IFR
Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, I WAS Birddog
Congratulations.
I flew my Navajo IFR today too. And while doing so, I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt, that if I got into icing conditions, I would be able to get out. Because in my airplane, "certified" for flight in known icing actually means something. More than the paper it's written on.
Oh, wait a minute, I see your point was about Single Engine IFR. Pardon me. Still, even if the Caravan had six 100 HP engines, if it handled ice as badly as it currently does, it would still be a dangerous IFR machine.
PS Don't take me too seriously. I actually think quite highly of the Caravan. I just have a problem with it's icing characteristics. For an airplane that's "certified," I have a hard time understanding how it can suck so bad...
I flew my Navajo IFR today too. And while doing so, I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt, that if I got into icing conditions, I would be able to get out. Because in my airplane, "certified" for flight in known icing actually means something. More than the paper it's written on.
Oh, wait a minute, I see your point was about Single Engine IFR. Pardon me. Still, even if the Caravan had six 100 HP engines, if it handled ice as badly as it currently does, it would still be a dangerous IFR machine.
PS Don't take me too seriously. I actually think quite highly of the Caravan. I just have a problem with it's icing characteristics. For an airplane that's "certified," I have a hard time understanding how it can suck so bad...
-
goldeneagle
- Rank (9)

- Posts: 1345
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
There is a lot of confusion in the pilot community about just what 'certified' for flight into known ice actually means. So many inexpereinced pilots seem to think it means 'this airplane is impervious to ice', when in reality it means 'it has been demonstrated that this aircraft can be safely operated in icing conditions, with proper training'. For MANY airframes, proper training means, knowing when to do something about getting OUT of icing conditions, it doesn't mean 'charge along strait and level praying the airplane can shed/carry more ice than it accumulates'. Every aircraft has limits. The Van gets an especially bad rap because most van drivers it's thier first 'certified' for ice ride, and they dont understand, certified does NOT mean impervious.Turkey wrote:PS Don't take me too seriously. I actually think quite highly of the Caravan. I just have a problem with it's icing characteristics. For an airplane that's "certified," I have a hard time understanding how it can suck so bad...
Over the years, I've seen numerous airplanes 'fall down' due to ice, a few times I've managed to watch the show from the front left seat. Thankfully, every time it's happened, the freezing level was high enough that I was able to de-ice the airplane naturally before contacting terrain. Some would call this luck, but, in all honestly, luck had NOTHING to do with it. I can say with certainty, it'll happen to a caravan, and it'll happen to a navajo, seen it from the inside on both of them. I can also say with certainty, there was no luck, guessing, or by golly involved in surviving the situation, it was all to do with planning. Departure paths that allowed one to 'take a look' but leave plenty of options to get out of the ice before it became deadly.
When push really gets to shove, the concept of 'certifying' an airplane for known ice is flawed. In reality, pilots should be certified for it, it should be a rating on the license. Safe operation in ice is helped a lot by the equipment on the wings and props, but, it's gotta start in the front left seat.
- Dust Devil
- Rank 11

- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
-
Over the Horn
- Rank 5

- Posts: 380
- Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:28 pm
- Contact:
Your crazy man!!I went IFR today in a caravan I did not tell my passengers but it was only 037BKN. But guess what the plane flew just fine
PS 32c and Sunny
-
ScudRunner
- Rank 11

- Posts: 3239
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am
What are you talking about man I Paid my 10K to Flight safety and it clearly states that I can fly better than you and that the girls skirts automatically drop after two beers. You must be getting to much sun down their.and you actually had enouf sense and judgement as a pilot to avoid heavy icing and not push the limits whats this world coming to!!
No, the Van gets a bad rep because it handles ice worse than any other "certified" plane out there. And by worse, I mean WAY worse.goldeneagle wrote:The Van gets an especially bad rap because most van drivers it's thier first 'certified' for ice ride, and they dont understand
Bull Shoot, "most Van drivers are in their first 'certified' for ice ride." Well, maybe they are, but so are most Twin Cessna drivers and most Navajo drivers. Yet, they don't seem to be falling out of the sky (or even coming seriously close to it.)
I've seen a 402 a Chieftan and a Caravan all fly the same route, at the same altitude, at the same time, one behind the other. (with minumum IFR radar separation between them) The 402 didn't pick up enough ice to blow the boots. Neither did the Chieftan. However, the Caravan, in the middle, driven by a VERY experienced driver, picked up so much ice that it diverted to a nearby airport for an emergency landing due to "severe icing." Again, the 402 and the Chieftan didn't even blow their boots.
The Caravan picks up ice conciderably faster in the exact same conditions than other 'certified' aircraft. The Caravan is not as capable as other aircraft.
Yes, all pilots are expected to immediately exit icing conditions which exceed the deicing capabilities of their aircraft. The difference is, most Navajo and 402 pilots won't ever see those conditions. Caravan drivers see them on a regular basis.
On another day (the same winter, if I recall), again a 402 and a Caravan both landed after having flown the exact same route. They had both been using their boots. The 402 had about 1/2 an ince of ice on the unprotected surfaces, the Caravan had over 4 inches.
Both certified airplanes. One less capable than the other.
I've seen a 402 a Chieftan and a Caravan all fly the same route, at the same altitude, at the same time, one behind the other. (with minumum IFR radar separation between them) The 402 didn't pick up enough ice to blow the boots. Neither did the Chieftan. However, the Caravan, in the middle, driven by a VERY experienced driver, picked up so much ice that it diverted to a nearby airport for an emergency landing due to "severe icing." Again, the 402 and the Chieftan didn't even blow their boots.
I CALL BULL SHIT!!
-
eep...2 Green
- Rank 3

- Posts: 130
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:49 am
Whatever dude...Caravans suck...PT6-114A wrote:I've seen a 402 a Chieftan and a Caravan all fly the same route, at the same altitude, at the same time, one behind the other. (with minumum IFR radar separation between them) The 402 didn't pick up enough ice to blow the boots. Neither did the Chieftan. However, the Caravan, in the middle, driven by a VERY experienced driver, picked up so much ice that it diverted to a nearby airport for an emergency landing due to "severe icing." Again, the 402 and the Chieftan didn't even blow their boots.
I CALL BULL SHIT!!
I call bullshit too. I've seen 31's and 402's land with 2-3 inches on the unprotected areas as well.
I find it EXTREMELY hard to beleive that by some freak fate of design, somehow, the 208 accumulates ice at such a prodigious rate higher than other FASTER aircraft on the same route???
By far the worst airplane EVER certified for flight into known icing was the CF104. At those speeds, mere seconds could make the difference.
I find it EXTREMELY hard to beleive that by some freak fate of design, somehow, the 208 accumulates ice at such a prodigious rate higher than other FASTER aircraft on the same route???
By far the worst airplane EVER certified for flight into known icing was the CF104. At those speeds, mere seconds could make the difference.
I wasn't aware the Lockheed F-104 or Canadair CF-104 had ever received certification by any civilian aviation department of any government. Do you have a link to a civilian type certificate?By far the worst airplane EVER certified for flight into known icing was the CF104
ummmm ... if you keep the speed up over 300 knots, icing really isn't much of a problem because of the temp rise. Most people didn't exactly like to fly the -104 slowly, though in fact it would do a very nice hammerhead.At those speeds, mere seconds could make the difference.
And it's not like the -104 had the fuel to hold at low altitude, either. If some ATC idiot ever issued a holding clearance to a -104, the pilot would likely laugh and ask where ATC wanted him to eject.
You said it Hedley. I guess some people just don't care about credibility.
It doesn't mean you are safe from ice. Every year there are several times where the icing conditions are such that if my King Air got into them, i might not be able to get out. I find it hard to believe that your navajo is so impervious to ice that you don't need to worry about it until you are in it.Turkey wrote:And while doing so, I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt, that if I got into icing conditions, I would be able to get out. Because in my airplane, "certified" for flight in known icing actually means something.


