Known icing - how realistic is it?

Anyone who flys a lightplane into known icing is just plain nuts. If
you had seen what I have, no one would disagree.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Anyone who flys a lightplane into known icing is just plain nuts. If
you had seen what I have, no one would disagree.

Ever heard of "Certified for flight into know icing.."?

john szpara wrote in
news:17ebe6f0cd78583fff0cd4ba6b8f1f9c@TeraNews:

Since I plan to get my instrument rating (likely before I purchase a
plane, or immediately after), I'd like to have known ice capability,
but how realistic is it in a single engine plane (or even a light
twin)? Since this is a factor in my decision, I need some advice from
experienced pilots.

One thing you don't say... where you live and where you are likely to
spend most of your winter flying.

As you probably know, **NO** plane can survive icing if it gets bad
enough. That's true for a Cessna 152 and it's true for a DC-10. It's
all about time and options. [And yes, the DC-10 has a LOT more of both.
G]

A big part of those options involve POWER, and raw power is a real nice
thing to have when the rain starts sticking. But, as has been
mentioned, piston singles don't have a tremendous excess. So even one
certified for flight into known ice should be considered as a means of
getting OUT of that icing if it's anything more than extremely light.

Unfortunately, in a typical lawyer CYA movement a few years ago, the FAA
redefined "known ice" to mean known icing *conditions* - i.e. if there
is moisture and it's chilly, then an airmet will blanket the entire area
(which could be most of the USA), no matter whether there is actually
any ice or not. This has led to widespread disregard for the warning,
with probably a *decline* in safety. Still, aircraft obviously aren't
"falling out of the sky" at an alarming rate due to ice.

One reason why de-ice equipment is so popular on T-210's is that they
like to fly high to get the speed. That means they see ice more of the
year than someone slogging along below in a Warrior. But regardless of
certification (and some are and some aren't), it's still just buying
time to get out of all but the lightest accumulations.

Is it worth the cost? [And it will involve upkeep, as well as initial
cost.] Depends. Down here in the southern half of the US, I see ice
that I didn't expect maybe a couple of times a year. And I don't
believe there have been ANY flights that the ice caused me to be unable
to complete the flight - I just changed altitudes or went around. But
there have been flights that I didn't take because the probability of
significant ice was more than I liked, or there wasn't any good "out" if
there was ice. De-ice equipment just wouldn't be worth it.

If I lived in Montana, though (instead of Austin TX where it was 108
yesterday) I might feel differently.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

On 7-Aug-2003, Mike wrote:

Anyone who flys a lightplane into known icing is just plain nuts. If
you had seen what I have, no one would disagree.


Flying light airplanes in the Pacific Northwest over the part 34 years,
often IFR, I have had more than my share of icing experiences. In virtually
all cases, with slow buildup of rime or mixed ice, suitable deice equipment
would have turned anxious moments of elevated risk into pretty much
non-events. Deice would have also allowed me to make a number of flights
that I scrubbed because the risk of unavoidable icing was just too great.

I don't think that having deice would significantly alter my strategy, which
is to get out of the icing as quickly as possible, but it would sure give me
greater peace of mind, and many more options,while doing so. Unfortunately,
I am not in a position to be able to afford an airplane with any sort of
deice capability.

-Elliott Drucker