Issues around de-ice on a 182

(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

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

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

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

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 =---

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)