Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!

[Hand Solo]

Oceanic Clearance - unfortunately you appear to be reinforcing the previously stated views that pilots from Southern Europe appear to be more concerned about avoiding personal embarassment than improving flight safety. You wrote:

Was anybody (excepting LTD) in Boston that day????? NO! So what the hell are you discussing????

We are now discussing an official ATC recording of somebody alerting an Iberia flight, and Boston ATC, of a potentially lethal flight condition and a breach of FAA regulations. Now you either think LTD was lying to Boston ATC, for some unknown motive, knowing that those lies would be recorded, or LTD was genuinely reporting snow on the Iberia wings, in which case there is something wrong with the operational procedures for that particular flight.

Should any plane T.O. with snow or ice? - I'm absolutely sure they shouldn't. No possibility of discussion!

Very good. It's good to hear the view that flight with contaminated wings is a bad thing rather than the view that because they got away with it it must be OK.

Should a pilot post the number and airline of a flight that has done a mistake (or not) on a public forum? NO! LTD did an awful job!

If you had bothered to read the full thread, which you clearly haven't, you would know that LTD did not post the flight number. He named Iberia, which is perfectly reasonable in my book. I believe it was Dinger X who identified the particular flight number after reviewing the Boston ATC R/T recordings, and the moderators who changed the thread title to identify the flight. LTD did a fine job in alerting the Iberia crew to a potentially dangerous condition, regardless of whether they chose to act upon the information or not.

Should any pilot initiate a National Crusade against Iberia - Spanish pilots? - Of course not! We are coleagues up there. NOT ENEMIES!! Doesn't care where we come from!!!!

It certainly doesn't matter where people come from, but if a particular airline adopts a cavalier, if not outright dangerous approach to de-icing then it's fair game to alert everybody else in the business to their practices. This industry is not a secret sect where bad practices are swept under the carpet. You might also like to consider that Iberia aren't having a great run of things on the A340 fleet at the moment. Two incidents at Quito and now a potential catastrophe at Boston would suggest to any independent observer that there is a possibility that operating practices maybe aren't what they should be. It took a hull loss at Toronto before Air France accepted that they could do things better and they made positive efforts to identify best practice in the industry and learn from it. Will Iberia be taking an objective look at how they operate and identify what has gone wrong on these occasions?


I don't know how many CRM courses do you get on BA....but maybe they are not enough, or maybe you are still in Cockpit RM or Cabin RM! Open your eyes....you are not the aviation.....you are just an small part of it!

Interesting to see your closing comments follow the traditional Latin pattern of attacking the messenger. Does it matter if the reporter was BA? Had the information come from a Lufthansa or a United pilot would it have changed it's significance? CRM has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. This is not about massaging the ego of the Iberia crew. This is about alerting another crew to a the unsuitable flight state of their aircraft. Why the Iberia crew chose to depart with snow on their wings perhaps would make for an interesting CRM study.

[BelArgUSA]

I am seriously upset at the way some of you slap the face of IB flight crews and doubt the professionalism of pilots of different "cultures" which are not yours. Is it another form of, shall I spell it in the clear, pure racism and prejudice...?
xxx
I suppose that, as I fly for the flag carrier of Argentina, and "if" or "when" we would have failed to install "snow tyres" (to spell British tires), to taxi out for departure in MAD, we would, the next day, become notorious, on Pprune forums, for having (dared) to taxi-out without installing "snow chains" on our 747 body gear units...? (Or, is it BA procedure to install such on wing gear units as well)... I assume, that you would not fail (between your cups of tea - with a slice of lemon...) to go on 121.5 to advise us "Latinos" of our lack of airmanship.
xxx
First of all, my Anglo-Saxon friends, who (seem to) despise pilots of certain nations, shall we say Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey... do not forget lovely South America... that you know very little about these people.
xxx
Speaking of Argentina, we have pages and pages of names such as Jones or Smith, O´Neil or Shilliday in our phone books in Buenos Aires, many have fair skin and blue eyes... and yes, have a "Spanish" accent when they speak their perfect English... We also have many German names among our pilots, such as Haas or Kaufman... I expect then, to hear that they are ex-Nazis (yet their parents escaped Germany 1933-1939 for good reasons) and we also have the largest population of Jews after New York City. Yiddish language is common here in Buenos Aires.
xxx
So, accuse the Argentinos to be "stupid Latinos" when we have to repeat a garbled clearance from ORD. For my part, I am a native of Belgium, and worked for PanAm 1969-1991 (in these days with a US passport), so, if any bad habits of my part, you know where I got them from...
xxx
In this day and age, when many pilots of "nationality X" have a career for airline of "country Y", stop associating the flag of an airplane (and so called "regional culture") with the nationality of the flight crew. Who knows, the captain of that IB-6166 BOS/MAD was a Cardiff boy, ex "Cymru" pilot.
xxx
No, Japanese pilots do not do "harakiri" (sepukko) after a missed approach, and not all Saudi pilots say "Insh'Allah" after the estimate for "30º West" on the Atlantic routes on Gander frequencies. All pilots of the world are same nice guys who love flying and take pride in their job.
xxx
A few years ago, a Delta L-1011 taxied-out for departure, here at Buenos Aires SAEZ/EZE with gear pins still in the main gear (red flags hanging near the wheel wells). I was behind them, and told them about the problem. Their answer was "Roger that, Argentina 1234, going back to check it, thanks a bunch, owe you a beer" - I acknowledged by saying "10-4, good buddy".
xxx
It was not necessary to report this on Pprune and, get 250 opinions on how bad the Yanks are... The faulty idiots were likely to be Argentine ramp staff on duty to launch their flight.
xxx
Never got that beer they owe me... although I often go to their hotel bar (Intercontinental) in Buenos Aires. Maybe I should go to visit the United guys at the Sheraton... Just telling them of a Delta problem would earn me a beer...?
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[PBL]

Well, I said yesterday:

.... count up the number of serious posts about deicing and flying with ice, and the number of serious posts about status ......... We will see that the serious "safety" posts vastly outweigh the serious "status" posts. So a view that the discussion is less about safety than about status would be simply wrong.

I am going to have to change my mind about the posts since then. We have a dozen addressing status (including professional behavior), 5 sceptic on the facts, 2 reporting facts, and only 1, maybe 2, on safety itself.

Those supporting the Iberia crew should please remember that we are talking about a crew who apparently violated applicable aviation regulations concerning safety of flight without having a clear safety-of-flight reason to do so. How on earth can you justify that sort of behavior?

PBL

[DK_FCI]

But we do - it is on those tapes. Listen.


Do you really think what is on those tapes is the whole story:confused:

Besides the tapes - we have LTD's account of the events - is he truthful? I personally think he is - but I really don’t know – after all he is an anonymous poster on a public forum, so I don’t know him, I have absolutely no idea what might have motivated him to start a thread like this.

But yes I believe that he saw Iberia with what he perceived to be snow on the wings – he did the right thing by bringing this fact to Iberia’s attention via Ground.

Iberia took a little while to get back to ground after having received BA’s relayed message – what took place in that time? We don’t know!:eek:

What happened to bring the two pilots in agreement that no de icing was required? We don’t know!:eek:

What other information was passed on to the Iberia crew, by ground engineers, deicing coordinators etc.? We don’t know!:eek:

Could it be that they got bad information from a source they trusted more than the BA crew? We don’t know!:eek:

So I still think it is wrong to blame the crew – as we don’t know all the factors that affected them at the time. Maybe their only fault was that they trusted the wrong guy!

We do know that they probably took off with snow on the wings – and that they were lucky.

[Dream Land]

I never perceived any slander toward a particular country or race here, maybe what has some upset is the fact that the poster is addressing the whole airline as cowboys, never a good footing for a sensible discussion. Perhaps a better name for this thread could be "Safety Issue?"

[soggy_cabbage]

Take some time to listen to the ATC tapes.

Not just the small segment in question but 30 mins before and an hour after.

Lots of de-iceing going on. In fact delivery at one point delivered one aircraft who replied "not going to push back yet as the queue for de-ice is 45 mins"

(not the exact words.....)

Several thousand gallons of expensive de-icer was sprayed around that night.

Every other aircraft was de-iceing, listen to the audio!!!

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kbos/KBOS-Del-Dec-02-2007-2330Z.mp3

[threemiles]

Fair point, DK_FCI.

What we know in addition to what we don't know is that

- the airplane on blocked at 15.41 EST and off blocked at 18.28 EST

- that *all* other airplanes at that time were deiced, which is an indication that no de-icing is worth to discuss

[soggy_cabbage]

after all he is an anonymous poster on a public forum

No, he in fact is a known poster who departed from Boston later than the Iberia flight after he DE-ICED!

;)

P.S. It would be really great if all aircraft were fitted with the same type of radio that the British Airways aircraft have.

The quality is excellent, you don't even need to hear his callsign, you KNOW who it is in the later recordings.

[Nice flaps]

This notion that the thread is somehow a British vs Latin theme is getting ridiculous. What on earth has nationality got to do with anything in this instance?

A crew observed an aircraft to be in an unsafe condition for flight, in their opinion, and they informed that aircraft's crew. The original poster, along with a number of following posters of varying nationality, seem somewhat surprised at the reaction of the crew after they had been informed. The fact that LTD may be British seems completely irrelevant to me, or am I missing something?

First of all, my Anglo-Saxon friends, who (seem to) despise pilots of certain nations

I assume, that you would not fail (between your cups of tea - with a slice of lemon...) to go on 121.5 to advise us "Latinos" of our lack of airmanship.

BelArgUSA, is this not exactly the kind of pure racism and prejudice that you are accusing our British friends of? I have found most of your other posts on this website to be balanced and well informed. This one I find very very disappointing Sir.

stop associating the flag of an airplane (and so called "regional culture") with the nationality of the flight crew. Who knows, the captain of that IB-6166 BOS/MAD was a Cardiff boy, ex "Cymru" pilot.

Well said. Has it actually been stated here that LTD is British?

[BRACKET04]

Hi.

If I replied to the post it was because I read words as "machos" xd xd xd it really sound freak to latin people when non latin people say that word. Is there "macho" actitude in some latin pilots? Could be... but you can find this actitude in pilots from other nations and no body will say they are machos... I am working for a nordic company and I feel this feelings from the nord to the south.

If it does not matter where they are from? Why do you high light the fact that I am Spanish? We are pilots.

Regarding safety... I can not belive they put the safety of the 340 pax under the imminent threat of a frozen wing... no way. For sure that crew new what they did.

[Nice flaps]

For sure that crew new what they did.

Apologies for the thread drift but, just talking about general principles, is this statement for real Bracket04?! :eek:
Because we are professional pilots we don't make errors? Like for sure the crew that descended below their step-down alt in Guam knew what they did?

Yes we are pilots. We are also human beings. We make mistakes and we also sometimes make bad judgement calls. When we do it is important that we admit to them, analyse them, and re-educate ourselves to prevent making the same ones in future.

For sure that crew new what they did. = very dangerous attitude. And just to clarify, I don't care a jot that you're Spanish and I'm not British ok?

[wince]

BelArgUSA:
I am seriously upset at the way some of you slap the face of IB flight crews and doubt the professionalism of pilots of different "cultures" which are not yours. Is it another form of, shall I spell it in the clear, pure racism and prejudice...?
Well, I'm spanish and I think the Cpt was a cowboy. In my country, pilots, as well as doctors are considered Gods, and nobody dares question them. Had I been standing next to them in Boston, I would have also said something. I agree that instead of "YOU DO" I would have probably said something a little more elaborate......

[OCEANIC CLEARANCE]

Do you all guys think that the YOU DO!! transmission was an understandable and clear message????? :confused::confused::confused:

I think the Iberia crew could not even hear it, maybe they only had the information about the controller asking if they needed de-ice, but maybe they didn't noticed that the airplane's crew next to them could see snow on their wings. There is people flying around there whose english is not a mother-thongue.....you should be aware of that and take care when you want to say something to a non english-native crew!!!!! :ugh:
They could be doing anything else in that moment and didn't hear LTD YOU DO! .....What I'm trying to say is that there are many reasons why the Iberia crew could not know that they had snow in the wings.....and they should not be hang or aeronautically killed on a forum.


If you had bothered to read the full thread, which you clearly haven't, you would know that LTD did not post the flight number

LTD only gave the carrier and the day! How many flights is Iberia doing to Boston daily??? I think he posted too much than necessary...just my opinion.

I AGREE WITH DK_FCI we know just a small part of the story to judge the situation.

But anyway as I said before....I have never met any commercial pilot that would take off with ice or snow on its wings in Spain. Someone did???:confused::confused:


LTD: In my opinion....you should have given the information much more clearly to the Iberia crew and let them know what was really happening!!

[Right Way Up]

LTD: In my opinion....you should have given the information much more clearly to the Iberia crew and let them know what was really happening!!

You are kidding right. What part of British Airways advise that you may want to recheck your wings for deicing is not understandable.

:ugh:

[BRACKET04]

Hi Nice Flaps.

Yes you are right. It is relly hard to me to admit that they where aware of the threat to the safety and the did not take the neccesary meassures. I can not belive it. So maybe they where not aware of this fact... if it was a real fact. Thats the reason why I think we can not call cowboys our mates and starting empty chats about south and north. All we commit mistakes and I know we are here to help us and improve from the mistakes.

Regards.

[OCEANIC CLEARANCE]

That was said by the controller, not LTD.
That is not what LTD was thinking! LTD was trying to say, you guys have a lot of snow on the wings and you should de-ice!!

Ground: British Airways advise that you may want to recheck your wings for deicing

Do you think that is the same than.... The Captain of the British airplane next to you has reported that you have snow on the wings and thinks you should recheck your wings for deicing. That would be a clear message for me. Don't you agree?? I repeat that they are not english native!!!

:ugh::ugh::ugh:


ps: I've read all 14 pages carefully & heard to the tape. Danny: Maybe you should try to put yourself on their position.....trying to manage with non aeronautical english in the Boson Cenaaa or Boson Dilivri freqs (Yes! is not a mistake, they speak like with an egg in their mouths) Advice (you get it or not...up to you): TRY TO TRANSMIT CLEAR AND AERONAUTICALLY PLEASE!!!

[Danny]

OCEANIC CLEARANCE, before getting all hot under the collar, please re-read the thread and you will note that aside from the initial "You do" comment, which we all agree was out of place, LTD then asked the Clearance Delivery controller to pass a message to the IB crew that he had seen a lot of snow on the IB6166 wing. Later, if you had bothered to listen to the tapes or read this thread carefully, you would have noted that the Ground Controller passed on to the IB crew the concerns of the BA crew. Besides, if you listened to the tapes you would have heard just about every other flight requesting push-back also requesting de-icing. The only time the controller repeatedly asked if anyone needed de-icing was the IB flight. It is not conclusive but if I were a betting man I would place money on the fact that the controller was probably just as surprised as the BA crew that the IB flight was not going to de-ice.

I'm sorry, but reading some of the knee-jerk responses in this thread from people who OBVIOUSLY haven't read it all or haven't listened to the tapes and then go on the defensive is getting just a bit more than mildly irritating. Added to that are the comments from some people who obviously have absolutely no idea of how the de-icing procedures work at BOS. In order to try and make it a bit clearer to those with no experience of operating at BOS, you have to request start clearance with the CLNC DEL controller. They will clear you to push back from the gate for de-icing. It is only a limited push-back in order to clear the pier. Once you have been de-iced you will then push-back and start engines before requesting taxi clearance from the Ground Controller.

So, all those doubters going on about whether the crew had de-iced before requesting push-back, you had better get to grips with de-icing ops at BOS before trying to attack those who are solely trying to point out what they observed that day. Also, would all those who feel their national pride or ego's have been besmirched, please refrain from the unsurprising "racist" comments because there is nothing racist in this thread. All that was pointed out was the style of defensive comments coming from those who claim to be from 'Latin' backgrounds in their user profiles.

Had there been an incident involving the IB flight then I'm sure that the cameras located on the stands that record everything at BOS would have shown how much snow was in fact on the IB6166's wings that night. Now, can we get back to the debate about safety and leave the injured pride for your psychiatrists to deal with! :rolleyes:

[fox niner]

why don't we start a poll? Just like with the TAP airshow flyby.

Do you think the Iberia crew acted responsibly by departing without getting de-iced?
1. I am a professional pilot and I think they acted responsibly
2. I am a professional pilot and I think they acted irresponsibly
3. I am not a professional pilot and I think they acted responsibly
4. I am not a professional pilot and I think they acted irresponsibly

(I think only moderators can actually start a poll...)

[woodpecker]

DK FCI suggests...
I have absolutely no idea what might have motivated him to start a thread like this.


Perhaps he should read Captain Thaines story "The Munich Air Disaster" which took place at at time when the effects of slush on take-off performance and the aerodynamics of a snow covered wing were not fully understood. We now understand so much more, and have the laid down procedures to cope with such weather conditions.


We have one professional pilot (the airline doesn't matter) who was appalled by the actions of another that day at Boston such that he started this thread.

I applaud him for starting the debate. It might just save a life one day.

[411A]

I applaud him for starting the debate.
Actually, he called them 'cowboys' simply because the other crew didn't happen to agree with his particular modus operande.
His initial comment was totally out of place, and further, the IB crew I suspect knew perfectly well what they were doing...and said so.
And it worked.
Of course, the 'complainer' was a BA type (it seems) so I am not surprised in the slightest.
Perhaps these types might keep their big noses out of other folks business...:}
Naw, that would never do...they are the 'experts', according to them anyway:rolleyes:
Total Atlantic crossing with an engine unserviceable...yep, they is the experts:ugh:

[NG_Kaptain]

Big difference between departing with snow on your wings vs continuing a flight on a four engine aircraft after one has failed.

[FrequentSLF]

No Pilot Here...just SLF

It is quite worrying that you professional pilots are arguing whether is safer to take off with snow on the wings or to fly with an engine out (well you still have 3 working). What are the SOP? Why LTD did not reply to any comment since days? Why he did not post a MOR? I think those should be the topics of this thread... Anyway I am ready to all the bashing coming to me...since I am not a professional pilot and I dared to post here.
Regards
Andy

[rick0]

Actually, he called them 'cowboys' simply because the other crew didn't happen to agree with his particular modus operande(sic).
His initial comment was totally out of place, and further, the IB crew I suspect knew perfectly well what they were doing...and said so.
And it worked.
Of course, the 'complainer' was a BA type (it seems) so I am not surprised in the slightest.
Perhaps these types might keep their big noses out of other folks business...:}
Naw, that would never do...they are the 'experts', according to them anyway:rolleyes:
Total Atlantic crossing with an engine unserviceable...yep, they is the experts:ugh:His 'modus operande' (sic) is what everyone else generally does when its snowing (or icy conditions), right?

After all, isn't assertiveness an important quality of a pilot? it's good that he put forward his concerns rather than leaving it and thus finding out the planes crashed killing people.

"they is the experts" - err yeah right.. how does 1 pilot represent every other pilot in BA?

Im no prof. pilot but your post seems to me like a string of crap tbh.

[The Bartender]

the IB crew I suspect knew perfectly well what they were doing...So did the crews of Air Florida Flight 90 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19820113-0), Airborne Express N926AX (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35671&key=1), Arrow Air Flight MF1285R (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19851212-0), Transwede SE-DEC (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19870106-1), Continental Flight 1713 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19871115-0), Air Ontario Flight 1363 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19890310-1), Korean Air HL7285 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19891125-0), Ryan Flight 590 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19910217-2), USAir Flight 405 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920322-1), Palair Macedonian Flight 301 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930305-1), Agco Corp. (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020104-0) N90AG (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020104-0), China Yunnan Flight MU5210 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20041121-0), Hop a Jet Flight 73 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20041128-0), to mention a few....

And it worked.

I heard rumours that an "old and bold" pilot actually made it...
Nice to meet you... :hmm:

[HolidayPilot]

I like the guys who state, “no one knows their airplane like the Captain”

What a crock of s*&%. I’ve been flying for over 18 years. When I flew heavies > 348 Metric tones as a Captain and Instructor pilot the only thing you knew about your airplane (If not displayed on the panel) was what other people told you. The wings, can’t see those from the front, fuselage – can’t see that either, the Engines – maybe the outboards, but can’t see the inboards. What is going on 200’ back in the cabin? You’ll have to ask.

So lets assume you’ve been de-iced. Someone calls and says you should de-ice. What do you do? You get off your bottom and go take a look. Just because you’ve de-iced doesn’t guarantee it worked or the conditions are such where you’ll need to do it again or the snow is so heavy de-icing can’t help.

When you fly heavies you better listen to people outside and in the back of the aircraft. They have a lot better view than you.

Arrogance and assuming it will work because it always does will shorten your career.

[PJ2]

FrequentSLF;

It is quite worrying that you professional pilots are arguing whether is safer to take off with snow on the wings or to fly with an engine out (well you still have 3 working).

Is it only worrying because the discussion is taking place "in public"? Do you not think that such discussions take place among doctors in the OR - "how to proceed?...what's the "SOP"?, "I wouldn't do that!", etc, etc? In fact, the medical profession could still learn a tremendous amount from the airline piloting profession just in terms of CRM (ORM?) let alone being so open, in public, to self-examination and self-criticism. Pretty healthy and professional behaviours I think, notwithstanding the blunt comments.

Also, out of the thousands of professional airline crews, there are likely only a few who contribute their opinions regularly and enjoy the sparring, heated as it may get from time to time. This is a forum, after all and not a professional journal. That said, let us keep in mind the assistance provided to the Australian film crew doing a story on the Phuket accident.

FWIW re the topic of the thread, while we don't know whether an actual "critical surface" inspection was carried out, (such cannot be done at night with any reliability) the law in Canada is, (as has been emphasized several times here), is "clean wing", period, and I suspect the FARs are the same. If the aircraft was flown with contaminated wings (regardless of whether it would "blow off" or not), I hope the FAA is conducting a formal investigation as they did with the BA747 3-engine incident.

Unless one wishes to be yet another test case and possible statistic, these days one simply doesn't depart with any contamination on the wings. There is nothing in any Ops Manual, regulation or "airmanship" item that may justify the decision not to de-ice when wing contamination has been observed.

The thread has largely concerned itself with "how" the crew was informed and whether "tattling" is a professional behaviour. Nonsense - the entire point is missed. How they were informed doesn't matter. The crew cannot possibly know what was under the "light snow" but departed anyway.

Whether the aircraft, their passengers and their employer were at risk will never be known because the takeoff was successful and as such is being accepted by some as evidence that the "right" decision was made. As most professional aviators know, that is not how "success" in aviation is judged.

[fyrefli]

It is quite worrying that you professional pilots are arguing whether is safer to take off with snow on the wings or to fly with an engine out (well you still have 3 working).

Is it only worrying because the discussion is taking place "in public"?

I took Andy to mean that he found it worrying that any professional pilot should be in any doubt as to which was the lunacy and which was the SOP :)

Whether the aircraft, their passengers and their employer were at risk will never be known because the takeoff was successful and as such is being accepted by some as evidence that the "right" decision was made. As most professional aviators know, that is not how "success" in aviation is judged.

Quite.

[PJ2]

fyrefli;

I took Andy to mean that he found it worrying that any professional pilot should be in any doubt as to which was the lunacy and which was the SOP :)

Yes, see that now, tx.

[mustpost]

As fully paid up SLF and with absolutely no right whatsoever to contribute to this thread (apart from some minor flying experience and the old man doing 39-45 - hence the interest), might I humbly add that the comment from Holidaypilot appeared to me to be the most heartening and sensible one (of quite a lot of good contributions). Pity your industry appears to be as ridden with internecine warfare, agendas, egos and backstabbing as mine. And that's television journalism (which of course you all know about and comment upon freely - without any knowledge or experience) Er, well that's it from me - fire away...:suspect:

[lomapaseo]

I hope the FAA is conducting a formal investigation as they did with the BA747 3-engine incident.


and how would you suggest that they perform the investigation?

Should they take statements from other pilots like we do on this board?:}

I've been through these kind of investigations and the bottom line I got told one day was

"the Captain is the Captain"

What you start with is a review of the carrier's procedures and the lee way allowed the captain. It's pretty difficult for the FAA to do anything after the fact, other than review procedures.

[SaturnV]

Here are the Metars for the time-period being referenced. There was no two inches of snow at KBOS at the time.

METAR KBOS 022054Z 19003KT 10SM OVC060 M02/M17 A3028 RMK AO2 SLP252 T10221167 58022
METAR KBOS 022154Z 20007KT 10SM OVC055 M02/M16 A3027 RMK AO2 SLP248 T10221156
SPECI KBOS 022242Z 24004KT 7SM -SN BKN025 OVC050 M03/M12 A3025 RMK AO2 SNB35 P0000
METAR KBOS 022254Z 22004KT 5SM -SN OVC025 M03/M11 A3024 RMK AO2 SNB35 SLP240 P0000 T10331111
METAR KBOS 022254Z 22004KT 5SM -SN OVC025 M03/M11 A3024
SPECI KBOS 022340Z 21003KT 1 3/4SM -SN BKN025 OVC060 M04/M09 A3023 RMK AO2 P0000
SPECI KBOS 022347Z 22004KT 1 1/4SM -SN BKN013 OVC055 M04/M08 A3023 RMK AO2 P0001
METAR KBOS 022354Z 21004KT 1 1/2SM -SN BKN015 OVC034 M04/M08 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP233 P0001 60001 T10441083 11022 21044 58019
SPECI KBOS 030011Z 00000KT 2SM -SN BKN015 BKN028 OVC034 M04/M08 A3021 RMK AO2 P0001

[PJ2]

lomapaseo;

Re, how you begin such an investigation, I think you've said it...

What you start with is a review of the carrier's procedures and the lee way allowed the captain. It's pretty difficult for the FAA to do anything after the fact, other than review procedures.

And perhaps connect the dots with facts such as the METARS.

By "investigation" is not meant the wholesale pursuit of a violation but a questioning and establishing of what occurred with the IB flight at BOS. From the initial post, something happened of sufficient import to warrant comment by both ATC and other crews. What was it?

If departing with contaminated wings is against the FARs (as it is against the CARs in Canada), and it is reported that that occurred, then establishing the facts as best as possible is required if only to review said procedures.

The "Ice Police" in Toronto sat at the end of the departing runway a number of times in my recollection. Their presence was highly controversial for the same reasons that the present matter is and the few times they charged a crew with a violation certainly heightened the controversy and the resulting fight to exonerate the crew was a strong one indeed. As far as I am aware, such "interventions" occurred after de-icing which simply added to the controversy of "who is in command". I believe the process is no longer used but perhaps someone now operating out of Pearson can verify this.

Our own de-ice procedures provided for co-authority of the Lead or the Captain and a decision by one to de-ice could not be over-ridden by the other.

Invariably, with precip, esp possibly-wet snow (could it make a snowball?), and at the temperatures indicated in the METARS as provided above, de-icing was as automatic as it could be while still permitting some leeway to judge circumstances. In the early days, (when formal de-ice procedures were being implemented and equipment designed), if the temp was much colder, (ie, -25), some consideration was given to the fact that, if the metal was clean underneath, (as inspected, usually by gloved hand) but the wings were covered with a "light dusting", no de-ice was called for because there was no adherence of the contaminating material, (and it couldn't make a snowball). Often, ropes and brooms would be used to clear off such contamination. Today, no such freedom exists to taxi out and take off even with this kind of contamination.

Whether such awarenesses and procedures exist at IB could be one series of questions. The assumption here is not to question the commander's authority but to examine by what procedures the captain had at his/her disposal for guidance. I know it is trite to say that a commander's authority cannot alter wing contamination but I should think this is more about procedures than about such authority. I think it is entirely reasonable to examine any company's procedures which permits an aircraft to depart with contaminated wings. So far as establishing facts, that would be done the usual way.

[slip and turn]

Do listen to those tapes, people. To begin with that little voice chirps up his few rehearsed words only when he dares, and when he does almost sounds like he has an inferiority complex about doing so.

He meekly requests pushback I think at least three times before he is acknowledged, and he doesn't sound like someone very confident about what he is requesting, does he? Or at best he doesn't sound like someone very confident in using RT, at least in English.

As a rule I think, when they are already handling higher workload than the norm, ATC quite rightly deliberately don't engage with weak-willed sounding pilots (pilots who sound like they might drop the ball). Better that any weak-wills and their passengers remain safely out of danger without extra clearances to engage in risk. ATC then create that little extra time to 'guide' any less than crisply communicating pilot. I think that's what this controller did with this pilot. I think that when ATC did acknowledge, ATC deliberately 'coaxed' the Iberia in ways designed to check the pilot's clear comprehension of the potential hazard before issuing any clearance that allowed engagement in the risk. ATC in fact had to coax this pilot a number of times about deicing. Finally the interrogated captain made that abundantly clear communication "We don't need it".

Immediately following that one, you can pretty much hear in ATC's tone, a conclusion that this captain has indeed heard all the prompts to deice, but contrary to what everyone else was doing, he has just said he knows what he is doing (God help him). In issuing the clearance to him, and following several warning attempts, there is now the clear transferance of full icing risk and liability to the Captain. ATC had done all he could possibly be expected to do to alert a presumably sensible 340 captain to a likely hazard, yet the Captain had as good as said "There is no such hazard affecting my aircraft PERIOD".

LTD also knew that ATC's clear warning had failed to influence the presumably sensible 340 captain. His own neatly interjected "You do" was not I think intended to be anything other than a shorthand gift of a comment - a 'one professional to another' suggestion - to please have a rethink. It was not a long detailed warning. It was a discreet prompt that was short enough to have been missed by most monitoring stations but should have been picked up by the two currently active stations (ATC and Iberia). Sadly, judged by his overall RT performance on the tapes, I think the Iberia captain's command of English, and awareness of what else was going on on the RT was all very limited, and I think he was completely oblivious to LTD's two word warning. LTD's was not standard RT, but it was clearly recognisable English, so Iberia had his chance for a discreetly prompted rethink, and was oblivious to it. That is why he was then chased down again more forcefully.

I would not be surprised if the Iberia captain had even formed any awareness from the RT traffic that he was indeed the only one not getting deiced. There was obviously a lot of ancilliary RT uncertainty about BOS procedures for pushing back a bit to conduct deicing, and the frequency was being used in non-standard exchanges about requesting 15 foot, 20 foot, 30 feet pushbacks prior to deice, and even a question about what ATC were doing with that information...ATC's response was something like "I was just trying to get an idea of how many were doing it" which was the type of RT that would have meant very little to a non-native English speaker.

Don't get me wrong, I don't speak more than the one language very well either, and I also know that at he best of times US RT is often difficult for the world's other English speakers, so I can guess it was difficult for the Iberia captain.

But we really do need to understand how despite all the warnings, this flight slipped through the net undeiced - RT isn't the best place to be having a conference about the pros and cons of deicing, but neither is the warm cosy flightdeck of the aircraft under discussion unless all the participants have been out and up very recently for a proper look :hmm:

The particular thing I don't understand however, is when the entire three man Iberia crew did catch on as to what was being queried, they all gave BA that "wave" which I think only has one broad meaning i.e. "Thanks but no thanks".

Quite simply, the Iberia stepped out of line either deliberately or inadvertently, and ultimately they conciously took risks that peers didn't. We really do need to know how that happens, and I am glad it is being discussed here.

[soggy_cabbage]

You do! was not the start of it.

Before any transmission of the now famous "you do" the Iberia flight was asked by ATC what they wanted to do about de-cing.

I say again, listen to 2 hours of Boston Delivery and 2 hours of Boston Ground.

As to the discussion of how anything can be proved or not, if some one from Iberia could let us know the results of the analysis of the FDR for that flight.

If there was contamination it would show up.

Edit,

After listening to even more ATC tapes. especially the BOS Tower I now know why the Iberia pilots waved.....

Who was in the right seat of BAW045?

[calypso]

Slip and Turn, I think we are now on the realms of the historical novel. Always entertaining but not to be confused with fact.

Soggy cabbage, please enlighten us.

[GearDown&Locked]

After listening to even more ATC tapes. especially the BOS Tower I now know why the Iberia pilots waved.....

Who was in the right seat of BAW045?

Soggy cabbage, please enlighten us.

-please do!

[soggy_cabbage]

Listen to the BOS Tower tape for 3rd Dec 0000-0030z at about 0:45mins to 1:00 and then BOS Departure Dec 0000-0030z 3:00

Their radio is amazingly clear!

;)

[SaturnV]

Based on a chronology posted ^^^, the conversation between IB, BA, and Boston Tower occurred between 2320 and 2325 hours. The Metars covering that period are:

METAR KBOS 022254Z 22004KT 5SM -SN OVC025 M03/M11 A3024

SPECI KBOS 022340Z 21003KT 1 3/4SM -SN BKN025 OVC060 M04/M09 A3023 RMK AO2 P0000

The special observation reporting visibility as 1 3/4 with light snow was made 15-20 minutes after the pertinent conversation; 25-30 minutes prior to the conversation, the regular Metars reported visibility as 5 miles in what would be very light snow.

As the temperature at 2340 is -4C and the dewpoint is -9C, the light snow that was falling was almost certainly fluffy and unlikely to be adhering to surfaces.

The total snowfall measured for KBOS for all of December 2 was 0.3 inches.

[DozyWannabe]

soggy cabbage:

Listen to the BOS Tower tape for 3rd Dec 0000-0030z at about 0:45mins to 1:00 and then BOS Departure Dec 0000-0030z 3:00

Their radio is amazingly clear!

...Who was in the right seat of BAW045?
Cherchez la femme?

[GearDown&Locked]

Listen to the BOS Tower tape for 3rd Dec 0000-0030z at about 0:45mins to 1:00 and then BOS Departure Dec 0000-0030z 3:00

Their radio is amazingly clear!


which can't be said of your post. Tapes have 30 mins each, can you state the aprox times of the occurrence you refer?

[soggy_cabbage]

which can't be said of your post. Tapes have 30 mins each, can you state the aprox times of the occurrence you refer?

So sorry....

Listen to the BOS Tower tape for 3rd Dec 0000-0030z at about 0:45mins to 1:00 and then BOS Departure Dec 0000-0030z 3:00



And to avoid any other mystery the voice is a very well spoken lady.

After listening to 5 hours of BOS I wanted to hear them finally depart.

[GearDown&Locked]

....and the relevance of that to this thread is...?!

:ugh:

[soggy_cabbage]

....and the relevance of that to this thread is...?!


The point is that I as a member of the jury have taken the time to listen to the evidence presented.

Many aircraft were de-iced that night. Take off delays were about an hour. Thousands of gallons of de-cing fluid was used, and many thousands of dollars were spent.

Some evidence presented here stated that the weather conditions as reported did not pose a contamination problem.

The tapes say otherwise.

As to the wave.....

Would not any red blooded male wave to a fine young lady as they departed :)

[FullWings]

As the temperature at 2340 is -4C and the dewpoint is -9C, the light snow that was falling was almost certainly fluffy and unlikely to be adhering to surfaces.

Well, that's all right then! Seems like myself and many others are wasting our time and money deicing... :confused: :ugh: :rolleyes:

[slip and turn]

So soggy cabbage is just saying that he personally likes the sound of the female BA co-pilot's voice, and deducing (using his view of the world) that this clearly intelligent, clearly and precisely on the ball English female voice might also be the reason the Iberia crew waved :rolleyes: ... hence the cherchez la femme comment a while back.


Meanwhile, back on the ramp much earlier...

IB6166 had reported back on KBOS Ground at about 27:25 into the KBOS 2300Z Ground Tape with his " We have checked our wings. We don't need deice. Ready to pushback".

After a check of the gate number, clearance was given to pushback at his discretion.

Taxi clearance was obtained at about 03:45 into next (2330Z) KBOS Ground tape, then frequency change to Tower was directed at about 06:46 into the tape.

About 0813 into the KBOS Tower 2330Z tape, R15R was confirmed with instructions to "IB6166 Heavy, Boston Tower R15R Position and Hold. Traffic is landing the crossing runway". (IB response is not easy to discern but appears to contain the words 'hold' and '15R').


At 10:40 into same tape, ATC advisory given to IB6166 to keep him up to speed with events "I am planning one more arrival on R22L. Then your departure." There appears no response from IB except possibly a single blip two secs later at 10:47 ... Then there is (pregnant?) 20 sec pause on frequency and then comes "IB6166 Heavy No delay please. 15R - Cleared for takeoff."

IB's response sounds to me like like "Edoronnayweera 6166", but my hearing ain't the best!


I think the tower controller duty then changes.

At 12:34 into same tape, a frequency change is directed to what I guess passes for "Contact Boston Departure" but no frequency was passed ... IB responds "66".

IB is 1300 feet up and away climbing to five thousand and reports on Boston Departure, and is directed to climb 1 4 thousand and vectored Nantucket before QSY 120.6 (Boston Approach South)

At 1438 into Boston Approach South 2330Z tape, controller calls "IB6166H Boston" like it was the first contact without details. IB6166 responds " Climbing 1 4 Thousand on course to Nantucket" .... and receives an apology.

I must admit I really struggle with some of the RT both ways. These guys are evidently stretched too far on occasions.

[ok1]

IB's response sounds to me like like "Edoronnayweera 6166", but my hearing ain't the best!

Sounds like: [...] rolling, Iberia 6166

[bigles]

Iberia6166,Bos-Mad
You Can Do It Once And Get Away With It!!
You Can Do It Twice And Get Away With It!!
You Can Do It A Hundred Times And Get Away With It!!
You Only Have To Make The Wrong Decision Once And You And Your Passengers are in The History Books.
The Accident Records Are Littered With Big Egos And Crass Stupidity.
Mind You My Observations Are Being Made After Only 53 Years At The Sharp End.

[merlinxx]

There is never a reason NOT TO, especially when external observations by another pro in the business sees a situation! This is not EGO stuff, this is pure Fight Safety. Next time I just hope/trust/pray that when someone calls in an observation, it's taken as a pure Flight Safety concern/notification.

Rant over, too much nationality banging-on here, this Flight Safety.

The ramp staff supervising this turn-around bear some responsibility also for not making observations.

[tablelover]

Sounds like you know more than most merlinxx, please expand on your knowledge of the ramp agents not making observations!!

Unless you're keeping to the theme of the thread and throwing false accusations around as fact!

With regards Flight Safety what if aforementionned crew had a look and with their inside knowledge of what prep they had taken made the right decision not to deice???

[yetanotherdawn]

Out of interest, what "prep" would that have been in sub-zero temperatures with ongoing snowfall and deposits on the wings then?

[Centaurus]

Reminds me of an incident in Lagos (at least I think it was Lagos) last year. Friend of mine was landing a Virgin Nigeria 737-400 when he struck severe wind-shear shortly before touch down. Having coped successfully he then touched down on a very wet runway with standing water from the local CB that just went through. During the taxiing to the stand he saw a 737-300 appear out of the murk and blinding rain on final and he suggested to ATC that all aircraft should be warned of turbulence and severe windshear at the threshold. ATC then made a radio call to the close-in 737 asking him if he had received the transmission from the landed Virgin Nigeria 737. The pilot replied words to the effect of "Shut up - we are not interested and too busy right now".

Shortly after touch down which was a long way down the flooded runway, the 737 skidded sideways off the the runway - the nose wheel broke off and the aircraft came to a grinding halt thoroughly bogged san bits and pieces of engines. A thoroughly deserved result.

[PantLoad]

With regard to dry snow...yes, it's true that dry snow will not adhere to the aircraft wings ASSUMING the temperature of the surface of the wings is quite cold, too. But, we don't know that, and, in fact, we can probably accurately assume it is not. If the aircraft took on fuel for that flight (as it almost certainly did), the fuel temperature (fuel which probably came from underground tanks) is probably well above freezing, thereby heating the wings (and wing surface) above freezing.

Taking off, with the assumption that the snow will 'blow off', is probably not a good idea, as there will be some degree of frozen moisture adhering to the wing surfaces in the vicinity of the fuel cells. This is why most operators' SOP says, 'Make it Clean; Keep it Clean'. This eliminates any doubt.

PantLoad

[tablelover]

yetanotherdawn, dunno mate! Thats been my point throughout this thread. Without being there and having seen the actual conditions, viewing the techlog or being party to the reasoning behind the decision I dont feel I'm (or anyone else here) in a position to apportion blame or to label crews as cowboys. And to do so in the public domain is unprofessional and wrong, all IMHO of course.

[Hand Solo]

tablelover - I think you may have missed some serious irony in yetanotherdawn's response to your post. The point is if there are frozen deposits on the upper surface of the wings then it does not matter what prep you have done, it's history. Gone. Over. Expired. If you have frozen deposits on the upper surfaces your theoretical holdover time is an irrelevance. The correct course of action is to get deiced again, not to risk it and hope it will blow off.

I don't know if you fly but if you do you really should revisit your cold weather notes because you seem to be confused about how de/anti-icing works.

[tablelover]

Handsolo, thanks for the advice i'll return to the books asap! However with due respect I think you are missing my point, which in fairness may well be due to a lack of ability on my part to convey it. The theme I have been trying to stick to is that we dont know what actually happenned and apart from sensationalist views/opinions are no closer to knowing. Therefore to try the accused in a kangaroo court of their peers with no independent and unbiased information is wrong and unprofessional. It is no different to reading an article (pretty much any article) in the Daily Mail and not only believeing it 100% but using that to back up ones arguements.

This thread seems to have split into those that see this as a question of airmanship on the part of the IB crew and those like myself that think this is a highly inappropiate place and method of raising views on flight safety.

[amos2]

Well, look!...I thought Bigles had pretty well summed it up a few posts back!

After all, after 53 yrs in the sharp end, he'd know it all, wouldn't he? ;)

[Hand Solo]

tablelover - Fair enough, but I think where we disagree is on the gravity of this alleged cock-up. Under normal circumstances I'd be in agreement with you that we don't know the full circumstances of an event and as such are unable to comment. A fine example is the BA 3 eng flight back from LAX in which too many people jumped to the conclusion that because an engine had failed the flight must be dangerous. This case, however, is a different kettle of fish. If the aircraft pushed back and took off with frozen deposits on the wings, there is no extra information we don't know that would justify it. There's no knowledge of previous de-icing or preparation required, they shouldn't be doing it, and if you believe LTD is genuine in his reports of snow on the wings then the Iberia crew dropped the ball big time. No airline, manufacturer or regulator is going to spring to the crews defence if they came a cropper because they would have clearly been in the wrong. Sigmund Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", and to paraphrase sometimes a wrong is just a wrong. Trying to doggedly defend that wrong on principle is not a progressive approach to flight safety.

[yetanotherdawn]

Tableover, I am inclined to agree with you about many of the postings on this thread (and many of the others) and, in general, about the rush to judgement without the benefit of all the facts. However, of the aircraft that I have flown I do not recall any of them that permitted departure with any form of deposit on the upper wing surface. 'Could be mistaken but I don't think so.
Regarding whether this is a suitable forum in which to raise flight safety issues; I would say that it is a very good forum - look at the responses to the various threads. Not all of the posts have any real relevance but there is a wealth of experience being brought to bear as well. If nothing else it has put this topic in the spotlight and if it is a factor, however small, in avoiding another Potomac incident in the future then well and good. Pick out the good bits on this site and we can all learn something along the way IMO. The AAIB reports are good but lack the immediacy of PPrune and there has to have been a very serious incident or accident before they become available, this site gets the minor incidents, or even non-incidents, out in the open for discussion from time to time, hopefully to our general benefit.

[AeroMex]

I have seen this thread for much time now with interest as my freind who works for Iberia has told me to look.

My origin is from Spain. I must say we are not all like the Iberia crew. I have listened to tapes from BOS, and it is clear tey need to deice. Itis simple, clean wings, no deposit even if you think it blows away on take off. :ugh:

My freind says the management at Iberia now hear the story and suspend the crew until they are cleared or guilty. :D

I hope they loose their jobs. You can not risk pax lives. :=

Ciao :ok:

AM

[rewfly]

AeroMex, very interesting thanks for sharing that information.

[lomapaseo]

My freind says the management at Iberia now hear the story and suspend the crew until they are cleared or guilty.

I hope they loose their jobs. You can not risk pax lives.


I sure hope they don't lose their jobs.

First of all the responsibility for the crew typically traces farther back in the chain, like their operations depratment and published procedures available in the cockpit. I've seen similar and the problem was that the procedures avaliable in the cockpit to the crew wre deemed inadequate (bad translations or simply they never substituted revised updates to reflect better understanding)

Second, is it just me or do others have the same feeling that some crews wise up after incidents like this and are no longer nonchalant like a lot some of our posters seem to be:}

[slip and turn]

It's not just you lomapaseo, but the point is that this kind of thing is not as spurious as losing sleep after waking in the night with an uncomfortable fold under your butt because you were too tired to straighten your bed before you slept.

As soon as duty period begins, flight crews MUST command and control every possible aspect of safety (and snow), not let it drift through the subconscious with the status of an inconvenient chore, or worse still, purely on automatic ...

In addition, with ancillary costs now cut to the bone worldwide, flight crew cannot rely on ground staff capability at many airports, especially at this time of year when in the northern latitudes, many of the deicing crews are new to the task, often mentored by others with short histories/dubious habits or both.

I guess the enemy in all cases is old-fashioned complacency, ably abetted in 2007 in the case of ice and airframes by a generally incomplete comprehension of the possible consequences by those closest to it.

[Dream Land]

No one needs to lose their job over this no matter how it shakes out, a bit of training possibly.

[poorwanderingwun]

I doubt that any of us here can say categorically that anyone should lose their job over the incident although if what is written here of the circumstances is factual then certainly it has to be a possibility...

As for the crew learning from the experience... No way should a developed nations's flag carrier be employing pilots on this class of aircraft who are still learning about icing ... by now, like most of us.. they should have had the sh*t scared out of them enough times to know about icing.

[Right Way Up]

I doubt somehow that there would be enough proof to sack the crew over this matter anyway. I can sympathise with those that say that we should not name & shame. Unfortunately dealing with incidents such as these through the official channels rarely bring results. If this thread educates people and make them think twice about risking it then it has done a good job!
As an aside last night I observed a similar "I know better" attitude at a Capital airport from the state airline. (not Spain) Bizjet rejects takeoff and is unsure of vacating at night. The tower controller orders landing aircraft to go-around, to which the pilot starts trying to negotiate a couple of more miles to have a look. With no repeat of the go-around order, I reluctantly told the aircraft that they had been told to go-around, so go-around. They fortunately complied.

[poorwanderingwun]

While hoping ( faint hope) to avoid thread-creep... this incident and the one related above by Right Way Up are exactly the sort of events that require an experienced FO with an assertive personality to influence the decisions made by the Capt... and why I'm always uncomfortable at the thought of people with so few hrs that their ATPL is still in the freezer sitting unmonitored (other than by P1 who may be making bad decisions) in the RHS of public transport a/c...

[GearDown&Locked]

I hope they loose their jobs. You can not risk pax lives

That is even more stupid than what this crew did. :=

Blame culture? isn't it supposed to be a Safety culture?! You :mad:, you learn, you move on wiser... :ugh:

GD&L

[joehunt]

I don't think the cockpit crew should loose their jobs. That would be sad. However action should and must be taken, if the said airline is to come out of this with any credibility what so ever. I think at least one demotion should do, even if to set an example. Do nothing and we are in "tombstone regulation" territory. Dam it, we are already!

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 draw the attention of just one crew to have a rethink on the very serious subject of deicing/anti icing then it has to be worth while, don't you think? As was mentioned in a previous post.

[Clarence Oveur]

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.

[joehunt]

Take your point but I do think the name of the airline would have come out at some stage. Certainly if their luck had run out that night. Their meaning all persons on board.

[Re-Heat]

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.

[Clarence Oveur]

To suggest otherwise, or that incidents should be hushed up is a retrograde step.
Is it a positive step to identify the airline and crew on a anonymous public website? I would have thought that the important thing to disseminate was what was done, not who done it.

[slip and turn]

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 :ok:.

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!

[GearDown&Locked]

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.

[slip and turn]

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" :}

[Clarence Oveur]

Many people learned. Myths were debunked.Was it necessary to identify the airline and crew for that to happen?

if you are doing your job right you have nothing to fear, If you are not doing your job right, then "You do" :}Are you advocating "name and shame" and fear thereof as tools to improve flight safety?

[slip and turn]

No blame has it's place ... it isn't the be all and end all.

Sometimes a cyclical shift of focus is beneficial, and that is often the foil to building complacency...

[thx1169]

"I hope they loose their jobs."

This would be a sad end for the crew. Oh my, what's next? Giant lettering on the tail of every aircarft:

"How's my flying?" and a toll free number to call and inform on the crew?

:ooh:

[yakmadrid]

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 sop´s, 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.

[yakmadrid]

I will never enjoy seing a colleague loose his job. Let me tell you that what you have written in this forum is not true.

[slip and turn]

I do not know if this crew had deiced or not. If they had not, that is a violation of our sop´s, 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.

[yakmadrid]

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.

[Ashling]

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.

[Hand Solo]

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.

[AeroMex]

I think LTD is right.:D

If crew make decision to fly with ice/snow on wings we should all name the crews. Any risks made by us must be told.

If we loose job because of forum like this, it is not nice. But skies are safer

Ciao:ok:

AM

[grimmrad]

"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...

[yakmadrid]

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.

[Jaxon]

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.

[PositiveRate876]

I am curious to know how the topic starter managed to see the TOP of Iberia A340's wing sitting in the cockpit of his plane parked at an adjacent gate? :confused:

Being that the distance is at least 50m and the wing's positive dihedral it would be quite a feat to accomplish a wing inspection from that vantage point. :D

I have a hard time seeing the 'representative surface' from the cabin window closest to it, never mind outside. :ugh:

[Hand Solo]

From the cockpit of a 747 you can see the top of an A340s wings easily.

[slip and turn]

It would be great if this forum will be limited to professionals so we do not have to read uninformed comments. Don't be so sure. From what I have seen, you'll still be reading heaps of uninformed comment from professionals who think they have learned enough already.

[xetroV]

If we loose job because of forum like this, it is not nice. But skies are safer.
No, they are not. You apparantly still believe in the "Bad Apple Theory", which has already been debunked by human factors professionals. Punishing "bad" pilots actually reduces safety, although it may enhance your illusion of safety. Many people are still tempted by this illusion - in fact, it seems that the number of people who believe in this theory is on the rise in airline management, authorities, and public alike (as evidenced by this thread). Short-term "fixes" may provide better PR, but they often stand in the way of long-term advances in actual flight safety.

If you believe fundamental progress in safety is more important than short-term satisfaction, then here is some suggested reading material:

Thoughts on the New View of Human Error

Part I: Do Bad Apples Exist? (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp185/4-06/Pre-flight.htm#HumanError)
Part II: Hindsight Bias (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp185/1-07/Pre-flight.htm#PartII)
Part III: “New View” Accounts of Human Error (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp185/2-07/Pre-flight.htm#Thoughts)

[alexantrea]

Yakmadrid, completely aggree with you, friend. You are absolutely right. The main reason our proffesion went down the drain is rumours and discusions about what other colleques are doing and if they do it right and if it was us we would have done it better and trying to be clever.
This is even worst if its done publicly and especialy when you are trying to judge others and their actions when you don't know all the facts.
Its easy to judge others decissions,when you are not the one who will take the decission.

I am sure IBERIA SOPs cater for such an event and their pilots are trained to comply with them. We are talking about a National Carrier now.

[slip and turn]

I am still amazed how some contributors just don't 'get it'.

I say again that this thread is not about egos, nor is it much about apportioning blame. Mostly it is about furthering understanding of the apparent hazard of the propensity of some pilots to fail to identify or acknowledge evidence of contaminated flying surfaces on their aircraft.

Taking a principal argument from one of the articles linked to in the xetroV's post above ('Do Bad Apples exist?') : "Punishment for wrongdoing is not a deterrent when the actions of the operators involved were actually examples of “right-doing”—the operators were acting in the best interests of those charged to their care, but made an “honest mistake” in the process; this is the case in many operational accidents."

How on earth does that sit with the example we have been discussing here? It doesn't, not at all.

Comprehension of the philosophy maybe as shallow as comprehension of the science in some quarters...

[Dusthog]

ADVERSE WEATHER

"All surfaces (critical surfaces: leading edge and upper surfaces of wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, all control surfaces, slats and flaps) of the aircraft must be clear of snow, frost and ice for takeoff.

Thin hoarfrost is acceptable on the upper surface of the fuselage.

On the underside of the wing tank area, a maximum layer of 3 mm (1/8 inch)
of frost will not penalize takeoff performance"

[yakmadrid]

Exactly right, how do we do know in Iberia, engineiring gets on an elevated platform and looks at the wings to determine that, then aply the appropiate deicing fluid, if the crew is in the airplane they inform the captain before doing it. I haven´t flown to Boston yet, is a new destination for us, we started in june I think, but I can tell you that in Chicago and NY American Airlines provides the maintenance for IB, and they are damn good professionals, no cowboys here. I say again, I never preflight the airplanes parked nearby, but BA colleague thank you for your input, it is appreciated anytime, please do not blow it in public.

[DK_FCI]

No, they are not. You apparantly still believe in the "Bad Apple Theory", which has already been debunked by human factors professionals. Punishing "bad" pilots actually reduces safety, although it may enhance your illusion of safety. Many people are still tempted by this illusion - in fact, it seems that the number of people who believe in this theory is on the rise in airline management, authorities, and public alike (as evidenced by this thread). Short-term "fixes" may provide better PR, but they often stand in the way of long-term advances in actual flight safety.
:D:D:D:D:D

Yes exactly:)

[DK_FCI]

I am still amazed how some contributors just don't 'get it'.


Do you:confused:

[amos2]

What a total waste of time and space this thread is becoming!!!!

[GearDown&Locked]

What a total waste of time and space this thread is becoming

Well not quite. The contaminated wing surface subject has been debated, people were alerted to it, and for those pros who read Pprune it certainly revived their interest on this matter.

It also raised other concerns as a secondary effect, namely airmanship - or lack of it. It is also been debated, which is a good thing.

What bothers me is this blame thingy that popped up. I would accept the IB crew being identified if only the BA crew identified themselves as well on the first post. Still, not a nice thing to do, but acceptable to some extent. So LightTwin Driver, won't you break the radio silence to which you've committed yourself since Dec 3rd and care to id your own flight on BOS that day?

This would be a sad end for the crew. Oh my, what's next? Giant lettering on the tail of every aircarft: "How's my flying?" and a toll free number to call and inform on the crew?

brilliant stuff :D

[slip and turn]

Personally I think LTD has contributed all he can be expected to do. It is no secret what flight he was operating. It is all on the tapes if it matters to you.

LTD did however say here that he thought that the behaviour of the Iberia captain in ignoring 'all advice/hits/warnings from other aviators and ATC was bloody disgraceful and dangerous.' And with a view to curtailing bloody disgraceful and dangerous behaviour in aviation, identifying marks do actually matter.

That being the case, the "How's my Flying?" sticker on every carrier's aircraft - hands up who really thought there wasn't one? - is the obvious next step for any right-thinking observer.

To those in a good position to read them, there's actually several alternative numbers on those stickers. One prominent one isn't actually an 0800 number at all, it's a web addy ... pretty effective for getting a valuable point across too ... you know the one :D

[GearDown&Locked]

Personally I think LTD has contributed all he can be expected to do.

Allow me to disagree; LTD should have filed a proper written complaint to the proper authorities, and let the system do its thing. Has he done it? Does anybody here knows?

It is no secret what flight he was operating. It is all on the tapes if it matters to you.

That's not the point. I've also listened to the tapes, including the one of that lovely Continental lady R/T exchange. He should have done it himself when identifying others. Anonymous accusations? := :yuk:

[Cr4zy]

Rules in UK and USA are meant to avoid anyone claiming compensation ("Any deposit on wing surface = no go"). Rules in other parts of the world are based on experience and real life.

Have you seen so many yellow-painted kerbs, steps and "Mind your Head" signs in any other part of the world? No, they realize people are not dumb!

But, of course, the initial poster is a BA pilot (= GOD), against a pilot from another country (do it the UK way, robot and proud of it)

[despegue]

CR4zy,

Although I loathe the UK/US nanny behaviour regarding Health and Safety, I must strongly disagree here.
It is just plain stupid to depart with any deposits on the wing. That is not over-zealous rule-making, but the the reality of Supercritical- wing aerodynamics.

[Hand Solo]

Rules in UK and USA are meant to avoid anyone claiming compensation ("Any deposit on wing surface = no go"). Rules in other parts of the world are based on experience and real life.....................
.......But, of course, the initial poster is a BA pilot (= GOD), against a pilot from another country (do it the UK way, robot and proud of it)
Only on PPRuNe could somebody with no experience whatsoever of flying an airliner come and tell us all how it should be done.:rolleyes:

Rules in the UK and USA are meant to avoid an aircraft crashing due to contaminated wing surfaces. I don't really care if other parts of the world think that's an acceptable risk to take.

[GearDown&Locked]

in what manner LTD brought Anonymous accusations to the table?

CommitedToStay, LTD did not identify himself in any post he made regarding this situation. We found out who he was after another poster pointed us to the source of those famous tapes and only after hearing them.

I am not against what LTD did on that day calling IB crew attention to a concern of his, either through ATC or directly to them. As professional he should know how things work, he makes the call, he tries all he can to bring the attention of others to the problem, he can even file a MOR or whatever, but then he has to let it go, the ball is on someone else’s court.

Coming here pointing fingers at "cowboys" won't solve anything, and distracts people from the main issue: contaminated wing surfaces.

Next time LTD calls someone because of something and that someone will disregard his advice; I would suggest that LTD blocks that someone’s pushback with his own aircraft. That should do the trick.

[fromTheShadows]

When prompting ATC to "pop on a [...] message to Iberia", he mentioned his full callsign ("Speedbird 45B") and apparently talked on the R/T himself.So his identity only came to light when someone went to the trouble of digging out the tapes from LiveATC. To be fair he may not have a problem with this, but the original derogatory comments were definitely made anonymously.

[L337]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cr4zy
Rules in UK and USA are meant to avoid anyone claiming compensation ("Any deposit on wing surface = no go"). Rules in other parts of the world are based on experience and real life.....................
.......But, of course, the initial poster is a BA pilot (= GOD), against a pilot from another country (do it the UK way, robot and proud of it)
Only on PPRuNe could somebody with no experience whatsoever of flying an airliner come and tell us all how it should be done.
and give us the benefit of his personal prejudices against 3500 BA pilots.

[slip and turn]

Coming here pointing fingers at "cowboys" won't solve anything, and distracts people from the main issue: contaminated wing surfaces. Again disagree. It's called 'rubbing their nose in it', a well known method of ingraining a degree of learning on the incalcitrant, using long-term association with a nasty taste. Net effect?
A. On the incalcitrant: "Bloody hell, I'd better not do anything as digraceful as that again. I was right royally embarassed".
B. On people reading about it: "Bloody hell, I'd better not do anything like that again either, especially since I now have a fresh take on why I shouldn't."

Next time LTD calls someone because of something and that someone will disregard his advice; I would suggest that LTD blocks that someone’s pushback with his own aircraft. That should do the trick. You cannot be serious? That surely looks like incitement to road rage :\

[Scimitar]

For what little it's worth LTD, I think you did absolutely the right thing. You have been given a fair old knocking by several on this thread but I support you 100%. Given the same opportunity again I would encourage you not to hesitate.

Also for what it's worth, I speak not with the benefit of Flightsim experience, but with 45 years in aviation, mostly as a training captain and on equipment including Britannias, DC8s, and Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767.

Good luck to you!

[Right Way Up]

Scimitar I agree.
Well done LTD you did all you could, & if your thread makes just a handful of people think more carefully about just winging it then it has served a purpose. :D:D

[Clarence Oveur]

...if your thread makes just a handful of people think more carefully about just winging it then it has served a purpose.

Was it necessary to identify the airline and crew for that to happen?

[stickyb]

Surely the point about identifying the callsign/airline/whatever is reasonanbly irrelevant in this case?

Given that all the transmissions are recorded and available for public analysis just naming the airport would be enough for someone with enough time to extract the gory details of who said what, etc.

[Right Way Up]

Clarence,
Unfortunately it might be the case. Those people who push the boundaries because they think they can get away with it, will do so until proven otherwise. This is a blunt way of doing it, but does anyone really believe an MOR submitted by LTD would have made any difference. I have at least 2 MORS re ATC in Europe that have never officially been dealt with by those country's authorities.

[woodpecker]

MOR's only achieve anything if the issue is within the airline concerned (and then it's not guaranteed).

For example, over the hump on take-off at CDG we came across a vehicle on the runway. He rapidly left the paved surface heading for the grass, MOR filed (+ ATC informed). The outcome? The French stated that there had never been a vehicle on the runway!!!


LTD has my vote, but then I was also a "LTD" with the same airline so my vote is obviously null and void.

[GearDown&Locked]

From LTDs last post (my bold):
It may be wrong for me to post up here about this guy,but for him to ignore all advice/hits/warnings from other aviators and ATC is bloody disgraceful and dangerous.

As I've said before I agree with all LTDs actions and efforts at BOS, period.

I've also stated in a previous post that I think that crew made a mistake IMHO; big or small it's not for me to judge it.

And I don't really care if the crew was IB, TAP, LH, SAS, GARUDA or BA, so that the "Latino Background" argument doesn't come into play here.

I have only expressed my opinion regarding "name & shame" attitude used by a professional, an attitude that LTD himself had second thoughts about being the correct one.

I do sympathize with his anger, it's perfectly understandable. Maybe the error is mine; maybe I was expecting another way of stating this situation from a Captain of Big Airways, a gentleman’s way perhaps. ASS-U-ME.

And maybe the true reason for his anger has other causes:

MOR's only achieve anything if the issue is within the airline concerned (and then it's not guaranteed).


Maybe it's time to rethink this type of actions. If they're pretty much ineffective that is a big problem in itself, and a major one too safety wise.

[GearDown&Locked]

Nuff said. well... not quite Sir.

CommitedToStay, personal attacks won't lead you anywhere.
I don't pretend (and I don't feel that need) to be someone else, like many of you in here, those MS Flight Sim Professionals you all are constantly referring to. Never did, never will.

More. If I was a real professional, I wouldn't be coming here stating that I was one, never mind how many hours or types I've flown over how many years. I would be just another regular Joe, watching a bunch of pseudo-professionals making themselves look ridiculous in front of a large audience. As I'm not one, I still like to enjoy those very same pseudo-professionals making the same sorry spectacle. But get this, the true pros rarely post anything, they just watch in awe, probably thinking "thank gawd retirement isn't too far away".:ugh:

So then, does that remove any importance to what I've said in my previous post? If you think it does then think again. That type of behavior from a so called professional is what I was referring to as a side effect of the thread, but yours Sir, is far worse than LTD ever was. :yuk:

GD&L

[Hand Solo]

Anyone see some toys flying out of a pram around here?:E

[Union Jack]

Forgive me Mods if this has already been covered, or is considered out of order in any sense, but am I alone in wondering why the use of a specific name in Post No 257 appears not to have led to any further comment, so far as I can see?

Jack

PS On a lighter note, if LTD had called the IB crew "The Three Caballeros" instead, perhaps there might have been less apparent discord .....:)

[Chris777]

Union Jack,
Do you really think that was a specific name reference? Err, perhaps it was just a Spanish name picked from thin air?!

[Hand Solo]

From post 257:

Company's OM specify the de-icing or anti-icing procedures and maybe that day the Captain has met the requirements and despite all of us being overwhelmed over this case the Captain Rodriguez was quite happy and relaxed to not undertake the icing procedures.

I don't think Captain Rodriguez is actually the guys name, I think it was just a generalization of Spaniards.

[John Marsh]

Can anyone suggest an effective way to report this case? For professionals or SLF (like self).
I have sent the details to the FAA, with the aim of increasing safety, for all operators and pax.

[tablelover]

John Marsh, what 'details' have you sent to the FAA??? Those gleaned from a site where members remain anonymous and is known for inaccuracy and speculation? How did you word it?

'...well I have this concern with safety that i've heard from someone I've never met or can prove was actually there with several people on both sides speculating as to what actually happenned whom I have also never met so can not substantiate what they are saying or how qualified they are to comment...' I could go on but trust you get the gist of my concerns with your role here.

LTD claims he was there (and I have no reason to doubt him) but it is his and only his call to report it to authorities, not someone whos only knowledge of an incident is from here. What are you going to report that you read on here next to save us all from grave danger? Drunken pilots? after all a friend of a friend told you a pilot was drunk before report. Leave sensationalism to the papers.

You admit to being slf, and whilst I believe you shouldnt be excluded from conversations and threads such as these your actions are imho disgraceful.

[PBL]

tablelover,

All "John Marsh" has to write is that he believes there has been a violation of FARs which could have adversely affected safety, specify what, point to the ATC tapes for the location and time, and ask that it be looked into.

I can't see any reason for condemning him for that.

PBL

[411A]

Based on a chronology posted ^^^, the conversation between IB, BA, and Boston Tower occurred between 2320 and 2325 hours. The Metars covering that period are:

METAR KBOS 022254Z 22004KT 5SM -SN OVC025 M03/M11 A3024

SPECI KBOS 022340Z 21003KT 1 3/4SM -SN BKN025 OVC060 M04/M09 A3023 RMK AO2 P0000

The special observation reporting visibility as 1 3/4 with light snow was made 15-20 minutes after the pertinent conversation; 25-30 minutes prior to the conversation, the regular Metars reported visibility as 5 miles in what would be very light snow.

As the temperature at 2340 is -4C and the dewpoint is -9C, the light snow that was falling was almost certainly fluffy and unlikely to be adhering to surfaces.

The total snowfall measured for KBOS for all of December 2 was 0.3 inches.

Hmmm, seems reasonable.
Was de-icing required?
The Captain concerned didn't think so.
Note I say...concerned, as in...the actual Commander in charge.
All the rest is speculation, and from some of the other comments noted here, not much in the way of facts from those speculators.
Why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:

[tablelover]

PBL, but where does it end?

Are you saying you believe its acceptable for anyone to come on here read a potentially inaccurate and false set of statements and then report it to the authorities every time? Or is there a list of accepted supposedly dangerous practices that we in this aviation business can deal with, but some where we need the help of slf to report for our benefit. I do not believe that is healthy for any industry especially ours. We are generally very successful at looking after ourselves and there are many agencies that work tremendously hard to uphold the high levels of professionalism with safety as paramount be it the CAA,FAA,ICAO,CHIRP to name but a few. What we have in this thread is wildly differring offerings of facts, then someone with no professinal knowledge comes along cherry picks what he wants and hands it in to the 'feds.' ANd to write in suggesting there has been a breach of FAR's when the individual almost certainly has no knowledge of them is no different to me walking into the ER and saying the doctor is doing it all wrong, with no knowledge of the medical profession then reporting him. Those who know me would agree Im arrogant but not so much to do that.

411A, thanks hadnt seen saturn v's post and have to agree with your sentiments.

[John Marsh]

Details as sent to FAA:

This is to report a worrying occurrence at Boston, on December 2nd.
Iberia flight 6166, flying to Madrid, using an Airbus A340, apparently took off with substantial wing contamination due to snow. The crew were notified of the contamination a number of times, by control and by a BA crewmember in an adjacent aircraft who could see the contamination. The IB crew refused de-icing. All other departing flights at BOS at that time were accepting de-icing.
Please could you look into this. It seems that the IB6166 crew and passengers were lucky - in that there was sufficient lift available from the impaired wings, there was no windshear, no engine failure, no bird ingestion or runway incursion. The IB crew had no way of knowing that all these conditions would apply.
The BA pilot has posted details of this occurrence at www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302971 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302971) , where interesting comments from fellow aircrew can also be found.

I sent this after reviewing the postings to this thread and concluding that the basic safety issue has received strong support. The points of contention have mainly been the nature of LTD's message to IB6166 and the correctness of identifying the flight here.
Taking off with contaminated wings is dangerous. In this specific case, I also note from this thread that it is against Iberia SOPs and Airbus instructions to pilots.
If the FAA should find my message to be unworthy of action on their part, they are entirely free to forget it.

[tablelover]

Now we have SLF reporting incidents they read about on here demanding action from the FAA!! Absolutely disgraceful! There were professinals involved who are more than capable of reporting the incident if they deem it necessary.

John Marsh what makes you think you should be reporting things to the FAA or any other agency that you were not party to and as SLF have no knowledge of other than that gleaned from an anonymous forum? You dont know anything about Ib sops's and I would assume precious little if anything about aircraft. Do you honestly see yourself as some sort of St George charging in on his white steed to slay the dragon that is pilot incompetence and complacency? Christ what is your next crusade? And what are the requirements necessary for you to gallantly save the travelling public from these pesky pilots? You strike me as a fantasist of the Walter Mitty type who probably has thousands of hours on ms fltsim and therefore believes himself an expert, obviously all backed up with knowledge from that unbias infinitely accurate fountain of gen PPRUNE. What you up to now? Down the pub boasting to your few mates how you've gone and reported something that is rumoured to have occured from an anonymous forum about a subject you know f#c# all about to the authorities? Harsh? it was bl00dy meant to be!

(edited to cr4p grammer)

[glad rag]

I don't believe I have just read that post (397).

[411A]

I don't believe I have just read that post (397).

Sadly, that kind of post only serves to demonstrate that very few here are actually pilots, and have the bonefides to back it up.
Perhaps JM would care to enlighten those of us who actually are heavy jet drivers on his particular 'qualifications'?

No, I suspect not.:ugh:

[ISO100]

John Marsh,

As fellow SLF I have would be interested to know why you thought it necessary to make your report given that the incident was witnessed by numerous professionals, both pilots and ATCOs?

Surely if such a report were to be warranted it would have already been made by those who witnessed the event through whatever channels are available?

[John Marsh]

I do not believe I have the authority to demand action from the FAA. The phrase
'Please can you look into this' was intended as a polite request. Please
indicate where I have made a demand.
I think I should report safety-related issues which are at risk of slipping through
the net. LTD has made no announcement of having filed an MOR; later, we
read that 'MOR's only achieve anything if the issue is within the airline
concerned (and then it's not guaranteed).' (Post 383). I therefore did the best I
could think of to try to have the details looked into, by a professional
organisation.
I do not think of myself as on a 'crusade'. I think aviation is a wonderful invention
and I simply want it to be as safe as possible.
Although I am being criticised, I do not believe I have acted illegally. The details
I sent to the FAA are publicly available, as are the means of contacting the FAA.
I have not been criticised by the FAA for my actions.
Post 397 was posted, unaltered, after moderator review.

[Jaxon]

Dear Mr Marsh:

Thank you for your recent report and inquiry.

Our investigation has revealed that the Airbus in question recorded an AOA, IAS, and gross weight consistent with an uncompromised wing for that aircraft type and in each slat/flat configuration throughout its initial climb.

While it is indeed possible that a violation of an SOP occurred, the only actual objective facts we are aware of is that the aircraft was operated safely as born out by the recorded data. This fact serves to further support the crew in question, at least as far as safe operation is concerned. The foreign carrier in question is free to conduct its own investigation as to its own SOPs.

As you may or may not be aware, "legal" and "safe" are two generally overlapping concepts which don't always overlap at there respective "edges". It is possible to be safe yet not legal, and vice versa.

We at the FAA do not usually have a response to third party non-witnesses reporting scuttlebutt read on an anonymous web board but our district office is always keen to log another notch so we thank you for your amazing nerve.

Sincerely,

Dick Tattler

[tablelover]

'I think I should report safety related issues that may slip through the net'

Do you? Really? No one said you acted illegally, just a general belief that to do so was stupid and your crusading belief that those of us in this industry cannot be trusted to report incidents and as a result it is up to you save the travelling public is arrogant and dillusional.

Of course it was a demand for the FAA to look into it, by merely putting it in front of them they are duty bound to investigate or at least look into every crank suggestion they receive, no matter how sugarcoated it was. Can I suggest you stay well away from matters you neither understand or have any knowledge of. Your assistance is neither welcome nor warranted. The industry has countless organisations that monitor safety related incidents put to them by professionals. What pray tell has slipped through the net? The fact a moderator has not altered your post suggests nothing.

Please explain why you think you had to go to the FAA? Do you believe the people in this industry are untrustworthy and ignoring safety issues? Stick to subjects you understand. SLF are more than welcome in my belief in this forum and contribute soundly in a wide range of subjects. You with your ridiculous attitude have done them a great disservice. You know nothing of flying aircraft, of the incident described, or of the industry yet because of rumour and speculation have gone running to the FAA. Idiot

[Ancient Mariner]

Hmm, 404 posts and counting, mostly from professional pilots. I better start studying train and steamer time tables.
Per

[Ashling]

Lay off John Marsh

What do some of expect will happen if you publicise events on a public website that has open access ? Some of you seemed very keen to name and shame on Pprune. Make the skies safer etc. Well then do not be surprised if members of the public take the incidents further.

LTD has made no mention of reporting this event through official mechanisms other than reporting it to ATC verbaly on the day. If you do not report an event officially and then bring it to a website such as this then that is WRONG period just as getting airborne with ice on your wings is idiotic bordering on suicidal. If the professionals have not reported it formaly, and no one has said they have, can we really blame someone else for doing so.

If John Marsh is the chap in the photo then he has a decent career in aviation behind him and will be well aware of how key safety is. In fact you might attach the tag of aviation professional to him.

It is some of you who are offside not him.

[Jaxon]

Lay off? Sure, be proud, he made a third party non-witness accusation based upon anonymous posts he read surfing the internet. Bravo.

[Pelican]

Well I wasn't going to get invloved in this one...

...but the John Marsh showed up.

Mr.Marsh, I fully agree with all points observed by others against your report, but I would like to further add that this is a forum for professional pilots to communicate professional matters with each other. We tolerate SLF, indeed welcome it at times (although, frankly, not too often), but we do not want to start being affraid to discuss certain things for fear of it being reported to some authority by someone who is outside of the industry - someone who had no appreciation of how things are handled or indeed what exactly the technical nature of the problem is. Sorry if I offend you.

Please, please, all you SLF, stop spoiling it for all of us!

[John Marsh]

ISO100:
I hope that report(s) have already been filed. If so, reiterative ones can simply be deleted.

tableover: Is it stupid to try to ensure that a message related to aviation safety reaches those who are qualified to assess it?
On reflection, I am glad that the FAA are duty bound to look into messages they receive. I'm sure genuine 'crank' ones are quickly detected and deleted.
I definitely do not believe 'the people in this industry are untrustworthyand
ignoring safety issues'. I know that they are all human and therefore capable of making mistakes.

Pelican: No offence taken. Perhaps it is time for professional members to ask
the moderators for tougher rules for non-professional access.
Ashling: I'm not the chap in the photo.

[despegue]

John Marsh,

Do you have photographic evidence that proves your claim to the FAA?
Are you a direct witteness of the alleged incident?

If not, you are now open to procecution by Iberia and the crew involved due to you describing your disgusting action on a pubic forum. And I hope you get a phonecall from their legal-team.

This witch-hunting/ inquisition must stop now.

If you are not an ATPL holder, get out!

[rogerg]

It all sounds like some people are protesting to much. If the IB captain did no wrong then all is fine. If the cap fits wear it and as for SLF getting involved, why not, after all, they are the people we may kill.

[lomapaseo]

I don't see anything wrong with anybody filing a report about safety. After all it's the job of professional investigators to assess the actual facts. So if somebody trolls PPrune or any other forum for rumors and files a report questioning safety Amen.

My only personal concern is about public allegations specific to identify and embarass that have yet to be proved.

[tablelover]

'If the Ib captain did no wrong then all is fine' is it? Does the term mud sticks mean anything? However that is all irrelevant it is comprehensively wrong for someone with no knowledge of the industry to cherry pick what they want then embark on a crusade and pass this information onto authorities. Where does it end? What will he read next on here then believe he should forward it to other agencies? This is a forum for discussion not for amateurs who have no experience in the industry to grab bits of information, however accurate or inaccurate, and forward it.

John Marsh what is it you are reiterating? Gossip, rumour, hearsay? Non-professionals are welcome but you have no place here. You ask if your actions were stupid, unquestionably they are. As has repeatedly been said there are methods and procedures in place for reporting experiences one has been in or borne witness to, there is no place for fantasists like yourself to come here and act in the way you have. You didnt answer my earlier question, what are the requirements you have to read something here then report it?

[PJ2]

While having an army of SLF's and otherwise inexperienced intervenors using "1-800-How's My Flying" is an unacceptable set of circumstances and can lead to all manner of untoward outcomes for the innocent, I am not convinced that the question, "where will all this lead?" is answerable in terms of a, "witch-hunt for crews everywhere". As has been observed by other posters, nuisance reports would be winnowed quickly by regulatory authorities and airlines alike. Of course there is the danger that politics and individual agendas can be triggered by non-eye/earwitness accounts but the truth of such reports can then be determined quickly by those within the industry. In all walks of life there are dangers of malfeasance in such reporting of others but in this case I wonder if examination and curiosity is to be preferred over judgement - for the moment at least?

The question to which this thread has generally addressed itself was answered in Canada at least, in the Moshansky Commission's Report on the Air Ontario Dryden accident of 1989.

Although only obliquely related to "John Marsh's" intervention, the Moshansky Commission Report does speak to the present issue. (To be clear, the difference between an SLF eye/earwitness report (esp with photos), an experienced observer's report and an SLF's report gleaned via an internet website where the population is almost exclusively anonymous, is comprehended).

The following Aviation Safety Letter 1/2004, (a regular series produced by Transport Canada) discusses, in part, the notions and issues raised by the thread, thus:

Scrutinizing Aviation Culture: Professional Courtesy, Transport Canada Aviation Safety Newsletter, 1/2004 (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SystemSafety/Newsletters/tp185/1-04/538.htm)


Moments before takeoff, the F28 was taxiing out for the final takeoff with significant amounts of snow visible on the wings, and while a flight attendant and two airline captains traveling as passengers noticed, this was never communicated to the pilots. The flight attendant, who was the only crew member to survive, testified later that she had concerns over the snow, but because she had been rebuffed by company pilots over a similar situation in the past, it influenced her decision no to go to the cockpit. This cultural barrier between cockpit and cabin crew should never happen today, given how we train and conduct proper Crew Resource Management.

While the silence of the flight attendant was disturbing for the Commission of Inquiry, the Air Disasters synopsis spells out the thoughts on the two airline pilots:

In the case of the two airline captains traveling as passengers, their lack of affirmative action was unfortunate — to say the least. As professional pilots, they had a clear understanding of the danger, and their indication of concern would at least have been considered by the usually meticulous Captain Morwood.

The reason why they did not raise their concerns differ, but there are two points on which they agree — both assumed the crew was aware of the condition of the wings, and both believed the aircraft was going to be de-iced.

While taxiing away from the terminal and backtracking on the runway, the DC-9 captain thought they were proceeding to the more remote de-icing area on the airport. This was a reasonable assumption as Air Canada often de-iced its DC-9 aircraft at locations remote from the gate. There was no doubt in his mind, he recalled, that the aircraft had to be de-iced before takeoff.

The Dash 8 captain knew the de-icing equipment at Dryden was on the apron near the terminal, and expected they were going to return there. If the aircraft was not de-iced, he believed the takeoff would be aborted should the snow not come off the wings during the take-off run [a highly dangerous practice in itself]. He also indicated that “professional courtesy” precluded an off-duty airline pilot from drawing the attention of the flightcrew to a safety concern.

The inference was that “professional courtesy” among pilots was more important than safety, suggesting an unwritten code that militated against such communications, even when a potentially life-threatening concern was involved.

Other factors could influence an off-duty airline pilot not to make known his concerns: faith in the professionalism of the duty crew; fear of offending and possible rebuke for unsolicited advice; fear of embarrassment if the concern proved groundless; and a reluctance to interfere in the busy flight deck workload.

Whatever the reason, the evidence before the Inquiry pointed to a general reluctance on the part of the cabin crew and off-duty pilots to intervene in the operation of an aircraft, even in the face of apprehended danger.

The Commission believed air carriers should counsel their pilots that not only was it acceptable, but indeed expected, that off-duty airline pilots on board should draw any perceived concerns to the attention of the captain. Considering the complexity — and size — of jet aircraft today, a flight crew could only benefit from the eyes and ears of all on board, especially from those possessing pertinent skills. — MacArthur Job, Air Disasters, Vol 3, page 62 (http://www.amazon.com/Air-Disaster-Vol-Macarthur-Job/dp/187567134X)

I’ll be the first to admit that it takes a lot of nerve for an off-duty pilot to step out of the passenger mentality and speak out in the manner described above. Fortunately, operational mindset changes in today’s aviation industry have, in large part, taken care of this cultural pickle. Crew members now understand such advice as totally acceptable and expected. This is the right way to do business. In fact, those extra eyes and ears in the background have turned “professional courtesy” into a potential lifesaver, as opposed to a missed opportunity to avoid a tragedy.


http://tcinfodev/CivilAviation/images/previous.gif (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SystemSafety/Newsletters/tp185/1-04/549.htm)http://tcinfodev/CivilAviation/images/next.gif (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SystemSafety/Newsletters/tp185/1-04/540.htm)


The above is offered for consideration and is not by way of "defence or prosecution" of the views expressed, some substantially, on the "John Marsh" entry. Suspending judgement in favour of curiosity may yield further information.

PJ2

[L337]

The implications of a non aviation person coming here and then reporting an alleged incident to the FAA has serious implications for any professional posting on PPRuNe.

Preserve your anonymity, and take great care what you write. It just might come back and bite you.

[PJ2]

L337;

Agreed; - such a principle applies to absolutely everything written or recorded. Paper documentation is king in court and hearsay poor for defence. One ought never to be a test case for either of the professions...

[gatbusdriver]

I take a lot of what is written on this forum with a pinch of salt, because it is anonymous.

If what Mr Smith says is true, I agree with him.

If we are willing to drag our fellow professionals through the mud on this forum, then we will reap what we sow. If we put all this information out onto a public forum we have no right to be upset at SLF bringing the problem to any authorities notice.

Safe flying everyone (may your flight number never end up in Rumours and News)

[andrijander]

Yeah, of course....just report nothing will happen to the crew if they were not at fault...except:
a)they may be grounded until the investigation is finished (perhaps even suspended which means no salary)
b)they may have to go through a lengthy court process (and that would DEFINITELY mean no fly and, depending on your company's mood no salary neither)
c)even if they really are not at fault it may mean having to live with the bad reputation (there's plenty of people not getting the full picture and remembering only the gore details and, well, need I say HERE anything about gossiping?)
d)given any of the above it may mean ruining a career or two, and perhaps a life or two (or more) at the same time.
So, please by all means, go stickin' your co*ks in everybody else's plate. Maybe somewhere in the galaxy it actually is good manners.
angry A.

PD: how did it go? switch on the fan and throw a bucket full of sh*...

[Hand Solo]

Being devils advocate here, whats the beef? This isn't the case of a completely uninformed passenger having a pop that the pilots "must be drunk because they flew a go around" (happened in the UK). It's someone reporting concerns that a large number of professional pilots have considered someones operating practice dubious! For all we know someone with more clout may have already reported it to the FAA. The FAA aren't going to suspend Iberias operations to the USA, and they have no power to take action against the individual pilots. I'm sure somewhere earlier in the thread it was posted that Iberia are now investigating the incident, and if it happened as LTD described it (and I have no reason to doubt that it did) I think it's entirely appropriate that they cover their rear by finding out if they have an icing maverick in their midst. For the FAAs part, it can't hurt for them to audit Iberias de-icing policy if the circumstances LTD reports are true.

For what it's worth I doubt the FAA will give much credence to a report based on an internet chat room but if you believe that LTDs initial post is true then where's the problem?

[stickyb]

Really, why all the fuss about John Marsh? I think you guys are missing something big time.

If the FAA has set up a system that receives letters/reports such as the one from John Marsh without the report having to be a) from a professional involved, or b) from an eyewitness, then John Marsh is just making use of the system as the FAA designed it to be used and should bear no criticism. If you don't like that system then you should be expressing your views to the FAA on the setup of the system

If on the other hand, the FAA has certain rules about who it will accept input from, then John Marsh's input should be bounced if it breaks those rules - NFA

Just as LTD was encouraged by some of you to use the correct system in filing a report, so John Marsh should be allowed to use the correct system, if it exists.

[Bobbsy]

As a piece of SLF I realise I'm not overly welcome here, but I'll stick my head above the parapet anyway.

I don't think the nub of the issue is whether John Marsh is SLF or an ATP with 20,000 hours in his logbook. The real issue is ANYBODY making formal accusations on the basis of hearsay evidence. If a report was necessary the ONLY one in a position to have made it with any authority was LTD (or, just possibly, the controller(s) involved if they actually saw the situation for themselves).

Similarly, even if the FAA have a system in place to receive complaints, I would hope they differentiate between "I read on the Internet that somebody saw" and "I saw for myself". As I understand the legal system, hearsay evidence is not admissible in court...and should not be the basis for potentially ruining a professional pilot's career.

This is not to say that it wasn't valid for LTD to post here. Ignoring the argument and recriminations, even I can see that there has been some valuable and thought-provoking discussion on procedures surrounding de-icing. However, assuming the original report was accurate (and I have no reason to doubt it) I would hope that LTD made any official reports he deemed necessary as well as just posting on a "rumour network".

....ducking behind the parapet again.

Bobbsy

[CityofFlight]

Working for a major "cargo carrier"...

I submit...

Considering that over 76,000 people have read this thread and only 420+ have posted, it's quite conceivable that a number of reports have been filed--not just by the ONE man who admitted doing so and has received the backlash over it. There are those who supposedly saw IB's wing surface, including ground personnel and then there's the ATC tapes for themselves. All anyone has to do then is point the agencies in the "non-hearsay" direction and then the facts will speak for themselves. Rumor or not...there's been enough details of where to go for facts here that more than 1 out 76,000 could report this incident. I don't know about you, but I sure know 1 or 2 myself,back stabbing "professional pilots" who would report and never admit publicly they've done so. You may not like John Marsh for doing so, but I give him credit for holding his position--despite the backlash--of which I totally get the view point. But the numbers speak to more than one person who's likely reported this incident. I do hope it was someone closer to the incident.

The DC National Parks copter pilot on the Air Florida accident was a friend of mine. It was very difficult for him to pluck only a few people out of a plane full that day in the icey waters of the Potomac. He'd probably have a thing or two to say here.... And he'd probably cut John Marsh some slack...no rescuer ever wants to experience another repeat of that day. Common sense dictates safety above inconvenience or ego. I'd bet the 1 or 2 crew members who survived that day could care less WHO reports it. :confused:

[andrijander]

I must definitely be missing something here:

what about the just culture? What about learning from the incident and leaving aside the name (and therefore the blame) for ONLY the autorithies concerned?

As I have said from the begining I will not enter the ice debate as I'll only show I have no saying -which I do not as I'm no expert in the matter-.

Now we get to the scary part of the consequences of openly speaking about certain things and disclosing certain info that, albeit not confidential, should have been treated IMHO with more care. As I have said before even if no one is at fault sh*t sticks and the smell lasts for long. That is why we have anonymous reporting systems, that is why we have autorities which have to check those reports and then share the findings without blaming people -at least not for mistakes, errors or for performances in certain type of situations not covered in the manuals... amongst others-. The aim is to learn from mistakes, not to shoot down the people making them. After all we all make mistakes from time to time. I really think openly giving info on "the who" is wrong; as we may be taking out of the way the possibility for those who may have been at fault of learning and becoming better.

Please note that I still use conditional phrasing as, after mor than 400 posts STILL WE ONLY HAVE HALF THE STORY AND EVEN IF IT LOOKS YELLOW IT MAY NOT BE A BANANA.

And to all the people out there thinking this is alright please think again and put yourselves in the shoes of the crew (I'm not saying the authorities shouldn't know of this but the whole open debate with names on them). Debate is ok, but leave the names out FFS.

A.

[amos2]

Just goes to show, doesn't it?

Why many professional pilots don't post on certain prune threads!!

...and, as for the SLF posters...

until such time that you tell us your profession and websites so that we can eavesdrop, spy and tear you lot to bits...

why don't you just sod off!!

[Pelican]

Well, Amos2, I would have put it slightly nicer, but in essence I have to agree with you...
I do not want to discuss issues here and have to worry about some layman potentially taking things too seriously, the wrong way, out of context, and reporting it.
This goes beyond this specific case of course, I think it is a very worrying development. It does exactly the opposite what the no-blame culture and anonymous reporting in our industry are set up for: this prevents the flow of information about potentially serious issues, in that sense that professional pilots may think twice before posting or discussing these issues.

[Huck]

The DC National Parks copter pilot on the Air Florida accident was a friend of mine.

Your friend's a hero, then. Him and the bystander that jumped in and swam to the victims, when the DC firefighters couldn't get up the nerve. Watching that video will restore your faith in humanity....

[SR71]

The real hero (as admitted by Usher - one of the chopper pilots) was the bank inspector who kept passing the ring to the other pax in the freezing water when he could have saved himself...five times wasn't it?

[forget]

Arland D. Williams Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_D._Williams_Jr.

There was a memorable article on Arland entitled 'The Man in the Water'.
Time or Newsweek. I've looked for it in the past - but it's nowhere to be found. Anyone with old magazines in the attic?

[Bobbsy]

For the benefit of amos2....

I visit this forum not to "spy" or "tear you apart" but because I've had a lifelong fascination with the aviation industry. I likely would have at least tried for a career in flying had it not been for the fact that a "lazy" left eye means I fail the eyesight requirements even with glasses.

Ninety percent of my visits to the site I read only and do not post...and when I HAVE posted, I don't believe I've ever said anything to "tear anyone apart". The main thing the strikes me on most visits is the extreme level of professionalism from most crews and I have great respect for you and your job.

Not that it's in any way on topic here, since you ask I am a retired audio engineer who spent his life doing sound for TV and live events. "My" forum (at least the one where I'm a mod), should you wish to visit, is http://www.blue-room.org.uk (http://www.blue-room.org.uk/) though I think you'll find it boring. OUR biggest problem is 14 year old students pretending to be industry professionals and giving bad advice and/or asking inappropriate questions.

Bobbsy

[tablelover]

Bobbsy and our biggest problem is now idiots who know nothing of this industry coming in here and taking whole threads of gossip hearsay and rumour to events they were not witness to then sending it to the FAA!! It isnt their place to do so and demonstrates crass stupidity.

We are professionals and know what is right and wrong and will report when necessary. SLF are more than welcome here but to benefit from an open forum they have to behave with a bit more decorum. If you have a lifelong fascination with aviation and want to hear what goes on then be aware actions such as those by John 'aviations saviour' Marsh will make many want to keep you out for fear of potential legal recrimination. The majority of us are very aware how lucky we are to be doing what we do for a living and that others are fascinated by it. Indeed we are more than happy to encourage that interest, but shutters go up when idiots like Mr Marsh come here acting like self-serving crusaders to feed their fantasist side.

[Bobbsy]

Fully understand tablelover. Indeed, one of my rare forays "above the parapet" was to make a post critical of John Marsh's action. Nobody should be making "official" complaints like that based hearsay read in an online forum. However, with feelings running high on this one I rather regret saying anything at all.

Anyhow, I'll go back to reading and learning now!

Bobbsy

[forget]

………………taking whole threads of gossip hearsay and rumour to events they were not witness to then sending it to the FAA!! It isn’t their place to do so and demonstrates crass stupidity.

This is all getting a little overheated and, on a point of order, the people doing the overheating may not be aware of the Legislation in place here. In fact, there’s already a ‘How’s my Flying’ reporting system for John Marsh et al.

The UK CAA, at least, believes it is their place.

Complete Document at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP382.PDF

A voluntary Mandatory Occurrence Report is that report made by a person or organisation who are not required to report in accordance with the requirements of the ANO. Persons and organisations who are required to report are detailed in paragraphs 5.2 above.

5.3.3 The ANO imposes certain requirements on the CAA in respect of the handling and processing of voluntary MOR reports. Therefore, voluntary reports will be published in a limited format which removes information and data which is likely to identify the reporter.

5.4 Items to be Reported

5.4.1 Any person specified in the legislation should report any reportable occurrence of which he has positive knowledge, even though this may not be first hand, unless he has good reason to believe that appropriate details of the occurrence have already been, or will be, reported by someone else.

5.4.2 In deciding whether or not to report an occurrence it must be decided whether the event meets the definition as specified in the ANO. A reportable occurrence in relation to an aircraft means any incident which endangers or which, if not corrected, would endanger an aircraft, its occupants or any other person. A list of examples of these occurrences appears in Appendix B to this publication. This Appendix provides more detailed guidance on the types of occurrences which are required to be reported. However, Reporters are left to determine whether endangerment is a factor and thus determine whether the incident should be reported.

5.4.3 A report should also be submitted on any occurrence which involves, for example, a defective condition or unsatisfactory behaviour or procedure which did not immediately endanger the aircraft but which, if allowed to continue uncorrected, or if repeated in different, but likely, circumstances, would create a hazard.

[slip and turn]

...our biggest problem is idiots who ...One of the biggest problems in the aviation industry today often seems to be the lack of appetite for reading (including threads like this on PPRuNe) and sober learning by deduction instead of limited rote.

Many more recent PP's will perhaps argue blue in the face whether (a) (b) (c) or (d) fits the way they've been coached, or the mock answer sheets they've mugged up on, but when marks are in, totally forget the ones they got wrong or weren't entirely sure about. Perhaps it is then all too easy to start assuming they can pretty much leave it there, and instead get on with the more serious business of holding the job down and facing-off all who dare wobble the pedestal ... or that's how it seems sometimes :p

[CityofFlight]

Don Usher was very humble about his role that day. He faced some very difficult flying with terrain, winds and low visibility and I remember him telling me how they felt when they went back and Arland was gone. I was living outside of DC at the time and watched the afternoon unfold on TV. It's etched in my mind.

I hope if anything comes out of this thread, that anger displayed here makes way for something learned.

[chrisbl]

Its has been interesting watching this thread swing backwards and forwards about what LTD did or did not do and who was right or wrong.

Its not surprising therefore that a passenger decides to follow up and make a report.

At least it had the effect of pulling together what had seemed a bit of a rabble if only to attack a passenger for perhaps doing something a professional ought to have done.

It is no wonder though that passengers dont have too much respect for professional pilots these days. After all referring to the people who ultimately pay the salaries as "self loading freight" does not deserve to command much respect.

All the phoney indignation will not disguise the fact that somewhere along the line in this story, the professionals have let the industry down.

If someone genuinely believed that a serious issue was occurring, then a more formal complaint should have been raised and the appropriate procedure followed.

This thread has only served to damage the image of pilots, through self righteousness, indignation, denial, pomposity and all helped along with a fair degree of illiteracy (non English speakers excepted).

The sometimes ambivilent attitude to safety though is the most worrying.

[gatbusdriver]

dear chrisbull

what a load of cobblers

1. how on earth do you know whether this has been reported or not.

2. ambivelence to safety? que? there may be some uninformed/uneducated posts with regards to icing in this thread, but thats about it (a good chance they are posts from non-flyers).

In my opinion LTD was right to get on the radio and inform the crew of IB of his concerns. It was a shame there was enough info given to identify the specific flight. We have a great mag called CHIRP deivered through our front door. This gives details of many incidents that are reported by uk operators (might be wrong about that). It is written with complete anonimity ' I was flying from AAA to BBB' etc.

As I have said before. Now that we have lynched a crew on this forum, we cannot be surprised at some peoples responses (Mr Marsh).

With regards to respect....I expect as much respect from pax as I give the cleaners....treat others as you wish to be treated.

[Jaxon]

"The sometimes ambivilent attitude to safety though is the most worrying."

chrisbl,

Baloney. I'm not so put out by you pointing your finger at other posters' english while misspelling with it yourself, but debating safety is hardly a sign of a lack of care about it.

I'll try to make the point again, it was not long ago - okay, to me it wasn't long ago and before the introduction of the clean aircraft concept that it was SOP to consider the factors like time and temperature among other things to determine if you were dealing with inconsequential dry snow (non-adhering) or bonafide contamination determimental to safe flight. The introduction of the clean concept has removed the decision process from the SOPs and thereby presumably removed the potential for bad judgement with dangerous consequences, this is a good thing for safety, true.

My point is that while the RUMOR on this board sounds like an SOP may have been compromised, I notice that the reported weather also indicates exactly the kind of situation that was COMPLETELY acceptable in years now past. The fact that the flight operated without incident only supports my point and to my knowledge there is absolutely nothing that has been reported in this rumor mill to dispute that. If some people are all determined to get their panties in a twist they should aim more carefully at a question of SOP and avoid a reckless blanket declaration of "unsafe".

[John Marsh]

despegue: I have made no claim to the FAA. I have requested that they look into an apparent occurrence of unsafe practice. I have given them a URL for the material I based my request on. I am not aware that you have the authority to tell me to 'get out'.

tableover: There are no formal requirements that I 'have to read something here then report it'. I sent the message because I was worried that an apparent occurrence, which I and others here find disturbing, appeared to be receiving no follow-up.

forget: Thank you for the voluntary MOR info.
#
Thank you all for your comments.

[411A]

I sent the message because I was worried that an apparent occurrence, which I and others here find disturbing, appeared to be receiving no follow-up.


I believe the correct term is busybody, John.
Or, perhaps publicity hound.:rolleyes:

[tablelover]

Chrisbl, John Marsh labelled himself as SLF in his first post on this subject!

Whay did Mr Marsh not come on here with his first post and suggest that was his intention? See what people in the industry thought of his actions, see if it was actually warranted. i do not believe in the original construction of the basis of filing MOR's it was intended to include
'... having read a litany of rumour and hearsay and with no knowledge of the industry or facts feel free to express your concerns...'

I'll say it again we do not need to be saved by uneducated fantasists who believe we cannot look after ourselves.

'...appeared to be receiving no follow up...' why because its not been printed on a site such as this? If it has been reported the authorities and individuals involved do not have to come on here and say why they did it or where they are with the investigation, in fact it could predjudice the investigation. So why did you tell us what you had done? Looking for acclaim? Feeding the fantasy?

[Romeo India Xray]

I have to interject and question why the mantra of CRM should cease when a flight has ended, and is it not possible that SLF could become part of the CRM loop?

Two days ago I came from work and then flew as SLF with another carrier. The cabin attendant at the overwing station struck up a conversation with me about icing conditions and the fact that there was a slight build up of ice. Indeed there were a few traces of hoar frost and the cabin attendant asked me if it would be prudent for him to inform the commander (who had reportedly already been keeping a watchfull eye on the wing prior to boarding). As far as I know, all views were communicated and the commander made a good decission to de-ice.

So now I would ask all the nay-sayers here, at what point do we exclude the SLF from our CRM practices?

When they spot an engineers maglite in the spoiler recess do we tell them "you are uninformed, your observation is not welcome"

When they spot a noticable "tear" in the skin while boarding (Aloha 737), do we say "go away, we know what we are doing", or do we check it out?

How about when the SLF is a fellow professional and is brought into the loop, should Cpt Haynes have told Danny Fitch to politely go away back in Soix City?

So what is to say that brining SLF into the loop is detrimental after the event?

IMHO John Marsh brought the non official information he had heard to the attention of a competent authority, in the interests of safety. The competent authority (FAA in this case) has the ability to deduce from the available evidence (METAR, ATC recordings) if there is any substance behind the concern and act on it as fit.

Why are we all so scared of this process? Which is better - SLF bringing a genuine safety concern (even if it is based on "rumour", although thanks to tapes this one isnt) to the attention of an authority equipped to deal with it, or would we prefer them to be sending said stories to the press?

LTD gets my vote for bringing this to IB's attn, and I can see no way that John Marsh has tried to do anything other than facilitate safety for all of us. As long we have followed SOPs and the report is made to a competent authority, why do so many on here seem to be so resentfull (even scared)?

RIX

[Clarence Oveur]

I sincerely hope that it is nothing more than trolls that have infected this thread as of recent. I also sincerely hope that the more unattractive aspects of this thread do not create a precedent.

I think LTD got a lot more than he bargained for when he started this thread. Perhaps a lesson for us all.

[SLFguy]

"The implications of a non aviation person coming here and then reporting an alleged incident to the FAA has serious implications for any professional posting on PPRuNe.

Preserve your anonymity, and take great care what you write. It just might come back and bite you."

And you only just realised this?


You guys kill me - John Marsh makes his post and everyone throws a hissy fit.

Do you think he is the first person to do this - no, of course he isn't but he may well be the first to report the fact that he has to the forum.


Amos...nice PT mate.

[woodpecker]

Almost 450 posts so far and do we really think the FAA knew nothing about the incident before this chap wrote to them?

Suppose I'm incorrect in referring to it as an incident rather than a non-event as the Spaniard obviously got away with it.

[L337]

"The implications of a non aviation person coming here and then reporting an alleged incident to the FAA has serious implications for any professional posting on PPRuNe.
Preserve your anonymity, and take great care what you write. It just might come back and bite you."

And you only just realised this?

No. But I thought it worth saying.

[alf5071h]

I don’t see anything wrong with SLF posting to this forum, in many ways it provides good customer feedback; they pay the wages.

What many contributors to this thread appear to lack is the ability to differentiate between criticism and critique.
Our industry attempts to avoid criticism, finding fault or blame. We seek an honest, open, and fair culture to maintain and improve our good safety record by seeking to understand events and learn from them. Pilots are taught to use techniques of critical thinking to evaluate situations, to separate fact from supposition, to consider alternative points of view, and find additional data in order to form a mental picture, which is then open to review and revision over time. And then with a robust picture, consider the best understanding to judge a situation for improvement, where that judgment considers objectives and risks in the outcome, including an incorrect choice. And if the judgement is inappropriate, being prepared to admit it, at least to ourselves.
Those who rush to a judgement are at risk of errors of thought. Perhaps the non aviation contributions lack airmanship or other professional attributes, or they have been influenced by the changes in general social culture promoting instant gratification, political correctness, and the need to rush and hurry resulting in action before thought.

The weaknesses above are not limited to SLF, and there is much in this thread to be learnt by aviators. The originating incident, worthy of discussion in the forum, might have been handled differently with additional thought and critical reasoning, (but this is with hindsight) e.g:-
Consider all of the apparent facts in the situation; have you misinterpreted something, what’s the urgency.
Communicate information as opposed to potentially challenging conclusions. Consider individual or cultural aspects; no one likes being told that they are in error or what to do.
As an alternative, the communication could have been:
“C/S xx, I am on stand zz, it appears to me that your (xx) left wing is covered in snow.” This puts the originator’s view in positional context, covers the possibility that xx cannot see the wings (or that s/he hasn’t looked out), or that the originator might have mistaken a reflection for snow. The communication does not challenge or judge correctness of actions that might have to be taken; it’s an opening gambit, subject to question and clarification.

We might all learn something from this event, especially SLF who might not be familiar with the diverse range of cultures in the regulatory agencies (stick and carrot, tea and biscuits, sangria and nachos), where the result of a not-so-confidential report may or may not aid safety.

[DingerX]

No offense guys, but doessssss anyone think a letter to the FAA is going to change anything?

PPrune ain't exactly the comprehensive source for what happens in the aviation world. And, thankfully, none of the posters to these threads are verified aviation professionels. Some are, some aren't and those two groups aren't coextensive with those who claim to be and claim not to be. That way, you can't look at this thread and say definitively that the IB crew were condemned by their peers. Heck, you can't even use the accusations of being/not being a pilot, since even 411A, a much-beloved and universally admired PPruner, has been in the psat accused of "not being a pilot". The unrestricted access means that you have to put up with idiots who don't even hold a driver's license, let alone something with a P in it, but it also means that posters with something real to report or comment on don't need to worry about what they say being immediately identified as authoritative. The "get out of here wannabe" posts and witch-hunts do serve a purpose in this, by chilling the debate enough to send some of the nuttier cases elsewhere. It also reinforces the social structure, by asserting that PPrune is for Professional Pilots first and foremost. Better to reign in Hell, folks.

So the dsicussion here really doesn't provide much fact beyond the ATC tapes and the recorded conditions. Frankly, after the reports that only .e inches fell that day, IU'm surprised nobody's broken out the map of KBOS and shown that while BA45 at E8 would have a reasonable view down the wing of IB at E7, given the prevailing winds, the IB craft would have been shielded from what little snow there was by the terminal, whereas LTD would be blanketed. Now that would be the kind of pointless reconstruction I'd like to see.

But while y'all are getting worked up, here's a question for you: how many passengers a year write the FAA with their "safety concerns"? We can imagine what they look like: a bunch of whinging about go-arounds, RTOs and that plane that seemed awful close out the window. So who has to deal with them at the FAA, and how seriously do they get taken? Mr. Marsh can probably give you the answer to some of those questions in a few weeks.

As for the level of reporting on this incident, anyone care to hazard a guess why LTD has stopped posting to this thread? Did he get his whinge off and move on? Is he too busy answering PMs from Journos to comment? Or has he been advised not to comment further on the affair?


So: this thread gives the FAA nothing factual that couldn't be had elsewhere. If anyhting happens because of this, it's not going to be due to John Marsh's letter.. Feel free to chase out the idiots, but if you formalize the process, you'll lose the what makes this place so useful: anonymity and plausible deniability.


anyway, I'll leave you to your discussion again. Enjoy being indignant against the bad guys of your choosing.

[Super VC-10]

Reading back through the posts there is quite a debate going on about reporting of the incident. My observations are:-

* Just because LTD hasn't said he has reported the incident officially, doesn't mean to say that he hasn't done so.

*John Marsh said he has reported the incident to the FAA. The FAA seem to have provided a mechanism to do so, and presumably has the resources to assess all reports made, whether they are worthy of attention, not worthy of attention but made in good faith, or just crank reports of no substance at all.

*The CAA in the UK provides for a report to be made be a member of the public. Presumably they too have the resources to deal with said reports as outlined above. It seems to me that had said incident occured within the UK, John Marsh would have been entitled to make a report to the CAA.

*One would assume the FAA would have a similar set-up to the CAA in regards as to who can make a report.

*As it is a safety related issue, what does it matter who reports it and who doesn't? :ugh:

[PBL]

One of the reasons I keep coming back to this thread is that the incident poses a practical moral problem. Namely, there are conflicting principles, both moral principles and safety principles, which it brings to light. It is interesting to see how people deal with them (here mostly intemperately, unfortunately).

Let me pose the issues as a parable.

Suppose a taxi driver, TD1, drives in a 30kph zone through the middle of my village at 70 kph. In my village we have our share of older people and very young children who cross the road, which has a long curving blind corner in it, and have little chance to get out of the way. And a driver cannot see them in enough time to stop, at 70 kph.

A fellow driver, TD2, observes the manoeuvre and radios in to the dispatcher to let the driver know, and asks the dispatcher to relay the message.

The dispatcher relays the message about moderating speed, and TD1 says "I know what I am doing". His colleague TD2, unsatisfied with this reply, posts the incident on a WWW site, to which residents of the village, as well as taxi drivers and other interested members of the public have access. TD2 says when and where the incident happened.

Some opine that TD2 should have filed a report to the taxi licensing authority and not posted the incident for discussion on a WWW site. Others opine that TD1 is the driver of his vehicle and a professional, and must have known what he was doing. Others say we don't actually know the incident happened, despite what TD2 says. Others say that since TD1 didn't run anybody over or hit anything, that he obviously made an appropriate decision.

Someone points out that the village has a CCTV traffic camera which recorded the incident and is available for public viewing.

The licence plate of TD1's cab is apparent from the video, as is the time and date of the occurrence, but TD1 himself is not identified.

While TD2 is supported quietly but definitively by some of his colleagues, others opine that his action was morally reprehensible, bringing the actions of his colleague TD1 to the attention of the public.

Someone who identifies himself as a member of the public, let's call him P1, writes to the taxi licensing authority and draws their attention to the incident and existence of the video evidence, asking that they look into it. He posts to the WWW site to say he has done it.

P1 is vilified by many self-identified taxi drivers, some of whom say things like "We are professionals and know what is right and wrong and will report when necessary". Certain members of the public disagree that the incident just concerns taxi drivers alone.

So now the questions.

1. Should TD1 have driven through the village at 70 kph?
2. Is it appropriate for PD2 to bring the incident to anyone's attention?
3. Is it appropriate for PD2 to open a semi-public discussion?
4. Is it appropriate for residents of the village to have an opinion on this incident?
5. Is it appropriate for residents of the village to express what they think of this incident on the WWW site?
6. Is it appropriate for P1 to write to the taxi regulation agency asking them to look into it?
7. What do people think the consequences of this episode will be?

My answers are

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7:
a. TD1 will get the message, informally if not officially, and think twice before driving at 70 kph through a 30 kph zone again.
b. Other taxi drivers who might not have given much thought to it become aware of the issues concerning speeding in residential areas.
c. Residents of the village and surrounding villages become aware of the issue of taxi drivers speeding through their villages.
d. Residents let it be known that they will not travel with taxi companies whose drivers speed through residential areas.
e. There is eventually a reduction in the incidence of taxis speeding through residential areas.
f. All this happens without anybody having to invoke any legal apparatus.

PBL

[soggy_cabbage]

After nearly 450 posts the question here should be "how can we prevent a disaster?"

LTD tried, and could not stop it happening.

The fact that no disaster happened, and he was mistaken about the need for IBE6166 to de-ice (due to the fact nothing went wrong)

What pisses me off about this whole affair was after a PROFESSIONAL aviator brought a potential problem to the attention to another professional flight crew and a professional ATC system nothing was done to check or verify anything before the aircraft departed.

Anything anyone files after the event does not matter. It is too late.

From LTD's first post and the RT communications from him and ATC's relay (through delivery and ground) a professional thought there was a safety issue.

However, there was no attempt by anyone to stop the departure while a check on the ice condition of IBE6166 was made.

Next time............

[Pinkman]

I like PBL's reasoned analogy. But although the answers 1 - 7 are the same, it works better using medical malpractice because of the standards required, the relative exclusiveness, dedication, and skill levels of the professional groups (Physicians, Aviators) and the seriousness with which deviations from either the law or best practice are taken by the professional licensing body. In the medical malpractice example however, it is not at all uncommon for the general public (read patient), as an interested and affected party to initiate a report, and that is perfectly acceptable route. Substitute the word "passenger" for "patient" and a lot of the puffery and defensiveness of previous posts suddenly becomes irrelevant: you're not flying hulls between A & B - they are filled with interested and affected parties, not brain-dead sheep. Well, some of them probably are brain-dead, but you get the point.

P

[John Marsh]

tableover: I wish that I had mentioned my intention before acting. I did not expect such criticism.
'if it has been reported' - the 'if' being the cause for my concern.
I told you (collectively) what I had done in the hope of encouraging suggestions for other means of reporting - which I requested. I also
hoped to encourage others to try to ensure that the subject of this thread is looked into.

soggy cabbage: I agree.

[SR71]

I-FORD,

A parable is exactly that....a parable.

The value in asking the questions surely doesn't depend on whether or not the content of the parable is true, does it?

Whatever that means.

:ok:

[Romeo India Xray]

Why why oh why are we all still missing the point here?

SAFETY is the thing we are taught from our first trial lesson until we are sitting as a management pilot with the Authority, writing our AOCs expositions or changes to our SOPs.

A fellow professional makes a possible safety blunder which is reported to him (SAFETY)

There is the ability for said crew to reassess the situation and decontaminate the surfaces as required (SAFETY)

The professional brings this possible blunder to the attention of fellow professionals (here) - an icing warning that we all could heed (SAFETY)

A member of the public then reports what he has heard to a competent authority (SAFETY)

Some people may take exception at the way any single one of these things were handled, but NO pilot or passenger should question the intentions that underpin them.

Anyone who DOES question these intentions deserves to fly nothing other than a single seater over very sparsely populated areas.

Ditto for anyone who chooses to disregard information passed to them which has a potentially significant safety implication.

RIX

[openfly]

I am a recently retired flight crew.
I have flown in business class several times with Iberia from MAD-JNB-MAD recently. I have been amazed at the appalling safety violations I have witnessed.
I have seen the purser standing in the galley while we landed at MAD. Another purser at door 1L unstrapped for take-off. Passengers with their chair/bed in the fully-reclined position during the take-off and landing. The floor area is always covered in hand baggage, pillows and blankets on landing. The large TV screens at the seats in business class in the 'up' position. They even serve drinks during the emergency briefing! All this in the last year.
If this is the standard of safety awareness in the cabin, one can only imagine that it is as bad on the flight-deck.
I wrote to UK Manager IB. After pushing for a reply I received one from IB MAD apologising ''for my bad experience''!!! They were obviously not interested in my points regarding safety.
(Hope the man from the Daily Mail reads this!!)

[HolidayPilot]

Quote I-FORD

"And we still don't know if the IB A340 made any preventive anti-ice treatment at the gate, disregarding the usual procedure in BOS that calls for it to be performed just after pushback."

It doesn't matter. If he did De-ice / Anti-ice at the gate and then is subsequently informed that snow & ice are still present then it requires the procedure to be re-accomplished.

What do you do? Reply with "Thanks for the info but since I already De-iced/Anti-iced I can continue with snow & ice on my wing?"

[411A]

What do you do? Reply with "Thanks for the info but since I already De-iced/Anti-iced I can continue with snow & ice on my wing?"
I hesitate to break it to you, HolidayPilot, but if the weather was truly thus, as reported...
Based on a chronology posted ^^^, the conversation between IB, BA, and Boston Tower occurred between 2320 and 2325 hours. The Metars covering that period are:
METAR KBOS 022254Z 22004KT 5SM -SN OVC025 M03/M11 A3024
SPECI KBOS 022340Z 21003KT 1 3/4SM -SN BKN025 OVC060 M04/M09 A3023 RMK AO2 P0000
The special observation reporting visibility as 1 3/4 with light snow was made 15-20 minutes after the pertinent conversation; 25-30 minutes prior to the conversation, the regular Metars reported visibility as 5 miles in what would be very light snow.
As the temperature at 2340 is -4C and the dewpoint is -9C, the light snow that was falling was almost certainly fluffy and unlikely to be adhering to surfaces.
The total snowfall measured for KBOS for all of December 2 was 0.3 inches.
...then the answer is, quite likely.
So many so-called icing experts here with nothing especially nice to say about the concerned respective IB crew...yet these folks wern't there to see for themselves.
Whereas, the concerned IB Commander was there, made a proper decision, and departed.
And, if the conditions were as reported by SaturnV, and further dependant on aircraft type...so would I.
The opinions of others notwithstanding.:rolleyes:

[mickjoebill]

As a non commercial pilot and as someone who makes a living filming from helicopters I occasionally see something odd that is hard to ignore when travelling as a passenger on a commercial flight.
Should I say something to the crew?

One example on a transatlantic flight into Gatwick, seated next to the wing I noticed that a sound I identified with the flaps being lowered, was continous and did not stop when the flaps (that I could see on my side) had stopped moving.
Should I have drawn, what I thought was an obvious noise, to the attention of the cabin crew? I wondered if the motors could overheat.
Ten minutes later I kicked myself when we did a go around due to what the pilot later described as a faulty "warning light". (I assume they didn't have electronic confirmation that flaps were down) Engines spooled up around 500 meters from threshold. Didn't see any flight crew in the passenger cabin making any visual checks. If I had said something would it have avoided a go-around?

The next time I saw something odd was on a City Airport to Nice flight when manovering at around 5000ft I saw two black blurrs whizz past under the wing around 20 seconds apart, we either had a near miss with two very large birds or something had been ejected from the engine. When we landed I spoke to the pilot who was very grateful and mentioned that large flakes of paint were know to peel off the engines and he would check it out anyway.

When filming, with appropriate permissions, departures at dawn at Gatwick on a frosty morning I noted a vapour trail from a single point at the tail the of a 737. Hadn't seen such an effect before so I called the tower who suspected it was excess de-icing being illuminated by the early morning light, non the less they relayed the message to the pilot which I thought was a sensible action.


When working rigging helicopters there is never been any problem with pointing out the obvoius bits and pieces don't look quite right (lots of them on an average light utility helicopter!) to a pilot or engineer.

After reading this thread, next time I hear the flap motors not stopping I'll speak-up, if nothing but in hope to get home 10 minutes earlier.



Mickjoebill

[lomapaseo]

It doesn't matter. If he did De-ice / Anti-ice at the gate and then is subsequently informed that snow & ice are still present then it requires the procedure to be re-accomplished.

What do you do? Reply with "Thanks for the info but since I already De-iced/Anti-iced I can continue with snow & ice on my wing?"

The issue may have really been who has a better subjective judgement of whether snow or ice was seen? The crew durring at the time of dispatch or a another passing crew looking through looking their windows.

I can believe both crews in this case. But just to be sure I would have conducted an investigation of the tasks performed at the gate by the Iberia ground handlers and flight crew before forming a gut opinion.Let alone a public flogging

[HolidayPilot]

Quote from lomapaseo

"The issue may have really been who has a better subjective judgement of whether snow or ice was seen? The crew durring at the time of dispatch or a another passing crew looking through looking their windows."

The crew may have viewed the wings during the preflight but when sitting in the cockpit you can't see the wings. Who has a better view then?

From 411A

"I hesitate to break it to you, HolidayPilot, but if the weather was truly thus, as reported...'

Regardless of the weather report, when informed of snow / ice on the wings the crew should investigate, as in get off their bottoms and go look. Which, according to the description of events wasn't done.

To clarify - I can't imagine sitting in the cockpit and being informed that I have snow / ice on my wings and then using a weather report to determine if I am OK to go. Better to have a look, even if previously De-iced / Anti-iced.

When the Feds come knocking would you rather say:

- Well according to the weather report…

Or

- I took a look and saw no snow / ice buildup.

One answer lets you keep your ticket, the other is a roll of the dice.

[Just an Engineer]

411A, and your point being?

I thought we had already established in the first half of this long thread that current FAA regs do not allow any snow or ice deposits on the wings. Your re-print of the current weather conditions at the time simply offers more ‘evidence for the prosecution’ (Light snow and -4 temperatures).

Secondly some people here (And maybe the Iberia crew ?) are still advocating it maybe have been ‘light and fluffy and not adhering’ as a signal to go. Does that mean it will still be after you have taxied and queued to the hold with subsequent possible heating and freezing by jet blast ?

The current minimum standards have surely been built up due to numerous de-ice related fatalities. They have been designed to take the guess work out of the decision making process. If you have snow/ice on wings then you have no choice but to de-ice. Period.

[Jaxon]

Engineer,
Its the difference between suggesting "It was against the SOP" vs "It was unsafe". Its a big difference and one lost on the youngsters unable to comprehend the difference and getting hysterical.

[411A]

Its a big difference and one lost on the youngsters unable to comprehend the difference and getting hysterical.

So very true...:}

[Clandestino]

If you can break your SOP, in a safe manner, during normal operation, then your SOP is not worth the paper on which it's written. Good SOP is a practical guide on staying alive while getting the job done. Bad SOP is just a MGT @r$€-covering exercise.

It's irellevant what we'll call Iberia colleauges; cowboys, caballeros or highly experienced professionals. Also it's not of a much importance whether they broke FARs, JARs or SOPs. What matters is that if they really relied on airflow during takeoff to blow away all the loose snow on their wings, they have very unnecessarily increased chances of prematurely reuniting themselves, their CC and their PAX with their maker. By how much - well that's anyone's guess. There are not many test pilots willing to check out behaviour of airplane with ice-contaminated upper wing surface in actual flight conditions, therefore we have to rely on data from accident reports and they show that danger is very real, even if it's not easily quantifyable.

Granted, there will be some old-hands who will point out that small amount of loose snow that falls in sub-zero OAT, on sub-zero airframe will completely fall off the airplane during take-off roll. If that's really the method they've been using during their careeers, it just shows how lucky they were during their heyday.

[Jaxon]

If you can break your SOP, in a safe manner, during normal operation, then your SOP is not worth the paper on which it's written. Good SOP is a practical guide on staying alive while getting the job done. Bad SOP is just a MGT @r$€-covering exercise.

I think in terms of flight and flightdeck management you are mainly correct in that if an airline's specific SOPs are well made then crews will reliably stick to them, if they are not, then many crews will disregard the poorly conceived ones and make up their own. As a fleet manager in an airline you cannot throw your ego into dictating how you want YOUR airplane to be flown. You must make good procedures which stand up to the crews' scrutiny.

Regarding the modern clean aircraft concept, before its institution the only way to discover bad judgement was to crash a plane. This SOP is absolutely unnecessary for many or most of us, but its still a plenty smart SOP as it clearly saves the lives of those being flown by the few that cannot be relied upon to make the call.

But here is a little more food for thought: If you deice the cold airplane with a little bit of fresh dry snow on it, as I understand the flight in question to EXACTLY be, are you really safer - or perhaps have you just created a situation where each additional minute that passes before take-off is actually more dangerous? Where once you had cold dry snow left harmless and unadhering, now you have created a situation guaranteed to result in a badly iced up aircraft in a matter of minutes!!! What is the holdover time in best case at that temperature and in moderate snow??? It is an inexperienced pilot that gets a warm and fuzzy relaxed feeling that everything is now okay because they squirted fluid on your airplane.

Here's even more for you to chew on... you ARE a test pilot and you just don't know it. Complying with deicing procedures and using certain approved fluids has a known adverse affect that is presently unquantified and unaccounted for in any of your performance data but which degrades your performance in a measurable way (read: significant) yet still has no procedure to calculate and quantify the performance loss which is known to directly decrease the safety of your take-off... yet you feel safe just because you followed the SOP and left the gate with pretty colors dripping off your plane. Further more, trusting your highly trained :eek: deicing crew to use the proper fluid at the proper mix at the proper temperature in the proper application technique possibly has its risks - do you think?

[Jaxon]

Granted, there will be some old-hands who will point out that small amount of loose snow that falls in sub-zero OAT, on sub-zero airframe will completely fall off the airplane during take-off roll. If that's really the method they've been using during their careeers, it just shows how lucky they were during their heyday.

Show me a cold aircraft with cold dry snow that's not sticking and I'll show you a cold aircraft with cold dry snow that's not sticking!!!

You are silly or just plain oblivious to the fact to suggest that multitudes of pilots for many, many years and absolutely countless take-offs - and who enjoyed careers longer than your current age - were just lucky.

The SOP is a good one, but it doesn't have to necessarily be followed to be safe. The youngsters here should clue in that safe is not always legal and legal is not always safe.

[slip and turn]

Very interesting posts Jaxon. I can see your tongue buried deep in your cheek :}

So when and where do you get that piece of paper that says you are old and wise enough only to regard the rules as an elementary guide ? I imagine it must be an Inuit thing. Tell you what, if any A340 captain can name and describe all 547 different types of snow, then maybe some of us can accept that they might be half qualified on the 'wised-up enough to decline to deice when all about me are deicing' spectrum. The other half of the qualification is earned when said captain can correctly describe how their supercritical wing reacts with each type of snow in a complete range of pressures, temperatures and dewpoints and further precipitations, preferably without having conducted a career full of undocumented experiments with passengers down the back :p

[Jaxon]

So when and where do you get that piece of paper that says you are old and wise enough only to regard the rules as an elementary guide ?

When you are old enough, someone will come to your door and ask you three questions. Only then may you find yourself worthy of the certificate of Aged Wisdom.

Common sense has been outlawed and is no longer taught or supported, I got mine a long time ago and you can't have any! :E

I have only been so vocal about this because "unsafe" and "contrary to SOP" have been confused and common understanding from years past has been abandoned and taped over with an SOP. My point has not been about approving the violating of SOP. But since you mention it... I hope you realize that SOPs come in different sizes, some you can't get out of under any circumstances with the authorities, some can be violated as an acceptable deviation for "non-standard" situations. You only need the "Aged Wisdom" certificate along with your explanation. :ok:

[Clandestino]

So there we have it - two old, not bold, captains, well adjusted, respected among their peers and admired by their first officers telling us that what Iberia's crew allegedly did is just what they would do under the circumstances. Well, I'm not surprised since I've witnessed this practice too many times and it wasn't in some third world country unless such a contry has miraculously translated itself into the central Europe. And crews who refused to deice were not all hot-blooded southerners, there were cool-headed teutonic and nordic types too. Sadly, whenever I've seen it happening there was noone like LTD to warn the offending crews on frequency. Thank you for speaking up LightTwinDriver, I didn't have the courage to speak up when I should.

As for 'dry snow will blow off', the best advice about it is from the anectode I've heard: fairly young ATR captain comes to the plane that has been left on apron for hours. Snow has stopped but now there's light coating of powdery snow on the airplane. Up comes the mechanic and comments that they don't need to deice as the snow will blow off as soon as they start taxiing. To which the capt. responded:"So it will really come down easily? Great. Now get the broom and sweep all snow from the airplane so I can check what's beneath it and then I'll decide whether we need to deice or not." Mech replied:"You've got to be kidding, it would take me an hour to do that!". "Now would it be faster to just give me 50/50, single step?". It's probably apocryphal but it's a good story nevertheless.

So next time, when on CRM refresher you discuss about some unfortunate colleague of ours, whose last flight produced a massive accident report, bear in the mind the following:

1. There is a possibilty that a question "Why did he do that?" might have an answer: "Because he did it once, twice, five times or a hundred times before and got away with that. Every time except the last one."

2. Also: (qouted from http://www.skygod.com)Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes with every pilot we lose.

3. But also: (from 10-odd year old editorial in Flight International bemoaning the loss of lives in a spate of CFITs)
It seems that you can lead the pilots to the best practice, but you can not always make them follow it.

As for being test pilot with thickened de-icing fluids on the airframe, it's simply not true. Test flights do include checking influence of de-icing on airplane take-off performance. Problems that some aircraft experienced (e.g. Jumbolino and ATR) after they've been certified, were related to pooling of fluid in aerodinamically quiet areas of flight controls and not with fluids falling off non-uniformly or affecting the lift or drag of the wings. Years before ATR made it official, we were aware of heavier stick forces during rotation, caused by Type II/IV entering the slot between the elevator and the stabilizer. We increased Vr, applied performance penalties, briefed for PNF to assist with rotation and practiced assisted rotations on sim, but in my five winters on ATR, I have never had to call out "PULL,PULL,PULL!!!" or have been called to pull.

When you are old enough, someone will come to your door and ask you three questions

Or, alternatively: when you are not quite old enough, you find yourself knocking on the heaven's gate. St. Peter comes out and asks about your age, occupation and how did you get here. As you start talking about that uncounterable roll just after take off, he stops you and says:"Sorry, son, you've missed the gate. Delivery boys enter through the back door."

[amos2]

So, let me get this straight...

"safe is not always legal" and...

"legal is not always safe"...

err!...yeah!...I got that!...hmm!...well, I think I got that.

...no, I don't think I did!

But, maybe that's because I'm just a youngster!

As Pauline Hanson would say, "please explain?"

[Hand Solo]

But here is a little more food for thought: If you deice the cold airplane with a little bit of fresh dry snow on it, as I understand the flight in question to EXACTLY be, are you really safer - or perhaps have you just created a situation where each additional minute that passes before take-off is actually more dangerous? Where once you had cold dry snow left harmless and unadhering, now you have created a situation guaranteed to result in a badly iced up aircraft in a matter of minutes!!! What is the holdover time in best case at that temperature and in moderate snow???

Goodness do you really believe that? Apart from making the huge assumption that this was initially all light snow that wouldn't adhere to the wing you go on to build in another assumption that anything falling afterwards will not adhere either. Thats a huge gamble when nobody can go out and check whether the new stuff is the right kind of snow. I'd rather de-ice then anti ice and have a reasonble idea of my holdover time than cross my fingers and hope that everything thats fallen since the last external check will be good to me.

[Jaxon]

So there we have it - two old, not bold, captains, well adjusted, respected among their peers and admired by their first officers telling us that what Iberia's crew allegedly did is just what they would do under the circumstances. Well, I'm not surprised since I've witnessed this practice too many times and it wasn't in some third world country unless such a contry has miraculously translated itself into the central Europe.

Well, actually, that's EXACTLY what an entire industry did not that long ago. Look, check, decide. You are obviously too young to know any better and happy to not have to think, just squirt. I'd put words into your mouth like you've tried to do to me but then I realize that everybody would see the deceit since they're all right here, why don't you?

[Jaxon]

Goodness do you really believe that? Apart from making the huge assumption that this was initially all light snow that wouldn't adhere to the wing you go on to build in another assumption that anything falling afterwards will not adhere either. Thats a huge gamble when nobody can go out and check whether the new stuff is the right kind of snow. I'd rather de-ice then anti ice and have a reasonble idea of my holdover time than cross my fingers and hope that everything thats fallen since the last external check will be good to me.

Gosh, I don't know what to tell you :rolleyes:, I just know that if I pull into the gate for a quick turn and it starts a little snowing 20 minutes before departure, and the temperature is real cold... on the plane, around the plane, and above the plane for a long long way into the sky... and no warm airmass happens to be just moving in... and no other condition is melting anything... then YES! I feel pretty darn good about knowing EXACTLY the condition of my wing on taxi and take-off. Amazing! Aren't I?! It isn't even a question once you get rolling away from the wind break of the terminal as its all wafted away before reaching the runway. If it hasn't, its either dead calm and you taxi real slow, or your judgement just failed you and fresh dry loose snow it isn't.

For the record, far be it from me to disregard the SOP in question its too sensitive an issue, common sense on this issue has been abandoned and I have no need to fight the system on it.

[Hand Solo]

Gosh you are amazing aren't you. If you don't know what to tell me you could start by explaining what relevance your 20 minute turnaround has to a thread on turning around an A340 thats been cold soaking for the last 7 hours. Perhaps you can explain how your aircraft is immune to icing in the vicinity of the sub zero fuel pooling in the tanks at the bottom of the wing. Simple physics tells me that you don't need a warm air mass or precipitation to get condensation on the wings, you just need the wing to be colder than the surrounding air, which is pretty easy if you have a thick wing and a long time to cool it. You'll get condensation above the wing as well as below and if you have snow falling onto that then it isn't dry fluffy snow any more, it's wet snow at the interface, and unless somebody has gone up there and scraped it all off you don't know whats adhering beneath. Recently, mindful of this thread, I sat in my flight deck and looked hard at the upper wing surfaces of an adjacent Iberia A346 just to check what could be seen. Not only is the visibility good but I concluded that if you could actually see deposits on the top there would have to be a lot of them there, and not the kind that'll blow away with a bit of a breeze.

[Jaxon]

Wow! You have hoar frost removed from the underside of your wings?
I've never really seen that done.

If your convoluted and confused "physics" were true, we'd have one hell of a lot of freezing condensation all winter long to wash off even without the precipitation. Start thinking about why that doesn't tend to happen the way you envision.

[rogerg]

jaxon
You might well be right, but I am glad I dont have to fly with a dangerous expert like you.

[Hand Solo]

No Jaxon you don't remove hoar frost from under your wings. You do remove the clear ice ridges which form when the hoar frost melts at the outer edges, runs down the wings and refreezes on the colder inner wing. Or perhaps you think you don't need to remove that either?

Nothing convoluted or confused about my physics, it's high school physics 101stuff. If you introduce an object into an air mass and that object is colder than the dew point of the air mass water will condense on it. Thats why your specs steam up when you walk into a warm building on a cold day and they don't clear until your specs warm to above the dew point of the air mass. There are plenty of big wings out there that have liquid condensation on them on the turnaround. If it doesn't freeze you don't have a problem, but if it was there to start with you can't realistically claim that light 'dry' snow that falls on it remains dry any more than I can stand in a puddle and tell you that my shoes are dry even though the soles are wet.

[fendant]

Folks,

have a look at the challenger crash in Almaty thread. Things CAN go wrong in bad weather at take off, Olé!

Frank

[Just an Engineer]

Jaxon

Well, actually, that's EXACTLY what an entire industry did not that long ago. Look, check, decide. You are obviously too young to know any better and happy to not have to think, just squirt.


And that is EXACTLY why we have had so many fatalities in the past.

Let’s be clear, a crash due to icing conditions is a completely avoidable accident and as such should be one of the easiest to prevent….On the ground, no flying pressures….ice/snow on wings ? - De-ice

We are supposed to be trying to improve safety here not having an ego competition based on previous old and bold de-cing procedures. The game is risk management.

Gosh, I don't know what to tell you, I just know that if I pull into the gate for a quick turn and it starts a little snowing 20 minutes before departure, and the temperature is real cold... on the plane, around the plane, and above the plane for a long long way into the sky... and no warm airmass happens to be just moving in... and no other condition is melting anything... then YES! I feel pretty darn good about knowing EXACTLY the condition of my wing on taxi and take-off.

And after you queue to the hold and unexpectedly get wafted by the nice gentle warm blast of the aircraft in front of you….. Now EXACTLY what is the condition of your wing ??

[wiccan]

Sorry, but I am just an 'umble ATCer/SLF...touching forelock....:-)
According to the AIB reports wot I have read. IF a "light a/c flies through a "Heavy Rainstorm", the pilot/engineer should re-lubricate the Flight Surface hinges/linkages, ASAP.
As an "assumption", one would think that this is SOP "accross the board"....so that any "DRY" snow which lodges in the hinge area could freeze as being in contact with the lubricant, and of course any "Fluid" contaminated surfaces. Or am I Totally and Utterly wrong?
bb

[Just an Engineer]

According to the AIB reports wot I have read. IF a "light a/c flies through a "Heavy Rainstorm", the pilot/engineer should re-lubricate the Flight Surface hinges/linkages, ASAP. As an "assumption", one would think that this is SOP "accross the board"....so that any "DRY" snow which lodges in the hinge area could freeze as being in contact with the lubricant, and of course any "Fluid" contaminated surfaces. Or am I Totally and Utterly wrong?

As nobody else has answered this yet…

There is no requirement on larger aircraft that I have worked on to re-lubricate hinges after flying through heavy rain. I suspect this is due to light aircraft having simpler/cheaper hinge mechanisms that are more susceptible to ice freezing etc.

[naceur]

imagine the plane crashed, that could happen
the discussion will be different
never pull the devil from the tail
extrados should be perfectly clean
our lives depend on this
as a captain i will accept any remark coming from anyone
why not
one day it happened to me during a winter stop in finland
after inspection i decided not to deice
one of the ground staff invited me to check the extrados
i did on his ladder
almost half an inch non visible ice glued to the wings
we deiced and get back home safely
many thanks to this guy
sorry about my poor english

[Empty Cruise]

How many aircraft have been lost due to lack of anti-icing application?

How many aircraft have been lost due to anti-icing application (apart from light-SEP-types trying on type II/IV for size)?

If I'm a test pilot when I depart with thickened fluids on the wings - so is everyone else doing it - and hey, we've not lost an aircraft for that reason ever.

Part of the Aged Wisdom Certificate exam is the ability to

a) Respect empirical evidence, and
b) Multiply the likelyhood of an event with its worst possible outcome and then make a timely decision.

Good luck with the re-sit :ok:

[Tandemrotor]

naceur

Good and pertinent post. Ice is frequently invisible to anyone viewing from more than 2 or 3 feet away. Sometimes only touching will do!

Good English too.

[411A]

According to the AIB reports wot I have read.



The AIB don't manufacture aeroplanes nor do they write the maintenance specifications.
As such, their 'recommendations' aren't worth the paper they're printed on in this regard to light aircraft.:}

IE: totally unnecessary with US manufactured types, others, possibly.:ugh:

[M.Mouse]

And with that post 411A sums up nicely why so many of us read his posts and quickly move on having decided there is no end to his pompous, arrogant and generally wrong ideas.

[SR71]

Whats the aeronautical equivalent of sailing close to the wind?

A number of contributors don't seem to be familiar with the metaphor.

:}

[Ashling]

There will always be those too arrogant to appreciate their own fallibility. This thread illustrates this quite nicely as a number of people seem to live under the dillusion that the whole clean wing concept is an over reaction to cater for those with less judgement than their own. Given the proven severity of a mis judgement in this area I find their approach alarming at best.

[FullWings]

There will always be those too arrogant to appreciate their own fallibility. This thread illustrates this quite nicely as a number of people seem to live under the dillusion that the whole clean wing concept is an over reaction to cater for those with less judgement than their own. Given the proven severity of a mis judgement in this area I find their approach alarming at best.
Well said!

I am quite amazed by some of the posts on this thread, in the vein of "we got away with it (sometimes :rolleyes: ) in the past, what's the problem?"

Every aircraft manufacturer, aviation authority and airline of any note have unequivocally laid down procedures (and the law) to be followed in the event of frozen deposits on the airframe, i.e. get rid of it all except for certain types in very limited specified areas. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Jaxon]

To amos2,

My pleasure:
Perhaps the easiest example I can make is actually quite routine - and it is your duty/rest requirements. (Somebody correct me if you are an experienced pilot who has never experienced either of the two following situations…) …when you and perhaps your whole crew would have been quite able to safely exceed one such limit or another yet did not for the obvious legal reasons; conversely, has anybody not found themselves in a situation where continued duty was within the legal limits but you and/or others of your crew were entering an unsafe condition of fatigue?

How about a flight where your medical expired a couple days ago and you are now illegal to fly – are you going to call this unsafe, or is it just illegal?

How about taking 12 weeks off for a grand vacation and without much thought, beginning your return to the cockpit with a freshly minted new guy with unbelievably little experience and speaking with a very difficult accent… and the weather is looking pretty rough… and there is some MEL item in play that has a significant procedure you are unfamiliar with… …and, and, and… all of this is legal – but is it safe?



Hand solo, and others,

Consider this:

Sitting at the terminal (with a clean aircraft) in Boston one cold day, I notice that it has started to snow, the snow, airframe skin, fuel, OAT from the surface on up are all –8*C or colder. The wind is 320/15kts. The terminal is acting as a wind block and the snow is settling onto the aircraft…

…sitting at the next gate over is a guy who uses the term “cheerio” even when not talking about a breakfast cereal. He faces the same conditions and requests deicing, and we both begin a taxi to the active at the same time…

…as we clear the terminal ramp and receive the full prevailing wind our airframe is relieved of the fresh snow that had settled on us at the gate and the snow begins to intensify – yet our cold and dry airframe gives no hold for the cold flakes blowing over and around us, we could sit out here for an hour and have no change in our airworthiness what-so-ever…

Now, who is in a safer condition as 15 minutes (or more) tick by before ‘line up’, the bloke who had his aircraft squirted with fluid and is now a snow magnet hoping he will get airborne before the whole mixture starts to freeze on his aircraft – or the “cowboy” who has no questions about airframe ice or holdover time?



rogerg:

The exact scene above has played out countless times, obviously, a lot more in the past with the advent of the ‘catchall’ SOPs in place today. Deicing by definition requires snow/ice to actually be present on the airframe, yet today we see clean airframes getting hosed down simply because some snow is falling. Anti-icing is supposed to keep the stuff from adhering to the airframe – yet today we routinely turn clean airframes into ticking time bombs caught in a race to get airborne… all because it makes certain pilots feel they’ve covered their ass and can’t be accused of being a “cowboy”.

You took a cheap shot at me, which was just all too easy to do but perhaps very difficult to support. Well, can you – support it?


Anybody who is still reading:

Its easy as a pilot to grab onto the SOP, wrap yourself in a blanket that says "safe", and declare anything else to be "unsafe". It goes straight to the heart of an important pilot skill where quickly boiling a situation down to the key question(s) most relevant to managing the flight is what the situation calls for. It makes sense to rely on your SOPs and their proper application in the cockpit and not waste time trying to dissect the reasoning and validity of them. Since as you read this you must now be free of your flight duties you should feel free to think and dissect. From what I read from a few here some people demonstrate no ability to measure and value safety and consider the shades of gray. They are the ones who would judge 24 hours of rest to be safer than 23 and have no ability to figure out how insignificant that distinction would generally be. They might even declare 23 hours of rest to therefore be unsafe.

Happy New Year

“Cowboys are people too”
“Flying will never be safe, but perhaps it can be safe enough”

[Jaxon]

I am quite amazed by some of the posts on this thread, in the vein of "we got away with it (sometimes :rolleyes: ) in the past, what's the problem?"

Every aircraft manufacturer, aviation authority and airline of any note have unequivocally laid down procedures (and the law) to be followed in the event of frozen deposits on the airframe, i.e. get rid of it all except for certain types in very limited specified areas. What's so hard to understand about that?

Perhaps you are referring to me? :rolleyes:

Your characterization of "got away with it" is just trash talk.
If you take the care to read you can find quite reasonable explanation - and perhaps just a little enlightenment.
The SOP saves us from the few bad decisions that can have fatal consequences while also prohibiting a reasonable and in some cases better course of action. So be it. I comply. I have merely let myself get sucked into this whole out of control thread because a certain mob tried to hang a colleague without a fair trial.

[J.O.]

Sorry Jaxon, but I have to call BS on your argument that the fuel temperature is below -8 C in those conditions. I haven't seen fuel temperatures from the bowser go below freezing in 15 years, and that was with an ambient of -20C or less, not -8C. It just doesn't happen. Please stop making excuses for an action which is not in keeping with best safety practices. You are not making any converts here.

[Jaxon]

J.O.
I'll call BS to your BS. I see it all the time. Are you island hopping in the Carribean? I had a low bulk fuel temperature warning once in cruise last winter, what temperature do you think that juice was an hour after landing?

[J.O.]

How many times do you not add at least 5 times as much fuel to the tanks as you have left on board prior to the next leg? It doesn't happen in my world and the world that the vast majority of airline pilots do their work. And since almost all fuel from the bowser comes in at above freezing, the wings will warm up with that fuel, providing a nice place for falling snow to melt and then freeze in the ambient temperature. There is no way that the Iberia flight didn't add at least 40 tonnes of fuel at probably + 5 C or higher so the point is moot in this case. And once again, please stop trying to make excuses for bad decisions that don't lead to accidents.

[FullWings]

Jaxon,

My comments weren't aimed at you in particular but I think I will have to reply to your most recent post.

Now, who is in a safer condition as 15 minutes (or more) tick by before ‘line up’, the bloke who had his aircraft squirted with fluid and is now a snow magnet hoping he will get airborne before the whole mixture starts to freeze on his aircraft – or the “cowboy” who has no questions about airframe ice or holdover time?

Oh dear.

An aircraft that has been "squirted with fluid" is in a known state and has been through certification trials like this. It is not a safety issue. Also, anti-icing fluid is not known to regularly freeze solid on wing surfaces.

If the fuel in the wings is colder than the dewpoint, you'll get frost forming top and bottom...

…as we clear the terminal ramp and receive the full prevailing wind our airframe is relieved of the fresh snow that had settled on us at the gate and the snow begins to intensify – yet our cold and dry airframe gives no hold for the cold flakes blowing over and around us, we could sit out here for an hour and have no change in our airworthiness what-so-ever…

F**k! :eek: I'm lost for words on that one...

There's no such thing as 100% safety without locking the hangar doors and throwing away the key. However, there need not be any more contamination related accidents if pilots just followed 'clean wing' principles to the letter; this is one thing in aviation which (pretty much :rolleyes: ) everybody agrees on.

As pilots, we just don't have enough information, both in terms of exactly what the extent and type of the contamination is and what effect(s) it will have on the airframe. So we de-ice, then maybe anti-ice as well to get back to a known state where we can apply holdover times, etc.

If you're still not convinced, talk to an aerodynamicist or a performance engineer and see their hair stand on end...

[Jaxon]

To what temperature does anything that isn't warm blooded or radioactive adjust to and stabilize at?

If an aircraft cold soaks for 12 hours on a ramp at -10*C, exactly WHAT temperature do YOU think that plane and everything in it is busy stabilizing at?

If you spend many hours cooling the fuel in your tanks to -25*C and then refuel from a truck that is holding fuel that has stabilized at the average ambient temperature of say... -5*C... would you care to guess what temperature range your fuel will be upon refueling?

[Jaxon]

As pilots, we just don't have enough information, both in terms of exactly what the extent and type of the contamination is and what effect(s) it will have on the airframe. So we de-ice, then maybe anti-ice as well to get back to a known state where we can apply holdover times, etc.

If you're still not convinced, talk to an aerodynamicist or a performance engineer and see their hair stand on end...

What do you not understand???
I've stated I support the SOP for its improvement in the overall safety statistics.
I've stated I do not and have not taken chances with contaminated flight surfaces.

I understand that you were raised with the comfortable blanket of having the decision made for you with the SOP and that making the decision I've made example of is beyond the cover of your blanket with which you feel so safe. I have observed the transition to this attitude you have across the younger ranks which has been artificially created by the SOP. Just as automation dilutes pilot skill, the SOP here has diluted your ability to see and think outside the little box you feel comfortable in. It doesn't much matter in that the SOP rules, right? It only matters when the inability to see outside the little SOP box has you crucifying a colleague with a label of "unsafe" - when in fact he may have been safer and just more experienced.

[Clandestino]

Guys, you're simply not living in a Jaxonworld; where every snowflake is perfectly dry and simply falls off the airframe as soon as the take-off roll is started, where you can have either snowfall or frost but not both of them at the same time, where fuel in the bowser is always below -5° C; where SOPs are just for the feeble-minded unable to make decisions for their own, where flightcrews are so underworked that reducing their rest period has no effect on their fatigue or subsequently on the safety of the flightops, where flying with expired medical is not a big deal - hey it's just illegal and not unsafe.

However, in the real world, many people were saved from suffering the massive blunt force trauma by the requirement that V2 has to be at least 1.2 Vs of the clean wing, for given weight and flaps, so they got away even when they were unknowingly flying at anywhere between 1.19 and 1.01 of actual Vs for 'slightly' iced wing.

EDIT: Of course, in the real world there are not many pilots who use V2min as their V2 and there are even less of them who stick to V2 at climb-out. And this increased margin may reinforce the belief that every tiny bit of snow falls off, since rotation and climb-out feel normal.

[Hand Solo]

Good post! Lets take a small wager here. Who thinks that Jaxon has any experience flying a big jet with a critical wing? I've got ten of her Majestys finest pounds that this joker hasn't flown anything bigger than a Seneca at a flying school. This guys blatant lack of knowledge of icing conditions and basic physics tells me he's a danger to himself and anyone who has the misfortune to be on any aircraft he flies.

[Hand Solo]

Just to add some flesh to the bones of my previous post:
Sitting at the terminal (with a clean aircraft) in Boston one cold day, I notice that it has started to snow, the snow, airframe skin, fuel, OAT from the surface on up are all –8*C or colder.
How do you know the temperature of the snow?
How do you know the temperature of the airframe skin, given that no aircraft other than experimental types have airframe skin temperature sensors?
…as we clear the terminal ramp and receive the full prevailing wind our airframe is relieved of the fresh snow that had settled on us at the gate
How do you know you were 'relieved' of the fresh snow and it has not simply melted, or perhaps thawed and refrozen?
the snow begins to intensify – yet our cold and dry airframe gives no hold for the cold flakes blowing over and around us, we could sit out here for an hour and have no change in our airworthiness what-so-ever…
Are you cold and dry? Or are you cold and wet? Have you been out to check? What if you were wet and are still -8C and have now frozen?
Now, who is in a safer condition as 15 minutes (or more) tick by before ‘line up’, the bloke who had his aircraft squirted with fluid and is now a snow magnet hoping he will get airborne before the whole mixture starts to freeze on his aircraft – or the “cowboy” who has no questions about airframe ice or holdover time?
To repeat what was previously said, the guy who has had his 'squirt' and is in a known condition is far safer than the cowboy who is applying all manner of false logic and bad science to convince himself that he knows his wing icing state.
Jaxon everything I read that you post further convinces me that you really have very little understanding of basic science and airframe icing. I can only hope that whoever is in the other seat of the aircraft you fly knows more than you.

[FullWings]

I understand that you were raised with the comfortable blanket of having the decision made for you with the SOP and that making the decision I've made example of is beyond the cover of your blanket with which you feel so safe.
When the blanket that's covering me is made of snow & ice, I feel no great need to innovate.
I have observed the transition to this attitude you have across the younger ranks which has been artificially created by the SOP. Just as automation dilutes pilot skill, the SOP here has diluted your ability to see and think outside the little box you feel comfortable in. It doesn't much matter in that the SOP rules, right?
I can see "out of the box" in this example and I don't like what's there. This particular SOP has been bought with lives of many people; when those involved in the design, certification and technical operation of airframes are all stressing the utmost importance of a clean wing, you're a fool if you don't listen, to put it bluntly.
It only matters when the inability to see outside the little SOP box has you crucifying a colleague with a label of "unsafe" - when in fact he may have been safer and just more experienced.
And just what sort of experience can be gained when flying a large jet transport that would enable you to make a rational decision about de-icing or not when you have snow, etc. on the aeroplane?

The whole point is that you do not and I would go as far as to say can not know what the effects of even a small amount of contamination will be on the airframe, especially if it is asymmetric in its deposition. If you take off under these conditions you are playing with the lives of those you are charged with protecting, for no good reason. I believe the word "cowboy" is appropriate in these circumstances.

[PJ2]

Reply to post #491;

Jaxon;

JO is spot on and I support the views expressed without hesitation. I've never seen fuel out of the ground (and into either the wings or the bowser then the wings) below about 5C or so and that's in Toronto in mid-winter.

Yes, the skin of an aircraft which has just arrived will be very cold indeed and the fuel will be cold-soaked to well below zero. JO points out correctly, that, depending upon the load, adding fuel will of course warm the fuel somewhat. As FullWings states correctly, one cannot be certain what is going on underneath any layer of snow on the wings when at the gate or taxiing out, the crew cannot be certain what any warming of the wings due to uploaded fuel may do, if indeed anything. There are few experts in the cockpit and I venture to say none in training departments who would today pronounce a wing clean "underneath" a light dusting of snow. I recognize that you acknowledge this.

One item which perhaps has not been touched upon is the recirculation of fuel through the IDG Cooling System (heat exchanger) on (at least) the CFM56 installations on the A320, (not sure of others, including Boeing). After engine start, fuel is circulated from the engine high pressure line through the IDG heat exchanger to keep the IDG cool especially at low engine rpm, and is then returned to the outer tanks, (inner tanks on the A330/340), of course warmer than before. The notion has been expressed elsewhere, that even with dry snow and a piercing cold wing, fuel so warmed will in time and where direct contact is had, (which is almost always the case as the outer tanks are always filled and used last), warm the metal and melt the snow until subsequent cold temperatures just above the surface of the wing re-freeze the liquid leaving ice on the wing underneath the "light" snow. I have had discussions on this matter with other Airbus pilots and the concern is especially the outer portion of the wing being susceptible to stall before the inner portion. I add that I know of no cases where this has occurred but we are not experts and must work in a rule-based system.

I understand what you are driving at in various posts and have both heard it said by Captains I used to fly with and have made such a decision myself dozens of years ago on cold wings, very cold day, light, dry snow conditions, (-30 to -40C). It is a decision which at the time, seemed reasonable. Today it is not. I know of no research, no incidents and no concerns backed up with data (and not just opinions, professional or otherwise), that an aircraft wing can be considered contaminated when sprayed with any type of fluid or gel.

After aircraft were caught and the crews (Captain) charged by the Transport Canada "Ice Police" in Toronto for departing with contaminated wings, that was the end of any such "specialist" cockpit decision that the snow will blow off, and today departing with anything on the wings at all is inviting swift and opprobrious remark at best and an accident with enormous liabilities at worst. It simply is not done anymore and anyone who does not speak up is contributing to the outcome. If IB (or any other airline or crew) is embarrassed or unfairly charged in absentia by an anonymous forum it is still far better than killing an airplane load of people over respect for professional courtesy. Virgil Moshansky among many, would concur.

Now I hear your protests regarding adherence to SOPs and respect the fact that you agree with them. So be it. Why continue to defend the indefensible?

[PeePeerune]

transfer remaining wing fuel into ctr tank.leaving enough for apu running if req'd then uplift warmer fuel into wings.?????????

(well warmer than say -9 )

[PJ2]

Understand the notion. Impractical and non-standard Airbus fueling and tank configuration, (Center-wing fuel would have to be transferred out to go somewhere and typical turn-around times are far too tight for such fiddling. Center-tank fuel on the 320 is rarely used except on long-haul, (typically five hours +)).

PJ2

[RatherBeFlying]

Some years before the '89 Dryden accident and the ensuing clean wing concept, a friend of mine related that when he was SLFing BOS-YYZ on Air Canada, the DC-9 stopped before the runway, the rear exit stairs came down and a pilot went out and ran his hand over the wing.

He expressed the feeling that there should be instruments to detect surface contamination. I told him that there aren't any and that the AC crew was doing exactly the right thing, especially the part about checking just before takeoff:ok:

Since then SOPs and regs have changed to now exclude conditions experienced crews formerly accepted and successfully flew in.

Yes, de/anti-icing may be used more often than strictly necessary. If every ten years or so, it prevents another Dryden, it's worth it.

Sadly last year another Fokker was unsuccessful in taking off Collision between Air France Fokker and truck in PAU (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=261410&highlight=dryden)

[safetypee]

Many aspects of flight safety relating to decisions taken on the ground before flight are revisited here:- The Decision To Fly (www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/publications/tp185/4-07/winter-operations.htm)

[captjns]

At the end of the day... how much money is coming out of our pockets to deice the jet. Is it really worth the distraction of safety of operation if you even have the least doubt as to whether or not to deice? Do you think the bean counters upstairs really take notice on who deices and who does not?

One could say, although I don't care for the description, is that SOPs are designed to protect us, our crews, passengers, and aircraft from ourselves from going into business for ourselves.

SOPs instill disciplines required to maintain a safe operation from report of duty to end of duty... which such details are covered in the non-normal section of the FCOM.

To one and all... be safe out there during this winter flying season.

[lomapaseo]

At the end of the day... how much money is coming out of our pockets to deice the jet. Is it really worth the distraction of safety of operation if you even have the least doubt as to whether or not to deice? Do you think the bean counters upstairs really take notice on who deices and who does not?



Forget about money as a considertion in day to day operations. The interim measure that affects most decisions is allocation of personel and equipment and that most often relates to an easy measure of time in the minds of all directly involved .

That's where the pinch point really is.

(I'm not arguing for or against a decision, but just pointing out a measuring tool)

[K21]

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?&aircraft_genericsearch=Airbus%20A340-600&airlinesearch=Iberia%7CCorse%20Air%20International%20%28Iber ia%29&nr_of_rows=478&first_this_page=15&page_limit=15&sort_order=photo_id+DESC&thumbnails=&engine_version=6.0&nr_pages=32&page=
Just check this link to airliners.net. They don`t manage rainy conditions, so one day they won`t manage snow either!

[JRHeilig]

Attitudes like yours are why hundreds of people sometimes die in airliner crashes. Suppose it were the FO who questioned. If company policy (like that of Korean Air) told him or her to simply sit there and shut up and take orders from the captain, would it have been wrong of him or her to pipe up? I'd have unbuckled and walked out the door.

Safety is EVERYBODY's business (ever heard that phrase before?). Just because you have the right as captain to do something stupid doesn't absolve me of the right and duty to point it out.

Honestly, ground should have not allowed him to push back unless he'd de-iced under those conditions.

JH

[joehunt]

lomapaseo

Slightly off topic here but cant resist.


".........to deice the jet"

Now are we talking about the engine (jet), the aircraft or have you been watching that top gun film too often?

[Yomomma]

Living life to the CLMAX, risky business....bagsy not, if in doubt shout...:D

[Dream Land]

Attention MS students:
This is a JET:http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/180MPH/Jetjpg.jpg
This is a Jet Engine:http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/180MPH/engine.jpg:}:}

[joehunt]

Jolly good

Saw the photo of the jet and the jet engine. Then where is the aircraft? Well I take it it's not a helicopter, so it must be an a/c, right?

[Plastic Bug]

JRHeilig:

There is only one Captain.

That's how it works.

You don't like it?

Don't travel.

This thread tires me.

Somebody please kill it.

PB

[4potflyer]

jr heileg

I suggest checking the FARs. IIRC Atc don't get to say the plane cannot go. Obviously Atc poked as hard as they could including relaying Ltd's concerns.

The final decision rests with the captn.

[J.O.]

There is only one Captain.

That's how it works.

You don't like it?

Don't travel.

This thread tires me.

Somebody please kill it.

PB

And any culture that allows the Captain to make bad decisions unchallenged is a culture that will have more accidents. You don't believe it? There are many accident reports that bear it out. And if the thread really tires you, stop reading it!

[manrow]

Now we are approaching the crunch issue!

Just because one member of the crew makes an error of judgement does the other HAVE to follow? That is why he is there I thought but then I am not Solomon!!

In a way glad to hear captains can make mistakes...........

[Miraculix]

Going out of CPH ( Copenhagen Denmark ) today january 5'th a rain shower passed. Unfortunately it was with freezing rain, leaving a thin layer of about 1 to 2 millimeters of clear ice on everything.

Transavia called for push, (at that time, it was pure mayham on the frequency, because everyone wanted to get to deicing) CPH ground asked if HV5788 needed deicing, to everyones surprice they said no! :eek:

The only aircraft to leave without deicing, so maybe it somehow avoided the freezing rainshower... :hmm:

[The Bartender]

The only aircraft to leave without deicing, so maybe it somehow avoided the freezing rainshower... :hmm:

That phenomena is more common than you dare imagine... :rolleyes: