wombat

Good point! I hadn't noticed that, I just figured that since it was part 91, it applied to all of us.

Don't let the lack of hangar stop you from buying an airplane! Sure, a hangar is better in so many ways, but if it's not available, you can still own and maintain an airplane. It'll probably have some more maintenance required, but that's OK. It's still your plane!!

You wouldn't generally do this if the destination is IMC. We've got Whidbey Naval Air Station nearby, and they'll provide a PAR if you ask, but this 'no-nav' IFR is not useful for that kind of weather. It's only useful if you can get vectored below the ceiling. What I would put in my flight plan Eastbound is KBFI NEEDL1 2S0 What I would put in my flight plan Westbound is 2S0 KBFI and *maybe* a comment of "Expecting RADAR vectors to visual approach, no GPS, no ILS" The climate here is quite predictable and often East of the Cascades is clear while West is overcast at or above 2,000'. You can (and I have) flown through the passes to get in or out of Puget Sound when that area is overcast. But there are plenty of conditions where you can't do that. Ceilings in Puget sound below about 4,500 tend to make the passes IMC; as the relatively stable air masses move Eastward, orthographic lifting causes the ceiling to lower as you enter the Cascades, which results in the passes being fogged in even though they are 1,000' or more below the reported ceilings in Seattle. I've also had to wait it out at Easton State (ESW) for the pass to clear, or try Stevens Pass, and failing that, turn around and try Snoqualmie Pass. And I've had that fail and I've gone back to BFI, offloaded everything into a car and driven. I've also climbed over all the clouds, then flown over all of that to the 'rain shadow' East of the Olympic mountains (They don't call W28 "Sunny Sequim" for nothing!), descended, and then proceeded back East to Boeing Field under the ceiling. It can be a real pain, and it's a non-trivial part of why I now own the Mooney that I do. Generally if the WX is bad enough on the East side of the Cascades that you really need an approach it's bad enough that you might want to reconsider flying over the Cascades in anything less than a 737. (Not quite true, ERJ 175's and DHC-8's do fine as well, but I would think twice before trying a single engine piston. Or multi-engine piston, or single-engine turbine.)

I wouldn't suggest anyone say it was inadvertent. I would suggest that they say it was not "Known Icing Conditions". Since that term is undefined and is also the legal requirement. Also, interesting that nobody has yet brought up 91.527; this prohibits non-anti-ice aircraft (as defined in 91.527(b)(1)) from flying into known (VFR and IFR) or forecast (IFR only) light or moderate icing conditions. It also prohibits the same for forecast severe ice unless it meets SFAR 23 section 34, which is icing certifications, A.K.A. FIKI. So I stand corrected, a forecast of severe ice will prohibit a non-FIKI TKS aircraft from flying yet allow a FIKI one. My opinion is now that in trace, light, or moderate forecast ice conditions, it's perfectly legal (and intentionally so) to fly a non-FIKI TKS aircraft. Since 'known' conditions can only be determined by being in them, the prohibition against flight into known icing conditions is very weak at best.

This always brings up a question I love posing to people about my 182.... It's navigation equipment consists of a single com radio (VAL COM760 TSO) https://www.valavionics.com/com-760-tso.html and a Directional Gyro and a compass. No GPS. No VHF nav radio. No LORAN, no ADF, nothing. Assuming a current pitot/static and transponder and everything else is in order, can I fly IFR with it? The answer is 'yes' of course, however my choice of routes is limited. Nothing that requires anything more than a DG and a compass, which is basically only RADAR vectors. But some departure procedures (example: NEEDLE ONE DEPARTURE from KBFI) can be flown with it. Also, just being legal doesn't mean it's safe, and I have not and do not intend to fly that plane IFR as it is currently equipped.

Known only to them. To a plane flying through 5 minutes later, it is not known. That forecast and report would not allow FIKI but prevent non-FIKI TKS.

I get what you are saying, and yeah, flying with non-FIKI TKS increases your risk over flying with FIKI certified TKS. I've agreed with that the whole time. What I'm saying is that there is no single flight where you can legally dispatch a FIKI plane but not a non-FIKI one because of forecast or reported weather.

No. You are totally missing the point. It was not known until you were there. Before that it may be forecast, but forecast is not the same as known. The prohibition is not against "flight into forecast icing conditions".

What the..... ??? OK.... Right back at you... A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step. All roads lead to Rome. You can't cross the same river twice.

'likely' is not the the same as 'is' or 'does'. And you are going off the rails on your 91.183 train of thought. Seriously.

What the heck are you referencing here? You are very confused.

Yup, that's why I'm taking it as they wrote it. There is no hard definition of Known Icing Conditions that can be forecast and the moment an aircraft that might be in Known Ice leaves that bit of air, it's no longer a Known Ice bit of air. The way I read it, there is no forecast or set of PIREPs that makes it legal to launch FIKI but not legal to launch non-FIKI TKS. As such, dispatch reliability is really on the PIC of the aircraft. It's up to each PIC to determine if they want to launch into the sky when given a flight profile and set of forecasts and reports.

By performance I meant the ability of the system to remove or reject ice based on the TKS panel locations/sizes, hole patterns, flow rates, and so on. For the CAV Ice systems from what I understand those factors are all the same between the FIKI and non-FIKI versions. Unless there is an equipment malfunction, the way I understand it, two Mooneys that are in identical situations but one is FIKI and one non-FIKI TKS would have exactly the same outcomes.

This gives the wrong impression for most of it, and is purely wrong for part of it. No part of a forecast or set of pireps "locks you in legally to FIKI". If anything, I'd say that a decision to remain in known icing conditions (which can only be known if you are in them) without FIKI is potentially a violation, but you can't know that until you are already in it. There is no performance difference between the FIKI and non-FIKI systems. There are only redundancy differences. The only time a FIKI system would be more effective is if there was a hardware failure.

I don't know what the actual dispatch rate difference would be between FIKI and non-FIKI TKS..... There is never a 'known-ice' forecast where it's legal for one but not the other. When would I go fly if I had FIKI but not non-FIKI TKS? Hmm.... I don't know.

Many people have strong opinions on what is too dangerous to do regarding possible ice formation. Some will say that without FIKI they will never enter visible moisture below 0C. It's not my personal minimum and it's not what the FAA requires either. But if you want to do that, go right ahead. I will always support pilots' personal minimums as long as they don't violate regulations or try to force me to use their personal minimums. I know multiple people that have flown over the North Cascades regularly all winter (and summer) for decades with no anti-ice at all. Through a combination of altitude selection, route selection, and a willingness to shift the flight in time by a day or so, they've stayed safe. I'm not quite that brave at this point in my life but it does show that it's not an immediate killer.

Well, don't keep us in the dark here... What do they do?

"just like normal"?

Known Icing Conditions are very very poorly defined. Known Ice is well defined but it's defined in such a way that you can't possibly fly into it, it's something that you can only know as you experience it. The definition is: "Known ice" involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. It is clear that visible moisture below freezing is not enough to be considered 'known ice'. Nor is an airmet or sigmet. Similarly, neither is a pilot report from an aircraft that flew through that position previously. The reason the definition is important is because 14 CFR § 91.9(a) states that "no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual .... '' These manuals may state that a particular aircraft type is not approved for flight in known icing conditions. While "known icing conditions" are not defined by regulation, the term has been used in legal proceedings involving violations of FAA safety regulations that relate to inflight icing. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held on a number of occasions that known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know about weather reports in which icing conditions are repo"rted or forecast. In those cases the pilots chose to continue their flights without implementing an icing exit strategy or an alternative course of action and the aircraft experienced heavy ice formation that validated the forecasted danger to the aircraft. Read more about it here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2009/Bell-AOPA_2009_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

One thing to note. A Garmin G5 cannot replace more than one steam gauge. One G5 can replace an attitude indicator. One G5 (but not the same one that is replacing the attitude indicator) can replace a DG or HSI. One G5 can replace a turn coordinator, but not if it is replacing an attitude indicator or DG or HSI. You cannot use a G5 to replace an altimeter, airspeed indicator or vertical speed indicator. Yes, the G5 can display the altitude, airspeed, and vertical speed on it, but you cannot use it to replace those instruments.

I have a tie-down at Boeing Field in Seattle, and a hangar at 'home'. I usually keep a vehicle in Seattle on my tie-down parking spot when I'm not there that way I don't have to Uber around the city.

Should we treat those temperatures as an acceptable target as long as we are below it, like many pilots treat Vfe and Vle, or should we treat them like many pilots do the cylinder temperature redline and do everything possible to keep them as far away from that temperature as possible? On my plane with bladders and several other aircraft with bladders I've used, they leaked from the top of the bladder. I don't know if that was because the tops got hot and degraded faster over time, or if it's because they were not saturated with fuel as often and degraded faster over time. My rocket's wet wings were not leaking on the top though; only on the internal ribs to the wings and on the bottoms. But the sellers assured me that the plane had been hangared its whole life.

Over the course of your ownership of the aircraft, I suspect the additional cost of resealing the tanks sooner because they were left half empty will be lower than the cost of burning off excess fuel in order to keep them full but have the plane light enough for your planned flights. I would recommend a hybrid approach... If you know of a relatively soon family trip with no other flights planned in the meantime, don't fill it all the way up. If you think the next one will be several weeks away and you don't know if you are going to fly in the meantime, fill it up and then you'll never be flying with your family for the first flight in weeks. This is kind of what I'm doing with my plane... If I am confident that my next flight will be with more than just me and my wife, I'll leave the plane less than full. Otherwise, I'll fill it up and this might result in having to go fly before the planned trip, but I'm OK with that. The additional safety of having flown those extra hours will maybe pay for itself. And the additional fun of flying your Mooney around!

No, I'm not. Having just flown a great IFR flight over the Cascades and getting ready to do it again 2 or 3 more times this week I'd only sell it if that paid for something more capable. In my plane, weight is the most limiting factor; full fuel (and full TKS) useful load is 330#; I keep about 10# of 'emergency' supplies in the back (hatchet, fire extinguisher, emergency blanket, matches, etc) so since I weigh 160# that gives me 160# for my wife and luggage for both of us, which is adequate. We both pack light. I do have to be careful about fuel for the times it's going to be more than just me and her but on the bright side I burn 120# per hour, and most of my flights are about an hour each way, so as long as I know at least one 'trip' ahead that I'm going to carry another person or the pets it's very manageable. I was expecting more of my flights to be solo but it seems that I'm flying with my wife a lot more than I had been in my 182

Anyone that says they will not discuss any aspect of my aircraft's maintenance with me will never get my business again, and whatever in-progress business I have with them that I can cancel, I will. If I was in your situation, I would tell him to place that ELT in the cabin of the aircraft, close the doors and windows, and that he and his shop are not permitted to touch the aircraft again.