Westjet Deicing

[deice05]

Below is a letter I sent to Westjet, Transport Canada, and various other publications a few weeks ago. I have had no positive feedback as of yet from the airline.

I have been a viewer of posts on this website for years and have not made any postings, but have decided I would like to see more feedback from other viewers regarding this issue.

Thanks



West Jet Airlines
5055, 11th ST NE
Calgary, AB Canada
T2E 8N4

January 11th, 2006
Attn: Bruce Flodstedt
Director of Flight Operations

Subject: Ground Deicing Procedures
My family and I were passengers on a West Jet flight departing out of Montreal in late December 2005. We experienced something I still cannot believe occurred on a commercial flight in Canada. I would like to begin by stating that I am a pilot by profession, working for a large international corporate flight department, and feel it is my responsibility to report what the aviation industry knows is an extremely serious, potentially fatal, and 100% avoidable incident. Also, to be clear, I have no affiliation with, or any grievances of any kind, with any airline.
We departed on a West Jet flight shortly before Christmas from CYUL. It had been snowing lightly for the previous two hours. When our aircraft arrived at the gate thirty minutes before our departure, it was prepared and we were boarded. Our seats had us sitting at the trailing edge of the flaps with a very good view of the right wing. On taxi out from the main terminal I was pointing out the ice and snow on the wings to my five year old son explaining how we were going to the deicing pad to have our wings sprayed. At this point, I believe we are on Alpha taxiway holding short of Runway 28. Next thing you know we roll on to Runway 28 and begin the take off with heavy wing contamination. I was in complete shock, and there was nothing I could do about it at this point. Had we been taxiing for any of CYUL’s five other runways I would have had time to relay my concerns to the crew. I thought we would be taxiing across Runway 28 to taxiway Juliet or Kilo, which would lead us into the deicing pad.

It was not just a few specks of ice on the wing (which is still unacceptable), after observing loose snow and ice blow off, there was still moderate contamination left on the wing at rotation. The contamination did not blow off the flaps and outer wing areas until about 1200ft, and on the middle and root of the wing there was ice that did not sublimate until over 15,000 ft. It is well understood that even light contamination can have a dramatic effect on the wing’s lift characteristics causing the wing to stall. Given the number of accidents that occur due to icing, this should not be happening.
This was the first time I have been concerned on a commercial flight.
I approached the Captain after the flight and asked him why we departed without deicing. He said they were ‘cold soaked from the arrival and that they thought everything would blow off'. I told him that I saw ice well after we took off and asked if that was normal operating procedure in the 737 (knowing very well it is not). He admitted it wasn't. The First Officer then began to explain that deicing during these conditions would make things worse. That is when I expressed my displeasure at their lack of understanding and professionalism, and for making a decision that put my family, the passengers, and the crew at risk. I also enquired if it was not their responsibility to visually check the wings prior to takeoff in their company S.O.P’s, at which point they would have seen what I saw.
After a few more exchanges, the Captain said he ‘hoped I would not take this any further, and that he was sorry he disappointed us’. Conditions (see below) may have been present to assume any snow would just ‘blow off’, but not taking into account the many factors that may have raised the temperature enough to create ice (fuel temperatures, drifting exhaust gasses etc.) and not visually inspecting the wings prior to departure is a very hazardous attitude. If I was to conduct one of my flights in such a manor I believe I would be out of a job or severely reprimanded.
On our return to CYUL in the new year I observed another situation that reinforces the importance of addressing this issue. Our West Jet flight pushed back from the gate to proceed to the deicing pad, while at the same time another West Jet flight pushed back and did not deice. After sitting in the same conditions as our flight that morning, and observing aircraft from other companies deicing, I find it hard to believe that one crew could decide, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was safe to depart their aircraft.


After deliberating and speaking with peers on how to approach this issue, I have decided at this point, to keep this anonymous. It is my intention that the issue be brought forward to the whole West Jet pilot group, Transport Canada, and the public because if the specific flight were to be revealed, I would be concerned that West Jet and Transport Canada would simply punish the crew and there would be no further action or responsibility taken.
I am hoping to see awareness raised outside the company and I want to ensure this incident is on record if West Jet is to have an accident due to icing. If West Jet’s S.O.P.s do not reflect it, more stringent guidelines should be outlined for deciding when deicing is required, and greater explanation on the seriousness at lack of respect for this issue is necessary. Hidden pressures due to saving the company money, or keeping to the schedule, are issues that may also need to be addressed by West Jet and its pilot group.
Finally, I would like to state that until I’m convinced otherwise, my family, friends, and colleagues will be strongly advised by myself not to fly on this airline.
I can be contacted at [email protected] ([email protected]). I would like to be notified of your actions.


Conditions upon aircraft arrival in CYUL – 160/6 4S- 18SCT 30OVC –7/-9 29.96
Conditions upon aircraft departure from CYUL– 160/10 8S- 27OVC –6/-8 29.92

______________________________________________

CC Paul Ysselmuiden – West Jet Chief Pilot
CC Kevin Pickett – West Jet Director of Inflight Safety
CC Ken Graham – Transport Canada, Calgary
CC Fred Damico – Transport Canada, Winnipeg
CC Editor – Wings Magazine
CC Editor – Globe and Mail Newspaper

[jumpy737]

If your concern was safety, then why CC the Globe and wings magazine. I would have bought this as a legitmate concern but why bring the media into this as it now smacks of sensationalism. SHAME...:mad:

[Willie Everlearn]

DEICE05
Excellent post.
How you handled it, obviously, will raise debate. Debate is a good thing.
But the greater issue is safety.
I had friends on the Air Ontario F28 out of Dryden. I think you'd find similar concerns among them regarding icing and deicing.
But the reality in aviation right now is the rate at which the airlines are expanding and the rate at which 'experience' is descending.
We (the industry) are going to pay for it unfortunately. And that usually means "payment in blood".
Let's hope your message is responsibly and professionally received.
I often wonder (whilst seated as a PAX) why professional pilots don't make their presence know to the crew when boarding a flight? Is it an ego thing?
I hope not. But it never hurts for the cabin crew at least, to know you have a qualified able bodied person on board in case of an emergency, or urgency. We all speak the same lingo.
:ok:

[lostav8r]

It's a good letter, and kudos for taking the time to address the issue with Westjet. However, I have to agree with what was said above, why would you bother to send a copy to the Globe and Mail and Wings Magazine?:confused:
You said you received no positive feedback from the airline. Did you get any feedback @ all?

[Flite Nav]

For the record; it should be noted that I sent an email to this individual with my contact information as a means of following up. To date I have not received anything from this individual, which in my mind raises questions as to the legitimacy of the letter. If safety is indeed the concern, then I am more than willing to look into the matter. I can't conduct a proper investigation without knowing more of the details. There are always two sides to any story.

It should also be noted that I refuse to discuss this any further on a public forum. If you're truly concerned, you have my contact information.

Bruce Flodstedt
VP Flight Ops
WestJet

[royalterrace]

deice05
Let me start with the obvious. Deicing and the clean wing concept are well understood by proffessional pilots. Nothing less is expected.
The not so obvious. Your motives. "I have decided at this point , to keep this anonymous". Are you kidding me? cc'ing media? The only thing anonymous is your name. Surely you must realise that accusations as serious as this will not be able to be addressed on the basis of an "anonymous letter". It brings into question your own real motives. I am dissapointed that a proffessional pilot as you call yourself has made assumptions on the actions of other proffessional pilots and worse yet posted these assumptions and accusations to various people and organisations anonymously. You should know better.
Instead of making a phone call to Capt. Flodstedt to hopefully clear up your concerns and address possible issues you chose to publicly smear WestJet on the internet.
If you were so concerned about the safety of WestJet's operation , what the hell were you doing putting your family on them on the return flight? Words fail me.

[Willie Everlearn]

royalterrace

quote "I am dissapointed that a proffessional pilot as you call yourself has made assumptions on the actions of other proffessional pilots and worse yet posted these assumptions and accusations to various people and organisations anonymously."

Why should you be disappointed that a fellow pilot questioned another pilot's decision? Are we to believe all pilot's decisions are always correct and always unquestionable? Or is there the possibility we get a few wrong on occasion? :sad:

Anonymity? :eek:
If you've been in the airline idustry for awhile you'll know this industry uses anonimity in many, many areas of reporting maintenance, flt. operations issues. From FOQA to ASRs to just about anything else in between. Yet, you claim to be disappointed. Look around you. Airline pilots occasionally need and use anonimity to get the safety message out, so it shouldn't surprise any professional pilot. Is West Jet special? :confused:

I think West Jet is more than capable of looking into a safety matter just as I'm sure they can look into any customer service complaint. I'm sure they have a Safety Officer assigned to look into complaints like this. As Flite Nav has indicated, there are two sides to the story and one can't simply go into hush, hush mode because it causes bad publicity. Sometimes safety issues DO cause bad publicity just as investigations internal or public vindicate the accused.

Watch this space.

[extreme P]

I'm sure your intentions are well meaning but until you put flight numbers with dates and your name to it nothing can be done.

[royalterrace]

Willie

In my view anonymity calls into question these accusations. I give this pilot credit in questioning the PIC directly. Where I have a problem is in his follow up.

If this pilot was TRULY concerned he would have made contact with the appropriate people immediately and directly and not waffle for two weeks and then only anonymously. I sure wouldn't handle it that way. Would you?

As Capt Flodstedt stated above , he contacted "Mr Anonymous" and has recieved no reply. Instead , we see his true colors with an internet smear.

With Capt Flodstedt's invitation , I guess it's up to Mr. Anonymous now.

[Safety Guy]

Deice05:

You appear to be painting all Westjet pilots with the same brush, and in my opinion, that is patently unfair and unwarranted. I know many Westjet pilots, including some of the ones you addressed in your letter, and I can tell you that taking off with contaminated wings (as you have alleged), is not an acceptable practice for any of them.

Some of your story doesn't hold water. In case you didn't know (and as a professional pilot you should), the Captain is required by regulation (refer to CAR 602.11 (7)) to inform his passengers that he will be deicing the aircraft prior to departure. When no such announcement was made prior to leaving the gate, you should have asked a member of the cabin crew if deicing would be taking place. I know that I certainly would have if I saw conditions out the window that you claim to have seen.

If you truly believe that the flight was conducted unsafely and in contravention of the regulations, then you need to step up and do the right thing. I suggest that you write another letter to Transport Canada only, giving the specifics of the flight in question. They will contact Westjet and ask for a response. In doing so, your name will not be used. If the response is acceptable (which I firmly believe it would be), they will get back to you with their findings. If it is not, they may bring the matter to TC Enforcement for further action.

SG

[f404]

If you were that concerned about de-icing, why didn't you speak up when the Capt. did not mention it in his briefing prior to the flight? I believe that Transport Canada requires the pax to be told about de-icing proceedure.

[Tan]

Gentlemen

Deice05 reported the weather conditions upon aircraft arrival in CYUL – 160/6 4S- 18SCT 30OVC –7/-9 29.96
Conditions upon aircraft departure from CYUL– 160/10 8S- 27OVC –6/-8 29.92

It should have been a fairly easy job for any pilot let alone a chief pilot to correctly match the reported weather conditions with WJ’s flight schedule in the time frame given.

[Willie Everlearn]

I believe Boeing, and many other aircraft manufacturers define their requirement for deicing as "OAT less than 10 degrees Celcius and visible moisture" with "no ice or snow adhering to the wing surface."
Short of the tactile scrathing with the fingernails of your hand, how does this crew (or any other crew at this airline or any other airline) determine or eliminate the adhering part?

Besides, if the reported weather at the arrival and departure times is accurate for the case in point, light snow IS "visible moisture" and the OAT was reported as less than 10 degrees. That leaves visibility less than a mile, which is wasn't.

Why wasn't the aircraft sprayed/deiced? Captain's responsibility. Captain's call.

To attack the crew in this instance for NOT deicing is folly. I'm sure the Captain considered the "usual" pre-departure stuff and decided not to deice. That's the end of it. Discussion over.

Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.
The interesting part of this (for me at least) is the lack of concern pilots can have when operating in these conditions. We sometimes forget that we have people in the back who are scared sh**less. For some, it can be traumatic. A comforting word might have been prudent and if the author in question was still aprehensive then he would have had the opportunity to say something.

Doesn't sound like that's the way it went down.

Discussion is good. Debate even better.
:ok:

[Safety Guy]

To attack the crew in this instance for NOT deicing is folly. I'm sure the Captain considered the "usual" pre-departure stuff and decided not to deice. That's the end of it. Discussion over.

Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.

First, as none of us was in the cockpit that day, we cannot possibly know what was or wasn't considered, so why speculate? Second, do you honestly believe that if a Captain makes a wrong call and gets away with it, it's therefore not a wrong call? By your way of logic, a guy who drives 40 kph over the speed limit every day and doesn't have an accident, doesn't deserve to get a ticket the next time the cops pull him over! There is only one acceptable standard, and that is to remove the contamination prior to flight, no matter how many times one has got away with it. Accidents like Dryden often happen because people are willing to drift away from the acceptable standard.

As for giving a comforting word, please give an example of an announcement I can make to my passengers to tell them I am about to violate the CARs, but "it's okay".

This thread and discussions like it, are precisely why I will not go flying with any amount of contamination on my wings. You just never know who is watching, and many of them carry cameras. I have received email messages with pictures of aircraft in flight with icy wings on more than one occasion. I do not want to have to answer to TC for my actions, no matter how much I feel I can get away with it.

[A310GUY]

Safey guy says:
This thread and discussions like it, are precisely why I will not go flying with any amount of contamination on my wings. You just never know who is watching, and many of them carry cameras....... I do not want to have to answer to TC for my actions, no matter how much I feel I can get away with it.

I find the last post quite revealing in itself. I personally don't care who is watching and whether or not they have cameras. I operate an aircraft based on my experience, knowledge and training and take the safest and most judicious course of action taking into account the conditions and circumstances presented. In reference to spraying - I don't spray just because the guy next to me is or isn't getting sprayed. It is just another piece of information. It is true that two aircraft departing at approximately the same time from the same field may have different spray requirements. If the pilots of the subject flight did make a mistake in judgement about the adhering contaminant then I am sure that the flight ops of his airline, if properly advised, will give counsel and training programs will be, if required, amended.

Anyhow, having said all that and after reading the original post, it doesn't seem that there was that much contaminant left on the wing anyhow. Don't get me wrong - I don't condone taking off with a contaminated wing. It is just that the 'sky is falling tone' and legitimacy of the posters' alleged submissions leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And by the way - the Dryden accident didn't occur because "people are willing to drift away from the acceptable standard." It was alot more complicated than that.

[Safety Guy]

I find the last post quite revealing in itself. I personally don't care who is watching and whether or not they have cameras. I operate an aircraft based on my experience, knowledge and training and take the safest and most judicious course of action taking into account the conditions and circumstances presented. In reference to spraying - I don't spray just because the guy next to me is or isn't getting sprayed. It is just another piece of information.
And if one gets it wrong while those around them were getting it right, they have to answer for that. I've personally witnessed my fair share of aircraft departing with lots of snow on them while the vast majority of other flights are in the deicing bay. I hope you weren't one of them, and I have to ask why anyone would take such risks? Like it or not, part of our responsibility is covering our own (and the company's) back side. If those around us are applying an accepted best practice, why would any of us want to do differently? Just exactly who benefits in the long run? It also concerns me that a Captain is prepared to set such an example for a First Officer.
And by the way - the Dryden accident didn't occur because "people are willing to drift away from the acceptable standard." It was alot more complicated than that.
Yes it was complicated, but the Captain's past experiences of getting away with flying other aircraft types with contaminated wings in spite of the well-known risks of doing so, (a common practice at that company),was a definite factor, as was taking the aircraft into Dryden with no APU and no ground support equipment.

[royalterrace]

SG

I think you are being a little hard on A310. I agree with him that just because some others are deicing does not mean I'm going to also. It sure will alert me to the fact that deice MAY be needed but after inspection and satisfied that the wings are clean it will be a cold day in **** that I deice just because everyone else is doing it. I'm paid to make those decisions regarding the safety of MY aircraft.
The example being set is that there are a lot of variables involved and that one has to stay on top of the situation to make a safe decision. I have climbed on top of many a ladder to personally verify the condition of the wing instead of staying in my warm cockpit and saying lets go get sprayed just in case. I hope the FO's ARE learning from that example.

[Tan]

The only proper way to determine if your aircraft has to be de-iced is to do the inspection from a cherry picker as a clean tail plane is just as important as the main wing. That is why at my company the inspection is carried out by qualified personal and not by a quick look at the wing.

If at any time if there is a disagreement on whether or not a spray is required the spray is done regardless.

[Twinpacks]

I'm assuming here that the story is correct for debating sake. Whether it is or not is to be determined.

"I believe Boeing, and many other aircraft manufacturers define their requirement for deicing as "OAT less than 10 degrees Celsius and visible moisture" with "no ice or snow adhering to the wing surface."

Not sure about Boeing but is not exactly correct for Airbus. As per Airbus FCOM, "Icing conditions may be expected when the OAT (on ground and for take-off), or the TAT (in-flight) is 10 degrees C or below, and there is visible moisture in the air (such as clouds, fog with low visibility of one mile or less, rain, snow, sleet, ice crystals) or standing water. slush, ice or snow is present on the taxiways."

For operation of the engine anti-ice system, pilots must turn it on with the above criteria are met and not wait until they see ice building up. It's slightly different for de-icing and/or anti-icing of the critical surfaces. In this case, all critical surfaces must be clear of snow, frost and ice for takeoff.

Why wasn't the aircraft sprayed/deiced? Captain's responsibility. Captain's call.

Yes and no. Usually the FCOM will stipulate that in all circumstances, it is the Captain's responsibility to decide whether or not to de-ice/anti-ice the aircraft, or to order a repeated treatment.

But many companies go a little further and include in their operations manuals (excerpts from our Operations Manual and Route Manual):

No aircraft will be released for take-off from any station until the flight crew and the qualified de-icing person, as dictated in the contractor’s Standards and Procedures Manual, are satisfied that the critical surfaces are free from frost, ice and snow.

Flights may be dispatched when it is agreed by the Captain and the Qualified Person that the snow on the surfaces is light, not adhering to the wing surface and is of such consistency that it will blow off during taxi or the immediate start of the take-off roll. However, such snow should be blown off using dry unheated air or nitrogen wherever possible prior to dispatch from the gate.

The reverse of cold soaking can take place when dry, cold snow encounters wing surfaces warmed by fuel pumped from underground storage, the snow may melt and re-freeze. As is the case for cold soaking, the hazard may not occur until just prior to take-off. Remember, underlying snow or slush can be a layer of clear ice.

The decision to de-ice may be made by a Qualified Person or by the flight crew. However, once the decision to de-ice has been made, it cannot be over-ridden by the other party.

The clean wing concept is an excellent rule. When flying these bigger aircraft, it's extremely difficult to assess if snow is adhering or not to the surface. Why chance it? Get sprayed, you have many, many lives depending on you, not to mention your own skinny rear-end. The evidence is overwhelming about what can happen if you takeoff with a contaminated wing. The manufacturer, the company, and the governing authorities give vasts amount of info about operating in icing conditions. If after taking into consideration all this info, I'm still not 100% certain if I should spray or not, then I spray. Safety is paramount and I'd rather err on the safe side.

To attack the crew in this instance for NOT deicing is folly. I'm sure the Captain considered the "usual" pre-departure stuff and decided not to deice. That's the end of it. Discussion over.

Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.

I could not disagree with you more. I don't condone attacking the crew, but an investigation is warranted if the story is correct. Again if the story is correct then I sincerely believe that it was the wrong decision, as stated by the fact that contamination still existed after takeoff. Just cause a flight arrives at destination does not mean it was not in any potential danger at some point. Being a captain means being the one responsible and having to answer for your decisions. Should you ever have to answer for your actions then hopefully your answers will be the right ones. If not, then he/she/we must learn from the mistakes in order to avoid them in the future. In some cases that requires extra training. It's not about hanging anyone out to dry, unless true negligence or diseregard for the rules/procedures was exercised; it is about safety.

[Safety Guy]

I hope the FO's ARE learning from that example.

So do I! That's the kind of proactive management of a flight that all Captains should employ.

I think you misread what I said. I never suggested that one should deice an obviously clean aircraft, providing that it has been determined by a proper inspection process (which as Tan said, must include the tail). What I said was that I question what motivates someone to take off in an obviously contaminated aircraft, as I have witnessed in the past, and as is alleged in the starting post in this thread. That to me is not only unsafe but foolhardy in today's world, where the consumer is often well informed.

[anybodyatall]

If your concern was safety, then why CC the Globe and wings magazine. I would have bought this as a legitmate concern but why bring the media into this as it now smacks of sensationalism. SHAME...:mad:

I concur with jumpy737.

However, if the allegations are true about the snow & ice build-up on the wing, then this would appear to be a valid concern. Hopefully West Jet will get to the bottom of this matter, as I'm sure they will, being a responsible company and all.

[Maple Leafs]

One way or another, it all burns off in the end. Chalk that one up as luck, you may not get that lucky next time.

As the old saying goes, learn from the mistakes of others, you will not live long enough to make them all yourself.

I am sure the Captain is reading this, hope you have learned.

[Willie Everlearn]

Safety Guy
You make a couple of very good points with which I wholeheartedly agree.

How do you know this crew was in violation of the CARs??? Have you already conducted your investigation? I don't for a minute suggest "they got away with it this time" and neither should you. However, it does appear as though they flew off from A to B safely, unless I got it wrong. I'm not suggesting they got away with anything. I'm confident but accept the fact I wouldn't know, they did a walkaround and decided they had a clean wing based on what they saw. Or, should I assume otherwise? I don't think so.
I credit a professional crew with believing what was seen on a walkaround, that they had a clean wing and made the right decision to depart without deicing and no CAR was violated.
A simple PA to inform the passengers that a thorough inspection of the aircraft exterior and wings was conducted removing the necessity for deicing. It's recorded for the investigators in case they made a boo boo.

I am also crediting a professional pilot who was a passenger on that flight with the ability to observe, identify and claim that there was ice adhering to the wing. This person says he had no opportunity to bring it to the crews attention. I am accepting that as well and applaud him for doing the right thing.

So, now what? Who's right and who's wrong and why not bring it to someones attention? Who better than officials at West Jet? After all, the PAX has a customer complaint. Doesn't he?

The sarcastic part of my comment was, "Why wasn't the aircraft sprayed/deiced? Captain's responsibility. Captain's call."
It's never that simple, is it?

Perhaps it would have stirred more emotion to say this. "Captain screwed up. Off with his head!"

I don't think so.

As previously stated (by someone closer to the action than me) there are two sides to the story here and until a 'judge' hears both sides, we have only the innocent to listen to.

A310GUY
Excellent posts. Well said.

[B737FO]

The bottom line to me after reading all this is this. 1 Captain decides one thing and another one chooses a different path. Past experiences cost saving blah blah. The point is the WJ captain chose to takeoff while a passenger in the back end had a concern. He says it was too late at this point.

In my opinion he should not have envolved the media and the point of this to me sounds like he was pis*ed off that he told his kid they were gonna de-ice because HE would have as Captain but they didnt so he got mad and wrote a letter in the heat of anger or frustration. That being said there are assumably no pictures or video or any kind of proof at all. However the Captain being quoted as saying "I hope you don't take this any further" makes me wonder a little that he had be caught doing something he bounced back and forth in his mind before deciding to takeoff.

The crews choice to takeoff is like everyone is saying here. Captain's finally responsible and its pretty well going to be his decision. Hind sight in this is that it brings up good discusions from different crews at different airlines and sheds little to no light on the facts of this incident except for what the passenger viewed as unsafe. All TC will do is review the wxx that day and conditions however long it sat on the ground etc. If they even take it that far. My hats off to Flight Nav for following it up promptly.

I think the WJ Captain did the 50/50 call made it but got called on it from a FCM sitting in the back of his airplane got mad and wrote a letter. That being said he is entitled to his opinion and he should have wrote a letter but not to the media. This makes no sense to me.

If I was onboard though and I felt something was unsafe and it was too late perhaps a conversation with the flight crew at the end would be prudent.

Good thread though started some good info rolling.

B757FO

[Safety Guy]

Willie:

You make good points as well. As I am not a party to what happened in YUL I can't conduct an investigation. I did not say the Westjet Captain violated the CARs, it was implied in the original post of this thread. What I did say was that taking off with a contaminated aircraft is a CARs violation.

I am all for use of good judgement, it's what Captains get paid for. But, there are times when we should not apply judgement, but rather we should follow the regs because they were written to protect the travelling public. The reg with respect to contamination is quite clear; clean wings are mandatory, and a little bit of ice or snow is not acceptable unless the manufacturer has given a statement to the contrary in their approved manuals. To me, this regulation takes the pressure off from that particular decision making exercise. I'll take those whenever I can get them, as there are more than enough complex decisions to make on a given day, especially when mother nature takes her best shot. Given the clarity of the regulatory language, I can't understand why anyone would knowingly decide to depart in an obviously contaminated aircraft with dozens of witnesses to a potential regulatory violation looking out the windows at the evidence of my "crime". It ain't worth the risk to our lives, or my license, IMHO.

[Tan]

I am quite shocked at what I’m reading on this thread concerning the criteria that some folks think is acceptable procedure in determining whether or not a spray is required. As I said in an earlier post the tail plane must be inspected and a walk around just doesn’t cut it. How do you know what’s on your tail plane unless you are in a position to actually inspect it? Do you jump up and down trying to observe your tail plane or do you just assume a clean wing indicates a clean tail plane. A contaminated tail plane is going to cause you to crash just as easily as a contaminated wing. If your tail plane is not getting inspected you're rolling the dice.

I have certainly witnessed carriers that were rumored to be in financial straits forgoing the de-icing spray while everyone else was getting sprayed. For someone to say that financial considerations are not playing a part in some de-icing decisions is pure folly.

IMHO there certainly appears to be a wide gap in the operational philosophy between what the legacy carriers and LCC’s are putting in their manuals. The legacy carriers build the proper method of de-icing into their infrastructure and follow through. Others prefer to go the cheap way and rely only on input from one source after a cursory inspection.

As others have wisely noted if you think de-icing is expensive, try an accident..

[Ontariotech]

From 1998 to 1999 I worked with Hudson General at CYYZ. The first winter I worked the ramp, we would see AirTransat aircraft skip de-icing on a regular basis. They used to have a van, with a cherry picker, and a large air compressor in back. They would get in the basket, and blow the contamination off the wings prior to depatrue. The De-icing pad was new at that time, and yes....Hudson General had the contract for-de-icing with their new yellow de-ice trucks. Elephant trucks they called them I believe. AirTransat would only come buy in heavy snows and ice, but under any other conditions, when others would de-ice, you would never see them. I am pretty sure things have changed now a days. But buy the sounds of the letter posted.....I dunno.

I am also surprised at the Captains actions, if accurate, as alot of Westjet crews are ex-Canadian Forces. They are pretty strict when it comes to following SOP's and regulations.

One last thing......what are WJ's SOP for ice and contamination? I would think that contaminated wings means no departure.

[Mulligan]

I started flying 737-200s in 1981 and remember a lot of departures with contaminated wings. The airplane never seemed to "notice" and it was accepted practice. All we had then was Type 1 and, when we did spray we would often sit around for what now seems like a l-o-o-o-ng time! That's how it was until Dryden came along and smartened us up.
I remember a light going on one day when I read an article on simulated contamination. I think the researchers used sandpaper to simulate contamination. Their results showed that performance was not degraded a great deal as long as both engines were operating. I had my eyes opened by a set of results that showed only a slightly degraded climb rate with both engines operating but a negative value with one engine out!
It seems to me that these airplanes will more or less "muscle" their way around the sky with both fans operating but if you lose one with contaminated wings you are probably going to make a big hole in the ground.
If the airlines want to save money on de-iceing then they should invest hugely in an alternative measure. As for me, if I can't decide I spray.

[brucelee]

Going back to the comments on revealing this to the press, I think that it was a good idea. The travelling public deserves to know what the risks are. As a customer, they deserve to have the right to comment on a possible safety problem. Do you think TC would advise the public? They never do. It's not their job. Many of us have seen WJ skip the deicing. I witnessed it just recently in YUL and it wasn't the first time. The wings were clearly contaminated and noticable. Are they the only ones doing it? Probably not but chances are it's not a common incident at AC. Even if the crew wanted to get away with it we can't because we have a trained ramp crew that would have us go deice wether we agree or not. Not just a flight deck decision anymore. It involves anyone around the airplane. Maybe WJ should have the same system. It is not a reflection on the company. I'm sure WJ does not condone this. Rather the individuals at the controls are to blame.

[Tan]

It makes me wonder, if LCC aircraft are not been de-iced at the major airports in the presence of knowledgeable observers what’s happening at the smaller airports. Is TC waiting for another accident to occur before doing something about it or is TC being politically correct by looking the other way?

Maybe we should be asking the owners?

[Slapshot]

As an "Owner" I will not knowingly take-off with contamination on the wings. That's just common sense, not to mention S.O.P. and the law according to the CARs...
However, I will not use a "PR" spray just to be "seen" to do the right thing. It's a waste of time, and money, hard on the aircraft and it's systems, not to mention the environment...
I am thoroughly familiar with the WestJet S.O.P's regarding dry loose snow as well as "Cold Soaked Fuel Frost". How many on this board are also well versed?
It's all well and good to speak from experience gained in your own operations, but to chastise another Airline for operating according to it's own Transport Canada approved F.O.M. is counter-productive and pointless...

[brucelee]

Slapshot.
Interesting point of view. Are there any TC inspectors on this forum? A PR spray? Wow. I thought TC and your SOP was pretty clear. ANY contamination has to be removed. Period. This doesn't necessarilly mean a full spray. It could be as simple as just one small section of the airplanes' lift surfaces. You have just proved exactly what many on this forum have said against you.

[Tan]

As an "Owner" I will not knowingly take-off with contamination on the wings. That's just common sense, not to mention S.O.P. and the law according to the CARs...
However, I will not use a "PR" spray just to be "seen" to do the right thing. It's a waste of time, and money, hard on the aircraft and it's systems, not to mention the environment...
I am thoroughly familiar with the WestJet S.O.P's regarding dry loose snow as well as "Cold Soaked Fuel Frost". How many on this board are also well versed?
It's all well and good to speak from experience gained in your own operations, but to chastise another Airline for operating according to it's own Transport Canada approved F.O.M. is counter-productive and pointless...

I’ve flown aircraft around the world for many years and I’ve never heard of a “PR” spray. Is this a LCC thing? Why aren’t the rest of us doing "PR" sprays or is there a separate set of safety rules for the LCC’s?

The Enquire would sure like to know…

[brucelee]

It's a cowboy thing dude.:ok:

[Slapshot]

"It's a cowboy thing dude."
No, it's a "Public Relations" spray that does nothing to increase safety, but give the "appearance" that something was done...
As for "I thought TC and your SOP was pretty clear. ANY contamination has to be removed. Period."
You have no knowledge of our S.O.P.'s so I will enlighten you... WestJet and it's fleet of 737-NG aircraft are permitted... "Takeoff with light coatings of cold soaked fuel frost on the upper wing surfaces is permissible in accordance with the AFM and the exemption from CAR 602.11(2), provided certain conditions are met." End quote.
Also: Cold dry snow on a cold wing - the application of de-icing/anti icing fluid to the wing of the aircraft would result in the snow sticking to the fluid. Under such conditions it may not be prudent to apply fluids to the wing.
As I said: It's all well and good to speak from experience gained in your own operations, but to chastise another Airline for operating according to it's own Transport Canada approved F.O.M. is counter-productive and pointless...

[brucelee]

What I have witnessed on WJ airplanes was a little more than what you state. But hey, who am I to judge? You guys know your airplanes, I don't. I remember some years ago a 737 going in the Potomac River off DCA. The Capt thought it was just a little snow on the wings. No big deal. Luck will only last so long. Eventually it runs out. Don't be a hero cause at the end of the day, Clive will be more angry if you destroy one of his airplanes than if you spend a little money on deicing. If you guys don't buy that concept, I wouldn't put my wife and kids on your planes.

[Tan]

What I have witnessed on WJ airplanes was a little more than what you state. But hey, who am I to judge? You guys know your airplanes, I don't. I remember some years ago a 737 going in the Potomac River off DCA. The Capt thought it was just a little snow on the wings. No big deal. Luck will only last so long. Eventually it runs out. Don't be a hero cause at the end of the day, Clive will be more angry if you destroy one of his airplanes than if you spend a little money on deicing. If you guys don't buy that concept, I wouldn't put my wife and kids on your planes.

I know a few WJ employees and they tell me that WJ is always looking at ways to save money which in its self is quite laudable. However if it manifests itself in ways where employees can’t see the forest for the trees and ends up compromising safety then a policy rethink is advisable.

[Safety Guy]

Slapshot:

You're trying to deflect the discussion from the real issue. It has been alleged that one of your flights departed with a contaminated wing that was not covered under either of the ops manual stipulations you quoted. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I'd say that from the Captain's alleged reaction, it bears some truth. Spraying that aircraft prior to departure would not have been PR spray, it would have been indicative of a Captain who was operating his aircraft with safety as his first priority, and in compliance with the CARs. If you feel that the CARs are too restrictive, then do the honourable thing and lobby the Minister for a change.

Whether it was the first time that it's happened, or whether everyone at your company does it really doesn't matter. All we're saying is that such actions are not indicative of the kind of safety culture we all should be encouraging.

[anybodyatall]

Going back to the comments on revealing this to the press, I think that it was a good idea....

Since the complaint was directed first and foremost to WJ, then I think the honourable thing to do would be to let WJ answer it first. If a WJ reply is unsatisfactory, then the person should take it to the next step, and that is to TC. Let them investigate it properly. If TC finds that the allegations prove to be valid, THEN by all means go to the media and raise a stink... To do otherwise I think is putting the proverbial cart before the horse...

[royalterrace]

[QUOTE=brucelee]What I have witnessed on WJ airplanes was a little more than what you state. But hey, who am I to judge? You guys know your airplanes, I don't.
You should have quit while you were ahead. For you to judge ANY other operator is the height of arrogance. I'm sure you could tell if the snow was (magic word here) ADHERING to the wing from where ever you were "observing". Slapshot tried to educate you. You choose to go off on your own self righteous tangent...I guess it makes you feel better. Good luck with that.
I don't think anyone here is arguing the need for proper deicing when it is required. What I don't understand is the need to go off with a bunch of half baked theories. Why is it that you feel the need to denigrate fellow pilots with this crap? Surely you don't believe that someone that has reached this level of flying is going to purposely takeoff with a contaminated wing? Has anyone here even considered that maybe the crew involved felt the light snow was NOT adhering and possibly made an honest mistake? I have no idea what happened but there seem to be a few out there ready to draw and quarter these guys and all of WestJet just for good measure.There are many possibilities regarding this whole sad posting that may or may not be but the one thing I am sure of is that those that choose to use this as some sort of example to prove they are superior are sad indeed. You know who you are.

[Slapshot]

Slapshot:
You're trying to deflect the discussion from the real issue.


I'm not trying to deflect at all. It was stated that "ANY contamination has to be removed. Period."

I answered to the contrary with what our F.O.M. states on the matter.

Icing can not be covered with a blanket statement, it is not a black and white issue. Since none of us were there, equipped with the information the Crew had at the time I find the sanctimonious hindsight baffling and to be quite frank unbecoming of Professional Pilots...

[Tan]

I'm not trying to deflect at all. It was stated that "ANY contamination has to be removed. Period."
I answered to the contrary with what our F.O.M. states on the matter.
Icing can not be covered with a blanket statement, it is not a black and white issue. Since none of us were there, equipped with the information the Crew had at the time I find the sanctimonious hindsight baffling and to be quite frank unbecoming of Professional Pilots...


Wow if your comments reflect those of a WJ professional pilot then I am alarmed. What else are you cutting corners on in an effort to save money?

[Willie Everlearn]

I find it odd that persons claiming to be professional pilots point out the "cost" of de-icing fluids and how expensive it is for the airlines. Yet, I've not spoken with a single colleague who can give me the price per liter/gallon.

I'd say Fuel is what costs the airline, not deicing fluid (seasonal item) but you don't see many pilots taking a pass on extra fuel accounted for on the OFP just to save the company some bucks.

:confused:

Why scrimp on deicing fluid in a country victimized by ice and snow?

[brucelee]

Since the complaint was directed first and foremost to WJ, then I think the honourable thing to do would be to let WJ answer it first. If a WJ reply is unsatisfactory, then the person should take it to the next step, and that is to TC. Let them investigate it properly. If TC finds that the allegations prove to be valid, THEN by all means go to the media and raise a stink... To do otherwise I think is putting the proverbial cart before the horse...


And how do you think WJ would have answered? You gotta be kidding me, right? They would never admitt the truth.

Royalterrace.
Yep. Typical comments. You guys have to find something better than the word "arrogance". Maybe you're right, the snow was not adhering. But why is it that everyone else was deicing and not WJ, including other 737's. What's so special about WJ itself? Had it been a one time incident I wouldn't be waisting my time right now as I certainly have better things to do, but when you see it a couple of times and hear about it a few other times, there's defenitely a pattern. Nothing arrogant, just a few comments witnessed by many. Why not do the honourable thing and just say it may have happened but WJ does not condone this? The arrogance is coming from you pal.

[Tan]

I find it odd that persons claiming to be professional pilots point out the "cost" of de-icing fluids and how expensive it is for the airlines. Yet, I've not spoken with a single colleague who can give me the price per liter/gallon.
I'd say Fuel is what costs the airline, not deicing fluid (seasonal item) but you don't see many pilots taking a pass on extra fuel accounted for on the OFP just to save the company some bucks.
:confused:
Why scrimp on deicing fluid in a country victimized by ice and snow?


This will give you some idea of how much it costs to de-ice an Ilyushin 76 cargo airplane.

On Jan. 12, 2006 our employees working at Winnipeg Airport de-iced an Ilyushin 76 cargo airplane. More than 4,200 litres of glycol was used to remove the frost and snow. The flight was carrying military supplies from Winnipeg to Kandahar, Afghanistan.

Depending upon the type of spray the cost could range approximately from $2000 for a narrow body to more then $10,000 for a wide body.

Now you can understand the reluctance of the “Owners” to spend the money to de-ice. It costs money to do the job right..

[Willie Everlearn]

Tan,
thanks for the info.
Do you know if deice fluid suffers from the same ups and downs as Oil? Jet A? etc.?

$10,000 isn't much out of a cargo flight generating $(fill in the blank),000 profit, is it?
Now, some might hesitate to consider the $10,000 as if it were coming out of their own pocket which I think is a bad idea. Spend the money. Eliminate the doubt.

If you saved the company the ten grand and stalled out at 1500 feet or so, how much for the damaged airframe and if there are passengers on board, how much in law suit awards, airframe replacement costs, crew replacement/training costs, etc., etc., etc..

The cost of deicing fluid should never enter a pilot's mind. Just as the cost of fuel shouldn't concern him/her either. You need what you need to operate safely and you need regulation fuel at the very least to get the job done. The cost of doing so, is not the crews concern.

I sure hope a 'cost savings' mentality doesn't penetrate a pilot owners' 'profit share' expectations.

[Safety Guy]

Not sure I completely agree Willie.

As a Captain, I feel that I have to pay attention to the bottom line, where it is safe to do so. It is my duty to look for those places where I can reduce the cost of a flight, such as direct routings in favourable winds, and ensuring that we are operating at the optimum altitude. That said, I have to ensure that my efforts to save money don't violate a regulation or threaten the safety of the flight. I wouldn't take off with less than the minimum brake release fuel, and I won't take off with an aircraft that isn't free of contamination as defined in our manuals and the regulations. Those are simply some the costs of doing business.

SG

[royalterrace]

I've read back through the posts on this subject and it seems to me it has brought up a few good points.
Everyone here agrees that proper deicing is essential. The disagreement appears to be in the perceptions of those watching others operate in different ways than what they feel is safe. What we all have to remember is that we don't have the full picture when it comes to the operation of someone elses aircraft. As an example , I would bet that many were not aware that WestJet is able to depart with fuel frost within certain prescibed limits. Another example could be the letter that started this refered to one Westjet aircraft heading to deice while the other didn't. How in the world could the author know whether the non deiced aircraft hadn't just got in from a redeye and a quick turn precluded the need for a spray. I could cite many times that I have seen other airliners not spraying while I headed to the deice facility and only can say there are many reasons that could explain their decisions.
It is interesting that deice05 has not responded to any of these posts. I'm hoping that it is because he did what he should have in the first place and contacted the appropriate people at WestJet and voiced his concerns with them.

[Willie Everlearn]

SG

FWIW
I've set up and managed Flt. Safety programs in my time. So, I'm confident we're on the same page.

Most of what you've said about efficiency, fuel savings, optimums...goes without saying in a discussion like this. I should think.

The idea some managers have that every line pilot can/does save every last dime during every flight is preposterous. We try but don't always manage to achieve those intended savings. That's just the way it is. Isn't it? Generally, cost savings are made despite the various flight deck personalities, experience levels, flying habits, comprehension levels and individual interpretations of performance graphs and charts. But we try.

Why the focus on deicing fluid? If it's needed, why worry about the cost? Let the accountants deal with the supplier when the bill is received by Company, but I don't think it should be a factor in any flight deck decision.

Back to my original comments. The crew is innocent until evidence proves otherwise. That's going to be tough. The accusation is just that, until proven. Which is even tougher.

Besides, WJ can handle it.
:ok:

[Tan]

I would bet that many were not aware that WestJet is able to depart with fuel frost within certain prescibed limits..

You would lose that bet as everyone else has the same let as long as the frost is confined to the fuel tank area and not on the leading edges.

Most of us have been around longer then WJ and have witnessed other carriers doing all sorts of things in an effort to escape the cost of de-icing. This is nothing new and to try and hide behind what’s in the manuals instead of using your common sense is nothing new either.

The LCC’s only put the absolute minimum requirements in their manuals in an effort to reduce their costs. The bean counters have carefully weighted what it costs to do the job correctly against the cost to do the minimum and have concluded it’s cheaper to do the minimum and bite the bullet for the occasional mishap..

The travelling public gets what it pays for, only they aren't aware of the added risk nor do they care until something goes wrong..

[Safety Guy]

Willie:

We're definitely on the same page, I should have given you more credit. It will be interesting to see how much more pressure management will put on us pilots to squeeze more and more savings out of the operation, as the race to control costs and stay competitive continues. Like you, I will never contribute to that by cutting back on de-icing.

Tan:

I'm not sure you're being fair to LCCs. I've seen the AC deicing manual, and any differences between it and the substance of the one at my company are miniscule, and I believe you'd think of us as an LCC.

[Tan]

Tan:
I'm not sure you're being fair to LCCs. I've seen the AC deicing manual, and any differences between it and the substance of the one at my company are miniscule, and I believe you'd think of us as an LCC.


I’m not too sure of that as our infrastructure includes an “iceman” a term that you may not be familiar with. Basically it’s a person trained in the deicing decision making process. In short your aircraft has to have his approval before departure as the Captain does not have sole deicing authority. The pilots are also brought up to speed before every deicing season begins which also has its associated costs. In summary the legacy carriers have learned the hard way its better to spend a little extra on deicing and its associated infrastructure then the alternative of having an accident.

[duster1]

The priorities pounded into all WJ pilots from day one are safety, comfort, efficiency - in that order. This is emphasised in initial and recurrent training, regular communications from Flight OPs management and standards guys, winter ops reviews etc. In six years at the company, I have not talked to or heard of one captain who would depart knowing there was critical surface contamination. I personally have never seen or heard one communication in any form from management suggesting that safety be compromised for cost. I have heard many Captains here including ex KLM, Cathay, AC, C3, and TC state that our culture of safety is better than most.
As captains we are all faced with daily risk management decisions that are sometimes complex and require a balance between safety, regulations, guest comfort, and the bottom line. We do the very best we can and still mistakes are occasionally made; one hopes that the systems,people, and SOPs, in place will prevent a mistake from becoming an incident or accident. Personaly I am proud of the caliber of professional aviators in Canada - including those at other carriers.

Regarding Mr. Tan's comments regarding other qualified personnel - our FOM is actually somewhat similar to his in that a trained and qualified person (in most cases a line maintenance person) has the authority to insist on deicing and in the event of a disagreement with the Captain, the aircraft SHALL be deiced.

Regarding the crew in this specific incident - I will not pass judgement yet. Knowing our VP FliteOPs, Chief Pilot, and Director of Flight Safety I have no doubt that if there is any substance to the allegations by Mr Anonymous the incident will be investigated fully and completely.

In closing - is it possible that at sometime or place has a WJ aircraft has departed with surface contamination - sure, as with any other airline - but it is NOT a reflection on the overall attitudes and values of our flight crews.

[green bastard]

I have witnessed west Jet not de-iceing when my aircraft and AC's and Jazz's planes are spraying in the morning due to frost. This has happened more than a few times. I know that planes of this type will fly just fine with this little contaminant, but the law is a clean wing concept. So all airlines should be bound by the same law. West Jet is the exception.

[duster1]

Or you may have seen an aircraft depart that did not need a frost spray because it landed at 0600 from an overnight charter, or had taken a frost spray at the gate, or had been towed over from a warm hangar...the law applies to WestJet as it does everyone else...I stand by my comments above

[Tan]

duster1

You’re missing the point, AC’s deicing operation decision making requires co-authority and that's not what you are saying. AC whether you like it or not is the most experienced recognized deicing carrier in the world. If there’s a way to deice an aircraft more efficiently or cheaper we would certainly be employing that procedure. Many of our aircraft are also returning from overnight flights etc so what you are suggesting is a red herring. Visually contaminated wings are just that, contaminated..

Perhaps you should read the post from an alleged WJ Captain about “PR” deicing as that IMHO speaks volumes about your deicing philosophy.

[royalterrace]

duster1
Not only do you get the point , but you expressed it quite clearly.
Unfortunately , there are those out there who refuse to believe that WestJet is a world class airline operating leading edge equipment and using and applying safety systems that are second to none. Thankfully they are in the vast minority.
We will continue to do what we do best. Provide the customer with a safe , comfortable and economical product and make money doing it. We will continue to grow and prosper.
No amount of ill informed finger pointing and screeching will change any of that. I'm done trying to educate those that refuse to learn on this subject and I would sugest that any other WestJetter's out there put this thing to bed and simply ignore any further rants from those who obviously have nothing better to do than attempt to drag down a first class operation.

[Tan]

royalterrace

World class carriers don’t generate this amount of interest in their deicing operations. The deicing comments expressed by some WJ pilots on this thread have raised more then a few eyebrows. One of your machines is going to cough once and then perhaps you'll get it. WJ did not invent aviation although Jetsetters seem to think so..

[McDoo the Irish Navigator]

I'm going to close the thread now boys, and I'll tell you why.
It seems(to me at least) that it is sliding down a slippery slope. It's all well and fine to poke fun at each others hats, or jackets or whatever, but now we are entering the realm of unfounded allegations.
A discussion of de-icing procedures is always warranted, but it's past that. Reading between the lines,one can see that it is back to back biting, thinly disguised as as professional crtique.
I don't believe for a second that any one of us would risk life and limb and a multitude of other things to scrimp on a few dollars. The fuel example was a good analogy. If anyone out there thinks they may truly be sharing the skies with others who fly with recklesss abandon, you are duty bound to go to the authorities and request an investigation.
If on the other hand , you feel you are doing yourself, your company, guests and shareholders a favour by cutting safety corners, please stop. Report to your chief pilot's office and request to be removed from the line untill you feel you can trust your own judgement again.
As an aside, I curiously asked the lead hand in YHZ how much the fluid cost these days. He seemed to think that it was around $4.75/l, but didn't really know, citing that it also depended on who you were and how much you used.
I know that we all share the view that it doesn't matter how much it costs, we'll do what it takes to get the job done. It is most certainly an affront to our professional sensibilities to think there are fellow aviators who think so little of their fellow professionals.
Enjoy the weekend.
I now have to get ready for my "parade up George St."