for icing, and if not you are potentially breaching the rules? (making someone more wary to report)?
Have asked a couple of times for level change due to icing, in UK / France / Germany. Always answered swiftly and no questions asked.

Noe wrote:

Don’t remember the US rules, but is it that you have to be “certified” for icing, and if not you are potentially breaching the rules? (making someone more wary to report)?
Have asked a couple of times for level change due to icing, in UK / France / Germany. Always answered swiftly and no questions asked.

But then you get the following situation: If there was no reports on icing to be expected, you decide to launch. If you then encounter unexpected icing, how can you be ‘breaching the rules’ when you had done your best to ensure no icing present???

what_next wrote:

I guess that’s because they always try to blame everything on someone else.

Unfortunately that has become very common in Europe as well. In a VFR CFIT it is the chart’s fault for example. Or ATC for not telling about terrain ahead.

Aviathor wrote:

Unfortunately that has become very common in Europe as well.

But it has been always a little bit like this. I remember the days – as shown in the video – where you could file your flight plan by telephone and get your MET and NOTAM briefing in return (I can’t remember doing this after the 1990ies). The meteorologists on the phone were always very very cautious and conservative with their forecasts in order to avoid later blame. To a point where according to them maybe one out of ten flights could be performed safely.

Peter wrote:

That SR22 had TKS but was not the FIKI version, which may have been a factor in not declaring icing till too late.

The rule in Part-NCO says:

NCO.OP.170 Ice and other contaminants — flight procedures
(a) The pilot-in-command shall only commence a flight or intentionally fly into expected or actual icing conditions if the aircraft is certified and equipped to cope with such conditions ….
(b) If icing exceeds the intensity of icing for which the aircraft is certified or if an aircraft not certified for flight in known icing conditions encounters icing, the pilot-in-command shall exit the icing conditions without delay, by a change of level and/or route, and if necessary by declaring an emergency to ATC

Ever wondered why it was drafted that way?

Out of curiosity, if an aircraft is climbing and picking up ice, and eventually picks up enough that it stalls, would the extra speed in the descent, not bring the aircraft back under control, at least while in the descent.

I missed the terrain level in the video (or it wasn’t mentioned). I’m just thinking that if it was sufficiently low to allow the aircraft some time below the freezing level (6-7K) to melt some of the ice, then all he needed to do was maintain control which I’d have thought the extra speed would have given him.

If that wasn’t going to work, but the extra speed in the descent gave him control, then the other option would be to use that to level out he aircraft and slow it down until it stalled again, and then deploy the BRS.

Is the problem that he was picking up further ice in the descent and that just rendered the aircraft uncontrollable no matter what the speed?

Also curious that the de/anti icing on the wings wasn’t sufficient to maintain control. So it must have been a significant rate of icing.

dublinpilot wrote:

Out of curiosity, if an aircraft is climbing and picking up ice, and eventually picks up enough that it stalls, would the extra speed in the descent, not bring the aircraft back under control, at least while in the descent.

Normally yes. But there are possible scenarios where this is not the case, e.g. if the tailplane is iced-up to a degree where it becomes ineffective (tailplane icing has brought down airliners!). Or the ice accumulation on the tail is such that it moves the c. of g. sufficiently aft so that a spin becomes unrecoverable.

dublinpilot wrote:

I missed the terrain level in the video (or it wasn’t mentioned).

As I saw it he was over the mountains when it happened, so maybe the freezing level was at or below terrain elevation.

dublinpilot wrote:

Also curious that the de/anti icing on the wings wasn’t sufficient to maintain control.

The video didn’t even say whether or not it was turned on and operational (filled with fluid). TKS is mainly an anti-icing system, so it must be turned on prior entering icing conditions. If he turned it on after noticing substantial ice on the wings it might already have been too late.