Morgan3820
En-Route
Does a forecast for trace ice qualify as ‘known ice’?
You really don't want to play any games with ice. Legal answer of "yes" aside.. if there's any kind of ice in the forecast and you're not FIKI it's best to stay on the ground.
Deeper question:
If you're flying along in IMC (no forecast ice).. but lo and behold you pick up ice.. at what point does continuing to fly in that become "flight into known ice" ..? Let's say you ask ATC for lower to be out of the clouds but they can't give it to you for 10 minutes.. are you flying "illegally" at that point? I've heard stories of people pressing into ice because it wasn't forecast so it's not "known ice" and hence "okay" <- sounds crazy to me.
Are you seeing forecasts of trace icing? Around here, it seems like the FAA stopped including anything less than moderate icing forecasts in their briefings. I noticed this change many years ago.Does a forecast for trace ice qualify as ‘known ice’?
Sure, but at least you're assured some safety if you need to climb or descend through a layer.. or in the case where, short of declaring an emergency, you are either terrain, or limited by other factors.. say an MEA that keeps you in the ice and tops that are beyond either you, O2, or your plane's capabilitiesEven with a FIKI aircraft, you should not continue in the ice. FIKI is to get you through the ice, not hang out in it. Thats why you see even FIKI aircraft get in trouble, pilots think its a silver bullet to ice. Its time to climb, descend, or do something to get out of it.
Sure, but at least you're assured some safety if you need to climb or descend through a layer.. or in the case where, short of declaring an emergency, you are either terrain, or limited by other factors.. say an MEA that keeps you in the ice and tops that are beyond either you, O2, or your plane's capabilities
Out of curiosity, have there been accidents where TKS equipped planes have been overcome with ice? I know boot planes have come down.. but what about TKS? Outside of Cirrus, this seems to be the preferred choice now in Mooney, Kodiak, and going as far back as WW2 bombers. Seems like, if the pumps work and you have fluid, you get a more chemically guaranteed removal of ice, with some flowback protection as well. I've heard rumors of thermal systems refreezing just behind the thermal strip..
this would be a very interesting stat to find, I believe @wanttaja is our local accident data repository expert.. maybe he has some insight?I wouldn't be surprised to find out the number of ice related accidents is close to equal between equipped and non equipped aircraft
Wow.. I had no idea the Caravan was that low... that's honestly borderline useless, 20 minutes on high? Below is a picture I grabbed in the Cirrus the other day, assuming you depart with full tanks (which, I always do, if I anticipate any kind of ice) you still get almost 40 minutes of "oh **** we're going to die" ice protection on max, when the TKS, if you run it on the ground, is basically pouring out of the wings... over an hour on high.. and well over 2 hrs on norm. Granted.. "norm" is a bare minimum that intermittently soaks the wing, and is mainly good if your bouncing in and out of tops with occasional ice, or anticipate ice ahead and want to get a coating on the wing. For any actual sustained ice I run on high..For example, I've been told the system on the Caravan last about 90 minutes on low, and 20 minutes on high. If you are having to use the system on high you have better be figuring out a solution fast.
That's where the ADM part comes in though.. if you anticipate to be out of the clouds / ice / different MEA / etc., in a reasonably short amount of time I don't see an issue with pressing on. If, however, you're going to be stuck in that soup for any extended period of time, well, in that case, your whole preflight planning is drawn into question..Can't climb out, can't descend out, turn around
Out of curiosity, have there been accidents where TKS equipped planes have been overcome with ice? I know boot planes have come down.. but what about TKS? Outside of Cirrus, this seems to be the preferred choice now in Mooney, Kodiak, and going as far back as WW2 bombers. Seems like, if the pumps work and you have fluid, you get a more chemically guaranteed removal of ice, with some flowback protection as well. I've heard rumors of thermal systems refreezing just behind the thermal strip..
Any more details what he was flying and what happened? Others may learn from it.. what made him almost crash?I don’t know about accidents but I know a guy who came really close to being a statistic with TKS. He ended up in unforecast ice with no outs and one chance at an approach at the nearest airport he could get to. This is a guy who flys professionally and has a far more conservative approach than most of the posters here seem to, so it can happen.
Sorry, my data is primarily homebuilts. I found eight icing-related accidents in my 1998-2018 homebuilt accident database (out of ~4200 accidents).this would be a very interesting stat to find, I believe @wanttaja is our local accident data repository expert.. maybe he has some insight?
"....The pilot reported that once he had '...the runway made' he lowered the landing gear at which time the airplane began 'to sink and lose altitude rapidly despite my use of full power and attempts to level off.' The airplane impacted the rough terrain approximately 1/4 mile short of the approach end of the runway. Inspection of the airplane revealed it was covered with about 2 inches of ice. " (CHI00LA089)
Any more details what he was flying and what happened? Others may learn from it.. what made him almost crash?
Does a forecast for trace ice qualify as ‘known ice’?
Living in the upper Midwest, I've heard lots of icing horror stories, but have managed to escape making any of my own. Granted I don't fly FIKI aircraft often. I have seen quite a few interesting examples show up on the ramp though. Often the pilots have the same pale, clammy appearance.
Interesting.. glad he made it out of that one! I don't envy people who get in situations like that, but we can learn from others who do, and especially those that survivenon-FIKI TKS equipped SR22
That's how I've always understood it and been tought, yes..So then if there is a cloud layer at 3,000 with tops at 5,000 and the freezing level is 2,000, I can’t pubnch through to cruise at 6,000. Because then I would be going through icing conditions to get into the clear. Am I wrong?
So then if there is a cloud layer at 3,000 with tops at 5,000 and the freezing level is 2,000, I can’t pubnch through to cruise at 6,000. Because then I would be going through icing conditions to get into the clear. Am I wrong?
The limitations in the POH/AFM probably use the term “known icing conditions”, not “known ice”.No! But it might constitute "known icing conditions". We would need more information as to what the entire weather briefing indicated to make that determination. From the cited legal opinion:
"Pilots should also carefully evaluate all of the available meteorological information relevant
to a proposed flight, including applicable surface observations, temperatures aloft, terminal
and area forecasts, AIRMETs, SIGMETs, and pilot reports (PIREPs). As new technology
becomes available, pilots should incorporate the use of that technology into their decisionmaking
process. If the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot
that he or she will be operating the aircraft under conditions that will cause ice to adhere to
the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions
likely exist. If the pilot operates the aircraft in known icing conditions contrary to the
requirements of§ 91 . 9( a), the FAA may take enforcement action."
Read the opinion. "Known ice" is when it is sticking to the plane. What the limitations say in your POH comes into this.
So then if there is a cloud layer at 3,000 with tops at 5,000 and the freezing level is 2,000, I can’t pubnch through to cruise at 6,000. Because then I would be going through icing conditions to get into the clear. Am I wrong?
Even with a FIKI aircraft, you should not continue in the ice. FIKI is to get you through the ice, not hang out in it. Thats why you see even FIKI aircraft get in trouble, pilots think its a silver bullet to ice. Its time to climb, descend, or do something to get out of it.
So then if there is a cloud layer at 3,000 with tops at 5,000 and the freezing level is 2,000, I can’t pubnch through to cruise at 6,000. Because then I would be going through icing conditions to get into the clear. Am I wrong?
The limitations in the POH/AFM probably use the term “known icing conditions”, not “known ice”.
It depends on what is in your AFM/POH. If there is not a limitation for flight into icing conditions, then the only thing the FAA can bust you on is careless and reckless, 91.13. It would be a tough argument that punching through, especially on the way down, was careless or reckless, but you might have to spend money defending yourself. However, my experience with the Feds these days is that unless there is a clear paperwork violation, they aren't doing enforcement.
True.. but most people would be vigilant not to fly into said conditions without some type of ice equipment (outside of pitot and carb heat)As pointed out by Palmpilot, freezing temperatures and visible moisture alone don't necessarily present icing conditions.
True.. but most people would be vigilant not to fly into said conditions without some type of ice equipment (outside of pitot and carb heat)
But as pointed out by the legal interpretation, “known icing conditions” exist when a reasonable person would expect ice.As pointed out by Palmpilot, freezing temperatures and visible moisture alone don't necessarily present icing conditions.
Sure, but at least you're assured some safety if you need to climb or descend through a layer.. or in the case where, short of declaring an emergency, you are either terrain, or limited by other factors.. say an MEA that keeps you in the ice and tops that are beyond either you, O2, or your plane's capabilities
Out of curiosity, have there been accidents where TKS equipped planes have been overcome with ice? I know boot planes have come down.. but what about TKS? Outside of Cirrus, this seems to be the preferred choice now in Mooney, Kodiak, and going as far back as WW2 bombers. Seems like, if the pumps work and you have fluid, you get a more chemically guaranteed removal of ice, with some flowback protection as well. I've heard rumors of thermal systems refreezing just behind the thermal strip..
FIKI Cirri <> TKS CirriYes, some of the Cirrus fatal icing accidents as well as CAPS deployments were in TKS equipped aircraft. The most famous was the 2005 Norden CA accident where the TKS equipped Cirrus departed controlled flight in icing and by the time CAPS was deployed was beyond the structural speed for CAPS and the parachute ripped off. But several others. I don't know of any confirmed FIKI Cirri where ice was labeled as the cause of the loss of control, The most suspicious was the Newcomerstown FIKI Cirrus crash that claimed the life of a physician. While the NTSB looked at some erratic electrical system anomalies as the possible cause for the LOC, I believe Scott D did a weather analysis of that aircraft and felt like it was probably in significant icing when it lost control, and I still wonder if the apparent anomalies that occurred with the electric al system and bolster switches was in response to icing.
Sure, but at least you're assured some safety if you need to climb or descend through a layer.. or in the case where, short of declaring an emergency, you are either terrain, or limited by other factors.. say an MEA that keeps you in the ice and tops that are beyond either you, O2, or your plane's capabilities
Out of curiosity, have there been accidents where TKS equipped planes have been overcome with ice? I know boot planes have come down.. but what about TKS? Outside of Cirrus, this seems to be the preferred choice now in Mooney, Kodiak, and going as far back as WW2 bombers. Seems like, if the pumps work and you have fluid, you get a more chemically guaranteed removal of ice, with some flowback protection as well. I've heard rumors of thermal systems refreezing just behind the thermal strip..
FIKI TKS works. Tantalum and I saw that first hand, but we also strapped on O2 and climbed out of it.
I'm not sure if any FIKI TKS planes have been wrecked due to icing, but certainly some non-FIKI TKS Cirrus' have.
A major boot accident was the Comair Brasilia that came down because their manuals and training required 1/2 inch of ice to form before blowing the boots, while Embraer had specifically said the system should he be activated as soon as icing was encountered. That plane actually had the ability to shed ice in bad conditions, unlike the ATR that went down in Indiana, but crap training and procedures did them in.
It's a remarkable system when used correctly. I find that on "normal" ice no longer builds but it also doesn't really shed, the occasional switch to "high" sheds it right off without a problem.. have never had to use MAX in angerFIKI Cirrus work really well in certified conditions. Part of being legal to use the Cirrus piston fiki system is to take the Cirrus course every 2 years, many Cirrus pilots seem not to know this and do things like full flaps on landing with ice on the airframe which is not allowed.
It's a remarkable system when used correctly. I find that on "normal" ice no longer builds but it also doesn't really shed, the occasional switch to "high" sheds it right off without a problem.. have never had to use MAX in anger
The Cirrus learning management portal system is great, there's no reason to fall behind on any of the recurrent stuff
My CSIP was a little "braver" than me.. I've had about a dozen actual icing encounters, 4 where with the CSIP.. 3 were through layers, one was prolonged (about 45 minutes). Neither of us had our cannulas so we were altitude limited and skimmed along the tops. We always had an out (30 minute rule O2, yes we had oxymeters, or just descending, which would have been the obvious choice), and normal worked fineI'm relatively new to using the system, been in actual about 8 times, 4 with an instructor and the other times on my own. The last time, about 5 weeks ago, was in Syracuse, punching through a pireped area of light to moderate rime. The layer was about 2,000 thick. As in most cases I had the system on normal before in the cloud. One time, on my long x country instrument, we were asked to climb through a layer that turned out had ice in it, we figured that out by seeing it on the wing. Normal took care of it.
The vast majority of icing accidents occur in non FIKI aircraft, but the majority of flight in icing conditions occurs in FIKI certified aircraft. Especially for new certifications, the systems are very robust. However, icing certification has become tougher, and many if not most legacy FIKI aircraft would not pass current certification standards without modification. But not-with-standing, you need to use all the tools, including weather knowledge, systems knowledge, and POH procedures when flying in ice, because any plane can be brought down by icing, by not doing the right things.