Seneca Known Icing

[Blur]

I'm looking into known ice certification on a Piper Seneca I. I'm curious if anyone knows if the aircraft was certified for flight into known icing conditions (if properly equipped of course). I know the II's and beyond are certified but cannont find any information on the I.

I've also been looking into the possibility of an STC for known icing in the I if it is not certified by Piper. No luck thus far.

If anyone can provide information I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Shawn

 

[Spoolingbyu]

Seneca I KI Cert

I had made a huge reply to this question. Then I said to myself, how could I possible provide insight to someone with over 4x the hours I have. Then I read avbug's response which was mine more bluntly in a nutshell. So now I will re-post my humble opinion for all to enjoy and/or flame. Perhaps 4x hours is not equal to 4x the experience. Here goes:

I'm looking into known ice certification on a Piper Seneca I. I'm curious if anyone knows if the aircraft was certified for flight into known icing conditions (if properly equipped of course). I know the II's and beyond are certified but cannont find any information on the I.

I've also been looking into the possibility of an STC for known icing in the I if it is not certified by Piper. No luck thus far.

If anyone can provide information I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Shawn

Shawn,

First I would like to apologize for not having anything to contribute regarding how to create a known-ice certified Seneca I. To my knowledge there are no Seneca I's with Piper factory known ice cert, nor any STC's to effect that change in the aftermarket. My search did not turn up any information to indicate otherwise, as did yours I'm sure.

However, I ask - more importantly than the "how" question - "why?"

(I feel there is a badly beaten dead horse in here somewhere, but I'll continue anyway)

Paraphrasing Richard Collins, Light Airplanes vs. Ice, Flying January 2006 p 62:

...it is madness to certify light airplanes for flight in icing conditions. The reason that I think it is foolish to certify the systems is that certification adds to the cost and complexity [of the airplane] without a corresponding increase in usefulness. It might also carry with it some false promises. Certification might suggest to some that the airplane is okay to fly in continuous icing conditions. No problem flying along cracking the ice with boots or letting TKS fluid ooze out onto the surfaces. That is simply not the case.

Please don't misinterpret this to mean that Mr. Collins and I don't think light airplanes should be equipped with ice-protection gear. Ice protection systems available today in non-certified installations offer a great bang for the buck for the capability they provide.

The Seneca I, with it's 200HP 4 cylinder Lycoming IO-360's, can be a decent 6 seat light-twin that is reasonably affordable to own and operate. I have quite a bit of time in I's, from snowy Michigan to sunny Key West - and they are a great cross country machine. However, I have flown III's and IV's, and despite heavier weights and higher costs, they do have more features and capabilities.

My opinion is that it would be foolish and cost-ineffective to design & certify a STC for a known ice package on a Seneca I. What company would want to take on that poor profit margin and risk for litigation? What kind of assurance does that STC give a pilot?

Piper improved on the design in the next version - the II with 200HP 6-cyl Continental TSIO-360's. There is an increase in utility at a substantial increase in operational cost due to upkeep of turbocharged engines.

My point here is that if given a Seneca I fitted with some sort of de-ice/anti-ice, or a Seneca II without, I'd take the II (or later model) every time. I choose not to bomb around in the ice fat, dumb & happy with boots, props & plate, but rather to briskly climb up through it into the clear sunshine above. When you takeoff loaded, pick up ice on your way through 8,000', you just don't have the safety (read performance) margins left to get you out at 12,000. You'll make it to the top edge of the layer at 10k where the ice can be the worst and go no further. At that point you can just reach over and push the "Engage Flying Igloo Mode" button next to your Garmin 430.

Obviously, a II, III or IV model (if you say V you're really dreaming) with KI is even better because your safety margins are wider and you have more options.

p.64
So, staying out of trouble means making every effort to avoid ice and, if it is encountered, making every effort to get out of it. That's not hard to do because almost every airplane that flies into ice comes from ice-free air that remains available for a return visit.

I believe it is a time-honored lesson of "Leave yourself an out." If you have a trip on a day where a pesky thin layer of ice separates you & your airplane from cruising on top at 6,000 ft, then maybe a KI Seneca I (or Aztec, Apache, or Twin Comanche for that matter) could do the job.

On days where conditions for ice are favorable, the freezing level is down close to terrain, Airmets and Pireps forecast and report ice all over your route, and the tops are out of reach of your airplane, it's time to go get a coffee and warm up your Volkswagen for the trip instead.

If you are in the situation where you already own a Seneca I then I can understand why you are searching in earnest. But if this is pre-buy research then I would recommend staying away from the I.

Good luck, and fly safe.

 

[avbug]

Perhaps the larger question is why you would want known ice in a Seneca I. Yes, the Seneca II is certified (or can be) for known ice, but it's not really a good ice candidate. Merely because it is legal to go there, doesn't make it wise.

The Seneca I really has no business being in ice, and if you're flying the Seneca I, neither do you.

 

[country]

Seneca II,III

Been a while but, have time in both aircraft the II and III. Lost an engine in the II and made a blue line no climb marginal return to the runway ...had to shut a engine down in the III from cruise and it behaved about the same. Flew IMC all the time, but if I would have been in icing conditions trying to cylce the boots it would have been a disaster. My opinion on light twins is if the thing does not have TKS stay out of ice ...only use the boots for those oh crap how did I get into this moments. just my two cents..
fly safe

 

[Blur]

My reasoning

I appreciate the input you each gave.

Here is where I'm coming from. I have 5000 hours flying in the Northwest which is known for bad icing. I've flown known ice Twin Cessnas, Piper Chieftains, and various King Air & Beechcraft turboprops in crappy weather all year round and have nearly 1000 hours of instrument time in the process.

I too had an engine failure in a piston twin. Mine was in a Twin Cessna during a strong winter storm over the Casecade Mountains. It was at night in IMC with moderate rime ice. So I understand where you are coming from with your repiles about taking any piston aircraft into ice.

My current flying venture is trying to save the flight program at the University I gruaduated from. I've taken on the responsibility of looking at their program and helping make huge changes to help better the bottom line of the program while at the same time keeping costs reasonable for the studetents.

In this venture I've been researching how to increase flying time on thier aircraft, specifically thier multi-engine aircraft, to better ofset fixed costs like insurance, hangar, ect. A big area I find where flight hours could be boosted is having mulit-engine aircraft that are known ice certified. Not that I condone flying a non-turbo piston twin in ice, I'm just looking for a way to legally fly during the winter months.

The problem is airmets are issued forcasting ice nearly every day in this area, starting about October and ending in March. My experience is that about 1/3 or less of the time ice it forcast it is actually present. I'm looking to utilize the aicraft the other 2/3 of the time that ice isn't present but still forcasted.

My previous understading of the FARs was that if ice was forcast but a PIREP said negative ice you could still fly since the PIREP was more accurate than the forecast. After much research I realized that this is not the case and you are asking for it if you are flying an aircraft not certified for ice when ice is forecast regardless of what the PIREPS say.

We get many days where the weather is IFR and we are stuck because of the forecast. When I was training pilots & working as a check airman for a 135 operator flying known ice aircraft we would get on top cancel IFR and do airwork. Once we were done we'd pick up an approach clearance back in. I'm trying to legally accomplish the same thing. Tops in this area are usually between 500-1500 AGL.

So to be legal I'm looking for known ice aircraft to fly when icing is forcast but there are PIREPS at the airport that state there is negative ice. I've looked into many aircraft and the only cost effective one I can find that students can still afford to fly in something like a Seneca I.

I'd appreciate any further suggestions you may have.

Thanks,
Blur

 

[fokkers&beer]

Seneca I's were approved for flight into known icing. I know where there is one right now for sale that is fully equipped and well maintained.
As you can probably imagine they are a compromise and are not great at anything. They are a descent airplane for flying around in the midwest, and they are pretty efficient as far as fuel burn goes.

 

[avbug]

My previous understading of the FARs was that if ice was forcast but a PIREP said negative ice you could still fly since the PIREP was more accurate than the forecast. After much research I realized that this is not the case and you are asking for it if you are flying an aircraft not certified for ice when ice is forecast regardless of what the PIREPS say.

Icing is still very possible even when PIREPs of negative ice are received. If conditions exist that are conducive to the formation of ice, even when ice isn't forecast and pilot reports indicating no ice are received, you have known ice, because you're looking at conditions that are known to produce ice.

If the aircraft shouldn't be in ice, and the Seneca I shouldn't be in ice, then being legal because no reports of ice have been received doesn't make the flight wise or safe. How much far better you will be to set an example for your students by showing them correctly how to make a no-go decision, than trying to find loopholes into the air.

Take the high road.

 

[8AF]

I have a II for sale. Interested?

 

[Say Again Over]

And along the same lines as avbug, if you do get your Seneca certified for known icing, someone will ultimately fly it into those conditions!

Here is where I'm coming from. I have 5000 hours flying in the Northwest which is known for bad icing.

I have a thousand or so hours in 421's, it's a so called "known icing" airplane, believe me I wouldn't recommend it, a King Air 90 might be your answer. Fly safe and good luck with the school.

 

[Avimec]

Wow everyone has to tell you how to fly rather than answer the question you asked about know icing for the seneca.........