Some posts above appear to define “known icing” as a visible ice deposition. That’s fine, but that isn’t how the FAA uses it for enforcement purposes.
Ibra, is that Cessna pic post-flight, or was it just parked overnight under some heavy freezing dew and in the morning the whole sheet started to melt and slid off the top of the wing?
Peter wrote:
It doesn’t matter how you shake this, we still come back to… which forecast?
(I’m only talking about regulation – what is smart to do and not is obviously a very different question)
The good thing is, that the way the regulator put it, the question “which forecast?” is not really relevant. That is because they said “expected” and not “forecasted”. Therefore the question that will be asked in case there is a legal dispute is, if you should have expected it.
And as long as you use a “reliable” forecast (that is one from a reliable source like a met office, national weather service, etc.) and this forecast predicts icing, you should expect it. It is quite obviously not gross negligence, if the forecast you typically use doesn’t predict icing, but there is another one that does but you are not aware of it. If however, the forecast you use for preparation predicts icing but you find a different one that doesn’t I doubt that there is any judge in Europe that would assume, that you had to expect icing.
Therefore from the legal side it’s quite simple: Use your normal due diligence in flight preparation and the icing forecast included in your normal preparation routine. If that predicts icing, then use a FIKI plane as long as there is not other way to avoid flying into icing conditions.
Looks pre-flight to me
Malibuflyer wrote:
If that predicts icing, then use a FIKI plane
Did you mean “a plane with de-icing/anti-icing”?
I have not seen a definition of “FIKI plane” in EASA world.
have not seen a definition of “FIKI plane” in EASA world.
It’s in the type certificate. By the way, why is the DA50 not FIKI?
By the way, why is the DA50 not FIKI?
Good question, according to CAV’s pitch it should have been.
Snoopy wrote:
It’s in the type certificate.
Can you show an example of EASA FIKI a/c?
Just curious. Thanks!
arj1 wrote:
Snoopy wrote: It’s in the type certificate.Can you show an example of EASA FIKI a/c?
Just curious. Thanks!
Found it for SR-22 and DA-42
What is interesting is that for SR-22 it’s “flight into know icing” but for DA-42 – “flight into know or forecast”.
Here is the TKS AFMS for my FAA-approved plane:
Exactly as expected – not possible for it to be FAA “FIKI”.
And I have not seen “FIKI” to be defined in any non-FAA context, other than some use of the expression in some vague sense.
I could ask CAV for a copy of the AFMS for a non-N-reg plane…
I wonder how much POH wordings are related to the “local NAA languages”?
Part-NCO EASA rules clearly does not prevent anyone from flying with an “ice forecasts”, even FAA has backtracked while ago on “ice forecasts” (not sure where I did read that now it mentions “actual ice” and distinguish between inadvertent ice encounter equipments vs full FIKI equipments) but the weather briefs and pireps in USA are rather prescriptive, if you call the WX phone number you are pretty much stuck with it unless you have a good lawyer 
There are zillions of N-regs flying in uncle sam’s land in harsh weather with “no-FIKI stamps or redundancies” on their TKS installs that does not mean they are not equipped for some “icing tasks”, some are hardcore +300hp turbos with FL250 ceilings 
Now that the UK went out of EASA, a quick look at 2016 ANO rules of the air suggest “ice equipment for forecasts” which is more prescriptive than NCO wording, but does not talk about “FIKI certification”…
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/pdfs/uksi_20160765_en.pdf
