Practical Difference Between FIKI and Inadvertent Deice

[MauleSkinner]

Depends on what is meant by "ice bridging". The way NASA used it was has essentially as a leading edge cuff where the boot was inflating uselessly inside the ice cuff. That may or may not be a myth but I don't know anyone who has seen it like that. I have had ice that has adhered to the boots, in between the channels, which the boots were not removing.

I’ve seen it bridge per NASA’s definition, at least across a couple of channels.

Granted, it takes some specific conditions, including poorly maintained boots, but “it shouldn’t happen” is nowhere near the same as “it can’t happen” or “it’s a myth.”

 

[N1120A]

Of course they are. I never suggested otherwise. I merely gave an example in opposition to broad statements that were being made to the effect that only FIKI aircraft can safely or legally fly in the ice.



Ice bridging my be a myth, but I have yet to find anyone with significant ice flying experience who doesn't know that the ice generally sheds better if allowed to built up a bit before popping the boots.

Depends on what you mean by build up a bit. Should you blow the boots when you don't have any ice and just go into a potentially wet cloud? No. Should you wait till even a half inch builds up? No.

Ice bridging is only a myth to those who haven’t seen it.

Yeah, that totally mattered in the Comair crash.

 

[Tantalum]

I think there in lies the million-dollar question though, when is the best time to blow them?

The minute you see any ice?
Once the whole LE is covered?
Etc..

The other issue is, lots of people are bad at estimating small distances, like inches..

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think there in lies the million-dollar question though, when is the best time to blow them?

The minute you see any ice?
Once the whole LE is covered?
Etc..

“Depends”. That’s why I think @Kristin’s comment about having pilots know about icing operations vs relying on equipment certification is important.

The other issue is, lots of people are bad at estimating small distances, like inches..

I always thought that’s why they put things like stall strips on the wings...to give a point of reference.

 

[Tantalum]

I always thought that’s why they put things like stall strips on the wings...to give a point of reference.

Actually, the FIKI SR22 does have a little 1/4 inch strip specifically for that purpose right next to the stall strip. It's one of the first things to form ice and provides a decent reference. It's of less value though since the protocol is have the system on 2-5 minutes prior to entering expected ice.. ideally the wing doesn't accumulate anything, it just comes off in small pieces as it forms, so it's less valuable than something with boots where it seems letting *something* accumulate first is the norm

 

[Larry Vrooman]

/...
/...My take on it is that the FAA doesn't now want to impose an outright ban on flight into known icing conditions, unless FIKI approved, in Part 91 as they know that it would have huge economic and political consequences. Further, it ignores the fact that there are non-FIKI birds, like all the Aztecs, which handle ice better than a lot of FIKI birds, but Piper never chose to certify them. So the FAA is playing the game of trying to talk pilots out of flying in the ice without banning it outright as the fact is that the professionals can do it safely without the FIKI system and a lot of hobby flyers are dangerous, even with a FIKI plane strapped on.

Probably saying much the same thing.

for reference, here’s the Part 135 requirement for flight in icing conditions...

(c) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless—

(1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system;

(2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34 of appendix A of this part; or

(3) The airplane meets transport category airplane type certification provisions, including the requirements for certification for flight in icing conditions.
.../

/...

One of the challenges of writing a good regulation is achieving an appropriate balance between benefit and burden. In the case of Part 91 and icing, it's a balance between safety (for non part 135 operators) and the economic costs that would result if you more or less effectively shut down a significant percentage of IFR flights for a significant percentage of GA aircraft for a significant percentage of the winter for a significant percentage of the country for flights conducted under part 91.

However, a second challenge of writing a good reg is anticipating how people will game that regulation as well as the unintended consequences to other parts within a title of the CFR that stem from changes in behavior caused by changes in another part of the same title in the CFR.

I posted this example, in another thread on a different topic, but it points to the unintended change in behavior relative to one part of the regulations that can result from a change in another in another part of the regulation.

I was flying home in a C-172 after dropping the DPE off at his home airport following my instrument checkride. He advised me that I would need to file IFR to get home, while he typed up my certificate, and I did so. I checked the weather and there was no forecast icing or pilot reports of ice along the route or at the destination. There was however a fast moving front (in a big flat state out west where reporting stations were few and far between). I flew upwind about 70 miles into a 30 kt headwind, IFR on top. The cloud tops were at around 3800 ft MSL with a field elevation around 1430 ft and a ceiling that was pushing minimums at about 1700 ft MSL. (about a 2100 ft thick layer of clouds). As I approached my destination, I listened to the ATC chatter and a few minutes before I reached the IAF for the ILS 21 approach a 737 reported "trace" icing. That got my attention, and I realized that ATC was also keeping aircraft high and having them stay above the clouds and then descend through the outer marker rather than maintain 3100' motoring from the IAF to the outer marker. It didn't alarm me, but it probably should have. However as a newly minted instrument pilot with literally still wet ink on my certificate, I didn't know enough to realize what I didn't know about the enormity of what I still didn't know.

ATC did the same with me keeping me a above the clouds and dropping me quickly onto the outer marker and the glide slope. However, about 60 seconds after descending through the OM, and about 2 minutes after starting the descent and entering the cloud deck, I noted I had to maintain a lot more power than usual to maintain 90 kts on the glideslope. I pulled a flash light out of my pocket, shined it out at the leading edge and noted about a 1/2" of ice. I'd flown much of my instrument training that winter in actual IFR and I'd seen "trace" ice before. This wasn't that. This was ice that was accumulating very rapidly. I was now about 1600 ft below the cloud tops and given the amount of power needed to maintain the glide slope, and the additional ice I'd collect on the way back up, it was obvious the aircraft was not going to climb back above the clouds with the load of ice it currently had.

I added full power and increased the approach speed, to both reduce the AoA and also reduce the time on approach. I also accepted that there would be no missed approach possible. As I approached the inner marker and decision height I had to start converting excess speed to altitude to try to maintain the glideslope, and at best glide speed I had to start watching the GS needle slide out of the bottom of the donut. At that point I broke out at about 200' and had the runway approach lights on the nose. I barely made it over those lights to land.

The chief flight instructor/FBO owner was still at the FBO waiting for me when I taxied in and parked. We both noted over an inch of rime ice on the wing and significant ice on the prop. He was as mortified as I was that'd I'd picked up that much ice in less than 4 minutes in the clouds. We debriefed and I described the lack of forecast ice and the pilot report of "trace" ice shortly before I began the approach. He explained that pilots often report trace ice when there was significantly more ice as anything greater than trace ice would close the airport to any aircraft that was not certified for flight into known icing conditions. That's a direct (and predictable) result of pilot behavior changing in unintended ways by the wording in a regulation. He also advised that what might be plausible trace ice to a 737 is much more significant to a GA aircraft. I indicted that would have been great information to have that morning, as if I'd known that I'd have most likely skipped the approach and flown back downwind to my alternate and spent the night.

It left me with a permanent bias about the validity of "trace" ice reports, and about how much ice you can pick up in a normal descent through just 2100 ft of clouds.

 

[PaulS]

One of the challenges of writing a good regulation is achieving an appropriate balance between benefit and burden. In the case of Part 91 and icing, it's a balance between safety (for non part 135 operators) and the economic costs that would result if you more or less effectively shut down a significant percentage of IFR flights for a significant percentage of GA aircraft for a significant percentage of the winter for a significant percentage of the country for flights conducted under part 91.

However, a second challenge of writing a good reg is anticipating how people will game that regulation as well as the unintended consequences to other parts within a title of the CFR that stem from changes in behavior caused by changes in another part of the same title in the CFR.

I posted this example, in another thread on a different topic, but it points to the unintended change in behavior relative to one part of the regulations that can result from a change in another in another part of the regulation.

I was flying home in a C-172 after dropping the DPE off at his home airport following my instrument checkride. He advised me that I would need to file IFR to get home, while he typed up my certificate, and I did so. I checked the weather and there was no forecast icing or pilot reports of ice along the route or at the destination. There was however a fast moving front (in a big flat state out west where reporting stations were few and far between). I flew upwind about 70 miles into a 30 kt headwind, IFR on top. The cloud tops were at around 3800 ft MSL with a field elevation around 1430 ft and a ceiling that was pushing minimums at about 1700 ft MSL. (about a 2100 ft thick layer of clouds). As I approached my destination, I listened to the ATC chatter and a few minutes before I reached the IAF for the ILS 21 approach a 737 reported "trace" icing. That got my attention, and I realized that ATC was also keeping aircraft high and having them stay above the clouds and then descend through the outer marker rather than maintain 3100' motoring from the IAF to the outer marker. It didn't alarm me, but it probably should have. However as a newly minted instrument pilot with literally still wet ink on my certificate, I didn't know enough to realize what I didn't know about the enormity of what I still didn't know.

ATC did the same with me keeping me a above the clouds and dropping me quickly onto the outer marker and the glide slope. However, about 60 seconds after descending through the OM, and about 2 minutes after starting the descent and entering the cloud deck, I noted I had to maintain a lot more power than usual to maintain 90 kts on the glideslope. I pulled a flash light out of my pocket, shined it out at the leading edge and noted about a 1/2" of ice. I'd flown much of my instrument training that winter in actual IFR and I'd seen "trace" ice before. This wasn't that. This was ice that was accumulating very rapidly. I was now about 1600 ft below the cloud tops and given the amount of power needed to maintain the glide slope, and the additional ice I'd collect on the way back up, it was obvious the aircraft was not going to climb back above the clouds with the load of ice it currently had.

I added full power and increased the approach speed, to both reduce the AoA and also reduce the time on approach. I also accepted that there would be no missed approach possible. As I approached the inner marker and decision height I had to start converting excess speed to altitude to try to maintain the glideslope, and at best glide speed I had to start watching the GS needle slide out of the bottom of the donut. At that point I broke out at about 200' and had the runway approach lights on the nose. I barely made it over those lights to land.

The chief flight instructor/FBO owner was still at the FBO waiting for me when I taxied in and parked. We both noted over an inch of rime ice on the wing and significant ice on the prop. He was as mortified as I was that'd I'd picked up that much ice in less than 4 minutes in the clouds. We debriefed and I described the lack of forecast ice and the pilot report of "trace" ice shortly before I began the approach. He explained that pilots often report trace ice when there was significantly more ice as anything greater than trace ice would close the airport to any aircraft that was not certified for flight into known icing conditions. That's a direct (and predictable) result of pilot behavior changing in unintended ways by the wording in a regulation. He also advised that what might be plausible trace ice to a 737 is much more significant to a GA aircraft. I indicted that would have been great information to have that morning, as if I'd known that I'd have most likely skipped the approach and flown back downwind to my alternate and spent the night.

It left me with a permanent bias about the validity of "trace" ice reports, and about how much ice you can pick up in a normal descent through just 2100 ft of clouds.

Oh yeah baby, it builds quickly if it's anything above trace, it's just a matter of how fast it piles up. I went through a layer to Syracuse, about 2,000 thick in a FIKI SR-22. I started the system before I entered and descended through it about 800 fpm. It was reported light to moderate. I had no build up on the protected surfaces, but the non protected surfaces built up to about 1/8 of inch pretty fast. Not stuff to be trifled with.

 

[PaulS]

Actually, the FIKI SR22 does have a little 1/4 inch strip specifically for that purpose right next to the stall strip. It's one of the first things to form ice and provides a decent reference. It's of less value though since the protocol is have the system on 2-5 minutes prior to entering expected ice.. ideally the wing doesn't accumulate anything, it just comes off in small pieces as it forms, so it's less valuable than something with boots where it seems letting *something* accumulate first is the norm

Unfortunately ice is not always forecast, but the TKS in the fiki system works well even when you get surprised.

 

[Tantalum]

Oh yeah baby, it builds quickly

Indeed it does! Have climbed and descended through one or two "moderate" layers..the wing stayed clean but the same could not be said of the windshield and the landing lights on the wing tips were totally ensconced..

 

[Tantalum]

No, this is not smart, and yes, it does reinforce some Cirrus stereotypes... but damn, TKS / FIKI is very capable. As I understand it some Lancair have electrically heated leading edges?

 

[PaulS]

No, this is not smart, and yes, it does reinforce some Cirrus stereotypes... but damn, TKS / FIKI is very capable. As I understand it some Lancair have electrically heated leading edges?

That guy, he apparently didn't read the or watch the required material from Cirrus to fly in ice.

 

[Radar Contact]

He explained that pilots often report trace ice when there was significantly more ice as anything greater than trace ice would close the airport to any aircraft that was not certified for flight into known icing conditions.

Larry, I (and I’m sure others) appreciate you taking the time to describe your past experience. This gives those without experience at least some thought into it. That said, I’ve never heard anyone suggest a pilot would purposefully degrade an icing encounter so others would have the benefit of experiencing said ice in order to keep an airport “open”.

He also advised that what might be plausible trace ice to a 737 is much more significant to a GA aircraft.

I do however think this is very valid. A 737 has normal approach speeds higher than a 172’s Vne and much faster than their typical approach speed. Additionally, their ice protection systems are the best in aviation. I would always take a 7-3 type icing PIREP and go up at least one level for a small GA. Just my $0.02.

 

[Kristin]

Depends on what you mean by build up a bit. Should you blow the boots when you don't have any ice and just go into a potentially wet cloud? No. Should you wait till even a half inch builds up? No.

A bit depends on what kind of ice and the OAT. Pure rime is often not in a hurry to break off, but since it tends to just sit on the leading edge, it doesn't degrade performance too much, so I would give that more time. Close to freezing with mixed ice then I hit the boots sooner. Regardless, I always hit the boots prior to landing if the lifting surfaces are still contaminated. I probably hit the boots on average after 1/8" to 1/4". It is a bit hard to say as can only really look at the left wing and other parts of the plane might have different accumulations.

 

[Kristin]

No, this is not smart, and yes, it does reinforce some Cirrus stereotypes... but damn, TKS / FIKI is very capable. As I understand it some Lancair have electrically heated leading edges?

At the risk of denting my reputation for crazy, I would have been cancelling at "freezing fog", let along freezing rain. I am glad that I didn't have GoPro and YouTube tempting me to video and post some of the stupid things I did in my youth.

 

[German guy]

OK, I admit it: I casually started looking at older Cirrus with TKS, which are however non-FIKI. I am now wondering if non-FIKI TKS would even be of any value.

The thing I don't understand is how icing can be 'inadvertent'!? Visible moisture (clouds) + below freezing temperatures == icing!? Unless it is extremely cold, of course.

aviationweather.gov seems to agree, anytime temperatures are below freezing and clouds are present, they forecast at least 'light' icing. Even though I checked their forecast probably hundreds of times I do not recall a single instance when this was not the case, here in lower Michigan.

If I understand '§ 91.527 Operating in icing conditions' correctly, I would legally not even be allowed to punch through a thin layer, with a non-FIKI aircraft, anytime at least light icing is forecast:

(b) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless -
(1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system;
(2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23;

Am I on the wrong track?

I also think that the original poster's questions hasn't been answered yet: What is the practical difference between non-FIKI and FIKI equipped aircraft:

• SR22 without TKS
• SR22 with non-FIKI TKS
• SR22 with FIKI TKS

 

[sonopoa]

Are we getting too complicated. If you don't have Fiki you have to get out of inadvertently flying into icing immediately. If you do you have more time to assess the option to stay there or leave.

Assessing whether or not a flight will encounter icing accumulating on an airframe isn't an exact science although getting there compared to yesteryear..

That's it

 

[Tantalum]

I am now wondering if non-FIKI TKS would even be of any value.

How much IFR flying do you plan to do? How often is the forecast dead on? Maybe that overcast layer your flying over has colder temps then anticipated

I would always rather have *some* protection than nothing at all.. the FIKI versions are (A) legal, but (B) also have some more redundancy and more of the aircraft is protected..

If you're mostly a prudent VFR pilot I don't think TKS in general (FIKI or not) has much value..

 

[PaulS]

Are we getting too complicated. If you don't have Fiki you have to get out of inadvertently flying into icing immediately. If you do you have more time to assess the option to stay there or leave.

Assessing whether or not a flight will encounter icing accumulating on an airframe isn't an exact science although getting there compared to yesteryear..

That's it

Also, if you are above a layer that is reported to have icing conditions, you can legally descend through it with FIKI. With just TKS you are required to avoid it.

 

[Kristin]

OK, I admit it: I casually started looking at older Cirrus with TKS, which are however non-FIKI. I am now wondering if non-FIKI TKS would even be of any value.

The thing I don't understand is how icing can be 'inadvertent'!? Visible moisture (clouds) + below freezing temperatures == icing!? Unless it is extremely cold, of course.

aviationweather.gov seems to agree, anytime temperatures are below freezing and clouds are present, they forecast at least 'light' icing. Even though I checked their forecast probably hundreds of times I do not recall a single instance when this was not the case, here in lower Michigan.

If I understand '§ 91.527 Operating in icing conditions' correctly, I would legally not even be allowed to punch through a thin layer, with a non-FIKI aircraft, anytime at least light icing is forecast:

(b) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless -
(1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system;
(2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23;

Am I on the wrong track?

I also think that the original poster's questions hasn't been answered yet: What is the practical difference between non-FIKI and FIKI equipped aircraft:

• SR22 without TKS
• SR22 with non-FIKI TKS
• SR22 with FIKI TKS

Since when did a Cirrus fit into the category of: Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft. That is what the regulation you quoted applies to.

Are you asking about aircraft in general with respect to FIKI/Non-FIKI or Cirrus SR22 in particular?

 

[Kristin]

Are we getting too complicated. If you don't have Fiki you have to get out of inadvertently flying into icing immediately. If you do you have more time to assess the option to stay there or leave.

Assessing whether or not a flight will encounter icing accumulating on an airframe isn't an exact science although getting there compared to yesteryear..

That's it

This simplifies things, if it fact it were correct. It might be a correct statement for some Part 23 certified aircraft but not for most CAR3 certified aircraft. It depends on the limitations in the AFM.

 

[Kristin]

I would always rather have *some* protection than nothing at all.. the FIKI versions are (A) legal, but (B) also have some more redundancy and more of the aircraft is protected..

FIKI versions are legal for some icing situations on some aircraft. That is not a correct statement of applied universally to all aircraft.

 

[Kristin]

Also, if you are above a layer that is reported to have icing conditions, you can legally descend through it with FIKI. With just TKS you are required to avoid it.

Keep circling until the weather changes? While there is some gray area as to what "known" icing is, I think that the latest definition from the Fed has been reported that it is "known" when it sticks to your plane. I have certainly been in situations where the plane ahead of me reported ice and I didn't get any following behind by mere minutes.

 

[PaulS]

Keep circling until the weather changes? While there is some gray area as to what "known" icing is, I think that the latest definition from the Fed has been reported that it is "known" when it sticks to your plane. I have certainly been in situations where the plane ahead of me reported ice and I didn't get any following behind by mere minutes.

Yes, I guess it's like most regulations, they are only a problem if you have an incident or a reason for them to notice you.

 

[German guy]

How much IFR flying do you plan to do? How often is the forecast dead on? Maybe that overcast layer your flying over has colder temps then anticipated

I would always rather have *some* protection than nothing at all.. [...]

We fly quite a bit IFR, often from Detroit to the East Coast, crossing the Appalachian mountains. On more then one occasion we either became stuck or didn't go because we were afraid to become stuck on the way back home, simply because we didn't want to punch a layer of clouds, which oftentimes wasn't even all that thick.

Since when did a Cirrus fit into the category of: Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft. That is what the regulation you quoted applies to.

Are you asking about aircraft in general with respect to FIKI/Non-FIKI or Cirrus SR22 in particular?

Oh, I missed this part. Thanks for pointing this out.

So, this means that unless there are PIREPS of icing, one could legally enter IMC in below freezing temperatures. Now, since you have experience with this, what would you consider smart, depending on how the aircraft is equipped?

Is there a good way to learn about IFR winter flying? This has been bugging me for years now, so far I have however only found either articles / videos trying to scare people away or some local pilots who routinely fly their 182s year round, in IMC, to Michigan's UP.

Currently, if their is even only the thinnest layer we'd have to decent / climb through and the temps are below freezing, we don't go.

 

[Tantalum]

FIKI versions are legal for some icing situations on some aircraft. That is not a correct statement of applied universally to all aircraft.

True, I guess it depends how pedantic we want to be, and no, it's not license to go and fly it in any carte blanch winter conditions. In the Cirrus the POH is very specific about what IS and what IS NOT allowed, excerpt below, this is from a true factory FIKI turbo G5 SR22, and it's several pages long detailed airspeeds, fluid quantity levels needed, etc.

But I will still contend that any "FIKI" is going to be more "legal" than the earlier Cirrus systems, which, to the OP's point, to a competent and prudent pilot will have very limited value other than the "I'm flying along in this +5 cloud and all of a sudden it's now -3 and wow there's ice! Help!" situation

Keep circling until the weather changes?

This can be a dice roll.. start cutting into your fuel and hope it gets better... maybe it won't! Agree on the legal definition of "known icing" - but from an insurance perspective if you get your non FIKI into an icing "event" and pull the chute the insurance co. will likely ask "there were pireps for ice in that cloud, so why did you descend into it?" .. the inverse could also be true "it wasn't forecast and there were no pireps, but once you picked up ice why did you press on for 20 more minutes until you became overwhelmed??"

Is there a good way to learn about IFR winter flying? This has been bugging me for years now, so far I have however only found either articles / videos trying to scare people away or some local pilots who routinely fly their 182s year round, in IMC, to Michigan's UP.

Lots of people play fast and loose when it comes to winter flying and ice (and honestly weather in general). Some people get lucky, some people have had close calls and have learned a lot of valuable lessons, and some treat their booted/TKS piston plane as if it were a turbine airliner and have no moral (or otherwise) issues with it, while others have ended up dead (back in October a year or two ago (?) someone with a questionable IR was in the soup picking up ice on his non FIKI / non booted Centurion (if I recall correctly).. he *almost* made it.. who knows how many times he may have done that and luck finally ran out. Mind you, the conditions that day were (if I remember correctly) outside the Cirrus FIKI POH limitations but on the same ATC chatter some guy in a Cirrus was getting cleared to take off while the Centurion is falling out of the sky..).

So I think you really have to approach it with a ton of caution. I've never flown in ice outside of CA, so my experience is limited, but BOY AM I GLAD my first few times picking up ice in northern California was with a multi thousand hour CSIP on board.. mind you, the Sierra Nevadas are no joke (14K elevation in areas) and can whip up some serious ice and winter weather conditions.. might not be "northern Michigan" but sitting at 16K in IMC on cannulas with jagged mountain tops not far below while you're watching the wing ice up is an unforgettable experience

 

[Kristin]

So, this means that unless there are PIREPS of icing, one could legally enter IMC in below freezing temperatures. Now, since you have experience with this, what would you consider smart, depending on how the aircraft is equipped?

Is there a good way to learn about IFR winter flying? This has been bugging me for years now, so far I have however only found either articles / videos trying to scare people away or some local pilots who routinely fly their 182s year round, in IMC, to Michigan's UP.

Currently, if their is even only the thinnest layer we'd have to decent / climb through and the temps are below freezing, we don't go.

PIREPS are not considered to LEGALLY be "known icing". Probably best to treat it as such however.

As for learning to fly in the winter, reading, asking questions, and sticking your nose in it occasionally. Layers are the best way to learn as you can limit your exposure. Especially on descent, you can't get in much trouble in a thousand foot layer if you are cleared all the way through. Best to experiment when there is warm air underneath to allow the ice to come off before landing. But in truth, I have been learning about flying in ice for 40+ years. Books could be written. However, nibble at the edges and always have an out. A deiced airplane is a good start for an out.

 

[Kristin]

True, I guess it depends how pedantic we want to be, and no, it's not license to go and fly it in any carte blanch winter conditions. In the Cirrus the POH is very specific about what IS and what IS NOT allowed, excerpt below, this is from a true factory FIKI turbo G5 SR22, and it's several pages long detailed airspeeds, fluid quantity levels needed, etc.

But I will still contend that any "FIKI" is going to be more "legal" than the earlier Cirrus systems, which, to the OP's point, to a competent and prudent pilot will have very limited value other than the "I'm flying along in this +5 cloud and all of a sudden it's now -3 and wow there's ice! Help!" situation

The problem is that your experience is limited, and largely focused on the Part 23 Cirrus aircraft, yet you make sweeping statements about all aircraft, be they CAR3 certified or Part 23 certified before the FAA invented FIKI. A 1965 Cherokee 180 does not have a limitation is its AFM regarding flight into icing conditions. That is just one example of hundreds that are silent on that point. The whole icing bit on aircraft has been an evolving thing over the years and the Cirrus came along at the tail end. In fact, it is more the outlier than most GA small airplanes.

This can be a dice roll.. start cutting into your fuel and hope it gets better... maybe it won't! Agree on the legal definition of "known icing" - but from an insurance perspective if you get your non FIKI into an icing "event" and pull the chute the insurance co. will likely ask "there were pireps for ice in that cloud, so why did you descend into it?" .. the inverse could also be true "it wasn't forecast and there were no pireps, but once you picked up ice why did you press on for 20 more minutes until you became overwhelmed??"

I was being sarcastic with the first sentence. As for the insurance issue, you misunderstand insurance. You buy insurance to cover you when you are stupid, so the insurance company is unlikely to investigate to see whether you were stupid, before paying the claim.

 

[Tantalum]

yet you make sweeping statements about all aircraft

Not my intention, the OP was asking specifically about the Cirrus so that's what I focused my reply on, and based it on my (albeit) limited, but related, experience to the OP. I've read and heard many things, including here, about "gee the Piper wing is so thick and it was before such a thing as FIKI, it handles ice just fine!" (or something similar to that). If I have to fly in ice I'd like it to be in a plane that at least is legal to do so in some situations. If you are going to carry the burden of telling people "hey you can fly in (some) ice!" they've got to be pretty confident in their system.. more so than "well it's not strictly illegal, and the wing is thick!"

Legality aside, I don't think planes in general have much place spending time in ice, TBM, Cirrus, or Cherokee included, and if the OP is currently avoiding thin layers and mostly VFR than I'm not sure a non FIKI TKS system is worth the weight penalty

**side note: Cirrus obviously did something right because there are plenty of stereotypical Cirrus drivers out there and so far there haven't been any FIKI equipped planes that succumbed to ice. HOWEVER, there have been TKS Cirri that came down as a result of ice. So from a "robustness" standpoint the FIKI planes appear at least decently well equipped

it is more the outlier than most GA small airplanes

Certainly, but it was what the OP was asking about. My friend's early 60's Mooney's POH is basically a pamphlet..

 

[MauleSkinner]

PIREPS are not considered to LEGALLY be "known icing". Probably best to treat it as such however.

Where are you getting your legal definition of known icing?

 

[Doc Holliday]

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090126icing.pdf

 

[Kristin]

Not my intention, the OP was asking specifically about the Cirrus so that's what I focused my reply on, and based it on my (albeit) limited, but related, experience to the OP. I've read and heard many things, including here, about "gee the Piper wing is so thick and it was before such a thing as FIKI, it handles ice just fine!" (or something similar to that). If I have to fly in ice I'd like it to be in a plane that at least is legal to do so in some situations. If you are going to carry the burden of telling people "hey you can fly in (some) ice!" they've got to be pretty confident in their system.. more so than "well it's not strictly illegal, and the wing is thick!"

OK! Now we understand that your use of the English language is insufficiently precise so that we can't take your words to mean what you want them to mean. Got it!

You give us another good example here when you say "Piper wing". There is no such thing as a "Piper wing" as Piper, like other manufacturers not named Cirrus, use multiple different wings for different models. It is up to the PIC to know the strengths and limitations of their aircraft and proceed accordingly.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I don’t think it’s known icing unless I’m getting ice. Just because a weather man or some other pilot said I should get ice or they got ice doesn’t mean I will get ice. More often than not I haven’t accumulated any ice, even when flying through areas of forecast ice conditions and reports of ice encounters.

with enough time in the clouds it becomes much easier to anticipate when/where icing will he encountered and how bad it will likely be in regards to accumulation rates.

This type of flying environment is where it’s very beneficial being inexperienced as part of a crew rather than single pilot.

 

[Kristin]

I don’t think it’s known icing unless I’m getting ice. Just because a weather man or some other pilot said I should get ice or they got ice doesn’t mean I will get ice. More often than not I haven’t accumulated any ice, even when flying through areas of forecast ice conditions and reports of ice encounters.

with enough time in the clouds it becomes much easier to anticipate when/where icing will he encountered and how bad it will likely be in regards to accumulation rates.

This type of flying environment is where it’s very beneficial being inexperienced as part of a crew rather than single pilot.

Doc Holliday posted the link to the FAA definition of "known icing". Your understanding is correct.

 

[Kristin]

Where are you getting your legal definition of known icing?

Doc Holliday provided the answer. It is also in the AIM.

 

[Kristin]

While I agree that the FAA's interpretation of "known icing" being when you see ice on your plane, it does rather obliterate the distinction between FIKI and non-FIKI aircraft when it comes to light aircraft. Whether non-deiced, deice equipped, but non-FIKI, or FIKI, in light aircraft, you should be getting out as soon as you get in. Having some equipment, just gives you a better margin to work with. I don't enter a layer were I suspect ice, without a plan to get back out of it. The most common example is not letting ATC descend me into the clouds while being vectored for the approach. I will stay on top or in my clear layer until I am cleared for the approach. Then I will come down through it quickly.

 

[PaulS]

Lol.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Doc Holliday provided the answer. It is also in the AIM.

The answer @Doc Holliday provided includes PIREPs as part of the identification of known icing.

 

[Tantalum]

Now we understand that your use of the English language is insufficiently precise

so aggressive!

There is no such thing as a "Piper wing" as Piper, like other manufacturers not named Cirrus, use multiple different wings for different models. It is up to the PIC to know the strengths and limitations of their aircraft and proceed accordingly.

-Piper Wing.. yes I know different planes use different wings. The Piper thing is something I've been told many times (have probably read it here too), usually by older people who fly planes without any real "ice equipment" other than carb heat and pitot heat into dubious weather and later claim "yeah but Pipers handle ice great due to their thick wings!" .. and it's usually in reference to an Aztec or Arrow

-Cirrus wing:
They actually have used different wings from the G1 SR20 through the current iteration. The differences are subtle, but there are differences in wingspan and both internal and external structure. But since my grasp of the English language was deemed insufficiently precise I felt this point was worth making

-Up to the PIC:
Totally agree. But to German Guy's point.. without much experience in or around ice that's difficult to build that knowledge base. As we know "FIKI" is not a license to plow into any and all winter weather. If we're using "known ice" to be the observed accumulation of ice then that might be too late in some situations to safely get out of it. Maybe you don't have the performance to go out the top and you can't get out the bottom either due to terrain. Turn around? For someone without boots/TKS a PIREP would be a decent warning

 

[Tarheelpilot]

While I agree that the FAA's interpretation of "known icing" being when you see ice on your plane, it does rather obliterate the distinction between FIKI and non-FIKI aircraft when it comes to light aircraft. Whether non-deiced, deice equipped, but non-FIKI, or FIKI, in light aircraft, you should be getting out as soon as you get in. Having some equipment, just gives you a better margin to work with. I don't enter a layer were I suspect ice, without a plan to get back out of it. The most common example is not letting ATC descend me into the clouds while being vectored for the approach. I will stay on top or in my clear layer until I am cleared for the approach. Then I will come down through it quickly.

Even in jets I don’t hang out in ice. I have encountered icing in little singles all the way to narrow body jets. It’s not insta-death. Just something to manage. I’ve had some FO’s pick on me because I wouldn’t hold in icing conditions. Whatever. When they are captains they can if they want... lol

 

[German guy]

[...] Best to experiment when there is warm air underneath to allow the ice to come off before landing. But in truth, I have been learning about flying in ice for 40+ years. Books could be written. However, nibble at the edges and always have an out. [...]

Instead of trial and error I wish I knew an CFI, with a lot of Michigan winter flying experience, who could teach me how to make good decisions.
Seems like most either fall in the category of 'never EVER enter IMC when temps are below freezing' or 'just go and turn around if needed'.

Anyways, I like neither of these two extremes and am looking for some actual education on what to look for in preparation as well as during a flight.

[...] But to German Guy's point.. without much experience in or around ice that's difficult to build that knowledge base. [...]

Exactly. See above.