Malibuflyer wrote:
The lower picture is from advice – everywhere where you see green, ice is forecast between the levels given by the numbers…
No @Malibuflyer that is actually not correct.
Adwice does not qualify for an “ice forecast” in the meaning of EASA regulation.
Adwice only shows you where there is the possibility of ice formation. In other words, where the meteorological conditions are met that ice COULD form.
It is not KNOWN icing.
Known icing is, in fact, in Europe, only present whenever you as a pilot have ENCOUNTERED ice, or when a PIREP exists.
I say again: adwice is NOT forecast icing condition.
I give you a very easy example: Did you really encounter EVERY time icing when you went through green (or even yellow) zones?
So to proceed on here: whenever there is a 1000 foot cloud layer, you can perfectly go through that cloud layer with a totally ice uncapable plane, and all is legal in EASA land.
I discussed on that topic to very much extent with several very experienced flight instructors (in fact prior to buying my aircraft) and all came to the same conclusion. ADWICE, or any other forecast available in Europe, does not qualify to “forbid” any IFR flight, even when icing CONDITIONS are forecast. This is NOT known icing. Please distinguish between those.
It is still up to the pilot to decide, whether he will fly or not – but is not “grounded” due to any regulation.
That is where a Turbo gets really handy. Because you can pierce through any such cloud layer quite rapidly, be it in 5kft or 18kft, if there’s a turbo onboard. That is why I opted for the turbo, but left out all other deice equipment for now.
Ibra wrote:
I don’t think ice has ever existed outside “frontal clouds”
Malibuflyer wrote:
The lower picture is from advice – everywhere where you see green, ice is forecast between the levels given by the numbers…
Let’s get real, guys… My experience is that you will always get ice in clouds with temperatures below freezing. The question is how long it takes to pick up even a noticeable amount of ice. Sometimes this can happen quickly (fortunately my only experience with that has been flying in aircraft approved for icing conditions) or it can take an hour or more. That’s why light ice typically isn’t forecast at all.
I would have no second thoughts about punching through a thin layer of inversion cloud in a non-deiced aircraft, but I wouldn’t want to stay in it.
Malibuflyer wrote:
if you look at the current advice chart, major parts of Europe are actually closed for non fiki flights.
While I absolutely think adwice is a super product, is is not a legal document of any sort. Actually, NO forecast product is, even if some TSB’s sometime pretend so.
Also it is not compulsory to watch Adwice before you fly. And there are preciously little other icing charts of that quality around.
I’d think saying that non-FIKI planes are grounded in all areas where there is a probability of ice, is pushing it as well. Particularly now in winter, where you may have small layers of stratus often a few hundred feet thick, they all can have light ice inside but even airplanes without any anti icing equipment can climb or descent through them usually without too much hassle.
Frontal weather is different, particularly situations as today, where you can see layers of several thousand feet and particularly moderate or severe thrown in. I would think that even FIKI planes of this cathegory should not plan for continued flight into any of moderate or severe icing, but use their means to get out of there pronto! Severe is even a threat to full blown airliners, so no Malibu or TB20 or Seneca e.t.c have anything to do in such areas at all. Tail plane stalls in icing have killed a number of people including a guy I knew well in a Malibu not too long ago.
FIKI does give a bit of a sense of security it often does not really deserve. All of those systems are “get out of Dodge” systems. Boots have their known limitations, so has TKS, so has Thermawing. Anti-Ice is always better than de-ice, so TKS and Thermawing or even better heated surfaces like the airliners use are certainly more desirable than boots, on the other hand, boots usually don’t run out of fluid and don’t require bleed air systems the size of an RB211, hence even a series of jets use them.
Turbos make a huge differnce as in terms of rate of climb and how high they can climb. They will go through critical layers faster and have more reserves than non turbo engines. The biggest problem there is ice on the prop, which is why a lot of such planes have hot props. And as it was said before, for any planes without full anti/de icing system, it is vital to have an “out”, predominantly downwards.
Fully agree. UdoR wrote:
Adwice does not qualify for an “ice forecast” in the meaning of EASA regulation.
What would in your opinion qualify as an “ice forecast” in Europe?
Or are you basically saying that the people at Diamond are morons when they write in the EASA-AFM of the DA-42 : “not allowed to fly into known and forecast icing” although they should know that something like forecast icing doesn’t exist at all.
UdoR wrote:
This is NOT known icing. Please distinguish between those.
I do – this is why I write about forecast icing. Do you distinguish between those two as well?
In addition to that, it obviously gets known icing latest at the very moment where you enter the cloud and actually see the ice forming on your windshield or wing. At that moment you have to leave the icing conditions immediately in such an airplane. And immediately is not “so I carry on climbing and see when it ends” but in most cases to leave the cloud the way you came in. And that is descend again.
It is like rationalizing to oneself that it is perfectly fine (some pilots even regard it as self defense against impossible regulation) to enter IMC on a Z-Flightplan before IFR starts. It is not!
Airborne_Again wrote:
My experience is that you will always get ice in clouds with temperatures below freezing.
Absoultely – therefore if (like many times in this time of the year) a massive cloud layer in that temperature range is forecast, than ice is forecast.
Pretending differently would be like a VFR pilot claiming “I could not know for sure that the visibility inside is really below 1.5 km before I entered the cloud – and after I was surprised that it really is, I still had to go through the cloud on the other side – therefore it was a perfectly legal VFR flight.”
Airborne_Again wrote:
I would have no second thoughts about punching through a thin layer of inversion cloud in a non-deiced aircraft,
Sure – and it is your choice with manageable risk. From legal standpoint, however, I hope we agree that in a plane that is not certified for “known and forecast icing” it is as legal as punching through this very same cloud layer VFR …
If I am allowed to give some advice :-) its ADWICE (Advanced Diagnosis and Warning system for aircraft ICing Environments) icing forecasts for European air space.
Vref wrote:
If I am allowed to give some advice :-) its ADWICE (Advanced Diagnosis and Warning system for aircraft ICing Environments) icing forecasts for European air space.
LOL! Well observed!
It’s funny that while you use a product for since it was around one still can find misspelling it to the intended pun expression. Have to say though, the guy who thought out this name could have made a fortune in advertizing….
And immediately is not “so I carry on climbing and see when it ends” but in most cases to leave the cloud the way you came in. And that is descend again.
That is highly descriptive “of exit icing conditions” 
also a very bad advice: it only works in stratus layered clouds, in vertical towers clouds if you punch ice, you have to move laterally 
Here is a nice summary on US operational rules, I don’t see “descend immediately”?
Also for reference on more US backgrounds as “(US) FIKI”, “(US) protected”, “known”, “forecasted”, “trace”, “light”, “moderate” as well as how AFM limitation are specified, you will be surprised that there are aircraft non-FIKI with clean wings that are still certified to fly in known light icing due to historical reasons (draggy wings even without ice with plenty of available power)
There is lot of details but for ease of understanding: “unless you are FIKI equipped don’t fly in clouds bellow zero is a good advice” (I doubt it’s a legal or operational rule)
https://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar01-91.pdf
When European pilots lose their compass on this topic (EU NCO only says don’t crash on expected/actual ice, EU MET don’t say much about it, so we are only left with “US POH” wording), they go and pick US rules and say a simple “no FIKI = no winter IMC” but at least can we spell those FAA rules correctly?
Here is what NCO says about icing encounters, asking ATC for higher or left/right is legally OK but yes it’s not wise
From legal standpoint, however, I hope we agree that in a plane that is not certified for “known and forecast icing” it is as legal as punching through this very same cloud layer VFR …
That is pure imagination…
It is just as well pilots don’t regulate each other
What is your source for that statement?
There is none
I don’t know about Peter’s retrofit, but TB20s with factory-installed TKS are allowed to fly into known and forecast icing conditions according to their POH.
Identical to the factory fit, and it isn’t “FIKI” in the FAA system either. Single alternator, etc.
There are various threads here on icing… worst I have had was in a thin stratus cloud. Main icing thread.
Malibuflyer wrote:
In addition to that, it obviously gets known icing latest at the very moment where you enter the cloud and actually see the ice forming on your windshield or wing.
So I switch my TKS on before entering IMC I notice nothing I am fine :-), it was not forecasted for this Flight level, maybe its there maybe its not….it was not forecasted and not known…still it feels good to have it :-)
Malibuflyer wrote:
What would in your opinion qualify as an “ice forecast” in Europe?
There is, at present, no such product available in Europe which was able to forecast presence of actual ice. So answer is: None. At present, it is impossible – from a legal standpoint, and to all that I think that I understood – to fulfil the requirement “ice forecast” in Europe. Therefore, it is reduced to the only option of “known ice”.
Please understand, this is my understanding of the legal standpoint. I have not and do not say that ADWICE was useless, am far away from saying that. It is a good help for planning.
Malibuflyer wrote:
I hope we agree that in a plane that is not certified for “known and forecast icing” it is as legal as punching through this very same cloud layer VFR …
No we do not, as I explained above.
I am not saying that I would do it. That is another topic I never touched. But you said planes were grounded whenever ADWICE shows green, and to all information that I gathered this is not the case.
Airborne_Again wrote:
you will always get ice in clouds with temperatures below freezing. The question is how long it takes to pick up even a noticeable amount of ice
Well I have made some flights already in exactly the conditions which were indicated before: Thin cloud layers in meteorological conditions where ice could form. ADWICE showed green for about 2000 feet. We levelled out below the cloud layer, accelerated to yellow arc and climbed through in about a minute and could not see any ice on the plane. So for me, this is: no ice encountered.
I would not dare to stay in there for an hour, of course not. But why prohibit something that is perfectly safe?
