Non-certified aircraft and known ice?

[BlueLight]

I live in NE Ohio which specializes in ice making in clouds and precip this time of year and well into the Spring.

The question I have is on the wisdom of allegedly (IFR rated) pilots of newer a/c such as a Cirrus taking off into forecast or reported ice conditions and figuring their "non-certified for known ice" systems have enough juice to get them on top and into the clear? I'm sure that isn't the norm with all but I get the impression from talk and reading mags that it must be happening.

I can see launching IFR into broken layers as long as I can see blue or else have an escape route or know where the warm air is. Unfortunately, overcast bases at 800 agl with tops at 7000-8000 seem to be the norm around here.

Even if a high performance turbo'd single engine with TKS weeping wings, hot prop (no windshield heat) could punch a hole through the potentially icey overcast won't ATC make an inquiry when forecast ice or reported ice was present and you file and launch into it?

The manufacturer's make clear the anti/deice systems are not certified and are to be only used for 'inadvertent' encounters. But it seems to me that if you are on the ground and you have an overcast with likely ice layer even a few thousand feet thick you can't legally go.

Or does it come to down to pilot judgement? Winter flight when possible is awesome but it seems a very rare day it would be legal to fly for some of us with high performance singles.

 

[ultrarunner]

But it seems to me that if you are on the ground and you have an overcast with likely ice layer even a few thousand feet thick you can't legally go.

In an airplane NOT certificated for flight into 'known-ice' you are correct...you could not depart.

No different than if you wanted to depart in a VFR-only airplane into IFR conditions.

 

[avbug]

The question I have is on the wisdom of allegedly (IFR rated) pilots of newer a/c such as a Cirrus taking off into forecast or reported ice conditions and figuring their "non-certified for known ice" systems have enough juice to get them on top and into the clear?

Of course, departing single engine in a light piston airplane into IMC with the only redundancy and backup a parachute, is okay...it's just the idea of the ice that bothers you?

Ice is bad, known or not. Flying in ice isn't good, approved, or not. Flying a single engine airplane in ice isn't good, approved, known, whatever.

Flying single engine piston driven airplanes at night over terrain, water, or hostile ground, or flying them in instrument conditions (especially with one instrument power source, one powerplant, one electrical source, no backup instruments, etc) is foolish to begin with...forget the ice.

Then again, almost every deployment of the parachute (CAPS) in the cirrus to date has been a foolish pilot who flew far beyond his means, and used the parachute as a panic button. You'll probably find that the pilots you see taking off into the ice are comfortable engaging in their own brand of foolishness because they think that parachute is there to save them from themselves.

It's worth noting that many, if not the majority, of the parachute deployments in the cirrus aircraft has been failures. Something the owners and operators might just want to consider before they base blind faith on a folded canopy and light rocket motor...

--Latest fatal in the cirrus was in Lancaster, CA. This one recent, an engine failure in the traffic pattern was handled by attempting to deploy the parachute...in the middle of wide, open, Antelope Valley...big and wide enough to base Edwards AFB and land the Space Shuttle, with a nice long runway at WJF field...and the soloution to an engine failure was deploying the parachute. I believe everybody on board died.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Of course, departing single engine in a light piston airplane into IMC with the only redundancy and backup a parachute, is okay...it's just the idea of the ice that bothers you?

Flying single engine piston driven airplanes at night over terrain, water, or hostile ground, or flying them in instrument conditions (especially with one instrument power source, one powerplant, one electrical source, no backup instruments, etc) is foolish to begin with...forget the ice.

It seems to me that the original question revolves around dispatching an airplane into conditions that it's not certificated for...I could fly my Maule in instrument conditions (needle, ball, and airspeed, VFR GPS) just fine...I doubt that anybody would be able to tell the difference. I think that would be more of an "equivalent level of foolishness" to taking a non-icing-certified airplane into icing conditions just because it has TKS and a hot prop than the examples you provided.

Fly safe!

David

 

[avbug]

I don't get your point. Go fly your maule into IMC, you're engaging in stupid behavior. Go fly the Cirrus in IMC, you're engaging in stupid behavior. Go fly the cirrus into ice, or your maule for that matter, you're engaging in stupid behavior.

If one wants to pick out degrees of stupidity, so be it, but stupidity is stupidity, and not far flung from foolishness.

You can cite a million examples of stupid behavior, if you wish. When the curtain comes down, one thing still remains; it's all stupidity, and not a single such act should be undertaken when not necessary and without additional means by which to accomplish the act.

Fly your maule in IMC...fine. Just ensure you have backup electrical and pneumatics, anti-ice, certification, and such redundancy that you can handle the engine failure when it happens (never a matter of if, but when). Single engine piston IMC without adequate redundancy is foolishness. Period. Ice, or no ice.

You feel that you can go fly without difficulty on needle, ball, and airspeed. A lot of folks do. On a dead calm day, perhaps you could...but be honest...how much have you really done? Throw in some real world turbulence and upsets, and weather, and your cavalier "...I could fly my Maule in instrument conditions (needle, ball, and airspeed, VFR GPS) just fine...I doubt that anybody would be able to tell the difference" lacks the genuine bravado it suggests. That's really aside from the point of the thread.

One, without approved de-ice and anti-ice, and a type certification or supplemental type certification for approval to operate in known ice, then an aircraft many not operate in known ice conditions. Known ice includes forecast ice, reported ice, and conditions known to be conducive to the formation of ice.

Two, w(h)eather the aircraft identified as the subject material of the thread are approved for flight into known ice or not, they have no business being there, for all of the reasons heretofore named.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don't get your point. Go fly the Cirrus in IMC, you're engaging in stupid behavior.

Why is simply flying the Cirrus in IMC "engaging in stupid behavior"?

 

[avbug]

You DID read the thread thus far, right??

READ!

 

[MauleSkinner]

You DID read the thread thus far, right??

READ!

Yes, i did...and you're the only one who talks about flight in IMC regardless of other conditions being stupid, and you don't explain why.

ANSWER!

 

[NYCPilot]

In some aircraft, the only difference between certified and not certified for known icing conditions is the certificate itself. FAA approval.

 

[avbug]

In some aircraft, the only difference between certified and not certified for known icing conditions is the certificate itself. FAA approval.

Aaah...yeah. That's a pretty big difference. Legal vs. not legal.

Airworthy means two things: legal, and safe. If neither are met, the aircraft is not airworthy for that condition, and if type approval or supplemental type approval for operation into know ice hasn't been received, the aircraft isn't airworthy for operation in those conditions...therefore, it may not operate in those conditions. Period.

Yes, i did...and you're the only one who talks about flight in IMC regardless of other conditions being stupid, and you don't explain why.

ANSWER!

Apparently you just don't read very well. Point taken.

You might have missed...

Fly your maule in IMC...fine. Just ensure you have backup electrical and pneumatics, anti-ice, certification, and such redundancy that you can handle the engine failure when it happens (never a matter of if, but when). Single engine piston IMC without adequate redundancy is foolishness. Period. Ice, or no ice.

Flying single engine piston driven airplanes at night over terrain, water, or hostile ground, or flying them in instrument conditions (especially with one instrument power source, one powerplant, one electrical source, no backup instruments, etc) is foolish to begin with...forget the ice.

When your one alternator fails, what do you do? When your one vacum source fails, what do you do? When your one attitude indicator goes TI, what do you do? Go back to flying needle, ball, and airspeed in your Maule? That's the plan? What about in the Cirrus? When faced with ice, performance decreasing conditions, an engine failure, embedded weather, what do you do? Systems redundancy is a bigger issue with single engine piston powered light aircraft than most other aircraft. Particularly with respect to the one powerplant which will eventually fail (again, not if, but when).

Single engine IMC is done all the time, but then again, so is running the bulls at Pamplona. Doesn't make it smart.