Issues around de-ice on a 182

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