PDA

View Full Version : FIKI and Amateur Build Aircraft



Ylinen
01-21-2012, 02:50 PM
How do people with amateur built aicraft deal with flying with potential icing conditions? Are there any AB aircraft that have de-icing equipment? What testing would the builder have to do to be able to sign off in the aircraft logbook? How does the FAA deal with AB aircraft that get in to icing?

steveinindy
01-21-2012, 05:49 PM
I believe you would have to go through the full series of tests for certification if you wanted to be approved for FIKI. As with most things related to safety, this is not something that should have an "easier" option just because the aircraft is not commercially manufactured.

martymayes
01-21-2012, 08:56 PM
How do people with amateur built aicraft deal with flying with potential icing conditions? Are there any AB aircraft that have de-icing equipment? What testing would the builder have to do to be able to sign off in the aircraft logbook? How does the FAA deal with AB aircraft that get in to icing?

The only applicable rules would be Part 91 operating rules and there are none for icing. Sooo, no testing required, no logbook sign off required. If you want to fly in icing, just equip your aircraft as see fit and go for it. Good luck, usually it's the little stuff that gets ya, fuel vents, flight controls jambing...etc.

Ylinen
01-22-2012, 10:18 AM
Marty; That sounds good, but the question I have is has or would the FAA cite the pilot for "Careless or Reckless Operation" if an AB aircraft is flown in to a cloud and got icing and has to ask ATC for divations? Does the EAA have any information on FAA citations to pilots with AB aircraft and icing?

Also does anyone know if any of the major kit builders have de-icing options?

martymayes
01-22-2012, 11:48 AM
Marty; That sounds good, but the question I have is has or would the FAA cite the pilot for "Careless or Reckless Operation" if an AB aircraft is flown in to a cloud and got icing and has to ask ATC for divations? Does the EAA have any information on FAA citations to pilots with AB aircraft and icing?

Not sure what you mean by "deviation." I have asked for an amended clearance 100's of times due to ice. Have never heard a word about it.

If a pilot declares an emergency due to icing, he "may" have to later explain his actions. I don't think a one time occurrence will raise any flags unless your antics force AF-1 into a hold (or something similar). If you fly your E/AB airplane into icing once a week and declare an emergency every time, there's going to be problems for sure.


Also does anyone know if any of the major kit builders have de-icing options? I would say that's an unequivocal no. The liability would be over the top.

Anymouse
01-22-2012, 05:32 PM
Also does anyone know if any of the major kit builders have de-icing options?

There was a company making an anti/deice system for Lancairs based on heating strips on the leading edge. The company made it abundantly clear that this was for inadvertent encounters only; not FIKI. This company was bought by Kelly Aerospace a few years ago. Every time I asked about getting it on other aircraft (before and after the sale), I was pretty much stonewalled. The price, several years ago, was in the neighborhood of $20k. A bit too pricey for me.


EDIT: Here's the Website: http://www.rddent.com/

martymayes
01-23-2012, 09:07 AM
The price, several years ago, was in the neighborhood of $20k. A bit too pricey for me.

Compared to other options, that's cheap!

Ron Blum
01-26-2012, 11:34 PM
How do people with amateur built aicraft deal with flying with potential icing conditions? Are there any AB aircraft that have de-icing equipment? What testing would the builder have to do to be able to sign off in the aircraft logbook? How does the FAA deal with AB aircraft that get in to icing?

Ylinen: Avoid icing conditions at all costs. AB airplanes must adhere to the same operating rules as certified airplanes. For examples, if you don't fly IFR during your flight test phase, you can't fly your airplane in IFR conditions. If you don't fly aerobatics during your flight test phase, you can't fly aerobatics later. Icing is a very dangerous flight condition.

All areas of the airplane that have a stagnation point will collect ice - all (wing, stabilizers, landing gear, etc) leading edges, air inlets, vents, plenum chambers, etc. Some airfoils will be destroyed with the lightest of frost on the leading edge (normally early laminar flow airfoils or those with lots of leading edge camber); while others will carry lots. Concerns start with airfoil (wing, propeller and tail) degradation, additional drag, windshield being covered (many windshield bases are stagnation points). In addition, asymmetrical collection/shedding makes for very bad stall/spin characteristics. Smaller leading edge radii collect ice faster.

To put this in perspective, our certificated brethren must flight test the entire 14CFR23 subpart B with and without ice (all performance, handling and stability & control). That is how important this issue is. Freezing rain is even outside the capability of some FIKI certified airplanes.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm on a soap box, but there are many fatal accidents due to icing each year ... and the evidence often goes away before the investigators get there.

Enjoy flying (VFR or IFR), but avoid the ice.

Anymouse
01-27-2012, 12:40 AM
For examples, if you don't fly IFR during your flight test phase, you can't fly your airplane in IFR conditions.

You might want to re-think this one.

Ron Blum
01-27-2012, 01:51 AM
You might want to re-think this one.

Thank you for questioning this. Many, many people wonder how they could possibly fill all that required flight time without just flying around boring holes in the sky or purchasing a lot of $100 hamburgers. Please read "§ 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations." Those are the regulations, not hearsay or what "Sam" did or what "Bill" got away with. Paragraph (b) in particular has been interpreted a million different ways.

I would like to learn from what you know and your experiences (all reading this). Please email me outside this forum page at fly-in-home@att.net. Thanks, Ron

Please read "§ 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations."

Anymouse
01-27-2012, 02:37 AM
Here's the reg in question. I bolded sub-parts B and D. Section B only states what must be done to move to Phase II (controllable and not hazardous). Sub-part D is more pertinent to this conversation. In particular, Paragraph 2 states: "Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator." When the DAR issues the airworthiness certificate, a set of operating limitations is also issued. They state what operations can and cannot be done in Phase I and II. Going strictly on memory, I believe Phase I normally states that IFR flight is not allowed. However, Phase II has wording similar to, "VFR only unless equipped in accordance with CFR 14 91.xxx." There is similar wording for night flight. That is the "unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator" part.

So, my conclusion is that no IFR flight is allowed during Phase I, but assuming your aircraft is properly equipped, IFR flight IS allowed during Phase II.

I don't recall anything being mentioned in the operating specifications about flight in icing conditions, but I'd be interested to get an authoritative answer on it. Or at least some guidance on how to go about it without renting some heavy aircraft to spray me down in freezing temperatures.


Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate--
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued;
or
(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it is
shown that--
(1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of
speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and
(2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or
design features.
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special
operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an
experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested
airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for
particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over
a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with
terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of
safety in air commerce.
(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate shall--
(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the
aircraft;
(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by the Administrator; and
(3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the
aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with
operating control towers.
(e) No person may operate an aircraft that is issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191(i) of this chapter for compensation or
hire, except a person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191(i)(1) for compensation or hire to--
(1) Tow a glider that is a light-sport aircraft or unpowered
ultralight vehicle in accordance with Sec. 91.309; or
(2) Conduct flight training in an aircraft which that person
provides prior to January 31, 2010.
(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191(i) of this chapter, except in accordance
with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(g) No person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191(i)(1) of this chapter to tow a glider
that is a light-sport aircraft or unpowered ultralight vehicle for
compensation or hire or to conduct flight training for compensation or
hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the
preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has--
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman (light-sport
aircraft) with a maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or
an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection
procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable
to the FAA; or
(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness
certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
(h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section for the purpose of
conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of
deviation authority.
(1) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at
any time.
(2) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority to
the FAA at least 60 days before the date of intended operations. A
request for deviation authority must contain a complete description of
the proposed operation and justification that establishes a level of
safety equivalent to that provided under the regulations for the
deviation requested.
(i) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the
Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on the persons
that may be carried in the aircraft.

Jim Hann
01-27-2012, 03:53 AM
When the DAR issues the airworthiness certificate, a set of operating limitations is also issued. They state what operations can and cannot be done in Phase I and II.

Who took over for Joe Norris as the DAR expert when he retired? I think you have hit it on the head though, it is an Ops Lims question, and the answer could be different depending on who issued the ones on a particular aircraft.

Jim

martymayes
01-27-2012, 07:29 AM
Per FAA Order 8130.2D, compliance with 91. 319 is accomplished during Phase I testing. Phase II amateur built operating limitations (item number 8) prohibit operations at night and operations under IFR unless the aircraft is equipped for night flying and IFR as appropriate IAW with 91.205. Phase II operating limitations do not prohibit flight in icing conditions.

Seriously, do we want the FAA to step in and issue more prohibitions for E/AB aircraft because we are too dumb to know better? If homebuilts start tumbling out of the sky because they are loaded up with ice, the bureaucrats will issue more rules. Icing is really not for amateurs or amateur built airplanes.

martymayes
01-27-2012, 08:35 AM
For examples, if you don't fly IFR during your flight test phase, you can't fly your airplane in IFR conditions. If you don't fly aerobatics during your flight test phase, you can't fly aerobatics later.

Approval for IFR and aerobatics are handled differently in the aircraft operating limitations. Normally, aerobatics are prohibited by Phase II operating limitations. If an applicant doesn't want that limitation, he has to perform each specific aerobatic maneuver for which approval is sought during Phase I. Those maneuvers are then listed in the the blank spaces provided and become an active part of the Phase II limitations. So for aerobatics, flight testing plus pen and ink changes to the operating limitations are required.

Phase I operating limitations prohibit IFR, period. Once in Phase II, the operating limitations prohibit IFR unless the aircraft is equipped IAW with 91.205. In addition, that IFR equipment has to be inspected and maintained IAW applicable regs. However, no specific flight testing is required for IFR approval.

Ron Blum
01-27-2012, 10:47 AM
I agree.

Mike Switzer
01-27-2012, 01:19 PM
Assuming I will use a Ford 302, I have toyed with the idea of turning the wing leading edges into a thin "radiator" and running engine coolant thru it, but you still have the problem of ice accumulation on the other control surfaces.

steveinindy
01-27-2012, 01:40 PM
My concern with that Mike would be that the warm leading edge would cause run back with the ice building up behind the area. If you get that ridge at the wrong point, you could get a sufficiently turbulent flow over the wing to cause an uncommanded aileron excursion such as tended to occur with the original design of the deicing system on the ATR commuter aircraft series.

Honestly, I would argue that for your average GA aircraft there is no "mission" sufficiently important that a full deicing system is justified in terms of expense, complexity, etc.

Mike Switzer
01-27-2012, 01:43 PM
I had more or less put that idea on the back burner anyway, as it could always be incorporated later. I think the Spitfire had some sort of leading edge cooling system, I wonder how it performed in icing conditions?

Mike Switzer
01-27-2012, 01:44 PM
I have had ice on the airframe inadvertently enough times that I know I don't want anything to do with it intentionally.

Anymouse
01-27-2012, 01:59 PM
My concern with that Mike would be that the warm leading edge would cause run back with the ice building up behind the area. If you get that ridge at the wrong point, you could get a sufficiently turbulent flow over the wing to cause an uncommanded aileron excursion such as tended to occur with the original design of the deicing system on the ATR commuter aircraft series.

The RDD system I linked to earlier had a nifty way of preventing this. Basically, there were two strips. A thin strip right on the leading edge, and a thicker strip that went back further. During warmer temperatures (28 and up??) both strips were active at all times. During colder operations, the thin center strip was active at all times, and the thicker strip would active every minute or so (not sure of the exact timing). The theory was that in the warmer temps, the melted ice wouldn't have time to re-freeze before departing the trailing edge. However, in colder temps, the water would refreeze on the thicker strip, and be shedded similar to the way boots shed after a build up.


Honestly, I would argue that for your average GA aircraft there is no "mission" sufficiently important that a full deicing system is justified in terms of expense, complexity, etc.

Can't argue that, but it would be nice to have the option. For me, $20k is a bit too steep for that option though, seeing how my "mission" is not THAT important. In reality, I'd maybe use such a system maybe once or twice in the life cycle of my Tango. I'll just wait it out on the ground and buy $10k worth of cookies and iced tea. It does make for interesting conversation though.

steveinindy
01-27-2012, 02:05 PM
Can't argue that, but it would be nice to have the option. For me, $20k is a bit too steep for that option though, seeing how my "mission" is not THAT important. In reality, I'd maybe use such a system maybe once or twice in the life cycle of my Tango. I'll just wait it out on the ground and buy $10k worth of cookies and iced tea. It does make for interesting conversation though.

Agreed. The only design I've even contemplated a full de-ice system for was the long distance high-speed turboprop design I've been working on. Then again, my only other design thus far is an LSA and we can see why there's no need for de-ice/anti-ice on that.

Bill Greenwood
01-27-2012, 02:15 PM
Production Spitfires do not have a cooling system in the wing leading edge, they are cooled by underwing radiators. The early models had one rad, then they had 2 rads, then the later Griffon ones had two deeper rads. It's obvious in photos.

The pre Spitfire S-6B champion race sea planes had sort of a boil off radiator system in the wings and or fuselage. It was adequate for the short duration races in those cool climates.

By the way, for all the EAA folks that are so fascinated with new technology and think that if it is old it must be no good, should remember that in 1931 R. J. Mitchell had a plane that could lap an oval race course at an average speed of 420 mph, and do this at sea level despite having floats.

Years later, with all the computer aided modern technology, the super hyped, carbon, modern engine, Pond Racer was built, and despite having regular gear, not floats, and being able to compete at Reno's 5000 feet altitude, it never turned a single race lap above 400 mph. The genius of R J Mitchel and Rolls Royce was more than a match for the pr of the Pond effort, 50 years later.
And it may be a matter of personal taste, but Rutans designs are to put is politely, for the most part funny looking, while old fashiioned Mitchel's Spitires are still considered among the most beautiful planes ever built.

steveinindy
01-27-2012, 02:29 PM
Production Spitfires do not have a cooling system in the wing leading edge, they are cooled by underwing radiators. The early models had one rad, then they had 2 rads, then the later Griffon ones had two deeper rads. It's obvious in photos.

The pre Spitfire S-6B champion race sea planes had sort of a boil off radiator system in the wings and or fuselage. It was adequate for the short duration races in those cool climates.

By the way, for all the EAA folks that are so fascinated with new technology and think that if it is old it must be no good, should remember that in 1931 R. J. Mitchell had a plane that could lap an oval race course at an average speed of 420 mph, and do this at sea level despite having floats.

Years later, with all the computer aided modern technology, the super hyped, carbon, modern engine, Pond Racer was built, and despite having regular gear, not floats, and being able to compete at Reno's 5000 feet altitude, it never turned a single race lap above 400 mph. The genius of R J Mitchel and Rolls Royce was more than a match for the pr of the Pond effort, 50 years later.
And it may be a matter of personal taste, but Rutans designs are to put is politely, for the most part funny looking, while old fashiioned Mitchel's Spitires are still considered among the most beautiful planes ever built.

Amen to that. Mitchel is one of my heroes when it comes to design.

Ron Blum
01-28-2012, 10:46 AM
If you're truly serious about an EAB aircraft for FIKI, get LEWICE (a free program that predicts ice shapes). The shape, size and location of the ice are airfoil and airspeed dependent, as the stagnation point moves. In fact, the Roselawn, IN ATR icing fatal accident is thought to have been caused by a configuration change (raising the flaps after collecting ice at a lower speed with the flaps down). There are basically 2 types of ice protection systems: de-ice and anti-ice, with some of the following pros and cons.

De-ice: Ice has to build a little first. All of it may not shed at the same time (or on the same cycle). Cheaper, easier, and less power is needed. Runback is (normally) not an issue.

Anti-ice: Aerodynamics are not affected (unless there is a failure are if runback is an issue). Consumes more power. System complexity is higher. Engine power might be an issue (you may still need to keep the ice off the airplane at lower power settings). Runback could be an issue.

Within de-ice there are pneumatic boot and thumper (electro-expulsive) systems, and within anti-ice there are hot and wet systems. A wet system is simply weeping alcohol out the leading edges. Wet has been around a long time, but it is heavy, complex and leaves the airplane very dirty. But, it is making a comeback due to its lack of failure modes (no residual/inter-cycle ice) and no runback).

Actually, a promising technology that is on the horizon is a material that doesn't collect ice!