Let's try again,
to call a Boeing AERO article "dodgy accident connections and theoretical papers"..well, how about you contact Boeing and try to set them straight???
strange perceptions you have..
Some of you are quoting Airbus procedures and some are quoting from theoretical papers, not official documents. All I see are up-to-date procedures from my OMB Procedures.
I have spent much of a 38 year career flogging up and down over the depths of Africa at night through Cbs, and across the ITCZ in the Indian Ocean. Once below -40C, anti-icing
never went on. Even in severe turbulence and precipitation, forget '
near Cbs, this is
in them. Until I see my manuals changed to reflect advice, I don't see that a problem has been proved that aeroplanes cannot handle it. Strange and weird some of you chose to respond to this with personal insults! I've spent a career there. I see no problem with current standard procedures and advice. I'm afraid I am too busy working to go reading theoretical papers and unsubstantiated and unproven theoretical possible accident causes. The advice has not let down me or BA in at least 40 years that I know of.
When the manuals change, I will be happy to amend my procedures, but I am not taking anonymous advice from posters who seem hung up on theoretical papers or private accident theories, or trying to use home-grown procedures pending what might be future procedure changes. I have yet to see anything 'official' despite the over-reaction of some of you who don't appear to understand what working to a manual and 'established' procedures means.
I don't intend discussing this further. I have given the official Boeing line. One wishes one hadn't bothered answering in the first place. The chap just need an answer to a simple query- instead of 'yes' or 'no', he gets 2 pages of unproven theories and Airbus procedures!