Known Icing Aircraft

[C23flyer]

Besides the Cessna 310, what other aircraft are typically certified for KI in the single or multi light piston categories? Looking to upgrade in the next year or so to a solid IFR platform.

[iflyforpie]

As far as I know just about any higher performance single or light twin CAN be certified for KI. Singles include later versions of the 210, newer Bonanzas, newer Mooneys, Malibus, and many of the plastic airplanes that have come out in the last few years.

I've seen KI (or at least the provsion for such in the parts book) on Seminoles, Senecas, and Dutchesses, but it is far more common on bigger light twins like Barons and Aztecs.

[4Stroke]

the Diamond DA42 Twin Star is Known Ice certified.

[scopiton]

mooney ovation

[polar one]

C23. When I read you post it seems you mean by upgrading you are going to take an IF rating. But you are interested in the icing capability of the aircraft!!!

Not sure, but my thoughts on it is that there is enough to learn in the IF rating itself. You dont need to be poking your nose in any icing envirorment while training.

Also, while some planes are type certified for flight in moderate icing conditions, they are not all so equipped.
For example, some light twins do not have the inflatable boot between the engine and the fuselage, although they have the outboard boots. It makes a difference, the point being that the "type" can be certified, but not that particular aircraft.

Please, dont fool yourself. Icing is dangerous and not the place to be learning about it while you should be concentrating on learning to fly on instruments. And quite frankly there is some very overconfident instructors out there who feel that they can not only fly anything with wings on it, but that they can dangle their toes in the pond, so to speak, with regard to things like icing conditions.

[Hedley]

From a more practical standpoint, what you want in
an aircraft that you're going to fly IFR in winter is bags
of power. Bags of power up at altitude, so it can easily
continue climbing and top the layer, while effortlessly
carrying a load of ice.

So, it has to be turbocharged (if piston). You will
not find this written in any rulebook, but I personally
think you are insane to fly a piston aircraft in icing
without a turbocharger, regardless of it's paperwork.

Another thing you want is either oxygen, or far
more preferably, a pressurized cabin. Again, you
want to be able to get on top.

Also, some realistic, decent windshield de-ice.
Gotta have a hot plate. Alcohol alone doesn't
cut it.

Some more tips: I don't flight plan through
moderate icing. No one can pay me enough
to intentionally fly a bugsmasher through moderate
icing, which by the way, is anything but moderate.

But on occasion, you will encounter it. Let's
say you're on top, and there's a moderate
icing layer from 3 to 8 below you. Sigh.

Don't let ATC talk you into an early descent
during approach. ATC may prefer you to spend
quite a while in the moderate icing layer, but trust
me, you will strongly prefer NOT to.

Stay on top of the layer as long as you can,
then when you get close to your approach, get
a clearance right through the layer, turn
everything on, then come down like a bag
of hammers.

My apologies for introducing any practical
considerations to this discussion. Back
to your paperwork argument.

[200hr Wonder]

Also in addition to what Hedley said, get the goods on early don't wait till you are in the layer. Get the props hot and the windshield before they are covered. Start cycling the boots. The wait till there is x amount of ice because of bridging has by NASA been proven to not be true.

http://airplanepilot.blogspot.com/2008/ ... f-ice.html

And no icing video is complete without a nod to the old advice on deicing boots. In the old days, before I learned how to fly, probably before I was born, manufacturers told pilots to wait until there was a significant accretion on the wing before inflating the boots. The theory back them was that if the boots were inflated when the ice was very thin, inflation of the boots could result in bridging, creating a boot-sized airspace surrounded by ice the boots couldn't meet. NASA points out that while this may have been possible with the old, slower inflation boots, it is not with modern boots and that no one has ever shown ice bridging to occur with any boots. "Ho hum," I thought at that part of the presentation. Old news. Everyone has heard that debunked by now. The pilots I have flown with who advocate waiting are not delaying activation to avoid ice-bridging, which they don't believe in either. They are delaying it because they are waiting for the "skin" of ice to be thick enough to pull off the runback ice as the boots pop. This video, however, addresses this too. It admits that studies confirm that larger amounts do shed more cleanly with one inflation. But that research shows that although ice may remain between cycles, the ice will ultimately clear as well as it would have, had you waited for a large build up, and by activating the boots as soon as you have ice, you reduce the maximum amount of ice you are ever carrying. This makes more sense than decreasing the minimum amount.

If you got it use it, sooner is better!

[polar one]

My apologies for introducing any practical
considerations to this discussion. Back
to your paperwork argument

Apology accepted. No need to mention it again.

I understood the original post to be an inquiry about aircraft types. My post was simply that one should not mix IR training and flying in ice, and that even if a type can be certified, it does not mean that the example you are flying is. Not sure why you would not consider that practical advice.

And that is not to say that all the advice about flying in icing conditions was not interesting.

[black hole]

The best thing to learn about flying in ice in smaller aircraft is how to get out of it. Never plan a flight in icing conditions just because you've got boots. Try it with an engine out????

BH

[C23flyer]

My intent is to minimize risk while flying IFR in winter by having a properly certified aircraft should the necessity to get out of an icing situation arise. Forecasts are not reliable, and I would guess they could be wrong from time to time where icing is concerned. Polar...I didn't mean to scare you with the implication that I intend to fly in KI as a planned circumstance. I'm planning to do one upgrade, not several, and so it will be important that the aircraft be certified.

Hedley, is the turbo as imperative on a twin? Cost-wise that would be prohibitive.

[tired of the ground]

If having a turbocharged twin is going to be the breaking point then you are barking up the wrong tree. In general, adding that second engine has tripled the cost of ownership.

More systems, especially in the older ones, that are illegitimate abortions of their turboprop cousins. Twins without proper (read: wheelbarrows of money) maintenance and regular (weekly or every other day) flying are real hangar queens. If your plan is to be flying VFR mostly and some very conservative IFR then you're going to want a single. 210, Mooney, Commanche are all going to be up your alley. In the high performance singles you still have some of the same silly/stupid systems but there are less of them and they are cheaper to fix.

I do agree that you're going to want to be turbocharged with whatever you get. Oxygen and a turbo give you way more options then normal aspiration and crappy de-icing equipment.

[C23flyer]

In the high performance singles you still have some of the same silly/stupid systems but there are less of them and they are cheaper to fix.

I do agree that you're going to want to be turbocharged with whatever you get. Oxygen and a turbo give you way more options then normal aspiration and crappy de-icing equipment.

Okay. From a legality standpoint though, if I land (successfully) with ice accretion on a plane that is not certified KI, what are the possible consequences if TC happens to be on site?

[polar one]

Landing with ice on the airframe, is not, to the best of my opinion, a contravention of anything. It happens. You bump into it, of as Hedley stated, sometimes you have to get through it to get down. The idea is to get out of it as soon as possible and to understand how to operate the a/c differently..ie changing the angle of attack to reduce accumulation, disconnecting the auto pilot, flap considerations.. All things specific to the a/c you are flying. But you never know with TC. Some inspector decides to use a little authority and you might find yourself being violated for dangerous and reckless flying...

If you are not planning to go out and seek icing conditions, I dont think the weather for training purposes should be a big surprise, ie..short hops and only local flying for the most part. If you are concerned, sit on the ground that day. I really think you are overthinking this whole thing with regard to the aircraft type.

As far as turbocharging goes, if you are in a training situation you are not going to be climbing to the flight levels to do holds, approaches etc. Better to stay on the ground if conditions are conducive to icing...I think I might have already mentioned that.

[Hedley]

Hedley, is the turbo as imperative on a twin?

You betcha.

Pardon me for observing this but ... you appear to be more
afraid of a registered letter from Transport, than of dying in
an iced-up airplane doing the plummeting ice cube trick.

This is a very strange prioritization, and perhaps I am simply
showing my age, but I have received many, many registered
letters from Transport in the past, and I would gladly receive
100 more, than (just once) be descending with full power with
a load of ice on.

Canada is a very, very strange country.

Anyways, for completeness, I should mention that the
problems of icing don't end with:

1) a wing with less lift and more drag
2) a tailplane that might stall
3) a windshield you can't see out of

The above are pretty minor. What scares me about
icing in a bugsmasher is the weird stuff that no one
thinks about:

4) the crankcase breather freezing over, and blowing
all the oil out the front seal

5) The fuel vents freezing over, stopping the flow
of fuel out of the tanks after they've collapsed.

I understand that paper is nice. Paper is great.
Paper is wonderful. But the problem is that
AIRPLANES CAN'T READ. You can have all
the paper in the world - thick, creamy paper and
dark, dark ink - and be in a world of hurt.

Turbos and cabin pressurization (or at least oxygen)
may not be legally required to fly a bugsmasher in ice,
but like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, some
day you're really going to wish you'd spent the money
on it.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Besides the Cessna 310, what other aircraft are typically certified for KI in the single or multi light piston categories? Looking to upgrade in the next year or so to a solid IFR platform.

C23flyer, I have tried to keep out of this thread because these conversations usually get way off track.....but.....

...you are getting a lot of good advice here.

When you are at this point in your decision making regarding buying a serious airplane such as one that is certified to fly in known ice your decision is really easy.

Hedley, is the turbo as imperative on a twin? Cost-wise that would be prohibitive.

Don't buy an airplane to fly in ice.

There are many things in flying that can kill you real fast and ice is one of them......

....." Known ice " is a lawyer / regulator thing, a poorly thought out description around which you are held responsible should you make a decision to fly when there may be icing on your route......and your airplane is not certified to fly in KI.......

.......when discussing light aircraft especially piston engine twins there is no such thing as a safe airplane to fly in known ice for the simple reason they do not have the power / performance to fly you out of it should you run into a real bad icing area......which there are lots and always at the wrong place.

Anyhow that is my advice.....for what ever it is worth, based on experience and the fact that I am the most lucky pilot to ever have flown in icing because I should be dead considering some of the frightening experiences I have had flying airplanes certified for known ice.

[Hedley]

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?se ... cle_id=613

[KAG]

As far as KI twins pistons, my experience is limited to Baron and Travelair. The Baron handled very well in icing, was certified up to moderate icing, and was not turbo charged. My only complaint was the lack of a heated windshield - it used alcohol sprayers.
The C310 I hear is not very good in iceing.

The plane you choose also has alot to do with the area you live in. On either coast, your going to get more ice, the mountains are a wild card, western Canada not so much, and east of the MB border can also see it's fair share, especially near the great lakes.

[iflyforpie]

Some Barons have the heated windshield (just the little window in the center). Not sure if it is OEM or STC.

Here in the rocks, it should be turbine and pressurized (with MEAs as high as 14,000) if you are going to encounter any icing. There was a King Air 350 that was just about brought down by ice and had to get emergency vectors to lower terrain not too far from here. Another local operator was running a Navajo and they really had to pick and chose their days to operate in the winter.

[Hedley]

Take a look at the wx outside my window right now:

http://www.flightplanning.navcanada.ca/ ... Mode=graph

Does that look like a happy place for a bugsmasher?

[C23flyer]

Hedley, thanks for the headsmack. I don't know what I was thinking there. Great article by the way...Collins is one of my favourite aviation writers. Paul Craig is another (The Killing Zone). I know they would both agree with you. I'm abandoning my preoccupation with a KI certified aircraft, and re-evaluating my desire to fly IFR in winter when weather is marginal WRT icing. As polar one suggested, those challenges are a long way down the runway at the moment, but I do want to be equipped with the best possible platform for IFR flying that I can afford when I do the upgrade.

I appreciate the feedback guys.

[odf]

some points in regard to aircraft "certified" for flight in known ice. Certification for aircraft to fly into known icing conditions became a requirement of the aircraft manufacturers around 1975. Before 1975 companies equipped some of their aircraft with deice equipment and some of these companies "approved" flight in certain icing conditions if the aircraft carried the required equipment. Piper "approved" flight in light to moderate icing in Navajos if properly equipped. This information is found in the POH. Cessna on the other hand states in some if not all POH before 1975 that flight in known ice is not reccomended. TC inspectors that I have delt with take the position therefore that Cessna Twins built before 1975 are not "approved" even though they may be equipped with the same type of equipment as Piper put on the Navajo.Check the POH of any type of aircraft you are considering. If the POH says the aircraft is "certified for flight in known ice" and the aircraft has the equipment listed in the POH and that equipment is in working order then legally you are good to go. If it is an older aircraft [pre 1975], then maybe an opinion from TC would be in order. One other point be very wary of any modifications. A lot of aircraft have had hot plates installed over the u/s heated windshield. Even if the hotplate is stc'd for installation on the aircraft does not mean that it is certified for known ice on that aircraft. Someone would have to have done recertification

[Hoov]

Wouldn't do it without a heated windshield...

[Lost in Saigon]

Besides the Cessna 310, what other aircraft are typically certified for KI in the single or multi light piston categories? Looking to upgrade in the next year or so to a solid IFR platform.

ODF is correct.

Don't be misled. ONLY 1977-1981 Cessna 310R models with the factory installed "Known Ice" option are legal in ice.

Even with "Known Ice", it is VERY easy to get into lots of trouble with ANY aircraft when dealing with ice.

If you ever get caught with a load of ice, you become a test pilot. No one has ever attempted to land your aircraft in your configuration because every load of ice is different.

Even with Known Ice, there will be lots of ice on the unprotected areas of the aircraft. The aircraft will have unknown stalling characteristics and the tail will usually stall first.

The general consensus is to use minimum flaps and land at a much higher than normal speed to give a better margin over the stall speed.

[Doc]

It matters not how your airplane is equipped. If you don't know it's (and your) limitations in ice, you is gonna die. Happens every winter. No reason to suspect it not to happen this winter. Be prepared to execute the one hundred and eighty degree turn. Know how, and when to use this life saving maneuver. In what ever airplane you fly.

A wise man once said...."A clean prop will drag a (somewhat) dirty airplane through the sky, but a dirty prop can't suck the skin off a rice pudding......."

Most airplanes mentioned here can spend a few minutes in light rime ice. Non are any good at all in heavy ice, or freezing precip. Common sense. And knowing one's limitations. Those be the tickets to a long and happy winter of flying fun.....end of rant.

[Rowdy]

Man.. I couldnt do it down low in a piston twin. Catching ice on the king air makes me very very uneasy as is and it actually has some power and proper anti-icing and de-ice equipment.