• Dallas (Principal Office)
  • (214) 780-1400
  • Home
  • About us
  • Contact
Purple Shackelford Logo-loresPurple Shackelford Logo-loresPurple Shackelford Logo-loresPurple Shackelford Logo-lores
  • Attorneys
  • Industries
  • Expertise
  • News
  • Home
  • About us
  • Contact

“Known” Icing Conditions

  • Home
  • News - Aviation
  • “Known” Icing Conditions
Published by Greg Reigel at February 14, 2006

I was recently asked about the definition of “known icing conditions.” The individual asking the question was unable to find a definition in FAR Part 91. Unfortunately, “known icing” is not defined in FAR Part 91. Although FAR 91.527 discusses operating in icing conditions, it only applies to large and turbine multi-engine aircraft.

“Known icing” is, however, defined in the Aeronautical Information Manual (“AIM”). AIM 7-1-23 Table 7-1-8 defines “known icing” as “atmospheric conditions in which the formation of ice is observed or detected in flight. This should be distinguished from “forecast icing” which is defined in AIM 7-1-23 Table 7-1-8 as “environmental conditions expected by a National Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be conducive to the formation of inflight icing on aircraft.”

But you cannot simply rely upon these AIM definitions. You also need to look at NTSB precedent to determine how the Board defines/interprets “known” or “forecast” icing as it relates to pilots in FAA enforcement actions. According to the many NTSB cases addressing this issue, a PIREP of icing, if in the same vicinity as the flight in question, would constitute “known” icing conditions. Also, if icing or the potential for icing is forecast, the Board will consider it to be “known” icing conditions.

Keep this information in mind when you are making the go/no-go decision at this time of year when both “known” and “forecast” icing conditions are prevalent.

Share
Greg Reigel
Greg Reigel
Greg has more than two decades of experience working with airlines, charter companies, fixed base operators, airports, repair stations, pilots, mechanics, and other aviation businesses in aircraft purchase and sale transactions, regulatory compliance including hazmat and drug and alcohol testing, contract negotiation, airport grant assurances, airport leasing, aircraft related agreements, wet leasing, dry leasing, FAA certificate and civil penalty actions and general aviation and business law matters. Read Full Bio

Related posts

November 23, 2022

Arguments That Won’t Win A Drug Testing Refusal Case


Read more
October 13, 2022

When May A Private Pilot Receive Compensation For Operating An Aircraft “Incidental to Employment?”


Read more
September 16, 2022

Fly and Comply – Aviation Law with David Norton


Read more

Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP

Principal Office

Dallas
9201 N. Central Expressway
Fourth Floor
Dallas, Texas 75231

(214) 780-1400

Contact Us

Nashville
(615) 329-4440


Austin
(512) 469-0900


Fort Worth
(817) 887-8121

Frisco
(214) 780-1400


Houston
(832) 415-1801


Baton Rouge
(225) 610-1070

Shortcut Links

  • Home
  • About
  • Attorneys
  • Industries
  • Expertise
  • News
  • Contact
© Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Handcrafted by
  • Home
  • About us
  • Contact