system

All 3 incidents were not caused by weather at all; rather, all 3 were directly caused by pilots who lost focus and intentionally ignored things like actual weather conditions, W&B, procedures, airspeed management, and physics (you can’t fool physics -R.P. Feynman).

Pro Tip: if you have severer airframe ice on approach, you ARE committed to landing; you won’t be able to climb back through that same ice and at a high angle of attack. Get 100% focused on landing because you ain’t gonna be able to go around at that point.

system

The author’s statement “the requirement of continuous use of deicing equipment being the definition of “moderate” ice accumulation” is incorrect. The correct definition of moderate icing conditions in the AIM is “use of deicing/anti‐icing equipment or flight diversion is necessary”. There is no statement about “continuous use”. If the author or readers can find an authoritative quote about continuous use, please post a reply.

system

Deice/anti-icing equipment is there to buy you time to get out of those conditions, not to continually fly in them. The Beech Duke pilot learned this the hard way, he is lucky to have survived that wreck. Until the AD on the Cessna Caravan “known icing conditions” came out in 2006, there was one pilot per year who died thinking they could fly in ice indefinitely in a Caravan. Even high performance jets are not immune to this, they just have more power and speed available to buy them a little more time. The Air Force lost a B1 bomber to flying in icing conditions. So I say again, “known icing” certificated equipment only buys you time to get out of ice, not to indefinitely fly in it, period!