UUUWZDZX

Good day,

Having found the following video that demonstrates takeoff roll ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=925Mg...ayer_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

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

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!
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

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). 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?