I just wonder what the facts say. It is easy to see why boots can get overwhelmed, they have a limited cycle speed and if the accretion rate exceeds the the rate at which you can shed it it is just like a non deiced aircraft after only a minute or so – this can go VERY fast. And then there is runback icing and other fun stuff…
It is just that most light aircraft icing accidents in de-iced airctaft i remember involved boots, not a functioning TKS system. Now with a lot more boots than TKS around that alone is no surprise, and the first Cirrus chute deployment in icing (sadly fatal) WAS deiced (not FIKI, though)…
Thinking about it, the ‘plane is always going to weather cock under the ’chute and an open door will add some yaw so in this case the pilots’s door being open during descent probably helped with that very tricky situation. If there were two or more people on board and both doors were open I can imagine an even more violent dunking.
So far I have only very good experiences with the FIKI approved SR22T. The Turbo 315HP engine has given me enough power to push upward towards (if needed) FL250 with about the same climb ratio. The FIKI-TKS system has helped me get out of several more or less severe icing situations, where I must admit that climbing or descending just a 1000 feet would often be enough to get out. I have been in a sitation where like Peter said, the ice would build op in what seems like seconds to a thick layer on the windscreen, but when then turning on the boost pump setting, the leading edges of the wings remained clear.
I have no comparison to boots. What I don’t like about the TKS is the price. It adds up to the total cost of the trip, but then … I should not complain about the costs of flying. With boots there are no costs of refilling. Also, when enroute there were a few occasions where I would need to refill the TKS but where it was not available at the local aerodrome. Boots don’t have that issue as well.
I would also add that what you describe as more less severe icing conditions would maybe not be judged severe by others. It’s just that more recent designs (Cirrus, Diamonds) accumulate at lot of ice quickly and are also very unforgiving of that.
So, a good anti-ice system is actually not a bonus but a sheer must if these aircraft are used for IFR a lot.
If light GA aircraft are regularly flown over very rough ocean, with unapproved ferry fuel systems
Seems the same thing happened a couple of years ago on this TV-series about ferry flying. They were more lucky landing on Iceland. A local mechanic on Iceland used one day reworking the system to an operational one. This has nothing to do with unapproved or approved. This is pure and simple incompetence. Incompetence designing, or more probably, in mounting the system, and also not checking for operation. Incompetence by the pilot(s) to test and check if they have a working aircraft after a modification, or simply not understanding how the system is functioning.
I think we got some “icing” posts in the wrong thread… unfortunately I have no easy way of moving individual posts.
and also not checking for operation. Incompetence by the pilot(s) to test and check if they have a working aircraft after a modification, or simply not understanding how the system is functioning.
This may be stating the obvious but surely when flying with a ferry tank you empty the ferry tank first, and then if there is a problem with it, you still have the full wing tanks to reach land with.
Also, AFAIK, with most ferry tank installations the ferry tank is used to refill one of the wing tanks, only. And usually you transfer into the wing tank which is at the time not being used. So the basic fuel system on the aircraft is not modified.
There’s an interesting post about ferry tanks on PPrune.
I have no idea what went wrong in this case but do know that they spent several hours talking to various people on the Sat phone trying to troubleshoot it before deciding to pull and would imagine that something as simple as a vent would have been checked during that process and as I understand it the problem in this case is believed to be a valve.
I got banned from logging in on that site 
One person in that thread is running two characters, too, and that’s just looking at the one page
If you mention EuroGA there openly, they will probably remove it.
I am not going to delete direct links to other sites (it would be childish) but could people please contribute here rather than post links to elsewhere? A number of pilots I know have been banned from there, or had their mailboxes blocked, by mostly anonymous mods.
This may be stating the obvious but surely when flying with a ferry tank you empty the ferry tank first, and then if there is a problem with it, you still have the full wing tanks to reach land with.
There are lots of ways ferry tanks can be made. A Cessna with high wing tanks will have to have a different system than a low wing aircraft. The original fuel system in the aircraft works, and you don’t want to mess with that. So the obvious way to design a system is a transfer system, transferring fuel from the ferry tank to the main tanks, topping up the mains when needed. I only have experience with the drop tanks on the F-16 (of all things), and that system is a super simple and more or less! fool proof system using compressed air to transfer the fuel to the mains.
Ferrying is done all the time, so I would believe simple and reliable systems exist by the dozens.
I used to know a TB20 owner (no longer flying, and the aircraft no longer exists) who had a ferry tank which was apparently supplied by Socata. It was a rigid plastic tank in a wooden frame, and it was pressurised by its own pitot tube, installed by Socata. All this was many years ago. The tank proved to be very useful around Europe, apparently (I am not at all surprised!).
I could not understand why a low wing aircraft should need a pressurised ferry tank, given that every part of the fuel system (before the high pressure fuel pump) is below its level. Same for an SR22.
Also an unheated pitot tube (as that one was) could easily be worthless.
But in this case, according to reports, the pilot could not open the valve to the ferry tank.
How far had he travelled before this was discovered?
You flew an F16, LeSving? I am highly impressed!
