Chieftain Icing

[goingnowherefast]

It's not as bad as the Caravan, but it's no King Air either. However your icing strategy should be an exit strategy.
Know where the tops are and climb through.
The only time I'd stay in icing conditions is if the freezing level is reasonably higher than the MOCA/MEA. AKA, you can descend safely and melt it off. Make that decision early too, descend before the ice makes that decision for you
If turbine airplanes are giving pireps for moderate ice, it's probably bordering on severe.
Once you have your first few icing encounters, try blowing the boots at different accumulations. Trace ice isn't going to blow off, but it doesn't hurt to try either. See what amount of accumulations break off well, but be a chicken too, try often.
IceX is good for the boots, the more the merrier. Keeps them from drying out in the summer too. (although some companies use a different product in summer for UV protection)

[AppleOTP]

Nowherefast, only turbines around are 1900s, and PC12s... and an occasional 748.

Are they going to be more adept at icing encounters than the chieftain? (Comparison - I know they're larger/heavier, but for my future reference, are they better/worse than the ho?)

[HiFlyChick]

Well, this'll be the first job with boots on an aircraft, so.... learning curve!

Would IceX on the boots have adverse affects (long term - degradation of the boots themselves?) I think I know what Mayday episode you're talking about. They interviewed a bunch of pilots from the same company, and got told "Wait. Company SOPs"?

If it's your first job in icing, then approach it with caution. I recall flying with a very new F/O in icing conditions - he looked out, sawthe ice and was somewhat agitated, so I looked out, told him that we had boots and all heats turned on and were doing fine. He replied "How can you tell?" And the only answer I could give him was experience. I'm sorry if that sounds like a cop out, but ultimately, there's no real way to accurately quantify what you're seeing other than to get used to seeing it (always with a way out!) and knowing what your aircraft can handle. On that particular flight, the rate of catch was such that the boots and heat were handling it (i.e. kept everything clear), but after a while, we got into an area of heavier ice, and I pointed out to the new F/O that things had changed and that while we were okay for a while, we couldn't stay where we were for the hour remaining. So we asked for a block of airspace and climbed up until we found a spot between the layers.

I mentioned the conditioner - that is a cream to keep the boots supple, but we found it only needed to be applied once a year (we did it in the fall before the start of heavy ice season). We applied the Icex on a regular basis, but it's really expensive and it takes very little to cover the boots, so don't just slather it on, a small dampening of the rag will suffice. We actually used the same rag over and over again and kept it in a jar between uses. We're talking seriously expensive for a very small bottle (i.e. you could easily use half a bottle on the aircraft if you were careless). Being sparing with its application accomplishes the job, and also shows your company that you care about their bottom line while ensuring you have a supply left over for next time.

I don't know why people would say that the Navajo doesn't handle ice well, unless the boots on the aircraft they flew weren't kept in shape. The company I flew for was good at reluarly inspecting the boots, patching the small spots, and replacing the boot when there were too many patches. For the most part, other than freezing rain, I had very few flights that didn't go due to ice in the approx 18 yrs I flew Navajos. Having said that, there was one flight I recall where the ice built up crazy-fast and even though I took prompt action and ended up diverting to the nearest airport on my path, it looked like golf balls glued to the leading edge.

Above all else, don't waffle - make decisions early, act immediately and aggressively, and always think about your escape plan.

And FYI, don't be stingy about the windshield or prop heats either - if we were above the freezing level, I turned them on whenever we were in cloud. I've had the windshield heat fail before, and you want to find that out early on so you can go somewhere where you'll stay in the clear. If you can't see to land, even though your boots are working, you can still be in a world of hurt...

[mbav8r]

Nowherefast, only turbines around are 1900s, and PC12s... and an occasional 748.

Are they going to be more adept at icing encounters than the chieftain? (Comparison - I know they're larger/heavier, but for my future reference, are they better/worse than the ho?)

“The size of droplets affects the rate of catch. Small drops tend to follow the airflow and are carried around the wing. Large, heavy drops tend to strike the wing. When a small drop does hit, it will spread back over the wing only a small distance. The large drop spreads farther. As for airspeed, the number of droplets struck by the aircraft in a certain time increases as the airspeed increases. The curvature of the leading edge of the wing also has an effect on the rate of catch. Thin wings catch more droplets than do thick wings. The rate of catch is, therefore, greatest for an aircraft with thin wings flying at high speed through a cloud with large droplets and a high liquid water content”

AppleOTP, hidlychick gave some very good advice, regarding your question there are many variables to consider, comparing the aircraft you asked about, the Chieftain has a much thinner wing than all three of those at roughly the same speed so the rate of catch will be higher in the Ho in the same cloud. Another big variable is those aircraft will typically climb faster through the icing layer so in it a shorter time, a third factor would be additional power increasing your ability to carry the extra weight and keep climbing, those factors will play a big role in whether you’re picking up moderate or severe amounts of ice.

[valleyboy]

The total irony of all this discussion is that in reality boots are what pacifiers are made out of -- well ok similar materials. Boots are ancient technology and for most aircraft that have them, all they are good for is perhaps providing enough time to find an exit. The main issue with any piston aircraft is performance and the lack of ability to wave at ice on the way by. Even turbo props, especially 705 group are likely as dangerous an aircraft you want to find in icing. Until you reach the turbo jet class with lots of thrust and plenty of bleed air icing begins to become so much less of a factor, even operations in freezing rain is a non issue and ironically wing and empenauge likely isn't even turned on in the climb. Boeing classics didn't have tail anti-ice.

Back when DC-3 was the mainstay of NWO/Manitoba the game was to lighten up the aircraft as much as possible, this mean removing the boots all together. Didn't seem to effect operations much., although I think there was more rum drank back in those days Maybe there is a bonus when flying with no wx reporting,"it was always like a box of chocolates" Bottom line - just because you have boots doesn't mean they really will make that much difference. Percentage wise I would tend to believe that most flights where boots were cycled the flight could have been conducted without their use. They do give you a little bit of a edge but in reality it will be your brain that is the biggest asset.

For the SOP worshipers out there, what rules do you apply if the system fails at the critical time. Even with a great SOP you still have to think on your feet from time to time.

[C.W.E.]

For sure the DC3 could fly with a lot of ice and the boots did help some.

One thing the DC3 could not fly very well with was wing contamination on the upper surfaces, especially hoar frost.

I did some flying in the Navajo and I recall you had to be aware of ice build up on the elevator balance horns if you were picking up a lot of ice.

[AppleOTP]

Thanks for the responses guys, as they say "No one will be old enough to make the same mistakes everyone else already has", so I thought I'd get input from drivers of the ho.

[Justjohn]

The ‘Ho is a tank in the ice. Notice how the boots keep the leading edges clean even during significant icing.

[AppleOTP]

Personal experience, John?

[Justjohn]

Yep, about ten years ago running around in the maritimes. That was about 15 mins exposure until we could get out of it. I hesitate to call it severe icing as the boots kept knocking it off the leading edges, but we were pretty anxious until we got clear of it.

Also brushed up on reading a GFA after that.

[Zaibatsu]

Also brushed up on reading a GFA after that.

That’s the biggest thing. It’s rarely the aircraft, it’s mostly the conditions. Someone flying through puff balls at relatively high OATs that put a lot of ice on the plane will probably think it’s pretty good as it sheds quick and melts or sublimates off in clear air. Or someone with a light and cream puff aircraft with a bit of reserve speed punches through a layer with relative ease. They’re going to have a good opinion of the aircrafts capabilities.

But if you’re loaded to the gills with a tired aircraft and facing a very thick layer of clear or getting those performance destroying hooks and fingers on the plane and you can’t climb out of it because you don’t have the performance, can’t descend out of it because of obstacle clearance or traffic, and can’t get into VMC laterally, or don’t know where the freezing levels or non-icing layers are because you didn’t print off the weather... the very bad opinion of your aircraft’s icing capabilities might be the last one you have.

Those photos would have been at the accident site of a Navajo in BC. It’s nearly eaten much more capable aircraft.

[munzil]

Anyone here familiar with Chieftain Ground Anti and Deice programs? Is the chieftain certified to be sprayed? If so is there any literature out there that would give some guidance on policies and procedures?

many thanks!

[mbav8r]

Honestly though, don’t take this the wrong way, if you don’t know, this the company you work for has failed you. I don’t know of any aircraft specifically “certified to be sprayed”, none are certified to fly with a contaminated wing. It’s been a while, so I don’t recall if the Vr of a Navajo is above 100 knots, that will determine what fluid to use. The other thing, to do it properly requires a trained person, to do it bush style is like most of us did, requires a wing and a prayer!
https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... -fluids-15
Summary - Chapter 3

Frozen contaminants are most often removed in commercial operations by using Freezing Point Depressant (FPD) fluids.

It is the heat contained by the Type l (deice) fluid and hydraulic forces (high pressure spray equipment) that removes the frozen contaminants.

It is imperative that take-off not be attempted on any aircraft unless the PIC has determined that all critical surfaces of the aircraft are free of frost, ice or snow contamination.

Aircraft deicing/anti-icing fluids consist of four types. They are Type I, II, III, and IV.

Deicing fluids are typically ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol or propylene glycol based fluids containing water, corrosion inhibitors, wetting agents and dye.

Anti-icing fluids are similar in composition except that they also contain polymeric thickeners. They are formulated to prevent formation of unabsorbed frozen contamination for a longer period of time than deicing fluids; however, the protection is still for a limited period of time.

The operator is ultimately responsible for ensuring that only qualified fluids are used.

If the colour of the fluid being applied to the aircraft is NOT the colour anticipated, the procedure should be stopped and the situation investigated.

Type I fluids are used for deicing or anti-icing, but provide very limited anti-icing protection.

Type II fluids are designed to remain on the wings of an aircraft during ground operations, thereby providing anti-icing protection. This fluid should be used on aircraft with rotation speeds (Vr) above 100 knots, unless otherwise specified by the aircraft manufacturer.

Type III fluids are designed for aircraft that have a shorter time to rotation and this should make it acceptable for some aircraft that have a Vr of less than 100 knots unless otherwise specified by the aircraft manufacturer.

Type IV anti-icing fluids meet the same fluid specifications as the Type II fluids and have a significantly longer HOT.

The LOUT for a given fluid is the higher of:
The lowest temperature at which the fluid meets the aerodynamic acceptance test for a given aircraft type, or

The actual freezing point of the fluid plus its freezing point buffer of 10°C, for a Type I fluid, and 7°C for a Type II or IV fluid.
Some Type II or IV fluid residue may remain throughout the flight and this residue should be cleaned periodically. It is suggested that the use of heated Type I fluid/water high pressure washing may alleviate the occurrence of fluid dryout

[eyebrow737]

Honestly though, don’t take this the wrong way, if you don’t know, this the company you work for has failed you. I don’t know of any aircraft specifically “certified to be sprayed”,

Many aircraft are not certified to be sprayed. This means that the deicing liquid and anti icing liquid has not been tested on the aircraft and has not been certified to cause excess wear and tear to the airframe and it's parts or change it's aerodynamic characteristics. This is either done by the regulatory authority or by the manufacturer or a tandem of both.

So yes - aircraft to get certified to be sprayed with any of the types of liquids or even down to the manufacturer of the liquid.

Each aircraft when certified will also get policies and procedures as to how this is done, what kind of liquids can be used, in what conditions and where on the aircraft it can or cannot be sprayed.

As to a small plane like that - I have no idea munzil.

[ahramin]

Many aircraft are not certified to be sprayed. This means that the deicing liquid and anti icing liquid has not been tested on the aircraft and has not been certified to cause excess wear and tear to the airframe and it's parts or change it's aerodynamic characteristics.

Where are the Standards for this certification basis please? 525 appears to be mute on the subject.

[mbav8r]

Honestly though, don’t take this the wrong way, if you don’t know, this the company you work for has failed you. I don’t know of any aircraft specifically “certified to be sprayed”,

Many aircraft are not certified to be sprayed. This means that the deicing liquid and anti icing liquid has not been tested on the aircraft and has not been certified to cause excess wear and tear to the airframe and it's parts or change it's aerodynamic characteristics. This is either done by the regulatory authority or by the manufacturer or a tandem of both.

So yes - aircraft to get certified to be sprayed with any of the types of liquids or even down to the manufacturer of the liquid.

Each aircraft when certified will also get policies and procedures as to how this is done, what kind of liquids can be used, in what conditions and where on the aircraft it can or cannot be sprayed.

As to a small plane like that - I have no idea munzil.

Ok, fair enough, I’ve never seen the certified for anti ice/de ice stamp in any manuals or paperwork. I’ve been a Chief Pilot and Operations manager, PRM, including for start up airlines(twice). The only thing that was required in the ops manual was the plan(AGIP) for de ice, not even required for 702-704, just recommended. In the manual, TP14052 it refers to aircraft specific requirements a couple times but that’s it.
So, I apparently misunderstood the question as can I spray a Navajo, what choice is there? You either have a clean wing or you don’t and a hangar is not usually an option at most airports they fly to.

[munzil]

Ok, fair enough, I’ve never seen the certified for anti ice/de ice stamp in any manuals or paperwork. I’ve been a Chief Pilot and Operations manager, PRM, including for start up airlines(twice). The only thing that was required in the ops manual was the plan(AGIP) for de ice, not even required for 702-704, just recommended. In the manual, TP14052 it refers to aircraft specific requirements a couple times but that’s it.
So, I apparently misunderstood the question as can I spray a Navajo, what choice is there? You either have a clean wing or you don’t and a hangar is not usually an option at most airports they fly to.

Thanks mbav8r - I'm a heavy pilot, so very familiar with deicing procedures and fluids etc. I have also been a DFO though not in canada so not that familiar with the regulations around deicing small planes. I'm helping a company get a PA31 certified for Part 135 - 703 you guys call it here in canada and was looking for aircraft specific procedures for the chieftain for the Ground icing program manuals.

I'm sure it can be sprayed but the question is where on the aircraft, do the engines need to be stopped etc. Did you in your time handle a PA-31?

" not even required for 702-704, just recommended."

I'm assuming you saying that if the aircraft is not to be used in icing conditions then the plan is not required? per 622.11

"In order to operate an aircraft under icing conditions in accordance with the requirements of CAR Section 602.11, an operator must have a program as specified in these standards and the dispatch and take-off of the aircraft shall comply with that program. These Ground Icing Operations Standards specify the program elements, for both operations and training, that shall be addressed in an operator's Ground Icing Operations Program and described in the appropriate operator's manuals"

[mbav8r]

Ok, fair enough, I’ve never seen the certified for anti ice/de ice stamp in any manuals or paperwork. I’ve been a Chief Pilot and Operations manager, PRM, including for start up airlines(twice). The only thing that was required in the ops manual was the plan(AGIP) for de ice, not even required for 702-704, just recommended. In the manual, TP14052 it refers to aircraft specific requirements a couple times but that’s it.
So, I apparently misunderstood the question as can I spray a Navajo, what choice is there? You either have a clean wing or you don’t and a hangar is not usually an option at most airports they fly to.

Thanks mbav8r - I'm a heavy pilot, so very familiar with deicing procedures and fluids etc. I have also been a DFO though not in canada so not that familiar with the regulations around deicing small planes. I'm helping a company get a PA31 certified for Part 135 - 703 you guys call it here in canada and was looking for aircraft specific procedures for the chieftain for the Ground icing program manuals.

I'm sure it can be sprayed but the question is where on the aircraft, do the engines need to be stopped etc. Did you in your time handle a PA-31?

" not even required for 702-704, just recommended."

I'm assuming you saying that if the aircraft is not to be used in icing conditions then the plan is not required? per 622.11

"In order to operate an aircraft under icing conditions in accordance with the requirements of CAR Section 602.11, an operator must have a program as specified in these standards and the dispatch and take-off of the aircraft shall comply with that program. These Ground Icing Operations Standards specify the program elements, for both operations and training, that shall be addressed in an operator's Ground Icing Operations Program and described in the appropriate operator's manuals"

Munzil,
Yes, a couple operations with the ho however neither had an approved plan and all the de icing was done by the pilots with engines off, like I said a wing and a prayer. I would imagine it would be done engines off but I’m guessing.
That being said it is not a requirement for 703,

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... 052#toc-21

“Air operators conducting operations under CAR 702 (Aerial Work), 703 (Air Taxi) and 704 (Commuter Operation) and foreign air operators operating in Canada are not specifically required by regulation to have an AGIP. However, they are strongly encouraged to institute such a program. The rational for instituting an AGIP for these operators is that they must address procedures for dealing with ground icing operations in any case. The AGIP provides a structured approach for addressing ground icing operations.”

[munzil]

Yes, a couple operations with the ho however neither had an approved plan and all the de icing was done by the pilots with engines off, like I said a wing and a prayer. I would imagine it would be done engines off but I’m guessing.
That being said it is not a requirement for 703,

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... 052#toc-21

“Air operators conducting operations under CAR 702 (Aerial Work), 703 (Air Taxi) and 704 (Commuter Operation) and foreign air operators operating in Canada are not specifically required by regulation to have an AGIP. However, they are strongly encouraged to institute such a program. The rational for instituting an AGIP for these operators is that they must address procedures for dealing with ground icing operations in any case. The AGIP provides a structured approach for addressing ground icing operations.”

Much appreciated mbav8r. Very helpful - I missed that.

[munzil]

Honestly though, don’t take this the wrong way, if you don’t know, this the company you work for has failed you. I don’t know of any aircraft specifically “certified to be sprayed”,

Many aircraft are not certified to be sprayed. This means that the deicing liquid and anti icing liquid has not been tested on the aircraft and has not been certified to cause excess wear and tear to the airframe and it's parts or change it's aerodynamic characteristics. This is either done by the regulatory authority or by the manufacturer or a tandem of both.

So yes - aircraft to get certified to be sprayed with any of the types of liquids or even down to the manufacturer of the liquid.

Each aircraft when certified will also get policies and procedures as to how this is done, what kind of liquids can be used, in what conditions and where on the aircraft it can or cannot be sprayed.

As to a small plane like that - I have no idea munzil.

Ok, fair enough, I’ve never seen the certified for anti ice/de ice stamp in any manuals or paperwork. I’ve been a Chief Pilot and Operations manager, PRM, including for start up airlines(twice). The only thing that was required in the ops manual was the plan(AGIP) for de ice, not even required for 702-704, just recommended. In the manual, TP14052 it refers to aircraft specific requirements a couple times but that’s it.
So, I apparently misunderstood the question as can I spray a Navajo, what choice is there? You either have a clean wing or you don’t and a hangar is not usually an option at most airports they fly to.

mbav8r. official response from transport:

"I already have the confirmation of the information I got this morning from our 703 expert :
If Piper did not approve officially into the PA31 POH/AFM the use of de-icing fluids, you cannot use it at all.
It is the position of TC, FAA and also a good expert on this matter, the NASA. Those fluids could damage the plane and affect the takeoff properties because of the too slow rotation speed."

with the gentlest of rubs "Honestly though, don’t take this the wrong way, if you don’t know, this the company you work for has failed you."...