Just prop deice... why?

[2Donkeys]

I presume you have some knowledge of the TB20

I think I can probably hold my own.

[bpilatus]

I quite agree about rime although in time it can accumulate and become an issue. Even a light spread of rime (I appreciate this may be contrary to that posted above) will have an adverse effect on performance. A decent dose of clear ice will have dramatic effects on performance. Ice can restrict the movement of control surfaces with obvious consequences, to continue flight into clear icing conditions is suicidal.

[2Donkeys]

We are in complete agreement.

Clear ice can be a serious problem even on de-iced aircraft because of its habit of running back and forming out of reach of de-icing equipment.

[S-Works]

so in the same vain that means nothing but a de-iced aircraft can enter cloud in the UK as EVERY 215 carries an ice warning..........

I think the barrack room lawyers might be getting a bit silly now.

[2Donkeys]

From an FAA standpoint, it is true that where ice is forecast, known icing is deemed to exist. As a result, to fly a route involving such forecast conditions in an aircract without known-icing certification places you in violation.

If you fly an N-reg in the UK on the strength of an FAA pilot certificate, then you face the largely theoretical risk of having your certificate suspended (not "pulled") for flight into such forecast conditions. This does make the wording on our 215s problematic.

Fortunately, few people voluntarily fly into icing conditions that are likely to raise their profile sufficiently to merit any regulatory action. Of those that do, few live to endure the wrath of the regulator.

2D

[IO540]

Sticking to barrack room law chat for the moment

"If you fly an N-reg in the UK on the strength of an FAA pilot certificate"

a) quite a lot of FAA IR holders also have a valid UK IMCR, so provided they are below Class A they can fly IFR (in IMC as applicable) in UK airspace on their UK license, and

b) on a typical IFR flight to another country, it is not unusual to remain below Class A, or even OCAS entirely, when within UK airspace (for simplicity of routing), and once outside the UK (when any IFR flight will be on the FAA IR privileges) the "known ice" argument comes down to whatever weather forecasting service(s) are applicable to the airspace one happens to be passing through, and what they say about icing...

Weather forecasting services are like the old joke about British Standards - there are so many to choose from

[slim_slag]

2D,

I see this forum as a virtual hangar where 99% of the stuff is just hangar talk, and in all the hangars I've spouted b-sh1t in, 'pulled' means the big bad nasty regulator gets to take your privileges away. So yep, it can be called suspended too

Aren't most regulations theoretical until the time you get caught? If you look at the judgements in the cases I cited, it's very clear that 'those who enforce these regulations' consider flight into possible icing as a very serious safety risk. There isn't a FAR which specifically covers this, and these people got busted under 'careless and reckless'. I think it's sensible to take this as more that theoretical. First because the NTSB undoubtedly know more than me about safety and they say it's unsafe, and less importantly they can suspend my certificate, and then it's going to be a pain telling that to my insurance company.

Cheers

IO540,

You are still in an N-reg. I know you really don't like it, but the rules apply to you.

[2Donkeys]

Slim_slag, I hate to give the impression of beating you up on these threads, but when you say

There isn't a FAR which specifically covers this

would I be right in assuming that you have overlooked 91.527?

On the "pulled" point, I was attempting to make a subtle distinction between revoked and suspended. There are relatively few things you can do which give the FAA the right to revoke your licence, and many which may lead to a suspension. "Pulled" didn't quite cover that subtlety for me.

2D

[IO540]

"You are still in an N-reg"

Yes, quite true. However, I will probably be below the 0C level while in UK airspace.

Just illustrating that this isn't cut and dried, SS. How much do you know about which weather forecasting services apply to different countries around Europe?

I happen to read a lot of debates in U.S. pilot newsgroups (where there are a lot more active IFR pilots than here) and they too are concerned about "icing" AIRMETs that cover large sections of the USA - a situation as patently divorced from reality as the UK F215 one.

[slim_slag]

2D,

I don't think you are beating me up, we may be having a debate but I don't think either are beating the other one up. That is definitely not my intent.

That FAR you quote, 91.527, (Subpart F) only relates to Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft. Although there may be pretend airline pilots around these parts, we are talking about little planes here which are not certfied for flight into known ice

They will bust you on 91.13 (careless and reckless), and in my opinion for very good reason. Is the plane placarded against this, there is another reg.

[2Donkeys]

Slimslag

I just wanted to test your assertion that no FARs cover operation in icing conditions.

So far as taking action against light aircraft is concerned, the FAR normally invoked is 91.9(a).

2D

[High Wing Drifter]

On the subject of TBs and Icing:

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic....highlight=tb20

[slim_slag]

2D,
I never asserted that 'there are no FARs that cover icing operations'. To use your word, I asserted that 'There isn't a FAR which specifically covers this' and as we are discussing a TB20, I humbly submit that I am correct. But enough bickering, lets get back to beating each other up

You can only use 91.9(a) if the placard exists, which is why I asked the quesion. I'd have to look it up but that regulation only came in during the 1960s? I guess it was a stupid question as your plane will have been built since then.

As for which FAR they will use, I think they will use 91.13, I say that because they have (PDF) Administor vs Boger

Also Administrator vs Grozer where they used 91.13 as well as 91.9 (or the equivalents at the time)

Cheers

[DFC]

IO540's argument about the UK forecast charts has some merit and I agee with him that the checking of the weather pre-flight should not be simply confined to asingle source.

The UK charts issued by the met office have a big "disclaimer" for want of a better description that causes most of these problems. These "disclaimers" are more about covering the met office by stating the rather obvious than providing usefull services.

"Cloud on hills. Moderate ice and moderate turbulence in cloud" Is far too general to be usefull.

To say that IO540 would have his nice new IR suspended/revoked for executing an IFR flight in cloud with such an "icing forecast" would be like saying that IO540 should have the IR revoked/suspended for flying in cloud that contains large amounts of mountain. The authorities would have to take a closer look at all the available information (just like IO540 does pre-flight).

However, to pick up on 1 item - using an IMC rating on an N reg aircraft - not possible to fly IFR on an N reg with an IMC rating because the regulations require the pilot to comply with the FARs or local regulations whichever are the more restrictive and the FARs require an IR for IFR flight. Not to mention that the FAA would take a very dim view of a pilot using foreign national non-icao paperwork to circumvent requiremrents put in place for safety.

What single engine aircraft are certified for flight in icing conditions? (That means a flight manual allowing flight in light ising conditions or worse - not simply manufacturer promotional info / optional equipment)?

Finally, it is very reasonable to be in a situation where one plans and flys an IFR flight but plans to and does remain clear of cloud (icing being one very good reason) for that another being CB activity but no weather radar. Example - climb clear of cloud, cruise at FL65 with could tops at FL60 - most definitely not VMC and not VFR and then visual descent to destination.

However, regardless of what has been said, icing of any sort is a killer and no one in their right mind would intentionally fly in icing conditions regardless of equipment if there was an alternative (which may be stay on the ground).

Regards,

DFC

[2Donkeys]

DFC

I agree with the principle that the 215 alone is problematic (I have put it no more strongly than that). To the extent that the 215 forecasts icing in any and all cloud, if your cruising level involves flight in cloud you have a potential problem.

The FAA enforcement system, like our own works on the basis of challenge (often, but not exclusively after an event). If you are challenged, the onus will be on you as the Commander to demonstrate which sources of weather you placed reliance on, and why they were sufficiently persuasive to allow you to disregard the blanket nature of (in this instance) the 215.

Certain forms of report (such as PIREP) have been tested in court many times and found not to be of sufficient value to overturn a forecast. Other, better forecasts from different sources (Frankfurt is good), seem to me to offer a much better defense.

The statement on the 215 is a thorn in the side of the FAA IFR Flyer, but to put it any stronger than that would be a mistake in my view.

2D

[slim_slag]

The piper mirage is single engine piston with known ice certification.

Found this Avweb Article Read it and make your own minds up what is and isn't 'problematic' Cheers

[IO540]

"using an IMC rating on an N reg aircraft - not possible to fly IFR on an N reg with an IMC rating because the regulations require the pilot to comply with the FARs or local regulations whichever are the more restrictive and the FARs require an IR for IFR flight"

DFC, this one has been thoroughly checked out (done to death, in fact) and fortunately you are incorrect. The IMCR privileges are valid in an N-reg.

Getting back to icing, the UK Form 215 "forecasts" icing in all cloud (i.e. regardless of temperature) which is patently daft as it prohibits all flight in IMC unless the aircraft is K-I certified ... think about that one

Just how anally retentive can one get? I know this is aviation, where there are more anally retentive people than in any other human endeavour (endeavor if in the USA) but this really is going a bit far.

[Send Clowns]

Having recently flown a lot in cloud, much of it below zero, over the last couple of months I can categorically state that icing is unpredictable, at least with the info available to us, so until you are there, or someone else has reported icing, then known icing (using the words as common language, rather than a legal definition) cannot exist.

I have encountered icing, not a problem since the aircraft is cleared for flight in known icing and the deicing systems functioned to keep the aircraft flying efficiently, but only on about half of the occasions I have been in cloud at below zero. In most of those cases the airframe icing did no more than slow me down by about 5 or 10 kts (I never allow prop icing to occur, but with boots I have to let the surface ice accrete). I have used the boots to recover performance, not because it was vital to flight safety. There has been one occasion when the icing would have been a hazard had I not used the deicing kit, and then if I'd have called an emergency London would have let me climb the 500 feet I needed to clear the cloud.

One thing I would say is if you are picking up icing don't use the autopilot! You need to know how the aircraft feels.

I would say then that anti-iced props are useful on their own. I would not like to fly with an assymetric prop, let alone two!

[High Wing Drifter]

Does anybody know why the (or is it a particular model) Beech Baron is not certified for icing, even though it has wing and prop de-ice?

[bpilatus]

Because like virtually all other light machines the equipment is (very) limited in its usefulness.