Issues around de-ice on a 182

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.

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

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

I'd be interested to read your go/no go parameters. What kinds of
summer conditions keep you on the ground?

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.

Often that means if I have a 1-day business trip returning in late
afternoon, I drive intead of flying because it isn't worth the worry/risk
that the afternoon storms will be too difficult to penetrate.

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.

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

That would keep me grounded much of the summer down here if I were very
picky about the definition of "scattered." Using satellite NEXRAD
requires me to be much more discriminating about the nature of the
storms. Are they numerous but developing and moving slowly? In that
case I might go if I "need" to (Angel Flight) and I see a route with
plenty of outs available. Are they popping up everywhere and moving
fast? No go. Sometimes the pattern of development is very obvious --
sea breeze storms, for instance -- and the NEXRAD will keep me assured
after takeoff that the route I've chosen is still good.

or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms.

That's what stopped us short of Jackson, MS. The pilot of the next leg
had to drive out to Laurel in his car and pick up the patient, drive her
back to Jackson and wait for the line to pass.

Often that means if I have a 1-day business trip returning
in late afternoon, I drive intead of flying because it isn't
worth the worry/risk that the afternoon storms will be too
difficult to penetrate.

Yeah, I used to cancel a lot of business flights to Dothan for just that
reason. I haven't since I got the weather link, though.

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.

Don't get me wrong, thunderstorms still scare the crap out of me. It's
just that now I know where they are and what they're doing: it was the
fear of flying blind that used to keep me on the ground a lot more
often.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

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 =---

Dan Luke wrote:

Don't get me wrong, thunderstorms still scare the crap out of me. It's
just that now I know where they are and what they're doing: it was the
fear of flying blind that used to keep me on the ground a lot more
often.

All our aircraft (including the 182s subject to the potential addition of
de-ice) have strikefinders. However, one of the options I'd entertain as
an alternative to the de-ice is weather download.

- Andrew

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

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

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

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"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

That would keep me grounded much of the summer down here if I were very
picky about the definition of "scattered."

Out west (I've only flown twice east of the Mississippi in 15 years flying)
it means leaving at sunrise and being back before about 3:00PM.