I used to know the FAA history on “FIKI” but don’t have it to hand now. They did at one time tie “known icing” to any IMC below 0C but that policy didn’t last long, because it is ridiculous and the US has a functioning AOPA.
A google on
history of faa fiki
digs out plenty of reading, with this EuroGA thread right at the end of the old stuff 
This local copy is especially interesting.
@bookworm will prob99 know the thinking behind this in EASA.
We can’t stop European do-gooders using the term “FIKI” in handbooks etc without knowing whether it means anything. What is “known” supposed to mean? “Observed” would make sense, but 1mm “observed” is not going to seriously affect any certified plane. May well affect a non-cert e.g. a Lancair IV but they are outside this discussion.
Snoopy wrote:
It’s in the type certificate. By the way, why is the DA50 not FIKI?
Because it’s not TKS equipped (at least the one I saw wasn’t) and I guess it doesn’t have second alternator.
Snoopy wrote:
Maybe it is FIKI if it was delivered like this from the factory, whereas a later install is via an STC?Is the system completely identical?
I had TB20 with factory installed TKS and the system was completely identical. On EASA registration it’s approved for flying in icing conditions but under FAA it can’t be FIKI certified because it doesn’t fulfil the criteria. I believe one of the reasons (main) is missing second alternator.
Yes; as stated earlier, all TB20/21 “full TKS” installs are identical because CAV only ever did the one kit, which is the one I installed, and none can be FAA-FIKI because
The graphic I posted above gives a clue to why, and doubtless there is detail involved.
But, as with all things in aviation, one “CAA” can approve something which another “CAA” would not. The DGAC for example would not approve a stormscope whose display rotated with the heading, on the grounds that the pilot might use it to avoid a thunderstorm So we could look at a load of TKS AFMSs and find different things. But all FAA ones should be the same: no “FIKI”.
Emir wrote:
Because it’s not TKS equipped (at least the one I saw wasn’t) and I guess it doesn’t have second alternator.
Diamond must be joking. That’s ridiculous.
Malibuflyer wrote:
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.
@Malibuflyer, just found an EASA document local copy called “IN FLIGHT ICING”.
Page 14: “It is often impractical to plan a flight in a way that leaves no possibility for icing conditions to be encountered, in the same way that it is impractical to plan a flight on a convective day in a way that leaves no possibility for an encounter with cumulonimbus, because it is never possible to be certain exactly where such a cloud would form. But, just as a crew must always have a plan which allows them to avoid flying into a thunderstorm that appears on their intended route, so they must have a plan to avoid icing conditions more severe than the aircraft’s systems, if any, can cope with, and to escape from any such icing that is actually encountered”
Which I read as if the icing is forecasted enroute, flying that route is not a gross negligence, as long you act in the right way.
I.e. you can get out of the icing area, obviously leaving yourself such an option during your pre-flight planning.
I think I agree.
Basically in Europe there is no possible criminal offence here, departure-related or in-flight-related, unless one does something totally extraordinarily stupid and somebody who doesn’t like you finds out (and then they can get you under the general “endangerment of the aircraft” clause which must exist in every country’s legislation, including EASA’s).
And this is regardless of whether the plane is “FAA FIKI”, “anybody else’s FIKI”, or has no ice protection at all.
Whether the insurer pays out is something else, because that is governed by civil law, and there are national variations, e.g. the German “gross negligence” one referenced earlier. Also you need a lot of €€€ to fight an insurer, who is tryng to get off the hook on a multi-million € passenger liability claim.
Whether the insurer pays out is something else, because that is governed by civil law, and there are national variations, e.g. the German “gross negligence” one referenced earlier.
Gross negligence is a common legal concept not only in Napoleonic code countries but also in anglo-saxon case law. Certainly not a national variation.
Even England has a first own reference in Bracton’s De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae.
Is there a reference to its usage in alleged departures into, or flight in, icing conditions, applicable to insurance payouts?
I don’t know about the UK but in Austria it would go like this:
Plane accident due to icing and off airport landing (full power not enough to stay airborne. 250k plane totaled. Someone is hurt.
Insurance wants to avoid payout.
Hurt person wants Someone to blame.
Pilot testifies in court he did not expect icing conditions.
Expert witness explains that “..overcast cloud and 2°C = icing conditions… general industry standard… manufacturer’s POH limits recommendations…”
Insurance is out due to gross negligence. (Civil)
Hurt person will sue for damages. (Civil)
Pilot sentenced for mayhem, reckless operation bla bla. (Criminal)
