Malibuflyer wrote:
It is always a question how the local CAA looks at it when prosecuting or not
Then I have a list of names & regs of twin pistons flying all winter without FIKI certification under NCO: bunch of Najavos (most are non-FIKI) and Aztecs (none is FIKI but truck drivers claims they can haul tons of ice)
Malibuflyer wrote:
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.
I think the ice planning issue is similar to how PPL pilot deals with clouds en-route? you are required to maintain VMC, no one will hang you for departure with clouds en-route on PPL (talking about en-route weather not terminal weather at airports), the plan is usually try to make it or divert , you don’t need IR nor IFR equipement for that flight planning to be legal, such sloppy planning is not an issue when one is flying on VFR bimble in Golf/Echo but it will cause chaos to ATC in controlled airspace with avoidance and compromise others safety
Icing for IFR SEP pilots is similar (FIKI or not-FIKI), you deal with it the same way but it will become an issue in busy TMA airspace (you have to mayday and send the flight planning pack to your NAA), in empty airspace dealing with icing is a walk in the park, you avoid it like plague and you are fine
Say icing (or thunderstorms) is forcasted en-route on the way A to B after C on your FPL during planning with a non-FIKI, what would prevent you from planning A to C first, land and see how it goes at C, then go C to B? if it’s the case, why planning A to B with plan to divert to C would be illegal?
Ibra wrote:
In carburated piston, we put carb heat ON in cruise when temps are between 0C and 15C
We do? I never do, regardless of temperatures, except when actually encountering carb ice or when flying on reduced power (because in that case carb ice is more likely to form and there might not be enough heat from the engine to rapidly melt the ice should it happen). I also have not seen a POH that recommends continuous carb heat between 0° and 15°.
Don’t you do regular carb heat checks at cruise power? (not continuous, on regular intervals or cycles), it happens at cruise & climb power in moisture or clouds when dew/temp is in 0C to 15C, you are in “known carb icing conditions” = recycle your carb heat 
No, that‘s very much a UK thing. Much like the silly „no ice“ call outs that IR students have to make there.
Checking for carb ice is indeed not done by applying carb ice, but by monitoring the engine continuously, looking for any changes in parameters or sound.
That diagram is also complete BS. If it were true, light aircraft would be raining from the sky with iced up carburettors. It probably shows theoretical icing in a carburettor with no heating of the body whatsoever (which many carbs have by virtue of where they are mounted in the engine compartment, or by being bolted to the engine)
The reality is very aircraft specific, some types are susceptible to icing and many are not.
Ibra wrote:
Don’t you do regular carb heat checks at cruise power?
No. I only do it if I suspect carb ice. (E.g. by a drop in rpm and/or manifold pressure.)
Maybe the regular check is UK training & environment specific? anyway weather is 10/10 for temp/dew all year around as far as I recall, so carb icing is suspected & expected all the time or it’s useful to keep people busy when flying?
If it were true, light aircraft would be raining from the sky with iced up carburettors
Sadly, they do !
There should be something that explains why UK has a huge record of carb/engine icing in a large variety of aircraft? we are talking about hundreds/thousands of accidents/incidents, if it’s not related to the diagram and weather, then what is it?
Pretty sure CAA is far more concerned about engine/carb icing for VFR/IFR in 3kft amsl band than FIKI concerns for “airways IFR” (airframe icing is pretty non-existent for “3kft flying” all year around), not sure about other countries? but in UK as far as accidents records are concerned, airframe icing is “statistically insignificant” while carb/engine icing is “pretty significant”, this may explain why instructors keep bang on it during training?
Ibra wrote:
Maybe the regular check is UK training & environment specific? anyway weather is 10/10 for temp/dew all year around as far as I recall, so carb icing is suspected & expected all the time or it’s useful to keep people busy when flying?
I don’t know. But I do know that I have roughly 700 flight hours in carburetted aircraft, mostly in conditions for “serious” or “severe” icing according to the diagram and I’ve encountered carb ice (as I’ve noticed) no more than perhaps 3 or 4 times.
Ibra wrote:
while carb/engine icing is “pretty significant”
The AAIB will cite potential carb ice as a cause where there has been an engine failure, but not assigning statistical probability. This usually in the context that the engine works fine when bench tested and there was no fuel mis-management/exhaustion.
Some types use carb heat in cruise, partly because they are quite good carb ice makers, partly it may aid a smoother distribution of the fuel in the manifold, with some leaning accompanying the carb heat, eg Shakey Jake Cessna 195s. These types will also have a carb temp gauge. Not tempting fate but the Lycoming -320/-360 hardly seem to make ice.
The standard PPL FREDA cruise check beloved in the UK doesn’t specifically highlight carb heat, but is part of the engine health check. In theory carried out after track changes and every 10-15 minutes in cruise.
Carb icing is nothing to do with FIKI however.
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?”.
Is there any detail i.e. actual prosecutions, their outcome, the details of the cases, etc?
Without citing actual cases, it is just speculation on what “might” happen.
