Just out of curiosity, if the system works well, what is the added value of
being "known ice" certified? The only thing I can think of is, if you get
into an accident, they could say "you flew into known icing without being
equipped, blah blah." But if the scuttlebutt that TKS works better than
boots is to be believed (plausible, certainly) then odds are that you would
still have gotten into the accident with boots, and the FAA could still say,
"you should have gotten out of there the minute you realized how bad the ice
was" and ding you anyway.

Now I can understand the downside of a system like that on the Cirrus which
has only a 30-minute reservoir for the de-icing fluid, but if you have a
4-hour tank, then why should you really care? Up here in the Northeast in
the winter everybody files to fly through areas of known ice in planes that
can't be equipped for it (e.g. a Skyhawk) and unless you end up in an
emergency nobody appears to care, it's caveat aviator all the way.

And in any case, a non-known-ice TKS system would be a meaningful
improvement over his old 310 with nothing, at least until you run out of
juice.

-cwk.

"Peter MacPherson" wrote in message
newsHACd.848205$8_6.586133@attbi_s04...
Their website shows that at least the Baron, 210 and Caravan can
be certified for known ice. There's probably others.

http://www.flightice.com/contact.html



"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are always
troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small amount
of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid all
the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
installations.

Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last time
I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup is
non-existent and way better than boots.