See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269212570

Overview and risk assessment of icing for transport category aircraft and
components

Conference Paper · January 2002

DOI: 10.2514/6.2002-811

CITATIONS READS
2 621

1 author:

Thomas Vukits
L3T
3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Vukits on 10 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2002-0811
OVERVIEW AND RISK ASSESSMENT OF ICING FOR
TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT AND COMPONENTS†
Thomas J. Vukits*
Raytheon
Aircraft Integration Systems
Greenville, TX 75403

ABSTRACT Unit Definition

An overview of aircraft icing and a risk assessment g gram(s)
by aircraft and aircraft component type is presented lb. pound(s)
with a focus on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 25 ft. foot or feet
(transport category) aircraft. Icing theory and m meter(s)
pertinent parameters are reviewed. The frequencies nm nautical mile(s)
of accidents by aircraft type for a fifteen–year period °C Degrees Celsius
are given. A risk assessment technique is applied to °F Degrees Fahrenheit
individual aircraft components. Methods of lowering µm micrometer(s) or micron(s)
those risks are presented. Finally, a fairly extensive
bibliography is categorically presented.
INTRODUCTION
Aircraft icing is a complex topic involving many
NOMENCLATURE disciplines. There have been extensive studies and
Term Definition Units reports on icing since the basic National Advisory
CM Continuous Maximum Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) reports of the
(Stratiform Clouds) 1940’s. Among the most comprehensive reports is
FAA Federal Aviation Administration the three-volume Federal Aviation Administration
FAR(s) Federal Aviation Regulation(s) – Title 14 (FAA) Aircraft Icing Handbook.27
Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1
HT Horizontal Tail The purpose of this paper to provide engineers,
ICTS Ice Contaminated Tailplane Stall scientists and managers with the fundamentals of
IM Intermittent Maximum aircraft icing and a method of evaluating the risks
(Cumuliform Clouds) posed to transport category aircraft. What are
IPS Ice Protection System(s) transport category airplanes? According to the
ISA International Standard Atmosphere FAA:10
KTAS Knots True Airspeed [knots]
LWC Liquid Water Content [g/m3] a. All jets with 10 or more seats, or greater than
MED Mean Effective Diameter [µm] 12,500 lb. Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW)
MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight [lb.] and
MVD Median Volumetric Diameter [µm] b. All propeller driven airplanes with greater than 19
NACA National Advisory Committee for seats or greater than 19,000 lb. MTOW.
Aeronautics
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board Aircraft that fall below the criteria of (a) and (b) are
RPM Revolutions Per Minute considered to be general aviation category, or Federal
SLD Supercooled Large Droplets [µm] Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 23, aircraft.1
SLW Supercooled Liquid Water Transport category aircraft are regulated by the FAA
VT Vertical Tail under FAR Part 25.2 The transport category includes
% Percent such aircraft as the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A321.
___________________________________________ For the sake of space, the icing issues associated with
*Senior Mechanical Engineer, Senior Member AIAA piston engines will not be addressed in this paper.

† Copyright © 2001 by Thomas J. Vukits. Published

by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. with permission.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
What is aircraft icing? grams of liquid water per cubic meter of air (g/m3). It
Aircraft icing is an atmospheric condition that leads only includes the water in supercooled droplet form,
to the formation of ice on an aircraft. The two not the water in vapor form.66
atmospheric elements necessary for aircraft icing are
visible moisture and static air temperatures at or Clouds contain a range of droplet sizes called a
below freezing (0°C).34 distribution. The LWC of a distribution can be
calculated by determining the number of droplets and
When a water droplet is present in a liquid state their associated diameters contained in a cloud
below freezing, it is referred to as a supercooled sampling. Most of the time, the entire distribution
liquid water (SLW) droplet. SLW droplets exist at can be represented adequately by the MVD.
temperatures down to – 40°C and generally do not However, there are cases where it may be more
turn into ice until they are disturbed.29 accurate to model the entire range of droplet sizes.
This is particularly true when the MVD is small and
In–flight icing is the accretion of SLW on an aircraft, the distribution of particle sizes varies widely from
whose skin temperature is below freezing. Ice the median within the cloud. There are established
accretes on an aircraft through either direct impact or distributions that are typically used in icing analyses.
runback. When an aircraft flies through SLW The distributions developed by Langmuir and
droplets, a fraction of the droplets impact the surface. Blodgett are most often used.27
Depending upon their size and temperature, a portion
of each impacting droplet either immediately freezes
and adheres to the surface or, if sufficient energy TYPES OF ICE
remains, a portion will run back and refreeze How the SLW droplets freeze on the aircraft
downstream.34 determines what type of ice forms. Ice that forms on
aircraft is divided into three categories: rime, glaze
Basic Terminology (or clear), and mixed. Table 1 contrasts the typical
There are some basic definitions necessary for a differences between rime and glaze ice.
discussion about aircraft icing. The basic terms
defined here are mean effective diameter (MED), Table 1: Rime versus Glaze Ice – Generalized
median volumetric diameter (MVD), micron (µm), Differences27
liquid water content (LWC), and cloud droplet Condition Rime Ice Glaze Ice
distributions. Temperature Cold: Warm:
Less than 0 to –10°C
MED and MVD are terms used to describe the –10°C [+32 to +14°F]
average size of a droplet in a SLW droplet [+14°F]
distribution. They are expressed in terms of spherical LWC Low High
diameters measured in microns. A micron is a Density Low High
micrometer, or 1 x 10-6 meter, which is represented Airspeed Low High
by the symbol µm. Color Milky/ Glossy/
Opaque Clear
The FARs give droplet sizes in terms of MED, which Texture Rough Smooth
is the droplet diameter that divides the total water Runback No Yes
volume present in a given droplet distribution in half. Fragility Brittle Hard
In other words, half the water volume is contained in Water Droplet Small Large
the larger drops and the other half of the volume is in Size
the smaller drops. The value is calculated based on Airfoil Ice Streamlined/ Single or
an assumed droplet distribution. Measuring MED Shape Spearheaded Double Horn
requires statistical assumptions about the cloud
droplet distribution.27 Rime Ice
Rime ice refers to the type of ice or portion of ice that
MVD is essentially the same definition except that forms if the SLW droplets freeze on contact with an
the diameter is obtained by actual drop size aircraft surface. This type of ice generally forms at
measurements. MVD is generally assumed to be
temperatures colder than –10°C. Figure 1 shows the
equivalent to median volumetric diameter (MED).27
rime ice buildup on the leading edge of a NACA
0012 series airfoil. The shape was generated with the
Liquid water content (LWC) is the amount of liquid
computer code LEWICE40 and is shown after a 15-
that is contained in a parcel of air. It is expressed in
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
minute and a 45-minute icing interval.
The rime ice forms a spearhead-like shape that
conforms to the leading edge geometry. The droplets
freeze almost instantly and maintain their semi–
spherical shape. The ice buildup is therefore filled
with air pockets that make rime ice the least dense
and the most brittle type of ice. Because it is brittle,
rime ice is more easily removed by de-icing
equipment than glaze ice. However, the rough and
irregular texture of rime ice reduces aerodynamic
efficiency of aircraft lifting surfaces.28, 41
The air pockets in rime ice also account for its milky
white color. Rime ice is similar to the type of frost
that forms in old-style refrigerator freezers.28, 34, 41
Glaze ice can also cover a surface in a sheet of ice.
The ice sheet is similar to that formed on trees during
an ice storm. The sheet of ice will also change the
aerodynamic characteristics of a body, but not as
drastically as the horns. Glaze ice is most like ice
cubes in texture, density and color.34
Clear or glaze ice is generally considered to be more
serious than rime ice, due primarily to the great
amount of LWC available and the resulting high rate
of accretion. In addition, glaze ice is denser and
more difficult to remove than rime ice.56 While rime
ice is rough and can form protrusions; the glaze ice
horns are denser and less streamlined. The glaze
horns act as spoilers on lifting surfaces, causing a
significant drag rise and lift loss.

15 min

NACA0012

45 min NACA0012
45 min

15 min
Figure 1: Rime Ice Formation

Glaze Ice
Figure 2 shows the buildup of glaze (or clear) ice on
the leading edge of a NACA 0012 airfoil section.
Figure 2: Glaze Ice Formation
The shape was also generated with LEWICE40 and
shows the 15-minute and 45-minute icing interval
shapes. Mixed or Intermediate Ice
Rime ice and glaze ice are often more idealized
descriptions than reality. In reality, a mixed (or
As seen in Table 1, glaze ice generally forms with
intermediate) ice is most often formed, possessing
relatively warm temperatures, large droplets, high
characteristics of both rime and glaze ice. The
LWC, and high airspeeds. Because of these
conditions that lead to its formation occur from a
conditions, the entire droplet does not freeze upon
combination of the rime and glaze ice conditions
impact with the aircraft surface. It has sufficient
listed on Table 1. It has mixed characteristics
energy after impact to continue traveling back on the
because most clouds have a distribution of droplet
surface until it either freezes or dissipates because of
sizes and ranges of LWC. In addition, snow or ice
aerodynamic forces. Glaze ice is denser than rime
may be mixed with the accumulation. Whether as
ice because the droplets can be compacted closer
roughness, irregular shapes, imbedded snow/ice, or
together, thus reducing the number of air pockets.
even partial horns, mixed ice also increases drag and
This factor also accounts for the clear color of glaze
reduces lift.34
ice.

On airfoil–like sections, as the runback and accretion

ICING PARAMETERS
continue, a single or double horn can result on
The shape, location, and type of the accreted ice
leading edge surfaces, as shown in Figure 2. This
depends on both meteorological and aircraft–specific
shape can significantly disrupt the airflow over the
factors.
airfoil and thus lead to higher drag, lower lift and
lower maximum angles of attack.32, 34, 41

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Meteorological-Specific Factors
Nature is always attempting to balance the
inequalities in temperature, pressure, and moisture
content that exist over the earth’s surface. This
attempt to balance itself, combined with the earth’s
rotation leads to weather patterns. The main energy
source of all weather is the sun, and the “fuel” is
moisture, in the form of water vapor. Moisture is
necessary for the formation of clouds and
precipitation, and therefore icing.56, 57, 60, 66
Cloud Types
The three main cloud categories are stratiform,
cumuliform, and cirroform. These three categories
based upon Latin descriptions:66
• Stratus, strato (stratiform) – “spread-out”
• Cumulus, cumulo (cumuliform) – “heaped-up”
• Cirrus, cirro (cirroform) – “curly” (high clouds)
Then two prefixes/suffixes are added:66
• Alto – “high” (but used to describe middle clouds)
• Nimbus, nimbo – “rainy”
Currently, clouds are divided into four main groups
according to their height. The following are those
groups along with their associated clouds. For each
cloud type, the horizontal extent and LWC level is
indicated:27, 66
• Low Clouds (bases near surface to about 6500 ft.):
• Stratus – widespread with high LWC
• Nimbostratus – widespread with high LWC
• Stratocumulus – limited with high LWC
• Middle Clouds (bases from 6500 to 20,000 ft.):
• Altostratus – widespread with solid/liquid water
• Altocumulus – limited with solid/liquid water
• High Clouds (based at or above 20,000 ft.):
• Cirrus – ice crystals
• Cirrostratus – ice crystals
• Cirrocumulus – ice crystals
• Clouds with extensive vertical development (bases
near the surface with tops of cirrus):
• Cumulus – limited with high LWC
• Cumulonimbus – limited with high LWC
Clouds are further described according to their
stability. Stability is the resistance of an air mass to
vertical motion, i.e., its tendency to remain in
equilibrium.60
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Stratiform Clouds
Figure 3 provides the altitude and temperature ranges
for stratiform clouds. Stratiform clouds are
associated with stable air masses.60 Table 2
compares the features of stratiform and cumuliform
clouds. Stratiform clouds have smaller droplet sizes
and lower LWC, but much greater horizontal extents
than cumuliform clouds.
The following cloud types are classified as stratiform.
Along with each type is listed its associated type of
precipitation: 66
• Stratus – drizzle
• Stratocumulus – drizzle or light rain
• Nimbostratus – rain or light rain
• Altostratus – rain or snow
The FAA refers to icing that occurs in these clouds as
Continuous Maximum (CM) icing. FAR 25
Appendix C, Figures 1 to 3 present the CM icing
conditions for aircraft certification. CM occurs
between sea level and 22,000 ft. The temperatures
range from 0 to –30°C. The MED of the droplets
range from 15 to 40 µm. The lowest LWC occurs for
40 µm droplets from 0.04 g/m3 at –30°C to 0.15 g/m3
at 0°C. The highest LWC occurs for 15 µm droplets
from 0.2 g/m3 at –30°C to 0.8 g/m3 at 0°C. These
LWCs are based upon a standard horizontal distance
of 17.4 nm. The LWC would be factored up for
clouds of shorter horizontal extent and down for
clouds of greater extent. NACA TN 2738 determined
that the greater the horizontal extent of a stratiform
cloud, the lower the LWC. For stratiform clouds, the
LWC would be factored by 1.34 for 5 nm and by 0.2
for 310 nm.2, 18
While both rime and glaze icing are observed in
stratiform clouds, rime icing is seen more
frequently.27 Stratiform ice is most frequently
encountered at temperatures between 0 and –15°C.
Figure 3 highlights this region as high risk. Below
–15°C, there is a medium or moderate risk of aircraft
icing. Below –30°C the risk of icing is low.33, 66
Icing in stratiform clouds is normally in the middle to
lower clouds below 10,000 feet. Multiple layers of
these clouds have thickness that total up to 6500 ft.
The high level (above 20,000 ft.) stratiform clouds
are composed of ice crystals that are not an airframe
icing issue.27
CM icing is generally rated as light to moderate, with
maximum intensities occurring in the upper portion
of the cloud. The greatest hazard associated with CM
icing is the great horizontal extent of some cloud
decks.66
Cumuliform Clouds
Cumuliform clouds are associated with unstable air
masses, extensive vertical development and high
LWC. The main cumuliform clouds are given below
along with their associated precipitation: 27, 66
• Altocumulus – Virga, which is rain that does not
hit the ground
• Cumulus – rain showers or small hail/snow pellets
• Cumulonimbus – heavy rain, thunderstorms, or hail
(greater than or equal to 0.25 inches in diameter)
The cumuliform clouds have substantial vertical
development that enhances the growth rate of
precipitation. The enhanced growth rate leads to
larger droplet sizes than those associated with
stratiform clouds.27,60 Figure 4 presents the
temperature and altitude ranges for cumuliform
clouds.
The FAA refers to icing in cumuliform clouds as
Intermittent Maximum (IM) icing. FAR 25
Appendix C, Figures 4 – 6 present the IM icing
conditions for aircraft certification. The IM
envelopes include possible limits at 22,000 ft. and
–30°C. These are listed as possible limits due to the
low occurrences of icing at the higher altitudes and
lower temperatures.2
IM occurs between 4000 and 22,000 ft., and possibly
up to 30,000 ft. The MED of the droplets range from
15 to 50 µm. The temperatures range from 0 to
–30°C, and possibly down to –40°C.2 Note that
Figure 4 (and its reference, NACA TN 2569)17 only
goes up to 3.3°C [26°F]. However, FAR 25,
Appendix C, goes up to 0°C for the IM droplet sizes.2
The differences are due to the fact that Figure 4, and
the equivalent FAR 25 figure, are based upon actual
icing encounters. Therefore, the probability of an
icing encounter above 3.3°C is low.
The lowest IM LWC occurs for 50 µm droplets from
0.4 g/m3 at 0°C to 0.1 g/m3 at –30°C (and possibly
down to 0.05 g/m3 at –40°C). The highest LWC
occurs for 15 µm droplets from 2.9 g/m3 at 0°C to 1.1
g/m3 at –30°C (and possibly down to 0.25 g/m3 at
–40°C). These LWCs are based upon a standard
horizontal distance of 2.6 nm. The LWC would be
factored up for clouds of shorter horizontal extent
and down for clouds of greater extent. NACA TN
2738 determined that for cumuliform clouds, the
LWC would be factored by 1.35 for 0.26 nm and 0.85
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
for 5.21 nm.2, 18
Cumuliform icing is most frequently encountered at
temperatures between –3.3 and –20°C. Figure 4
highlights this region as high risk. Below –20°C,
there is a medium or moderate risk of aircraft icing.
Below –30°C the risk of icing is low.27, 33, 66
Cumuliform clouds are important to aircraft icing
because of their rapid development and high LWC.
Icing in these clouds is usually glaze or a mixture of
glaze and rime ice.27, 66
Cirroform Clouds
The third category of clouds describes the entire
group of high clouds known as cirroform. These
clouds are based at 20,000 ft. and above and are
composed entirely of ice crystals. The air at these
altitudes is usually too cold to present an icing
hazard. 27, 66
Droplet Diameter
Droplet size is typically expressed in microns. Cloud
droplets normally range from 2 to 50 µm in diameter.
While larger droplets can form, they require special
conditions. Any droplets larger than about 100 µm
tend to fall from the clouds as precipitation. MVDs
in clouds are generally less than 35 µm. MVDs less
than 15 µm are so small that they are convected
around aircraft surfaces; the small amount of ice that
does accrete does not contribute significantly to the
total build up. For this reason, droplets smaller than
15 µm are not included in the FARs.27
Liquid Water Content
LWC is one of the most important factors in aircraft
icing. By definition, it is a measure of the amount of
supercooled water that an aircraft would fly through
in a given parcel of air. The higher the LWC, the
greater the threat to the aircraft. Since the amount of
liquid that a parcel of air can hold is dependent upon
the available energy, the greatest icing threat occurs
at temperatures greater than –15°C for stratiform
clouds and greater than –20°C for cumuliform
clouds. The cumuliform clouds are unstable and by
definition, the air within them is moving or mixing to
a greater degree than in stratiform clouds. This
greater degree of motion allows them to contain more
energy than stratiform clouds; the additional energy
allows cumuliform clouds to hold more SLW.
Outside Air Temperature
Temperature is a measurement of the thermal state of
the air. The warmer the temperature, the greater the
thermal energy. The more the available energy, the
more water vapor the air can hold. As the
temperature drops, water vapor precipitates out of the
air. The outside air temperature range for SLW
droplets is from freezing to a minimum of –40°C. At
–40°C, nearly all water is converted to ice crystals.
Therefore, risk of structural icing is very low.66
Note that as the temperature approaches 0°C, runback
increases, and the predictability of the icing event
decreases. The predictability decreases because, in
actual flight near freezing temperatures, small local
fluctuations can increase or decrease the local energy,
causing a decreased or increased likelihood of
freezing, respectively.
To better understand the FAA icing envelope,
Figures 3 and 4 both contain International Standard
Atmosphere (ISA) temperature lines. The ISA model
represents air that obeys the ideal gas law and is
taken to be a “standard day.” The ISA temperature
versus altitude lines in Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the
deviation from standard day conditions within which
icing conditions exist at altitude. For stratiform
clouds, icing conditions approximately from about
ISA+8.5°C to ISA–40°C. The range for cumuliform
clouds is approximately from ISA+5°C to ISA–20°C.
NACA TN 2569 defines an average icing
temperature versus altitude for both CM and IM
icing.17 Figure 3 illustrates that above about 11,000
ft., the average CM icing temperature is very close to
the ISA temperature in the high risk region up to
about 17,000 ft. Figure 4 shows that the average IM
icing temperature generally stays within ±10°C of the
ISA condition.
Pressure Altitude
Pressure altitude refers to the technique that aircraft
use to determine altitude. Instrumentation is
calibrated to determine altitude based upon the static
air pressure. As altitude increases, ISA temperature
decreases up to 36,089 ft. Above that altitude, the
ISA temperature remains a constant –56.5°C. The
ISA altitude at which the temperature reaches –40°C
is 27,750 ft. According to the FAA Aircraft Icing
Handbook, icing encounters above 22,000 feet are
rare. The ISA temperature at this altitude is –28.6°C.
The encounters are rare above this altitude because
there is rarely sufficient energy available for high or
moderate LWC. Therefore, when icing is
encountered above 22,000 ft. it is likely to be
classified as “light” icing [see “Icing Intensity
Classifications” section]. 27
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Horizontal Extent
NACA TN 2738 determined that the greater the
horizontal extent of a stratiform or cumuliform cloud,
the lower the LWC. The standard distances for
stratiform and cumuliform clouds are 17.4 and 2.6
nm respectively.18
Consider Table 3 which presents horizontal extent
data for both CM and IM icing conditions. The table
includes the factor to be applied to the LWC for the
listed range. Consider the maximum LWC for CM
and IM, which are 0.8 and 2.9 g/m3 respectively, at
200 knots, which is a typical holding airspeed for
transport category aircraft. The speed is given in true
airspeed, which is the speed of the aircraft relative to
the ground with no winds. The amount of ice
accreted is proportional to the product of the period
of the encounter and the factored LWC. For standard
distances for each cloud type, this product would be
4.16 for CM and 2.32 for IM. Now consider the
maximum FAA horizontal extents for each. Using
200 knots again, the product would then be 14.88 for
CM and 3.94 for IM. Despite the lower LWC of CM
icing, the condition can yield greater accretions due
to the greater horizontal extent of the clouds. Based
on this result, both cloud types must be taken
seriously for aircraft certification.
Terrain Factors
There are certain aspects of the earth’s terrain that
effect the formation of clouds and their LWC. As air
masses pass over hills and mountainous regions they
tend to be lifted and cooled, and clouds may form if
there is adequate moisture. Stratiform clouds may
form if the air mass is stable, and cumuliform clouds
may form if it is unstable.58, 66
Additionally, as clouds pass over large bodies of
warm water, such as the Great Lakes, their lower
layers absorb moisture and heat. In doing so, the
moisture enhances the LWC of the clouds, and the
heating of the lower layers induces instability, or
lifting and convection. The instability leads to
precipitation on the downwind side of the
water.27,58,66
Variations with Season
Warmer seasons create large, warm air masses, which
have the capacity to hold large amounts of water
vapor. High temperatures can also create an
instability that leads to strong convective updrafts.
These updrafts cause cumuliform cloud formations
that have relatively high LWC values, such as the
cumulonimbus (or thunderstorm) cloud. These cloud
formations can produce very severe but localized
icing encounters.27

The winter or cool seasons are associated with large
cold masses of air. Because the masses are cooler,
they contain less energy, and therefore much less
water vapor, than the warmer season air masses. In
contrast, the cool air masses create more stable
environments that lead to the formation of stratiform
clouds instead of the cumuliform clouds of the
warmer seasons. The winter temperatures more
frequently fall within the icing envelope
temperatures, which increases the likelihood of
aircraft icing encounters. Further, since stratiform
clouds are formed, the horizontal extents can be
expansive. These combined factors create a critical
icing environment.27

Table 2: Comparison of Continuous and Intermittent Maximum Icing Conditions2

Condition Stratiform Clouds Cumuliform Clouds
(Continuous Maximum) (Intermittent Maximum)
Temperature Range 0°C to –30°C 0°C to –30°C and
[+32°F to –22°F] possibly to –40°C
[+32°F to –22°F and
possibly to –40°F]
Droplet Range 15µm to 40µm 15µm to 50µm
LWC Range 0.04 to 0.8 g/m3 0.1 to 2.9 g/m3
possibly 0.05 to 2.9 g/m3
Pressure Altitude Range 0 to 22,000 feet 4,000 to 22,000 feet and
possibly up to 30,000 feet
Reference Horizontal Extent 17.4 nm 2.6 nm
Horizontal Extent Range 5 to 310 nm 0.26 to 5.21 nm

Table 3: Comparison of Continuous and Intermittent Maximum Horizontal Extents2, 18

True Time in CM Clouds – 17.4 nm LWC Time in IM Clouds – 2.6 nm LWC
Airspeed [minutes] Factor [minutes] Factor
[Knots] CM IM
100 10.4 1.00 1.6 1.00
200 5.2 1.00 0.8 1.00
250 4.2 1.00 0.6 1.00
True Time in CM Clouds – 310 nm LWC Time in IM Clouds – 5.21 nm LWC
Airspeed [minutes] Factor [minutes] Factor
[Knots] CM IM
100 186.0 0.20 3.1 0.85
200 93.0 0.20 1.6 0.85
250 74.4 0.20 1.3 0.85

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 3: Continuous Maximum (Stratiform Clouds) Atmopsheric Icing Conditions2, 17, 27, 33

Figure 4: Intermittent Maximum (Cumuliform Clouds) Atmopsheric Icing Conditions2, 17, 27, 33

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Aircraft-Specific Factors
Aircraft-specific factors are unique characteristics of
each aircraft that affect the amount of ice which will
accrete. These factors include: surface parameters,
which will be detailed in the next section; maximum
ceiling; ice protection systems; aircraft airspeed; and
the duration of the icing event.
Aircraft Maximum Ceiling
The maximum ceiling of the aircraft is determined by
the level of drag, the amount of thrust, and the weight
and speed of the aircraft. Commercial aircraft ceilings
are typically defined as the point at which the aircraft
vertical climb speed reaches 300 feet per minute. The
important factor in terms of aircraft icing is whether an
aircraft can climb above the icing conditions. If the
aircraft can climb above the conditions, then icing
becomes mainly a concern for climb, descent, and
holding patterns. Removing the cruise segment as a
concern decreases the likelihood of an icing encounter.
General aviation aircraft are typically at greater risk
because they cannot climb above the icing conditions.
Ice Protection Systems
Ice protection systems (IPS) are systems that are
installed in critical areas of the aircraft to protect it
from ice. These systems either remove ice that has
already formed on protected surfaces (de–ice) or
prevent ice from forming on protected surfaces (anti–
ice). They exist in many forms, ranging from
pneumatic boots on wing leading edges to hot-air bleed
for jet engine inlets. As IPS is a topic unto itself, the
reader is referred to the FAA Aircraft Icing Handbook
for further details.27
Aircraft Airspeed
The higher the airspeed, the greater the mass flux of
SLW for a given period. At higher speeds, there is
more aerodynamic heating, but generally the increased
mass flux dominates until about 430 knots true
airspeed (KTAS). The actual speed of the aircraft
through the air is given in KTAS.27
The slowest aircraft airspeed is its stall speed. Stall
speed is the speed at which the wing stalls for a
particular weight and altitude. To allow a safety
margin, the FAA dictates a low-end speed of 1.2 to 1.3
times the stall speed for take-off and landing
respectively.2
Below 10,000 ft., in controlled airspace, FAR Part
91.117 limits the maximum airspeed to 250 knots
indicated airspeed (airspeed indicated on the aircraft
instruments).4 The indicated airspeed at this low
altitude is essentially the same as KTAS. Above
10,000 ft. to 22,000 ft., the limit would be the aircraft’s
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
maximum operational or cruise speed, whichever is
greater. However, if the aircraft typically cruises
above the icing altitudes (22,000 ft.), the maximum
speed for icing altitudes would become the aircraft
maximum holding, climb or descent airspeed. Holding
airspeeds are determined by the manufacturer for when
the aircraft is in a holding pattern waiting to land.
These airspeeds are generally less than 250 knots
indicated airspeed.
Airspeeds may be restricted in icing conditions. Either
the restriction will be to keep the airspeed safely above
the increased stall speed due to icing or it will be to
lower the airspeed to reduce the mass flux of SLW on
the surfaces for holding conditions.
At airspeeds from 430 KTAS at sea level to 475 KTAS
at 20,000 ft., water runback does not freeze. At
airspeeds from 530 KTAS at sea level to 580 KTAS at
20,000 ft., anti-icing is not required by military
standards (MIL-A-9482) because at very high speeds,
skin friction actually provides enough heat to melt
structural ice. The needed airspeed increases with
altitude because of the cooler ambient temperatures.
At true airspeeds above 580 knots, structural icing
ceases to be a problem. These maximum airspeeds are
generalizations, and the exact airspeeds will vary with
aircraft and ambient conditions.27,56
Duration of the encounter
The amount of aircraft ice accretion directly depends
upon the duration of the encounter. In turn, the
duration generally depends on the extent of the cloud,
the aircraft airspeed and pilot awareness. The
horizontal extents of the clouds are given in Table 2.
However, it has been shown that as the cloud extends
over a greater distance, its concentration of LWC goes
down. Refer to the horizontal extent discussion
above.18, 27
Table 3 also shows that the longest duration icing
events are associated with CM conditions. This fact
leads to the FAR certification guideline that
unprotected surfaces must be able to safely hold for 45
minutes in CM icing conditions.7, 8 According to AC
20-73, “service experience indicates that holding in
icing conditions for as much as 45 minutes is an
operational condition that may be encountered.” 7
Surface-Specific Icing Parameters
The surface geometry and temperature affect how
efficient that surface is at collecting SLW droplets.
The more efficient it is, the more ice that will be
accreted. The size of the SLW impacted region is also
important. If an area has a large efficiency but is a
small region, there may not be an icing concern.
Conversely, if there is a small collection efficiency and
a fairly large region affected, then icing is probably a
concern. If both are large, then there definitely is an
aircraft icing concern.
Skin Temperature
As stated earlier, one of the necessary conditions for
ice formation on an aircraft is that the skin’s
temperature is below freezing. The skin temperature
forms one part of the thermal equilibrium that
determines what kind of ice forms on a surface. After
a cold droplet impacts on the surface, it is warmed to
the skin temperature. The colder the temperature, the
more likely that the droplet will freeze instantly and
form rime ice.
Leading Edge Radius
For airfoils, Bragg showed that as the leading edge
radius increased, the maximum local collection
efficiency decreased.25 The stagnation area at the
leading edge effectively creates a bow wave in front of
the body. As the bluntness, or leading edge radius
increases, so does the bow wave that deflects smaller
water droplets. Only larger droplets have sufficient
inertia to avoid being deflected by the bow wave.
Conversely, the sharper the leading edge of a surface,
the more efficient it is at collecting ice. This explains
why the sharper leading edge of the horizontal tail
generally collects more ice than the comparatively
blunter wing.27 While Bragg’s work related to airfoils,
the same concept can generally apply to the leading
edge of any aircraft surface.
Two- or Three-Dimensional Nature of Surface
The greater a surface’s curvature, the greater the cross,
or three-dimensional, flow around the body. Whether a
body is essentially a two-dimensional or three-
dimensional body can be determined by answering the
following question: Are the aerodynamic and ice
accretion characteristics of the three-dimensional body
sufficiently explained with a two-dimensional section,
with few exceptions? A two-dimensional body is one
that can be modeled with essential planar, or two-
dimensional, flow.
The increased cross flow on a highly three-dimensional
body may reduce, and would certainly change, the
collection efficiency over that of a equivalent two-
dimensional body, due to increased convection of the
water droplets. Examples of highly three-dimensional
bodies would include highly swept wings and tapered
fairings.
To illustrate the differences three-dimensional flow can
create, consider the glaze ice accretion on an unswept
wing that forms the classic double horn shape shown in
Figure 2. By adding a certain amount of sweep to the
same wing, the glaze horns become a pattern of
“lobster-tails” or scallops as shown in Figure 5, which
has been enhanced for clarity. Vargas and Reshotko
discuss the mechanisms that lead to scallop formation
in detail.31

Maximum Thickness-to-Chord Ratio

Bragg also noted that as the maximum thickness of an
airfoil relative to its chord (or characteristic length)
increased, the total collection efficiency, E, decreased
[see “Collection Efficiencies” section below]. The
wing, in effect, became blunter. However, at the same
time, the total mass of water impingement, ΔYo,
increased due to the increased maximum thickness-to-
chord ratio.25 Which of these two effects dominates
depends upon the particular body and atmospheric
conditions. An analogy may be drawn to other
surfaces such as fairings and fuselage sections.

Aerodynamic Smoothness
The smoothness of a body surface also affects the rate
of aircraft icing. A surface that is physically or
aerodynamically unclean presents a greater surface
area to catch the freezing droplets.56 The roughness
elements act as sharp leading edge radii collectors.

Figure 5: Ice Accretion on the Leading Edge of a

NACA 0012 Swept Wing – Direction of Flow is
Bottom to Top31
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Upstream or Downstream Surface Influence
Certain surfaces on an aircraft can be shadowed by
upstream surfaces even at small angles of attack. The
larger SLW droplets are deflected by the upstream
surfaces and, because of their inertia; they are not
turned by the flow field quickly enough toward the
body. Thus, the deflected droplets miss the downstream
surfaces. For example, upper fuselage aft-mounted
antennas are typically masked by the aircraft nose and
fuselage crown upstream and are therefore not an icing
concern.
Also, lifting surfaces can influence the local flow
angle, and therefore the collection efficiency, of
upstream (upwash) and downstream (downwash)
surfaces. Downwash on the horizontal tail is one
notable example, as will be discussed later in the
“Aircraft Stability and Control Degradation” section.
The upwash, downwash, and masking characteristics
may also influence the local flow velocity in a region
and its collection efficiency.
Slat/Flap and Control Surface Configuration
Slat/flap and control surface extension change the
lifting surface geometry. Higher slat/flap settings
allow for slower airspeeds and are more susceptible to
stall due to ice contamination. The deflected surfaces
themselves are also in danger of icing if their leading
edges are exposed to the freestream. Further, the flap
deflection increases the downwash on the horizontal
tail, which increases its local angle of attack. The
increased angle of attack places the horizontal tail
closer to stall. Therefore, many manufacturers restrict
slat/flap extension in icing conditions.
Body Attitude
The attitude of a body determines what portion is
exposed to the freestream air. The aircraft or surface
angle of attack is the angle of the body relative to the
freestream. As angle of attack increases, the geometry
that the air “sees” generally increases and so the body
effectively becomes blunter, or thicker, to the
airstream. [See the discussion above on “Maximum
Thickness-to-Chord Ratio.”]
Aircraft sideslip is the angle of the aircraft’s nose
relative to the forward motion that results in “wind” in
either the pilot’s or the copilot’s outboard ear. Most
holding patterns, cruise, climb and descent segments
involve only short duration of sideslip. However, due
to crosswinds, there may be some steady sideslip of the
aircraft to maintain direction, called crabbing, and
therefore some asymmetry of ice accretion from side-
to-side.
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
SUPERCOOLED LARGE DROPLETS
The current FAR icing envelopes only range from 15 to
50 µm. However, droplets as large as 3,000 µm are
known to exist. When the SLW droplets are larger
than the 50 µm, they are referred to as supercooled
large droplets (SLD). Droplets from 200 to 500 µm
are known as freezing drizzle. Freezing rain droplets
range from 1,000 up to 3,000 µm. The coverage of the
SLD range of particle sizes is currently under intense
investigation by the regulatory authorities and the
aerospace industry. Figures 9, 10, and 13 illustrate the
effect of increasing the droplet size from 40 µm to 200
µm. The greater inertia of the larger particles can
penetrate the surface streamlines further back on an
airfoil, possibly beyond the protection systems.67
Additional data are needed to generate a realistic large-
droplet envelope for supercooled large droplets.66
ESSENTIAL ICING EQUATIONS AND
CONCEPTS
To understand the physics of the aircraft icing process,
it is necessary to review some essential relationships.
Figure 6 shows the icing control volume model.42
Figure 6: Icing Control Volume Model42
Conservation of Mass
The conservation of mass is a primary equation for
determining ice accretion and for scaling icing tunnel
tests. Figures 6 and 7 show the basic mass flux model.
Mass flux is measured in units of mass per unit time.
Within a control volume, there are two sources of
water. The first source is from impinging SLW
droplets. The second source is from upstream control
volumes from which a portion of the droplets has not
frozen. Of this influx of water, a portion will freeze. A
small portion will evaporate and the remainder will run
back into the next downstream control volume. In
equation form:27,42
• • • • •
m inc + m w _ in = m evap + m freeze + m w _ out (1)
Where: freezes and what portion evaporates. Figure 8
• illustrates the energy balance model.42 Within a
m inc = Mass flux of incoming water control volume, energy (or heat) is conserved. There is
• a balancing between the sources and sinks of heat. A
m w _ in = Mass flux of the runback water from the source of heat provides heat to the control volume. A
upstream control volume = zero at the sink is process that removes heat from the control
stagnation point volume. The equation for conservation of energy may
• be expressed in terms of heat flux:27
m evap = Mass of water evaporated per unit time
• • •
m freeze = Mass of water converted into ice per unit Q Source = Q Sink (3)
time
•
Where:
m w _ out = Mass flux of the runback water out of the •
control volume Q Source = Heat flux from sources
•
The mass of water freezing per unit time may be Q Sink = Heat flux to sinks
expressed as:42
• d ρA Heat flux is measured in units of heat per unit time.
m freeze = ice i sur
(2) Often these terms are represented per unit area and
∆t •
would be represented with a double prime ( Q ″).
Where: Assuming that the surface skin temperature is warmer
d ice = Ice thickness than the air and SLW droplets, the sources of heat are
as follows:27, 30, 37, 42, 43
ρi = Density of ice
• • • • • •
A sur = The local impingement area Q Source = Q w _ in + Q freeze + Q Aero + Q KE + Q Cool
Ice
Heat
∆t = Incremental time unit •
+ Q Cond (4)
Equation (2) is used for numerical analyses such as
LEWICE3D.42 Often the mass flux terms are Where:
represented per unit area for wing sections or other •
two-dimensional sections, and they are represented Q w _ in = Heat (flux) provided by incoming water
•
that did not freeze or evaporate in an
with a double prime ( m ″).
upstream control volume
•
Q freeze = Heat (flux) released as water freezes
•
Q Aero
Heat
= Heat (flux) into the control volume due to
aerodynamic heating or friction
•
Q KE = Heat (flux) due to the kinetic energy of the
incoming water droplets
•
Q Cool
Ice = Heat (flux) released due to the cooling of
ice to the surface temperature. Note that if
Figure 7: Mass Flux Control Volume Model42 not all of the water freezes, this term goes
to zero
Conservation of Energy •
The conservation of energy equation follows a similar Q Cond = Heat (flux) due to conduction. The
model to that of the conservation of mass. It is also a warmer skin conducts heat to the cooler
primary equation in determining the ice accretion on a water and or ice. Often this term is
surface. The primary function of the conservation of dropped because the initial layer of ice is
energy is to determine what portion of the water assumed to act as an insulating layer
12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 8: Energy Flux Control Volume Model42
The heat sinks are as follows:27, 30, 37, 42, 43
• • • • •
Q Sink = Q Conv + Q Drop
Warm
+ Q evap + Q w _ out
Where:
•
Q Conv = Heat (flux) leaving the control volume due
to convective cooling
•
Q Drop = Heat (flux) required to warm incoming
Warm
SLW droplets to the surface temperature.
• SLW droplets).27
Q evap = Heat (flux) required to change the state of
water from liquid to vapor
• K = 18K Re −3
Q w _ out = Heat (flux) leaving the control volume in
the form of unfrozen water, i.e., runback
Droplet Inertia
A droplet’s size, and therefore mass and inertia,
directly effects how and where ice forms on an aircraft
surface. Figures 9 and 10 show the effects of different
droplet sizes. Small water droplets, less than 15 µm in
diameter, have a relatively low inertia and tend to
follow surface streamlines. They react very easily to
the flow field around a surface. Midsize water
droplets, 15 to 50 µm, will impinge further aft on a
surface and will have a much greater overall wetted
area. The midsize range is what the current FARs
require protection against.
The large droplets with MVDs greater than 50 µm are
SLD. The droplets have greater inertia than the 50 µm
droplets; they penetrate the surface streamlines more
easily than the midsize droplets. However, due to this
higher inertia, the larger droplets can be completely
deflected by the nose and the crown of the aircraft over
upper fuselage-mounted components, such as fairings
and antennas.27
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
It has been shown that a droplet’s trajectory depends
approximately upon its inertia, K, and Reynolds
number (Re), based on droplet diameter. K can be
expressed as follows:27
 1  δ V∞ ρ W 
2
K=   (6)
 18  cµ A 

Where:
δ = Droplet diameter
V = Freestream velocity
∞
ρ W = Density of water
(5) c = Characteristic length or chord
µA = Viscosity of air
The Reynolds number is based upon the droplet
diameter. Langmuir and Blodgett combined Reynolds
number and K into a single parameter called the
modified inertia parameter, Ko. Bragg developed an
expression that matches Langmuir’s within 1 percent
until Re of about 1000 (much higher than the values for
 −2 6  Re 3
1

arctan 
 (7)
 Re  6 
O
Ko can be thought of as the ratio of the droplet inertia
to droplet drag forces. Figure 10 shows the upper and
lower droplet trajectory traces from LEWICE for CM
icing.40 The airfoil is a NACA 0012 at: 5º angle of
attack, 100 m/second, –10°C, 54,021 Pascals (5,000 m.
or 16,404 ft.), 100 percent relative humidity and with
1-meter chord. The droplet sizes and LWC were
varied from 20 µm at 0.425 g/m3, to 40 µm at 0.100
g/m3, and finally to 200 µm at 0.100 g/m3.
For small values of Ko, the drag force of the droplet
dominates, and the droplet closely follows the
streamlines until very near the leading edge stagnation
region. If Ko is on the order of 0.005 or smaller, the
droplet acts much like a flow tracer. For larger values
of Ko, the droplet inertia dominates, and it is not easily
turned in the flow field around the airfoil. When Ko
approaches 1.0 and higher, the trajectory is essentially
a straight line intersecting the body. These effects can
be seen in Figures 10 and 13. Ko values are given in
both figures for the conditions listed above. Ko is a
strong function of the characteristic length and MVD,
and a weaker function of the aircraft velocity.27
13
 and far enough upstream of the airfoil (at least several
chords) so that the flow is essentially undisturbed by
the airfoil. At this upstream location, the droplet
trajectories can be assumed to be initially parallel to
each another and to the freestream streamlines. The
droplet trajectory which strikes the airfoil at its leading
edge (or stagnation point) intersects the Y-axis at a
point which is taken to be Y=0. The upper tangent
trajectory intersects the Y-axis at a point YU and the
lower tangent droplet trajectory intersects it at a point
YL. Now define ΔYo = YU – YL, which is referred to
Figure 9: Droplet Size Effect on Trajectory68 this as the “freestream impingement width.” Define h
as the projected frontal height of the airfoil, which is a
function of angle of attack. The total impingement (or
collection) efficiency E is defined as the ratio of the
freestream impingement width to the projected frontal
height (Equation 8). It is the proportion of SLW
droplets crossing the Y-axis within the frontal
projection of the airfoil and ultimately striking the
airfoil.27
NACA0012
20 micron - Ko = 0.17
40 micron - Ko = 0.51 Now take a small segment of Yo, δYo. Divide this by
200 micron - Ko = 6.0 the corresponding small segment of the airfoil arc
length, δS, that droplets in δYo would impinge. Now
Figure 10: Droplet Size Effect – take the limit as δS approaches 0. This defines the
Upper and Lower Trajectory Traces local collection efficiency, β, which is given in
equation (9). Figure 12 shows the difference between
Collection Efficiencies the two for an airfoil section.27
The collection efficiency is a measure of how efficient
a surface is at collecting SLW droplets. There are two
 δY   DYO 
collection efficiencies, local and total. The total β = lim  O  =   (9)
collection efficiency is defined as:27 δS→0
 δS   DS 
∆YO
E= (8)
h

Figure 11: Total Collection Efficiency Parameters

Figure 12: Local and Total Collection Efficiency
Parameters
Refer to Figures 11 and 12 for the following
discussion. Let S represent arc length measured along
Note also that the total and local collection efficiencies
the airfoil surface. Normally S is taken to be 0 at the
may be related by the following expression:27
leading edge or at the stagnation point. S is defined to
be positive on the upper surface and negative on the
Su
lower surface. SU and SL are defined to be the upper
and lower limits of droplet impingement on the airfoil. ∆Yo = ∫ β DS (10)
The upper and lower limits are determined by the upper SL

and lower tangent droplet trajectories. Now, define a

Y-axis that is perpendicular to the freestream velocity
14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 1
15 microns - Ko = 0.10
20 microns - Ko = 0.51
0.8
40 microns - Ko = 0.17
Local Collection Efficiency ~ β

200 microns - Ko = 6.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
S/c
Figure 13: Collection Efficiencies for Different Droplet Sizes

The effect of MVD droplet on collection efficiency Where:

of the NACA 0012 airfoil, shown in Figure 10, may
be seen in the impingement efficiency curve or β–
curve in Figure 13. Both figures have the same
conditions. S has been non-dimensionalized with the
chord (c) of the airfoil. As the droplet size increases,
they impinge further aft on the airfoil due to their
greater inertia. The freestream impingement width,
∆Yo, is equivalent to the area under the curves in
Figure 13.
Ao and A would be the three-dimensional equivalents
of Yo and S. The segments, DS, would be equivalent
to three-dimensional panels. Ao would be the
upstream area of the droplets that impinge on the
downstream impingement panel area, A.42
The local collection efficiency is also known as the
local water loading. The equation for the local
collection efficiency can also be expressed as
follows:55
• It also represents a non-dimensional form of the
m′′
β=
(LWC)V ∞ is expressed as follows:27
β = Local collection efficiency
•
m′′ = Impinging mass flux rate per unit area
LWC = Liquid water content
V = True airspeed
∞
In this sense, the collection efficiency may be thought
of as a non-dimensional mass flux onto an aircraft
surface. The amount of water that impinges on an
aircraft surface is directly proportional to: the amount
of water in the air (LWC); the airspeed of the aircraft;
and how efficient the surface is at collecting water
(β). The LWC range is defined by the FAR Part 25,
Appendix C; the airspeeds come from the aircraft
flight manual and may be further restricted due to
icing.2
Accumulation Parameter
The accumulation parameter is a non–dimensional
representation of the rate of ice buildup on a surface.
conservation of mass equation (density times velocity
= constant). The equation for the accretion parameter

OR (LWC)V∞ τ
A = (12)
• C
(c)(ρ i )
m′′ = β(LWC)V∞ (11)

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Where: operations
AC = Accumulation parameter
LWC = Liquid water content For this 15-year period, there were 41,205 aircraft
V∞ = True airspeed accidents and incidents, of which 1,220 involved
icing. These 1,220 are broken down by aircraft type
τ = Period of the icing event
in Figure 14. The 1,220 total included all aircraft
c or c = Characteristic length of the body or chord classes. Excluding general aviation (FAR Part 23)
ρ = Density of ice and piston/reciprocating engine aircraft (60 ≈ 4.9
i
percent), the total drops to 46 transport category
(FAR Part 25) aircraft accidents/incidents. 46
The accumulation parameter is directly proportional equates to 3.8 percent of all completed accident
to the duration of the icing event. Both the mass flux investigations over a 15–year period. The breakdown
and accretion parameter increase with increasing of that 3.8 percent is as follows: 38 turboprop, 6
LWC. However, this must be balanced by the inertial turbofan, and 2 turbojet aircraft. If only the FAR Part
qualities of the flow, Ko, as discussed above. The 25 turbojet aircraft are considered, the accident
larger droplets also equate to a lower LWC, as they percentage drops to 0.2 percent. In contrast, there
tend to precipitate out of the air. Therefore, a were 1,114 general aviation icing accidents and
surface’s collection efficiency must also be taken into incidents for this same period (91.3 percent).
account. The FAA Aircraft Icing Handbook offers Therefore, it is clear that FAR Part 23 aircraft and
two approximate relationships based upon the light/propeller/reciprocating engine Part 25 aircraft
accumulation parameter:27 are at much greater risk from icing than turbojet/fan
aircraft.63
t
local
≅A β (13)
1200
C local
c
The local ice thickness (tlocal) in chords is 1000
approximately equal to the accretion parameter times

Piston / Reciprocating Engine

General Aviation ~ FAR 23

the local collection efficiency.

800

t max
≅ A Cβ max (14) 600
c
400
The maximum ice thickness (tmax) in chords is
Turboprop

approximately equal to the accretion parameter times Turbofan

200

Turbojet
the maximum local collection efficiency.

0
HOW OFTEN DO ACCIDENTS OCCUR? 1114
60
38
Using data from the National Transportation Safety 6
2
Board (NTSB), Bragg et al. surveyed aircraft icing
accident and incident reports from January 1983 to Figure 14: NTSB Recorded Icing Accident and
August 1998.63 The NTSB data reports were only for Incidents for a 15-Year Period63
completed investigations and are not a complete
listing. However, the data set is still statistically
significant for observing trends. Accidents and FAR PART 25 AIRCRAFT RISK MITIGATION
incidents are defined as follows:64 FACTORS
There are certain risk mitigation factors that lower
Accidents: the icing risk for transport category aircraft
• Person suffers serious injury or death (excluding piston engines). Among these mitigating
factors are:
• Aircraft receives substantial damage
• More power (or bleed-air) for ice protection
Incidents:
systems (IPS) – Thus all forms of ice protection
• Not an accident
can be supported
• An occurrence that could affect the safety of
16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Higher cruising altitudes – generally above natural
icing conditions
• Higher airspeeds – ability to escape icing
conditions more quickly in terms of horizontal
extent
• Faster climb/descent rates – Spend less time
climbing/descending through icing conditions
• Greater range – for weather avoidance and
alternate fields
• Control surfaces generally have greater
hydraulic/mechanical advantages that can
overcome icing buildup and are often powered
• On-board weather radar
• No carburetor to ice up
• Pilots generally have more flight hours and training
• Generally the wing chord and wing area are larger
and more tolerant of large accretions than smaller
chord and area wings of FAR Part 23 aircraft
Due to IPS costs, general aviation aircraft are less
likely than transport category aircraft to apply for
icing certification. General aviation aircraft, due to
their slower speeds and low operating altitudes, can
be subjected to considerably longer icing exposures.
They have more unprotected components, such as
wing struts and non-retracting landing gear.27
Single engine aircraft inherently have reduced system
redundancies and thus a reduced reliability. FAR
23.1309 states that equipment, systems, and
installations “in a single-engine airplane, must be
designed to minimize hazards to the airplane in the
event of a probable malfunction or failure.” A multi-
engine aircraft “must be designed to prevent
hazards.” 1, 27
TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT
CERTIFICATION AND OPERATION
During the late 1940’s and through the 1950’s,
extensive atmospheric research was published in
early NACA reports. These NACA reports form the
basis of today’s regulations.
An aircraft does not need to be certified for flight in
icing conditions. However, the decision not to install
IPS limits aircraft operations. FAR 91.527 states:4
“(b) Except for an airplane that has ice protection
provisions…no pilot may fly --
(1) Under IFR [Instrument Flight Rules] into known
or forecast moderate icing conditions; or
(2) Under VFR [Visual Flight Rules] into known
17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
light or moderate icing conditions unless the aircraft
has functioning de-icing or anti-icing equipment
protecting each propeller, windshield, wing,
stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed,
altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument
system.
(c) Except for an airplane that has ice protection
provisions…no pilot may fly an airplane into known
or forecast severe icing conditions.”
[Reference “Icing Intensity Classifications” section
below for definitions of light, moderate and severe
icing] If an aircraft is to be certified to fly into
known icing conditions, it must be equipped with IPS
and the systems must be flight-tested in such
conditions. The critical condition for a protected
surface will depend on the type of protection system
used and the other aircraft parameters. Advisory
Circular (AC) 20-73 provides information related of
the certification of aircraft IPS. The ice protection
methods are hot air, electric resistance, liquid, and
expandable boot systems.7, 27
The critical condition for any unprotected aircraft
surface is a 45-minute hold in Continuous Maximum
icing conditions as discussed in AC 25-1419-1 and in
AC 20-73. While the critical condition for a
protected surface will vary based upon the type of
IPS, the 45-minute condition should be addressed.
According to AC 20-73, “service experience
indicates that holding in icing conditions for as much
as 45 minutes is an operational condition that may be
encountered.” The 45-minute condition provides
critical ice shapes for performance and
stability/control.7, 8
If an aircraft is not capable of withstanding the 45-
minute hold condition, a reduced period may be
established. However, the limitation must be place in
the aircraft flight manual.27
There are two types of regulatory references to ice
protection. One is provided by the aircraft type
design certification rules described in Parts 25 and
33. The other is the operating regulatory information
provided in Part 91, 121, and 135. A brief summary
of the major chapters in regards to aircraft icing are
provided below:
Part 25 – Airworthiness Standards: Transport
Category Airplanes: 2
25.207: Stall warning
25.629: Aeroelastic stability requirements
25.773: Pilot compartment view
25.875: Reinforcement near propellers
25.903: Engines 25.1419–1: Certification of Transport Category
25.929: Propeller deicing 91-13C: Cold Weather Operation of Aircraft
25.951: Fuel System General 91-51A: Effect of Icing on Aircraft Control and
25.975: Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor Airplane De-ice and Anti-Ice Systems
vents 135–9: FAR Part 135 Icing Limitations
25.1091: Induction System – Air Induction
25.1093: Induction system icing protection For additional information, consult the Aeronautical
25.1101: Carburetor air preheater design. Information Manual, Official Guide to Basic Flight
25.1103: Induction system ducts and air duct Information and Air Traffic Control Procedures.9
systems Also, the FAA Aircraft Icing Handbook offers an
25.1105: Induction system screens extensive survey of the aspects of aircraft icing,
25.1323: Airspeed indicating system including certification.27 A detailed search under the
25.1325: Static pressure systems FAA’s website, or other web-based search engines,
25.1326: Pitot heat indication systems using keyword searches will yield further
25.1403: Wing icing detection lights information.
25.1419: Ice protection
25.1455: Draining of fluids subject to freezing
Appendix C: Definitions of CM and IM Icing RISK ASSESSMENT
Envelopes The overall concern for transport category aircraft
certification for flight into known icing conditions is
Part 33 – Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft safety of flight. The following is a breakdown of the
Engines:3 risks to airworthiness in terms of severity of icing and
33.35: Fuel and induction system by individual component. A specific icing accident is
33.66: Bleed air system presented to emphasize the potential consequences of
33.68: Induction system icing aircraft icing.
33.77: Foreign object ingestion – ice
33.78: Rain and hail ingestion Icing Intensity Classifications
Appendix B: Certification Standard Atmospheric Icing intensities are classified for reporting purposes
Concentrations of Rain and Hail in the Aeronautical Information Manual (Section 7-
1-20). The intensities of icing fall into four
Part 91 – General operating and flight rules: 4 categories: trace, light, moderate, and severe. These
91.117: Aircraft speed descriptions are used to standardize the classification
91.527: Operating in icing conditions of icing encounters.9

Part 121 – Operating requirements: Domestic, flag, Trace Icing

and supplemental operation: 5 Trace icing is the point at which the ice accretion first
121.283: Induction system ice prevention becomes detectable. Trace would appear as a thin
121.341: Equipment for operations in icing white line on wing leading edges. The rate of
conditions accumulation is slightly greater than sublimation.
121.342: Pitot heat indication systems IPS equipment is not needed unless encountered for
121.629: Operation in icing conditions more than an hour. Therefore, trace ice is not
hazardous for aircraft with IPS.9, 27, 66
Part 135 – Operating requirements: Commuter and
on demand operations and rules governing persons Light Icing
on board such aircraft: 6 Light icing classifies the type of accumulation that
135.158: Pitot heat indication systems may create a problem if flight is prolonged in the
135.227: Icing conditions: Operating limitations environment for more than an hour. The thin white
line on leading edges from trace icing begins to
Additional Advisory Circulars (AC) are produced by increase in size. IPS remove/prevent accumulation
the FAA for clarification to the regulatory with occasional use. Relatively minor performance
information. The most significant of which are: degradations may become noticeable as the buildup
00–06A: Aviation Weather continues. Aircraft with IPS in this environment are
00-45E: Aviation Weather Services not at risk unless exposure time begins to exceed an
20–73: Aircraft Ice Protection (Systems) hour. 9, 27, 66
25.629–1A: Aeroelastic Stability Substantiation of
Transport Category Airplanes
18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Moderate Icing
In moderate icing, the rate of accumulation is severe
enough that even short encounters can become
hazardous. The use of IPS or flight diversion is
necessary. Performance degradations will become
noticeable as the accretion continues. Exposure
times with IPS should be limited to 45 minutes,
which is the certification requirement. Aircraft
without IPS should immediately divert to exit the
environment. 7, 8, 9, 27, 66
Severe Icing
An icing environment is classified as severe when the
rate of accumulation is such that IPS equipment fails
to reduce or control the hazard. Immediate flight
diversion is necessary for all categories of aircraft.
Flight 4184, described below, illustrates a severe
icing encounter where the aircraft IPS failed to
control the ice accumulation. Similar to extreme
turbulence, severe icing results in an airplane that is
not controllable and can lead to structural damage.
Fortunately, like extreme turbulence, severe icing
encounters are rare.27, 66
Flight 4184
On October 31, 1994, an Aérospatiale ATR 72-212,
operated by Simmons Airlines as American Eagle
flight 4184, crashed near Roselawn, Indiana. The
ATR 72-212 was a FAR Part 25 twin-engine
turboprop with a MTOW of about 48,000 lb. The
airplane was in a holding pattern, descending to a
newly assigned altitude of 8000 ft. During the
descent to 8,000 feet and in a right turn in the holding
pattern, the aircraft rolled, without pilot input, to
approximately 70 degrees right wing down. The
crew attempted to recover, however, the airplane
rolled to the right a second time and continued to roll
to an inverted position and entered a rapid descent.
The airplane was destroyed on impact with the
ground. All 68 people onboard died. The NTSB
determined that loss of roll control was the probable
cause. A ridge of ice had developed behind the de-
ice boots. The ice ridge caused uncommanded
upward aileron movement. Since the autopilot was in
use, the pilots could not detect the loss of roll control.
This caused a sudden, unexpected, aileron reversal
and roll.11, 61, 66, 69
Individual Component Risk Assessment
Ice can buildup on any exposed frontal surface of the
aircraft.33 Only external components and those with
openings to the exterior need to be addressed for
aircraft icing. The following risk classification of the
aircraft components is based upon icing conditions
between trace and moderate icing, since severe
conditions should be exited immediately:
19
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Major – Direct impact on the safety of flying.
Possible severe structural damage and
loss of life. IPS are needed.
Moderate – Possible impact on the safety of flying.
Moderate to severe structural damage.
Possible need for IPS.
Minor – Little or no impact on the safety of
flying. Within FAR allowables. No
need for IPS.
The need for ice protection for a particular
component can be ascertained by answering the
following questions:27
1. Will ice accumulate on the component in question
and in what amount?
2. Will the accretion adversely affect the
component's function?
3. If the component’s function is affected, will it
have an effect on the safe flight of the aircraft?
4. Will ice accretion on the component adversely
affect downstream components? (For example,
shed ice impacting the aircraft engines.)
According to AC 1419-1, Section 11: “Ice shedding
from components, including antennas, of the airplane
should cause no more than cosmetic damage to other
parts of the airplane, including aft-mounted engines
and propellers (compliance with §25.1093).” 8
Whether or not shed ice causes more than cosmetic
damage becomes an impulse load question. The
contributing factors are: the collection efficiency of
the component and therefore the mass and density of
the accreted ice; the distance to the downstream
critical component, which determines the drag
deceleration of the shed ice (i.e., velocity
differential); and, most importantly, the duration and
area of impact. The effect of shed ice can be
determined analytically, but aircraft safety must be
demonstrated by flight test.
Major Risk Components
The components classified as major risks are those
that positively answer questions 2 and 3. The
components are those that are essential to safe and
controlled flight. The threat is directly related to the
potentially substantial ice accretion on the
component. The hazards are to the aircraft stability,
control, visibility, or system/structural integrity. The
major risks are known and covered by FARs. These
components most likely need an IPS. The
components at major risk are identified below along
with the associated risk:
• Lifting or control surfaces leading edges –
Reduction in aircraft stability and/or control
• Engines and air induction systems – Damage or
flame-out
• Flight-critical systems – Obstruction:
• Static pressure
• Airspeed
• Angle of attack/stall warning
• Communications
• Navigation
• Windshield – Occlusion
• Inlets and vents – Obstruction:
• Fuel tank ventilation system
• Pressurization system
• Environmental Control System (ECS)
• Extension/retraction mechanisms – Jamming:
• Wing leading edge and trailing edge devices
• Control surfaces
• Landing gear
• Aerodynamic enhancement devices – Reduction in
aircraft stability and/or control
• Vortex generators
• Wing fences
• Stall strips
• Strakes
Moderate Risk Components
The moderate risk components are not flight-critical.
However, when answering questions above, number
4 is answered positively. In other words, the major
threat to airworthiness is engine or downstream
component damage from shed ice. The ice accreted
on these components can be relatively large and thus,
the risk of downstream critical component damage
must be addressed. The components at risk from ice
shedding include:
• Non-flight-critical:
• Retractable mechanisms - radomes, cameras, etc.
• Large probes, antennas, and instruments
• Aircraft nose radome
• Medium-to-large radomes on aircraft fuselage
Another moderate risk of component icing can be
measurable performance losses. Such losses need to
be determined during flight tests and incorporated
into the aircraft flight manuals. Other moderate risk
components and their associated risk are:
• Non-flight-critical inlets/vents for secondary
system cooling – Overheating the secondary
system
• Protrusions on lifting or control surfaces –
Interference and/or premature stall
20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Minor Risk Components
These components are classified as minor, because
even if they accrete ice, there is either insufficient ice
or no critical downstream components. These
components may also be shadowed by upstream
components, thus reducing or eliminating ice
accretion on that component. When reviewing the
four questions to determine if ice protection is
needed, only the last question is answered positively,
but the degree of icing is small or negligible. The
degradation in performance due to ice on these
components is less than 5 percent of the overall
aircraft drag. Minor components would include:
• Aircraft fuselage (excluding the nose and
windshield)
• External hinges, tracks, door handles, rivets and
other small protrusions
• Wing tip tanks
• Small antennas and probes – generally less than 6-
inches in height
• Upper surface fuselage-mounted components
shadowed by the aircraft nose
• Small fairings – Lower fuselage surface, generally
less than 6-inches tall
Components less than 6-inches in height are
generally not an icing concern as there is simply just
not enough surface area to accrete sufficient ice to
cause damage
INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT RISK
DESCRIPTION
As the Flight 4184 unfortunately illustrates, the risks
due to aircraft icing can be high. The previous
section outlined the degree of risk associated with the
individual aircraft components. To understand those
risks more clearly, they are discussed in detail below
in terms of performance, stability and control, engine,
systems, and other risks. Each poses a unique
challenge to safety of flight or aircraft performance.
What is often most deadly is the combination of
effects, such as decreased lift and increased drag.
Aircraft Performance Degradation
The overall effect of aircraft icing in terms of
performance is loss of aerodynamic efficiency. If the
degradation is mostly a matter of decreased
efficiency, it may be acceptable if it is understood
and controllable. To be understood, the manufacturer
will establish and publish any icing related
performance limits in the aircraft flight manual.
These icing limits can apply to the following areas:27
• Range or duration of operation
• Maximum airspeed
• Rate of climb performance
Drag Increases
Whether as an overall roughness increase or as a
direct shape change due to accretion, ice increases the
aircraft drag. The degree of the drag rise varies
greatly between different aircraft and icing
conditions. Table 4 presents wing roughness versus
percent (%) increase in section drag coefficient (Cd).
The roughness is expressed in terms of roughness
element height over wing chord. The drag data in
Table 4 are based upon simulated roughness elements
on NACA 4 and 5 digit airfoils. The NACA 66
series airfoils had an even greater drag rise from 140
percent at 0.0001 to 210 percent at a 0.01 roughness
element height. The wing roughness drag increase
would be similar to the drag rise due to streamlined
rime ice. However, a roughness height for ice is not
easily measured. Nonetheless, according to the FAA
Aircraft Icing Handbook, roughness height to chord
of 0.001 “works well in many cases.”27
The wing surface roughness drag increase is only one
part of the overall drag increase. Drag increases vary
from 0 to 500 percent or more. The “typical” rime
ice drag increase is on the order of 100 percent, while
an increase for glaze ice could range from 200 to 300
percent.27 Even with IPS, drag rises of 20 to 90
percent have been noted.61
Ashenden and Marwitz have compiled the data for a
Beech (Raytheon) King Air, which has a MTOW of
about 12,500 lb. The data spanned over 20 years of
operations of in icing conditions. Drag increases of
50 percent were common and sometimes as high as
200 percent. The most severe conditions were
associated with freezing drizzle encounters.12, 61
In cruise, thrust is equal to drag. If drag increases,
then thrust must also increase to maintain level flight.
The increased thrust will increase fuel burn and
reduce performance.
Table 4: Effect of Wing Surface Roughness26, 27
Roughness Element % Decrease % Increase
Height/ Wing Chord in CLmax in Cd
0.0001 7 40
0.001 21 70
0.005 32 87
0.01 35 110
21
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Decreased Lift
At a given angle of attack, ice accretion reduces the
effectiveness of lifting surfaces by changing their
shape and thus reducing their efficiency. The
decrease in lift causes the aircraft to fly at higher
angles of attack for a given weight, possibly further
increasing the aircraft (induced) drag.
The decreases in maximum lift coefficient (CLmax)
presented in Table 4 are for leading edge roughness
elements only. The data were collected from a series
of different wing sections including Boeing 737 and
767 sections. From the collected data, trends and
ranges were observed. For sections with the
roughness distributed over the entire upper surface, a
roughness of 0.001 can lead to a loss as high as 45
percent.26 Using a roughness of 0.001, an
approximate range of maximum lift loss from 21 to
45 percent is obtained. The lift loss would be similar
to that of the streamlined rime ice accretion.27 The
surface roughness in Table 4 did not include such
extreme shapes as horns. Therefore, maximum lift
losses could be much higher.
Depending on the particular ice accretion, reductions
in lift curve slope and/or a shift in the angle of attack
for zero lift may also occur. The change may be a
result of the ice shape changing the airfoil camber or
of a thickening of the boundary layer as a result of
the added roughness.27 However, the most important
loss in terms of lift is the reduction in maximum lift.
The reduction in maximum lift equates to reduction
in the stall angle of attack of the wing. The reduction
in stall angle requires the aircraft to fly at higher
airspeeds to avoid stalling; hence, the stall speeds are
increased.
Weight Increases
The actual weight of accreted ice is generally small
relative to that of transport category airplane. It may
be on the order of few hundred pounds over the entire
aircraft. The performance impact of a small weight
increase is nearly insignificant when compared to the
loss in aerodynamic efficiency.
Thrust Decreases
Reduced propeller efficiency or reduced inlet
efficiency due to ice buildup lowers the available
thrust. There may be additional drains on engine
efficiency to power IPS. Therefore, to maintain the
same “clean” aircraft thrust level, the iced
configuration requires a higher power setting. The
overall effect is loss of engine efficiency and
increased fuel burn.
 Decreased Airspeeds
The combined factors of increased drag and
decreased thrust require an increase in power, if
available, to maintain the same airspeed. However,
the increased power increases the engine fuel burn
rate. Because of the decreased efficiency, the aircraft
must cruise at decreased airspeeds to maintain the
same “clean” aircraft fuel burn rate. If there is
insufficient power, the aircraft will be forced to a
lower altitude and airspeed where the thrust is again
equal to the drag. The extent of these decreases
depends upon the aircraft and the icing encounter.
Aircraft Stability & Control Degradation
The effect of structural icing on aircraft stability may
be subtle at the onset, but can become extreme.
Pilots have reported that the aircraft attitude control
becomes sluggish. As ice accretes on the lifting
surfaces, control movement and aircraft
responsiveness are often described as “mushy;”
responsive to stick movement is slow because of
shape changes or separated flow regions due to the
ice formations.27 In the extreme, ice accretion can
hinder the proper deployment or retraction of a
control surface.
Wing and Horizontal Tail Ice
The formation of ice on the wing and horizontal tail
(HT) changes their shape. The shape changes cause a
loss in aerodynamic efficiency. The lift decreases
and the drag increases versus the same “clean” angle
of attack. More importantly, the angle at which flow
separation begins on ice-contaminated wing or HT
decreases. Thus, the maximum lift and the
corresponding angle of attack are decreased.
Because they are decreased, the normal warning
margins for stall onset may be insufficient. Reduced
lift results from the inefficiency of the ice shapes and
increased tendency of the flow to separate off sharp
and irregular ice shapes. The decrease in maximum
lift translates to an increase in aircraft stall speed.
The aircraft manufacturer will indicate in the flight
manual any icing airspeed limitations.27
A 737 wing section was tested in Glenn Research
Center icing tunnel by Potapczuk and Berkowitz. For
the clean configuration (slats/flaps retracted), the
wing section stalled around 15°. When
measurements were taken after an ice simulation
buildup, the stall angle decreased to about 12.5°.
However, the stall was not as sudden. For 15°
(approach) slats/flaps, the stall angle was reduced
from 17° to 12°.27
Ice can form symmetrically or asymmetrically on an
aircraft. The stability effect depends on the location,
22
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
size and extent of the ice accretion. The main danger
from ice formation on wings and the HT is not from
force changes, but from stall. The stall can be
symmetric, leading to a pitch upset or asymmetric,
leading to a roll upset. Worst-case ice shapes may be
flight-tested for stability impact with artificial (or
dry) ice shapes adhered to critical locations on the
aircraft.
Pitch Upset
A pitch upset occurs due to uncleared ice on the wing
or horizontal tail (HT). The upset occurs due to a
symmetric wing stall or HT stall. HT or tailplane
stall is often referred to as ice contaminated tailplane
stall (ICTS).
While a pitch upset may occur from either a wing or
a tailplane stall, it usually occurs from ICTS. The
horizontal tail leading edge typically has a smaller
leading edge radius than the wing. The HT is also
thinner than the wing. As discussed above, thinner
airfoils with smaller leading edge radii have greater
collection efficiencies. The HT is often seen to
accrete ice at two to three times the thickness of that
on the wing. It has been suggested that there are
other factors enhancing the accretion at the HT such
as local temperature effect. The risk of ICTS is
further enhanced by the fact that the pilot cannot see
the leading edge of the HT. Most ICTS accidents and
incidents have occurred on turboprop aircraft. This is
believed to be at least partially due to the lower
ceilings and typical routes of turboprops that tend to
place these aircraft in the icing environment for
greater periods.27
To better understand ICTS, the role of HT needs to
be understood. The HT is located some distance aft
of the center of gravity and it generates a moment in
order to stabilize, balance, or trim the aircraft. It is
used to balance the moments created by the wing,
fuselage and other components. The HT generates a
force that acts over a relatively large moment arm, to
the center of gravity, to counter and balance the
moments from the other components (wing, fuselage,
engines, etc.). The HT is essentially a wing-section
mounted upside-down such that flow over its surface
creates a downward force for a leading edge nose-
down deflection. Unlike the wing, HT stall generally
occurs on the lower surface at leading edge nose-
down attitudes.
Downwash from the wing increases the HT angle of
attack. As the wing flaps are deployed for take-off
and landing, the downwash at the HT increases.
Therefore, the risk of ICTS is greatest during take-off
and landing, when the aircraft is flying at low
airspeeds close to the ground. Many manufacturers
advise limiting flap deflection on the aircraft when
HT ice is suspected. The FAA has issued Advisory
Directives requiring certain aircraft to limit flap
deflection during and after flight in icing
conditions.27
Just as a flap increases wing lift, the elevator
increases the force at the tail. Lower surface
separation on the HT leads to the loss of elevator
effectiveness. If the separation is large enough and
located over the elevator, it can cause a large change
in elevator hinge moment that can overpower the
pilot.61 The nose-down stick forces ranging from one
to several hundred pounds may be experienced.
Aircraft with powered elevators generally have more
available power to manage the large stick forces.27
NASA flight-tested a Twin Otter aircraft with dry
glaze ice shapes on the HT. For the clean
configuration (slats/flaps retracted) at a low power
setting, the longitudinal static stability (by definition,
Cmα is negative) was decreased by about 10 percent.
The reduction increased to 17 percent for the flaps
deflected (10°) case and no power. The presence of
ice on the tail also reduced the elevator effectiveness
by 12 percent for the clean configuration, and by 16
percent with 10° of flaps.61
Roll Upset
Roll upset due to ice accretion occurs from an
asymmetric wing stall or separated flow over an
aileron. The stall, or flow separation, can occur due
to uncleared ice on a wing. If one wing (left or right)
stalls, it loses lift and drops, causing the aircraft to
roll suddenly.
Separated flow over an aileron can have several
effects. The aileron may simply have reduced
authority, causing the aircraft to feel less responsive
in roll. If the flow is completely separated over the
aileron, there may be no roll authority, which can
lead to a roll upset when attempting to bank, or roll,
the aircraft. Another possibility is that the separated
flow causes a negative pressure region over the
aileron that causes it to deflect suddenly, without
pilot input. The uncommanded aileron deflection
normally occurs on aircraft that do not have power-
controlled ailerons. The determining factor for
uncommanded deflections is whether the aileron
mechanisms can resist and overcome the adverse
pressure. Unfortunately, Flight 4184 probably
experienced such a sudden aileron deflection.
23
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Vertical Tail and Rudder
As with the wing and the HT, ice accretion on the
vertical tail (VT) causes a reduction in aerodynamic
efficiency. At the same time, rudder effectiveness is
reduced. The critical case for VT and rudder design
is the engine-out case, where the yawing moment
induced by thrust from the remaining engines must
be balanced by the VT. If the VT does not have an
IPS, analyses and tests must substantiate adequate
rudder authority in an iced engine-out case.27
NASA also flight-tested the Twin Otter aircraft with
simulated moderate glaze ice shapes on the VT.
Lateral-directional stability, Cnβ, was reduced
particularly at the no power condition. Rudder
effectiveness, Cnδr, was reduced by approximately 8
percent.61
Engine Icing Risks
The general FAA requirements for transport category
aircraft are included in FAR 25 and 33. FAR 25.903
covers general aircraft engine requirements and FAR
25.951 addresses the fuel system requirements. Icing
poses several hazards to the engines and its
components.2,3 The main concerns are: airflow
restriction that reduces engine performance; flameout
of turbine engines; and engine damage due to the
ingestion of ice. Flameout refers to the flame in the
combustor of a turbine engine going out and the
engine quits or stalls. Since the engine needs oxygen
to burn, a flameout due to icing occurs because of a
disruption in airflow and the resulting fuel-rich
mixture. Flameout tends to occur at low power
settings such as descent or holding segments. It
occurs during these segments because the engine is in
a low power mode and is more sensitive to
disruptions in the airflow. To counter this, many
manufacturers advise turning on the igniters during
icing encounters.
The engine components of concern include the
induction system or the propeller. The engine
induction system refers to all the systems or
components that provide air to an engine. They are
covered by FAR 25.1091, 25.1093, 25.1103, and
25.1105. The engine induction system includes: air
scoops, guide vanes, spinners, inlet ducts, and
induction system screens. These regulations require
that there is neither sustained/serious loss of power
nor flameout during flight in icing conditions.2, 27
Ice accumulation can decrease the performance
efficiency of turbojet and turbofan engines. The
decrease in performance results from a distortion of
the inlet flow field and direct ingestion of ice. IPS in
the form of air heating at the engine inlet decreases
thrust and engine efficiency by increasing the inlet
temperature. IPS feeding off the engines will also
decrease the engine efficiency due to the load on the
engines.56
Engine Ice Impact and/or Ingestion
Ice shed from airplane components located upstream
of the engine may damage or erode turbine
components and/or the propeller. Induction system
components and propellers are examples of power
plant components subject to damage from ice
impingement.27 FAR 33 presents the turbine engine
requirements with respect to foreign object (birds,
ice, hail, and water) ingestion. In terms of water, ice,
and hail, sections 33.77 and 33.78 state that the
ingestion may not cause a sustained power loss,
thrust loss, or require the engine to be shut down.3
AC 25.1419-1, section 11 states that “Ice shedding
from components, including antennas, of the airplane
should cause no more than cosmetic damage to other
parts of the airplane, including aft-mounted engines
and propellers.”8 In order to become certified for
flight by the FAA, aircraft engines must demonstrate
that they are capable of operating successfully in
icing conditions.
Propeller Engines
Aircraft propeller and spinner sections are protected
from ice for several reasons. As with wings and
control surfaces, leading edge ice formations on
propellers cause a loss of efficiency. In addition,
asymmetrical shedding of ice may result in propeller
imbalance. Large pieces of ice shed from the
propeller or spinner may cause fuselage skin damage
or be ingested by the engine on turboprop aircraft.
FAR 25.875 outlines the requirements for
reinforcement near propellers.2, 27
If ice begins to form on the blades of a propeller, the
propulsion efficiency is decreased. Just as for the
wing, the ice accretion increases drag and reduces the
force perpendicular to the drag. For wings this is the
lift force, for propellers it is the thrust force.
Therefore, with ice buildup, increased power is
needed from the engine to maintain straight and level
flight.27
One method that pilots use to decrease icing hazards
is to increase the engine Revolutions Per Minute
(RPMs). The higher RPM increases the centrifugal
forces acting on the SLW droplets and ice on the
blades and decreases the amount of accretion. The
forces remove or throw-off the water/ice before it can
greatly accumulate. Additionally, there is a speed-
temperature effect that tends to protect the outer
24
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
portions of propeller blades that have the highest-
rotational speed and therefore greater surface friction.
Increasing the engine RPMs improves the speed-
temperature protection by a small amount. Also, if
the power setting is the same, increasing engine
RPMs decreases the blade angle of attack, and
therefore its effective frontal area decreases.27
The spanwise extent of blade protection is typically
30 percent of the blade length, where the ice buildup
is the heaviest. There is generally less protection
progressively outboard on a propeller blade towards
the tip, where centrifugal force reduces buildup
problems.27 FAR requirements for propeller deicing
are covered in Part 33 and section 929 of Part 25.2, 3
External Probes and Sensors
External probes or sensors can become blocked or
degraded by ice, causing false readings or complete
loss of instrument feedback. Therefore, flight-critical
sensors must have some form of IPS or be located
such that risk of icing is low. The more critical of
these sensors are the pitot, static, and stall warning
sensors. Where ice protection is provided for small
critical components, the effect of a single failure
needs to be considered. For example, if the pilot’s
pitot tube fails, the copilot’s may be used.27
Pitot and Static Systems
FAR 25.1323 covers the airspeed indicating system,
namely the pitot probes and the static pressure ports.
In order to comply with paragraph (e) of this
regulation, the pitot probes must be heated or have
some equivalent means of preventing malfunction
due to icing. If the pitot probe is heated, then
compliance with FAR 25.1326, “Pitot Heat
Indicating Systems,” is also required. The indicating
system alerts the flight crew if the system is “off” or
"’on’ and any pitot tube heating element is
inoperative.” 2
FAR 25.1325 requires that static port design and
location be such that the correlation between the
static air pressure system and true ambient pressure is
not changed when flying in icing conditions. Heated
static ports are typically necessary to meet this
requirement; however, if the static ports are located
on the fuselage suitably aft of the nose of the aircraft
or other disturbances to the flow, protection may not
be needed.2, 27
Stall Warning System
A stall warning system detects the angle of attack and
alerts the flight crew if the aircraft is within some
margin of stall. The stall system requirements are
discussed in FAR 25.207. 2

To detect the stall, the system often uses an angle of
attack vane or probe as the sensor. The sensor needs
to located such that the airflow over it is essentially
freestream flow, or as close as possible. Because the
sensor protrudes out into the freestream and has
edges that are relatively small, it is subject to
significant icing. Therefore, electrical anti-icing is
usually used to prevent buildup. Additionally, ice
buildup on the adjacent surfaces must be addressed,
as that buildup may disrupt the airflow over the
sensor.
The FARs do not currently require adjustment to the
stall margin for icing conditions. However, the
reduced stall margins with artificial ice shapes will be
addressed during the aircraft flight test program.
Aircraft limitations resulting from analysis and flight
tests must be incorporated into the aircraft flight
manuals.27
External Antennas and Radomes
External antennas and radars can become blocked,
degraded, or damaged by ice, causing the loss of or
reduced navigation/communications. Radomes and
antennas mounted on top of the fuselage and
sufficiently far aft may be shadowed by the aircraft
nose and therefore would not be an icing concern.
Radomes
Most transport category aircraft have a weather radar
in the nose radome. While ice accretion on the nose
radome does affect radar transmission, studies show a
maximum degradation of only 10 percent. Generally,
this transmission loss is acceptable, and the transport
category nose radomes are not ice protected.27 Other
types of transmitters and receivers would have to be
tested on a case-by-case basis to determine losses and
whether those losses are acceptable. Keep in mind
that if the radar is to function at altitudes above icing
conditions, the ice formed during a take-off and
climb will most likely sublimate at altitude.
Other concerns about radomes include increased drag
and shed ice from their surfaces. The increased drag
is generally less than 5 percent of the total aircraft
drag at zero lift. Ice accreted on the radome surface
could shed and cause damage to downstream
components.27 While aircraft nose radomes may in
some cases have a somewhat sharp tip, the ice that
accretes does not easily shed because of the axi-
symmetric shape of the radome. However, each
manufacturer must address this during certification.
While angle of attack does have an effect on the
location of ice formations on radomes and the
25
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
resulting drag, it is not nearly as great as with
airfoils.27 A significant difference between airfoils
and radomes lies in their projected frontal areas. As
an airfoil changes angle of attack, the frontal area
changes greatly. However, the frontal area of a
fuselage-mounted radome generally does not vary
greatly within the aircraft angle of attack envelope.
Antennas
Antennas generally are not a concern unless there is a
critical downstream component. If there is a critical
downstream component, a worst-case ice mass can be
calculated and tested. An IPS can be added if
damage is probable. Blade antennas have an airfoil
cross-section that can be easily analyzed.
Transmission or reception losses may also be
ascertained through analyses and tests.
Inlets and Vents
Inlets and vents generally do not become completely
obstructed due to ice buildup. However, the airflow
may be restricted. Also, pieces of ice on the inlet
face may break loose and become drawn inside.
Whether protection is needed depends upon whether
there are vulnerable downstream components and
whether the restricted airflow is acceptable. Bends in
internal ducting can protect these components by
causing the ice to break up in the duct turns. Making
the inlets and vents flush with the aircraft surface also
provides additional protection by reducing the
exposed frontal areas and the resultant collection
efficiencies.27
Without sufficient airflow for the fuel tank vents,
dangerous vapors can build up. FAR 25.975 requires
fuel vents to be located and constructed to reduce the
possibility of ice blockage. The regulation requires
that no fuel vent blockage occurs during flight into
known icing conditions. Fuel systems normally have
a dual vent system, with one vent recessed to prevent
icing and one vent electrically heated as a backup.2, 27
The environment control system (ECS) inlets/vents
provide air for pressurization and equipment cooling.
Without proper airflow for pressurization, the aircraft
could become under-pressurized. Additionally, the
ECS vents are needed for controlling the aircraft
environment, including the cooling of critical
equipment. As such, these inlets/vents are normally
located in ice-free areas or include IPS.2, 27
[Engine inlets are discussed in the “Engine Icing
Risks” section above.] Cooling air inlets and air
scoops for secondary systems must also be addressed.
If the secondary system is to operate in all
environments, then the effects of icing should be
considered as well. However, since the system is by
definition secondary and not flight-critical, the
cooling is not regulated or required by the FARs.2, 27
Aeroelastic Icing Concerns
An aircraft is a flexible structure. The aircraft in
flight carries aerodynamic loads and the structure
deflects until the stiffness capability stops the motion.
The structure contains a restoring force like that of a
compressed spring. The aircraft also has mass and,
thus, inertia. The combination of mass (inertia) and
stiffness (restoring force) defines the flexibility. The
flexibility interaction with the airloads yields a
damped response below a critical airspeed and an
undamped one above a critical speed. The undamped
response instability may result in the form of flutter,
divergence or control reversal. When evaluating
transport category aircraft for aeroelastic stability,
icing conditions and the resultant ice-altered masses
must be considered per FAR 25.629 (d). Fortunately,
the mass of ice is generally forward of the elastic
axis, causing a damping effect. Nonetheless, each
component must be analyzed on a case–by–case basis
to ensure stability.2
Miscellaneous Areas of Risk
According to FAR 25.773, the pilot and copilot need
an unobstructed view of the horizon.2 Therefore, the
windshield must not become occluded by ice. Anti-
ice systems are normally installed to prevent icing.
FAR section 25.1403 on “Wing Icing Detection
Lights” can be related to FAR 25.773. FAR 25.1403
requires a means of determining whether ice is
accreting on critical portions of the wing.2 One
method of determining this is by inspection through
the cockpit window. During night operations in icing
conditions, wing ice-detection lights are required. If
lights are not used, an alternate means of ice
detection must be provided.
Another hazard of icing is that the landing gear or
brake operation could be hindered. In general, ice
may interfere with any aircraft retraction mechanism.
Flaps, slats, and landing gear may become obstructed
from structural icing and must have a means of
ensuring safe operations. Fortunately, most of these
systems are powered on transport category aircraft
and they can usually overcome the ice build-up.
Aerodynamic enhancement devices, including such
components as vortex generators, wing fences, stall
strips, and fuselage strakes, are also subject to icing.
These devices are used to help keep the airflow
attached over vital areas or to control stall. It must be
ascertained if the device is affected by icing and
26
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
whether relocation or an IPS is needed.2, 27
Other small aircraft components can accumulate ice
if they are not protected. Some of these smaller
components include external hinges, tracks, and door
handles. The need for ice protection for these
components can be ascertained by answering the
questions 1 to 4 listed in the “Individual Component
Risk Assessment” section above.27
Another area of concern is drain masts or pipes.
These are used to drain onboard water from the
galley, washbowls, or air conditioning system. The
possible ice hazards include drain blockage and
runback accretion. Since large volumes of water may
be involved, the runback accretion can be
considerable. FAR 25.1455 addresses the draining of
fluids subject to freezing. The regulation requires the
drains to be designed and located to prevent any
hazardous accumulations. Often, drainage pipe are
not used and the water is stored onboard until
landing. 2, 27
LOWERING THE RISKS
There are several factors that can be introduced into
the aircraft icing equation to reduce the risk of
accidents and incidents. Among these factors are:
• Air traffic control personnel training and awareness
• Pilot training and awareness
• Pilot knowledge and awareness of icing cues
• Training in proper reaction techniques
• Knowledge of aircraft systems and limitations
particularly the IPS and any limits for
operating in icing conditions
• Obtaining accurate, up-to-date weather reports and
update en route, including pilot reports of icing
• Proper and full de-icing on the ground
• Prudent flight planning to avoid icing conditions
• Exiting icing conditions as soon as possible.
According to NASA, 9 out of 10 cases the icing
condition may be exited by:67
• A 3,000 foot altitude change
• A 50 mile horizontal position change
• Declaring an emergency when SLD conditions are
encountered and recognized
The visual icing cues can be combined with pilot
monitoring of performance and handling of the
aircraft. If the pilot is aware that icing conditions are
present, and that aircraft performance and/or handling
is degraded, the pilot can exit the condition before
conditions worsen.
If a large rapid build-up of ice is seen on the
windshield or other visible surface, SLD is probably
the cause. An SLD encounter should be considered
an emergency and exited as soon as possible.
Bragg et al. has proposed the development of an Ice
Management System that could work with existing
IPS to provide an additional level of safety. The Ice
Management System would sense ice accretion and
IPS performance. The accumulation may be
determined by monitoring aircraft flight parameters.
The system would automatically activate and manage
the IPS. The Ice Management System would also
have the ability to “modify the aircraft flight
envelope by use of the flight control system to avoid
conditions where flight could potentially be
uncontrollable.” It would provide the pilot feedback
about the actions and status of the system.61
CONCLUSIONS
Aircraft icing is a serious airworthiness issue,
especially for aircraft that are limited by design to fly
at natural icing altitudes. Fortunately, this is not the
case for a great portion of transport category aircraft,
as proven by the relatively low number of icing
accidents and incidents. For transport category
aircraft, critical components, in terms of icing, can be
identified with a logical approach and knowledge of
the aircraft and its limitations. These components
can then be analyzed and tested to assure safety
during flight. However, the best way to avoid natural
icing hazards is to have accurate forecasts, know
what conditions lead to natural icing, and to avoid
them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express his appreciation to
all of those that assisted in my aircraft icing
education. Particular thanks goes to: Colin Bidwell
and William Wright of NASA Glenn Research
Center; Don Takeuchi of JTD Environmental
Services, Inc.; and Kamel Al-Khalil of Cox and
Company. The author also conveys his gratitude to
David Allenza for his artwork and editorial
assistance. Jason Spivey and Samuel Westwood are
thanked for their input to the aeroelastic section.
Lastly, the author expresses his deep gratitude to his
mentors in aerodynamics at Raytheon, Wayne E.
Frazier and Ethan A. Schrader.
27
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
REFERENCES
The following include the references cited throughout
the paper plus supplementary works, broken down by
major topics. The most comprehensive of these
references is the FAA Aircraft Icing Handbook,
which includes 221 pages of references dated through
1993. For this reason, the majority of the references
cited below are from 1993 and later. The handbook
also includes a 16-page subject index.27
Additional sources of information, including
abstracts and complete papers, may be found on the
Internet. Key-word searches can yield a wealth of
information. Some of the better web sites include:
http://www.faa.gov - Provides the latest and
historical regulatory, certification, and guidance
information. The references for the Federal Aviation
Regulations are given without dates, as the
amendment level depends upon the application.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ - for accident and incident data
http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ - NASA technical
report server
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/ - NACA online reports
http://www.aiaa.org/ - AIAA paper and journal
information and ordering
Regulatory and Certification
1. Federal Aviation Administration, Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 1,
Subchapter C – Aircraft: Part 23 –
“Airworthiness Standards: Normal, utility, and
acrobatic category airplanes.”
2. Federal Aviation Administration, Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 1,
Subchapter C – Aircraft: Part 25 –
“Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category
Airplanes.”
3. Federal Aviation Administration, Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 1,
Subchapter C – Aircraft: Part 33 –
“Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engines.”
4. Federal Aviation Administration, Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 1,
Subchapter F – Air Traffic and General
Operating Rules: Part 91 – “General operating
and flight rules.”
5. Federal Aviation Administration, Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 1,
Subchapter G – Air Carriers and Operators for
Compensation or Hire: Certification and
Operations: Part 121 – “Operating requirements:
Domestic, flag, and supplemental operation.”
6. Federal Aviation Administration, Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 1,
Subchapter G – Air Carriers and Operators for
Compensation or Hire: Certification and
Operations: Part 135 – “Operating requirements:
Commuter and on demand operations and rules
governing persons on board such aircraft.”
7. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory
Circular 20–73: “Aircraft Ice Protection.”
8. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory
Circular 25.1419-1: “Certification of Transport
Category Airplanes for Flight in Icing
Conditions.”
9. Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical
Information Manual, Official Guide to Basic
Flight Information and ATC Procedures, Change
3, 12 July 2001,
http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/index.htm.
10. Federal Aviation Administration Website,
Information for Aircraft, Aircraft Certification
Products and Services, Transport Airplanes,
http://www.faa.gov/certification/.
11. Federal Aviation Administration, Type
Certificate Data Sheets, Type Data Sheet No.
A53EU Aerospatiale, ATR-72-212, June 1997,
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gui
dance_Library.
12. Federal Aviation Administration, Type
Certificate Data Sheets, Type Data Sheet No.
A24CE, Beech (Raytheon) King Air, June 2001,
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gui
dance_Library.
Fundamentals, Comprehensive, and Overview
13. Lewis, W., “A Flight Investigation of the
Meteorological Conditions Conducive to the
Formation of Ice on Airplanes,” NACA TN
1393, 1947.
14. Lewis, W., and Kline, D. B., “A Further
Investigation of the Meteorological Conditions
Conducive to Aircraft Icing,” NACA TN 1424,
Oct. 1947.
28
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
15. Preston, G. M., and Blackman, C. C., “Effects of
Ice Formation on Airplane Performance in Level
Cruising Flight,” NACA TN 1598, May 1948.
16. Jones, A. R., and Lewis, W., “Recommended
Values of Meteorological Factors to be
Considered in the Design of Aircraft Ice
Prevention Equipment,” NACA TN 1855, Mar.
1949.
17. Hacker, P. T. and Dorsch, R. G., “A Summary of
Meteorological Conditions Associated with
Aircraft Icing and a Proposed Method of
Selecting Design Criterions for Ice-Protection
Equipment,” NACA TN 2569, Nov. 1951.
18. Lewis, W. and Bergrun, N. R., “A Probability
Analysis of the Meteorological Factors
Conducive to Aircraft Icing in the United
States,” NACA TN 2738, July 1952.
19. Gray, V. H., “Simple Graphical Solution of Heat
Transfer and Evaporation from Surface Heated
to Prevent Icing,” NACA TN 2799, Oct. 1952.
20. Lewis, J. P., “An Analytical Study of Heat
Requirements for Icing Protection of Radomes,”
NACA RM E53A22, Mar. 1953.
21. Lewis, J. P., “Investigation of Aerodynamic and
Icing Characteristics of a Flush Alternate-Inlet
Induction-System,” NACA RM E53E07, July
1953.
22. Brun, E. A., “Icing Problems and Recommended
Solutions,” TR AGARDograph 16, Nov. 1957.
23. Bowden, D. T., Gensemer, A. E., and Skeen, C.
A., Engineering Summary of Airframe Icing
Technical Data, FAA Technical Report ADS–4,
Dec. 1963.
24. “Aircraft Icing,” AGARD Advisory Report No.
127, Nov. 1978.
25. Bragg, M. B., “Effect of Geometry on Airfoil
Icing Characteristics,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
21, No. 7, July 1984, pp. 505–511.
26. Brumby, R. E., “The Effect of Wing Ice
Contamination on Essential Flight
Characteristics,” 68th AGARD Fluid Dynamics
Panel Specialists Meeting on Effects of Adverse
Weather on Aerodynamics, Douglas Paper 8501,
Toulouse, France, Apr. – May 1991.
27. Heinrich, Ross, Zumwalt, Provorse,
Padmanabhan, Thompsom, and Riley, Aircraft
Icing Handbook, (Volumes 1–3), FAA Technical
Report DOT/FAA/CT–88/8–1, Sept. 1993.
28. Politovich, M., and Thompson, G., “Aircraft
Icing,” Second Aviation Weather Workshop –
Second Aviation Forecaster Workshop IV:
Aircraft Icing, Bolder, CO, Nov. 1993,
http://http.rap.ucar.edu/staff/gthompsn/icing.html
29. Eckalbar, J. C., “Icing,” Flying High
Performance Singles and Twins, 1st Edition,
Chapter 20, SkyRoad Projects, 1994,
http://www.skyroadprojects.com/.
30. Thomas, S. K., Cassoni, R. P., and MacArthur,
C. D., “Aircraft Anti-Icing and De-Icing
Techniques and Modeling,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 33, No. 5, Sept. – Oct. 1996, pp. 841–854.
31. Vargas, M., and Reshotko, E., “Physical
Mechanisms of Glaze Ice Scallop Formations on
Swept Wings,” AIAA 98-0491, Reno, NV, Jan.
1998.
32. Schweikhard, W. G., and Kohlman, D. L.,
“Flight Test Principles and Practices,” University
of Kansas Short Course, Course Notes,
Lawrence, KS, Sept. 1999.
33. Landsberg, B., Dondzila, K., and Steuernagle, J.,
“Aircraft Icing,” Aircraft Owners and Pilot
Association, Air Safety Foundation, SA11, Oct.
1999,
http://www.aopa.org/ast/publications/sa11.html.
34. Duncan, P. A., “Rime and Clear and Mixed, Oh
My!,” Federal Aviation Administration,
http://www.faa.gov/avr/news/Rime.htm.
Predictive and Numerical Methods
35. Bragg, M. B., Gregorek G. M., and Shaw, R. J.,
“An Analytical Approach to Airfoil Icing,”
AIAA 81–0403, St. Louis, MO, Jan. 1981.
36. Al–Khalil, K. M., and Potapczuk, M. G.,
“Numerical Modeling of Anti–Icing Systems and
Comparison to Test Results on a NACA 0012
Airfoil,” AIAA 93–0170 (also NASA TM–
105975), Reno, NV, Jan. 1993.
29
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
37. Al-Khalil, K. M., Keith Jr., T. G., and De Witt,
K. J., “New Concept in Runback Water
Modeling for Anti-Iced Aircraft Structures,”
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 30, No. 1, Jan. – Feb.
1993, pp. 41–49.
38. Wright, W. B., “A Summary of Validation
Results for LEWICE 2.0,” NASA CR–1998–
208687 (also AIAA 99–0249) Dec. 1998.
39. 1999 LEWICE Workshop Training Notes
(Adobe Acrobat) from LEWICE Two-
dimensional Distribution CD.
40. Wright, W. B., “User Manual for the NASA
Glenn Ice Accretion Code LEWICE - Version
2.0,” NASA CR–1999–209409, Sept. 1999.
41. Politovich, M. K., “Predicting Glaze or Rime Ice
Growth on Airfoils,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
37, No. 1, Jan. – Feb. 2000, pp. 117–121.
42. Bidwell, C. S., “Users Manual for the NASA
Glenn Three–Dimensional Grid Based Ice
Accretion Code (LEWI3DGR),” NASA CR–
2000–(not released), Mar. 2000.
43. Myers, T. G., “Extension to the Messinger
Model for Aircraft Icing,” AIAA Journal, Vol.
39, No. 2, Feb. 2001, pp. 211–218.
Icing Tunnel Tests and Analysis Validations
44. Charpin, F., and Fasso, G., “Icing Testing in the
Large Modane Wind Tunnel on Full Scale and
Reduced Scale Models,” NASA TM–75373,
English Translation of L’Aeronautique et
l’Astronautique No. 38, 1972, pp. 23-31.
45. Ruff, G. A., “Verification and Application of the
Icing Scaling Equations,” AIAA 86–0481, Reno,
NV, Jan. 1986.
46. Bilanin, A. J., “Proposed Modifications to Ice
Accretion/Icing Scaling Theory,” AIAA 88–
0203, Reno, NV, Jan. 1988.
47. Shin, J., and Bond, T. H., “Results of an Icing
Test on a NACA0012 Airfoil in the NASA
Lewis Icing Research Tunnel,” AIAA 92–0647,
Reno, NV, Jan. 1992.
48. Anderson, D. N., “Rime–, Mixed–, and Glaze–
Ice Evaluations of Three Scaling Laws,” AIAA
94–0718 (also NASA TM–106461), Reno, NV,
Jan. 1994.
 49. Anderson, D. N., “Methods for Scaling Icing
Test Conditions,” AIAA–95–0540, Reno, NV,
Jan. 1995.
50. Reehorst, A. L., and Ibrahim, M., “Investigation
of Water Droplet Trajectories Within the NASA
Icing Research Tunnel,” NASA TM–107023,
Aug. 1995.
51. Anderson, D. N., “Further Evaluation of
Traditional Icing Scaling Methods,” AIAA 96–
0633 (also NASA TM–107140), Reno, NV, Jan.
1996.
52. Anderson, D. N., “Evaluation of Constant–
Weber–Number Scaling for Icing Tests,” AIAA
96–0636 (also NASA TM–107141), Reno, NV,
Jan. 1996.
53. Al-Khalil, K., Salamon, L., and Tenison, G.,
“Development of the Cox Icing Research
Facility,” AIAA 98-0097, Reno, NV, Jan. 1998.
54. Ruff, G. A., and Anderson, D. N.,
“Quantification of Ice Accretions for Icing
Scaling Evaluations,” AIAA 98–0195, Reno,
NV, Jan. 1998.
55. Al-Khalil, K., Hitzigrath, R., Philippi, O., and
Bidwell, C., “Icing Analysis and Test of a
Business Jet Engine Inlet Duct,” AIAA 2000-
1040, Reno, NV, Jan. 2000.
Flight and Flight Safety
56. Van Sickle, N. D., Modern Airmanship, 3rd ed.,
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ,
1966.
57. Private Pilot Manual, Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc.,
Denver, CO, 1977, 5-1 to 5-46.
58. Cole, J., and Sand, W., “Statistical Study of
Aircraft Icing Accidents,” AIAA 91-0558, Reno,
Nevada, Jan. 1991.
59. Steenblik, J. W., “Inflight Icing: Certification vs.
Reality…Where the Difference Can Mean Life
or Death,” Air Line Pilot, Aug. 1995.
60. Private Pilot Test Prep 96/97, Aviation Supplies
& Academics, Inc., Newcastle, WA, 1996, pp. 6-
3 to 6-11.
30
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
View publication stats
61. Bragg, M. B., Perkins, W. R., Sarter, N. B.,
Basar, T., Voulgaris, P. G., Gurbacki, H. M.,
Melody, J. M., and McCray, S. A., “An
Interdisciplinary Approach to Inflight Aircraft
Icing Safety,” AIAA 98–0095, Reno, NV, Jan.
1998.
62. Jeck, R., “A Workable, Aircraft–Specific Icing
Severity Scheme,” AIAA 98-0094, Reno, NV,
Jan. 1998.
63. Bragg, M., Basar, T., Perkins, W., Loth, E.,
Sarter, N., Selig, M., Sivier, K., Voulgaris, P.,
and Wickens, C., “Smart Icing Systems Year 1
Interim Report,” Smart Icing Systems Project,
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
1998,
http://www2.aae.uiuc.edu/sis/mainpapers.html.
64. Sivier, K., and Bradley, J., “Smart Icing Systems
NASA Review 1999”, Section 2: Safety &
Economics Trade Study, Smart Icing Systems
Project, University of Illinois at Urbana–
Champaign, 1999,
http://www2.aae.uiuc.edu/sis/mainpapers.html.
65. Johnston, R. L., and Ryan, R. J., “Lockheed
Martin C-130J Natural Icing FAA Certification
Program,” 1999 Report to the Aerospace
Profession 43rd Symposium Proceedings,
Beverly Hills, CA, Sept. 1999.
66. Lankford, T. T., Aircraft Icing, A Pilot’s Guide,
1st ed., McGraw-Hill Publication, New York,
2000, pp. 1–107.
67. Foss-Van Zante, J., Ratvasky, T., and Rieke, B.,
“Icing for Regional & Corporate Pilots,” Video
GRC-346, NASA Glenn Research Center Icing
Branch,
http://icebox.grc.nasa.gov/Education/Videos/.
68. George, F., “Escape from Icing,”
Aircraftbuyer.com Articles, Flight Training
Resources,
http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/training.html
69. National Transportation Safety Board,
“American Eagle flight 4184 Final
Investigation,” Report DCA95MA001,
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp.