Vertical Stabilizers: Why No Anti-ice Protection?

[Mattio]

I was told by a captain that Embraer said the 170 didn't need it because the elevator is hydraulically actuated.... Which doesn't really make sense to him or I. Sure, that may help with control forces if it's a giant popsicle, but what about a tail stall?... That explanation doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy inside

 

[seagull]

If flight test doesn't show the need, it's not required. In terms of flying qualities, this is true of all the large jets for the most part, however, the issue then becomes FOD
control, and that is why you see it on the wing roots and upper VHF on the 727.

 

[Mattio]

But we all know what that really means is that if a flight test or any accidents that have occured since the flight test don't show a need for it, then it's not required.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

But we all know what that really means is that if a flight test or any accidents that have occured since the flight test don't show a need for it, then it's not required.

And any such accident will inevitably be classified as pilot error, of course.

 

[Pilotforhire587]

All I have on my jet is pitot heat and engine inlet heaters......sad face

Sounds like the KC135, they figured it can climb so fast it will get out before enough forms to cause a problem.

 

[seagull]

But we all know what that really means is that if a flight test or any accidents that have occured since the flight test don't show a need for it, then it's not required.

To my knowledge, air frame (not talking pitot static or engine probes) ice has not been a factor in any accidents for any swept wing jet equipped with leading edge devices. That includes not getting de-iced prior to takeoff.