Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

FIKI certification in Europe - what does it mean?

Snoopy wrote:

Essentially, the rules are identical between FAA and EASA.

Nope. The FAR are worded (FAR 91.527)

(b) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless…

“expected or actual” is not the same as “known or forecast”.

Also, FAA “known icing” is not identical to EASA “known icing”. In the US, “known” is defined as “atmospheric conditions which the formation of ice is observed or detected in flight”, which is either an aircraft encountering actual icing OR a PIREP of another aircraft encountering icing.

As @Peter writes, in the absence of meaningful PIREPS in Europe, EASA defines it as an aircraft encountering actual icing.

Last Edited by Cobalt at 14 Oct 08:00
Biggin Hill

@cobalt
I understand the difference in legal finesse. Practically it’s still the same thing. No FIKI certification = no flight in icing conditions. If someone feels better by departing into expected icing conditions arguing „there was no icing afterall so I was legal“ then so be it.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

I understand the difference in legal finesse. Practically it’s still the same thing. No FIKI certification = no flight in icing conditions. If someone feels better by departing into expected icing conditions arguing „there was no icing afterall so I was legal“ then so be it.

That would mean flying VFR only in winter! :)

EGTR

Exactly. This is what the US scene struggled with for a bit until it was resolved.

No FIKI certification = no flight in icing conditions

Practically speaking, that is complete nonsense It means no IMC below 0C unless the aircraft is US FIKI certified.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

arj1 wrote:

That would mean flying VFR only in winter! :)

On some days yes.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Cobalt wrote:

“expected or actual” is not the same as “known or forecast”.

Right – so the European limitation is even stricter to some extend. You have to expect ice in any visible moisture between 0 and -20C. That is what you learn in theory course. So while in the US there needs to be a (positive) confirmation in a forecast or a Pirep, in Europe it is enough if you have to expect it.

arj1 wrote:

That would mean flying VFR only in winter!

Not exactly, because also in winter you have cloud layers above 0C and (even more relevant) in higher clouds you often can expect temperatures below -20C and therefore you do not have to expect icing.

But yes: IMC flying is significantly limited in airplanes which are not certified for flight in icing conditions especially in winter. Not surprising.

Germany

This discussion is lacking clarity and is conflating several things

Perhaps @ncyankee can post a summary of the current US FIKI situation and the way the test for whether a departure is legal or not, is applied.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Snoopy wrote:

I understand the difference in legal finesse. Practically it’s still the same thing.

It is rather unfortunate but while in practical terms the difference does not matter – you stay out of the stuff as much as possible – the exact “legal finesse” can become very important if you get a “Bust them All” CAA (like in the UK) or a “I will report you!” ATC provider (like, on occasion, the DFS).

A typical scenario – you have a forecast for scattered cloud at icing levels and a nice warm layer below. So you quite validly plan to avoid entering cloud laterally, and if that does not work to descend out of the icing layer. So you happily file for FL180 and launch on your planned route. This is perfectly safe, you have at least one “out”.

Now on your way you ask for a deviation from your route “due to icing”. For some reason the controller takes exception to this (perhaps because you previously asked for a shortcut which was refused and he/she thinks you are taking the proveribial… – ask Peter about his Austrian experience…) and decides to file some report and/or denounce you for an alleged breaking of the rules. This is not a remote scenario – for example, DFS and the LBA took pilots to court because they asked for an IFR pop-up clearance due to bad weather…

So the exact meaning of “expected icing” in part NCO will all of the sudden be very important.

Last Edited by Cobalt at 14 Oct 13:20
Biggin Hill

Any concept where a departure for a flight (remember the words “flight into known icing” mean a flight into icing known to the pilot ) is regarded as illegal must involve specified wx services and the use of specified data to determine forecast ice presence. The data could include PIREPs.

In Europe, we don’t have any wx services worth anything. The German DWD publishes an icing chart but it costs €€€ so is not accessible the the vast majority of pilots. It is also very “broad-brush”

Hilariously, the 3D data (often called a “GRAMET”, after the Univ of Granada started generating them many years ago) comes from the US, via GFS Well, there is now ICON as well but that appears to be so random as to be useless…

And we don’t have PIREPs. Well, none that are distributed through recognised channels to which pilots bother to contribute regularly. Anyway, GA flying in relevant wx is far too sparse to ever deliver useful PIREPs in Europe.

I’ve written this so many times, but it keeps getting conflated with practical considerations of flying in IMC. That’s been debated too and is a worthwhile debate, e.g. here, but is nothing to do with “FIKI” which is a framework for creating a prosecutable criminal offence if a pilot who is in possession of specified wx info departs on a flight. The idea is that the flight is illegal upon departure, not somewhere down the route.

To give an example of another aviation scenario: a PPL with no IMCR/IR files an IFR FP and departs into Eurocontrol airspace. It’s a very good bet that flight is illegal the moment you lift off. It will probably be illegal the moment he files the IFR FP but it would be a stretch to prosecute him, for various reasons e.g. a PPL can fly “under IFR rules” in VMC, etc… Or better still an IR holder departs in a 200m vis, at an airport with RVR measuring equipment.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

…..me think there is much talking writing about it then actually flying going on :-), to use rocky stallone language, fuel prices I guess …
For me TKS is just another line of defence….for those who are inclined to see what I wrote about it for CAV with my limited experience.
Btw tomorrow the 0 degree level is at FL080 still good to go FL060 and stay above MVA :-)
https://aopalive.aopa.org/detail/video/6249063129001/aopa-air-safety-institute-presents-trapped-in-ice-richard-mcspadden?autoStart=true&q=airframe%20icing

Last Edited by Vref at 14 Oct 14:43
EBST
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top