FIKI certification in Europe - what does it mean?

Peter wrote:

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

In Europe we have this in AutoRouter icing index, 30% = no ice, 80% = moderate ice and 100% = severe ice

OK should I STAY or should I GO ? the formulas seems very sensible but throwing GFS data instead of ECMWF for clouds is disappointing…

Icing index = (% of layered cover * layered index + % convective cover * convective cover) / 200

Layered index = 100 * -t * (t + 14) / 49 where t = (air cell temperature in Kelvin – 273.15); when -14 <= t <= 0

Convective index = 200 * (water_vapor_density(bottom_of_cloud) – water_vapor_density(air cell)) / water_vapor_density(20°C saturated air) * sqrt((T- 253.15)/20.0) when 253.15 <= air cell temperature in Kelvin <= 273.15

I personally think FIKI is mandatory for flying in busy TMA as you get crunched by ATC machine in tight headings & levels and there is a chnace what starts as rime ice will grow up some horns otherwise it’s dead easy to deal with ice, you ask or clear yourself to stay bellow it, or above it, or left/right, if you can’t you turn back

It’s like terrain, clouds, thunderstorms, crosswinds, contaminated runways and wild life…you avoid while flying

Peter wrote:

IR holder departs in a 200m vis, at an airport with RVR measuring equipment.

Indeed, US FIKI rules are similar to METAR/TAF/RVR rules for flight planning in CAT (in NCO you don’t even have to use METAR/TAF any “weather source” will do but RVR is a hard limit), so, you have FIKI forecast = FIKI certification (any Part91 IR pilot can depart with 200m RVR in the US )

In Europe we have this in AutoRouter icing index, 30% = no ice, 80% = moderate ice and 100% = severe ice
OK should I STAY or should I GO ? the formulas seems very sensible but throwing GFS data instead of ECMWF for clouds is disappointing…
etc

None of that is worth anything… in the context here.

And all is off-topic

US FIKI rules are similar to METAR/TAF/RVR rules for flight planning

If only icing forecasts were in tafs…

Peter wrote:

None of that is worth anything… in the context here.

I dooono someone maybe thinks it’s a “legally binding icing forcast” and will hang in the clubhouse instead of enjoying his flight? or better have a look?

This is the guidance provided to US pilots. This is an excerpt from AC 91-74B on the topic, the full AC is attached.

5-2. REGULATIONS FOR ICING OPERATIONS. Title 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 specify the responsibilities of flightcrews concerning flight in icing conditions. Pilots are advised to check the current regulations for revisions. An important distinction in each of these regulations is the restriction on flight into known or forecast conditions. Because of the limitations of icing forecasts, it is admittedly difficult for pilots to be certain whether the conditions in which they are flying actually will result in an icing encounter, and it is even more difficult to determine the severity of the possible encounter. Pilots can be caught inadvertently in icing conditions that exceed these legal limits. General operating and flight rules for General Aviation (GA) aircraft are found in part 91, but not all rules within part 91 are applicable to all GA aircraft. Part 91, § 91.501 states that the rules in subpart F apply only to large and turbojet-powered multiengine airplanes and fractional ownership program aircraft that are not covered by parts 121, 125, 129, 135, and 137. Section 91.527, Operating in icing conditions, falls within subpart F and thus is not applicable to all GA aircraft. For aircraft not covered by subpart F, there are no specific icing regulations; however, § 91.9 prohibits you from flying without complying with the operating limitations in the POH or placards.

AC_91_74B_Pilot_Guide_Flight_in_Icing_Conditions_10_8_15_pdf

Peter wrote:

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.

Sorry, but this is the typical European pilot paradox “They must not restrict our freedom – but if there is no clear rule we can not be held responsible for anything” type of fake argument.

The opposite of what you write is actually true! The regulator in Europe (seemingly in contrast to the regulator in the US) deliberately put more freedom and responsibility in the hand of the pilot and therefore did not state “flight is forbidden if x minutes before the flight you look at xyzzy and if it says…” but they rather said “if icing is expected you must not fly”.
Expected is not a particularly unclear expression in legal terms: It says, that an averagely trained pilot that applied the required diligence in flight preparation could expect to encounter icing. They actually do not care where this diligent pilot takes his information from. The requirement is just the diligence in preparation.
What exactly should be part of a diligent preparation is depending on the individual case (and finally has to be evaluated by a court): In some cases it might be enough that you have checked the BBC met report the night before, in some cases one would expect you to dig deep into aviation specific weather products.

Nothing is unclear about that – the core reason why it is a discussion at all is that some people with airplanes that are not allowed to be flown in icing do not want to accept that they must not do it – and therefore look for a regulatory loophole which is actually not there…

the core reason why it is a discussion at all is that some people with airplanes that are not allowed to be flown in icing do not want to accept that they must not do it

There is some of that but it’s the same thing in the US, people have de-ice in their POH but it’s not FIKI and they will debate day long what that means but I think NCYankee quoted a new shift of how FAA view it now in Part91 after 2015?

Under NCO, I don’t expect icing to cover more than 8kft height band nor it happens above 0C (so one has a lot of room around if their MSA is 1kft), the question can you legally file IFR in that region without FIKI in winter? (let say if you file IFR outside it your FPL gets rejected and no one flies as filed as they just deal with ATC/WX as it happens )

RobertL18C wrote:

In aircraft without anti icing on the propeller, it is not unusual to experience propeller ice with temperatures slightly above zero, evidenced by loss of performance and a distinct change in engine sound

Interesting, will it be serious such that one will not be able to maintain cruise speed power in pistons in (0C, +5C) range? or it’s a consideration for climb power?

The wings will not collect ice when OAT is higher than 0C, they could be on higher TAT already +1deg at 100KTAS and +4deg at 200KTAS !

RobertL18C wrote:

why anti-ice systems are used below 5oC in visible

I had the impression it’s only for engine/propeller? or it’s also for airframe? maybe it’s related to FADEC sensors in turbines & jets taking some snow dirt rather than super cooled water droplets?

In carburated piston, we put carb heat ON in cruise when temps are between 0C and 15C (it’s an engine de-ice: the low pressure corners inside the engine could be at -10C), in other pistons, they ask to put alternate air in “visible moisture” at low temperature before main air intake gets locked or engine stops, in Diamonds (with FADEC), you may even have to open it when flying in rain in VMC at +30C OAT as the main air filter is spongy and gets very wet, so it may not allow flying bellow 0C and will freeze on the climb even in VMC…

Ibra wrote:

Under NCO, I don’t expect icing to cover more than 8kft height band nor it happens above 0C (so one has a lot of room around if their MSA is 1kft), the question can you legally file IFR in that region without FIKI in winter? (let say if you file IFR outside it your FPL gets rejected and no one flies as filed as they just deal with ATC/WX as it happens )

It is always a question how the local CAA looks at it when prosecuting or not.

In Germany the question would be something like “did you file a plan where – under application of due diligence in flight planning – you had to expect icing or not?”.
If the forecast predicted a thin SCT layer along your planned route, one would say that the plan to avoid the clouds in the respective temperature range visually is a solid one. If the forecast is a large area thick OVC in the critical temperature range no judge will accept that you had such a plan.
Accordingly, even though we know that icing is possible even above 0C, you could argue that you do not have to accept it – and planning to fly through clouds at above 0C is therefore also a valid plan.

Peter wrote:

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,

Don’t know about US, but under EASA rules the case is extremely clear and I honestly do not see much room for debate: The flight itself starts to become illegal when it starts to be under IFR-rules. In EASA regulation the nature of the flight is not determined by the meteorological conditions but by the flight rules actually applied – therefore a non IR PPL must not fly “under IFR rules” even in VMC.
In addition to that some CAAs might even prosecute the filing – or more precisely the flight preparation: The license holder knew that he is not allowed to fly IFR and therefore filing such a flight plan demonstrates that he did not perform the flight preparation with due diligence. The it is depending on the individual circumstances of the flight. If the pilot can credibly claim that he wanted to file a VFR plan and just mistyped a single letter on the form, a court is very likely to regard this as a minor mistake and not prosecute. If the plan, however, is clearly an IFR plan (e.g. because it touches airspaces where you can not legally fly VFR), it likely is lack of diligence in planning.

Cobalt wrote:

for example, DFS and the LBA took pilots to court because they asked for an IFR pop-up clearance due to bad weather…

Not at all – the pilot in this (very well known) case was not prosecuted “due to bad weather”, but exactly because of bad flight preparation. The BAF (the agency responsible for such fines – it’s not the LBA) and finally also the judge came to the conclusion, that even before commencing the flight the pilot knew or should have known (when preparing with due diligence), that it has been extremely unlikely that he could perform the flight as planned.
It was not that the weather developed worse than forecast, but the actual weather was exactly as forecast. The defense of the pilot has basically been “I was fully aware of the weather forecast, but with weather you can never say for sure how it will really be and a miracle can always happen so that even solid large area IMC turns out to be VMC in reality”.
The answer of the court – and it is likely that very similar rulings would happen in “icing w/o FIKI” cases – was basically: “First of all it is not about what you can know for sure but about what you have to expect. And second in a diligent flight preparation you need to make at least a plan for what is forecast even if you hope for better weather and also prepare a plan B for that case.”