Issues around de-ice on a 182

"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 Duniho" wrote in message
...

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.

Does that include flight in a known-ice TKS airplane?

How do you know?

Have you ever tried it?

Have you ever talked to anyone who has?


--------------------
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

"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

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message ws.com...
"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.

Another difference is that known-ice requires that the engine still
run during ice encounter. A TKS system does not keep your fuel vents,
etc from freezing. One of the differences between the Mooney 201 and
231 (the 231 has known ice as an option) is the fuel venting.

-Robert

Peter R. wrote:

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.



I thought the biggest difference was legal, not functional. :-)

Matt

1) Inquire about cost of maintenance
2) Inquire about cost of TKS (usually sold in 5 gallon containers?)
3) Inquire about FBO's that stock TKS (always call ahead)
4) Where are you going to store extra TKS in the aircraft
5) Inquire about how to clean TKS from aircraft interior (when I was a
dispatcher for NetJets, I had a pilot call in and report that the aft
baggage compartment was thoroughly deiced. The TKS container cap had not
been secured prior to flight, had tipped over and sloshed around the
compartment).

I have a known ice installation on my B-55 Baron, and it works great. A twin
has the built-in redundancy of two electrical systems, and the other
requirements include a high heat pitot and stall warning vane, along with an
ice light. There are two pumps each for the windshield as well as the flying
surfaces.

It definitely increases the dispatch rate in the icing season, which in the
Midwest is from October through May (or longer). Several months ago I
encountered moderate ice over Michigan, and the commuters as well as other
GA aircraft were all calling looking for different altitudes. Luckily I was
able to descend out of the clouds, and the TKS completely protected all of
the flying surfaces. On landing, the nose, spinners, and even the landing
lights were covered with around 3/8ths inch of mixed ice, but the wings and
tail were fine.

I believe that most users would agree that TKS is superior to boots, hot
props, and alcohol for ice protection.

The downsides a the initial installation is expensive, but should last a
lifetime. It does not require routine maintenance and doesn't slow you down
like boots, and won't need replacement. A full tank takes away nearly 100
pounds of useful load, and the stuff is expensive. I recall a 55 gallon drum
costing around $450.00. I never take off in the winter unless the tank is
full, and also carry several extra jugs around for longer trips. I also
collect the overflow and use it in a garden sprayer or spray bottle to deice
the plane if I think I will encounter icing conditions shortly after take
off

It also makes a terrible slippery slimy mess on the hangar floor which lasts
forever. It will drip for several weeks after use, and this means doing a
pre-flight invariably will either get your back dripped on, or you will
kneel in the stuff on the floor or slip.

However, all things considered, it is the only way to go to get ice
protection in the winter. It is not a ticket to drone on for hours in
freezing precip, but it will get you through or away from an icing layer
safely. It has been a great investment and has certainly increased the
usefulness of he plane.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

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.

Without "known icing" certification, I don't think it buys you much at
all from utilization perspective. It is insurance if you get caught in
ice, but that is it. And if if DOES increase utilization it means that
you have pilots flying in conditions they likely shouldn't be in anyway.

And, I know from a hairy personal experience, a Skylane will carry a lot
of ice and still fly pretty well. I'd invest the money and weight into
something more useful.


Matt

I'll second the "fly pretty well" with a load of ice. I should not have
been there years ago.....but.......
Another second...My two cents...I don't believe a 182 should have the
TKS...might go when you shouldn't...

John N3DR


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gideon wrote:

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.

Without "known icing" certification, I don't think it buys you much at
all from utilization perspective. It is insurance if you get caught in
ice, but that is it. And if if DOES increase utilization it means that
you have pilots flying in conditions they likely shouldn't be in anyway.

And, I know from a hairy personal experience, a Skylane will carry a lot
of ice and still fly pretty well. I'd invest the money and weight into
something more useful.


Matt