One of the members of my club has proposed that we add TKS de-ice to our two
182s. Apparently, such a system is to become available later this year.

My reaction at first was negative. After all, in our near-NYC location, the
utility of such a tool is limited to a few months a year. Surely we could
spend money better (ie. on upgades that would be useful year round).

His reply to this reasoning is that our aircraft utilization is much lower
in the cold months than in the summer. If we can increase winter use, then
we get better value from our investment.

It's a good point. Of course, when I mentioned this to my wife, she asked
how much of the lower use was due to the threat of ice, and how much was
due to our lack of love for preflighting in subzero weather.

Another good point <grin>.

But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious
what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.

Thanks...

Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...>


> But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
> compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm
curious
> what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.

You will need to wrestle with the issue of non-known-icing certification,
although the C182 certainly is overpowered enough to be a reasonable
candidate for known-ice certification and certainly there are many legendary
stories of C182 pilots flying with inadvertent icing in a C182.

I can tell you my increased utilization of my P210 after I added TKS has
been dramatic in the winter; in fact, I now prefer to fly family vacations
in the winter instead of the summer because my winter dispatch rate is
higher than my summer dispatch rate even with radar and weather datalink and
a Strikefinder. My wife would agree wholeheartedly despite the cost of TKS
on the P210.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
> compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious
> what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.

Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of
Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS
system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical.

During flights this past winter when I have encountered unplanned ice,
the system was extremely effective.


--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of
> Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> with redundancy, not functionality.

There may be functional differences, in that known-ice certification
requires a laundry list of protected surfaces (in addition to the redundancy
requirements), some of which may not be included in a "not known-ice"
certification. Some "non known-ice" installations meet all the requirements
except redundancy, but many do not.

That said, I'm not aware of any de-ice system on a single-engine piston
aircraft, known-ice or not, that is suitable for allowing a flight to be
made into reported non-trace icing. All of the systems should be used as a
"get out of jail free" card, to allow a pilot to take the plane out of the
icing with less hazard than would otherwise be had. From what I understand,
even on many (all?) light twins, the same is true.

Of course, that's not to say that a de-ice system wouldn't translate into a
higher wintertime dispatch rate. Just that pilots should be careful to not
think that having de-ice on their airplane means they can just cruise along
ignoring existing icing conditions.

Pete

No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
when encountered...they provide a safety margin while escaping from the
conditions. The exposure to icing required for known-icing certification
doesn't amount to much...Appendix C to Part 25 (which applies to Part 23 by
reference) requires quite a bit of interpretation, but for convective clouds
it is something like 3.8 miles and for stratus clouds it is something like
17 miles. If the droplets are larger than 40 microns or you stay in the
clouds longer than the distances laid out in the reg, you have exceeded the
known icing requirements and are on your own.

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of
> > Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> > between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> > with redundancy, not functionality.
>
> There may be functional differences, in that known-ice certification
> requires a laundry list of protected surfaces (in addition to the
redundancy
> requirements), some of which may not be included in a "not known-ice"
> certification. Some "non known-ice" installations meet all the
requirements
> except redundancy, but many do not.
>
> That said, I'm not aware of any de-ice system on a single-engine piston
> aircraft, known-ice or not, that is suitable for allowing a flight to be
> made into reported non-trace icing. All of the systems should be used as
a
> "get out of jail free" card, to allow a pilot to take the plane out of the
> icing with less hazard than would otherwise be had. From what I
understand,
> even on many (all?) light twins, the same is true.
>
> Of course, that's not to say that a de-ice system wouldn't translate into
a
> higher wintertime dispatch rate. Just that pilots should be careful to
not
> think that having de-ice on their airplane means they can just cruise
along
> ignoring existing icing conditions.
>
> Pete
>
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
> when encountered

Really? I had been under the impression that airline systems did allow
continued flight in icing conditions. That's not true, eh? Okay...well, in
any case, I think that there are pilots out there that don't understand that
de-ice doesn't mean you can just bomb on through icing conditions as if they
weren't there.

If not, so much the better. But if so, it might be helpful to dissuade
someone of that idea. :)

Pete

>>
That said, I'm not aware of any de-ice system on a single-engine piston
aircraft, known-ice or not, that is suitable for allowing a flight to be
made into reported non-trace icing.
<<

Where I come from, the only clearances we can get (in icing conditions) are
into the icing conditions. Departing NYC you get 7000, come hell or high
water. (I suppose you could file to Teterboro, and use Cleveland as your
alternate, but that opens up another can of worms). If the freezing level is
at 6000, the MEAs are 3500, and you file for 4000, you will get 7000.

End of story.

Broken clouds, layers, you can "probably" avoid the ice.... I'd be more
comfortable with TKS than nothing, known ice or not known ice.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> That said, I'm not aware of any de-ice system on a single-engine piston
> aircraft, known-ice or not, that is suitable for allowing a flight to be
> made into reported non-trace icing.
> <<
>
> Where I come from, the only clearances we can get (in icing conditions)
are
> into the icing conditions.

If you are actually accepting a clearance that takes you into an area where
non-trace icing has been reported by another pilot, you are fool, pure and
simple. Even if only trace icing, you'd better be damn sure you know you
can clear it within a very short period of time.

Your post seems to be talking about forecast icing conditions (i.e. the
combination of freezing temperature and visible moisture), and if so, that's
a completely different matter. But it's not what I wrote, and it's not
clear you understand that.

Pete

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...>

> Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS
> system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical.

Another difference is in-flight icing testing of a prototype airplane is
required for known-ice certification.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

"Peter R." > wrote in message

> That said, I'm not aware of any de-ice system on a single-engine piston
> aircraft, known-ice or not, that is suitable for allowing a flight to be
> made into reported non-trace icing. All of the systems should be used as
a

Have you tried TKS? On a Cessna 210?

It is certified for and does just fine in light to moderate icing... in
fact, I've never seen the airspeed needle decay even when the few
unprotected areas accumulated 1/4" to 1/2" rime.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

> If you are actually accepting a clearance that takes you into an area
where
> non-trace icing has been reported by another pilot, you are fool, pure and
> simple. Even if only trace icing, you'd better be damn sure you know you
> can clear it within a very short period of time.

Does that include flight in a known-ice TKS airplane?

How do you know?

Have you ever tried it?

Have you ever talked to anyone who has?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Does that include flight in a known-ice TKS airplane?

Yes.

> How do you know?

Those who know told me.

> Have you ever tried it?

No.

> Have you ever talked to anyone who has?

Yes.

Known-ice TKS is there to GET YOU OUT of icing conditions. Why in the world
would you intentionally fly into an area where the only purpose of your
safety equipment is to get you out?

Saying one should fly into actual reporting icing conditions just because
you have known-ice TKS installed is like saying I should intentionally spin
a Cirrus because I have the safety equipment to recover from the spin
installed.

Keep in mind that "known ice" for the purpose of icing certification means
"freezing temperature and visible moisture", while the icing conditions I'm
talking about here are those that are truly known to exist (that is, someone
has just been there and reported that ice is present).

Pete

1) Inquire about cost of maintenance
2) Inquire about cost of TKS (usually sold in 5 gallon containers?)
3) Inquire about FBO's that stock TKS (always call ahead)
4) Where are you going to store extra TKS in the aircraft
5) Inquire about how to clean TKS from aircraft interior (when I was a
dispatcher for NetJets, I had a pilot call in and report that the aft
baggage compartment was thoroughly deiced. The TKS container cap had not
been secured prior to flight, had tipped over and sloshed around the
compartment).

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> my winter dispatch rate is higher than my summer dispatch rate
> even with radar and weather datalink and a Strikefinder.

Wow! You must be having a hell of a thunderstorm season, Richard.

This summer, weather datalink has helped me to make every trip I've
planned without a single cancellation (although I did land short once).
In the last 5 weeks I've flown 30 xc hours despite widespread
thunderstorms over the entire South nearly every day. That's with a lot
less capable airplane than you have.

I'd be interested to read your go/no go parameters. What kinds of
summer conditions keep you on the ground?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I have a known ice installation on my B-55 Baron, and it works great. A twin
has the built-in redundancy of two electrical systems, and the other
requirements include a high heat pitot and stall warning vane, along with an
ice light. There are two pumps each for the windshield as well as the flying
surfaces.

It definitely increases the dispatch rate in the icing season, which in the
Midwest is from October through May (or longer). Several months ago I
encountered moderate ice over Michigan, and the commuters as well as other
GA aircraft were all calling looking for different altitudes. Luckily I was
able to descend out of the clouds, and the TKS completely protected all of
the flying surfaces. On landing, the nose, spinners, and even the landing
lights were covered with around 3/8ths inch of mixed ice, but the wings and
tail were fine.

I believe that most users would agree that TKS is superior to boots, hot
props, and alcohol for ice protection.

The downsides are: the initial installation is expensive, but should last a
lifetime. It does not require routine maintenance and doesn't slow you down
like boots, and won't need replacement. A full tank takes away nearly 100
pounds of useful load, and the stuff is expensive. I recall a 55 gallon drum
costing around $450.00. I never take off in the winter unless the tank is
full, and also carry several extra jugs around for longer trips. I also
collect the overflow and use it in a garden sprayer or spray bottle to deice
the plane if I think I will encounter icing conditions shortly after take
off

It also makes a terrible slippery slimy mess on the hangar floor which lasts
forever. It will drip for several weeks after use, and this means doing a
pre-flight invariably will either get your back dripped on, or you will
kneel in the stuff on the floor or slip.

However, all things considered, it is the only way to go to get ice
protection in the winter. It is not a ticket to drone on for hours in
freezing precip, but it will get you through or away from an icing layer
safely. It has been a great investment and has certainly increased the
usefulness of he plane.

What you say is true about propellor planes. Airline jets on the other hand
are designed to fly through most icing conditions all day long. This is
because excess hot bleed air from the compressor sections is routed through
the wings and empennage, the so-called "hot wing" system. Nacelle inlets
and other critical areas are heated also. It is a matter of degree (pun
intended). Enough heat is available and provided to deice a jet in all but
the most extreme conditions. No one has figured out how to deice a prop
plane to the same degree.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
> > when encountered
>
> Really? I had been under the impression that airline systems did allow
> continued flight in icing conditions. That's not true, eh? Okay...well,
in
> any case, I think that there are pilots out there that don't understand
that
> de-ice doesn't mean you can just bomb on through icing conditions as if
they
> weren't there.
>
> If not, so much the better. But if so, it might be helpful to dissuade
> someone of that idea. :)
>
> Pete
>
>

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

> Those who know told me.

Has anyone told of a situation where TKS has not worked in a known-ice TKS
airplane? If so, then -- very seriously -- I would REALLY like to talk to
that pilot. I have never -- repeat never -- heard any concerns whatsoever
about TKS performance even among pilots who have clearly pushed TKS beyond
the point that is legal and appropriate. I have heard stories about people
departing in freezing rain with TKS with no problems at all. Again, I do
*NOT* advocate known-ice TKS for anything beyond a climb above light to
moderate icing conditions. However, it is helpful to know how a system
performs at the boundaries. If you have any negative information whatseover
about TKS performance in a known-ice airplane, please let me know; I have
yet to hear of a single negative story except in the case of someone who ran
out of fluid.

> Known-ice TKS is there to GET YOU OUT of icing conditions. Why in the
world
> would you intentionally fly into an area where the only purpose of your
> safety equipment is to get you out?

I would do this to depart and climb on top in the winter if I have a planned
trip with reported light to moderate rime icing and tops within my
airplane's capability.


> Saying one should fly into actual reporting icing conditions just because
> you have known-ice TKS installed is like saying I should intentionally
spin
> a Cirrus because I have the safety equipment to recover from the spin
> installed.

No, it's like saying I would spin a Citabria which is certified for spins.
The Citabria is certified for spins, but I would use due caution at an
appropriate altitude with appropriate training. My airplane is certified
for flight into light or moderate known icing conditions; I regularly use
that certification to climb through a layer to non-icing conditions.
Indeed, rarely is icing more than 3,000 feet thick in winter stratus
conditions and the TKS does a great job keeping the plane clean so usually
my icing exposure is no more than maybe 10 minutes in the climb since my
climb performance does not degrade in icing other than the need to conform
to the stated minimum climb airspeed in icing conditions.

> Keep in mind that "known ice" for the purpose of icing certification means
> "freezing temperature and visible moisture", while the icing conditions
I'm
> talking about here are those that are truly known to exist (that is,
someone
> has just been there and reported that ice is present).

Known icing for the purpose of icing certification means either forecast or
observed. If it is wintertime and light to moderate icing is reported by
piston airplanes climbing on top and no freezing rain is forecast, I depart
all the time in my plane and it is perfectly legal to do so. If jets are
reporting moderate icing or if anyone is reporting severe icing or if
freezing rain is reported by anyone, then that is a different story.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

> Those who know told me.

Has anyone told of a situation where TKS has not worked in a known-ice TKS
airplane? If so, then -- very seriously -- I would REALLY like to talk to
that pilot. I have never -- repeat never -- heard any concerns whatsoever
about TKS performance even among pilots who have clearly pushed TKS beyond
the point that is legal and appropriate. I have heard stories about people
departing in freezing rain with TKS with no problems at all. Again, I do
*NOT* advocate known-ice TKS for anything beyond a climb above light to
moderate icing conditions. However, it is helpful to know how a system
performs at the boundaries. If you have any negative information whatseover
about TKS performance in a known-ice airplane, please let me know; I have
yet to hear of a single negative story except in the case of someone who ran
out of fluid.

> Known-ice TKS is there to GET YOU OUT of icing conditions. Why in the
world
> would you intentionally fly into an area where the only purpose of your
> safety equipment is to get you out?

I would do this to depart and climb on top in the winter if I have a planned
trip with reported light to moderate rime icing and tops within my
airplane's capability.


> Saying one should fly into actual reporting icing conditions just because
> you have known-ice TKS installed is like saying I should intentionally
spin
> a Cirrus because I have the safety equipment to recover from the spin
> installed.

No, it's like saying I would spin a Citabria which is certified for spins.
The Citabria is certified for spins, but I would use due caution at an
appropriate altitude with appropriate training. My airplane is certified
for flight into light or moderate known icing conditions; I regularly use
that certification to climb through a layer to non-icing conditions.
Indeed, rarely is icing more than 3,000 feet thick in winter stratus
conditions and the TKS does a great job keeping the plane clean so usually
my icing exposure is no more than maybe 10 minutes in the climb since my
climb performance does not degrade in icing other than the need to conform
to the stated minimum climb airspeed in icing conditions.

> Keep in mind that "known ice" for the purpose of icing certification means
> "freezing temperature and visible moisture", while the icing conditions
I'm
> talking about here are those that are truly known to exist (that is,
someone
> has just been there and reported that ice is present).

Known icing for the purpose of icing certification means either forecast or
observed. If it is wintertime and light to moderate icing is reported by
piston airplanes climbing on top and no freezing rain is forecast, I depart
all the time in my plane and it is perfectly legal to do so. If jets are
reporting moderate icing or if anyone is reporting severe icing or if
freezing rain is reported by anyone, then that is a different story.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

> Those who know told me.

Has anyone told you of a situation where TKS has not worked in a known-ice TKS
airplane? If so, then -- very seriously -- I would REALLY like to talk to
that pilot. I have never -- repeat never -- heard any concerns whatsoever
about TKS performance even among pilots who have clearly pushed TKS beyond
the point that is legal and appropriate. I have heard stories about people
departing in freezing rain with TKS with no problems at all. Again, I do
*NOT* advocate known-ice TKS for anything beyond a climb above light to
moderate icing conditions. However, it is helpful to know how a system
performs at the boundaries. If you have any negative information whatseover
about TKS performance in a known-ice airplane, please let me know; I have
yet to hear of a single negative story except in the case of someone who ran
out of fluid.

> Known-ice TKS is there to GET YOU OUT of icing conditions. Why in the
world
> would you intentionally fly into an area where the only purpose of your
> safety equipment is to get you out?

I would do this to depart and climb on top in the winter if I have a planned
trip with reported light to moderate rime icing and tops within my
airplane's capability.


> Saying one should fly into actual reporting icing conditions just because
> you have known-ice TKS installed is like saying I should intentionally
spin
> a Cirrus because I have the safety equipment to recover from the spin
> installed.

No, it's like saying I would spin a Citabria which is certified for spins.
The Citabria is certified for spins, but I would use due caution at an
appropriate altitude with appropriate training. My airplane is certified
for flight into light or moderate known icing conditions; I regularly use
that certification to climb through a layer to non-icing conditions.
Indeed, rarely is icing more than 3,000 feet thick in winter stratus
conditions and the TKS does a great job keeping the plane clean so usually
my icing exposure is no more than maybe 10 minutes in the climb since my
climb performance does not degrade in icing other than the need to conform
to the stated minimum climb airspeed in icing conditions.

> Keep in mind that "known ice" for the purpose of icing certification means
> "freezing temperature and visible moisture", while the icing conditions
I'm
> talking about here are those that are truly known to exist (that is,
someone
> has just been there and reported that ice is present).

Known icing for the purpose of icing certification means either forecast or
observed. If it is wintertime and light to moderate icing is reported by
piston airplanes climbing on top and no freezing rain is forecast, I depart
all the time in my plane and it is perfectly legal to do so. If jets are
reporting moderate icing or if anyone is reporting severe icing or if
freezing rain is reported by anyone, then that is a different story.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...>

> I'd be interested to read your go/no go parameters. What kinds of
> summer conditions keep you on the ground?

I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate more than
scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when I can get boxed in
behind me or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms.

Often that means if I have a 1-day business trip returning in late
afternoon, I drive intead of flying because it isn't worth the worry/risk
that the afternoon storms will be too difficult to penetrate.

I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When
pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have
well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer
thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival
Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of
20 drove instead of flying.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate
> more than scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when
> I can get boxed in behind me

That would keep me grounded much of the summer down here if I were very
picky about the definition of "scattered." Using satellite NEXRAD
requires me to be much more discriminating about the nature of the
storms. Are they numerous but developing and moving slowly? In that
case I might go if I "need" to (Angel Flight) and I see a route with
plenty of outs available. Are they popping up everywhere and moving
fast? No go. Sometimes the pattern of development is very obvious --
sea breeze storms, for instance -- and the NEXRAD will keep me assured
after takeoff that the route I've chosen is still good.

> or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms.

That's what stopped us short of Jackson, MS. The pilot of the next leg
had to drive out to Laurel in his car and pick up the patient, drive her
back to Jackson and wait for the line to pass.

> Often that means if I have a 1-day business trip returning
> in late afternoon, I drive intead of flying because it isn't
> worth the worry/risk that the afternoon storms will be too
> difficult to penetrate.

Yeah, I used to cancel a lot of business flights to Dothan for just that
reason. I haven't since I got the weather link, though.

> When I conducted a group "IFR Survival Weekend" class
> a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
> but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore
> about 15 out of 20 drove instead of flying.

Don't get me wrong, thunderstorms still scare the crap out of me. It's
just that now I know where they are and what they're doing: it was the
fear of flying blind that used to keep me on the ground a lot more
often.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Bob Gardner wrote:

> No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
> when encountered...they provide a safety margin while escaping from the
> conditions.

That's how I use it. The problem is that the TKS system is so effective
when functioning, there might be a moment when it is difficult to know
whether the aircraft is picking up ice or not.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Known-ice TKS is there to GET YOU OUT of icing conditions. Why in the world
> would you intentionally fly into an area where the only purpose of your
> safety equipment is to get you out?

Peter, as a person who has never flown in the Northwest US, I am
curious about your part of the country. At what altitudes are the icing
conditions during the Northwest US winters? Do you often have options
to remain below those altitudes?

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Dan Luke wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, thunderstorms still scare the crap out of me. It's
> just that now I know where they are and what they're doing: it was the
> fear of flying blind that used to keep me on the ground a lot more
> often.

All our aircraft (including the 182s subject to the potential addition of
de-ice) have strikefinders. However, one of the options I'd entertain as
an alternative to the de-ice is weather download.

- Andrew

Turbine-powered transport category airplanes are a different kettle of
fish...but even they are prohibited from flying into forecast severe icing.
In my brief experience flying Part 91 corporate jets we took icing very
seriously in spite of having all the goodies...a chunk of ice can put a
turbine out of action.

The regs I cited all say something to the effect of "..except for those
meeting Appendix C of Part 25...", but those regs were written back in the
40s, when supercooled liquid droplets had not yet been discovered. Forty
microns is less than the size of a pencil lead; the many turboprop ADs that
followed the Roselawn accident tell pilots that any precip that runs back on
side windows are far larger and exceed Part 25 certification standards.

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
> > when encountered
>
> Really? I had been under the impression that airline systems did allow
> continued flight in icing conditions. That's not true, eh? Okay...well,
in
> any case, I think that there are pilots out there that don't understand
that
> de-ice doesn't mean you can just bomb on through icing conditions as if
they
> weren't there.
>
> If not, so much the better. But if so, it might be helpful to dissuade
> someone of that idea. :)
>
> Pete
>
>

They sent the original Concorde out here for icing tests...does that tell
you something (I flew KOMO-TV to Moses Lake for the event)?

The University of Washington atmospheric sciences folks used to have a B-23
(I think...it was a bomber, anyway) and they developed a map of icing
severity vs altitude vs distance from Seattle. On the west side of the
Cascades, where upslope icing would be expected, the red area was about 34
miles west, between 6 and 8000 feet. That is one of the reasons why the
local ATC folks got together with the FSDO safety program manager and
developed icing avoidance strategies...eastbound from Seattle, pilots who
ask for icing avoidance vectors are sent west to climb to 6000 feet before
being turned east...inbound pilots who ask for avoidance vectors are told to
stay high (8000) until over the city, then to descend on the west side.
Works like a dream, but you have to ask.

Bob Gardner

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > Known-ice TKS is there to GET YOU OUT of icing conditions. Why in the
world
> > would you intentionally fly into an area where the only purpose of your
> > safety equipment is to get you out?
>
> Peter, as a person who has never flown in the Northwest US, I am
> curious about your part of the country. At what altitudes are the icing
> conditions during the Northwest US winters? Do you often have options
> to remain below those altitudes?
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> One of the members of my club has proposed that we add TKS de-ice to our two
> 182s. Apparently, such a system is to become available later this year.
>
> My reaction at first was negative. After all, in our near-NYC location, the
> utility of such a tool is limited to a few months a year. Surely we could
> spend money better (ie. on upgades that would be useful year round).
>
> His reply to this reasoning is that our aircraft utilization is much lower
> in the cold months than in the summer. If we can increase winter use, then
> we get better value from our investment.
>
> It's a good point. Of course, when I mentioned this to my wife, she asked
> how much of the lower use was due to the threat of ice, and how much was
> due to our lack of love for preflighting in subzero weather.
>
> Another good point <grin>.
>
> But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
> compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious
> what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.

Without "known icing" certification, I don't think it buys you much at
all from utilization perspective. It is insurance if you get caught in
ice, but that is it. And if if DOES increase utilization it means that
you have pilots flying in conditions they likely shouldn't be in anyway.

And, I know from a hairy personal experience, a Skylane will carry a lot
of ice and still fly pretty well. I'd invest the money and weight into
something more useful.


Matt

Peter R. wrote:

> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>
>>But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
>>compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious
>>what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.
>
>
> Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of
> Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS
> system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical.
>
> During flights this past winter when I have encountered unplanned ice,
> the system was extremely effective.
>
>

I thought the biggest difference was legal, not functional. :-)

Matt

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> > I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate
> > more than scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when
> > I can get boxed in behind me
>
> That would keep me grounded much of the summer down here if I were very
> picky about the definition of "scattered."

Out west (I've only flown twice east of the Mississippi in 15 years flying)
it means leaving at sunrise and being back before about 3:00PM.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...>

> Out west (I've only flown twice east of the Mississippi in 15 years
flying)
> it means leaving at sunrise and being back before about 3:00PM.

Exactly... same here if I need to be able to rely on getting back.

That means I can't reliably do same-day business trips in the summer but I
often can do so in the winter.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

The weather data link (weather in the cockpit) would definitely help 'see'
what's ahead and around corners . My go-no go decisions are made based on
the criteria mentioned above but the screen gives me a good path around the
cells (stick to clear or light green).

Case in point was Friday returning from Ft Myers, Fl to TN. Couldn't get
away until 9pm due to solid lines across FL & GA but after dark, they died
down with large holes to fly thru. We made it without a drop on the wings
(save one little spot in GA)

Having said (?) that, I'd get TKS in a heart beat, if it were available on
my A36.
--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.



take off my shoes to reply

TKS is available on A-36 as well as the F-33 and V tail Bonanzas. Contact AS
and T in Salina, KS.

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
om...
> Has anyone told of a situation where TKS has not worked in a known-ice TKS
> airplane? If so, then -- very seriously -- I would REALLY like to talk to
> that pilot. I have never -- repeat never -- heard any concerns whatsoever
> about TKS performance even among pilots who have clearly pushed TKS beyond
> the point that is legal and appropriate. I have heard stories about
people
> departing in freezing rain with TKS with no problems at all.

How is that relevant? My airplane has NO de-ice equipment (other than pitot
heat), I have found myself in (unreported) icing conditions a few times, and
have never crashed, never even had any serious problems. Even so, that
doesn't mean it's safe for me to fly into an area where another pilot has
already reported that ice is present. "Past results are no guarantee of
future performance".

> I would do this to depart and climb on top in the winter if I have a
planned
> trip with reported light to moderate rime icing and tops within my
> airplane's capability.

Well, it's your prerogative as PIC to make a decision to do that. Not
something that I feel is wise though. You never know whether that other
pilot has defined the icing he experienced correctly, nor do you know
whether the conditions he found are really as bad as it might get.

That said, I suppose if you're going to intentionally fly into reported
icing, the TKS system is the one to have. My understanding is that the
fluid helps protect not just the leading edges of the airfoils, but farther
back as well, which is something the other technologies can't accomplish.
That should help address some of the unknowns of flying into icing (such as
ice accumulation being de-ice boots, for example).

Also, I readily accept that certain kinds of "icing forecast" information
need not be disqualifying for a flight, given how vaguely the weather folks
define their icing forecasts. But I'll stand by my opinion (and remember,
it's just my opinion...you have no need or reason to be insulted or feel
threatened by it) that it's foolish to fly into an area that someone else
has already said has active icing, even if one has a known-ice certified
de-ice system installed on their light piston GA airplane.

Finally, I believe in "never say never", and as a generalization, I
recognize that my opinion will not necessary fit all situations. But as a
generalization, I believe it does fit most applicable situations.

Pete

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Peter, as a person who has never flown in the Northwest US, I am
> curious about your part of the country. At what altitudes are the icing
> conditions during the Northwest US winters?

It depends somewhat on the weather and where you are. As Bob says, the
worst icing appears to be right along the western slopes of the Cascades,
where the moisture-laden freezing air is being lifted.

Generally speaking, the freezing level during the winter varies from as low
as 3-4000' MSL up to 7-8000' MSL, depending mostly on surface temperatures
(or at least correlating...I guess you could just as accurately say that
surface temperatures depend on the freezing level :) ).

In extreme cases, the freezing level is right at the surface, of course, and
I've seen it as high as 9-10,000' even in the winter (in extremely unusual
warm spells, or when a strong inversion is present).

> Do you often have options to remain below those altitudes?

Depends on where you're going. If you stay within the Puget Sound basin,
MEAs are quite low, and the MVA is even lower. For most of the area, ATC
can vector you as low as 2000' or so. Furthermore, when the freezing level
is lower than the MEAs or MVA, it's almost always because of a cold high
pressure system, with very little moisture and no clouds.

However, if you want to travel more than 100 miles or so, you wind up having
to cross some terrain.

Easiest is if you're going south, with MEAs in the 6-7000' range. As long
as it's not too chilly, this gives some breathing room between the freezing
level and the MEA. Also, the freezing level usually slopes upward as you
fly south, and that's where the MEAs start getting higher. Depending on
one's destination, there is also the option of diverting out toward the
coast, where MEAs are lower, and temperatures are sometimes warmer.

Much harder is crossing the Cascades. As Bob mentioned, ATC has implemented
special "vectors for icing" procedures for use during departures and
arrivals. On departures, one may be vectored for a climb (on request) to
cruising/crossing altitude prior to continuing on route over the Cascades,
with the idea that if one discovers icing conditions beyond the capability
of the plane (and generally for piston GA planes, this just means icing
conditions beyond trace icing), they can safely abort the flight and descend
back into warmer air. On arrivals, one may be vectored at altitude,
remaining at the cruising altitude until safely over lower terrain, so that
an uninterrupted descent can be made to below the freezing level.

The worst icing I experienced was on a flight from Everett, WA (Paine Field)
to Eugene, OR. Even that icing didn't turn out to be too terribly
dangerous, but that was only because ATC was able to give me an
uninterrupted descent to below the freezing level. (The freezing level had
been forecast much higher than it turned out to be, in the Eugene area...we
had been in good conditions in the Seattle area).

I do make a definite distinction between forecast "known" icing, and
reported "known" icing. Too often, a forecast of icing is simply based on
too little information. Basically, the airmet says "icing forecast above
the freezing level in clouds". But most of the time, even around here (at
least away from the Cascades), there's not enough moisture in the clouds to
cause icing, even when the temperature is right.

Rather than cancel flights just because of a vague forecast like that, I
always make sure I have at least two "outs", preferably three, and then
proceed with the flight. One of those is almost always a 180 degree turn,
the other is almost always a descent to warmer air (requiring a freezing
level above the MEA). The third could be a cloud layer reported to be thin
enough to climb through quickly (roughly a minute of climbing), or good VFR
conditions near the route (and at the necessary altitude, of course),
something along those lines.

If there's a PIREP telling me there's actual icing, then of course I avoid
the area of the PIREP (and anywhere else nearby that might be similarly
affected). The best case, of course, is when there's a PIREP reporting no
icing at all. :)

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>


> How is that relevant? My airplane has NO de-ice equipment (other than
pitot
> heat), I have found myself in (unreported) icing conditions a few times,
and
> have never crashed, never even had any serious problems. Even so, that


The difference is that the NTSB accident reports are littered with reports
of non-deiced airplanes similar to yours which have crashed due to icing
conditions.

I am not aware of even one report to date of a TKS known-ice piston airplane
crashing due to ice.

Now that is not to say there are no limits to what I can fly in -- flying
recklessly in all weather in winter would be inappropriate. Based upon my
airplane's certification and experience I have built over time, I will fly
in light to moderate icing when tops are at or below 15,000 feet. I will
not fly in known or forecast freezing rain or freezing drizzle or severe
icing. This is all well within the certification parameters of my airplane.

What basis do you have for saying trace icing is the maximum into which I
can fly rather than moderate icing?

> doesn't mean it's safe for me to fly into an area where another pilot has
> already reported that ice is present. "Past results are no guarantee of
> future performance".

If another pilot is reporting light to moderate icing, he is reporting a
condition in which my airplane is certified to fly. Where is the isue here?

> Well, it's your prerogative as PIC to make a decision to do that. Not
> something that I feel is wise though. You never know whether that other
> pilot has defined the icing he experienced correctly, nor do you know
> whether the conditions he found are really as bad as it might get.

No, I do not know if he has reported his conditions correctly. But I also
will depart in these conditions without any pilot reports at all -- I study
the weather systems carefully and weather forecasts and -- I say again -- I
only fly if forecasts are for no more than moderate icing and tops no
higher than 15,000 feet. This is no different from any other IFR weather
decision I make.


> That said, I suppose if you're going to intentionally fly into reported
> icing, the TKS system is the one to have. My understanding is that the
> fluid helps protect not just the leading edges of the airfoils, but
farther
> back as well, which is something the other technologies can't accomplish.

That is correct.. as I have said before, even in moderate icing conditions I
have yet to see my airspeed decay. In fact, even in moderate icing
conditions, I have yet to land in a situation where there airframe is not
clean enough to take off again. Those are extremely signficant observations
for anyone who has flown a piston airplane with boots.


> threatened by it) that it's foolish to fly into an area that someone else
> has already said has active icing, even if one has a known-ice certified
> de-ice system installed on their light piston GA airplane.


Why is a PIREP a limiting factor? That is like saying if a VFR pilot
reports IMC I shouldn't go flying.

If a pilot of a C152 reports moderate to severe turbulence at 3,000 feet
does that mean I should not depart on my flight which is planned at FL190?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

a few questions for the TKS operators

what is your tank capacity and duration?

can you easily refill during flt?

do you regularly prime the system during the non-ice season to keep the
openings clear and lines from drying out?

WIACapt wrote:

> what is your tank capacity and duration?

Seven gallons. 3 1/2 to 4 hours duration at "anti-ice" (lower flow)
operation. 1 1/2 to 2 hours at "de-ice" (heavier flow) operation.

> can you easily refill during flt?

No.

> do you regularly prime the system during the non-ice season to keep the
> openings clear and lines from drying out?

Yes. Once a month.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Bob Gardner wrote:

> They sent the original Concorde out here for icing tests...does that tell
> you something (I flew KOMO-TV to Moses Lake for the event)?

Yes, it does. :) Thanks, Bob.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"WIACapt" > wrote in message
...>


> what is your tank capacity and duration?

It depends slightly on the airplane -- non-known-ice airplanes such as the
Cirrus may have a much smaller capacity. For my Cessna P210N the tank holds
6.2 gallons and uses either 2.5 GPH or 5 GPH depending on whether the sytem
is in de-ice or anti-ice mode. Remember that the system can be turned off
once exiting icing conditions and that in trace or light icing conditions it
does not necessarily have to be on continuously because there is a passive
effect from the fluid remaining on the airfoils.

Use of the high flow rate is extremely rare; thus most of the time the
system can be considered to have a 2.5 hour duration.


> can you easily refill during flt?

No, it cannot be refilled during flight. The fluid goes in the baggae
compartment.


> do you regularly prime the system during the non-ice season to keep the
> openings clear and lines from drying out?

Yes, but I don't think this is a big deal.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

> Well, it's your prerogative as PIC to make a decision to do that. Not
> something that I feel is wise though. You never know whether that other
> pilot has defined the icing he experienced correctly, nor do you know
> whether the conditions he found are really as bad as it might get.

Peter,

The more I think about this issue as well as your strategy of flying in
forecast ice but not reported ice, I would summarize the situation as
follows. It appears that you are flying under a protocol which has been
known to result in fatal accidents in the past, i.e. flying a non-known-ice
piston airplane under conditions of forecast but not reported icing
conditions. On the other hand I am flying under a protocol which to my
knowledge has never yet resulted in any icing accident, i.e. flying a
certified TKS known-ice piston airplane under either known or forecast light
or moderate icing conditions with tops at or below 15,000 feet.

Why is what I am doing unwise?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

I'll second the "fly pretty well" with a load of ice. I should not have
been there years ago.....but.......
Another second...My two cents...I don't believe a 182 should have the
TKS...might go when you shouldn't...

John N3DR


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> > One of the members of my club has proposed that we add TKS de-ice to our
two
> > 182s. Apparently, such a system is to become available later this year.
> >
> > My reaction at first was negative. After all, in our near-NYC location,
the
> > utility of such a tool is limited to a few months a year. Surely we
could
> > spend money better (ie. on upgades that would be useful year round).
> >
> > His reply to this reasoning is that our aircraft utilization is much
lower
> > in the cold months than in the summer. If we can increase winter use,
then
> > we get better value from our investment.
> >
> > It's a good point. Of course, when I mentioned this to my wife, she
asked
> > how much of the lower use was due to the threat of ice, and how much was
> > due to our lack of love for preflighting in subzero weather.
> >
> > Another good point <grin>.
> >
> > But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
> > compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm
curious
> > what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.
>
> Without "known icing" certification, I don't think it buys you much at
> all from utilization perspective. It is insurance if you get caught in
> ice, but that is it. And if if DOES increase utilization it means that
> you have pilots flying in conditions they likely shouldn't be in anyway.
>
> And, I know from a hairy personal experience, a Skylane will carry a lot
> of ice and still fly pretty well. I'd invest the money and weight into
> something more useful.
>
>
> Matt
>

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>[...]
> Why is what I am doing unwise?

To me, the difference is between "what could be" and "what is". In
particular, icing is not present with such great frequency even when icing
has been forecast, that it's simply impractical to cancel a flight solely
because of such a forecast. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of the
boy who cried wolf.

On the other hand, once you've got a pilot report of icing, you've confirmed
the icing forecast, and changed the statistical odds of running into a
problem by a significant amount, since you've reduced the set of
possibilities to the small subset of "forecast icing" that includes actual
icing going on.

In any case, more power to you if you feel that's a fine approach. I have
even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still
makes sense. That is, TKS (and other light piston GA de-ice systems) is for
getting you out of icing that you didn't expect, not for flying into icing
you know is there.

You disagree, which is your right. We will simply have to "agree to
disagree".

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

> On the other hand, once you've got a pilot report of icing, you've
confirmed
> the icing forecast, and changed the statistical odds of running into a
> problem by a significant amount, since you've reduced the set of


Actually Peter, pilot reports of icing are unreliable because ice can be 100
feet thick or 3,000 feet thick and can be 1 mile in length or 100 miles in
length. The fact that someone did or did not get ice 10 minutes ago 10
miles from where you plan to fly is not a reliable way to make a decision.
Your plane is not certified for flight into known icing conditions - that
means not into reported icing and it also means not into forecast icing
conditions. Yes, you are right that makes a non-known-ice impractical for
cross-country winter flight; rationalizing this away does not change the
facts. Lots of people have died due to the rationalization under which you
fly.

> In any case, more power to you if you feel that's a fine approach. I have
> even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
> approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
> icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still

Can you put me in touch with him please so I can understand his reasoning?

I say again --- people have died many times doing what you are doing. Yet
there is not a single accident -- fatal or otherwise -- I am aware of from
someone doing what I do. Please either correct my facts or explain to me
why this is not valid comparison of our relative risks.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

> even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
> approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
> icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still

Perhaps we are confusing the distinction between flying THROUGH icing
conditions (i.e. taking off and climbing through icing to get on top at
15,000 feet, which I do regularly) vs. flying IN icing conditions (i.e.
staying in an icing layer, which I do not do)?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Peter Duniho wrote:

> I have
> even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
> approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
> icing conditions.

Are Mooneys able to be equipped with TKS at the factory? If not,
I would be suspicious of this salesperson's opinion, given that Cirrus
does have this option.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...>

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Are Mooneys able to be equipped with TKS at the factory? If not,
> I would be suspicious of this salesperson's opinion, given that Cirrus
> does have this option.

Yes, factory TKS known-ice has been offered on Mooneys since the mid-80s.

Re: Cirrus, that is an interesting situation. Cirrus has a non-known-ice
TKS system with minimal endurance (about 1 hour), no airframe icing testing,
and no windshield deice. Clearly that is a system for emergencies only.
The Cirrus salesman I spoke with at Oshkosh last year told me it was
"certified for inadvertent icing" which I stated does not exist... all it
means is that the equipment was approved on a "does no harm" basis, i.e. you
could get a CD player "certified" for the same purpose. That is one reason
among others why I am skeptical of whatever information a Mooney salesman
may have provided; airplane salesmen are not necessarily an authority on
technical aspects of their airplanes. This is particularly concerning given
that Cirrus is promoted as such as "safe" airplane for new cross-country
pilots -- never mind that weather accidents are a key issue in aviation
safety, yet there is apparently no plan to make the Cirrus known-ice
approved and until very recently Cirrus airplanes were not sold with weather
datalink --> so much for an emphasis on safety.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> Re: Cirrus, that is an interesting situation. Cirrus has a non-known-ice
> TKS system with minimal endurance (about 1 hour), no airframe icing
> testing,
> and no windshield deice. Clearly that is a system for emergencies only.

FWIW, the system that is supposed to become available later this year for
182s - the system we're considering, which is why I started this thread -
will last for about three hours and does have windscreen protection.

How *well* it does all this, of course, I cannot say.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...>


> FWIW, the system that is supposed to become available later this year for
> 182s - the system we're considering, which is why I started this thread -
> will last for about three hours and does have windscreen protection.

That is a much tougher call with the C182 than the Cirrus.

First off, if the C182 system is not known-ice then it is not legal to use
in either forecast or reported icing.

That said, history shows that in reality lots of C182 pilots do fly in ice,
that the C182 is generally a docile enough and overpowered enough airplane
that it handles ice well, but that occasionally pilots push this too far and
get into icing accidents in a C182 which would almost for sure be less
likely with TKS.

In other words, legally the C182 is in the same class as the Cirrus but
years of informal "testing" by C182 pilots has shown that the airframe does
not have any nasty handling characteristics in ice, nor does it seem
particularly prone to induction or fuel vent icing.

So TKS in a C182 will almost for sure help to make flights which are not
legal but which nonetheless have been happening all the time in C182s for
many years. I guess it's sort of like asking your doctor what cigarette is
safest -- he should tell you to not smoke at all, yet if you are going to
smoke anyway then you ought to minimize the risk. And legalities aside I
have no doubt that TKS on a C182 with a 3-hour endurance would improve the
risk considerably.

By the way, I presume the TKS on the C182 will be on the prop as well as the
airframe. I rarely if ever use the windshield deice on my plane since
enough fluid sprays off the prop to clear the windshield in most cases;
that's a good thing because the windshield spraybar is only on the pilot
side so it doesn't help me when I am instructing.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> First off, if the C182 system is not known-ice then it is not legal to use
> in either forecast or reported icing.

Hmm...based upon what are you making this statement? Note that I'm not
speaking of "wise" or "smart", but merely "legal".

I did some checking, and the only FAR I could find in part 91 that discussed
this was 500-something and applicable only to turbines and such. I didn't
find anything that spoke specifically of flight of an "unprotected" piston
aircraft into icing.

> That said, history shows that in reality lots of C182 pilots do fly in
> ice, that the C182 is generally a docile enough and overpowered enough
> airplane that it handles ice well, but that occasionally pilots push this
> too far and get into icing accidents in a C182 which would almost for sure
> be less likely with TKS.

What do you mean by "overpowered"? I hope that this isn't related to the
myth "a 182 can carry what it can hold", as this just isn't true. Shove
four real adults in, and you cannot carry full fuel.

[Of course, "full fuel" is 88 gallons usable, so ...]

> In other words, legally the C182 is in the same class as the Cirrus but
> years of informal "testing" by C182 pilots has shown that the airframe
> does not have any nasty handling characteristics in ice, nor does it seem
> particularly prone to induction or fuel vent icing.

Our 182Q is quite prone to carb icing, if that's what you mean by induction.
Apparently, this is because of the location of the carburator, which is
because of the space consumed by the Continental as opposed to the Lycoming
on other 182 versions (at least, this is what I've been told).

>
> So TKS in a C182 will almost for sure help to make flights which are not
> legal but which nonetheless have been happening all the time in C182s for
> many years. I guess it's sort of like asking your doctor what cigarette
> is safest

<Laugh!>

[...]

> By the way, I presume the TKS on the C182 will be on the prop as well as
> the
> airframe. I rarely if ever use the windshield deice on my plane since
> enough fluid sprays off the prop to clear the windshield in most cases;
> that's a good thing because the windshield spraybar is only on the pilot
> side so it doesn't help me when I am instructing.

I don't have my notes with me, but I believe it weeps onto the prop,
pilot-side windscreen, and leading edges of wings and elevators.

- Andrew

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> [...] That is one reason
> among others why I am skeptical of whatever information a Mooney salesman
> may have provided; airplane salesmen are not necessarily an authority on
> technical aspects of their airplanes.

I didn't mention the "salesman" characteristic in way of certifying his
knowledge; it was simply a descriptive "one pilot I know" to provide
context. He's a pilot who (presumably) has flown TKS-equipped airplanes,
and since he's based around here, I have to assume he did so in icing
conditions (forecast at least, probably actual).

Anyway, I'm not going to "out" a disinterested third party in a public
newsgroup. I'll send what little contact information I have to you in
email. You can feel free to contact him; just don't be surprised if he
sells you a Mooney (or worse, an Extra 500). :)

Pete

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> > First off, if the C182 system is not known-ice then it is not legal to use
> > in either forecast or reported icing.
>
> Hmm...based upon what are you making this statement? Note that I'm not
> speaking of "wise" or "smart", but merely "legal".

I read of a legal opinion issued by the FAA a year or two ago to the effect that
forecast icing is "known icing". An article in AOPA Pilot (link below) states that
91.527 forbids flight into forecast icing without "known ice" capability and at seems
to state that it applies to all aircraft. You might ask the author this question.

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=772

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=772

It looks like the author is referring to others saying that 91.527 prohibits
flight into known icing. That is, I don't think he's making the claim
himself. Then again, he does write (at the end) "earning this
certification makes it legal for you to fly in icing conditions...".

Hmm. Any ideas how to contact an author (esp. from several years ago)?

But I'd love to read the legal opinion you've mentioned. Redefining
"forecast icing" as "known icing" is pretty...abusive of the English
language, all other factors aside. But I'm especially interested in
whether this explicitly mentions part 91 outside of the applicability of
subpart F (ie. turbine multis and fractionals).

I'm sure that, should they want to, the FAA could cite a pilot flying into
"known icing" (however they choose to define this {8^) for violating 91.13.
Still, I'm surprised that there's nothing more specific (esp. since there
*is* something this specific in subpart F).

Or am I just missing it?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...>

> Hmm...based upon what are you making this statement? Note that I'm not
> speaking of "wise" or "smart", but merely "legal".

If your airplane is new enough to have a POH then it will also be placarded
to say flight into known icing is prohibited and violating an airplane
limitation is illegal.

If your airplane is old enough not to be placarded against flight into known
icing conditions, then you are right that strictly speaking it is not
illegal to fly it in icing conditions.

> What do you mean by "overpowered"? I hope that this isn't related to the
> myth "a 182 can carry what it can hold", as this just isn't true. Shove
> four real adults in, and you cannot carry full fuel.


The point is that a C182 carries way more useful load than most 4-place
airplanes. At typical loadings a C182 does not have nearly the same
problems with density altitude as say a C152.

> Our 182Q is quite prone to carb icing, if that's what you mean by
induction.

No, I mean icing which stops air intake into the engine's induction system.
Even a fuel injected airplane without a carburetor can get induction icing;
on my P210 there is a door which automatically opens to provide an alternate
source of air to the engine if the main intake is clogged, although this
causes a big reduction in power, typically 8-10 inches.

> I don't have my notes with me, but I believe it weeps onto the prop,
> pilot-side windscreen, and leading edges of wings and elevators.

That's the basics. A "known ice" TKS system would in addition have a high
capacity pitot tube, heated stall warning, dual alternators, and dual TKS
pumps, as well as in-flight icing tests during the STC approval process.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

(Richard Kaplan) wrote in message >...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...>
> I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When
> pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have
> well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer
> thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival
> Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
> but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of
> 20 drove instead of flying.

Wow. I fly in California over teh Sierras and northern Cal. You are
almost guaranteed to get TS in the afternoon but they always seem easy
to go around. I've never had to cancel a summer afternoon flight
because of TS.

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...>
>
> > Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> > between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> > with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS
> > system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical.
>
> Another difference is in-flight icing testing of a prototype airplane is
> required for known-ice certification.

Another difference is that known-ice requires that the engine still
run during ice encounter. A TKS system does not keep your fuel vents,
etc from freezing. One of the differences between the Mooney 201 and
231 (the 231 has known ice as an option) is the fuel venting.

-Robert

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> Hmm. Any ideas how to contact an author (esp. from several years ago)?

That particular author is tom dot horne at aopa dot org.

> But I'd love to read the legal opinion you've mentioned.

A little more searching turned up this article.

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1131

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Richard:

Most of the detractors have simply had no personal experience with TKS, and
do not know how well it works. At best, their "knowledge" is based on rumor
or hearsay.

On the other hand, given an opportunity to actually fly in an airplane with
a system installed it immediately becomes apparent how useful it actually
is. It has dramatically increased my ability to fly in the icing season
(October through June), and has also has decreased my anxiety level when
flight planning during the winter.

It has any other combination of boots, hot props, alcohol props, hot
windshields, etc beat hands down. On our small airport we have a P210,
turbine Bonanza, V35 Bonanza, and my Baron all equipped with TKS and we all
remain enthusiastic about how great it works.

Unless someone has actually flown a TKS equipped plane in icing conditions
they simply are not capable of making a rational comparison.

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...>


> Unless someone has actually flown a TKS equipped plane in icing
conditions
> they simply are not capable of making a rational comparison.

I agree completely... TKS is one of the most under-appreciated mods to an
airplane.

In part I think this is because people want to rationalize flying their
airplanes in the winter and it is tough to acknowledge, for example, that a
1980s steam gauge Mooney with TKS is a much more capable IFR airplane than
a brand new $350K Cirrus.. but it's the truth.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> (Richard Kaplan) wrote in message >...
>
>>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...>
>>I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When
>>pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have
>>well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer
>>thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival
>>Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
>>but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of
>>20 drove instead of flying.
>
>
> Wow. I fly in California over teh Sierras and northern Cal. You are
> almost guaranteed to get TS in the afternoon but they always seem easy
> to go around. I've never had to cancel a summer afternoon flight
> because of TS.

If you fly in the eastern US for long, you will. TS can be embedded in the
widespread overcast, you can't see `em. Just another manifestation of the
apparently huge differences in weather patterns between E and W US. I've come to
feel I understand summertime weather pretty well, but of course I haven't done
any flying out west, and I suppose it's completely different.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1131
>

Yikes!

We don't find the definition of the words "known" and "icing" convenient, so
- rather than having rules changed - we'll just redefine the words.

Thanks for pointing me at this. I cannot say that I enjoyed reading it, but
I'm glad I read it.

- Andrew

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

> In any case, more power to you if you feel that's a fine approach. I have
> even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
> approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
> icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still
> makes sense.

Peter,

Here is a reply I received from the Mooney salesman you referred me to in
private email:

In fact, I have flown many hours "ugly" icing conditions with known-ice
Mooneys. I have told many people that only weather I wouldn't fly into (if I
am TKS equipped) is a thunderstorm. I think the Mooney installation of TKS
is great! By contrast, I will say that the Cirrus installation of TKS is
questionable. 2.5 gallons in a non-turbo piston is asking for trouble. The
SR-22 cannot climb through the ice and pilots will be tempted to stay in it.
I also question the Bonanza installation. A client of mine has a 1993 B36TC
with TKS and recently experienced a "top off" with 100LL in his TKS tank. I
have no experience with the C-210 installation.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> In fact, I have flown many hours "ugly" icing conditions with known-ice
> Mooneys. I have told many people that only weather I wouldn't fly into (if
> I am TKS equipped) is a thunderstorm. I think the Mooney installation of
> TKS is great! By contrast, I will say that the Cirrus installation of TKS
> is questionable. 2.5 gallons in a non-turbo piston is asking for trouble.
> The SR-22 cannot climb through the ice and pilots will be tempted to stay
> in it.

For someone familiar with neither Mooney nor Cirrus...what's the difference?
Is it the longer duration of the Mooney's [certified] TKS? Is it really
safe to continue in icing just because the TKS is known-ice certified, or
isn't that still asking for trouble?

- Andrew

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
...
> Here is a reply I received from the Mooney salesman you referred me to in
> private email:
>
> In fact, I have flown many hours "ugly" icing conditions with known-ice
> Mooneys. I have told many people that only weather I wouldn't fly into (if
I
> am TKS equipped) is a thunderstorm.

Well, obviously people's opinions do change. I know what he said to me, but
I'm not interested in getting into a "he said, he said" argument. If he
believes he didn't say what he said, that's fine with me. I know he
wouldn't lie about something like that, but he is mistaken about his
recollection. In any case, obviously his current thinking is more aligned
with yours.

Pete

>For someone familiar with neither Mooney nor Cirrus...what's the difference?
>
>Is it the longer duration of the Mooney's [certified] TKS? Is it really
>safe to continue in icing just because the TKS is known-ice certified, or
>isn't that still asking for trouble?
>
> - Andrew
>

Messing around in ice with a light airplane even with tks is asking for
trouble. Sooner or later you'll run out, lose a line or pump, will you have a
way out?

WIACapt wrote:

> Messing around in ice with a light airplane even with tks is asking for
> trouble. Sooner or later you'll run out, lose a line or pump, will you
> have a way out?

That's rather my point. The author of the comment I cited - a Mooney
salesperson, if I've followed the thread accurately - seemed to indicate
that he's no problem with continued flight in

"ugly" icing conditions

in Mooneys certified for known ice (presumably with a TKS, but that wasn't
clear to me). That seems unwise even for a known-ice certified aircraft.

But I've no experience with Mooneys or known-ice certified aircraft, which
is why I'm asking.

- Andrew

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...


> even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
> approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
> icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still
> makes sense.


Here is the reply I received from the Mooney salesman whose contact
info you provided in private email:

I have flown many hours "ugly" icing conditions with known-ice
Mooneys. I have told many people that only weather I wouldn't fly into
(if I am TKS equipped) is a thunderstorm. I think the Mooney
installation of TKS is great! By contrast, I will say that the Cirrus
installation of TKS is questionable. 2.5 gallons in a non-turbo piston
is asking for trouble. The SR-22 cannot climb through the ice and
pilots will be tempted to stay in it. I also question the Bonanza
installation. A client of mine has a 1993 B36TC with TKS and recently
experienced a "top off" with 100LL in his TKS tank. I have no
experience with the C-210 installation.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...


> even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
> approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
> icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still
> makes sense.


Here is the reply I received from the Mooney salesman whose contact
info you provided in private email:

I have flown many hours "ugly" icing conditions with known-ice
Mooneys. I have told many people that only weather I wouldn't fly into
(if I am TKS equipped) is a thunderstorm. I think the Mooney
installation of TKS is great! By contrast, I will say that the Cirrus
installation of TKS is questionable. 2.5 gallons in a non-turbo piston
is asking for trouble. The SR-22 cannot climb through the ice and
pilots will be tempted to stay in it. I also question the Bonanza
installation. A client of mine has a 1993 B36TC with TKS and recently
experienced a "top off" with 100LL in his TKS tank. I have no
experience with the C-210 installation.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...


> even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
> approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
> icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still
> makes sense.


Here is the reply I received from the Mooney salesman whose contact
info you provided in private email:

I have flown many hours "ugly" icing conditions with known-ice
Mooneys. I have told many people that only weather I wouldn't fly into
(if I am TKS equipped) is a thunderstorm. I think the Mooney
installation of TKS is great! By contrast, I will say that the Cirrus
installation of TKS is questionable. 2.5 gallons in a non-turbo piston
is asking for trouble. The SR-22 cannot climb through the ice and
pilots will be tempted to stay in it. I also question the Bonanza
installation. A client of mine has a 1993 B36TC with TKS and recently
experienced a "top off" with 100LL in his TKS tank. I have no
experience with the C-210 installation.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

We should be specific and careful about the wordings and definitions.

Deice - used to remove existing ice.
Anti ice - used to delay the formation of ice.
known ice - a specific term, used by the FAA when certifying an aircraft for
flight into ice.

Certifying for flight in known ice includes providing for pilot visability.
This means heated windshield
or clear vision panel, or other method to see through the windshield.
Certification also requires proving
flight through specific ranges of ice encounters, which in turn means
proving that the system works with
certain droplet size, temp, and other conditions.

Anti ice or deice equipment on an airplane does not necessarily mean that it
is certified for flight into
ice. Certifying installation of anti or deice equipment does not imply
certification for flight into ice.

Dennis Brown

Richard Kaplan wrote in message ...
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>...
>
>
>> even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
>> approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
>> icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still
>> makes sense.
>
>
>Here is the reply I received from the Mooney salesman whose contact
>info you provided in private email:
>
>I have flown many hours "ugly" icing conditions with known-ice
>Mooneys. I have told many people that only weather I wouldn't fly into
>(if I am TKS equipped) is a thunderstorm. I think the Mooney
>installation of TKS is great! By contrast, I will say that the Cirrus
>installation of TKS is questionable. 2.5 gallons in a non-turbo piston
>is asking for trouble. The SR-22 cannot climb through the ice and
>pilots will be tempted to stay in it. I also question the Bonanza
>installation. A client of mine has a 1993 B36TC with TKS and recently
>experienced a "top off" with 100LL in his TKS tank. I have no
>experience with the C-210 installation.
>
>--
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...


> believes he didn't say what he said, that's fine with me. I know he
> wouldn't lie about something like that, but he is mistaken about his
> recollection. In any case, obviously his current thinking is more aligned
> with yours.

Could it be that perhaps what he said is that he would not fly into
reported SEVERE icing with TKS? I would agree with that; I would not
fly into forecast severe icing either.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...

> Is it the longer duration of the Mooney's [certified] TKS? Is it really
> safe to continue in icing just because the TKS is known-ice certified, or
> isn't that still asking for trouble?

One difference is that the Mooney has a longer TKS fluid duration.

Another difference is that a known-ice certified TKS system will have
redundant TKS pumps.

Another difference is that a known-ice certified airplane has been
flight tested in ice, including the engine induction and fuel venting
systems.

It is not a good idea to remain in icing conditions intentionally but
let me give an example when I might do so. If I were flying a booted
known-ice airplane on top of an overcast, when ATC started vectoring
me for an approach I would request a "slam dunk" type approach, e.g.
perhaps a localizer instead of an ILS. If I were flying a TKS
known-ice airplane and the TKS fluid were preventing all ice
accumulation on the airfoils, I might instead choose the more
stabilized ILS approach.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

(WIACapt) wrote in message >...

> Messing around in ice with a light airplane even with tks is asking for
> trouble. Sooner or later you'll run out, lose a line or pump, will you have a
> way out?

Sure there is a way out... in the winter TKS fluid remains on the
wings for about 20-30 minutes and provides a passive de-icing effect
even with an inoperative TKS pump.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...

> in Mooneys certified for known ice (presumably with a TKS, but that wasn't
> clear to me). That seems unwise even for a known-ice certified aircraft.

Yes, he meant TKS -- TKS is the only known-ice system ever available
on a Mooney.


> But I've no experience with Mooneys or known-ice certified aircraft, which
> is why I'm asking.

To my knowledge, there has never been a single accident or incident
attributed to in-flight icing in a TKS known-ice airplane with a fully
operating and filled TKS tank on takeoff. Does anyone know of an
example to the contrary? If not, then it means the risk of an icing
accident in known or forecast light to moderate icing conditions in a
known-ice TKS airplane is less than the risk of an engine failure or
in-flight fire in day VFR conditions. That seems like a pretty
favorable risk profile to me.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
om...
> Could it be that perhaps what he said is that he would not fly into
> reported SEVERE icing with TKS?

It could be. What I'm clear on is his advice was that TKS is for getting
out of ice, not getting into it. That particular conversation happened
several years ago (as in, probably not this century), and the details are
certainly fuzzy. His advice in that case might have been restricted to
severe icing.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message

> It could be. What I'm clear on is his advice was that TKS is for getting
> out of ice, not getting into it. That particular conversation happened

Well it is very possible that he meant it is also OK to fly into reported
icing as long as one is climbing on top. The TKS is indeed getting me "out"
of ice in this situation. The opposite of getting "out" of ice may not be
getting "in" but rather "staying" in is what is dangerous.

This would be similar to my personal rule which is to not fly in icing
conditions if tops are higher than 15,000 feet. The purpose of TKS in that
situation is to get me "out" (or "through") the icing conditions to on-top.
That does not mean I won't enter reported icing conditions when I know I can
get on top.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"dennis brown" > wrote in message
...>


> Anti ice or deice equipment on an airplane does not necessarily mean that
it
> is certified for flight into
> ice. Certifying installation of anti or deice equipment does not imply
> certification for flight into ice.

In this thread we are specifically referring to TKS Mooneys and TKS Cessna
210s certified and placarded as "Approved for Flight into Known Icing
Conditions."


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

(Richard Kaplan) wrote
> I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate more than
> scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when I can get boxed in
> behind me or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms.

Depending on how you interpret that, this kind of approach would have
me grounded half the year. In reality, since I got the stormscope I
have never cancelled a flight for T-storms.

> I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots.

I think you're dramatically different from experienced IFR pilots on
the Gulf Coast. I suspect you're no different from the pilots in your
neck of the woods. All the Gulf Coast IFR pilots I know who have
equipment and experience comparable to mine have spherics and use it
agressively.

On the other hand, most of these same pilots consider known ice on a
piston airplane something of a joke.

My suspicion is that this has nothing to do with the relative
capability of the equipment or risk tolerance of the pilots and
everything to do with experience. We get very little icing here, and
thus never really learn about it. We know that the ability of a
piston airplane to handle ice is limited, but we don't know how
limited, and we're afraid of getting in over our heads. Since we will
never have the opportunity to develop the necessary experience to get
true utility out of a known-ice plane, we don't bother with it.

On the other hand, we get T-storms every day, and thus become very
familiar with the associated weather patterns. Since we have plenty
of relatively mild T-storm weather (scattered to isolated) to practice
our skills in the course of normal IFR travel (there's no need to go
looking for it) we get very familiar with how our spherics eequipment
works and how the weather patterns develop. We know that the risk of
getting boxed in is real, but we're not too worried about it because
we know how this happens and how to bail out.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>

> I think you're dramatically different from experienced IFR pilots on
> the Gulf Coast. I suspect you're no different from the pilots in your
> neck of the woods. All the Gulf Coast IFR pilots I know who have
> equipment and experience comparable to mine have spherics and use it
> agressively.

Do you think this is a function of the weather patterns in our geographic
areas (i.e. scattered airmass storms vs. frontal storms)?

In other words, if you were to move to Pennsylvania do you think you would
retain more or less the same summer utilization of your airplane?

My guess is that your thunderstorm philosophy would shift to that of
Northeast pilots while you were flying here.

I think part of this relates though to a definition of "cancelling" a
flight. I fly to Florida fairly often and I do not think I have ever had to
cancel a morning flight, yet more than once I have diverted somewhere due to
afternoon thunderstorms. When I have had to divert and then I do some
hangar flying with local pilots, usually the reply is, "You know down here
you have to plan to get your flying done by 2PM" -- I've heard that from
newly minted private pilots and from CFIIs who are "local" in Florida.

Even in Pennsylvania I guess we need to consider what it means to "cancel" a
flight. Earlier this week I returned from Mackinac Island Michigan to my
home base in Western Pennsylvania with a stop in Eastern Ohio to drop off a
passenger. There were thunderstorms enroute over the Great Lakes but I was
able to use my radar/spherics/datalink to reroute myself about 50 miles out
of the way on the first leg, thus completing the segment to Ohio by about
2PM. Yet by the time I was ready to complete the final 100-mile segment
home there were storms building enroute and near by destination as the
trailing edge of a frontal system. I "canceled" the flight until the
following AM, although I suppose I could have just "delayed" it until 11PM
when the storms had cleared -- clearly departing in the afternoon was not an
option because it turned out that a group of cells was right over my
departure airport between 6PM and 9PM.

So I think in part it depends on our definition of "cancelling" a flight.
If I lived in Florida and never "scheduled" a flight from 2PM to 8PM, then I
guess I might never "cancel" a flight in Florida.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> Do you think this is a function of the weather patterns in our geographic
> areas (i.e. scattered airmass storms vs. frontal storms)?

No, although of course I can't rule that out.

> In other words, if you were to move to Pennsylvania do you think you would
> retain more or less the same summer utilization of your airplane?

So far my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that I would. I
have flown around frontal systems in the Midwest and Northeast and I
have not been surprised.

Getting the feel of what I could and could not do wasn't something
that happened all at once. In Texas (and much of the Gulf Coast) we
get airmass thunderstorms on an almost daily basis for half the year.
Of course we also get frontal activity. I used to stay away from
frontal activity, but over time, working closer and closer to it, I've
found where the limits are.

I think the fear of getting boxed in by T-storms is somewhat akin to
the fear of getting trapped by a widespread region of freezing rain -
not unfounded, but somewhat overblown. The only way to really get
trapped is (1) to have a whole bunch of new, very closely spaced cells
form too quickly to escape or land or (2) fly between two long lines
that squeeze you in faster than you can escape or land. Since the
Stormscope provides a good indication on general static discharge
activity (not just cells) and visual contact (in my experience 85% of
an IFR flight in such conditions will be flown in the clear) with
developing clouds provides information on vertical development, you
really have to ignore what's going on around you to get trapped. I
also can't really think of any accidents within recent memory where a
spherics-equipped airplane was trapped that way.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>

> So far my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that I would. I
> have flown around frontal systems in the Midwest and Northeast and I
> have not been surprised.

Does that mean you can fly almost all the time in the summer close to your
planned course with a minimal deviation?

Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to deviate by 50 miles? 100
miles? 200 miles?

Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to adjust your departure time by
an hour? 4 hours? 8 hours?

I think "cancellation" is a relative term.

As a general rule I find I can make most summer trips if I am willing to
adjust my flight plan either by 200 miles or by 8 hours. That generally
means I just about never cancel a long-distance family vacation trip (only a
double Hurricane one caused me to do that), yet I will frequently cancel
same-day out-and-back business trips.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to deviate by 50 miles? 100
> miles? 200 miles?

I would say that 90% of the time, I deviate less than 50 miles (20
minutes or less as my plane flies) total. I have had to deviate over
100 miles. I've never had to deviate 200.

> Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to adjust your departure time by
> an hour? 4 hours? 8 hours?

I think the longest I've ever had to adjust was close to two hours (I
won't launch into conditions I think nothing of flying through because
options are so limited on takeoff) but adjustmentst of up to 30
minutes are common.

> As a general rule I find I can make most summer trips if I am willing to
> adjust my flight plan either by 200 miles or by 8 hours.

And that was more or less where I was when I started using spherics.
It's just that by sheer experience, I've learned to judge the weather
and the capability of the equipment more accurately than that.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote

> I think the longest I've ever had to adjust was close to two hours (I
> won't launch into conditions I think nothing of flying through because
> options are so limited on takeoff) but adjustmentst of up to 30
> minutes are common.

OK so suppose you are traveling due West on a 160 nm trip from Pittsburgh PA
to Columbus OH and in between there is an occluded cold front with a 250
mile vertical line of thunderstorms associated with the front. The line of
storms includes level 3 through 5 cells and the largest break in precip
would be a circuitous path at times only 15 miles wide.

I presume you are saying you would penetrate this line based on the areas
where spherics show the least activity. Yet not all storm areas with hail
or severe turbulence will show up on spherics, not to mention that the holes
between the storms could easily close. I am not sure how I could
comfortably do this trip even with multiple sources of information, i.e.
spherics plus radar plus datalink, plus the ability to fly in the lower
flight levels up to FL230.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> OK so suppose you are traveling due West on a 160 nm trip from Pittsburgh PA
> to Columbus OH and in between there is an occluded cold front with a 250
> mile vertical line of thunderstorms associated with the front. The line of
> storms includes level 3 through 5 cells and the largest break in precip
> would be a circuitous path at times only 15 miles wide.

Well, that would be the day I would need up to a 125 nm deviation, now
wouldn't it? How often does this actually happen?

And no, spherics alone would not cut it for that kind of penetration.
In fact, in my entire flying career, I've only encountered similar
situations three times. Twice I followed another (RADAR equipped)
aircraft while also getting RADAR assistance from approach control.
In both cases, I had been maintaining a steady watch on what the
weather was doing and was confident that it wasn't going to get much
worse in the few minutes the penetration would require. The other
time this wasn't an option. Remember the one time I needed a
deviation in excess of 100 nm? Well, that was it. To be honest, I
don't even think of it as a deviation if it only adds 30 minutes to my
trip. After all, car trips and airline flights are routinely delayed
that much.

Usually, my trips are significantly longer than 160 nm (if that was
typical for me, my airplane would be overkill) and so the deviations
are less significant. Also, having my course line directly
perpendicular to the front, while not particularly rare, is still a
minority of cases.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>

> Well, that would be the day I would need up to a 125 nm deviation, now
> wouldn't it? How often does this actually happen?

I would say this happens about weekly in the spring or summer, sometimes
twice weekly. It is not rare at all.

Your comments about rarely flying 160nm trips are quite relevant and may
explain a difference in our perceptions -- in the Northeast it is not at all
uncommon for a 160nm trip to be 1 hour flying in a 160 knot airplane or 5
hours driving in a car due to traffic issues... granted that is not the case
for the trip from Pittsburgh to Columbus but in the NYC-Boston-DC corridor
this is quite possible. While such short trips can be extremely
convenient uses of an airplane when weather cooperates, you are correct that
there are lots fewer practical deviation options on such a short trip. This
may well be a big difference between general aviation in the Northeast vs.
in Texas.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> While such short trips can be extremely
> convenient uses of an airplane when weather cooperates, you are correct that
> there are lots fewer practical deviation options on such a short trip. This
> may well be a big difference between general aviation in the Northeast vs.
> in Texas.

I suspect you are right. There are few meaningful destinations within
160 nm of Houston - even Dallas, which is right next door by Texas
standards, is significantly farther away. My only recurring trip of
under 160 nm is Austin - it is also the trip that, proportionately,
gets the most delay time. It's a 45 minute trip for me in good
weather; in bad weather it's not particularly rare for it to take
twice that due to deviations/delays. On the other hand, it's still
over two hours by car, and that's if I'm willing to speed a lot.

Certainly deviations/delays for weather have a proportionally bigger
impact on short trips - to the point where it may not be worth it. Of
course as a result, you get less experience optimizing your deviation,
and that makes the deviation even bigger.

Michael

Cessna 182s vary in their susceptibility to carb ice.
A friend of mine didn't have much trouble until he
had a carb float AD complied with. Since then he has
had a number of character building experiences.

My 182 is the previous model year (64) and I have not
had an obvious in flight carb ice encounter. N2469R
has a carb temp meter so it's possible I've headed off
a few encounters by timely application of heat.

The meter shows an increase in carb temp when approaching
landing with the cowl flaps closed.

As for airframe ice, an ex-Cirrus salesman thinks the
Cirrus with TKS is worse for ice than a stock Skylane.
Apparently it takes much more ice to bring down a Skylane
than a Cirrus.


--
Chuck Forsberg www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665

Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:

> As for airframe ice, an ex-Cirrus salesman thinks the
> Cirrus with TKS is worse for ice than a stock Skylane.
> Apparently it takes much more ice to bring down a Skylane
> than a Cirrus.

This is a great thread and I'm glad it came back up as it will be that
time of year soon.

The central issue is that ice distorts the shape of airfoils causing
them to behave in unpleasant ways. The more critical an airfoil is, the
less ice it takes to hurt its performance. This was illustrated most
dramatically by the recent string of accidents with the
Challenger-series jets which have power-to-weight ratios far in excess
of any GA plane. These appear to have involved amounts of ice that
would have simply made a 182 act piggy with their fat old non-laminar
wings. FWIW, the same comparison could be made between a 182 and a
Mooney.

Another thing I wonder about with the newer planes is their use of
cuffs and other sharp breaks on leading edges. It's known that ice
accumulation starts on smaller-radious objects and I can't help but
wonder whether these otherwise-useful features make the planes even
more susceptible to ice.

-cwk.

Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:

> Cessna 182s vary in their susceptibility to carb ice.
> A friend of mine didn't have much trouble until he
> had a carb float AD complied with. Since then he has
> had a number of character building experiences.
>
> My 182 is the previous model year (64) and I have not
> had an obvious in flight carb ice encounter. N2469R
> has a carb temp meter so it's possible I've headed off
> a few encounters by timely application of heat.
>
> The meter shows an increase in carb temp when approaching
> landing with the cowl flaps closed.
>
> As for airframe ice, an ex-Cirrus salesman thinks the
> Cirrus with TKS is worse for ice than a stock Skylane.
> Apparently it takes much more ice to bring down a Skylane
> than a Cirrus.

I don't know how much airframe ice it takes to bring down a Skylane, but
I had the unfortunate experience of finding out that a Skylane will
carry 2" of ice on the leading edge and pitot tube and who knows how
much on the windshield and still fly just fine. It flew a little slowly
as I had to use 24 square to maintain level flight at 9,000 feet and top
of the white arc (110 MPH on my '67 if memory serves), but it handled
just fine. Sure made a racket when I descended into warm air on the
approach. Fortunately, no damage to the tail.


Matt