Issues around de-ice on a 182

Andrew Gideon wrote in message gonline.com...

Is it the longer duration of the Mooney's [certified] TKS? Is it really
safe to continue in icing just because the TKS is known-ice certified, or
isn't that still asking for trouble?

One difference is that the Mooney has a longer TKS fluid duration.

Another difference is that a known-ice certified TKS system will have
redundant TKS pumps.

Another difference is that a known-ice certified airplane has been
flight tested in ice, including the engine induction and fuel venting
systems.

It is not a good idea to remain in icing conditions intentionally but
let me give an example when I might do so. If I were flying a booted
known-ice airplane on top of an overcast, when ATC started vectoring
me for an approach I would request a "slam dunk" type approach, e.g.
perhaps a localizer instead of an ILS. If I were flying a TKS
known-ice airplane and the TKS fluid were preventing all ice
accumulation on the airfoils, I might instead choose the more
stabilized ILS approach.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

(WIACapt) wrote in message ...

Messing around in ice with a light airplane even with tks is asking for
trouble. Sooner or later you'll run out, lose a line or pump, will you have a
way out?

Sure there is a way out... in the winter TKS fluid remains on the
wings for about 20-30 minutes and provides a passive de-icing effect
even with an inoperative TKS pump.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Andrew Gideon wrote in message gonline.com...

in Mooneys certified for known ice (presumably with a TKS, but that wasn't
clear to me). That seems unwise even for a known-ice certified aircraft.

Yes, he meant TKS -- TKS is the only known-ice system ever available
on a Mooney.


But I've no experience with Mooneys or known-ice certified aircraft, which
is why I'm asking.

To my knowledge, there has never been a single accident or incident
attributed to in-flight icing in a TKS known-ice airplane with a fully
operating and filled TKS tank on takeoff. Does anyone know of an
example to the contrary? If not, then it means the risk of an icing
accident in known or forecast light to moderate icing conditions in a
known-ice TKS airplane is less than the risk of an engine failure or
in-flight fire in day VFR conditions. That seems like a pretty
favorable risk profile to me.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
om...
Could it be that perhaps what he said is that he would not fly into
reported SEVERE icing with TKS?

It could be. What I'm clear on is his advice was that TKS is for getting
out of ice, not getting into it. That particular conversation happened
several years ago (as in, probably not this century), and the details are
certainly fuzzy. His advice in that case might have been restricted to
severe icing.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message

It could be. What I'm clear on is his advice was that TKS is for getting
out of ice, not getting into it. That particular conversation happened

Well it is very possible that he meant it is also OK to fly into reported
icing as long as one is climbing on top. The TKS is indeed getting me "out"
of ice in this situation. The opposite of getting "out" of ice may not be
getting "in" but rather "staying" in is what is dangerous.

This would be similar to my personal rule which is to not fly in icing
conditions if tops are higher than 15,000 feet. The purpose of TKS in that
situation is to get me "out" (or "through") the icing conditions to on-top.
That does not mean I won't enter reported icing conditions when I know I can
get on top.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"dennis brown" wrote in message
...


Anti ice or deice equipment on an airplane does not necessarily mean that
it
is certified for flight into
ice. Certifying installation of anti or deice equipment does not imply
certification for flight into ice.

In this thread we are specifically referring to TKS Mooneys and TKS Cessna
210s certified and placarded as "Approved for Flight into Known Icing
Conditions."


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

(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

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
Do you think this is a function of the weather patterns in our geographic
areas (i.e. scattered airmass storms vs. frontal storms)?

No, although of course I can't rule that out.

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?

So far my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that I would. I
have flown around frontal systems in the Midwest and Northeast and I
have not been surprised.

Getting the feel of what I could and could not do wasn't something
that happened all at once. In Texas (and much of the Gulf Coast) we
get airmass thunderstorms on an almost daily basis for half the year.
Of course we also get frontal activity. I used to stay away from
frontal activity, but over time, working closer and closer to it, I've
found where the limits are.

I think the fear of getting boxed in by T-storms is somewhat akin to
the fear of getting trapped by a widespread region of freezing rain -
not unfounded, but somewhat overblown. The only way to really get
trapped is (1) to have a whole bunch of new, very closely spaced cells
form too quickly to escape or land or (2) fly between two long lines
that squeeze you in faster than you can escape or land. Since the
Stormscope provides a good indication on general static discharge
activity (not just cells) and visual contact (in my experience 85% of
an IFR flight in such conditions will be flown in the clear) with
developing clouds provides information on vertical development, you
really have to ignore what's going on around you to get trapped. I
also can't really think of any accidents within recent memory where a
spherics-equipped airplane was trapped that way.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

So far my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that I would. I
have flown around frontal systems in the Midwest and Northeast and I
have not been surprised.

Does that mean you can fly almost all the time in the summer close to your
planned course with a minimal deviation?

Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to deviate by 50 miles? 100
miles? 200 miles?

Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to adjust your departure time by
an hour? 4 hours? 8 hours?

I think "cancellation" is a relative term.

As a general rule I find I can make most summer trips if I am willing to
adjust my flight plan either by 200 miles or by 8 hours. That generally
means I just about never cancel a long-distance family vacation trip (only a
double Hurricane one caused me to do that), yet I will frequently cancel
same-day out-and-back business trips.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com