EASA Part-NCO deals with icing in only one regulation:
NCO.OP.170 Ice and other contaminants – flight procedures
(a) The pilot-in-command shall only commence a flight or intentionally fly into expected or actual icing conditions if the aircraft is certified and equipped to cope with such conditions as referred to in 2.a.5 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.
(b) If icing exceeds the intensity of icing for which the aircraft is certified or if an aircraft not certified for flight in known icing conditions encounters icing, the pilot-in-command shall exit the icing conditions without delay, by a change of level and/or route, and if necessary by declaring an emergency to ATC.
GM1 NCO.OP.170(b) Ice and other contaminants – flight procedures
KNOWN ICING CONDITIONSKnown icing conditions are conditions where actual ice is observed visually to be on the aircraft by the pilot or identified by on-board sensors.
Not very helpful, there is no definition of expected icing conditions.
Thanks for finding that.
(a) The pilot-in-command shall only commence a flight or intentionally fly into expected or actual icing conditions if the aircraft is certified and equipped to cope with such conditions as referred to in 2.a.5 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.
That could mean almost anything IF there is ANY ice protection e.g. even a TKS prop installation will give you some protection.
(b) If icing exceeds the intensity of icing for which the aircraft is certified or if an aircraft not certified for flight in known icing conditions encounters icing, the pilot-in-command shall exit the icing conditions without delay, by a change of level and/or route, and if necessary by declaring an emergency to ATC.
There are two parts there:
If icing exceeds the intensity of icing for which the aircraft is certified
which would be a reference to the level of icing permitted in the POH
if an aircraft not certified for flight in known icing conditions encounters icing
Curiously, they use the words " if an aircraft not certified for flight in known icing conditions " which appears to be a nod to the FAA-FIKI certification. And they are saying that if a non-FIKI aircraft gets any icing it must exit icing conditions ASAP.
I am not sure whether somebody put a lot of thought into the above, or it is a hack 
It means the slightest ice on a non FIKI aircraft (if my reading of it really says FAA-FIKI) requires an immediate exit and possibly a mayday; that is not at all the reality of how one deals with ice.
It’s pretty clear:
A) Icing forecast + departing with non fiki certified plane (according to TCDS) + ice accretion on aircraft = illegal (and gross negligent, insurance..).
B) Icing forecast + departing with non fiki certified plane + no ice accretion = legal
I don’t agree with that That is just creating an interpretation out of thin air.
Where is “forecast” mentioned, and if so, which forecast? The behind-paywall DWD icing image? It is useless half the time – like all “icing” forecasts. Icing is impossible to forecast, other than in purely general terms of IMC below 0C → possible ice, and the rest is wide-area-statistical.
This is Europe, not the US where one could map “FIKI” onto a specific forecast (but currently the FAA does not do that, AFAIK).
NCO.OP.170 Ice and other contaminants – flight procedures
(a) The pilot-in-command shall only commence a flight or intentionally fly into expected or actual icing conditions
How would you interpret it instead?
Again, I think it’s pretty clear. As soon as icing is forecast + your plane isn’t fiki certified (TCDS) + actual icing occurs, it’s illegal.
Snoopy wrote:
It’s pretty clear:A) Icing forecast + departing with non fiki certified plane (according to TCDS) + ice accretion on aircraft = illegal (and gross negligent, insurance..).
B) Icing forecast + departing with non fiki certified plane + no ice accretion = legal
I don’t think it’s that binary, you forgot to link C) & D),
C) icing forecast + departing with fiki certified plane + “too much” ice accretion = illegal
D) icing forecast + departing with non-fiki certified plane + “too little” ice accretion = illegal
Both C) & D) will get you into crash, gross negligent, insurance…if you fail to appreciate “too much” vs “too little”
I don’t think there is a distinction between FAA vs EASA on these, but FAA has descent weather services that highlight “icing forecasts/sigmets” and pilot pipreps for “actual icing”, so people in the US are very cautious flying non-FIKI aircraft in these, again not that should/can/should not/can’t, how much ice you have is well visible from the pilot seat
The distinction C) & D) is only relevant for someone flying with a “hot prop/wings” as they are used to punch through and climb while a FIKI may fly en-route for hours, the rest of mortals will just run away when it’s 0C in IMC with few droplets even before wings get wet !
The problem with “illegality” is that – in any civilised country – you have to be very clear about how to be illegal
If you want to create a criminal offence category then the law needs to be pretty clear.
In flight, nobody is watching you, so who will judge? Otherwise, one can say that crashing with ice means insurance will not pay, which is absurd, because insurance precisely does cover negligence (otherwise it would be largely worthless). Well, there is the German ‘gross negligence’ scenario but that’s highly country-specific, and anyway the ice will usually be gone by the time they find the wreckage!
The only feasible illegality is at departure, versus aircraft POH capability and specified wx services. But which wx services? You can choose from so many. Those who are on EuroGA or visited our Tuesday Zoom sessions will know more So this is not going to work either.
My conclusion is therefore: “FIKI” has no legal meaning in private flying, in Europe.
Snoopy wrote:
Again, I think it’s pretty clear. As soon as icing is forecast + your plane isn’t fiki certified (TCDS) + actual icing occurs, it’s illegal.
I think there is a reason why the regs say “expected” and not “forecast”. So I don’t think it is as clear-cut as you make it.
I am a confirmed sceptic of FIKI in the piston world. I can think of well maintained piston twins suffering stabilator stalls (and does anybody practice these or brief for them as a threat? Recovery being opposite to standard stall recovery) – not accident reports, but pilot reports. In a puddle jumper if you get ice, request a change in level. I would not dispatch in a piston if the icing level is below MSA, FIKI or not.
In the USA the icing PIREPs have a legal implication, and obviously freezing rain on departure. But launching into cloud which may hold ice is not illegal. If you encounter ice, even with FIKI you would seek to avoid it. Strategic planning around occluded nimbo stratus fronts, around orographic and convective icing. You wouldn’t fly into a CB, would you?
Anybody who has encountered severe icing will understand why what goes for piston FIKI is a placebo. If you launch into forecast moderate icing with a FIKI piston what guarantee do you have it is not severe? Especially in Europe where the practice of PIREPs is not observed as well as in the USA; and a moderate icing report in an Airbus has to be calibrated for a Baron.
RobertL18C wrote:
Anybody who has encountered severe icing will understand why what goes for piston FIKI is a placebo
the thing with placebos is that they sometimes work…
In practice, the de-icing equipment buys time to assess and act, and adds options; so it is definitely good to have it. Even in anything but the lightest light icing the performance penalty for icing (other than TKS) is incentive enough to try to get out, at least on a fat twin. Typically vertically in stratus, horizontally in convective cloud.
Back to topic – I think
– for departure, ‘Known Icing’ has no meaning, as the yardstick is the expectation (presumably that of the PIC) of encountering ice
– in flight, ‘Known Icing’ is defined as the aircraft actually picking up ice, and if you have no certified icing equipment, you need to leave icing conditions (even if it is coping well)
so FIKI has meaning in an actual icing encounter only.
