Upper wing covered by snow during takeoff roll

[UUUWZDZX]

Good day,

Having found the following video that demonstrates takeoff roll ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=925MgqyU2NA&feature=player_embedded#! ) with upper surface of the wing covered by snow and possibly ice, I would like to ask for your opinion whether such a takeoff is a violation of FCOM procedures.

The details are as follows:
Aircraft type A320-214

METARs preceding to takeoff (in ascending order, takeoff took place at about 13-14Z):

010000Z 08003MPS 0800 R25R/P1500N +SHSN VV004 M00/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75510145 25510145=
010030Z 08003MPS 1200 R25R/P1500N SHSN BKN004CB M00/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75510145 25510145=
010100Z 08003MPS 0700 R25R/P1500D +SHSN VV004 M00/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75510145 25510145=
010130Z 07002MPS 0900 R25R/P1500N +SHSN VV004 M00/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75510145 25510145=
010200Z 07003MPS 0900 R25R/P1500N +SHSN VV004 M00/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75510145 25510145=
010230Z 09003MPS 1500 R25R/P1500N SHSN BKN004CB M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75550345 25550345=
010300Z VRB02MPS 1300 R25R/P1500D SHSN BKN004CB M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75550345 25550345=
010330Z 07002MPS 1500 R25R/P1500N SN OVC008 M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75550345 25550345=
010400Z 08002MPS 2300 -SN OVC008 M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75550345 25550345=
010430Z VRB02MPS 2300 -SN BKN004 OVC014 M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75550345 25550345=
010500Z 00000MPS 2300 -SN BKN004 OVC015 M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75590330 25550345=
010530Z VRB01MPS 4300 -SN BKN009 OVC018 M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 75590330 25550345=
010600Z 00000MPS 4300 -SN BKN008 OVC018 M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 25550345 75590330=
010630Z VRB01MPS 2300 -SN BKN006CB M01/M01 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 25550345 75590330=
010700Z VRB01MPS 2000 SHSN BKN006 BKN011CB M01/M01 Q1009 TEMPO 0800 +SHSN RMK 25550345 75590330=
010730Z VRB02MPS 2000 SHSN BKN006 BKN014CB M01/M01 Q1009 TEMPO 0800 +SHSN RMK 75590330 25550345=
010800Z VRB02MPS 2000 SHSN BKN004 BKN014CB M01/M01 Q1009 TEMPO 0800 +SHSN RMK 75590330 25550345=
010830Z 22002MPS 2000 SHSN BKN005 BKN018CB M00/M00 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 75590330 25550345=
010900Z 21003MPS 2000 SHSN BKN004 BKN019CB M00/M01 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 75590330 25550345=
010930Z 23003MPS 2000 SN OVC005 M00/M00 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 75590330 25550345=
011000Z 22004MPS 2300 -SN OVC006 M00/M00 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 75590345 25590345=
011030Z 24004MPS 3000 -SN OVC007 M00/M01 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 75590345 25590345=
011100Z 24004MPS 3000 -SN OVC005 M00/M01 Q1010 NOSIG RMK 75590345 25590345=
011130Z 25003MPS 3000 -BR OVC006 M00/M01 Q1010 NOSIG RMK 25590345 75590345=
011131Z 25003MPS 3000 BR OVC006 M00/M01 Q1010 NOSIG RMK 25590345 75590345=
011200Z 21003MPS 3000 BR OVC006 M00/M01 Q1010 NOSIG RMK 25590345 75590345=
011230Z 27004MPS 4300 BR OVC006 M01/M01 Q1011 NOSIG RMK 25510145 75510145=
011300Z 26003MPS 5000 BR BKN007 OVC013 M01/M02 Q1011 NOSIG RMK 25510145 75510145=
011330Z 27002MPS 5000 BR OVC016 M01/M02 Q1011 NOSIG RMK 75510145 25510145=

1. Specifically, I would like you to clarify that the violation of the following procedure took place:
FCOM A319-320-321 SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES - ADVERSE WEATHER - COLD WEATHER:

EXTERIOR EXPECTION
[...]

SURFACES....CHECKED FREE OF FROST, ICE AND SNOW
All surfaces of the aircraft (critical surfaces : leading edges and upper surfaces of wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, all control surfaces, slats and flaps) must be clear of snow, frost and ice for takeoff.

2. Also, could you please clarify whether it is permitted to takeoff with contaminated upper surface of the wing assuming that contamination (snow in this example, with a possibility of ice) will be blown off during takeoff roll.


For me, violation is clear. I would like to hear opinion of other pilots of Airbus and ground personnel. Please do not refer to your "company procedures" though, I'm more interested in common procedures set by Airbus.

[lomapaseo]

For me, violation is clear. I would like to hear opinion of other pilots of Airbus and ground personnel. Please do not refer to your "company procedures" though, I'm more interested in common procedures set by Airbus.

Your at the wrong end of the horse :)

Start with the regulation (set by a regulators wording) then based on what it regulates either design, manufacture or operation look to the entity being regulated for their approved SOP to their employees.

I wouldn't be so much interested in an Airbus interpretation as I would the operator's regulator approved SOP. I don't have a problem with a manufacturer (Airbus etal.)weighing in on this but I do feel the responsibility rests with the operator meeting a regulation against their operations.

[UUUWZDZX]

I wouldn't be so much interested in an Airbus interpretation as I would the operator's regulator approved SOP. I don't have a problem with a manufacturer (Airbus etal.)weighing in on this but I do feel the responsibility rests with the operator meeting a regulation against their operations.


Ok, in this particular example regulator-approved-SOP of the airline whose aircraft is shown in this video specifically states, that if air temperature is 6C or less, ground personnel must check for hoarfrost/ice/snow contamination and if it is detected then order de-icing procedure.

Regulator-approved-FCOM of A320 has no differences either, and requires for critical surfaces to be free from snow, frost and ice for takeoff.

So it is clear that wing should have been treated. The reason I'm asking is different. I actually contacted this airline and their reply was (apparently signed by deputy director of operations and director of air safety) "There is no violation - snow has been blown off instantly [ not actually instantly, and not completely - my remark ] and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics and safety" (That's almost their exact wording, translated from russian language). I'm very doubtful of this reply and think they are just covering their crew's backs and don't want to admit violation. It clearly violates FCOM of A320 and their own SOP (both approved by russian CAA). Also, how can they know that it didn't affect aerodynamics? Did they quantify it by looking at this video? Contamination might well have reduced critical AOA, for example. They've been just lucky.

PS. No de-icing was made. Otherwise snow would have been removed because last time it snowed was about 2-3 hours before departure.

I sent a letter to Airbus and awaiting their reply.

As you might know, ATR 72 crashed in russia a few days ago. Investigation committee already stated that aircraft was not de-iced (winter conditions still prevail in most regions of russia, despite it is already april), public is outraged because it is thought that company didn't de-ice to save money/time. I found this video shortly after the accident. Since everyone in aviation circles discusses ATR's crash, I think the incident operator is afraid to admit their own similar case (date of this video taken 01.01.12) which happened to be more lucky.

[Agaricus bisporus]

It is hard to believe that anyone is insane enough to try to take off in this state.
This is nothing short of homicidal, and I use that phrase deliberately and in its literal sense. Any Captain and FO, both of them, doing this should be stripped of their licences, sacked on the spot and put on a charge of reckless endangerment of life at the very least.

It is against the reguations of every Western airline, against the procedures laid down by the manufacturer, aginst every tenet of airmanship and safety and in the light of nunerous fatal accidents (Potomac for instance) almost beyond belief that anyone would be insane enough to try it.

If I were a pax and thought an aircraft was intending to take off in that state I would make my forceful objections known to the cabin crew and if take off looked iminent I would just blow a slide and explain myself in court later. But at least I'd be alive to do so.

The correct penalty for this sort of staggering irresponsibility is long prison sentences for the crew. I do not exaggerate.
Any officer or director of the airline who defended that action should join them.
And I hope they drop the soap.

[CaptainProp]

I can only agree with Agaricus!!! It's 2012 and there is NO excuse for any crew and / or management to depart with an aircraft looking like this!! This is how people get killed. Lots of people.

[Avionker]

He gets airborne at about 45 seconds in to the video. I don't think there can be any doubt that it was an intentional act.

Whether or not he taxied intending to de-ice then changed his mind, or found that a de-icing rig was not available, or never had any intention to de-ice is irrelevant.

He took of with a contaminated aircraft, risking the lives of all on board. End of story.

[de facto]

This video makes me sick!!!
i hope you forward your flight NR ,date, all details to the Civil aviation in Russia,and the press.

I hope they are banned to fly for life!
I actually contacted this airline and their reply was (apparently signed by deputy director of operations and director of air safety) "There is no violation - snow has been blown off instantly [ not actually instantly, and not completely - my remark ] and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics and safety" (That's almost their exact wording, translated from russian language).

Please keep the operator's reply and send it to the Russian CAA along with YOUR country CAA.
If yo have the details of the flight ,please PM them to me.

[IcePack]

In EXTREME (not in this case) cold,de-icing makes matters worse..if cold enough the snow does not adhere to the air frame as the video shows.. HOWEVER the snow should be removed prior to taxi out to ensure no glazing of ice has formed, underneath the snow which can occur. For many reasons.
What do some of our skandi colleagues recommend
Interesting thread.

[PENKO]

I do not buy into the 'if it is cold enough snow will not adhere' theory. The wing might be significantly warmer than OAT due to warmer fuel being uplifted in the wing tanks (as can be seen on the video), or warmed fuel being recirculated back to the tanks from the engines.

[de facto]

HOWEVER the snow should be removed prior to taxi out
How about changing 'should' to 'must'?

[john_tullamarine]

Folks,

Until and unless someone produces verifiable evidence of the operator's identity, preferably by a citation to something relevant and in the public domain, can we please have no references to presumed operators.

This is a normal protocol in PPRuNe to avoid needless legal inconvenience.

For those who may be wondering, the OP has been banned following his/her editing my deletion of his/her reference to a specific operator on several occasions in quick succession. I have no idea who the operator may have been but PPRuNe has some requirements - one being that we don't badmouth specific operators indiscriminately.

However the thread's concern is very valid and debate is invited.

[typhoonboy]

Hopefully the national authority looks into this and discovers its illegality and fines and punishes the airline and pilots. If this is a regular occurrence then it's a matter of time before we are reading an article on a crash due to ice on the wing (even though it's happened before with fatal consequences, people don't learn). We will have to wait and see what happens on this one!

[PPRuNe Towers]

Original information confirmed now.

Rob

[john_tullamarine]

Then we can let the OP back into the sand pit.

[CaptainProp]

The snow HAS to be removed PRIOR to entering the runway to confirm that no ice is present. The answer you got from the airline rep stinks of ignorance.

[UUUWZDZX]

Thanx:)

Just to confirm, this is Aeroflot A320 VP-BKY aircraft. Flight took place on 01.01.12. From Moscow UUEE to St Petersburg ULLI.

I've posted proflinks of Aeroflot's reply as a comment to that video.

[sabenaboy]

I completely agree with Agaricus bisporus (post #4 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482210-upper-wing-covered-snow-during-takeoff-roll.html#post7127015)). This is CRIMINAL behaviour from the cockpit crew. They deserve to have their license revoked for life by the Russian CAA, to be laid of by Aeroflot AND serve prison time.

If Aeroflot doesn't let them go, it would be a clear sign for me to avoid flying with them at all cost!

Am I being to harsh for these "collegues"? NO! They really deserve it!!

[captplaystation]

The video is sickening, and confirms what I have always felt, but hoped was just unfair bias on my part.
They may operate Western types etc etc but they are still firmly rooted in the era prior to the fall of the Iron curtain.

[sabenaboy]

Did this get to the press in Russia yet? If not, you should bring it to the attention of (aviation) journalists in your country and hope they will do something with it!

[20driver]

Taking off, or attempting a take off, with contaminated wings seems to be a recurring issue.
So what do you do if you are sitting on board and the plane taxis onto the runway with this situation?

Jump out of your seat or hold on and pray?

[up_down_n_out]

I thought this would create an almighty row as it went viral yesterday on the RU blogosphere and so it should!

Sorry for the length of this post now.

It may be the only thing that will save lives.

:ugh: :ouch: :rolleyes:

I am all in favour of naming and shaming the operator as:-

1/ The a/c in question is named after a world famous russian musician.

2/ It's only 4 years old.

3/ The operator in question was responsible for the disastrous

Aeroflot Flight 821 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_821)

crash in Perm which lives in INFAMY in this part of the world.

They had the GALL to disassociate their company the following day from A-N, knowing full well the cause of that crash was all of CRM, defective maintenance & alcohol.

There are many people still angry about this to this day....and now we see the same :mad: operator taking these sort of liberties yet again, as if they hadn't learnt a thing in 4 years?

‎5N SU821 crash facts (in English) (http://sites.google.com/site/ivanrnn01/Home/5n-su821-crush-facts-in-english)‎ > ‎Aircraft state, crew qualification, physical and moral shape (http://sites.google.com/site/ivanrnn01/Home/5n-su821-crush-facts-in-english/aircraft-state-crew-qualification-physical-and-moral-shape)‎ > ‎
5N's pilot speaks about craft engines thrust stagger

posted May 3, 2009 11:56 AM by ivan ivanoff [ updated Jun 1, 2009 6:11 AM ]
Source: sever @ forumavia.ru (http://www.forumavia.ru/forum/5/7/2475099920568362118801221352057_4.shtml) 9/14/2008 [12:05:06pm] 9/14/2008 [12:10:04pm] - Fidelity: 90% -


I flew this craft to Perm on the day before yesterday, it was not too bad, only A/T ****** all that up terribly.
We switched it off when we could not take it anymore. It is perfectly stable at FL.


Discussion: Those remarks are issued by the one of 5N's pilots (http://vkontakte.ru/id1248255) who flew this plane on the same itinerary two days before crash and made above video with his mobile phone




Here is a cockpit photo of the flying state of the a/c 2 days before the fateful crash

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_X3Bf5gCgnb8/SYmIkhC8yUI/AAAAAAAAASg/-_9_g_Vn2FQ/Perm%20737-500%20Instruments%20only.jpg

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_X3Bf5gCgnb8/SYmIkRMUuNI/AAAAAAAAASY/wlgZaz98sb4/Perm%20737-500%20Throttles%20only.jpg

Two frames from the video taken in the cockpit of B737-500 VP-BKO(cn 25792/2353 (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cnsearch=25792/2353&distinct_entry=true)) two days before crash in Perm (on 9/12/2008). Throttle levers are put in unaligned positions to compensate engine thrust differences.

....

In the light of the current dispute between SU and Belavia...perhaps it's timely to get some serious SACKINGS & Dismissals going in the pipeline before yet another one hits the fan, as it's only a question of time.

I refer to:-

The Effect of Wing Leading Edge Contamination on the Stall Characteristics of Aircraft (http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-3286/)

In which EXACTLY the SAME conditions as seen in the PAX's video led to a serious crash on Belavia Flight 1834

"
The Russian Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Aviation_Committee) released their final report in Russian[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavia_Flight_1834#cite_note-finalreportru-4) which concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was:

The asymmetric loss of aerodynamics properties of the wing during takeoff, which resulted in stalling the aircraft immediately after liftoff, the left wing contacting the runway and the subsequent destruction and fire.

The reason for the loss of aerodynamics properties of the wing in the current weather conditions was frost contaminating the surfaces of the wings. The cause of the frost contamination was, most likely, the temperature difference of air and cold fuel in the tanks.

Takeoff below the recommended safe speed for contaminated wings aggravated the situation.

The current standard procedures to examine the aerodynamic surfaces before departure, along with the inefficiency, can not fully guarantee the preventions of similar accidents during takeoff in the future because of the high sensitivity of the wing, that does not permit even a slight contamination of the leading edge.

Deicing of the wings as required by an Airworthiness Directive by Transport Canada (Canada's Civil Aviation Authority) in the actual weather conditions released after another similar accident most likely could have prevented the accident."

[ImbracableCrunk]

That A/T video is interesting. That looks like more than 10 degrees of TLA, doesn't it?

[sabenaboy]

So what do you do if you are sitting on board and the plane taxis onto the runway with this situation?
Jump out of your seat or hold on and pray?

I can assure you that that Aeroflot A320 would not have departed like that, if I had been a passenger... at least not with me on board! :ooh:

So, my answer would be: don't pray but jump out of your seat!

[PENKO]

Taking off, or attempting a take off, with contaminated wings seems to be a recurring issue.
So what do you do if you are sitting on board and the plane taxis onto the runway with this situation?

Jump out of your seat or hold on and pray?

20driver

Been there, done that, albeit with a lot less contamination than on this video. I jumped out. It is not a nice thing to do, but the alternative is far worse.

A: the other pax think you are an idiot until the captain comes on the PA to explain the reason why we are suddenly de-icing: you become an instant hero :E
B: the cabin crew think you are an idiot who cannot distinguish the call bell from the reading light until you physically get out of your seat to wave at them.
C: you yourself feel bad for interfering with other professionals doing their job

But you get out of your seat and you do what you have to do. I think we all would want you to do it if we were sitting fat dumb and happy in the flight deck having overlooked the fact that there is contamination on the wing.

[Northbeach]

I would like to ask for your opinion whether such a takeoff is a violation of FCOM proceduresIf by FCOM you mean Airbus´ Flight Crew Operating Manual then I would say yes, most likely (I do not fly the product and have never read the manual) such a takeoff would violate Airbus´ recommendations.

The airline may be bound by their own and different regulations that may permit such a departure (I boubt it). I am in no way advocating such an operation and I don´t care that it looked like most of it blew off the wing prior to flight.

I fly a Boeing, such a departure would clearly and without a shread of doubt, be in violation of multiple regulations and company policies. I would expect to be sacked/terminated/fired for such an operation by my employer, have my license revoked by the authorities and likely never work in the industry again.

[sabenaboy]

If by FCOM you mean Airbus´ Flight Crew Operating Manual then I would say yes, most likely (I do not fly the product and have never read the manual) such a takeoff would violate Airbus´ recommendations.

The airline may be bound by their own and different regulations that may permit such a departure (I boubt it)

I now fly the Airbus 320 and I used to fly B737 before that. I don't think there are many differences in Airbus or Boeing procedures for de-icing requirements.

Here's what our A320 FCOM says about it:

SURFACES.................................................... ............CHECKED FREE OF FROST, ICE AND SNOW
All surfaces of the aircraft (critical surfaces : leading edges and upper surfaces of wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, all control surfaces, slats and flaps) must be clear of snow, frost and ice for takeoff.

Thin hoarfrost is acceptable on the upper surface of the fuselage.
Note: Thin hoarfrost is typically a white crystalline deposit which usually develops uniformly on
exposed surfaces on cold and cloudless nights ; it is so thin that a person can distinguish
surface features (lines or markings) beneath it.
On the underside of the wing tank area, a maximum layer of 3 mm (1/8 in) of frost will not penalize
takeoff performance.

FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT........................................CHECKED FREE OF FROST, ICE AND SNOW
‐ Landing gear assemblies (lever locks) and tires, landing gear doors.
‐ Engine inlets, inlet lips, fans (check for rotation), spinners, fan exhaust ducts, reverser assemblies.
‐ Drains, bleeds, probes (pitots, static ports, TAT sensors, angle of attack sensors).
‐ Fuel tank ventilation.
‐ Radome.

Apart from the FCOM, there are many other Airbus publications in which they make it very clear that any contamination on the upper surface of the wing, stabiliser and elevators is dangerous and has to be removed before take-off.
I fly a Boeing, such a departure would clearly and without a shread of doubt, be in violation of multiple regulations and company policies. I would expect to be sacked/terminated/fired for such an operation by my employer, have my license revoked by the authorities and likely never work in the industry again.

I fly the Airbus 320 such as the one in the Youtube clip. What Northbeach said in the quote above for Boeing and his company, is just as valid for my airline and the A320 operations. I agree 100 % with Northbeach!

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

While in many cases an aircraft Limitation (originating from the OEM, but endorsed by the relevant authorities which certified the type) may expressly prohibit takeoffs with contaminated surfaces, an more direct source of control is the relevant operational regulations:

14CFR121 for example, says:

§ 121.629 Operation in icing conditions.

...

(b) No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice, or snow is adhering to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section. Takeoffs with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks may be authorized by the Administrator.


Most "western" authorities have similar regulations.

Of course, we learned the hard way .. prior to Dryden, the Canadian regulations, for example, allowed a lot more interpretation on the part of the Captain. All of the "in the opinion of" type wording has been long removed, though.

[lomapaseo]

UUUWZDZX


Ok, in this particular example regulator-approved-SOP of the airline whose aircraft is shown in this video specifically states, that if air temperature is 6C or less, ground personnel must check for hoarfrost/ice/snow contamination and if it is detected then order de-icing procedure.

Regulator-approved-FCOM of A320 has no differences either, and requires for critical surfaces to be free from snow, frost and ice for takeoff.

So it is clear that wing should have been treated. The reason I'm asking is different. I actually contacted this airline and their reply was (apparently signed by deputy director of operations and director of air safety) "There is no violation - snow has been blown off instantly [ not actually instantly, and not completely - my remark ] and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics and safety" (That's almost their exact wording, translated from russian

Thank you for that explanation :ok:

It makes it a whole lot easier for comment (which by now you have got a ton of) :)

Maufacturers typically don't comment on their customers action so don't hold your breath awaiting something from Airbus

It looks like the public opinion (on this forum) is highly skepitcal of the answer that you got from the airline. While I will admit there is some eye-ball on-the scene subjectivity present in what's allowed to dispatch. The words you quoted above are in my view not an acceptable response and I expect that the local regulator will have to answer to that in the near term.

In summary, don't expect a closing statement except from the regulator themselves and only then if this subject goes viral across the internet.

[Agaricus bisporus]

I'm a bit concerned at talk of "terminating" the pilots involved. When we refer to incidents like this as being "a hanging offence" it is only figurative speech.
Or are things in Russia still so different?

[sidestick stirrer]

Well, Gentlemen, the key word two posts back is "adhering".
In very-cold temperatures with cold fuel in the wings, sweeping the snow away in various spots to ensure that is was not sticking and that there was a clean, uncontaminated surface beneath allowed one to depart, both from a legal standpoint and from an airmanship one.
However, when the outside temperature is hovering around or just below the freezing point( or if there is any possibility of the fuel uplift raising the skin temperature to near freezing), then my carrier didn't even bother checking using the tactile method described above: they ALWAYS deiced.
What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the pilot that decides that it is all melting on its own and departs without considering what the windchill does during the takeoff roll.
Based on the snow adhering to the flap canoes and the outer fuel cells which receive the fluid recirculating from the IDGs, I think it's a no-brainer that this crew should have elected to deice.
My comments based on 40+ years of heavy-metal operations in the coldest-country on the planet...

[xma05]

Aeroflot is doing it again, this time on A330
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJTcS7Sf3qg


And again on A320
Aeroflot--snow and ice on a wing and a prayer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3j-ysISjJ8&feature=youtu.be)

And one more time:
Takeoff from St.Peterburg to Moscow... aeroflot a319 ... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlk84sMuYs&feature=youtu.be)

Crazy! Unsafe! :eek:

[nnc0]

Can the Canadian commenters on here, ok anybody then, comment on a Canadian operator that is allowed to take off with cold soaked fuel on the wings of their 737s. I'm told it is allowed by the FCOM and they have a waiver from their regulator to support the FCOM procedure.

[Onceapilot]

Maybe there is an element of complacency by operators in all parts of the world that regularly operate aircraft in snow/ice?
I know where I stand, "clean aeroplane".

[TheRobe]

I ponder the forum membership here crying foul at the lax safety and immorality of not following safe practices, pointing fingers imperiously at those in flagrant violation of safety standards....

but then it's ok to hird kids, pay to fly, CRM, padded logbooks, chief pilots hiring off the bottom of the resume pile, FAA out to lunch, trend monitoring engines out as far as a blind mechanic will allow, pilots getting into the cockpit drunk, mechanics signing off jackscrews they never looked at, assumed temp departures that have you yanking it off at the very end....

Yep...safety first...right?

[Livesinafield]

Wow...if ever there is an advert to never go near an aeroflot flight this is defiantly it...the utair atr72 crash all makes sense now...outrageous!

[john_tullamarine]

Moved from Tech Log.

Thread appears to be more concerned with a particular Operator's activities rather than Tech issues.

[Onceapilot]

Sorry Mod, this was better placed in Tech Log.
GlasgowBoy's post is another illustration of the stupidity of some people.

OAP

[DaveReidUK]

Many of today's pilots weren't born when the Air Florida went in off DCA, though of course deicing wasn't the only factor in that instance.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Wreckage_of_Air_Florida_Flight_90_being_removed_from_Potomac _River_%281982-01-19%29.jpg

[BOAC]

Can the Canadian commenters on here, ok anybody then, - fully approved Boeing 737 procedure, subject also to regulator and airline approval. Done to death here - search for 'CSFF'

[Leg]

Maybe so DaveReid, but the Potomac accident is well covered in CRM case studies so I would think every commercial pilot, whatever their age is familiar with it.

The report regarding airframe contamination at GLA I find very hard to believe, however if it is accurate was it reported? If not why not? Very strange.

[Clandestino]

deicing wasn't the only factor in that instance.

Yup. Had they not forgotten to turn on probe anti-icing, they would have set correct take-off thrust and got away even with contaminated wing. Larry would be even more convinced that regs regarding de-icing are pointless and unnecessary. Well, he didn't live long enough to retract the statement recorded on the CVR.

the stupidity of some people.

That's the way you see it. From their perspective they are brave heroes combating the stupidity of the rules made by pencil-pushers, saving their companies money and time. They very well know that all snow will fall of the wings as they race down the runway and that thickened de-icing fluids do more harm than good. They can provide written reference confirming their believes - sourced from anonymous internet forums such as PPRuNe.

Folks, it is not just Aeroflot, it is not just Glasgow. Inability and/or unwillingness of aviation authorities to press the issue has lead to practically anything-you-can-get-away-with type of game regarding ground de/anti-icing all around the Europe. Of course, if someone goes all the way, it is pretty safe bet that company will point out it was done in contravention of its own procedures and investigators will not be likely to explore how they were enforced prior to mishap.

The report regarding airframe contamination at GLA I find very hard to believe, however if it is accurate was it reported? If not why not? Very strange.

In the land where aviation authorities crack hard on safety breaches, where whistleblowers are protected and considered heroes it would be very strange indeed. However, as the (in)famous East German poet said:

Willkommen in der Wirklichkeit

[theWings]

January in northern Scandinavia:

Aircraft deices on departure from an airfield where OAT is -15C with moderate snow. Flies 90min, cruising at FL400. Arrives at destination where OAT is -26C, light snow. 30min turnaround. Plenty of snow on the aircraft but crew tactile check no snow is adhering to the airframe as ice, and depart without deicing.

Completely insane, or operating under some little known but perfectly legal procedures??

Is it possible for both the air and the aircraft to be so cold that frozen precipitation cannot stick to critical surfaces, as a scientifically proven fact?? Doesn't seem right but I'm always ready to be amazed by science!

Would be good to hear the facts from an operator who actually does this, if indeed they exist...

[insuindi]

@thewings: at such minus temperatures the snow won't stick to anything. For it to stick it needs to be quite watery/briefly melt and refreeze (so if the aircraft skin was relatively warm but only so much that the snow would then refreeze rather than just melt off the skin). That's why in really cold temperatures you get "powder" snow that doesn't stick, no good for snowmanbuilding or snowball fights, whereas around 0 degrees you get the larger snow flakes and "sticky snow".

I'd still prefer them to de-ice the plane...

[sdh2903]

Glasgowboy, I wasn' t going to lower my self to writing a response to your post but your last paragraph has prompted me to do so. If you know anything about the engineers who release these aircraft and the drivers who fly them then STD means nothing unless the aircraft is safe to depart.

I have worked out who you deice for and who the airlines you are talking about and know personally a lot of the engineers and flight crew, and can say with out much doubt that an aircraft would not depart with even a small patch of frost on a wing. Let alone a light covering of snow.

I consider myself to be inexperienced in this industry in comparison to some of my peers, and I have been working on aircraft for 14 years. I certainly wouldn't be touting my self in the way you are after 5 winter's worth of deicing experience.

[nnc0]

On some models of the 737, the AFM allows take off with fuel frost on the upper surface of the wings and I understand a number of North American and European carriers do it.

[BOAC]

On some models of the 737 - NG only. I trust you followed my post #40?

[nnc0]

I did. Didn't search for CSFF. Had done so previously and thought while the NG was definitely allowed to do it, so were some other models, but only in certain regions.

The whole thing is confusing as heck to me.

The AFM allows the procedure and the FAA approved that procedure but the FAA then later rescinded their approval. People like Southwest, who were once doing takeoffs with CSFF had to stop once the FAA approval was rescinded.

Other regulatory authorities however, but not all, followed suit. Those that did not follow suit still allow Take Offs with CSFF.

Seems like quite a mess and it just doesn't jive with my understanding of Airworthiness/Certification approvals.

[theWings]

insuindi,

yes all true. but what i'm really wondering is whether anyone has approval to begin the takeoff roll on the assumption that everything is cold enough for all the snow to be gone by v1... i guess (hope?) i'll be waiting a while...

[Natstrackalpha]

Its freezing flippin cold, overcast with low blowing dry snow. The a/c has been de-iced, all of the permitted de-icing systems on the a/c are functioning normally. There is no ice on the pitots, or, in the pitots rather.

It looks like cold s--t outside the wings are clear except for the low blowing snow everywhere. Subject to ice or stuff on the wings can we go, we are ready to line up and take off. Can we go?

It is a bright sunny day, but cold as s--t. There is residual hoar frost covering the upper surface of the wings, some bozo even decided to refuel it, the latent heat of the re-fuelling makes this stuff stick tight. Can we go?

The holdover time for this aircraft is 15 mins in today`s conditions, the de-icer guy has just frozen his goolies off by de-icing the entire (relevant surfaces for de-icing) aircraft and it has taken him 15 mins in the freezing bloody cold the wind covering him with rapidly cooling chemical s--t. The aircraft is ready for doors closed, can we go?

The aircraft is within its holdover time and although de-iced has a covering of the recent precipitation (big fat fluffy snowflakes) we are taxying for line up and take off. All deicing systems are wroking correctly and there is no abnormal engine indication. Can we go?

Moral? From a pax perspective: Not all stuff on the upper wing surface is gonna hurt anything. Not every shoddy day in the winter with obvious precipitation looking like something out of Ice Station Zebra is going to do anything wrong, bad, or unsafe.

Some naughty stuff (see above) like hard hoar frost - should be cleared prior to taxi.

Its the P1, who has a foot. When this foot is put down people respond.
Whether or not he is on the job market the next day with his wife and kids starving - he will ever hold his head high and say to himself, well, at least I did not kill all thos poor m--- f---s.

Y`all know the rules. Either it is 100% safe and flyable and there are warm smiles all round as you drink your coffee and snaffled do-nut, knowing that this flight is going to be as safe as houses, because of your knowledge, experience and and training. Fearless.

Or, something is wrong but you can`t find your foot. Full of trepidation. ("but we`ve run out of killfrost") Tough titty, we aint going until that alpine ski resort has been cleared off the wings. Coffee anyone?

Note the children on the terminal floor playing up and giving the parents a hard time, the entire family is thirsty, the place is packed, the parents are tearing their own hair out, YOUR flight has caused this delay, while you look for the do-nut bar, a manager is trying to get to you through the crowd, you continue to the coffe and do-nut stand with your hostie Juicia Lucia, maybe later go somewhere for a quick ciggie? Until they have de-iced the mother.

As you survey the crowded concourse, you see 150 living souls, whose lives you have just saved, shouting, screaming, bit-hing, wishing they were dead, anything but here in this stuffy old terminal building with three screaming kids and unable to move as they are in line waiting to know if the flight is going to be cancelled or not, some freaking out not knowing where they are going to stay (not used to sleeping on benches specifically designed to stop people from sleeping on them. airport terminals are cruel places, especially for familes - the designers should be shot)

Little do the pax know how close to their wishes they actually came, as they see a flash captain eating a soggy do-nut and drinking coffee with a babe of a hostie Tis` you - the P1 focused on de-icer, coffee and donuts with Jucia who has just saved everyone of their lives.

Either something is right or it is wrong.

Either it will fly (safely) or it won`t - we all know this. If in doubt, go back to flight school.