Is a FIKI twin substantially safer than a FIKI single in the Midwest?

[Henning]

Re: Is a FIKI piston twin substantially safer than a FIKI piston single in the Midwes

Well I think that is exactly the difference between the early days of FIKI certification and what the FAA wants to see now. The Cirrus FIKI system includes dual redundant pumps, dual fluid tanks, a dual redundant electrical system with two alternators, two busses and two batteries, multiple TKS fluid flow and pressure sensors at every critical point (tail vertical, tail horizontal, each wing, prop and windshield) with CAS annunciators, TKS gauges that read to the tenth of the gallon and calculate run time to the minute, etc...

Cirrus also had to fly 100s of hours in real and simulated conditions including a lot of flying with large foam ice shapes that simulate a failed TKS system (both full failure and partial - e.g., just one wing panel failure) to earn the certification. I've seen pictures of these ice shapes and they're like 6 inches thick. A far cry from the older, "slap some boots on and make sure they work" approach of the past.

Not saying this system is perfect or a free pass to fly around in severe icing - it requires common sense and good judgement from the pilot - after all you could always run out of fluid - but it is a pretty robust system. The FIKI certification did not come easily.

Yeah, there are several certification videos on the Cirrus floating around, pretty impressive stuff.

 

[Fearless Tower]

So the guys busy flaming me I only have one thing to ask. Do you have to meet a weekly schedule? What are the penalties if you fail to meet it?

I don't know about 'flaming'.

My trips have occasionally had a tight/firm schedule (ie flying to San Diego to get on a ship that leaves the next day). Not all of my trips are that tight, but that would be the toughest schedule to make.

I have had to power back and fly some routes at low altitude to avoid moderate ice and SLD. I have done things like leave 12 hours early and fly toward the cold front, then stop, put the plans in a hangar and wait for the storm to pass...etc.

I also make a point to plan my fuel stops at airports that either have scheduled airline service or are within easy driving distance of scheduled airlines, so I always have that out as well. I have used that a couple times, but those were all maintenance related and in singles.

 

[Henning]

So the guys busy flaming me I only have one thing to ask. Do you have to meet a weekly schedule? What are the penalties if you fail to meet it?

Yah, lots of days in the winter you can fly just fine, I do it VFR all the time. Problem is lots of days you can't. If you're locked into a schedule, like lots of folks are in the business world, you'll wind up on one of the bad ones. Flying for business you don't always get to pick your schedule.

Not really flaming you, just trying to point out your preconceptions are not accurate. Weekly schedule is not a problem most of the time because you have a solid plan B that you know when you have to make your go-no go, and that falls within the 72 hr weather prediction window we can start considering as accurate enough for making the call with 99% assurance you will be making the correct weather call. If you have a 48hr window in which to fly in, you have 95% chance of making it through VFR even.

As a sample of one, in 2500+ hrs, I have 125 or so actual, and that does not include any ag flying time, just personal travel, aerial photo and survey, and pipeline patrol. Pipeline patrol is long range low level all weather VFR. In bad weather sometimes you have to skip the terminal ends in town.

Travel has been almost all my time in actual, and typically I travel on a +/-12 hr window, and I make it +/-4 the vast majority of the time. I do freely admit to avoiding all but the most benign IMC by flying low, and that is why I like a HP twin for travel, I am confident on making a safe landing on a runway from a 100' AGL cruise. I have not made my schedule due to weather a hand full of times in over 25 years.

However, most of those hours in actual are in California. If I am commuting around west of the Sierra range with an IR in my pocket, I can meet my schedule to the hour in a 152 as far as weather limitations go.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So the guys busy flaming me I only have one thing to ask. Do you have to meet a weekly schedule? What are the penalties if you fail to meet it?

Yah, lots of days in the winter you can fly just fine, I do it VFR all the time. Problem is lots of days you can't. If you're locked into a schedule, like lots of folks are in the business world, you'll wind up on one of the bad ones. Flying for business you don't always get to pick your schedule.

You do get to pick your flight schedule. If you HAVE to be somewhere at a certain time, you just leave early enough that if there's a problem with weather or a mechanical issue, you just drive (or land, rent a car, and drive). Done.

For personal trips, there's obviously more flexibility, but I'm pretty sure I could count on one hand the number of times I've had to outright cancel anything other than a same-day out and back fun flight. The main key is remaining flexible. If you're absolutely rigid in your route, fuel stops, etc. then you'll have to cancel a lot more. If you don't mind flying around weather, landing in places you've never been before, etc it's quite easy to get to your planned final destination.

It does help for me that my boss is a pilot too, so I know he'll understand if I get stuck by weather. Less to worry about... But then again, I've never gotten stuck on a business trip.

 

[flyingron]

If your engine fails in the clag your autopilot will fly you into the side of a mountain and you can watch it happen on the G1000.

 

[Henning]

If your engine fails in the clag your autopilot will fly you into the side of a mountain and you can watch it happen on the G1000.

I don't typically use an autopilot, and I have managed to hit a runway every time I had to shut one down, and that includes one in hard, low clag, so, that is somewhat of a misguided statement.

 

[Kristin]

Re: Is a FIKI piston twin substantially safer than a FIKI piston single in the Midwes

Well I think that is exactly the difference between the early days of FIKI certification and what the FAA wants to see now. The Cirrus FIKI system includes dual redundant pumps, dual fluid tanks, a dual redundant electrical system with two alternators, two busses and two batteries, multiple TKS fluid flow and pressure sensors at every critical point (tail vertical, tail horizontal, each wing, prop and windshield) with CAS annunciators, TKS gauges that read to the tenth of the gallon and calculate run time to the minute, etc...

Cirrus also had to fly 100s of hours in real and simulated conditions including a lot of flying with large foam ice shapes that simulate a failed TKS system (both full failure and partial - e.g., just one wing panel failure) to earn the certification. I've seen pictures of these ice shapes and they're like 6 inches thick. A far cry from the older, "slap some boots on and make sure they work" approach of the past.

Not saying this system is perfect or a free pass to fly around in severe icing - it requires common sense and good judgement from the pilot - after all you could always run out of fluid - but it is a pretty robust system. The FIKI certification did not come easily.

You are correct that the FAA has been tweaking the FIKI standards. I think that there have been two or three changes since the original came out in the mid-70's.

Of course, we are talking certification standards here and they are not applied retroactively to airplanes that were certified under the earlier, easier FIKI standards.

 

[Kristin]

Re: Is a FIKI piston twin substantially safer than a FIKI piston single in the Midwes

My understanding is that to get the FIKI approval you have to perform rigorous testing so to claim that earlier aircraft that did not have to do this testing are somehow better seems ludicrous to me. Can you provide any references to support this statement or is this just yet another example of anybody can claim anything on the internet and there are countless fools who will believe it?

Speaking of fools! If you think FIKI guarantees a real world performance, then I suggest you keep the ice in your drink where it can't really hurt you.

What is so difficult about the concept that there might be aircraft out there that performed better in the ice than where the FAA arbitrarily drew the line?

I will give you an example from personal experienced. Starting with the 1977 or '78 model, the C-310 was certified for known ice. I have put a lot of ice on 310's flying night freight and charter around the Great Lakes. I have also put a lot of ice on earlier Aztecs and Navajos, which were not certified FIKI at that time. I am not sure that Piper ever certified the Aztec for "known" ice, but they were all approved for "flight into light to moderate icing conditions when equipped with . . . " I can tell you from experience, that the earlier Aztecs and Navajos carried ice better than the FIKI 310. There are other examples I could give, but will leave it at that as it proves my point.

 

[Kristin]

So the guys busy flaming me I only have one thing to ask. Do you have to meet a weekly schedule? What are the penalties if you fail to meet it?

Yah, lots of days in the winter you can fly just fine, I do it VFR all the time. Problem is lots of days you can't. If you're locked into a schedule, like lots of folks are in the business world, you'll wind up on one of the bad ones. Flying for business you don't always get to pick your schedule.

IMO, flying for business is about the most dangerous flying there is. The professional is under the same constraints, but they get to focus only on the flying. The traveling business person has much more on his/her mind than just the flying.

I get the need for an all-weather airplane for what you want to do. You have gotten some excellent advise regarding being ready to bail to the airlines or the roads and make sure that you make your fly/no-fly decision in time to execute the alternatives.

I would add that you should pick a plane that you are comfortable flying. Adding discomfort with the weather on top of discomfort with the aircraft is asking for trouble.

If I needed to be prepared to slog through the maximum amount of bad weather, I would pick a turbo Aztec or a baby Navajo. First I am very comfortable in both in bad weather. Both handle ice very well and are very strong. They are also easy to fly, stable instrument platforms. Glass or steam gauges comes down to personal preference.

If I could afford it, I would probably go with a Cheyenne, but my budget is nowhere near twin turbines.

For what it is worth, that is my two cents from thousands of hours slogging around the Upper Midwest and the Great Lakes in light piston aircraft.

 

[Henning]

IMO, flying for business is about the most dangerous flying there is. The professional is under the same constraints, but they get to focus only on the flying. The traveling business person has much more on his/her mind than just the flying.

I get the need for an all-weather airplane for what you want to do. You have gotten some excellent advise regarding being ready to bail to the airlines or the roads and make sure that you make your fly/no-fly decision in time to execute the alternatives.

I would add that you should pick a plane that you are comfortable flying. Adding discomfort with the weather on top of discomfort with the aircraft is asking for trouble.

If I needed to be prepared to slog through the maximum amount of bad weather, I would pick a turbo Aztec or a baby Navajo. First I am very comfortable in both in bad weather. Both handle ice very well and are very strong. They are also easy to fly, stable instrument platforms. Glass or steam gauges comes down to personal preference.

If I could afford it, I would probably go with a Cheyenne, but my budget is nowhere near twin turbines.

For what it is worth, that is my two cents from thousands of hours slogging around the Upper Midwest and the Great Lakes in light piston aircraft.

That's why a lot of them choose to have someone with them, and eventually most of them end up in the back working.

 

[Ted]

Kristin is dead on about FIKI 310 vs non-FIKI Aztec/Navajo. Aztec will carry enough ice to cover Antarctica. 310 loses 10 mph if you mention the word ice.

 

[weilke]

I dont think the original question can be answered with meaningful data. Is e.g. a Be58 Baron with fiki TKS overall safer than a A36 with fiki TKS ?

Is a fiki 310 safer than a fiki 210 ?

Is a gen3 SR22 with fiki TKS safer than all of them ?

 

[Henning]

Kristin is dead on about FIKI 310 vs non-FIKI Aztec/Navajo. Aztec will carry enough ice to cover Antarctica. 310 loses 10 mph if you mention the word ice.

Wouldn't you still be faster than a clean Aztek?

 

[Henning]

I dont think the original question can be answered with meaningful data. Is e.g. a Be58 Baron with fiki TKS overall safer than a A36 with fiki TKS ?

Is a fiki 310 safer than a fiki 210 ?

Is a gen3 SR22 with fiki TKS safer than all of them ?

Yes, you can't replace excess horsepower when things start going wrong.

No to the Cirrus, survivable maybe. However are my passengers safer in the SR-22 is not as easy to discern.

A twin unless I lose both always allows me to pick where I put it with a much larger margin as well as finesse, and so far has always concluded on a runway. (And allowed me to shut down and cage the engine pre destruction saving a bunch of money)

 

[Apache123]

Baby navajo? does that mean one of the early models? I'm currently browsing airplanes well beyond my range of affordability, including navajos (or are they? I wonder how bad owning/operating a navajo is compared to an aztec).

 

[Kristin]

Baby navajo? does that mean one of the early models? I'm currently browsing airplanes well beyond my range of affordability, including navajos (or are they? I wonder how bad owning/operating a navajo is compared to an aztec).

A baby Navajo is the short body, i.e. original Navajo. In 1967 came the Navajo, powered by 310hp TIO-540-A2B/C engines. Piper fancied it up a bit in 1972 and called it the Navajo B. In 1973, they introduced the Chieftain which had a longer fuselage and 350 hp engines. In 1975 Piper introduced the Navajo C/R which added counter-rotating props, which was the marketing fetish at the time. I have been told that Piper had to bump the horsepower to 325 to get an adequate SE rate of climb due to the characteristics of the counter rotation. I haven't confirmed that last bit to my satisfaction, but nobody has refuted it either. At the same time, they come out with the Navajo C, which was stripped of all the fancy wing lockers and cabinetry and had the original 310 hp. It is the PA-31-310 which is most often considered to be the baby Navajo, though lots of folks use the term to apply to any Navajo other than the Chieftain. The Navajo C, and the 1967-1971 Navajos are the simplest Navajos and are only a bit more expensive to operate than a turbo Aztec. The engines are a bit more expensive to overhaul and generally have three blade props instead of two blade props.

When I was running both an Aztec E and the Navajo C in the same fleet, the Navajo would give me 180-82 knots at gross, burning 33 gph. The Aztec would give me about 10 knots less at 25-26 gph. At the same load, the Navajo would come up to 185 KTAS. Higher the speed gets better in the Navajo for the same burn. These numbers were at 8-9,000 feet MSL.

 

[weilke]

Both icing and engine failure are uncommon causes of accidents. Giving up some of the power to climb out of icing and the redundancy of a second crankshaft may not affect the safety bottom line all that much.

 

[Kristin]

Both icing and engine failure are uncommon causes of accidents. Giving up some of the power to climb out of icing and the redundancy of a second crankshaft may not affect the safety bottom line all that much.

Having needed the power to climb out of the ice on numerous occasions, I rank ROC as probably the most important of anti-icing components, after heated pitot. As I understand it from the Caravan drivers, the reason they have crashed a number of times in the ice is not the problem with the equipment, but with their anemic climb rate when laden.

 

[Ted]

Having needed the power to climb out of the ice on numerous occasions, I rank ROC as probably the most important of anti-icing components, after heated pitot. As I understand it from the Caravan drivers, the reason they have crashed a number of times in the ice is not the problem with the equipment, but with their anemic climb rate when laden.

I'd take ROC over heated pitot. I've had pitot heat fail in icing several times, that's never scared me like a lack of ROC.

 

[Kristin]

I'd take ROC over heated pitot. I've had pitot heat fail in icing several times, that's never scared me like a lack of ROC.

For those that haven't spend much time in the icing, it is hard to relate to the need for a good ROC. But in the Midwest, as you well know, it is almost always possible to get between layers or on top of the icing. But to get there, you need the ability to climb quickly so as to reduce your exposure. I don't think that the FAR Part 23's provisions on icing certification even address a minimum rate of climb, which is why I take FIKI icing certification with a grain of salt.

 

[Ted]

For those that haven't spend much time in the icing, it is hard to relate to the need for a good ROC. But in the Midwest, as you well know, it is almost always possible to get between layers or on top of the icing. But to get there, you need the ability to climb quickly so as to reduce your exposure. I don't think that the FAR Part 23's provisions on icing certification even address a minimum rate of climb, which is why I take FIKI icing certification with a grain of salt.

Absolutely. The best icing improvements on the 310 were adding the 520s and some drag reduction that's helped ROC and TAS further. Note I didn't list boots or hot props, although I do find them useful.

 

[Kristin]

Absolutely. The best icing improvements on the 310 were adding the 520s and some drag reduction that's helped ROC and TAS further. Note I didn't list boots or hot props, although I do find them useful.

Unlike some of the Piper twins which needed only little changes to meet the FIKI standards, like a heated stall warning vane, the C-310 had to add a vertical fin boot, boots inboard of the nacelles, and a hot plate on the windscreen But you still have the tip tanks and a lot of other junk hanging out there to pick up ice. Honestly, I didn't notice that much improvement in ice handle capabilities between the early R models with the pre-FIKI and the later one I flew that had the FIKI certification. But then I was never known for sitting in the ice. My motto was: Hang it on the prop and get on top.

 

[Ted]

Unlike some of the Piper twins which needed only little changes to meet the FIKI standards, like a heated stall warning vane, the C-310 had to add a vertical fin boot, boots inboard of the nacelles, and a hot plate on the windscreen But you still have the tip tanks and a lot of other junk hanging out there to pick up ice. Honestly, I didn't notice that much improvement in ice handle capabilities between the early R models with the pre-FIKI and the later one I flew that had the FIKI certification. But then I was never known for sitting in the ice. My motto was: Hang it on the prop and get on top.

Yep, my Aztec was basically the same as any FIKI bird, the 310 I fly (N model) has just wings (outboard of nacelle), horizontal tail, and hot props. Like you said, lots of junk to pick up ice.

 

[narchee]

Yep, my Aztec was basically the same as any FIKI bird

if you say so.

 

[Ted]

if you say so.

Please list the items FIKI Aztecs had that mine didn't that actually contributed to keeping it in the air.

 

[brian]]

Ok, honest question here: assume you are in a piston aircraft of some stripe at 10000' and you are picking up ice - which aircraft would you rather be in?

Dumbdumbs like me with only single experience need not apply an answer....

 

[narchee]

Ok, honest question here: assume you are in a piston aircraft of some stripe at 10000' and you are picking up ice - which aircraft would you rather be in?

Dumbdumbs like me with only single experience need not apply an answer....

Honest answer from best to worst:

1. FIKI Twin turboprop.
2. FIKI Single turboprop.
3. FIKI Twin piston
4. FIKI Single piston
5. non-FIKI old single
6. non-FIKI old twin



But I'm just a dumbdumb. There are some very very very smart people around here (or so they say) who may argue otherwise.

 

[RudyP]

Honest answer from best to worst:

1. FIKI Twin turboprop.
2. FIKI Single turboprop.
3. FIKI Twin piston
4. FIKI Single piston
5. non-FIKI old single
6. non-FIKI old twin



But I'm just a dumbdumb. There are some very very very smart people around here (or so they say) who may argue otherwise.

How about a heated wing twin jet? That would be my #1 pick. After that generally agree with your list but for the order of 3 & 4 which, IMO depend on the specifics of the twin vs single being discussed. I'd rather be in my SR22 TN with a solid TKS system and ROC >1000 fpm to FL250 than in some old, underpowered naturally aspirated FIKI twin from the 1970s personally but clearly not everyone sees it that way.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Honest answer from best to worst:



1. FIKI Twin turboprop.

2. FIKI Single turboprop.

3. FIKI Twin piston

4. FIKI Single piston

5. non-FIKI old single

6. non-FIKI old twin







But I'm just a dumbdumb. There are some very very very smart people around here (or so they say) who may argue otherwise.

So you'd rather be picking up ice in a 172 than an old Aztec?

 

[RotorAndWing]

How about a heated wing twin jet?

After spending the past 26 years in jets I can count on one hand the number of times I ever turned on the wing anti-ice. And that was flying in Canada, the midwest and the northeast on a regular basis.

Engine anti ice gets used often, but that's about it.

 

[RudyP]

Really? I'm surprised to hear that? Is that just because the ROC is high enough that the exposure is short? What about approaches in icing conditions? I've used mine quite a bit more than that even on descents and approaches so I'm surprised to hear you say so. Either way, I think it is undeniable that a modern, heated wing jet is what you want to be in if you can magically conjure up any plane In nasty icing conditions.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Really? I'm surprised to hear that? Is that just because the ROC is high enough that the exposure is short? What about approaches in icing conditions? I've used mine quite a bit more than that even on descents and approaches so I'm surprised to hear you say so. Either way, I think it is undeniable that a modern, heated wing jet is what you want to be in if you can magically conjure up any plane In nasty icing conditions.

ROC, larger leading edge wing area, short exposure time. Transport jets it's just not that big of a deal.

 

[RudyP]

Violent agreement then. It has the best IPS and you don't even really need it.

 

[Ted]

Violent agreement then. It has the best IPS and you don't even really need it.

This is part of why I'd like to see hot wings on piston aircraft.

 

[Fearless Tower]

This is part of why I'd like to see hot wings on piston aircraft.

What makes it so hard? Piston singles use engine heat to heat the cabin. How hard would it be to duct heat off the engines to the wing? Doesn't seem like it would add any more weight than boots.

 

[RudyP]

I think you need a lot more heat than you get from an exhaust cuff to get true hot wings. Plus the piping/ducting would be fairly complex for the tail for example. The thermawing system (which is an electrical heating system) is out there but seems to have gotten limited traction. Don't think they got FIKI approval on anything. From what I understand it draws a lot of power (requires installation of heavy duty alternator(s)) and only heats one panel at a time. I think the effectiveness is much more limited than a TKS or boot system.

 

[RudyP]

Also, it wouldn't work very well when you are at reduced power on an approach for example and the amount of heat from the exhaust goes way down. My cabin can get chilly on approach when I'm at partial throttle.

 

[Ted]

What makes it so hard? Piston singles use engine heat to heat the cabin. How hard would it be to duct heat off the engines to the wing? Doesn't seem like it would add any more weight than boots.

My biggest concern would be corrosion. I like the electric hot wings for pistons. My friend who has them on his non-FIKI Columbia says they work much better than the boots on his FIKI 310R.

 

[James_Dean]

Fwiw, last fall I found myself in moderate icing conditions in northern Indiana. I was popping the boots every five minutes or so, had the windshield completely covered except for the hot plate, and ice accumulating on exposed surfaces. I had a safe out below and clear weather ahead so I was pressing on and using it as a learning experience. I was losing 10 knots between boot pops but was not perceptibly losing speed overall, maybe a few knots. I was sharing frequency with a SR-22 that I assume had TKS. The 22 pilot had a noticeable change in voice strain during this encounter and finally requested an urgent descent. Eventually I also requested a descent to warmer air below and shed the ice. Lots of factors here, but I was 1000 lbs under gross at that point, and never went more than 70% power, and never felt like I was in trouble. On this day and with these particular circumstances my FIKI twin appeared to be able to handle the conditions better than a 22.

 

[RudyP]

Eggman - good chance that 22 was not equipped with the FIKI system. The inadvertent ice TKS system that is on 90% of SR22s is not designed for that type of situation and is VERY different from the FIKI system. It works for short exposure to light ice but that's about it. Glad he got out of there safe.