King Air approach speeds in icing conditions

pelmet · Post by **pelmet** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:42 pm

According to this incident report, the pilots planned approach speed of 125 knots was too slow as 140 knots is the minimum for all phases of flight after flying in sustained icing conditions. So do all you King Air drivers use a ref speed of 140 knots when landing on a 3,000 foot runway when there are icing conditions?

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:04 pm

Not a Vref as that's your threshold crossing speed but yes difinitely I always use 140 or greater while on approach and maneuvering in icing conditions. And yes that puts us in cat D for minima and circling. Shitty but that's the wat it is...

And yes JPC and Cat Driver, that's a limitation directly from Beech so you have to follow it without deviation!

RFN · Post by **RFN** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:38 pm

Same for us. 140kts till "landing is assured", then slow to Vref.
Doesn't take out the part about common sense, when it's severe clear and you're landing in Thicket (2200ft) though.

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:27 am

co-joe wrote: And yes JPC and Cat Driver, that's a limitation directly from Beech so you have to follow it without deviation!

The argument was not about limitations. It was about technique. No one said to deviate from the limitations in a POH.

The crux af the discussion though was to use your fuggin head as well, a point that was lost on you.

POH's and checklists from the manufacturer do not and cannot take avery aspect of every scenario into consideration. There are times where strictly following the POH will get you into more trouble than you are already in. Make sure you also know what you are doing and why you are doing it. (that is the "use your fuggin head part")

pelmet · Post by **pelmet** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:01 am

I know I am being picky but isn't Vref, perhaps 50 feet above the threshold, a phase of flight?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:05 am

Cant somebody ask a simple, straight forward question WITHOUT all you monkeys jumping in and renewing old arguments???? Grow Up!
And I use 140 till I'm almost on the ground. If the runway is 3000 feet long, other thoughts come into play. Can we get deiced here? Can we go elsewhere to land...and call it a day? Nothing quite as stupid as landing an iced up airplane in YPM, having freezing drizzel, and being stuck there till next June! Might be a good idea to continue to a "real airport", most of which are longer than 3000 feet?

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:46 am

Doc wrote:Cant somebody ask a simple, straight forward question WITHOUT all you monkeys jumping in and renewing old arguments???? Grow Up!

Being that I kept quiet on the first round, I thought I would at least bring in some sense after the discussion was renewed... Now, take a pill and pass me a banana Doc!

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:54 am

Gr8... Doc is on our side.

He is as perplexed as us trying to figure out how aviation has gotten so dummed down you can have guys like co-pilot out there flying relatively complex aircraft.

After reading his stuff on the flap discussion God help his passengers if he ever gets to fly as PIC and something goes wrong that requires more than a robot to figure out what to do.

Sad , Sad what has become of a profession that used to require some thought and problem solving skills to work in.

There is some hope though, as pilots get dummer the industry is designing smarter airplanes so I guess in the end it will all even out.

Cat

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:22 am

Cat Driver wrote:
There is some hope though, as pilots get dummer the industry is designing smarter airplanes so I guess in the end it will all even out.

Cat

Smarter meaning MORE complex! Yikes.. Imagine the reaction when theres a complete electrical failure or multiple hydraulic losses etc! I've watched guys with close to 20k in the hours department struggle when things go awry on "smart" airplanes... I don't even want to think about the "new generation" handling the same thing...

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:29 am

And you complain about personal attacks .?

Why don't you enlightne us as to the . Ellesworth "proper" way to fly a king air in icing conditions then.

All this because I don't think you should need 20 flap in a 172 on floats to get off the water? And you think that makes me an unsafe inside the box thinker?

I told you I'm not a float pilot, so dan't take my advice, do whatever floats your boat and leave me out of your childish pissing contest.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:56 am

Geeeze...there's just no talking to you guys. Piss off!

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:03 am

Boy, there's sure a lotta luv in the room!

The important thing to remember if that you crash, and you were following SOP's, that makes it ok

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:04 am

Hey Doc, easy, easy, there is sometimes a need to put things in perspective.

What goes around comes around.

Co-Joe got this personal thing started by posting this gem.

" My I never be one of your passengers or students .. I see now why TC put you out of business. WOW!"

So fair is fair.

Oh, WTF it's a slow day so I may as well pull co-pilots chain one more time.

Hey buddy, ( co-pilot ) the last time I was flying as PIC in icing heavy enough that I could not maintain altitude was over Cario Egypt dealing with Egyptian ATC.

Somehow I survived by doing more than leaving it to " Insch Allah " .

Tell us about the last time you were unable to maintain altitude due to heavy icing while IMC flying as PIC?

Cat

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:45 pm

Doc wrote:Cant somebody ask a simple, straight forward question WITHOUT all you monkeys jumping in and renewing old arguments???? Grow Up!
And I use 140 till I'm almost on the ground. If the runway is 3000 feet long, other thoughts come into play. Can we get deiced here? Can we go elsewhere to land...and call it a day? Nothing quite as stupid as landing an iced up airplane in YPM, having freezing drizzel, and being stuck there till next June! Might be a good idea to continue to a "real airport", most of which are longer than 3000 feet?

Doc, I'm with you on this one. Sometimes the opportunity to take a somewhat personal (but always with some humor intended) poke at folks is indeed just to tempting. For the most part tho, when the threads degrade, one has to bow out. It's the nature of the net tho, sometimes the mud gets slinging, and one has to learn when it's time to just step back and shut up. It's not something they teach in flite school tho, like that load of ice, folks have to get caught up in it for a while before they finally figure out its just not worth going there anymore. The ability of a personality to tolerate insult and look the other way is very much like the ability of an airframe to carry ice, every one is just a little different, and some are more capable. Cat gets a little crusty at times, but if we all work on him, a new set of boots will certainly help him shrug it off a little easier at times.

As for your landing in CYPM, heck, I'm at the front of the line looking for an excuse to go somewhere else. On a severe clear sunny day I'll settle for 'its to nice to stop here today'.

In the end tho Doc, it's worth it, and I'll tell you why. Some of the debates do indeed bring forth a varied set of opinions, experience, and references to relative limitations. Stop by the local flight school, and hear a bunch of cpl candidates discussing the merits of various postings on this board, and you realize, the intended audience is indeed listening, and learning from the debate. The school isn't teaching them to think about the takeoff after that landing with a load of ice on the plane, but, at least one fresh cpl read your comment above, and, on the way down the hill next wnter sitting in the right seat of somebody's kingair, they will ask the person in the left seat 'will we be able to leave again ?' When that happens, it's 'mission accomplished', but, you and I will never know it.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:05 pm

I used to fly at 140 untill I was clear of icing conditions. Freezing precip aside (I tend to avoid that) once I have the visual reference I then begin to slow to REF.

Now if it's 200', 1/2 SM in Snow, I would slow down before going visual just to increase my chances of getting in (major icing aside). I have never flown in conditions that a king Air could not handle, I have never seen it iced up to the point where it would not fly (i'd be dead, or sitting on the ground) I have seen it take a truck load of ice on the wings and handle just fine. Know your plane, know your limits, don't exceed either.

That being said, I would not try to land one at 140 KTS - that would be a bad idea.

McPhoo · Post by **McPhoo** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:43 pm

Thanks for getting us back on track KAG

Yep, I do the some in icing ops.

Dusty 3 · Post by **Dusty 3** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:04 pm

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4924 ... nboard.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4924 ... ftwing.jpg

I've seen alot of ice too. I'm not going to give full details on it, but yes I've iced up so badly that it stalled at 145kts -it's not pretty.

I've heard all the rants and rips, so don't bother thanks.

Pugster · Post by **Pugster** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:46 pm

If it's a 3000' runway and I was in conditions where I had to hold 140kts so far in I couldn't make ref in time to slow down...either one of two things were the case.

1.) I was gonna miss the approach because every 3000' runway I flew into had minimums WAY higher than an altitude that would give me time to slow to Vref

2.) I was in freezing rain, drizzle or the like - and therefore suspected that the runway would be contaminated to the point that I shouldn't be there anyways

To answer the original question as KAG and others have already done...maintain 140 in icing as it is a limitation. I've you've got to slow beyond that...why are you there in the first place?

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:48 pm

Let me say this though, I have never touched down at 140 KTS for reasons of icing. sure i'll add 10 kts or so, but never had to land that fast.

Dusty 3, If your stalling at 145 kts, your in way over your head. Which I'm sure you knew, or now know. Not judgeing, we've all been there.

That also being said, there are a few crashes that come to mind of drivers stalling it on to the runway because of ice. Number of approaches flown, duration and level of icing not known. Obviously too much.
I think of those boys in BC who at full power could not maintain altitude in a B200.
If your following the POH/common sense, you shouldn't have to land that fast...acts of god aside.

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:39 am

Cat Driver wrote:
...Tell us about the last time you were unable to maintain altitude due to heavy icing while IMC...

Cat

I've seen what I would consider Severe ice twice in my life. Both times a simple change of altitude of less than 1000' brought the conditions back to Moderate.

Once going into YVR in the winter in a 90, and once going between Inuvik and Tuk in a 100, and the one to Tuk was by far the worst. The prop spinners had ice globs about 8 inches thick on each of them! Everything unprotected had to be cleaned, nav lights, raydome, antennas. It only took 30 seconds for us to realize and change altitude.

Unless you're dealing with clear ice from FZRA usually the area is very localized and can be escaped with a change in altitude.

medicineman · Post by **medicineman** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:53 am

Is the 140 speed for climb and cruise only...cause of the angle of attack...to ensure the underside of the wing doesnt get iced up?

sofar · Post by **sofar** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:08 am

now, what if you want to keep an higher approach speed in icing conditions, on a short runway and therefore need 100% flap for landing, just wondering how many of you have heard about pitch upset?!?

with icing, should we increase speed or try to keep it a little bit lower than usual to use full flaps?!?

raven54 · Post by **raven54** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:12 am

Okay, why in the hell would you go to a 3000' foot strip after encountering that kind of ice??? just go home...

Vref plus 10 · Post by **Vref plus 10** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:33 am

this is such a dumb discussion. use some common f*****G sense.

edited for spelling..... one to many rye and cokes.

King Air approach speeds in icing conditions

King Air approach speeds in icing conditions

ice

icing and approach