Originally Posted by
greenpilot20
Maybe this is just the whiskey talking after a long 5 day trip but this has to be a colossal misfire on the part of the FAA. Adding unnecessary inflight workload and further convoluting procedures that have worked for many years seems to be classic governmental red tape. As was said earlier, if the fuselage is such a critical surface, why don't we have anti-ice ability for those prolonged downwind vectors at 4,000 while accumulating moderate rime?
Pretty fun to have a surplus of green type 4 sludge oozing down the windshield right at V1, turning an already challenging departure into a 0/0 takeoff. Abort? Yeh that'll help, considering the runway's an unplowed mess and I already can't see to begin with.
Click Click Boom, your wisdom is coveted here...
200 is a Hooptie, as such it is a miracle that it flys, proof, that with enough thrust, even pigs will fly. This is a confluence of logic, legal, manufacturer, practical experience and the manditory FAA witchcraft factor. Type 4 is designed to shear off the surfaces at aprox 100 kts, Type 1 just drips off. Type 4 is just Type 1 + cornstarch. Not much magic involved. My question is since the wing is the representative surface and the roof is not visible, my bet is that the unlucky pilot on reserve will be stationed at the threshold in a exposed tower, to provide visual contamination clearance fot T/O. Add blowing snow and roll the dice. This is just the FAAs version of the infamous water bottle memo. Who cares, I am trying to decide, on boat or plane for the next toy.....