Quite an interesting short article on icing threat in a TBM
http://www.angelflightne.org/images/Docs/icing_tbm.pdf
[ local copy ]
It is a good article although I have to say that the tone makes it sound like ice is a far bigger problem than it tends to be in Europe. The lack of significant convective activity in most of Europe makes ice generally far more limited in vertical scope than in the US.
Some good explanations of the aircraft effects of ice however.
Turbine equipment AFM seem much more realistic on icing effects than the run of the mill piston AFM, with much higher Vy or Vref, limited or no flaps, much lower AoA for stick shaker/pusher activation whenever de icing services are activated.
RobertL18C wrote:
Turbine equipment AFM seem much more realistic on icing effects than the run of the mill piston AFM, with much higher Vy or Vref, limited or no flaps, much lower AoA for stick shaker/pusher activation whenever de icing services are activated.
Indeed, when the surface deice is activated on the Mustang you get a STALL WARN HI CAS message. You can clear it if there is no surface ice left. But if it is active you are limited to TO/APR flaps and have much higher approach and Vref speeds.
What is interesting in Europe is that after 115 hours of flying from September to now, I have never landed with STALL WARN HI. I essentially never avoid icing in the terminal area. While I don’t get icing at altitude, I do get it in the terminal area and it has always melted off….I have activated surface deice (the boots) 5 times in 70 flights.
the tone makes it sound like ice is a far bigger problem than it tends to be in Europe. The lack of significant convective activity in most of Europe makes ice generally far more limited in vertical scope than in the US.
That would not be a particularly passenger-reassuring statement 
Peter wrote:
That would not be a particularly passenger-reassuring statement
I seem to have missed your point. Why not?
A change of altitude +\- 4000 feet should also be considered to exit icing conditions. The additional item to consider would be a suitable additive to the final approach speed to account for the extra weight if ice has accumulated on the airframe. On the aircraft I fly for the day job, if you have a non-normal and have to land at a reduced flap setting, then a 15 knot additive is required to account for up to 6 inches of airframe ice (approximate value).
then a 15 knot additive is required to account for up to 6 inches of airframe ice (approximate value).
What aircraft type is that? Not a TBM, presumably
That TBM article is really good. I’ve saved a local copy and edited the original post with it.
I seem to have missed your point. Why not?
The lack of significant convective activity in most of Europe
and it took me about 10 seconds to find that one. There are much better ones, among my trip writeups.
Peter wrote:
The lack of significant convective activity in most of Europe
Peter, there is far less convective activity in Europe vs the US. It is relative rather than a suggestion that there is no convective activity. Surely you see the difference?
Not really, since Europe has CBs big enough to dismantle your (or anybody else’s) aircraft, so a statistical difference between Europe and some other part of the world (which does exist, for sure) is not helpful in preflight planning.
You Jason just became a victim of yet another one-liner: “The lack of significant convective activity in most of Europe makes ice generally far more limited in vertical scope than in the US.” One just cannot make statements like that in a GA forum which is read by loads of people who don’t fly jets etc.
And icing is a huge hazard in Europe, and is well capable of bringing down a TBM, which is the subject of this thread.
