Hi all, I’m a long time renter looking to buy a plane in the next year or two. My go to rental airplane for traveling is a C82R where I see about 155 KTAS around 7kft MSL. I’ve decided that I want to purchase something at least that fast so I’m looking into the high flying HPSE segment. My question is: is some sort of icing equipment (FIKI or not) functionally a necessity when flying in the middle altitudes where you’re certain to see sub freezing temperatures?
Ice equipment necessary for middle altitude flying?
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Depends, are you in the clouds?
What part of the country does most of your flying take place?
What part of the country does most of your flying take place?
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,626
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
How many flights have you cancelled due to icing? That would answer your question.
Rgbeard
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
- Messages
- 4,322
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
- Display Name
Display name:
rgbeard
“Middle altitudes”? I guess you mean something higher than 7,000?
you’re instrument rated? Not to concentrate on the obvious but you do know that simply because you’re at freezing temperatures doesn’t mean you’ll collect ice. You do need the IMC conditions or similar components.
If you’re planning to fly in IMC around the freezing layer, fiki is a good thing but it’s a better thing to keep a single-engine small plane out of freezing IMC to begin with.
you’re instrument rated? Not to concentrate on the obvious but you do know that simply because you’re at freezing temperatures doesn’t mean you’ll collect ice. You do need the IMC conditions or similar components.
If you’re planning to fly in IMC around the freezing layer, fiki is a good thing but it’s a better thing to keep a single-engine small plane out of freezing IMC to begin with.
I'm assuming you mean just in general since this varies considerably by region, time of year, and the current weather.
Even then, from the reading I've done on it most single engine piston FIKI systems really aren't intended for spending any significant time in ice. More like having an escape route if the possibility exists, maybe popping through a layer or something. Significant ice IMO is a no go for any piston single FIKI or not.
Even then, from the reading I've done on it most single engine piston FIKI systems really aren't intended for spending any significant time in ice. More like having an escape route if the possibility exists, maybe popping through a layer or something. Significant ice IMO is a no go for any piston single FIKI or not.
Yep, and in a non-turbo-charged piston single (even a 182 with the bigger lycoming), those escape routes are quite limited.
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
Ditto for a piston twin (and for some turbine singles, like the Caravan), for that matter, except for brief transitions through IMC to clear conditions. AFAIK, there's no sub-transport-sized civilian piston twin out that that is safe for prolonged exposure to supercooled large-droplet icing. Maybe moderate rime or a bit of light mixed for a while...
sarangan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,903
- Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
Your question is confusing. Do you need FIKI to fly into icing conditions? Yes. Does it protect you from icing? Perhaps, but it should really be treated as an escape route.
Also, I am sure you know that sub freezing temperature alone does not mean icing. But I have never been in clouds below freezing and not seen at least some ice. The question is how much. That depends on the cloud conditions and atmospheric stability. Flying in icing conditions is like swimming in shark infested water. There is a very high level of risk that things may not go in your favor.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I would say yes - But I live in Wisconsin. And it's not clear what you mean by "middle altitudes". That could be 7-10,000 if you're talking normally aspirated, teens if turbocharged.
FWIW, you'll see below freezing altitudes even in Texas in the summer once you get into the teens. As has been pointed out, that doesn't necessarily mean ice, but it will sometimes.
If you can swing a P210 with TKS or boots, that'd be a nice step up from an R182.
Cervieres
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 285
- Display Name
Display name:
Antione
Thanks for the response so far. To clarify a few things, I live in the southeast and yes have a Commercial certificate with an instrument rating, CFI as well. When I’m traveling I almost always file and pick up an IFR clearance for convenience. By middle altitudes I’m talking 12-18k, maybe even up to 25kft if I can justify a turbo (the altitudes which are currently out of reach). I’ve read several of the articles by Richard Collins and agree that it’s best to stay out of sustained icing conditions but it would be nice to be able to climb through a freezing stratus layer in the winter without concern. I guess a better question to ask would be, of those who regularly fly in the 12-18kft region, how many of you wish you had de/anti-ice equipment? Or of those who do, think you could do without it?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
My question would be, why is it important to you to fly at those altitudes? If icing exists up there, are you willing to fly at 7-10k or lower if icing doesn’t exist at the lower altitudes?
Last edited:
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,244
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Flying that high in a small piston is a clear weather only event.. FIKI is an escape route or short term usage. But yes, if you plane to regularly fly over 10K ice is a part of your life and you would be prudent to have a means of shedding it
Yes, that. The southeast is not known for mountains
I don’t have any particular reason to fly that high but if I bought something that shined at those altitudes where sub freezing temperatures are almost a certainty then it seems to me to be pertinent to be equipped to deal with icing even if it’s just in passing. I see countless Mooney acclaims or SR22T’s for sale sans the TKS option and I wonder why. Seems to me these owners are clearly getting the turbo to get into those higher altitudes where they outperform their normally aspirated counterparts but without TKS or the like are I’ll equipped (at least in my mind).
Snowmass
Line Up and Wait
I seldom fly in IMC where I live which is the Mountain West since I do have not nor can I get anti-ice. My 1964 C-210 has a full gross ceiling (no turbo) of 21,000' and I have cruised 23,000' under gross but this is still too low since icing layers often go up to 26,000'. However, if you can get a turbo plane that will go up to, say, 30,000' you might able to climb clear of clouds or at least cruise above structural ice. This approach has more than one advantage since the turbo would probably cost less than FIKA, you could use it part of the time to get some super tailwinds and in case of engine failure your landing options grow per the square of of AGL. A 30,000' AGL, 10:1 glide, an engine out gives you over 10,000 square miles of potential landing area.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I would suggest looking closely at the airplanes’ performance data before making that assumption.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
We've seen a TBM 850, with a robust FIKI boot system and 850 HP of PT6, spin out of the sky because the pilot didn't treat de ice as an escape. Of course, even transport category aircraft don't sit in ice - they report it, attack it and get out of it. A Brasilia crashed thanks to not properly de icing and escaping.
That said, FIKI (and even non FIKI de ice) is an extremely useful tool to be able to safely complete missions. Combine that with an assertive, safety first attitude when dealing with ATC and good escape planning and you can keep yourself safe.
Turbos often have the power to climb out of icing. NA planes, particularly if they are already at a higher altitude, don't - or they might need to be able to shed/prevent ice to keep up an acceptable speed/climb. Very few Acclaims have both AC and TKS (I saw an older, non WAAS one for sale that did), due to weight. So people make trade offs.
That said, FIKI (and even non FIKI de ice) is an extremely useful tool to be able to safely complete missions. Combine that with an assertive, safety first attitude when dealing with ATC and good escape planning and you can keep yourself safe.
Turbos often have the power to climb out of icing. NA planes, particularly if they are already at a higher altitude, don't - or they might need to be able to shed/prevent ice to keep up an acceptable speed/climb. Very few Acclaims have both AC and TKS (I saw an older, non WAAS one for sale that did), due to weight. So people make trade offs.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Are you familiar with the Skew-T Log P/
Define your mission and look up the icing patterns for your particular travel. Then choose.
I finally settled on a FIKI Seneca II but I still only use the systems for escape. Nothing beats Judgement, and Power.
Define your mission and look up the icing patterns for your particular travel. Then choose.
I finally settled on a FIKI Seneca II but I still only use the systems for escape. Nothing beats Judgement, and Power.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
FIKI is not intended to drone along in ice, especially in light aircraft. I can vouch the that the FIKI system works very well in the Cirrus Sr models, but unless I know I can punch through quickly, it's still a no go or divert decision.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
I live in the northern Rockies. I own and fly a naturally aspirated Aztec with boots, hot props, windshield plate, etc. I regularly fly it between 12,000 and 16,000 ASL going westbound over the rocks. Part of the reason I chose this airplane is because of its excellent reputation in icing conditions (there's a bunch of other reasons beyond that as well). The Aztec is my 5th Piper that I use for cross country flying, the first twin and the first with de-ice. I won't go back to an airplane without it as long as I live and fly in this region. I probably won't go back to a single engine cross country airplane either. But I sure wouldn't recommend someone start out flying around here with de-ice and multiple engines either. And I don't go looking for ice.
I'm not a low time pilot with little experience in the mountains any more. But, like everyone, I used to be. Owning a de-ice/anti-ice airplane when I first starting flying around this region decades ago would have been a complete waste of money, and potentially created a false sense of security. The combination of experience and airplane capability allows me to occasionally go a bit beyond what I could do in a airplane without that equipment - but only occasionally and only a very little bit beyond.
No they aren't. It depends a lot on where in the continent you live and fly as to whether you "need" de-ice/anti-ice equipment. Most non-pressurized aircraft owners don't want to habitually fly in the O2 levels in any case. As others have stated, all of us flying piston aircraft are well advised to just stay out of ice. We've had enough incidents with aircraft as capable as turbo-prop TBMs succumbing to icing with fatal results.
Last edited:
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
In the U.S. SE, a lot of the time you have clouds climbing into freezing air between 12K and 18K, they'll be convective, and you'll want to avoid them anyway. Or else it will be solid thick stratus ahead of a warm from with severe clear or mixed icing, and a piston aircraft couldn't handle that anyway.
I wouldn't obsess too much about the idea that you'll be flying above the freezing level. It's down to 5,000 ft or below half the year in Maine, NY, VT, ON, QC, etc, and we fly just fine even without FIKI. It's all about careful planning, having an out, avoiding SLD, and occasionally, deciding to fly another day.
As a point of comparison, I used to fly my family from Ottawa to NYC every March for school break in a 160 hp PA-28-161, when the freezing level was at or near the ground. We never had to cancel or postpone the trip (granted, we were lucky in that regard, but it's still a useful information point). Sometimes we went IFR and sometimes VFR, but never when I didn't know that there was clear air above to fly in. There was often a lot of lake-effect icing weather around Syracuse and Watertown NY, but I just overflew that in beautiful sunlight (lake effect usually tops out around 7,000 ft).
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,936
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
I've experienced ice twice. The first time we were around 12,000 MSL, flew into a cloud and iced up immediately. The second time we were significantly lower (probably around 3-5000 MSL) and started picking up ice. Or so said the CFII, I had foggles on and could see anything anyway. Both times in the club's 182. The first time we got lower and the ice melted off the plane. The second time the CFII wasn't concerned. The airplane is NOT FIKI equipped.
YMMV, but I live and fly in western Washington and we have an ice machine called the Cascade Mountains.
YMMV, but I live and fly in western Washington and we have an ice machine called the Cascade Mountains.
sarangan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,903
- Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
Flying high does have value when you can get over the weather. But if you can't get above the weather I don't see much point, considering the costs associated with going that high.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,183
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Gardner
Adding on to Ghery’s post: Flying in western Washingon to the east side teaches valuable lessons. First determine the freezing level using your favorite method. Then fly WEST until you are at or above that level, then turn east and soar over the mountains in the clear. This does not work so well in convective clouds.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
My "fun" plane is a Mooney Ovation - Normally aspirated but overpowered. I've had it up to FL190 once, but probably at or above 14,000 only a couple dozen times. I don't particularly like oxygen cannulas because they dry my sinuses out bad enough that they're burning after a while.
I've tried to talk myself into a turbo a few times, but it just doesn't make sense unless you're usually flying 300+ nm legs. I only do that maybe a handful to a dozen times a year, and the rest of the year I fly faster than I would be with a turbo, which is a detriment down low.
For work, I fly TBMs. Pressurized and fully deiced. Even so, we don't hang out in ice - Climb through it or descend through it, sure. Freezing rain is a no-go (which is true of most airplanes, even FIKI). I still look at Skew-T plots frequently.
If you want to fly at 12-18K normally aspirated in the southeast, you'll likely only have one option when it comes to ice: Descend. But, if you're descending into above-freezing air, the ice should come off fairly quickly.
If you have a turbo, you may be able to climb out of ice, but if you're going to do so without FIKI, the only way you're getting rid of that ice is if you get on top and you're facing into the sun. You'll still need to check those Skew-Ts and make sure that you can climb until you're on top, and you'll still have some limitations.
If you have turbo+FIKI, you'll have a method of shedding most of the ice no matter which way you're going or whether it's day or night. I still wouldn't plan on cruising in the muck unless the Skew-T shows your cruising altitude to be too cold for icing - preferably -40ºC or below, which is fairly rare down in the mid-20s where you'll probably top out with a turbo piston.
So, you have more options with a turbo, more still with turbo + FIKI, but there is nothing that is a 100% go.
Always better to not need it but have it, than to need it but not have it!
I would agree, though if you're generally sticking to flying in areas where it's above freezing on the ground, you always have the option to fly in lower, non-icing altitudes and simply fly a bit slower. The number of times you'll use the de-icing equipment may be low enough that the hassle and expense of maintaining it isn't worthwhile.
Boots are expensive to replace and do need to be maintained, and I wouldn't leave them sitting out on a hot ramp in the South too much. TKS has to be exercised monthly-ish IIRC, is very messy, and the fluid is quite expensive. I think a lot of owners simply don't think it's worthwhile to have FIKI for the few times they'd use it, especially if they can just fly lower to avoid the ice occasionally.
That's a misrepresentation of that accident. The pilot was actually sitting in the right seat, and he put his buddy in the left seat. The deicing panel is on the far left, down and to the left of the pilot's yoke, and is difficult to see, much less reach, from the right seat, and the passenger in the left seat likely didn't know how to properly operate it or even find the right switches when the pilot told him to turn it on.
In addition, a nearby airline captain said it was the worst ice he'd ever seen, by far. It was severe icing for sure. Put those two together and you have a recipe for disaster. Finally, it was a TBM 700, not an 850, so significantly less power and climb performance.
It's not about whether you go into ice on purpose, it's about flying IMC and getting out of the ice that wasn't forecast or expected. FIKI just gives you an extra out. And again, the TBM icing accident was not caused by the aircraft type (see above).
WannFly
Final Approach
Wasnt the TBM accident at least partly due to the pilot trying to troubleshoot the AP while iced up instead of taking over controls and hand flying to get a feel of how mushy the controls are.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
I can't recall an icing accident where it was the aircraft type that caused it. There's probably one out there in the records, I just can't think of an example where the aircraft was to blame. That wasn't the point btw.
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
Basically, a winter warm front is a no-go unless you're a jet or high-end turboprop. Ditto for lake-effect snow. There are other things to avoid, but those two alone probably account for most of the really-severe icing incidents around the Great Lakes, NE U.S., and south-central/eastern Canada, because they're where you'll find most of the supercooled large droplets in this part of the continent.
WhenI read about someone flying in a piston aircraft (single or twin, with/without FIKI) into visible moisture in, say, December, when there's a warm front on the map within 200 nm to the west, I just shake my head in sad bewilderment. There's no way widespread severe icing should come as a surprise in those conditions — it's like playing Russian roulette, but with 5/6 of the chambers loaded.
WhenI read about someone flying in a piston aircraft (single or twin, with/without FIKI) into visible moisture in, say, December, when there's a warm front on the map within 200 nm to the west, I just shake my head in sad bewilderment. There's no way widespread severe icing should come as a surprise in those conditions — it's like playing Russian roulette, but with 5/6 of the chambers loaded.
I can’t tell if you mean the above only with no visible moisture, and you want Fiki in case you encounter icing upon descent, or if you’re thinking about climbing through icing conditions to get above the ice. Two very different things, imo.
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
It depends on how much safety margin you want and can afford to buy? I had a naturally aspirated SR22 with non-FIKI TKS system and found that even though it worked fine to get through a short icing exposure (i.e. as an out to get through a thin layer) and I never remotely scared myself, I wanted some more buffer so I upgraded to a turbo SR22 (better climb rate and altitude range) with FIKI. That gave me enough capability to fly 99.5% of the trips I wanted to even in the winter in the midwest - but even that was just for limited, short term exposure to moderate or less icing. I have always treated ice with an overkill approach - non hazzard de-icing = avoid all ice and have it as an out in case things go unplanned, FIKI = no prolonged exposure to icing risk, use it to get through layers of light to moderate and that's it. And FYI - the Cirrus TKS FIKI system works quite well.
I'm now flying a plane with boots (FIKI) but it has only been a couple months in CA and have not had any ice exposure yet...
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,999
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
As I look out the window today you could fly up to FL800 without needing de-icing equipment. There are days here in Kansas where you can't fly at 800 feet without needing de-icing.
Really the answer is that de-ice is a tool. It's useful to have but expensive to own and maintain when it breaks (which it will), adds weight, adds drag. Without pressurization, flying up at higher altitudes is honestly not that much fun (cannulas are a pain). I would say that you don't need de-ice inherently to fly a go-places plane, but it increases your go/no-go capabilities on the go side (when used properly - when used improperly it just gets you into a hole in the ground faster).
You also don't mention where you are, which is important. East of the Rockies, a piston with de-ice will generally get you through and on top of a common thin icing layer and then let you get back through it on the way down. Once you hit Denver, a piston with deice unless it's maybe a 421 is unlikely to give you the kind of performance to be really useful with those MEAs.
Personally, having gotten rid of the MU-2 and spent the past decade plus messing with icing all over the continent, if I wanted a go-places plane the ones that appeal to me (which don't fit the family) are a Mooney and a Lancair IV, and I would want both without de-ice and just fly them accordingly.
Really the answer is that de-ice is a tool. It's useful to have but expensive to own and maintain when it breaks (which it will), adds weight, adds drag. Without pressurization, flying up at higher altitudes is honestly not that much fun (cannulas are a pain). I would say that you don't need de-ice inherently to fly a go-places plane, but it increases your go/no-go capabilities on the go side (when used properly - when used improperly it just gets you into a hole in the ground faster).
You also don't mention where you are, which is important. East of the Rockies, a piston with de-ice will generally get you through and on top of a common thin icing layer and then let you get back through it on the way down. Once you hit Denver, a piston with deice unless it's maybe a 421 is unlikely to give you the kind of performance to be really useful with those MEAs.
Personally, having gotten rid of the MU-2 and spent the past decade plus messing with icing all over the continent, if I wanted a go-places plane the ones that appeal to me (which don't fit the family) are a Mooney and a Lancair IV, and I would want both without de-ice and just fly them accordingly.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
And, as usual, @Ted DuPuis nailed it.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
No. I didn't see any mention of that in the accident report, haven't heard such within the community, and I don't think the TBM 700 even had the equipment for anyone to be able to know such a thing after the fact. Newer TBMs are equipped with either an L3 Lightweight Data Recorder and/or a P&W FAST box in addition to the G1000 data card that can be read if it survives the crash, but the accident aircraft would not have been equipped with any of those. The G1000 was added after the 850 came out, the LDR was added when the 900/930 were in production, and I don't think the FAST box was added until the 910/940.
So, I'm guessing you're thinking of another accident... Roselawn had the autopilot on, for example. I'm sure that wasn't the only one.
WannFly
Final Approach
hmm could be, i was thinking of 713CA but noting in that indicates they were flying on AP. I must have mixed up 2 different accidents
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,196
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all.
There was no mention by the NTSB or the media that the pilot was in the right seat, nor was it mentioned in the widow's lawsuit against the pilot's estate. Surely I would have recalled hearing that; it would be hugely irresponsible to put a non-pilot passenger in the left seat of a high performance turbine single that was climbing to the flight levels in IMC with an active AIRMET and the pilot's family on board. Was this a fact, or a rumor in the TBM community? Besides, NTSB investigators found the system switches in the on position.
I also believe I recall the NTSB saying the pilot had misoperated the anti-icing system by repeatedly cycling it manually instead of allowing that function to occur in the automatic mode. This kept the ice buildup on the boots from forming a homogeneous mass with the ice behind them, and as a result when the boots were popped, the separately formed wing ice continued to grow. The AFM cautions against flying in conditions of rapid buildup because this condition may occur regardless of the cycling method used.
I also believe there was also mention by the NTSB of the pilot's focus on continuing the climb in an effort to top the ice while allowing the airspeed to decay. The aircraft stalled at 17,800', and the pilot pulled the wings off in the resulting spiral to the ground.
It was indeed severe icing; but he had been in icing conditions for several minutes and had observed the speed of the buildup, and even when the airframe began to shake from the ice accumulation, he persisted in trying to climb through it.
That is where he made the decision that brought down the plane. With the amount of ice already in place, what did he expect would happen when he reached FL200 and presumably no more accretion? He would still have been flying an aircraft carrying a huge amount of ice, with imminent danger of a total loss of control. He certainly couldn't attain an airspeed that would provide better control while still climbing. He probably wouldn't have been able to maintain altitude even if he had topped the icing conditions.
Sometime in the almost six minutes he climbed through icing conditions that threatened to bring down a DC-9, why didn't he make the obvious decision that the only prudent course of action was an immediate return to lower altitudes? VMC existed below 12,000'. N1120A's observation appears to be a correct one.
Last edited:
Rockymountain
Pre-takeoff checklist
Did I miss something? What booted aircraft are you flying now?
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
I sold my Cirrus and I’m back to renting Cessnas. There is an outfit here with 4 Mustangs on a rental program. I flew this one yesterday.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,244
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
That really sucks man.. sorry.
Rockymountain
Pre-takeoff checklist
That is a nice aircraft. Don’t think I would worry about the boots too much, the Mustang handles ice Much better than the Cirrus. I think I was flying this mustang into Salt Lake. Sacrifice
You do have to get used to seeing a little inter-cycle ice on the boots. But as long as you obey the icing limitations in the POH, that little bit of ice is inconsequential. You sure can chew up some runway though, if you do the calculations on an iced Mustang on a contaminated runway.
For a lot of the type of flying that I do, the mustang just won’t get into the airports I need to get into. Especially in the winter. Turbo prop’s don’t need brakes With the reversible prop ;-). But if I had access to rental mustangs here, I would probably be really interested in that.
You do have to get used to seeing a little inter-cycle ice on the boots. But as long as you obey the icing limitations in the POH, that little bit of ice is inconsequential. You sure can chew up some runway though, if you do the calculations on an iced Mustang on a contaminated runway.
For a lot of the type of flying that I do, the mustang just won’t get into the airports I need to get into. Especially in the winter. Turbo prop’s don’t need brakes With the reversible prop ;-). But if I had access to rental mustangs here, I would probably be really interested in that.
Attachments
Snowmass
Line Up and Wait
Flying high, especially very high, also has value if you fly single engine night and lose that engine.