TKS Upgrade

[Sam Muncy]

Does anyone know if you have an airplane with TKS for flight into inadvertent icing,  can that be upgraded to FIKI TKS system?  Process?  Cost?  

The reason I ask, I am looking at a couple of Ovations that have the former and I am curious if I can upgrade to FIKI if I get one of these airplanes. 

Thanks in advance.

Sam

[DVA]

The only differences between inadvertent and FIKI that I recall are the requirements for the addition of a second pump circuit, a heated stall vane (stupid expensive) and dual alternators. I don’t recall ever hearing about someone who upgraded, but it’s reasonable that it could be done. Call CAV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[exM20K]

There are some very expensive components that would be required:

• heated stall warning
• second w/s pump
• second main pump(?) I don’t remember if the inadvertent system has two

i believe the panels are the same.

generally, the economics for this sort of upgrade favor buying the plane configured as you want it, and there is no long term shortage of FIKI ovations

[kris_adams]

I've always heard that even if you get hardware parity the FIKI "blessing" isn't possible.

[RLCarter]

10 minutes ago, Kris_Adams said:

I've always heard that even if you get hardware parity the FIKI "blessing" isn't possible.

That's my understanding as well

[Steve Dawson]

I've been looking myself. What are the details of the system that CAV states and the differences in which type of icing you can fly through?

Do they state you can fly through SLD or freezing rain with FIKI? What sort of flying missions are you trying to do?

[squeaky.stow]

I asked this question to CAV about the non-FIKI installation on my 252. Their answer was that I would need all new wing and tail panels. They are different for FIKI certified systems. Essentially an entire new system with slightly lower installation costs due to having some plumbing already installed. Their rough cost estimate was 60AMUs.

Needless to say, I didn’t do it. Great customer service though. I just had my windshield pump replaced under warranty and they were excellent to deal with.

[aviatoreb]

24 minutes ago, Sam Muncy said:

Does anyone know if you have an airplane with TKS for flight into inadvertent icing,  can that be upgraded to FIKI TKS system?  Process?  Cost?  

The reason I ask, I am looking at a couple of Ovations that have the former and I am curious if I can upgrade to FIKI if I get one of these airplanes. 

Thanks in advance.

Sam

This question has come up before and I know the definitive answer on this as stated from CAV aero.

To go from a non FIKI installation to a FIKI installation requires removing in entirety the no FIKI installation and then installing a FIKI installation.  So this would cost more than taking an airplane without tks and just installing the FIKI installation because now you have the expense of removing the old installation.

It is a stupid requirement because the panels are identical, the flow rate is identical and all you get extra is a second pump and the requirement for an extra alternator, which you could well install anyway a backup alternator.  And a heated stall vane.  So except for the backup pump (which if you loose one it is a big deal), otherwise they would perform identically in icing conditions of any intensity.  BUT for legal reasons you are allowed to file to fly into known icing of course with a FIKI system.  So at 60K that is one expensive bit of paper work. 

Expensive especially in my book since the non fiki marker serves to remind me that I have no business flying into ice in a little airplane (with or without the FIKI blessing) but I have the tks as a "just in case" to keep me calm just in case.

So all this said, it makes absolutely no sense to take a non fiki tks equipped airplane and pay to convert it as compared to just selling it and buying a fiki equipped airplane.

[MIm20c]

11 minutes ago, Steve Dawson said:

I've been looking myself. What are the details of the system that CAV states and the differences in which type of icing you can fly through?

Do they state you can fly through SLD or freezing rain with FIKI?

One is legal and has additional backups.  It’s not possible to upgrade the system. On the used market you pay almost nothing extra for the $60k system.  Tons of FIKI O’s pushing through the market, I’d wait for the KI if I really needed it. 

The pumps fail often. If pushing the non certified version through KI I’d have the pump rebuilt more often (5-6 years?). 

Edited March 8, 2019 by MIm20c

[aviatoreb]

2 minutes ago, squeaky.stow said:

I asked this question to CAV about the non-FIKI installation on my 252. Their answer was that I would need all new wing and tail panels. They are different for FIKI certified systems. Essentially an entire new system with slightly lower installation costs due to having some plumbing already installed. Their rough cost estimate was 60AMUs.

Needless to say, I didn’t do it. Great customer service though. I just had my windshield pump replaced under warranty and they were excellent to deal with.

I think that is mostly correct but not literally correct.  My understanding is the panels are identical - mechanically.  They are not identical as per serial numbers/paper work.  The FAA requires compliance to the letter of the STC as written and CAV aero will comply.

[squeaky.stow]

This is quite possible. Jeff Holden at CAV did not tell me what the difference is. He said: “Remove and replace all the TKS panels as they are different between the two systems.”

I assumed that meant a difference in the hole pattern density or some other design change to get FIKI certification but I did not ask. It may also be that they improved the panel design since my system was installed. Perhaps newer systems all come with FIKI capable panels and the only difference is the number of pumps etc. Jeff is very quick to answer emails, so I am sure he can provide the answer if the OP wants to contact CAV.

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, squeaky.stow said:

This is quite possible. Jeff Holden at CAV did not tell me what the difference is. He said: “Remove and replace all the TKS panels as they are different between the two systems.”

I assumed that meant a difference in the hole pattern density or some other design change to get FIKI certification but I did not ask. It may also be that they improved the panel design since my system was installed. Perhaps newer systems all come with FIKI capable panels and the only difference is the number of pumps etc. Jeff is very quick to answer emails, so I am sure he can provide the answer if the OP wants to contact CAV.

I did ask at some point.  And others have.  This is an occasional recurring question.

Jeff is right.  There is a difference but as I understand it, this is a paper work difference as far as the panels are concerned.  But from where we sit, it might as well be an actual difference since it doesn't matter any which way.  To go nonFIKI->Fiki requires removing the system in its entirety and then installing a FIKI system complete at an expense greater than simply installing a FIKI system in a virgin airplane.

[squeaky.stow]

Just got this answer from Jeff at CAV. (Like I said, they have good customer service!)

The panels are different in a couple of ways but not in a way that affects the flow of fluid. All of the same surfaces are protected at the same flow rate. When we designed the FIKI system for Mooney the decision was made to change the panel lengths to require fewer panels while maintaining coverage. The panels were also manufactured using a different thickness titanium sheet for the front plates of all panels. I believe they went from .7mm to .9mm but I would have to dig through drawings to verify that.

[Steve Dawson]

15 minutes ago, squeaky.stow said:

Just got this answer from Jeff at CAV. (Like I said, they have good customer service!)

The panels are different in a couple of ways but not in a way that affects the flow of fluid. All of the same surfaces are protected at the same flow rate. When we designed the FIKI system for Mooney the decision was made to change the panel lengths to require fewer panels while maintaining coverage. The panels were also manufactured using a different thickness titanium sheet for the front plates of all panels. I believe they went from .7mm to .9mm but I would have to dig through drawings to verify that.

Why are you bringing facts into this conversation?

Ok another question based on the two different types, By what standards can a FIKI aircraft fly through known icing and what defines intermittent? IE: How does the FAA  define this?

Here is a scenario; Can you legally fly your non fiki through a cloud deck of 3,000 feet of strato-cumlus or strato nimbus to a higher and clearer altitude? (airport altitude is 1000' and 0 degC and deck is between 3-6K) and you've planned for cruise at 12K

[DVA]

Here is a scenario; Can you legally fly your non fiki through a cloud deck of 3,000 feet of strato-cumlus or strato nimbus to a higher and clearer altitude? (airport altitude is 1000' and 0 degC and deck is between 3-6K) and you've planned for cruise at 12K

Do you suspect icing conditions in the climb? Are there any reported icing conditions in the area? Is the temperature in the clouds conducive to forming ice? If yes to any of that then, no, that’s flying into known icing. Yes if your FIKI.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Dawson]

8 minutes ago, DVA said:

 

Do you suspect icing conditions in the climb? Are there any reported icing conditions in the area? Is the temperature in the clouds conducive to forming ice? If yes to any of that then, no, that’s flying into known icing. Yes if your FIKI.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey Dave,

These are areas covered in IFR training under meteorology so the answer is there. 

Please Note: I'm not an expert but it is a question covered by Scott Dennstaedt under his avwxworkshops.com . Scott is the guy to go to for weather.

[Sam Muncy]

I steer away from ice like my life depends on it. Freezing rain is a no go, of course.  They did not say what the system would handle, or I read over it.

The reason for me to have the ice "protection" is to escape inadvertent icing.  And....the light ice that has been reported in that 1000-2000 foot layer that I am descending through. 

 

[Ragsf15e]

38 minutes ago, DVA said:

 

Do you suspect icing conditions in the climb? Are there any reported icing conditions in the area? Is the temperature in the clouds conducive to forming ice? If yes to any of that then, no, that’s flying into known icing. Yes if your FIKI.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I disagree and so does the FAA.  Known Icing is only where you find it.  There are some good FAA legal interpretations on the definition of “known”.  The conditions you mentioned are telling you the potential exists, but it’s not known until you fly into it and see it.  Even pireps are sometimes difficult to use.  Different airframes ice differently.  So if a jet takes off, climbs through the 1000’ stratus at -5c and says negative icing, that’s not necessarily the same for a Mooney.  However, just because a cloud is colder than 0ish, doesn’t mean you will pick up ice.

There is no hard and fast rule to find ice which is why it’s real hard to predict.  Sometimes you have to check the pireps, know the weather really well, and then plan your out if you actually start to see ice.  Shouldn’t be near icing conditions without Fiki or a solid out (down or 180 back).  If there are pireps of ice, that’s enough for me.  If conditions show potential, and theres no out, I’m not going.  However, if I need to descend through a thin stratus layer that’s below freezing, there are no pireps (or pireps are negative), and its vfr above and below, then go for it.  You are legal.  Please read the FAA interpretation for yourself.

No systems are designed for SLD.  Not even airliners.  Ice will form on unprotected areas aft of normal protected/formation areas.  Good ntsb of a twin turboprop regional crash after trying to hold in sld. Indiana I think?

 

 

[DVA]

I disagree and so does the FAA.
...

However, if I need to descend through a thin stratus layer that’s below freezing, there are no pireps (or pireps are negative), and its vfr above and below, then go for it.  You are legal.
...

Please read the FAA interpretation for yourself.

With all due respect your response is incomplete as you are focusing on simply the term “known ice” which has had it share of ambiguity. That said, you could arguably be technically correct in one aspect and very wrong in total.

The FAA (and common sense) does agree with me, and its because my response took collateral rules into consideration where yours omits them.

Here’s something for you to please read. Let’s try to promote safe flying here, the rules are a collection of advice, rarely does one stand on its own.

Best regards,
Dave

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090126icing.pdf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ragsf15e]

2 minutes ago, DVA said:

 

With all due respect your response is incomplete as you are focusing on simply the term “known ice” which has had it share of ambiguity. That said, you could arguably be technically correct in one aspect and very wrong in total.

The FAA (and common sense) does agree with me, and its because my response took collateral rules into consideration where yours omits them.

Here’s something for you to please read. Let’s try to promote safe flying here, the rules are a collection of advice, rarely does one stand on its own.

Best regards,
Dave

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090126icing.pdf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Trust me, I don’t disagree about the dangers of flying in ice, just on the actual faa regulation and the interpretation.  The question was about what is “known ice”.  Each person may have their own safe or unsafe definition of that.  I was trying to show that the FAA interpretation gives us plenty of rope to hang ourselves.

This is the actual guidance.  https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-74B.pdf

[aviatoreb]

5 hours ago, squeaky.stow said:

Just got this answer from Jeff at CAV. (Like I said, they have good customer service!)

The panels are different in a couple of ways but not in a way that affects the flow of fluid. All of the same surfaces are protected at the same flow rate. When we designed the FIKI system for Mooney the decision was made to change the panel lengths to require fewer panels while maintaining coverage. The panels were also manufactured using a different thickness titanium sheet for the front plates of all panels. I believe they went from .7mm to .9mm but I would have to dig through drawings to verify that.

That brings up a side benefit of TKS.  I have heard they offer superb bird strike protection and so the thicker fiki version must offer protection against larger birds.

And you never have leading edge paint chipping to worry about.

Abd bugs are easier to clean off the leading edges.

But I stand corrected that there is no difference in the non fiki vs fiki version.  But essentially they are similar as per flow rates and coverage.

[kortopates]

4 hours ago, DVA said:

 

With all due respect your response is incomplete as you are focusing on simply the term “known ice” which has had it share of ambiguity. That said, you could arguably be technically correct in one aspect and very wrong in total.

The FAA (and common sense) does agree with me, and its because my response took collateral rules into consideration where yours omits them.

Here’s something for you to please read. Let’s try to promote safe flying here, the rules are a collection of advice, rarely does one stand on its own.

Best regards,
Dave

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090126icing.pdf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

4 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Trust me, I don’t disagree about the dangers of flying in ice, just on the actual faa regulation and the interpretation.  The question was about what is “known ice”.  Each person may have their own safe or unsafe definition of that.  I was trying to show that the FAA interpretation gives us plenty of rope to hang ourselves.

This is the actual guidance.  https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-74B.pdf

 

Ironically you are both quoting the same thing (essentially) and getting different interpretations. Our current icing guidance stems from the Bell legal interpretation letter that was to revise the FAA's stance that for a couple years preceding it was pretty close to saying known icing conditions where as simple as visible moisture at and below 32F. But the Bell letter was in response to an up roar that such an interpretation was totally unreasonable. I thought Rags did a good job of summarizing (its the same way I look at it) and the more recent AD put out in 2015 is directly in response to the legal interpretation of 2009. 

In understanding known Icing conditions its important to digest this paragraph from the legal definition: 

The formation of structural ice requires two elements: 1) the presence of visible moisture,
and 2) an aircraft surface temperature at or below zero degrees Celsius. The FAA does not
necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or
other forms of visible moisture at temperatures at or below freezing to be conducive to the
formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions. There are many variables
that influence whether ice will actually be detected or observed, or will form on and adhere
to an aircraft. The size of the water droplets, the shape of the airfoil, and the speed of the
aircraft, among other factors, can make a critical difference in the initiation and growth of
structural ice.

Most flight manuals and other related documents use the term "known icing conditions"
rather than "known ice," a similar concept that has a different regulatory effect. "Known
ice" involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. "Known
icing conditions" involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a
substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to
that pilot. 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 reported 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. The Board's decisions are consistent with the FAA's
long-held position in enforcement actions that a pilot must consider the reasonable
likelihood of encountering ice when operating an aircraft.

The reality is it all comes down to our planning and what we do when we encounter known icing. The key thing is when we venture into conditions where icing is possible, we need to have sure thing exit strategies available to us, such as descending to warmer air. And we can't continue on failing to take action before it becomes too late. But if we venture into possible icing conditions without any possible escape plan and/or wait too long to take any action we're pretty much asking to be made an example of enforcement action; if we actually survive the experience.

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by kortopates

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

That brings up a side benefit of TKS.  I have heard they offer superb bird strike protection and so the thicker fiki version must offer protection against larger birds.

And you never have leading edge paint chipping to worry about.

Abd bugs are easier to clean off the leading edges.

But I stand corrected that there is no difference in the non fiki vs fiki version.  But essentially they are similar as per flow rates and coverage.

I wasn't aware of the different panel's between inadvertent and known ice. In the Cirrus, the inadvertent panel do not have the same coverage as the KI which makes a big difference. But I wish CAV was more upfront about the differences. I can't help but imagine that CAV would have never gone to the KI panels if they could have met the protection requirements with the earlier panels. Why else would they go to all that expense unless getting certification requirements demanded it. Consequently there has to be some advantages in the newer panels in meeting the known ice protection requirements. At least I'd really like to know.

[Ragsf15e]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

 

 

Ironically you are both quoting the same thing (essentially) and getting different interpretations. Our current icing guidance stems from the Bell legal interpretation letter that was to revise the FAA's stance that for a couple years preceding it was pretty close to saying known icing conditions where as simple as visible moisture at and below 32F. But the Bell letter was in response to an up roar that such an interpretation was totally unreasonable. I thought Rags did a good job of summarizing (its the same way I look at it) and the more recent AD put out in 2015 is directly in response to the legal interpretation of 2009. 

In understanding known Icing conditions its important to digest this paragraph from the legal definition: 

The formation of structural ice requires two elements: 1) the presence of visible moisture,
and 2) an aircraft surface temperature at or below zero degrees Celsius. The FAA does not
necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or
other forms of visible moisture at temperatures at or below freezing to be conducive to the
formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions. There are many variables
that influence whether ice will actually be detected or observed, or will form on and adhere
to an aircraft. The size of the water droplets, the shape of the airfoil, and the speed of the
aircraft, among other factors, can make a critical difference in the initiation and growth of
structural ice.

Most flight manuals and other related documents use the term "known icing conditions"
rather than "known ice," a similar concept that has a different regulatory effect. "Known
ice" involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. "Known
icing conditions" involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a
substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to
that pilot. 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 reported 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. The Board's decisions are consistent with the FAA's
long-held position in enforcement actions that a pilot must consider the reasonable
likelihood of encountering ice when operating an aircraft.

The reality is it all comes down to our planning and what we do when we encounter known icing. The key thing is when we venture into conditions where icing is possible, we need to have sure thing exit strategies available to us, such as descending to warmer air. And we can't continue on failing to take action before it becomes too late. But if we venture into possible icing conditions without any possible escape plan and/or wait too long to take any action we're pretty much asking to be made an example of enforcement action; if we actually survive the experience.

 

Well said.  

Icing is nuanced, frustrating to predict, and sometimes dangerous.  It’s Difficult to teach and everyone can form very different opinions/techniques while using the same guidance.

I thought you summed it up well.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Ragsf15e

[M016576]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

I wasn't aware of the different panel's between inadvertent and known ice. In the Cirrus, the inadvertent panel do not have the same coverage as the KI which makes a big difference. But I wish CAV was more upfront about the differences. I can't help but imagine that CAV would have never gone to the KI panels if they could have met the protection requirements with the earlier panels. Why else would they go to all that expense unless getting certification requirements demanded it. Consequently there has to be some advantages in the newer panels in meeting the known ice protection requirements. At least I'd really like to know.

I think the answer was stated above- fewer overall panels for the same coverage- which reduces install time, and probably makes install easier... since the total number of panels changed between their “earlier” non-fiki design and the fiki certified design- there is probably no way to legally certify the “old” panel setup- despite identical coverage, flow rates and ice capability.

thats my hunch anyway....

one easy way to know the flow rates are the same- the advertised capacity for the tank is the same. The advertised run time in the de-Ice and anti-ice is the same.  And the pump is the same.  

Goes to reason that if you run out of fluid at the same time, using the same pump, at the same settings... then the flow rates would be the same (since the coverage is the same).

Edited March 9, 2019 by M016576