Upper wing covered by snow during takeoff roll

[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.



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

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 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)‎ > ‎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 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 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





Two frames from the

video

taken in the cockpit of B737-500 VP-BKO(cn 25792/2353) 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

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) released their final report in Russian[5] 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]

Originally Posted by 20driver

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!

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
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]

As a passenger you really do not want to be there.

I would like to ask for your opinion whether such a takeoff is a violation of FCOM procedures

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 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]

Originally Posted by Northbeach

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.

Originally Posted by Northbeach

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

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

You Tube

And again on A320
Aeroflot--snow and ice on a wing and a prayer - YouTube

And one more time:
Takeoff from St.Peterburg to Moscow... aeroflot a319 ... - YouTube

Crazy! Unsafe!

[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.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by nnCO

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.