I'm late to the party....TKS?

[GeeBee]

8 hours ago, wombat said:

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.

Hey it is your cite, not mine. The FAA is telling you when they are going to break out the 5 inch flange bit on you and make life difficult. It is a bit like J-Walking in CA. The CA pedestrian law says, you have the right of way over all vehicles the moment you step off the curb, even if it is not a marked crosswalk or an intersection. All traffic must come to a stop....but you can also be charged with J-walking if there is a marked crossing nearby. The opinion is signed by the Chief Counsel of the FAA. I tend to take him at his word I don't think he wrote what he wrote for anyone to second guess how his prosecutorial thinking or discretion will work.

[wombat]

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.

[GeeBee]

"If the composite information indicates to a 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 likely exist."

They are going to ask that question and if the answer is yes, hire a lawyer. In legal terms it is "the reasonable man approach" and if you cannot prove you where reasonable, hire a lawyer. By the way if you assert it was , "un-forecast" the first thing they will do is listen to the tapes to see if you complied with 91.183.

 

[GeeBee]

54 minutes ago, wombat said:

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.

You can't be "a little bit pregnant".

[Hank]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

. . . 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.

 

19 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

You can't be "a little bit pregnant".

Did the airplane fly away from the icing conditions, or did the icing stop? I can't tell what happens behind my Mooney, especially at cruise speed in IMC.

[GeeBee]

49 minutes ago, Hank said:

 

Did the airplane fly away from the icing conditions, or did the icing stop? I can't tell what happens behind my Mooney, especially at cruise speed in IMC.

You can't get pregnant from a toilet seat either.

[Fly Boomer]

3 hours ago, wombat said:

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.

My understanding as well.

[GeeBee]

There is no difference between a B767 and a B767ER except for a backup hydraulic driven generator (HMG). In 40 years no one has had to rely upon the HMG except for a fuel exhaustion due to hijack. 

One night a LOT airlines B767ER departed JFK. Center system hydraulics failed which means no HMG. No HMG, no ETOPS. Have to stay within 60 minutes of suitable alternate. Captain thought, no electrical backup needed, I got two generators and an APU. Continues with ETOP crossing. Arrives over Warsaw, with no center system hydraulics will have to extend gear electrically. Except a chart bag had bumped the alternate gear CB and popped it. Unable to lower the gear, they belly landed a perfectly good 767.  The Polish president hung a medal around the Captain's neck. The FAA said, "Why did you enter into an ETOPS operation without ETOPS equipment?" Now the FAA could not get the Captain, after all he had a medal. But, they suspended LOT's ETOPS privileges and fined them via their US operating permit. Cost LOT millions of dollars. The difference between champ and chump is one vowel.

If the alt gear C/B had not popped the FAA would not have been the wiser, but when Murphy moves in he brings his brothers, sisters and cousins too and the FAA will have the change of address.

[wombat]

14 hours ago, GeeBee said:

You can't be "a little bit pregnant".

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

[wombat]

14 hours ago, GeeBee said:

"If the composite information indicates to a 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 likely exist."

They are going to ask that question and if the answer is yes, hire a lawyer. In legal terms it is "the reasonable man approach" and if you cannot prove you where reasonable, hire a lawyer. By the way if you assert it was , "un-forecast" the first thing they will do is listen to the tapes to see if you complied with 91.183.

 

'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.   

[wombat]

13 hours ago, GeeBee said:

You can't get pregnant from a toilet seat either.

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.

Edited October 5, 2023 by wombat
Adding one more saying that is actually applicable to this conversation

[GeeBee]

Because if you enter known ice air, you entered it knowing ice was there. The word “known” being operative. You cannot enter known ice conditions, with an exit plan in case it goes badly and say, it was not known ice, since “known” is operative.

[wombat]

 

1 minute ago, GeeBee said:

Because if you enter known ice air, you entered it knowing ice was there. The word “known” being operative. You cannot enter known ice conditions, with an exit plan in case it goes badly and say, it was not known ice, since “known” is operative.

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".

 

[802flyer]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

 

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".

 

Looking at it on a flight-by-flight/cloud-by cloud level and asking if there is KNOWN ice in THAT PARTICULAR cloud is missing the forest for the trees. We're talking about which plane to buy for your mission.

 

16 hours ago, GeeBee said:

"If the composite information indicates to a 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 likely exist."

If you fly in AZ and hardly ever have to deal with ice, then arguing the semantics of "likely" vs. "known" is probably a viable strategy for justifying use of the non-certified system for the occasional icing encounter.

If you fly regularly out of my airport in the northeast November-April, there is a broken cloud deck over the field from 3-6k feet more days than not, and it's usually icy. If you dispatch through those clouds dozens of times a year, I think any "reasonable and prudent pilot" would conclude that their overall mission includes flight through known icing conditions. Regardless of the argument about whether we truly know if a particular cloud has ice in it or not, this pilot should probably buy the FIKI airplane.

[wombat]

3 hours ago, 802flyer said:

Looking at it on a flight-by-flight/cloud-by cloud level and asking if there is KNOWN ice in THAT PARTICULAR cloud is missing the forest for the trees. We're talking about which plane to buy for your mission.

 

If you fly in AZ and hardly ever have to deal with ice, then arguing the semantics of "likely" vs. "known" is probably a viable strategy for justifying use of the non-certified system for the occasional icing encounter.

If you fly regularly out of my airport in the northeast November-April, there is a broken cloud deck over the field from 3-6k feet more days than not, and it's usually icy. If you dispatch through those clouds dozens of times a year, I think any "reasonable and prudent pilot" would conclude that their overall mission includes flight through known icing conditions. Regardless of the argument about whether we truly know if a particular cloud has ice in it or not, this pilot should probably buy the FIKI airplane.

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.

[GeeBee]

9 hours ago, wombat said:

 

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".

 

But nobody relies upon just the forecast. As the letter from the general counsel says, "composite" sources.

[GeeBee]

To propound on the above post. I am planning a flight today. I have an AIRMET for icing at my altitude. However, the graphical icing forecast on aviation weather.gov shows no ice. Equally so, the winds aloft temps show icing not possible at my altitude. Finally there is no PIREPS showing ice. So is it known icing? Based upon the "composite", no.

[Cruiser]

sitting in the lobby of the FBO listening to the plane on approach report icing in the clouds.

 

[GeeBee]

That would definitely be "known".

[Ethan]

One of my pet peeves. There I was above the clouds, fat and happy, in my non-deiced Mooney 231. Between me and the airport was a modest overcast layer no more than 1,500 feet thick. It's spring so the clouds are below freezing. In my estimation, when I hit the clouds I would be just outside the outer marker. I might only be in them a minute or two - if they have ice, no big deal. Then, while vectoring to final approach nicely above the clouds but behind a light jet, the light jet reports light icing after entering the clouds. I am thinking, ok, no biggie but now I have to divert because ATC just asked if I heard the report of the light jet ahead of me. That situation is a good reason to have FIKI. Other than that, it's a waste of money. Richard Collins had a deiced P210 and he said having the equipment never led him to make decisions he otherwise wouldn't have made. He said the system didn't work all that well and cost money to maintain.

[wombat]

4 hours ago, GeeBee said:

That would definitely be "known".

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.

[802flyer]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

Known only to them.   To a plane flying through 5 minutes later, it is not known.

"I didn't inhale"

I'm not suggesting that a non-certified TKS system is less safe than a certified version in any substantial way for our hypothetical single flight. But pretending that flying through those clouds 5 minutes later is an "inadvertent" icing encounter would be hard to do with a straight face.

There are no sky police so like most regulations, this is largely governed by the honor system. But if there were ever an incident and the pilot's logs or collateral reports showed a history of regularly flying a non-FIKI plane through weather where a reasonable pilot concludes that known icing conditions likely exist, then I would imagine they'd consider that a hazardous attitude.

[tmo]

On 10/5/2023 at 1:15 PM, GeeBee said:

One night a LOT airlines B767ER departed JFK. Center system hydraulics failed which means no HMG. No HMG, no ETOPS. Have to stay within 60 minutes of suitable alternate. Captain thought, no electrical backup needed, I got two generators and an APU. Continues with ETOP crossing. Arrives over Warsaw, with no center system hydraulics will have to extend gear electrically. Except a chart bag had bumped the alternate gear CB and popped it. Unable to lower the gear, they belly landed a perfectly good 767.  The Polish president hung a medal around the Captain's neck. The FAA said, "Why did you enter into an ETOPS operation without ETOPS equipment?" Now the FAA could not get the Captain, after all he had a medal. But, they suspended LOT's ETOPS privileges and fined them via their US operating permit. Cost LOT millions of dollars. The difference between champ and chump is one vowel.

I did not know Lot got fined / had privileges revoked. Interesting, thank you for posting that. Is there any reference to that? I can't seem to be able to google anything relevant and it will come in handy sooner or later.

[wombat]

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.

[kortopates]

91.527 is certainly more restrictive but doesn’t apply to us - just fractional ownership and large or turbine powered aircraft.

Otherwise concur with other remarks that follow the Bell legal interpretation pretty well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk