Interesting information. Has anyone experience with ice in other aircraft with laminar flow wings? Or does the Cirrus have a wing that behaves particularly poorly when contaminated?
FIKI Cirrus
- Thread starter jason
- Start date
Interesting information. Has anyone experience with ice in other aircraft with laminar flow wings? Or does the Cirrus have a wing that behaves particularly poorly when contaminated?
K
KennyFlys
Guest
Yes, come to me with no glass experience and expect to be able to fly in IMC... it's going to take you as much as fifteen hours. Don't like it? Don't come to us. We exist to provide aircraft to use by competent pilots and students for given situations. We aren't in business to place equipment at risk by those who aren't ready to demonstrate their competence and proficiency. To do otherwise would be a bad business model not to mention cheat others out of use of that equipment.
You may have that as your business model. It's not ours.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Pretty much all really efficient laminar designs have this issue. There is no free lunch.
A laminar wing really isn't exactly a "high lift" wing. It is a low-drag wing which means you can go fast and get the lift you need. On a conventional wing the air remains laminar over a small portion of the wing. It then breaks up and becomes turbulent creating much drag.
The laminar wing *really* depends on low-drag. The air remains laminar (smooth) over the majority of the airfoil. This means that there is little drag and you go fast. Air moving fast smoothly over almost the entire wing gives nice lift. If the wing has ice or frost the air will break up much sooner then intended and create a bunch of drag which will just destroy the lift.
A conventional wing (like the Hershey bar Cherokee wing) is less sensitive to a little ice or frost. The air becomes turbulent as it is (turbulent MUCH earlier) and a little disturbance doesn't make it much worse.
All of this said--a laminar wing--properly protected from ice/frost will get the job done while being very efficient.
Now I'll wait for an aero expert like Tony to correct me.
Last edited:
K
KennyFlys
Guest
POST where the hell I said I'm opposed to GPS. You won't find it. I'm opposed to dumb asses depending on something when they don't have the basic proficiency to fly on instruments. If that ticks you off, so be it.
But, that is NOT synonymous with stating I'm opposed to GPS or any other technology.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
Jay, you can point it out as well. It was NEVER said!
Makes sense. I can see rough ice introducing turbulance and smooth ice changing the shape of a wing so it isn't laminar anymore.
I'm reading into this that the Cherokee hersey-bar wing would be a better FIKI platform, with the proper equipment, because it is less sensitive to contamination.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
Im no expert and I didnt stay at a holiday in express last night, but Jesse is pretty much right. Pretty much any laminar flow wing will not perform nearly as well in flight as in theory or in the wind tunnel. This is mostly because there is always some inconsistency in the profile. whether thats dirt, bugs, or ice. Gliders started to shift to composite wing design in the late 60s and 70s, not because it was the cool thing to do, but because the wing profile could be carefully controlled with fiberglass construction. Competition pilots are very meticulous to ensure that every inch of the wing is clean. They see measurable reductions in performance from the beginning of a flight to the end because of bugs contaminating the leading edge! if a few mosquitos can measurable reduce performance imagine what a coat of ice will do. or dont imagine, ask any Cirrus pilot who has BTDT. Even rain will kill the laminar flow and also measurable reduce performance.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Personally I'd rather have a drunk in a Ferrari than an Escort (unless the Escort like so many of that breed isn't running anymore). Chances are pretty good that the drunk in the Italian stallion will lose control and take himself out before going very far vs the Escort abuser who might just go far enough to be near me.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
"Laminar flow" wings are more susceptible to contamination than thicker wings but I think Tater's post was a bit of an exaggeration. A trace of ice isn't going to be more disruptive to the airflow than some rain and I know that Cirri don't lose anywhere near 30 Kt in rain. And in any case Cirrus claims that their ice protection testing was extremely thorough. I believe them and I doubt that FIKI Cirri will fall from the sky in the conditions they passed testing in.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
But their pilots will plan to cruise right through....
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Most certainly!
So I'm in line on the taxiway at the home 'drome behind five bizjets. Weather is 500-2, temp 1, dewpoint 0. Every one of them, when being handed off to Departure, says "Tower, 12345 picked up light rime from 500 to the tops at 2000 and it's clear above."
If I'm not in a FIKI bird, I'm gonna say "Tower, 271G would like to return to the South Ramp." If I'm in a FIKI bird, I'm gonna say "Tower, 6878C is holding short ready for takeoff."
FIKI systems have been shown to meet a certain standard for safe flight in icing conditions. Does that mean I'm going to go flying in freezing rain? Hell no! But that does mean that on the many days we see here in the winter with a relatively thin layer of clouds containing light ice becomes flyable.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
And the valid counterpoint is that these safety systems SAVE way more people than they kill!
For example, we've had many discussions on this board about Cirrus accidents and how the parachute affects safety. There seem to be a lot of accidents that could fit into the mold of "Cirrus pilot makes idiotic go/no-go decision, possibly thinking that if the Bad Stuff actually happens he can pull the chute, and when the time comes he can't bring himself to pull the chute."
The NTSB database shows 45 fatal Cirrus accidents resulting in 91 deaths. (This includes EVERYTHING starting with the Cirrus test pilot who was killed in 1999 and ending with the crash a couple weeks ago in Menomonie being discussed on another thread.) However, the BRS Parachutes web site shows that AT LEAST 22 people have been saved by the chute (note that this *only* consists of people who have been reported to BRS - I know of at least one deployment in a Cirrus with 4 aboard that isn't on their list, meaning that there are probably many others).
So, while that particular piece of technology might have led to the deaths of some, it has also saved others. Do you dare walk up to the guy whose aileron departed the aircraft in flight and tell him that the parachutes kill people and shouldn't be there? Do you tell a guy whose engine starts coughing suddenly that he shouldn't have used his GPS to instantly determine the nearest airport? Do you tell someone whose mixture control broke unknowingly that the digital fuel flow meter that clued them in to the problem before they ran out of fuel was bad because it caused someone else to burn well into their reserves?
Frankly, YOU of all people should know this. You can't tell me that (ignoring the tech time-warp here) if you had had a Garmin 496 with XM weather aboard on a stormy South Dakota night 20-some years ago, you wouldn't have been in a better situation, can you?
Safety technology is *GOOD*. There will always be pilots that make stupid decisions, regardless of what level of technology there is. There are plenty of GOOD pilots out there who use the technology to their advantage, too.
Another thing: I can tell you that from my many conversations with Alan Klapmeier himself, he is VERY much committed to safety. The entire reason that the Cirri have the BRS parachute system is that he was involved in a mid-air collision not far from here in the mid-80's while working on his instrument rating. He was in a Cessna 182, the other guy was in a Super Cub or something like that. Alan was under the hood, and didn't see the guy coming. The collision sheared off several feet of one of the wings, but they were able to coax the plane to a safe landing - AFTER watching the other guy spin to the ground and die.
As a result, Cirrus has been a leader in bringing new safety technologies to the GA market. They are the only manufacturer of certified airplanes that puts a parachute on every single plane. They've come up with things like the "LVL" button. They've worked with other companies to improve their products (for example, the Cirrus Perspective system) to make them easier for pilots to use. They've come up with training programs (Cirrus Access and the CSIP program, for example) to try to get better training to pilots. Now, they add yet another safety feature and all people can do is give them crap because some idiots have bought their airplanes?
The idea that adding safety equipment is a bad idea is just ludicrous.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I think the point was more two separate planes, one with FIKI and one with non-certified de-ice or anti-ice equipment. To Kent's point, that breaking through a 1500 ft layer that's known to be giving light rime, I would make the same choice given a FIKI plane vs. a plane with no de-ice equipment whatsoever. The one exception might be if I had some plane that I knew would do a 2000 fpm climb or something like that, but certainly using the example of 271G (a 182), that's the right call.
Now if we look at two planes with de-ice equipment, one FIKI and one non-FIKI, the real question to me comes to what equipment is on the non-FIKI plane? Let's compare two planes with non-FIKI de-ice. One is the real deal - boots on all the leading edges, hot props, and hot plate on the windshield. That I would likely treat the same way as a FIKI plane. Now let's take a plane that's got hot props and wing boots, but nothing on the tail or on the windshield. No thanks. I might still pop through Kent's hypothetical layer if it was a plane that had a good rate of climb through it, but that right there is a recipe for a tailplane stall in icing conditions. The key is in the equipment.
Looking at a FIKI vs. older TKS Cirrus - I don't know all of the features of the TKS Cirrus, but it's definitely more limited. Around here, it's not uncommon in the winter to get layers that go up to about 7,000 ft with varying light icing, but above them it's great, and at your destination (a state or two away) it's VFR. To me, that sort of layer is more where the FIKI vs. lesser equipped aircraft makes the difference. So long as you're not at gross, you can maintain a pretty good climb rate up through that layer in the Aztec. In a plane that was missing equipment, I'd not be so keen on making that trip. The Aztec also has the advantage of the oversized hershey bar wing, which is rather forgiving in a number of ways. I might think differently about it in a Cirrus, but a lot of it comes down to knowing the airplane and what it can do. If you just dive in without testing the waters a bit first, you're asking for trouble either way. I think it's important to point out that we're talking a lot in hypotheticals here. The reality of the go/no-go is going to have a lot more to do with the specific plane, how it's equipped, and what the pilot's experience with that plane is. No way would I go off and dive into any sort of icing (other than something like an easy layer of known thickness) without an instructor (who furthermore has lots of experience with icing in Aztecs) right now. Ask me again in a year after I've gotten some more experience and the answer will likely be different.
Also, I am talking strictly on capability here. Legality is a whole other question.
Last edited:
jmaynard
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,487
- Location
- Fairmont, Minnesota
- Display Name
Display name:
Jay Maynard
Okkay, I'm confused. What is the choice you would make in Kent's example? Isn't that pretty much what FIKI is best at? If the 182 isn't going to be able to do that safely, then isn't it a bad idea in that airplane whether or not it's legal? (And is it legal? I'd always understood that PIREP'd icing flipped the switch from "forecast" to "known", and that's when it becomes illegal.)
Trapper John
Ejection Handle Pulled
That's a great marketing line! Almost as good as, "We're not happy 'til you're not happy."
Trapper John
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
aka:
Yeah we gouge hours out of our students, how else do we get paid? if you dont like it go to our competition, they dont care about safety enough to gouge hours out of you.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Sorry, I think my response was unclear. Let me see if I can confuse you further.
In Kent's case, he was talking about a 182 that's got no de-ice equipment whatsoever, and you're looking at a very high probability that you've got a layer that you'll be getting ice through. The 182 may have a good climb rate and a forgiving wing, but it can't shoot through the layer in no time flat.
I think where the confusion came in was in talking about a plane that didn't have FIKI, but did have some de-ice equipment. The example there would be something like, say, a TKS Cirrus, or something like a 310Q I briefly looked at that had boots on the wings and horizontal stabilizer plus hot props, but nothing on the vertical stabilizer and an alcohol windshield. In other words, those are non-FIKI planes that have sufficient equipment as to make it less of a risk. Even if you get some buildup on the vertical stabilizer that you can't get off with boots (and the boots haven't undergone the rigors of FIKI testing), the wings, props, and horizontal stabilizer should be fine given the relatively small layer. Plus, you should be able to punch through it pretty quickly in any plane that has that equipment.
My point to legality was more that I'm talking about whether or not it's something that makes more sense from an equipment perspective strictly, not whether or not you'd get busted if anythign happened. I'm still trying to fully figure out what constitues "known icing", but consistent PIREPs definitely would be part of it to me. For my personal limits, I keep a pretty conservative definition, and basically it means any situation that I wouldn't fly the Mooney into. If I look at the weather and say "I need the Aztec for this", then to me that means it's known icing.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
Nick, go back and read my post. You'll find a particular word in there. I believe it was "up to".
We'll do what it takes for the person to demonstrate unwaivering competence in IMC. If they've never flown glass before, it will take longer. Once my name is in their log book, I'm going to make very certain they left me with that demonstrated proficiency and I'll document it in their log and in my paperwork. Or, my paperwork will indicate a clear record of issues observed and what needs to be accomplished. Documentation will someday save your butt.
Once a CFI signs a log, they are nearly forever on the hook for something that might occur with that pilot. This last Monday, an investigator came to us looking for a particular CFI. It seems that instructor had at some point flew with the Baron pilot who crashed at Williams Field in north Houston.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
These systems are excellent tools. I'm glad they are being developed.
But, no one can state there aren't pilots out there who won't use them to make a "Go" decision when they should have stayed on the ground either due to conditions being worse than they can comprehend from data or above their skill level. We've seen this so many times. I guess another way to put this is, these are tools to assist the knowledgeable and competent pilot. Unfortunately, there will be some in the lessor category to use them as a crutch. But, that's not a reason to not produce these features nor did I ever believe that.
The BRS/CAPS chutes have saved lives, no doubt. I saw a good article a while back in Flying on the issue. If you subscribe to Flying Magazine, on Page 47 of the May 2007 issue had an interesting article titled, "When to Pull the Handle." It has a very interesting review on Cirrus accidents and use of the chute.
The article is not available on Flying's web site nor on NAFI where the author is from. I can't post a PDF file here but if someone wants it, drop an email on me and I'll provide a copy.
Again, they are excellent tools to save lives. Some will use them as a crutch while some see the CAPS as a means to recover from a questionable situation they may not handle on their own. I picture extremely rough terrain or solid IMC in this scenario, not some of the relatively flat land a few of these pulls have happen over.
But, what should happen is a good level of training beforehand and continued training in such scenarios from there forward. The ideal circumstances for recurrent training may not be available locally but it might be worth heading back to the manufacturer and seeking it out.
You want me to argue that one? Good luck! It was weird having to determine my position based on DF steers. It was done but not an easy or slow process. In 1986, I think GPS was still classified or restricted. I'm not sure when it was first released for commercial use.
Would a handheld GPS unit have saved my butt? Heck yes. But, what would have been better was an instructor at the flying club placing higher standards on me to demonstrate my competence and drill into me the importance of good, solid decisions and not letting outside influences keep me from making that "No-Go" decision. THAT is what almost got the three of us killed... My not first listening to and sticking with my gut instinct to keep my ass on the ground.
Agreed on both points. It's the other side of the equation on the third point that scares me. I have my opinions as a result of those I see who do seek out not just the proficient use of ALL their equipment. What about all those who never see an instructor other than the Flight Review every two years?
I've heard the man speak in interviews as well as things reported in magazines. No argument, he's all for safety. I don't think you're going do find anyone in aviation manufacturing who isn't. I would like to see an expansion of their training so it's more readily available across the country, primarily for recurrent training to existing owners.Another thing: I can tell you that from my many conversations with Alan Klapmeier himself, he is VERY much committed to safety. The entire reason that the Cirri have the BRS parachute system is that he was involved in a mid-air collision not far from here in the mid-80's while working on his instrument rating. He was in a Cessna 182, the other guy was in a Super Cub or something like that. Alan was under the hood, and didn't see the guy coming. The collision sheared off several feet of one of the wings, but they were able to coax the plane to a safe landing - AFTER watching the other guy spin to the ground and die.
As a result, Cirrus has been a leader in bringing new safety technologies to the GA market. They are the only manufacturer of certified airplanes that puts a parachute on every single plane. They've come up with things like the "LVL" button. They've worked with other companies to improve their products (for example, the Cirrus Perspective system) to make them easier for pilots to use. They've come up with training programs (Cirrus Access and the CSIP program, for example) to try to get better training to pilots. Now, they add yet another safety feature and all people can do is give them crap because some idiots have bought their airplanes?
I have no idea where that came from because it is not my position and never has been.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Now I see the problem. You made a mistake, it cost you dearly, and now you're overreacting the other way about it, and are taking it out on everyone around you. This is a common reaction, but this doesn't do your students any service whatsoever. What's good is that it motivates you to make your students they best they can be and make sure that they're well-qualified pilots. That motivation helps as an instructor. What's bad is that you take it to the extent that you do, providing this attitude that would certainly drive me away from you as an instructor, and in this forum drives me away from anything you have to say.
The problem is in the words you've chosen to make your statements. In communication, if you have not communicated the intended thought to the audience, you have failed as a communicator. Given the fact that a large number of us have all interpreted what you've said the same way, it's not just me (or Kent, or Jay, or John, or Mari, or...).
Now I understand the motivation, though, and this makes a lot more sense than it did previously. Still, this attitude is a problem that does not help your students. The motivation explains the problem, but it does not justify it, at least not when others are being affected by it.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Those crazy VOR receivers are going to lead to complacent pilots! In my day, we had ADF, and we had to use 'em, and we were good pilots because of it.
Thoes crazy NDBs are going to lead to complacent pilots! In my day, we had a compass and a clock, and we had to use 'em!
etc.
Thoes crazy NDBs are going to lead to complacent pilots! In my day, we had a compass and a clock, and we had to use 'em!
etc.
PittsDriver
Cleared for Takeoff
You got the gist of what I was saying. I'm comparing the utility you can enjoy out of a well-equipped de-ice bird that isn't certified for FIKI vs. one that is certified. Mooney is an interest case for this since they offer the same plane in a non-certified TKS equipped aircraft vs. the certified version - and the last time I checked it was about $30K more for the certified version. The crux of my point is that the $30K extra you spend there doesn't buy you real mission capability. There's nothing on that certified bird that we get me launched when the non-certified bird would keep me on the ground. I don't think it prudent for anyone to cut their winter flying margins so close that the certification makes a difference.
As for the legality of all this, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the point was substantially clarified by the FAA Chief Counsel recently and the letter can be found on the link I posted. Some might read this letter and say that it makes things less clear. I think it leaves more up to the PIC to decide when the flight is safe to take instead grounding non-FIKI planes on an AIRMET Zulu.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Exactly, and to your point if you have two planes that are otherwise identical other than one having a FIKI badge and one not, it won't make a difference in my flight planning. I look at the equipment and capabilities, not the badges. I think the point others were making was that the badges often times signify the equipment/capability, which can be correct but the equipment/capability is what really matters. We are agreeing.
Well, if your margins are so close that you're saying you need the badging (for otherwise the same equipment) that sounds to me like you're expecting an accident, in which case you shouldn't be taking off.
Yeah, I read the letter, and I got what you got out of it with the PIC deciding whether the flight is safe and likely to cause icing. The problem I have is that you take two pilots, give them the same information, and they'll likely come to a different conclusion. So, let's say that I come to the conclusion that it's fine, I make the flight, I get ice and crash. Either I made a bad choice because I'm an idiot, or I made a bad choice due to bad information. Maybe this means that ATC can't bust me for getting ice or flying in conditions where others are reporting ice, but if I crash or get enough attention, I wouldn't be surprise to get a call from an investigator about this.
As I said, I keep very conservative personal definitions for what constitues known ice, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't be wrong one day and have it happen, especially if I get bad information. I've gotten misinformation more than once going both ways (worse than forecast and better than forecast).
Too much thread creep in this one already. I hope someone (it won't be me) starts a thread on flying school and instructional " philosophies" as has been touched on here. That would be interesting and something I would like to chime in on before it got locked .
before it got locked .
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
Too much thread creep in this one already. I hope someone (it won't be me) starts a thread on flying school and instructional " philosophies" as has been touched on here. That would be interesting and something I would like to chime in on
ooo me too!
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
You have a very different take on that letter than I do. My reading is that it leaves the interpretation of what constitutes "known icing conditions" up to the enforcement branch of the FAA to decide as they see fit at the time. More of a "We can't tell you what it is but we'll know it when we see it, trust us" than a "it's up to the pilot to decide". I repectfully submit that I believe your idea that it leaves more up to the PIC (especially WRT flying a non-FIKI aircraft into IMC in an area/altitude combination covered by an AIRMET Zulu) is just wishful thinking. Personally I'd like to see the kind of freedom in chosing under what conditions to fly WRT potential icing up to pilots as you suggest on part 91 flights, but I seriously doubt that the FAA feels the same way.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
OK, we're waiting for you to start it Tony...
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ted,
If the icing were in fact "light" then I wouldn't expect the 182 to have any problem climbing through that layer. But, there's the big "What if?" That is, "What if the icing isn't really *light*?" If the plane cannot climb through the layer, then what? You're screwed. I was envisioning a takeoff from runway 21, and the best chance I'd have at my particular field would be to declare an emergency, get ATC to flip the ILS from 18 to 36 (and that, of course, assumes nobody's below their MVA on the approach to 18!) and come straight back. That's the best case, and you can bet the FAA would be hearing about it from the controllers and I'd be kissing my ticket goodbye. Anything other than that, and I'm probably dead.
My decision would be no different in a non-FIKI TKS Cirrus. The system has not been proven to meet the standards for flight into known icing, and thus I cannot trust that it'll do any better than the 182. In fact, while the Cirrus does have a chance of making it on top with the TKS on full, it may well now have a windscreen that's coated with ice that won't come off, meaning that I may not be able to get back down safely. As for the wing, in a thin layer I trust the non-FIKI Cirrus' laminar-flow wing about as much as I trust the completely unprotected 182's big fat wing. And that FAA inspector is not gonna care one whit that I had TKS on the Cirrus, he's gonna say "That airplane is not approved for flight into known icing. Please mail your pilot certificate to..."
I've done some research into whether a Twin Comanche with the de-ice system is legal for FIKI. Apparently, there was no standard for FIKI under CAR 3, and if it has the wings, tail surfaces, props, and windscreen protected it's theoretically legal. That said, if I were to be able to obtain such a bird, I'd be taking a hard look at what is currently required to obtain known-ice certification and carefully testing to see how it performed. Legal is not always safe.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Are you absolutely 100% sure that the non-certified version is *exactly* the same as the certified version?
If it was, I would think that they'd just call them all certified, so that they could say "Known ice certification *standard!*" and then spread out the costs of certification among a larger number of airplanes.
I think it finally makes sense again. No more of that "no flying into an area of high humidity" crap that they had before.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Exactly, and to your point if you have two planes that are otherwise identical other than one having a FIKI badge and one not, it won't make a difference in my flight planning. I look at the equipment and capabilities, not the badges. I think the point others were making was that the badges often times signify the equipment/capability, which can be correct but the equipment/capability is what really matters. We are agreeing.
The reason I wouldn't want to "go" in a non-FIKI bird is that if something happens and I need to declare an emergency, I don't even want the *thought* of an FAA inspector to keep me from doing so.
I think what it means to me is that if I can explain why I thought there wouldn't be ice to the inspector afterwards, that I'm probably OK.
And something to be careful of with PIREPs: There have been people that have given bogus PIREPs to cover their own butts. I was headed into the home drome on a dark and stormy night, and there were three airplanes: I forget what the first one was, but he was IFR and flew the ILS to 21. Then there was a 152 that was VFR, and then there was me.
The first IFR airplane flew the approach and landed and reported mile and a half visibility. The VFR 152 was advised of that, and that the controller was painting level 3 precip on his radar. The 152 insisted that he had 3 miles visibility.
Long story short, the 152 claimed to be visual but then had to be vectored all the way to the runway. Then, the controller said "Skylane 271G, I'm showing some precip between you and the field, but there's a 152 ahead of you that just flew VFR to runway 21 and reported 3 miles visibility the whole way in. Do you want the visual?" I was hard IMC, so I declined and flew the ILS as originally planned. I spotted the rabbit at 800 AGL on the ILS, or about 2 miles vis. It was most certainly not VFR, and it was not a broken type of layer, I had been in solid IMC for a good half hour.
So, beware of PIREPs for VFR, negative ice, etc. as it may well be somebody trying to cover their own butt.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
I have seen or rather heard that on the radio too!
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's along the lines I was thinking. Somehow you need to acquire enough information that you are reasonably certain the ice won't pose a significant risk. Part of the trouble with that is not only is the available info usually insufficient, it's difficult to balance the probabilities of a serious ice encounter with the consequences of one. This isn't a whole lot different than the dilemma of flying across Lake Michigan in a single during the winter without climbing high enough to glide to shore from the middle except there are more factors to evaluate.
My Baron is not certified for KI, but it's not illegal either. Many airplanes (and all part 23 certified aircraft) are required to have POH and/or placard limitations that prohibit flight in icing conditions but mine is one that doesn't. The POH (outside the limitations section) actually states something along the lines of "this airplane hasn't been tested". IIRC it also contains information that says that if it's equipped with boots, windshield and prop deice, plus heated fuel vents and stall warning, it's capable of handling limited icing conditions. My particular airplane lacks the last two items but I've convinced myself that this lack doesn't pose a significant risk. The fuel vents are recessed and are listed in the part's manual as "ice free vents" and even if they did manage to get plugged up IME fuel will still flow by virtue of the bladders collapsing upwards as the fuel is consumed. As to the heated stall warning I've actually got the parts to add that but I don't see much value since the stalling AoA changes when contamination occurs even if the deice boots function normally. In addition I have an unapproved alternative to the stall warning in the form of a "Lift Reserve Indicator" with a heated probe.
Bottom line, even though I know this system hasn't gone through the testing required for FIKI approval I also know that it's virtually as capable as the fully tested stuff on other Barons. And even with a tested system, there's no guarantee that it will be able to cope with whatever nature throws out. IOW, even with FIKI the risk isn't zero when you climb through that layer, it's just a lot lower than it would be with no protection at all.
PittsDriver
Cleared for Takeoff
Of course not - never said that. Of course there's a difference - just not any that would change any rational pilot's go/no-go decision.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Kent, I definitely understand the legal issue of flying a non-FIKI airplane through a potential icing condition in case you have to declare an emergency, but I think that if you end up declaring one, you're probably just as likely to get a call from the FAA anyway. I disagree that if you can justify your decision under the current letter on icing you're probably alright. If you have a problem with icing, regardless of preparation or plane, there's probably something that can be used against you, and it will depend on your luck and which investigator you get taking your case.
From a technical perspective, the plane and equipment doesn't know whether or not it has a placard saying it's been certified, same as your plane doesn't know whether or not its airworthiness certificate has been invalidated. So, just as legal is not always safe, illegal is not always unsafe. I am NOT endorsing illegal flight. I am simply looking at it from a technical perspective of the equipment.
From a technical perspective, the plane and equipment doesn't know whether or not it has a placard saying it's been certified, same as your plane doesn't know whether or not its airworthiness certificate has been invalidated. So, just as legal is not always safe, illegal is not always unsafe. I am NOT endorsing illegal flight. I am simply looking at it from a technical perspective of the equipment.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think I'd want to review the differences on a case by case basis. For instance, protection of the vertical tail surface on a twin is crucial and might be important on a single. Windshield protection would certainly make a difference to me. The redundant power requirement might be a concern for some.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
If there were NO difference whatsoever in the equipment between the certified vs. uncertified versions of the same airplane, then I would agree. However, in the case that they are different (which I think is probably true close to, if not 100% of the time) then the plane most certainly DOES "know" in that it has not been tested to the same standards, is not equipped the same, and WILL perform differently. Does "differently" mean that the non-FIKI is going to automatically crash and the FIKI will be just fine every time? Heck no - But it is a lot more different than an invalidated airworthiness certificate, for example. It's more than just paperwork.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
We're saying the same thing, just looking at it from slightly different perspectives. Yours is assuming that if it doesn't have the paperwork it likely is different (which is not necessarily a bad assumption, especially in the case of the Cirrus). Mine is assuming that you may have two planes that otherwise may have equipment of identical capabilities, but one is certified and one is not. Depending on the plane, that may not be unreasonable, either.
Point is: Know your plane!
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
A lot of folks don't fully understand the differences between non-K-ice and K-ice planes. The walk up and look at 'em but don't do the research. In my plane, the differences aren't even clear in the POH. There is a diagram that is referenced that is not publically available that calls out all the requirements. Had to talk to a senior techie at Beech to find out all the differences. I should keep a list somewhere, but here is what I recall. Of course, this is the P-Baron:
Duel 100 amp alternators.
Heated pitot heat; stall warning; fuel vent.
Ice light on left wing.
Hot plate on windscreen.
Alternate air door to engines (may also be on NA version)
90 degree swept back antennas to shed ice.
Boots on front wing; horizontal stab and vertical front of tail.
It's a lot more than most folks think. Doesn't give me more power, but makes it available in icing conditions; sheds ice and keeps one's view up front clear.
Best,
Dave
Duel 100 amp alternators.
Heated pitot heat; stall warning; fuel vent.
Ice light on left wing.
Hot plate on windscreen.
Alternate air door to engines (may also be on NA version)
90 degree swept back antennas to shed ice.
Boots on front wing; horizontal stab and vertical front of tail.
It's a lot more than most folks think. Doesn't give me more power, but makes it available in icing conditions; sheds ice and keeps one's view up front clear.
Best,
Dave
PittsDriver
Cleared for Takeoff
I think this is a subject that tends to get a lot of academic discussion without real world experience or consideration. For those of us that fly little bug smashers, there are winter flying conditions that are fine for aircraft with no deice capability; there are conditions when no aircraft should be flying; and, there are days in between were it's a judgement call. The view that I've been expressing is that on those judgement call days, that a certified vs. non-certified deice system question is largely irrelevant. As a practical matter when you're standing there in the FBO looking at questionable conditions, how does it affect your ability to go? If you're a pilot that says "because I'm flying a certified FIKI aircraft, I'm going" then you'll be the guy that feels good about putting up the extra $10,000's and I hope that works out for you. But I personally think that's a dangerous attitude so I think there's not much advantage to having it in this case.
The other side of the coin is when you're flying along and you encounter some ice that you weren't expecting. Again, if you're the pilot that feels good about their certified-FIKI bird and to you that means you'll just soldier on - again, I think that's a dangerous attitude. If your attitude in this situation is that regardless of how my aircraft is certified I'm gettin' the heck out of this ASAP, then what's the certified system bought you?
We can have an academic conversation about this all week long but in the real world if it makes very little difference in how I use the aircraft it's probably money better spent on something else. I have a lot of issues with the way Richard Collins writes about aviation topics and I don't always agree with him but on this issue, he's come out saying exactly what I'm expressing which is - by all means buy all the aircraft you can afford but don't make the mistake of thinking that a certified-FIKI system makes a real world difference in your use of the plane.