Issues around de-ice on a 182

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

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
[...]
Why is what I am doing unwise?

To me, the difference is between "what could be" and "what is". In
particular, icing is not present with such great frequency even when icing
has been forecast, that it's simply impractical to cancel a flight solely
because of such a forecast. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of the
boy who cried wolf.

On the other hand, once you've got a pilot report of icing, you've confirmed
the icing forecast, and changed the statistical odds of running into a
problem by a significant amount, since you've reduced the set of
possibilities to the small subset of "forecast icing" that includes actual
icing going on.

In any case, more power to you if you feel that's a fine approach. I have
even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still
makes sense. That is, TKS (and other light piston GA de-ice systems) is for
getting you out of icing that you didn't expect, not for flying into icing
you know is there.

You disagree, which is your right. We will simply have to "agree to
disagree".

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

On the other hand, once you've got a pilot report of icing, you've
confirmed
the icing forecast, and changed the statistical odds of running into a
problem by a significant amount, since you've reduced the set of


Actually Peter, pilot reports of icing are unreliable because ice can be 100
feet thick or 3,000 feet thick and can be 1 mile in length or 100 miles in
length. The fact that someone did or did not get ice 10 minutes ago 10
miles from where you plan to fly is not a reliable way to make a decision.
Your plane is not certified for flight into known icing conditions - that
means not into reported icing and it also means not into forecast icing
conditions. Yes, you are right that makes a non-known-ice impractical for
cross-country winter flight; rationalizing this away does not change the
facts. Lots of people have died due to the rationalization under which you
fly.

In any case, more power to you if you feel that's a fine approach. I have
even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still

Can you put me in touch with him please so I can understand his reasoning?

I say again --- people have died many times doing what you are doing. Yet
there is not a single accident -- fatal or otherwise -- I am aware of from
someone doing what I do. Please either correct my facts or explain to me
why this is not valid comparison of our relative risks.



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

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
icing conditions. His opinion made sense to me at the time, and it still

Perhaps we are confusing the distinction between flying THROUGH icing
conditions (i.e. taking off and climbing through icing to get on top at
15,000 feet, which I do regularly) vs. flying IN icing conditions (i.e.
staying in an icing layer, which I do not do)?


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

www.flyimc.com

Peter Duniho wrote:

I have
even had the local Mooney salesman tell me that the TKS system, even if
approved for known ice, should not be used to actually fly into reported
icing conditions.

Are Mooneys able to be equipped with TKS at the factory? If not,
I would be suspicious of this salesperson's opinion, given that Cirrus
does have this option.

--
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
...

Peter Duniho wrote:

Are Mooneys able to be equipped with TKS at the factory? If not,
I would be suspicious of this salesperson's opinion, given that Cirrus
does have this option.

Yes, factory TKS known-ice has been offered on Mooneys since the mid-80s.

Cirrus, that is an interesting situation. Cirrus has a non-known-ice
TKS system with minimal endurance (about 1 hour), no airframe icing testing,
and no windshield deice. Clearly that is a system for emergencies only.
The Cirrus salesman I spoke with at Oshkosh last year told me it was
"certified for inadvertent icing" which I stated does not exist... all it
means is that the equipment was approved on a "does no harm" basis, i.e. you
could get a CD player "certified" for the same purpose. That is one reason
among others why I am skeptical of whatever information a Mooney salesman
may have provided; airplane salesmen are not necessarily an authority on
technical aspects of their airplanes. This is particularly concerning given
that Cirrus is promoted as such as "safe" airplane for new cross-country
pilots -- never mind that weather accidents are a key issue in aviation
safety, yet there is apparently no plan to make the Cirrus known-ice
approved and until very recently Cirrus airplanes were not sold with weather
datalink -- so much for an emphasis on safety.

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

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:

Cirrus, that is an interesting situation. Cirrus has a non-known-ice
TKS system with minimal endurance (about 1 hour), no airframe icing
testing,
and no windshield deice. Clearly that is a system for emergencies only.

FWIW, the system that is supposed to become available later this year for
182s - the system we're considering, which is why I started this thread -
will last for about three hours and does have windscreen protection.

How *well* it does all this, of course, I cannot say.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...


FWIW, the system that is supposed to become available later this year for
182s - the system we're considering, which is why I started this thread -
will last for about three hours and does have windscreen protection.

That is a much tougher call with the C182 than the Cirrus.

First off, if the C182 system is not known-ice then it is not legal to use
in either forecast or reported icing.

That said, history shows that in reality lots of C182 pilots do fly in ice,
that the C182 is generally a docile enough and overpowered enough airplane
that it handles ice well, but that occasionally pilots push this too far and
get into icing accidents in a C182 which would almost for sure be less
likely with TKS.

In other words, legally the C182 is in the same class as the Cirrus but
years of informal "testing" by C182 pilots has shown that the airframe does
not have any nasty handling characteristics in ice, nor does it seem
particularly prone to induction or fuel vent icing.

So TKS in a C182 will almost for sure help to make flights which are not
legal but which nonetheless have been happening all the time in C182s for
many years. I guess it's sort of like asking your doctor what cigarette is
safest -- he should tell you to not smoke at all, yet if you are going to
smoke anyway then you ought to minimize the risk. And legalities aside I
have no doubt that TKS on a C182 with a 3-hour endurance would improve the
risk considerably.

By the way, I presume the TKS on the C182 will be on the prop as well as the
airframe. I rarely if ever use the windshield deice on my plane since
enough fluid sprays off the prop to clear the windshield in most cases;
that's a good thing because the windshield spraybar is only on the pilot
side so it doesn't help me when I am instructing.


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

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:

First off, if the C182 system is not known-ice then it is not legal to use
in either forecast or reported icing.

Hmm...based upon what are you making this statement? Note that I'm not
speaking of "wise" or "smart", but merely "legal".

I did some checking, and the only FAR I could find in part 91 that discussed
this was 500-something and applicable only to turbines and such. I didn't
find anything that spoke specifically of flight of an "unprotected" piston
aircraft into icing.

That said, history shows that in reality lots of C182 pilots do fly in
ice, that the C182 is generally a docile enough and overpowered enough
airplane that it handles ice well, but that occasionally pilots push this
too far and get into icing accidents in a C182 which would almost for sure
be less likely with TKS.

What do you mean by "overpowered"? I hope that this isn't related to the
myth "a 182 can carry what it can hold", as this just isn't true. Shove
four real adults in, and you cannot carry full fuel.

[Of course, "full fuel" is 88 gallons usable, so ...]

In other words, legally the C182 is in the same class as the Cirrus but
years of informal "testing" by C182 pilots has shown that the airframe
does not have any nasty handling characteristics in ice, nor does it seem
particularly prone to induction or fuel vent icing.

Our 182Q is quite prone to carb icing, if that's what you mean by induction.
Apparently, this is because of the location of the carburator, which is
because of the space consumed by the Continental as opposed to the Lycoming
on other 182 versions (at least, this is what I've been told).


So TKS in a C182 will almost for sure help to make flights which are not
legal but which nonetheless have been happening all the time in C182s for
many years. I guess it's sort of like asking your doctor what cigarette
is safest

Laugh!

[...]

By the way, I presume the TKS on the C182 will be on the prop as well as
the
airframe. I rarely if ever use the windshield deice on my plane since
enough fluid sprays off the prop to clear the windshield in most cases;
that's a good thing because the windshield spraybar is only on the pilot
side so it doesn't help me when I am instructing.

I don't have my notes with me, but I believe it weeps onto the prop,
pilot-side windscreen, and leading edges of wings and elevators.

- Andrew

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
[...] That is one reason
among others why I am skeptical of whatever information a Mooney salesman
may have provided; airplane salesmen are not necessarily an authority on
technical aspects of their airplanes.

I didn't mention the "salesman" characteristic in way of certifying his
knowledge; it was simply a descriptive "one pilot I know" to provide
context. He's a pilot who (presumably) has flown TKS-equipped airplanes,
and since he's based around here, I have to assume he did so in icing
conditions (forecast at least, probably actual).

Anyway, I'm not going to "out" a disinterested third party in a public
newsgroup. I'll send what little contact information I have to you in
email. You can feel free to contact him; just don't be surprised if he
sells you a Mooney (or worse, an Extra 500).

Pete