The purpose of the course review is to provide the learner an overview of what the course has presented. It should provide a key to learning objectives and lesson points that were presented in the course and might be included in the exam questions. The review should be a memory jogger for the learner. The review can be as long or short as needed. However, it should cover the major points and objectives of the course.
After watching the video, you should have learned:
1. Most all icing accidents in the last 30 years have been due to wing stall.
2. On airplanes certified for icing prior to 2000, buffet was the means of compliance for stall warning in icing and the stall warning system should not be relied upon in icing.
CAVEAT (not in video) – the above is true for new designs. When the type certificate is amended to add a derivative design, assume the stall warning is not reliable in icing conditions.
3. The autopilot can be used in icing, but airspeed should be closely monitored and periodically disconnected with significant ice accretions.
4. Airplanes certified for icing after 1994 have been evaluated for ice contaminated tail stall (ICTS). If you follow your AFM limitations and procedures, the airplane is not susceptible to ICTS.
5. Airplane icing certification before 1994 did not include evaluation of susceptibility to ice contaminated tail stall (ICTS). You should know how to recognize wing versus tail stall and mitigate the potential for ICTS.
6. For airplane not evaluated for ICTS, in icing conditions, approach and land with flaps less than full if field length permits, increase airspeed, and treat uncommanded motion or control anomalies as a wing stall
CAVEAT (not in video) – there are a number of small airplanes certified prior to 1994 in which the FAA has evaluated their susceptibility to ICTS. Click here to access a web site that has a link to a list of airplane models for which Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) limitations and procedures in icing (particularly if there is a maximum allowable flap deflection in icing conditions) should be trained and a tailplane stall recovery procedure shall NOT be trained.
7. Small airplanes certified for icing before 1973 were not required to be tested in icing conditions, and their ice protections systems were not required to be analyzed to demonstrate their capability.
8. There are no certification requirements for airplanes not certified for icing to show their capability to exit inadvertent icing.
9. Airplanes certified to the latest icing standards have not been certified to fly in freezing drizzle or freezing rain and you should have learned how to avoid these conditions.
