Unfortunately professional pilots are not perfect. If they were then AF447 (among many others) would make us all give up IFR.
That’s exactly my opinion. And I am even less perfect than professional pilots. And you all decide for yourself … (or deice for yourself :-))
What is the real world practical difference FOR YOU between a plane certified for FIKI and one that has deicing but no FIKI?
I’ve never flown anything certified for flight in anything more than moderate icing. The pre-flight planning would be the same, on the basis that I’m not prepared to bet my life on the de-icing system being able to deal with what I find. So the plan is that I always want a way out of the icing. The practical difference is then the criterion for deviating from the plan and finding clearer or warmer air. In an aircraft without ice protection, I’ll react quickly to any observed ice, and leave icing conditions. In an aircraft with de-iced props and boots, I’ll sit there a while to monitor the accumulation rate, and deviate from the plan if I’m uncomfortable. With modern wx forecasting, it likely that one can predict the boundaries of icing with more confidence than 20 years ago (though never with perfect confidence).
Just read through the whole thread. Couple of things I’d like to mention.
Known ice: I consider known ice any condition where it a) has been reported, b) has been warned in an Airmet or Sigmet or SWC, c) whenever it appears on “Advice” which is the PC-MET icing product or d) when I get reliable information any other way (e.g. by listening to ATC enroute). It depends strongly what kind of icing is predicted and by whom or rather by what aircraft type in use.
Anti-Ice / De Ice: Generally, Anti Ice is the much better system than any de-ice system. That is why Jets with bleed air heated anti icing systems are pretty much immune to ice, while our rubber de-ice devices have one severe problem: you need the ice to form on them before you can actually get rid of it. I’ve flown with several Senecas in icing condition and it never was much of a problem as long as we took real care about it. The Seneca is one airplane where FIKI means not only it is legal but also quite safe to fly into constant light or short time moderate icing. There are other airplanes where it is legal but highly inadvisable.
- The ATR saga: No airliner type has had more ice related crashes than the ATR series. It started with Roselawn, continued with ATI at Como and very recently there was one in the Dominican Republic which most probably has fallen foul of ice. Personally, if I see one of these airplanes on a route I fly, I rebook unless I know for a fact that icing is very remote. Fortnuatenly, there are not a lot of them left now. Personally, I feel that after reading the reports on these accidents, the ATR should never have been certified for FIKI.
The Roselawn crash is well known… they were in a holding and without warning lost control and went right in. Not so well known is the ATI crash in Como, that one was again a clear indication that the ATR does not allow for ANY mistake in icing. That airplane was flown by 2 former DC9 pilots, both of whom knew icing from the DC9 as “anti ice on” and be done with it. The ATR they flew was in climb overhead Como when it apparently picked up a lot of ice very fast. They did cycle their boots a few times apparently but the airplane nevertheless went into a vertical dive without much warning and they crashed. About 10 miles behind them, a DC3 of Classic Air with 2 Ex Swissair pilots on board was in the same area. They encountered the icing, used their boots to get rid of it and turned back presto. However, their ice encounter was a much less dramatic affair because a) they knew exactly how to handle it and b) their wing and steering surfaces were very different to the ATR. The fact is: The ATR is in my personal opinion the single most dangerous airliner in icing conditions currently in passenger service. My own conclusion to this is clear, I won’t fly in it in IMC, ever.
I never flew a fluid anti ice plane, but I’d think that by the very fact that the system is there to PREVENT ice rather than take it away once it’s there makes it a better system than the boots by principle. Whether that is true in practice I won’t want to get into as I lack the experience.
As someone who has done meteo briefings for pilots for the last 12 years and was a dispatcher before that, I’d say there are ample products and decision aids available to determine what is known/unknown ice. The first and foremost decision argument however will be the aircraft and how it handles. There are planes which are known to be safe enough to fly in ice, there are others which are not. Personally, I’d say any aircraft with EFFECTIVE ANTI icing is preferrable to one with de-icing. Those with de-icing, I’d give a very good listen to people who have flown it in ice and know how it behaves. From the airplanes I do know which are FIKI equipped, I would trust the good old Seneca anytime whereas I would never touch an ATR. From what I have heard, the Saab 2000 is very well behaved in ice as well, so are the Dash’s (Colgan non withstanding) and the Citations (the older ones which use boots).
Non-FIKI planes without any anti-de-ice basically can handle light ice if there is a fast way out. Prop de-ice is the most useful thing in this kind of plane. Non FIKI planes which have anti icing or de icing but are just not certified can take a bit more time to escape but are basically under the same rules as non – de iced planes. For FIKI approved planes, see above.
A couple of years ago, there were some promising products in the pipelines using inexpensive anti icing methods for light planes. Apparently none of them ever made it to certification but the ideas were good. The first one I remember used heated folio glued over the wing and control surface leading edges pretty much like the rubber de-ice boots but then were heated electrically to about 5°+ to prevent ice to actually form. The second one used anti static charging to prevent the water droplets to actually touch the wing surface. I wonder what happened to them and I’d like to see both further explored. My reckogning is that a light weight, non comsumables and easy to install anti icing system would be the best possible way to protect our size of airplanes. Maybe we will see something like this in our lifetimes.
Best regards
Urs
From the airplanes I do know which are FIKI equipped, I would trust the good old Seneca anytime whereas I would never touch an ATR. From what I have heard, the Saab 2000 is very well behaved in ice as well, so are the Dash’s (Colgan non withstanding) and the Citations (the older ones which use boots).
To that I want to add the Cessna 421 which (apart from the jets) was the best aeroplane that I have flown in icing conditions. It can take an awful lot of ice without any notable change in flying characteristics. Most often, I did not even bother to operate the boots. Just turn on propeller anti ice and everything will be fine…. Regarding the older Citations, the deice boots work pretty well as long as they work. Two weeks ago two colleagues of mine suffered an asymmetric deice boot failure (only one side did inflate due to a malfuncioning pneumatic valve) which is something not covered by any checklist or training. Luckily they only encountered light icing.
The difference between the non- FIKI approved TKS equipped Cirrus and the FIKI approved version is in the substantial improvement of the system, change in the stall warning and backup pump plus an accurate readout on the MFD on how much fluid is left and for how long. Plus: it is now legal to fly in icing conditions to get out and if not in severe icing or freezing rain conditions.
Unfortunately professional pilots are not perfect. If they were then AF447 (among many others) would make us all give up IFR.
I just read the accident record and CVR transcript of flight AF447. What a mess :’(
Captain was sleeping, The least experienced co-pilot was flying the plane. At a certain moment he was so confused that he thought he was in TOGA (Take Off / Go Around) mode. Stall horn was yelling for minutes. In an attempt to recover from the stall, both pilots start giving inputs.
In the light of this discussion: I think that if the pilots of AF447 had actually trained this situation (frozen pitot tube / no airspeed indication), they would have recognized what was going on and recovered from it using basic skills like flying attitude and power.
Same with icing: If you are not trained to recognize it and take counteractive measures, it will bite you one day.
Every IR pilot flying airways in Europe will experience icing sooner or later. Nothing to be scared off, just be prepared, make sure you have a way out, and react!
True. Probably, a new instrument pilot will encounter icing on one of his first three flights, unless they are all done in completely severe clear conditions.
It is very very easy to do the arm chair analysis with the benefit of hindsight, but I completely agree…if you know your airplane, wether that is a Cessna or Airbus, conflicting information like that should prompt you to set x% power and hold attitude MANUALLY while trying to figure out what’s wrong. You should also be able to land your plane (in VMC) without any speed or altitude information. If not, go and train the approach power and attitude.
Assymetric deicing sounds scary – hadn’t thought of that, to be honest.
I just read the accident record and CVR transcript of flight AF447. What a mess :’(
Captain was sleeping, The least experienced co-pilot was flying the plane. At a certain moment he was so confused that he thought he was in TOGA (Take Off / Go Around) mode. Stall horn was yelling for minutes. In an attempt to recover from the stall, both pilots start giving inputs.
AF447 is an amazing story of a lot of holes in the cheese all lining up
Some of the above factors are present on many flights – 1,6 for sure. Has anything been done about 8,9?
I know a number of currently working airline pilots and apparently AF447 led to a lot of changes in their training, and some of it happened long before they recovered the data recorders because it was apparent from the ACARS messages what happened.
Oddly enough I don’t think AF447 was icing as we know it, or was it? I thought it was ice crystals that bunged up the tubes. SLDs should not be possible at FL300+ although I vaguely recall they saw a very high OAT at the time, and the theoretical lower limit for supercooled water is -40C.
