3 ms·

Yeah, pilots should know what they're getting into and be aware if it exceeds their experience. I didn't mean it to be an endorsement of unsafe behavior. If th

Yeah, pilots should know what they're getting into and be aware if it exceeds their experience. I didn't mean it to be an endorsement of unsafe behavior. If the capabilities of the airframe and the pilots skill are sufficient for the conditions, like if your plane is certified for flight into known icing conditions and you have experience doing so, then it's not a huge risk to fly into these situations. But if your plane has pneumatic deicing boots that require engine power and your engine quits, you may be in over your head in a hurry if ice starts building up while you're trying to perform an emergency landing. In that situation it would be nice to be able to just pop the chute.

justin66 13y ago
> like if your plane is certified for flight into known icing conditions and you have experience doing so, then it's not a huge risk to fly into these situations. But it's not a binary condition such that you can make a really clear distinction like that, right? That seems like the big risk to me. If it were as easy as "those are icing conditions but we have to equipment to deal with icing conditions," okay, no problem. I expect the risk assessment process involves more variables and is more along the lines of: "sure, that weather system is more dangerous than we'd ordinarily fly into but we've got a better deicer this time, we're in a hurry, we're experienced pilots so... let's do it." (admittedly, I have no idea how specifically a weather system's risk and a deicer's performance can be quantified beforehand... maybe it's a piece of cake)