Issues around de-ice on a 182

Andrew Gideon wrote:

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 read of a legal opinion issued by the FAA a year or two ago to the effect that
forecast icing is "known icing". An article in AOPA Pilot (link below) states that
91.527 forbids flight into forecast icing without "known ice" capability and at seems
to state that it applies to all aircraft. You might ask the author this question.

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...fm?article=772

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...fm?article=772

It looks like the author is referring to others saying that 91.527 prohibits
flight into known icing. That is, I don't think he's making the claim
himself. Then again, he does write (at the end) "earning this
certification makes it legal for you to fly in icing conditions...".

Hmm. Any ideas how to contact an author (esp. from several years ago)?

But I'd love to read the legal opinion you've mentioned. Redefining
"forecast icing" as "known icing" is pretty...abusive of the English
language, all other factors aside. But I'm especially interested in
whether this explicitly mentions part 91 outside of the applicability of
subpart F (ie. turbine multis and fractionals).

I'm sure that, should they want to, the FAA could cite a pilot flying into
"known icing" (however they choose to define this {8^) for violating 91.13.
Still, I'm surprised that there's nothing more specific (esp. since there
*is* something this specific in subpart F).

Or am I just missing it?

- Andrew

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

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

If your airplane is new enough to have a POH then it will also be placarded
to say flight into known icing is prohibited and violating an airplane
limitation is illegal.

If your airplane is old enough not to be placarded against flight into known
icing conditions, then you are right that strictly speaking it is not
illegal to fly it in icing conditions.

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.


The point is that a C182 carries way more useful load than most 4-place
airplanes. At typical loadings a C182 does not have nearly the same
problems with density altitude as say a C152.

Our 182Q is quite prone to carb icing, if that's what you mean by
induction.

No, I mean icing which stops air intake into the engine's induction system.
Even a fuel injected airplane without a carburetor can get induction icing;
on my P210 there is a door which automatically opens to provide an alternate
source of air to the engine if the main intake is clogged, although this
causes a big reduction in power, typically 8-10 inches.

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.

That's the basics. A "known ice" TKS system would in addition have a high
capacity pitot tube, heated stall warning, dual alternators, and dual TKS
pumps, as well as in-flight icing tests during the STC approval process.


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

www.flyimc.com

(Richard Kaplan) wrote in message . com...
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When
pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have
well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer
thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival
Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of
20 drove instead of flying.

Wow. I fly in California over teh Sierras and northern Cal. You are
almost guaranteed to get TS in the afternoon but they always seem easy
to go around. I've never had to cancel a summer afternoon flight
because of TS.

"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

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Hmm. Any ideas how to contact an author (esp. from several years ago)?

That particular author is tom dot horne at aopa dot org.

But I'd love to read the legal opinion you've mentioned.

A little more searching turned up this article.

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...m?article=1131

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Richard:

Most of the detractors have simply had no personal experience with TKS, and
do not know how well it works. At best, their "knowledge" is based on rumor
or hearsay.

On the other hand, given an opportunity to actually fly in an airplane with
a system installed it immediately becomes apparent how useful it actually
is. It has dramatically increased my ability to fly in the icing season
(October through June), and has also has decreased my anxiety level when
flight planning during the winter.

It has any other combination of boots, hot props, alcohol props, hot
windshields, etc beat hands down. On our small airport we have a P210,
turbine Bonanza, V35 Bonanza, and my Baron all equipped with TKS and we all
remain enthusiastic about how great it works.

Unless someone has actually flown a TKS equipped plane in icing conditions
they simply are not capable of making a rational comparison.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...


Unless someone has actually flown a TKS equipped plane in icing
conditions
they simply are not capable of making a rational comparison.

I agree completely... TKS is one of the most under-appreciated mods to an
airplane.

In part I think this is because people want to rationalize flying their
airplanes in the winter and it is tough to acknowledge, for example, that a
1980s steam gauge Mooney with TKS is a much more capable IFR airplane than
a brand new $350K Cirrus.. but it's the truth.


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

www.flyimc.com

Robert M. Gary wrote:
(Richard Kaplan) wrote in message . com...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When
pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have
well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer
thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival
Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of
20 drove instead of flying.


Wow. I fly in California over teh Sierras and northern Cal. You are
almost guaranteed to get TS in the afternoon but they always seem easy
to go around. I've never had to cancel a summer afternoon flight
because of TS.

If you fly in the eastern US for long, you will. TS can be embedded in the
widespread overcast, you can't see `em. Just another manifestation of the
apparently huge differences in weather patterns between E and W US. I've come to
feel I understand summertime weather pretty well, but of course I haven't done
any flying out west, and I suppose it's completely different.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...m?article=1131


Yikes!

We don't find the definition of the words "known" and "icing" convenient, so
- rather than having rules changed - we'll just redefine the words.

Thanks for pointing me at this. I cannot say that I enjoyed reading it, but
I'm glad I read it.

- Andrew