Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Mooney goes two doors!

Known Icing is not defined in CFR14 Part 1. I believe the accepted official FAA definition is still the so-called “Bell letter” of 2009:

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090126icing.pdf?_ga=1.41893154.1818260531.1428519346

The relevant paragraph is:

“If the composite information indicates to take reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will be operating the aircraft under conditions that will cause ice to adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight , then known icing conditions exist.”

So, Peter, there is no reference to specific US weather products…as such I believe it would still apply to N reg operation in Europe (or anywhere)…
 

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

I still find it unlikely that Mooney would use the well known and well understood term “known icing” unless it was certified for “flight into known icing”… That would be a fraudulent deception…unlikely IMO….but what would I know?

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

I would find it even more unlikely for the FAA to issue a normal category airworthiness certifficate with a"non-certified" system installed.

No, that’s not what USF means…Uncertified in this context doesn’t mean not certified to be fitted to an airframe, it means not FIKI certified. CAV sell non-FIKI TKS systems which can be installed on a great many airframes…. The number of FIKI approved airframes is way less….

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

The relevant paragraph is:
“If the composite information indicates to take reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will be operating the aircraft under conditions that will cause ice to adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight , then known icing conditions exist.”
So, Peter, there is no reference to specific US weather products…as such I believe it would still apply to N reg operation in Europe (or anywhere)…

If that is the latest then I agree.

But that definition prevents all flight in IMC below 0C, doesn’t it?

Any pilot who thinks he can fly in IMC and not collect some ice is going to have a significantly degraded life expectancy unless he has a good Plan B.

@NCYankee might know the latest.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

If that is the latest then I agree.

But that definition prevents all flight in IMC below 0C, doesn’t it?

Yes, clearly that is completely impractical….which is probably where the reference to specific US weather products comes in….I believe “composite information” is generally taken to mean the CIP/FIP supplementary icing plots produced by NOAA…..plus PIREPS of actual icing of course.

Last Edited by AnthonyQ at 24 Feb 18:49
YPJT, United Arab Emirates

There is functionality and there is certification.

I remember that in a thread about the Eclipse, one guy with a “non-fiki” jet said that the de-icing boots worked just fine if you took away the ring around the circuit breaker stopping it from working because they could not certify it at the time (which changed later).

Similarly, there are lots of planes with non-fiki anti/de icing features, some Seminoles, some Twin Commanches and some vintage Mooneys like this one. This airplane has the full TKS anti icing, but is not certified for flight into known ice.

As said before, those who have factory installed “known ice” protection are what is known as FIKI. Those planes are the 231, 252, Ovation, Acclaim as well as the new V and U series.

I really don’t know what is so ambigous about that.

Apart, FIKI or not, getting out of the ice is your number one priority in any of these airframes. But if I have to have a non-FIKI airplane, one with the full kit will most probably help me more than the one without it.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

That’s right…and you can get non-FIKI TKS for the M20J and K…. One pump, one alternator…so less redundancy….usually called “inadvertent” icing protection…. Quite common on the A36 for example…

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

So in a bump to this thread – Mooney changes the fuselage structure to accomodate a door, changes the cockpit enclosing material to composite and changes the attachment fitments of the fuselage on the steel frame. The FAA says “oh okay, that sounds like a minor change you can do it on the same type certificate”. But God forbid some lambda pilot would install non-certified (in triplicate) landing lights or somesuch.

Consistency much?

Isn’t that what Boeing does with the 737 ?

EBST, Belgium
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top