Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

FIKI certification in Europe - what does it mean?

Perhaps but I still say that to create a criminal offence (which is what FIKI certification is about) you need to be precise, and the opportunity for that is missing during flight. The only time somebody can be busted is pre-departure, or post-landing if somebody reports him and the authorities examine the wx data which was available to him (whether he consulted it or not is immaterial; ignorance is no excuse).

Actual ice protection capability is a different topic.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I second @RobertL18C here! Light pistons and fiki is (for the most part) marketing. A Malibu can go high up and not spend time in ice perhaps, but enough power to escape icing upward is turbine territory.

Airborne_Again wrote:

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.

What’s your take on it, airborne?

Terminology aside, why even think of this topic in such detail if not for the reason to fly with non icing certified planes in icing conditions and how “legal” that is. On the other hand, if someone crashes, the message boards are full of finger pointing and speculation.

KISS.

A) Is your plane certified for icing? Answer: 1No/2Yes

B) Is icing “expected”? Answer: 1Yes/2Yes

C) Answer if the flight is “legal”: 1No/2Yes

It’s good to ask:

Is it legal?
ist it safe?
Does it make sense?

Some things are safe, but not legal. Others are legal, but not safe. Some things are legal and safe but make no sense still.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

Light pistons and fiki is (for the most part) marketing

I don’t quite agree with that. TKS for one does more than adequately protect in light and low-moderate icing to the point that you can stay in it for some time, boots are less effective / cost more performance, but again work.

These system have their limits, but certainly increase dispatch rates markedly. In general, outside fronts there is a LOT less ice around than forecasts make you believe. In stratus cloud, a 1-2,000 ft level change can sort it, and convective clouds can be avoided laterally. Only a fat Nimbostratus or a proper cold front are real icing walls, and you want to stay out of the cold front anyway if you like to keep your wings and/or your passengers would like to keep the contents of their stomach.

In the winter, when you are often in clear air above FL150-180 even in weak frontal conditions, it makes a huge difference.

That is not to say that is it not challenging – I would compare it to flying VFR in marginal VMC, where one has to avoid cloud but if one enters it, you can get out quite safely provided you have the right equipment and the right judgement.

One big problem here is that it is VERY hard to get icing experience. Most training aircraft are not de-iced and only the most foolhardy would deliberately seek out icing in one. Also, not many instrument instructors these days have piston de-icing experience – they tend to fly jets or have come up the instructor route and have rarely seen a cloud from the inside, let alone icing, so you are on your own…

Last Edited by Cobalt at 18 Dec 21:56
Biggin Hill

Yes; exactly.

Two very separate issues:

  • legal meaning of “FIKI” in Europe
  • how well different systems work

On the 2nd one, plenty of previous threads (see “Threads possibly related to this one” for example). My TB20 TKS works superbly but is not “FIKI”.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Snoopy wrote:

What’s your take on it, airborne?

My take on it is that the regs are referring to the pilot’s expectation – not what has been forecast. That interpretation makes sense for at least two reasons:

– It is in line with the goal-oriented style of part-NCO in general (compare with e.g. oxygen regs or IFR approach minima regs).
– Forecasts vary wildly. If “official” forecasts from different national MET offices say different things about the same area, what do you do? If there is no official icing forecast but a plethora of differing unofficial ones, what do you do?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

My TB20 TKS works superbly but is not “FIKI”.

Is it different from factory-installed TKS on the TB20? The TB20 I flew a long time ago had factory installed TKS and from the POH it was clear it was approved for flight in known icing conditions.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Same system, same STC, same installation.

Do you have a copy of the AFMS for it? It could not have been FAA-FIKI, for the reasons previously mentioned. Would a European CAA use the term “known icing”? It’s possible, but what does it mean? “Known”, in terms of criminal law, can have a meaning only by reference to a specified weather forecast service.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Certified tks installations have backup pumps and failure alerting.

It would be interesting to dig out some accident reports involving icing and piston planes.

By „for the most part marketing“ I meant that airplanes sell because people think they can fly them anywhere into any condition. I disagree with that.

If the airplane is certified (poh allows it) and there is a plan b (eg descending) that’s a different story.

always learning
LO__, Austria

IMO it is the PIC who decides whether or not to depart in a particular condition.
Hopefully s/he will be trained sufficiently to read meteorological reports and decide whether or not icing is expected.
If the PIC expects icing but does not have an aircraft equipped for FIKI s/he would be stupid or in legal terms grossly negligent by flying into those conditions.
If you encounter unexpected icing you are now in known icing. If your aircraft is non FIKI you would be stupid/grossly negligent to stay in it.
If your aircraft is FIKI you would still be advised to get out of it as quickly as possible but anti or de icing equipment may buy you a little time
If you crash and burn due to flying in icing conditions it will be for the lawyers to fight it out as to whether the PIC has been grossly negligent or not. No law ever made has been clear cut. All laws are a job creation scheme for lawyers.

France

Certified tks installations have backup pumps and failure alerting.

My system is “certified” Installed IAW an FAA approved STC. 100% certified. But not FAA-FIKI. This is from the IM

Leaflet

I can’t find the AFMS however – it is probably in the aircraft.

Historically, IIRC, the FAA route was either “FIKI” or it is worth “nothing”, while the Europeans would certify a system as suitable for flight in icing conditions of a specified severity.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top