Originally Posted by
Piltdown Man
Are you sure you are correct? Firstly, we are talking about tail surfaces, secondly we are hearing that aircraft are appearing to be flying quite nicely when contaminated and lastly, nobody, absolutely nobody is suggesting that we shouldn't de-ice in the way that we are instructed. What is being discussed is "does the tailplane need to be de-iced?" and "if not why not?" and the fact that some of us have flown aircraft that have been contaminated in flight without the aircraft exhibiting any unpleasant flying characteristics.
Personally, I have been bitten (but not too badly) by a contaminated aerofoil. But to say that "ice will always kill" is patently wrong. All of us would be better off if we understood why some aerofoils were susceptible to suffering from ice and others were not. Until we have more knowledge though, we'll continue to piss away our company's cash being de-iced.
PM
Agree 100%. My thoughts not corrected, but better explained.
If regulatory guidance say "ice will always kill" and under
clean critical surfaces concept stab is deiced always for petite leading edge contamination we need to stick to rules. "No cutting corners" is an important message with broader impact that needs to be repeated again and again.
However technical questions are open for free discussion. Same as you, I had seen 2 inches of bullhorn ice on THS LE post landing, which is certified for OEI GA, while 1 mm of hoarfrost is illegitimate for tkof. Let's go figure.
BTW: My employer together with Virgin Atlantic (hearsay) is pushing Airbus to allow some upper wing frost (cold soaked fuel), similar to what 737NG is allowed to. So there is a light at the end of a tunnel after all.
Yours,
FD (the un-real)