To the critics who say this incident (oh alleged, as we are in a litigious society now) should not be discussed on a public forum I say this. If this thread does nothing else but draws only one crew's attention to have a rethink on the very serious subject of deicing/anti icing then it has to be worth while, don't you think?
That could have been achieved without identifying the airline and crew. That was an unnecessary finger-pointing exercise.
Pointing fingers and calling somebody a cowboy implies that the finger-pointer is not. That is perhaps often the real reason for the pointing.
It would indeed - nevertheless - in an age of open information, consider that the open availability of this alleged incident may have had the potential to save even more crews who may have happened to read it just this week - or indeed prompted others to have spoken out when flight safety appears to be compromised in other circumstances.
Open information obliges us to be open about our actions and for management structure to consider how such decisions have been taken. I am sure that the crew have a competent employee representative to look after them in this case.
Flight safety concerns everyone who can influence the decisionmaking process - from management to flight crew.
To suggest otherwise, or that incidents should be hushed up is a retrograde step.
Pointing fingers and calling somebody a cowboy implies that the finger-pointer is not.
Pointing fingers and calling someone a cowboy has surely got us looking in the right direction. The finger-pointer is not a child and is not hiding. I don't know LTD but he self-evidently is alert to big picture hazards, and he's a caring whistleblower and he's a good role model. The world needs more of all three types .
This thread ain't about egos, it's about contaminated flying surfaces that probably stayed contaminated till they flew a bit. How much of each we don't know because we didn't deice. All we know is that one was ultimately not catastrophic and the other overcame the first before the runway ran out.
Thesedays I don't want a preponderance of judgement calls on flight decks. I want applied science wherever possible, please ladies and gentlemen!
Last edited by slip and turn; 14th Dec 2007 at 17:45.
This thread ain't about egos, it's about contaminated flying surfaces that probably stayed contaminated till they flew a bit.
Exactly! not about the crew of that specific IB flight (ego) ... but about the way everyone sees the important issue that is raised here(contaminated flying surfaces) .
So if a guy comes here and says "blimey, t'other day we saw a plane leave the stand refusing to de-ice" the very same people that have posted here will obviously participate in the benefic discussion regarding contaminated flying surfaces. One or two of you would always try to post "who was it?! c'mon tell us or we won't believe you" but who da f.... cares! It's not the who, is the why that matters.
To LightTwinDriver and others like him: It can happen to you some day. Someone will point a finger at you because you stuffed it, plain and simple. And will have no mercy in exposing your sorry arse everywhere, namely here, where a lot of people will be glad that you'd be sacked accordingly, just to please the PPRuNe Internet Gods. Kindergarten time.
The finger was accurately pointed. Many people learned. Myths were debunked. Pride might get dented. Livelihoods might get a tad compromised, unlike lives. This is a good result. Children don't get a look in on this discussion.
Like the people down the back expect for the price of a ticket, if you are doing your job right you have nothing to fear, If you are not doing your job right, then "You do"
I am an Iberia pilot and I thank you for pointing that crew your concerns. I surely wellcome advise from any colleague. That said, when I perform the exterior inpection on my aircraft I usually do not inspect other airplanes parked nearby or the ramp underneath. I can assure you that we have very professional ground crews that deice our aircraft even when nobody else is doing it, and that is because our flight crews are a pain in the a... at safety matters and always play on the safe side. That is still one of the benefits of being part of a flag carrier where captain decissions are never challenged by management. I do not know if this crew had deiced or not. If they had not, that is a violation of our sopīs, and obviosly a pretty bad decission. I am amazed at how some "colleagues" comment on decissions of other pilots without having all the facts. We had complain for many years about journalist making malign comments without having the facts, and when the truth comes up never retracting, it is sad seing other pilots do the same.
I do not know if this crew had deiced or not. If they had not, that is a violation of our sopīs, and obviosly a pretty bad decission. I am amazed at how some "colleagues" comment on decissions of other pilots without having all the facts.
You do if you listen to the tapes. The facts are there.
I have not heard the tapes, but from previous posts the pilot said they did not need to deice, and I do not think that from that reply you can categorally state that they have not previously deiced. At any rate, if they have not done it, that is bad.
The BA crew were right to question the IB crew if they were concerned and follow it up with ATC. It is good airmanship so to do. I also hope they filed an MOR so that the incident can be properly investigated by the relevant authorities empowered so to do. If they did not file an MOR and then came onto this forum to publicise a specific event such that the crew can be identified then that is very wrong.
IF the IB did not de-ice when they should have done then that needs to be investigated by their airline and appropriate action taken. In extremous that may mean dismissal or demotion, it may not, depends on circumstances and none of us here has the complete picture.
This weeks flight has a very interesting article about the blame game.
We do not want to get into Kangeroo courts on PPRuNe.
yakmadrid - In previous posts it is explained that de-icing is conducted off stand at BOS and the original poster if I remember correctly said that there was no evidence of on-stand de-icing. Regardless of whether or not the aircraft had previously been de-iced, the fact that they had frozen deposits on the surface of the wings meant that they should have de-iced again, which they did not.
"This is getting out of control which is a shame.If the IB crew deliberately took the risk and went with contamination..." was posted by Rananim - not only the IB crew took the risk, the SLF as well...
It would be great if this forum will be limited to professionals so we do not have to read uninformed comments. For us I think that some things should not be written in the open where people outside the profession may get confused and get the wrong picture of our profession. For those that speak about "evidence" of ice depodits or not trace of deicing fluids in the ramp, I think that you should be more careful with what you say, I hope that you never have to suffer disciplinary actions because somebody made a comment of what they thought they saw. This reminds me of one time when one security agent at Heathrow reported smelling alcohol around the captain of an IB flight. He did not reported at once but later when the airplane was already boarding its passengers, Police requested the captain to submit to an alcohol test, the captain was surprised and asked what was the reason for that test when they were ready to depart, and police told him that a security agent had reported smelling alcohol when he went through the metal detector. The Captain response was to disembark the plane, and go through the alcohol test, which obviously was negative, and also to request that the security agent be given an alcohol test which was not granted by the airport authority. Nothing happend to that agent, there was no compensation to the airline or its passenger for the delay.
Yes, yes... safety first. Of course, and no question.
Still, I've seen plenty of inexperienced weenies call for unnecessary deicing causing enormous expense and environmentally hazardous mess.
There is only one rule for ice that is applicable to safety and it requires that ice not be "adhering" to the critical surfaces and any others also deemed relevant to safety.
There are certainly plenty of rules being applied in different places that prohibit making a decision as to whether the stuff is adhering or is just loose and dry snow on a cold surface - you simply must apply a deicing procedure and not bother thinking about it. You can obey these rules and relax, or, if you are permitted to make your own determination you can do so if you possess the sense and experience to make a good one.
Maybe the crew in unfortunate question here determined the conditions were such that they had no adhering ice. I don't know and the details in the first post don't provide enough information to even make a better guess.
In short, enjoy your modern day rules designed to eliminate any possibility of a poor assessment of the conditions by an inadequate pilot and don't be so certain safety was jeopardized when somebody else operates outside of your own comfortable blanket of rules designed for the lowest common denominator.
I'm not saying the rules you operate by are wrong or bad, just that you may not know everything, mate, and its scary to watch you identify and condemn another aviator this way.