Single engine FIKI

M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,631
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
First of all what single pistons have FIKI? Other than the 210, I know of none. With as advanced as singles have become why arent there more?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
First of all what single pistons have FIKI? Other than the 210, I know of none. With as advanced as singles have become why arent there more?
Click to expand...
Bonanza and Cirrus are two I know of.
 
ntbjounin said:
i fly an A36...
Click to expand...

+1 actually
I think you will see it become more commonplace in the future. The certification requirements are pretty rigid.

-Turn the stuff on before you need it BTW

If you like that Cessna they do TKS for the 182, and you can get TKS or boots on a 210
 
- Mooney Encore/Bravo/Ovation/Acclaim with FIKI-TKS (dual pumps)
- SR-22 since 2009 or so
- post '84 A36 Bonana with FIKI TKS

All are also available with inadvertent protection for a bit less money.

Why not more of them ? It is a niche in a niche market, expensive and decreases performance. Just not that many people out there willing to make the tradeoff.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Is there a larger range of aircraft with this?
Click to expand...

There are a good number of aircraft that you can get TKS inadvertent ice protection for:

http://www.weepingwings.com/mx/hm.asp?id=ourproducts

There is one other vendor of TKS systems, don't recall their name.

In the models that offer FIKI and non-FIKI installations, the difference in price seems to be about 10-15 AMU :hairraise: . Sometimes that includes additional panels, most of the times it is the second/third pump (on a separate electrical bus if available), the ice-lights, heated stall-vane ($$$) and the additional plumbing.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
First of all what single pistons have FIKI? Other than the 210, I know of none. With as advanced as singles have become why arent there more?
Click to expand...

I haven't been around aviation that long, so I present the following hypothesis in hopes that people who have can agree or disagree.

40 years ago when my Aztec was built with de-ice, people who were flying planes into icing generally were flying twins. I'd guess the prevailing thought process at the time was that, if you were going to be flying in and around serious weather, you wanted the extra power and redundancy of a twin. Flying a single in bad weather, well, do you really want to? The P210 seemed like Cessna's attempt at a "go places" single, with arguable success/failures since the engine was so stressed. People could also buy aftermarket de-ice systems (like the 310 has), which provided th critical components of wing/horizontal tail boots and props, but not as many attributes. Those were available, but expensive.

Starting with the Malibu about 20 years ago, people started increasing the idea of piston singles as "go places" airplanes, and so you're starting to see more and more de-ice options for singles. Predominantly, though, the de-iced twins are most of what's available out there since they've been around for so many more years than the singles, and so there are more of them.

Simply from a power perspective, I'm not sure there are many piston singles that with enough excess power to convince me de-ice on them is a good idea. It doesn't take much ice to start killing your lift.
 
Last edited:
Unless I'm burning JetA with a turbine somewhere under the cowling (and I don't mean a turbocharger turbine), I consider all the de-ice systems, FIKI or not, as escape-enablers, and if I pick up ice I immediately request changes to escape the icing zone. 9 times out of 10 I get them right away, and on the the 10th time I get it pretty quickly - ATC doesn't want us hanging out in ice either.

And I've said it before but it bears repeating - do not hesitate to use your emergency authority to tell ATC what you're going to do and let them work it out for everybody else - particularly when ice is involved.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Simply from a power perspective, I'm not sure there are many piston singles that with enough excess power to convince me de-ice on them is a good idea. It doesn't take much ice to start killing your lift.
Click to expand...
The TSIO-550 A36 doesn't seem like it's lacking in power. Performs as well as many twins with both turning. Also less stuff hanging out to pick up ice.
 
jesse said:
The TSIO-550 A36 doesn't seem like it's lacking in power. Performs as well as many twins with both turning. Also less stuff hanging out to pick up ice.
Click to expand...

Good point, that's perhaps an exception.

But, as you know, I'm a twin snob. :)
 
TMetzinger said:
Unless I'm burning JetA with a turbine somewhere under the cowling (and I don't mean a turbocharger turbine), I consider all the de-ice systems, FIKI or not, as escape-enablers, and if I pick up ice I immediately request changes to escape the icing zone. 9 times out of 10 I get them right away, and on the the 10th time I get it pretty quickly - ATC doesn't want us hanging out in ice either.

And I've said it before but it bears repeating - do not hesitate to use your emergency authority to tell ATC what you're going to do and let them work it out for everybody else - particularly when ice is involved.
Click to expand...


That is very overly cautious, especially with a known ice equipped aircraft.
 
Inverted said:
That is very overly cautious, especially with a known ice equipped aircraft.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I also wouldn't fault anyone for making an overly cautious move.

Signed,

-The guy with the avatar of the de-iced 310 on ice :)
 
TMetzinger said:
Unless I'm burning JetA with a turbine somewhere under the cowling (and I don't mean a turbocharger turbine), I consider all the de-ice systems, FIKI or not, as escape-enablers, and if I pick up ice I immediately request changes to escape the icing zone. 9 times out of 10 I get them right away, and on the the 10th time I get it pretty quickly - ATC doesn't want us hanging out in ice either.

And I've said it before but it bears repeating - do not hesitate to use your emergency authority to tell ATC what you're going to do and let them work it out for everybody else - particularly when ice is involved.
Click to expand...
My "tenth time" I was refused three times in a row. Then I spoke on air, to NY approach with "This is 32755. You actions are not compatible with aviation safety, and I want this on tape. Descending as directed into known ice to 17,000."

A supervisor came on and let me up to FL 19, on top.

I wrote a pretty snarkly letter to that facility in r.e. the ATC guy, with kudos to the supervisor.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
My "tenth time" I was refused three times in a row. Then I spoke on air, to NYK approach with "This is 32755. You actions are not compatible with aviation safety, and I want this on tape. Descending as directed into known ice to 17,000."

A supervisor came on and let me up to FL 19, on top.

I wrote a pretty snarkly letter to that facility in r.e. the ATC guy, with kudos to the supervisor.
Click to expand...


You could have have just climbed, you are within your rights to deviate from any ATC clearance in the interest of safety.

One thing I wouldn't agree with is somebody being overly cautious and declaring an emergency in a plane with FIKI because they are in the freezing level...
 
bbchien said:
My "tenth time" I was refused three times in a row. Then I spoke on air, to NY approach with "This is 32755. You actions are not compatible with aviation safety, and I want this on tape. Descending as directed into known ice to 17,000."

A supervisor came on and let me up to FL 19, on top.

I wrote a pretty snarkly letter to that facility in r.e. the ATC guy, with kudos to the supervisor.
Click to expand...

I've gotten similar from New York Center and Approach. Approach tried to vector me into a thunderstorm, and were very annoyed with me when I said "Unable." Too bad for them, I wasn't about to fly through a storm.
 
Inverted said:
You could have have just climbed, you are within your rights to deviate from any ATC clearance in the interest of safety.

One thing I wouldn't agree with is somebody being overly cautious and declaring an emergency in a plane with FIKI because they are in the freezing level...
Click to expand...
Yes I know, but I was right under the psp.mip3 arrival.....and I knew that too.
 
Inverted said:
You could have have just climbed, you are within your rights to deviate from any ATC clearance in the interest of safety.

One thing I wouldn't agree with is somebody being overly cautious and declaring an emergency in a plane with FIKI because they are in the freezing level...
Click to expand...

Agreed - merely being in cold clouds isn't an emergency. Picking up ice, even in a FIKI airplane (unless it has significant excess power) is an indication to make a change, and can become an emergency quickly.

I'm not saying to panic in a Mooney or Aztruck (or even a basic 182) when you pick up ice - it's not going to fall out of the sky. But why would you stay in conditions where you're getting ice, unless you're a test pilot and you're supposed to be getting ice?
 
TMetzinger said:
Agreed - merely being in cold clouds isn't an emergency. Picking up ice, even in a FIKI airplane (unless it has significant excess power) is an indication to make a change, and can become an emergency quickly.

I'm not saying to panic in a Mooney or Aztruck (or even a basic 182) when you pick up ice - it's not going to fall out of the sky. But why would you stay in conditions where you're getting ice, unless you're a test pilot and you're supposed to be getting ice?
Click to expand...

You should never panic, especially when you have ice. Panicing is never a good thing. Evaluating the situation and acting appropriately is.

Sometimes you've got layers that you can't get above, and that trying to land through isn't a great option, either. But you can find layers where the ice builds very, very slowly. If you've planned properly and know the weather where you are, keep up on PIREPs and working with ATC, you can get through them fine. Note that proper planning doesn't mean taking off into freezing rain with moderate icing PIREPs along your entire route of flight for all practical altitudes you can use.

For example, I ended up at 15,000 ft in the 310 coming back from Houston a few weekends back. I was in the middle of a layer that went up to about FL230. Up there, the jets were getting ice. On the ground, it was freezing rain. I was happily going along at -15C with less than 1/4" accumulation over the course of 45 minutes. I also knew where the above freezing temps were supposed to be thanks to the Skew-Ts, down around 5,000 ft. At 15,000 ft, I was getting a 70 kt tailwind and loving it, and also knew that would get me out of the weather pretty quickly (230+ kts over the ground). I could have descended, but I knew where I was wasn't a bad place to be. Going down may have been worse, and there was definitely no point in going up with the IO-520s gasping for air already.

I should note that the 310 is de-iced and has a lot of power, so I wasn't concerned about landing if I needed to. So, as with anything else in aviation, the answer is... "It depends."
 
TIM: I really depends on the situation to me. If I'm in light stuff and I can see it's that way on the radar and PIREPS, I'll stay there if the de-ice is working and I'm not losing airspeed when there are easy outs if I need them (near tops or bottoms or able to turn to where it's clear). If I start picking up more ice than planned, begin to lose airspeed or hear the big guys reporting problems: I'm outta there.

I've picked up light ice many times and just kept going. Any time it's accumulated faster than that or looked like it would, I take action pretty quickly. Of course, many times with major systems, I've just avoided them.

The 58P does fine through light icing conditions if that's all there is. I have gone through moderate to make an approach, but tops were 5,000 and bottoms were about 800. I stayed high as long as I could and the fella in front of me wasn't having major issues and a less capable plane that mine.

As Ted said, many times there are multiple layers and I'm in and out. On one trip, I had icing above and below me, but didn't get any where I was. Wish I could tell you it was my expertise, but it's just the altitude I had filed worked out that way.

Best,

Dave
 
Some Commader 114's were K-ice equipped, too. A few.

Bruce, I heard a similar thing from Chicago approach one time - shoved a guy into ice at about 6000 north of Joliet. Told pilot he had no where else to put him. Pilot threatened to declare if he didn't get an altitude change right then. He got his altitude change, along with a number to call. I was in the clear, headed for ARR.
 
Inverted said:
That is very overly cautious, especially with a known ice equipped aircraft.
Click to expand...

It is? Seems kind of silly to just sit in the ice, even if you do have FIKI - Especially if your FIKI is TKS, 'cuz you can't run it forever and the fluid is hard to find.

Picking up ice, FIKI or not, means it's time to change something. FIKI simply gives you more time to do so before it becomes an emergency, IMHO.

Even with a turbine-powered aircraft, you can't just sit around in ice.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
It is? Seems kind of silly to just sit in the ice, even if you do have FIKI - Especially if your FIKI is TKS, 'cuz you can't run it forever and the fluid is hard to find.

Picking up ice, FIKI or not, means it's time to change something. FIKI simply gives you more time to do so before it becomes an emergency, IMHO.

Even with a turbine-powered aircraft, you can't just sit around in ice.
Click to expand...

Speaking of de-iced planes, Kent. Here is a Twin Comanche for you. Even closer to you than me. I'd love to add de-ice to mine, but I loathe the cost and loss of performance.
http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?utm_source=Alerts&id=133277
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It is? Seems kind of silly to just sit in the ice, even if you do have FIKI - Especially if your FIKI is TKS, 'cuz you can't run it forever and the fluid is hard to find.

Picking up ice, FIKI or not, means it's time to change something. FIKI simply gives you more time to do so before it becomes an emergency, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Kent, precisely how much experience do you have dealing with ice? That is important if you're going to be telling people what they should be doing when they get into it. Reading about it on internet forums doesn't substitue for experience with the real thing.

Even with a turbine-powered aircraft, you can't just sit around in ice.
Click to expand...

Ice is not ice is not ice. You are correct that is an example where they shouldn't have just sat around, but you're also citing an extreme example that is a clear case where it was obvious they made the wrong decision. If you don't believe me, Dave explained it well. Sometimes you may just make matters worse by trying to make them better.

People who haven't flown in ice before seem to think that you pop into a cloud at any temperature below freezing and all of a sudden your plane turns into an ice cube and stops flying. That's not the case, unless you take off into extraordinarily bad weather. The weather, plane you're flying, its equipment, and a host of other conditions will dictate how badly the ice accumulates and what you should do. Yes, the primary thing that FIKI does is buy you time. But what to do with that time? Getting out of it can mean climbing, descending, changing course, or doing nothing. You need to decide which one of those is the best option, and in some cases it's doing nothing.
 
Aztec Driver said:
Speaking of de-iced planes, Kent. Here is a Twin Comanche for you. Even closer to you than me. I'd love to add de-ice to mine, but I loathe the cost and loss of performance.
http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?utm_source=Alerts&id=133277
Click to expand...

One of my friends said when he was looking at de-iced twins he was thinking about a Twinkie. In talking with the boot guy at BFGoodrich (apparently there's only one), he was told that they still make the boots, but they're ridiculously expensive (over $10k each) and a really long lead time because they're custom made. Don't know if that's still the case, but my friend bought a Seneca II instead, which he is much happier with.

The right side stabilator boot on my Aztec needed to be replaced. It was a Goodrich boot, but all that was available were the other brand (SNR? I forget the name). So, we had to get a matched set. Fortunately, they had a buy one get the 2nd 50% off sale. Well, the rudder boot was looking pretty bad as well, so I ended up buying three for the price of two. Not cheap, but makes me feel better having nice new boots without air leaks on the plane. Only the one needed to be replaced, but the other two were getting there, and it made sense with the sale to do so.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One of my friends said when he was looking at de-iced twins he was thinking about a Twinkie. In talking with the boot guy at BFGoodrich (apparently there's only one), he was told that they still make the boots, but they're ridiculously expensive (over $10k each) and a really long lead time because they're custom made. Don't know if that's still the case, but my friend bought a Seneca II instead, which he is much happier with.

The right side stabilator boot on my Aztec needed to be replaced. It was a Goodrich boot, but all that was available were the other brand (SNR? I forget the name). So, we had to get a matched set. Fortunately, they had a buy one get the 2nd 50% off sale. Well, the rudder boot was looking pretty bad as well, so I ended up buying three for the price of two. Not cheap, but makes me feel better having nice new boots without air leaks on the plane. Only the one needed to be replaced, but the other two were getting there, and it made sense with the sale to do so.
Click to expand...
I believe the Aerostar got new boots at this annual. Every one of them were patched and in poor shape, but they still worked enough to rid the wings of light ice. Haven't seen it yet, as they are still waiting for replacement flap brackets that had to be manufactured. Really need to get up in it again.
 
Aztec Driver said:
Speaking of de-iced planes, Kent. Here is a Twin Comanche for you. Even closer to you than me. I'd love to add de-ice to mine, but I loathe the cost and loss of performance.
http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?utm_source=Alerts&id=133277
Click to expand...

My understanding of the Twinky is that while the original POH states that 'with A,B,C the plane is certified to fly in known ice', subsequently Piper issued an SB that basically rescinded that (a couple of years after formal FIKI certification was introduced). So yes, there are some with de-ice but they are not FIKI. Given the limited ability of the little lawnmower engines to lift you out of the winter clouds, I wouldn't consider it a good choice if ice is a major consideration. Senecas otoh are available with FIKI.
 
Aztec Driver said:
I believe the Aerostar got new boots at this annual. Every one of them were patched and in poor shape, but they still worked enough to rid the wings of light ice. Haven't seen it yet, as they are still waiting for replacement flap brackets that had to be manufactured. Really need to get up in it again.
Click to expand...

The good part about boots is that they do tend to last pretty long. My one boot was patched pretty well, and others had fewer patches, but it made sense to just do all the tail boots at once. The wing boots are still pristine, hopefully they stay that way.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Kent, precisely how much experience do you have dealing with ice? That is important if you're going to be telling people what they should be doing when they get into it. Reading about it on internet forums doesn't substitue for experience with the real thing.



Ice is not ice is not ice. You are correct that is an example where they shouldn't have just sat around, but you're also citing an extreme example that is a clear case where it was obvious they made the wrong decision. If you don't believe me, Dave explained it well. Sometimes you may just make matters worse by trying to make them better.

People who haven't flown in ice before seem to think that you pop into a cloud at any temperature below freezing and all of a sudden your plane turns into an ice cube and stops flying. That's not the case, unless you take off into extraordinarily bad weather. The weather, plane you're flying, its equipment, and a host of other conditions will dictate how badly the ice accumulates and what you should do. Yes, the primary thing that FIKI does is buy you time. But what to do with that time? Getting out of it can mean climbing, descending, changing course, or doing nothing. You need to decide which one of those is the best option, and in some cases it's doing nothing.
Click to expand...
It just all depends. I've plowed along in IMC picking up ice in a Cherokee before. But I could descend out of it at any time. The benefit was the big tailwind at that altitude it's not one to quickly lose its lift from some ice.

I've also watched freezing rain strike the windscreen on a Dutchess before. That was a sight I'd rather not see again. Within an instant we went from no ice to covered in ice and accumulating rapidly. Luckily it was easy to get out of - had it not been we'd be relying on the raw fire breathing power of a Dutchess. I was a student pilot riding along with my instructor.
 
Last edited:
My experience with ice is fairly limited, but the one serious encounter I had with it nearly did me in a few years ago.

I was flying from the Bay Area of Northern California to Fullerton, which is in the LA basin in March. WX showed cloud layers from 8,000 to 10,000 feet for the whole trip. Icing prediction was 6,000 feet at the starting point, rising to no ice at the termination. Should be a no brainer. Should be able to fly above or below them.

So I filed for 11,000 feet, and few above a thin cloud layer at 10,000 and all was good. Except, as I approached the mountain range that separates the San Joaquin valley from the San Gabriel valley, there was solid IMC, and the cloud tops were rising (where did THAT come from?) So I either had to climb very high if wanted to stay out of the clouds, or decend. Since I would be beginning my approach soon anyway, and no ice was predicted or reported, I elected to decend. It was March after all, that's the start of our Summer. So I asked for a decent to 7,000 (the MEA on the course), hit the pitot heat and went for it.

As soon as I entered the cloud, my windscreen was completely blinded by ice immediately, like within a couple seconds, and my wings were turning in to snow plows. I was like "dude, this sucks." So I called to ATC and asked them if they could drop me below 6,000 feet, and they said no, unless I wanted to declare. As I was decending, I hit the defroster, and found a clear layer at 8,000 feet. So I stopped and asked ATC if I could stay there and they said okay - although it was technically the wrong altitude for the direction. In the end I was still going to go to whatever altitude I felt I could be safe at anyway. Scud running the Grapevine was a perferable option to an uncontrolled decent into terrain due to ice accumulation.

When it was time to begin the decent for the approach, I decided to dive bomb it to mininimize the time in the ice layer. Probably not the best idea. I started picking up heavy ice again, and had an exercise in recovering from an unusual attitude in IMC. Passengers were all about "dude, is everything okay?" I was all about, "Like, totally, it's all good" (yeah, right!) Finally, as I cleared 6,000 feet, the clouds turned wet again and the ice magically melted off the plane, and the rest of the flight was uneventful.

Sitting here today, if I was on that same flight, and I saw those clouds, I would have just turned around and gone home. I have no problem flying up and down the valley IFR in the winter time, but home boy stays home there is any chance of ice. No mountain crossings in IMC. You Easterners can have your ice. I'll take terrain over it any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top