Practical Difference Between FIKI and Inadvertent Deice

[Radar Contact]

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.




Exactly. See above.

I may be wrong but isn’t @EdFred a CFI in Michigan? If memory serves, he flies his single IMC in the winter and at least so far, successfully.

Maybe he’d be willing to help you gain experience? This Georgia boy is still working on mine.

I recently flew an approach into NW Ohio with my buddy doing the same in his 340 just minutes afterwards. I kept my speed up and stayed above the clouds till GS intercept (LNAV+V). He just flew a normal speed stabilized approach descending into it then intercepting. I had trace. He had to blow the boots and de-ice his window as he couldn’t see out when he broke out. Think this goes to what @Kristin was mentioning at one point.

 

[PaulS]

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.




Exactly. See above.

I went up a few times with an instructor, in conditions where we ended up in ice, in a FIKI airplane.

I really wouldn't recommend getting near ice in a non ice airplane. You seem to be asking for lessons in how to fly a non icing equipped aircraft near or in icing conditions. Don't do it. If you know of others doing it and getting away with it, the odds are seriously against them, one day it will really bite them, they might pay the ultimate price.

I'm sure like around here, Michigan always has icing airmets. Generally I plan to stay out of the clouds on those days and check the wings often when I get near clouds. So if you can make the flight in a non fiki airplane without flying into the icing conditions, go for it, have a plan to get out if the forecast is wrong. "Go for it" means below the clouds and away from precip with conditions not forecast to get worse.

In a FIKI aircraft I won't hang out in ice, if I can get through it, and it's light or less, then I'll do it. This means descending through a layer, or flying through a small area if there are pireps for light in my type of aircraft. I always want a way out of it if it's worse than forecast. So if it's IMC at the place I'm descending to, that's a big concern. Pireps of trace to light in planes similar to mine and conditions better than my mins I might give it a try. Moderate or more ice, no. Weather at mins, no. I won't dispatch into ice, my flights are never that important. I've cancelled many flights due to ice.

There was a guy recently who didn't make it in I believe a 182. He was IMC, non FIKI in SLD, I don't think he really understood how seriously he was screwed. Don't be that guy.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Visible moisture (clouds) + below freezing temperatures == icing!?

There was a period during which the FAA took that position, but I think that was rescinded by the interpretation that Doc Holliday linked in his post.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-inadvertent-deice.124486/page-2#post-3048751

 

[Kristin]

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

Where are you reading that in the FAA opinion letter? Here is the operative paragraph:

Rather than specifically defining '"known ice," the FAA defines "known or observed or
detected ice accretion" in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). In paragraph 7-1 -22
of that manual the agency defines "known or observed or detected ice accretion'' as "[a]ctual
ice observed visually to be on the aircraft by the flight crew or identified by on-board
sensors." Actual adhesion to the aircraft, rather than the existence of potential icing
conditions, is the determinative factor in this definition. The FAA believes the tern1 "known
or observed or detected ice accretion'· to be synonymous with the term "known ice" and that
the agency· s definition of that term is non-controversial.

The rest of the document is more general information and guidance, not setting any definition.

 

[Tantalum]

The whole thing with "what is known icing" is perhaps best set through precedent.. see here: https://www.avweb.com/features_old/flying-into-known-icing-is-it-legal/

"
At the time of the flight, the Area Forecast, Airmet 1 and Sigmet Charlie 1 called for isolated or occasional moderate or severe icing in clouds or precipitation. The destination airport was IFR under a low overcast upon the pilot’s arrival. He was required to miss the initial approach and crashed due to an excessive accumulation of rime ice while attempting a second approach.

The commercial pilot was injured but survived. The Administrator initiated proceedings against him, alleging that he had operated the aircraft in noncompliance with its established operating limitations and, in so doing, had also operated in a careless or reckless manner. On appeal, the Board expressly rejected the pilot’s argument that mere forecasts of icing, in the form of the Area Forecast, Airmet and Sigmet, could not constitute “known icing” within the meaning of the POH. At the same time, the Board suggested that a pilot report of icing (or no-icing) might constitute more accurate information about actual conditions and hence that it might be “legal” to fly in areas where icing was forecast if someone had previously deigned to enter that area and also to transmit a no-icing PIREP.

The Board upheld a 15-day suspension of the pilot’s airman’s certificate, ruling:



[A] prefatory remark is in order concerning the phrase “known icing conditions,” in which respondent was alleged to have flown. We do not construe the adjective “known” to mean that there must be a near-certainty that icing will occur, such as might be established by pilot reports. Rather, we take the entire phrase to mean that icing conditions are being reported or forecast in reports which are known to a pilot or of which he should reasonably be aware.
"

If I'm PIC I won't go into forecast areas of ice, PIREP'd ice areas, or clouds if the ambient is +3 or below unless I am in an adequately equipped plane

I'm just not sure why anyone would want to tool around and play games with ice.

 

[wayne]

I may be wrong but isn’t @EdFred a CFI in Michigan? If memory serves, he flies his single IMC in the winter and at least so far, successfully.

Maybe he’d be willing to help you gain experience? This Georgia boy is still working on mine.

I recently flew an approach into NW Ohio with my buddy doing the same in his 340 just minutes afterwards. I kept my speed up and stayed above the clouds till GS intercept (LNAV+V). He just flew a normal speed stabilized approach descending into it then intercepting. I had trace. He had to blow the boots and de-ice his window as he couldn’t see out when he broke out. Think this goes to what @Kristin was mentioning at one point.

The best thing is to know where ice is not. Then where you suspect it might be. If you find it, go to where you know it's not. As some people say, have an "out", or a Plan B and Plan C.

I've picked up traces a few times, but less often than I'm watching for it. I used my plan and got out of it. I've also canceled flights due to the forecast for ice as well. All depends upon the forecast and the options. I had an Angel Flight scheduled this past January. We canceled it. Low clouds with moderate ice airmets and low ground temps around the mid-way meeting point (two leg mission) and worse at the place they needed to go. Yeah, not happening, even with TKS. I was looking forward to the flight, but Mother Nature threw a monkey wrench into the plans.

 

[Kristin]

-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

Piper wings vary greatly. In no small part because the Cherokee and all subsequent aircraft were designed by the team in Vero Beach, and Aztec's, Comanches, Navajos, etc, were designed by the engineering team in Lock Haven. The Apache/Aztec has a substantially different wing than a Comanche. The Aztec has a Cub airflow so is essentially, a 500 hp Cub. It will take a lot of ice. Comanches, much less so. Cherokees, they will handle some ice. They are probably middle of the pack. Again it depends also on how much power you have.

-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

I don't have any Cirrus experience. I can identify one on the ramp. Looking at them, I would not expect them to carry much ice. It is clear that their slick wing will not be happy with having its laminar flow disturbed. A Cirrus is not an airplane that I would be wanting to take into the ice. Even a FIKI one I am relying on the system working as there seems to be little to no intrinsic ability to handle ice.

-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

Of course a PIREP is a decent warning and a very valuable piece of data in making a go/no-go decision. Unfortunately, the FAA's approach to icing education is just to say -- as many here do -- "just don't do it". This left me having to learn on my own. Most ice is found on the approach to landing. The reason is rather simple if you think about it. If you know you have to climb through ice to depart, then most times you aren't going to go unless you have the equipment for it. So you get to your destination and there is a layer of clouds and you expect to get ice. The question is can you divert and should you. PIREPS and ATC can often tell you want altitudes pilots are reporting ice. The depth, intensity, and whether there is warm air underneath. If you have a couple of thousand feet of above freezing air before the landing, in almost any airplane you can descend through the layer without picking up too much ice and you have a good chance of getting rid of it before landing. This latter scenario is a common condition in fall and spring in the north and was some of the first situations where I was willing as a newbie IFR pilot to stick my nose into the ice. I also learned in these experiments a 500 fpm rate of descent was a great way to pick up a lot of ice, but if I pushed over and came through the layer at 1,500 fpm, I got substantially less ice. Who'd a thunk it!

Pretty much all of my experience in ice, with non-deiced airplanes, has been diving through a layer and have never gotten more than 1/2 and that was the exception, usually just a trace. Depending into the ice in a non-deiced aircraft is maybe something I have done 2-3 times in 40+ years.

If I had to guess, I would say that of the times I have departed with a forecast that suggested the possibility of ice on arrival, I actually encountered ice less than a quarter of the time. Probably quite a bit less.

 

[Kristin]

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.

I am not in Michigan, but used to fly out of the U.P. and mostly down into Lower Michigan. Michigan can be an icy place. If you want to chat about it sometime, sent me a PM.

 

[Kristin]

The whole thing with "what is known icing" is perhaps best set through precedent.. see here: https://www.avweb.com/features_old/flying-into-known-icing-is-it-legal/

"
At the time of the flight, the Area Forecast, Airmet 1 and Sigmet Charlie 1 called for isolated or occasional moderate or severe icing in clouds or precipitation. The destination airport was IFR under a low overcast upon the pilot’s arrival. He was required to miss the initial approach and crashed due to an excessive accumulation of rime ice while attempting a second approach.

The commercial pilot was injured but survived. The Administrator initiated proceedings against him, alleging that he had operated the aircraft in noncompliance with its established operating limitations and, in so doing, had also operated in a careless or reckless manner. On appeal, the Board expressly rejected the pilot’s argument that mere forecasts of icing, in the form of the Area Forecast, Airmet and Sigmet, could not constitute “known icing” within the meaning of the POH. At the same time, the Board suggested that a pilot report of icing (or no-icing) might constitute more accurate information about actual conditions and hence that it might be “legal” to fly in areas where icing was forecast if someone had previously deigned to enter that area and also to transmit a no-icing PIREP.

The Board upheld a 15-day suspension of the pilot’s airman’s certificate, ruling:



[A] prefatory remark is in order concerning the phrase “known icing conditions,” in which respondent was alleged to have flown. We do not construe the adjective “known” to mean that there must be a near-certainty that icing will occur, such as might be established by pilot reports. Rather, we take the entire phrase to mean that icing conditions are being reported or forecast in reports which are known to a pilot or of which he should reasonably be aware.
"

If I'm PIC I won't go into forecast areas of ice, PIREP'd ice areas, or clouds if the ambient is +3 or below unless I am in an adequately equipped plane

I'm just not sure why anyone would want to tool around and play games with ice.

I can't judge the decisions precedential value without seeing the actual opinion. However, the article you cite is from 2002, which precedes this FAA opinion. Regardless of whether "known icing" is an issue in a case, if you load up with ice and crash, you are going to get busted on 91.13.

You are a standard issue California/Southern pilot who can't understand flying in the North because you never have. By your standard, we just wouldn't fly much for 6-9 months out of the year.

 

[Tantalum]

By your standard, we just wouldn't fly much for 6-9 months out of the year.

I probably wouldn't fly much in the winter. I like be aviation but for someone who flies strictly for leisure ~100 hrs/year my risk threshold is different. I don't have a paycheck riding on it either. Having said that, I've done winter night flights in forecast and pirep'd ice in northern California and have gone into Mammoth, Big Bear, Tahoe, Bishop, etc on less than ideal* conditions. Those experiences made me realize that the risk reward balance just wasn't there for me.. Sitting in the soup in a single engine piston plane staring at the engine page watching the TKS level with ice building up on all the non-protected surfaces just isn't fun anymore. I want to enjoy flying, not wait for it to be over hahah!

 

[Tantalum]

The Aztec has a Cub airflow so is essentially, a 500 hp Cub. It will take a lot of ice

This is what I hear about the Aztec often.. a true beast of an airplane. If only Piper had kept building the Aztec and the Comanche.. but history unfolded differently than it did!

 

[MauleSkinner]

Where are you reading that in the FAA opinion letter? Here is the operative paragraph:

Rather than specifically defining '"known ice," the FAA defines "known or observed or
detected ice accretion" in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). In paragraph 7-1 -22
of that manual the agency defines "known or observed or detected ice accretion'' as "[a]ctual
ice observed visually to be on the aircraft by the flight crew or identified by on-board
sensors." Actual adhesion to the aircraft, rather than the existence of potential icing
conditions, is the determinative factor in this definition. The FAA believes the tern1 "known
or observed or detected ice accretion'· to be synonymous with the term "known ice" and that
the agency· s definition of that term is non-controversial.

The rest of the document is more general information and guidance, not setting any definition.

Ok...you’re use of “known icing” is referring to “known ice” or “known or observed or detected ice accretion”, which the letter clearly differentiates from my use of “known icing” as referring to “known icing conditions”.

 

[Jim K]

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.

You & me both. The approach to this is just like that stupid "168 seconds to live" nonsense. If you lie to me about one thing, I'm not going to trust you on anything else.

I know there's situations where it's safe to fly in clouds that are below freezing.... I've done it. I also know there's an alligator in the clouds waiting to chomp down on my little spam can. You can avoid him by never entering, but that ruins the utility of the airplane for 1/3 of the year.

@David Megginson has given some good advice over the years. I think Canadians in general have a more pragmatic approach to icing since they have to deal with it most of the year.

On several occasions now I've flown through layers that were under an icing airmet. "Neg ice" pireps, no precip, no fronts. Best advice I've read is to have an out. The cip/fip product is excellent, airmets are worthless.

Busting through a thin stratus layer will get you into clear air most winter days. Id guess 75% of the cloudy days this winter were flyable around here. Downwind of the lakes where the atmosphere is juicier i suspect that number is lower, but still significant.

 

[EdFred]

Gotta look at see whats causing the clouds here in MI to see how much ice if any there is going to be. We've had a number of days of overcast, but the clouds are thin stratus, less than 1000 ft thick. As long as they aren't at an altitude that ATC is going to park me at for an hour, a I will pop up and down through those all day in the winter - and have. Here's the light-moderate ice (according to forecasts) I picked up coming through and sitting in a 1500' thick below-freezing-non-system layer this winter. (was flying an approach so it wasnt just descending through, i got parked at that altitude for a bit)



I almost died.


@German guy gimme a call, we will talk and go fly.

 

[Kristin]

I probably wouldn't fly much in the winter. I like be aviation but for someone who flies strictly for leisure ~100 hrs/year my risk threshold is different. I don't have a paycheck riding on it either. Having said that, I've done winter night flights in forecast and pirep'd ice in northern California and have gone into Mammoth, Big Bear, Tahoe, Bishop, etc on less than ideal* conditions. Those experiences made me realize that the risk reward balance just wasn't there for me.. Sitting in the soup in a single engine piston plane staring at the engine page watching the TKS level with ice building up on all the non-protected surfaces just isn't fun anymore. I want to enjoy flying, not wait for it to be over hahah!

There are different purposes for flying. Much of my flying is in service of the need to get somewhere. It puts a different imperative on things.

 

[Kristin]

Ok...you’re use of “known icing” is referring to “known ice” or “known or observed or detected ice accretion”, which the letter clearly differentiates from my use of “known icing” as referring to “known icing conditions”.

I was addressing the legal definition.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I was addressing the legal definition.

And

while “known icing conditions” are not defined by regulation, the term has been used in legal proceedings involving violations of FAA safety regulations that relate to inflight icing

so I would say the term that doesn’t have a “legal definition” is also appropriate to this thread.

 

[Kristin]

And so I would say the term that doesn’t have a “legal definition” is also appropriate to this thread.

Two events make the precedential valve of earlier opinions doubtful. There is the 2009 FAA opinion letter and the 2012 Pilot's Bill of Rights. The Pilot's Bill of Rights opens the courthouse door to pilots in certification actions. The SCOTUS opinion in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Counsel, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) tells the lower courts to give significant weight to the interpretations of the controlling agency, in this case the FAA. To my knowledge, this has not yet been tested in this context in the courts.

Probably more than you wanted to know, but this issue defies easy, pat answers. The most important pointer is don't crash because of ice and you probably aren't going to have a problem with the law.

 

[PaulS]

I mentioned a 182 accident earlier, I was thinking of the Centurion 210 in Lubbock Tx, October 26, 2020. The first link goes to VASI and details the comms between this pilot and ATC. The second is an analysis that Juan Brown did on his Youtube channel. Sobering stuff.

My sense is that this wasn't the first time this guy tried feeling out the conditions. I think there may have been some question of his instrument proficiency.

 

[Tantalum]

I mentioned a 182 accident earlier, I was thinking of the Centurion 210 in Lubbock Tx, October 26, 2020. The first link goes to VASI and details the comms between this pilot and ATC. The second is an analysis that Juan Brown did on his Youtube channel. Sobering stuff.

My sense is that this wasn't the first time this guy tried feeling out the conditions. I think there may have been some question of his instrument currency.

Yeah.. granted I think given the conditions that guy who took off right when this guy was crashing in the (presumably) FIKI Cirrus was operating outside the limitations of the system as well

if the Centurion guy hadn't bungled the localizer and the approach he probably would have lived through it and gone on to do it again

 

[PaulS]

Yeah.. granted I think given the conditions that guy who took off right when this guy was crashing in the (presumably) FIKI Cirrus was operating outside the limitations of the system as well

if the Centurion guy hadn't bungled the localizer and the approach he probably would have lived through it and gone on to do it again

Probably, also by requesting clearance to the IAF he added time to his flight that he just didn't have. He shouldn't have been flying that day.

The other issue with iced up light aircraft is that you don't have a lot of horsepower to make up for an iced prop and an airframe with an ever increasing ice load deteriorating plus the decreasing wing and tail plane performance.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Two events make the precedential valve of earlier opinions doubtful. There is the 2009 FAA opinion letter

which actually states that these definitions are unchanged

and the 2012 Pilot's Bill of Rights. The Pilot's Bill of Rights opens the courthouse door to pilots in certification actions.
The SCOTUS opinion in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Counsel, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) tells the lower courts to give significant weight to the interpretations of the controlling agency, in this case the FAA.

Neither of which change the definitions that the FAA is going to use in court...

To my knowledge, this has not yet been tested in this context in the courts.

So unless you have and want to spend the money to have SCOTUS overturn their own ruling, know and follow the FAA definitions, because that’s what you’re up against in the event of a violation. Just like the FLYTENOW fiasco, the definitions the FAA uses are longstanding. Arguing that they’re not clear is just going to cost money.

The most important pointer is don't crash because of ice and you probably aren't going to have a problem with the law.

agreed.

 

[Kristin]

which actually states that these definitions are unchanged


Neither of which change the definitions that the FAA is going to use in court...

So unless you have and want to spend the money to have SCOTUS overturn their own ruling, know and follow the FAA definitions, because that’s what you’re up against in the event of a violation. Just like the FLYTENOW fiasco, the definitions the FAA uses are longstanding. Arguing that they’re not clear is just going to cost money.

agreed.

And the FAA definition is that it known when you get in it, for purposes of busting you for violating a limitation, ala 91.9. Of course, if you get in trouble, they likely have you on 91.13, careless and reckless. The NTSB's definition is not precedent as they are not the controlling agency and the court's are not bound to is, as they would to an FAA regulation. Regardless of all the additional commentary in the opinion, the part I quoted states the rule clearly. They also reference the AIM, which is also specific:

Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of ice is observed or detected in
flight.
NOTE:
Because of the variability in space and time of atmospheric conditions, the existence
of a report of observed icing does not assure the presence or intensity of icing
conditions at a later time, nor can a report of no icing assure the absence of icing
conditions at a later time.

 

[MauleSkinner]

And the FAA definition is that it known when you get in it, for purposes of busting you for violating a limitation, ala 91.9. Of course, if you get in trouble, they likely have you on 91.13, careless and reckless. The NTSB's definition is not precedent as they are not the controlling agency and the court's are not bound to is, as they would to an FAA regulation. Regardless of all the additional commentary in the opinion, the part I quoted states the rule clearly. They also reference the AIM, which is also specific:

Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of ice is observed or detected in
flight.
NOTE:
Because of the variability in space and time of atmospheric conditions, the existence
of a report of observed icing does not assure the presence or intensity of icing
conditions at a later time, nor can a report of no icing assure the absence of icing
conditions at a later time.

The link @Doc Holliday posted is obviously coming up to a different website for you than it is for me.

 

[Kristin]

The link @Doc Holliday posted is obviously coming up to a different website for you than it is for me.

I posted the passages that inform my view. Should be no mystery. If you read the words different, then that is on you.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I posted the passages that inform my view. Should be no mystery. If you read the words different, then that is on you.

Likewise.