That’s why they call it “Justice” not “Fairnice”. They can only prosecute what they can prove…
From here
There are 2 things worth noting about the DA40 limitations.
Firstly “Flight into known icing conditions is prohibited” That is FAA
Under EASA NCO the wording reflects known icing as a condition when you can or someone in the aircraft can see ice forming or when ice sensors indicate that ice is forming.
Secondly, it calls for 2 radios to be installed for IFR. We discussed this in a previous thread and came to the conclusion that only one is required.
Although in France I believe 2 are required to fly IFR.
Firstly “Flight into known icing conditions is prohibited” That is FAA
“FIKI” is a US term, based on US wx services, etc. The meaning of this restriction is debatable because, taken literally, it prevents most flight in IMC in the winter, and most flight around FL100+ anywhere in Europe anytime of the year 
US pilots went through all that over the decades…
Peter wrote:
FIKI” is a US term, based on US wx services, etc. The meaning of this restriction is debatable because, taken literally, it prevents most flight in IMC in the winter, and most flight around FL100+ anywhere in Europe anytime of the year US pilots went through all that over the decades…
Yes FIKI limitation will apply to say an F-reg flown on NCO & Part91 in US airspace when there is an “icing forecast” or “icing pirep” given by US WX, US pilots who have non-FIKI equipment just get around it by filing VFR in the middle but FAA has a tough line on icing
On FIKI limitation, I doubt there is even that much concerns about icing in EASA/NCO land? at least in the UK there is not much record of airframe icing accidents in SEP? I looked while ago and I only found two: one PA32 that hit the highest peaks in Scotland (probably one of 3 IMC CFIT accidents in UK) and one PA28 that crashed short of Exeter after losing control, however, there are thousands of accidents that relates to carb icing and engine icing, maybe more than 3000? these tend to happen at moderate temperatures and are more risky than encountering ice while IFR above MSA
I get it that there are load of airframe icing accidents in Alaska/USA, so this is why FAA went hard on pilots, maybe there are some in Switzerland/Norway due to obvious cold weather and steep topography but in UK it’s seems to be rare for airframe icing encounters to go badly? an adequate MEL in light GA would be 2 brain cells, one for not planning to cruise in icing and one to exit icing if encountered while flying…
Maybe we should ban flying IFR in susceptible icing with “non protected engines”?
PS: Unlike Part91 or CAT, NCO does not have the concept of “approved en-route icing forecast/actual” for brief but the burden is on the pilot to justify his flight…
EASA certification specifications include provisions for FIKI equipment. EU regs prohibit flight in icing conditions with aircraft not certified for it.
I don’t see much difference to FAA rules.
Snoopy wrote:
EASA certification specifications include provisions for FIKI equipment. EU regs prohibit flight in icing conditions with aircraft not certified for it.I don’t see much difference to FAA rules.
I think it is “icing conditions” vs “known icing conditions” in FAA world and I think for EASA it is “icing conditions” and “forecast icing conditions”, but could be wrong, will wait for guys like @Airborne_Again to comment.
I don’t see much difference to FAA rules.
The difference is what evidence is required for
Snoopy wrote:
I don’t see much difference to FAA rules
In execution, there is not much difference only a muppet would fly in ice without protection (even if you have protection, only a muppet stays inside)
In planning there is a huge difference, in EASA land you can always depart in IMC bellow freezing level and have a look yourself
In FAA land, you need a FIKI to plan IFR flying in places where people have pireped/forcasted ice !
Even it’s CAVOK above your head, you are grounded for the IFR flight unless you have FIKI
The difference is with the FAA you need to have an aircraft certified for FIKI before entering icing conditions as taken from a forecast.
Whereas EASA is more about flying in icing conditions, ie they are not forecast but actual conditions. Therefore it is the aircraft owners /PIC decision about whether or not to fly in actual icing conditions. IMO as soon as a pilot sees ice building they are going to get out of there, whether or not the aircraft is equipped with anti or deicing equipment.
as taken from a forecast.
Which forecast, exactly?
This one has been bouncing around for decades.
It isn’t applicable to Europe because here we have, ahem, no “official” forecasts that are of much use for this
