Cabin crew face trial after speaking up about icing on the wing

[sean1982]

"Three US Airways flight attendants are facing a law suit filed by their pilot collegue demanding 2 million US$ in compensation for defamation, after they spoke up before departure on Jan 24th 2003, when they noticed ice accumulation on the wings of their airplane, which was to perform flight America West HP-851 from Calgary,AB (Canada) to Phoenix,AZ (USA). It took the common effort of all three flight attendants and three attempts, before the flight crew unwillingly agreed to de-ice the airplane. The airplane reached Phoenix on time and without incident.

The flight attendants reported the case to the FAA, which dropped proceedings against the pilots in 2006 stating, that they couldn't substantiate the allegations even though that doesn't mean, that they wouldn't believe the flight attendants. The first officer, put in charge by the captain to decide about de-icing, hired an attorney to represent him before the FAA, which cost him around 21000 US$. The first officer filed a law suit requesting 2 million US$ from the flight attendants in 2006.

US Airways let the flight attendants know, that they are on their own for that law suit, and wouldn't carry the bills for legal representation, even though they were on duty and following required crew cooperation procedures to ensure safety of flight.

Unknown to the flight attendants, Calgary Airport had filed an irregularity report as well, as ground staff had observed contamination of the wings and approached the flight crew asking, whether de-icing would be needed and received a blunt no.

The first officer admitted in a court deposition into the trial against the flight attendants, that there was frost on the wings of the aircraft indeed, but denied, that they were approached by the flight attendants until after having pushed back.


I wonder what implications this is going to have on future situations like this ? :eek:

[TLBird]

CRM?
Sounds like the bad old days . Well done to the CC for speaking up and being heard.:ok:

[Otto Throttle]

So the icing/frost wasn't reported until after pushback. So what? I dare say that would be because up until that point the CC were busy with their primary duty of boarding pax and securing the cabin.

:ugh:

[Centreline747]

Better safe than sorry!! Well done to the CC. Hope they win this ludicrous lawsuit. :ok:

Rgds

CL747

[suchiman]

Only in the USA. Well done F/A's!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Why have the pilot management not taken this idiot aside and told him to wind his neck in for being a total and utter tool.

So much for CRM, I hope the FA's give him an absolute kicking.

Good old USAirways, doing the right thing by their crews by letting this happen and then not backing them up.

I wouldn't want to drink that F/O's coffee by mistake......

[lomapaseo]

Threats of law suits are just that "threats"

The flight sounds like both sides were correct and we have no other way of judging.

he said -she said-they said. One sided cherry picked words hyped by the press.

I'll wait and see what the court decides if it even goes that far before it's dropped.

[TimGriff6]

'The first officer, put in charge by the captain to decide about de-icing, hired an attorney to represent him before the FAA, which cost him around 21000 US$'

Shall I be a pilot or an attorney - tough call, that one!

[Centreline747]

The Attorneys must be the biggest 'winners' in these pathetic lawsuits. :=
....and shamefully are becoming more common-place in the UK

Rgds

CL747

[turbocharged]

If Calgary filed an irregularity report then doesn't this add weight to the FAs' claims?

How did the FAA/company deal with the Calgary report?

Why didn't the FAs use the company safety reporting system?

Why was the FO dropped in the poo? Why didn't the Captain have to defend himself before the FAA?

How did the company deal with the Captain?

How does reporting a failure to act constitute 'defamation'. LOSA has revealed that pilots miss 50% of the errors they make. Is a LOSA observer open to a defamation charge by noting an omission by the crew?

All a bit of a mess.

[captplaystation]

"the First Officer put IN CHARGE by the Capt to decide about de-icing" ? ? ?

WTF was the Capt thinking I wonder, or he was in the rest room ? :rolleyes:

As the aircraft rolls gracefully over on it's back @100ft perhaps he would have cause to ponder the abdication of responsibility. There is delegation and then. . . . . something else.
Fair enough if what actually happened was that he delegated the identification of whether contamination was present to the guy doing the walkround, which may be what they meant to say, quite another if he let him make the "decision" on whether they should do something about it.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

All seems very odd this.

Firstly, since when can a Captain defer his legal responsibility to ensure the safe operation of his flight as is required under his command.

Secondly, I've never heard of an accident caused by de-icing, there have certainly been ones caused by icing, so why take the risk ? If it was caused by commercial pressure then that is a Captain's decision.

What a truly bizarre and petty case this is. Anyone who knows even the slightest thing about Kegworth will see the foolhardiness of the situation. Hopefully the F/O gets taken to the cleaners.

[Left Coaster]

Last time I looked, Canada has a "zero tolerance" policy on wing contamination. In addition, to operate into Canada, any foreign carrier must have an Operations Specification awarded by the regulator (Transport Canada) which stipulates that the operator MUST abide by Canadian regs, which (if the statements are true) puts the Flight deck boys in the poo...you cannot avoid de icing if it has been brought to your attention by a qualified observer. In this case it would seem to be someone on the ground in Calgary, plus the cabin crew...maybe this so called law suit is a red herring to obfuscate any real evidence...you know, the ole baffle em with BS trick?

[flyblue]

It looks like the story of the Dryden accident except for the fact that this time the there was no final hole in the swiss cheese (and no accident) because the CC spoke up.
If the story is as the article states, it is really weird that the companies involved didn't realize the implications/precedents it sets in the CRM field.

[Graybeard]

"The flight attendants reported the pilot to the FAA after the aircraft was deiced and flew safely to PHX. Vengeful act?"

Uh, just how would they report to the FAA - BEFORE - arriving safely in PHX?

Yeh, just maybe the F/O resented being told his job, triggering an exchange of unkind words.

GB

[ManaAdaSystem]

What type of aircraft was this? 737's are now allowed to depart with frost on the upper part of the wing, as long as it's within a defined area. Of course each operator need approval for this procedure, but Boeing says it's OK.

[RAT 5]

Where is the captain in all of this? Has the F/O consulted him. For sure he will be called to testify before any hearing. If it is this serious why are the pilots not joining forces in this suit, or is it that the captain represented himself at the FAA & thus had no costs? How come the FAA could not substantiate anything if Calgary also filed a report? There was written evidence of their observation. There seems to be a few hidden facts which would help clarify the matter.

[autothrottle]

In my opinion the Flightdeck crew showed negligence in this matter. If cabin crew are unhappy about wing contamination, you de-ice...simple. They are part of the team and as professionals would KNOW if a wing contaminated ,didn't look right. Its sounds to me like the skipper couldn't be bothered to argue with his crew and left the task of arguing to the first officer. This is exactly the reason accidents happen as Cabin Crew feel "they don't want to look silly " for pointing something out. I'd rather be told, do something about it and have a happy crew and safe flight thank you.

WELL DONE TO THE CABIN CREW. PROFESSIONAL.

[Roadtrip]

I'd be nice to know what the real story is, rather than the speculation of a few expert knuckleheads on PPRUNE.

[Centreline747]

Quite right - I will always listen to cabin crew, however 'silly' it might seem. After all their asses are in that aluminium tube as well as mine! On occasions they hear something 'strange' during taxi-out or take-off and if I don't have a logical answer then I consider it worthwhile further investigation.
I recall an incident where fuel was pouring from a vent on the wing, spotted by cabin crew and subsequently returning to stand uncovered two faults in the plumbing that might not have been picked up for some time. Not life threatening I know, but may have led to arriving with a lot less fuel than expected. (I'm sure our switched on F/E would have spotted the increased fuel consumption in flight)

Cabin crew are an invaluable part of the crew and anyone who thinks less of them should re-think their position.

Rgds

CL747

[Carrier]

Quote: “The first officer admitted in a court deposition into the trial against the flight attendants, that there was frost on the wings of the aircraft...”
Quote: “How did the FAA/company deal with the Calgary report?”

More relevant is how did Transport Canada deal with the whole situation? Is it an offence in Canada to try to take off with contaminants on any of the critical surfaces. The CARs apply to all foreign aircraft, companies and personnel operating in Canada. The first officer has apparently admitted that there was frost on the wings.
Shouldn’t the company and the pilots be grateful that the F/As prevented them from breaking the law at the very minimum?

[Uncle_Jay]

Years ago I was sitting next to the wing of a NWA Airbus and noticed no flaps and slats while turning onto the pre-takeoff areas with 2 ahead of us. I yelled for a F/A and told her we were configured wrong and may crash LIKE THE MD-80 IN DETROIT if she didnt tell the cabin crew to extend the flaps.

Well, to my shame, apparently that model of Airbus doesnt require flaps or slats. During the flight the captain was very courteous about it..

I can just imagine what would happen these days, Guantanamo for sure !

No regrets at all.

[L337]

Cabin crew are an invaluable part of the crew and anyone who thinks less of them should re-think their position.

Absolutely.

They are your eyes and ears in places you have no hope of seeing or knowing. The Cabin Crew are absolutely integral to the safety of the operation.

[Andy_S]

If cabin crew are unhappy about wing contamination, you de-ice...simple. They are part of the team and as professionals would KNOW if a wing contaminated

I'm sorry, but what are you trying to say here - that the cabin crew have the final say on the matter? That the captain is obliged to bow to their knowledge?

Does anybody REALLY know what happened on this flight? Because it strikes me that 90% of this thread is nothing more than ill informed posturing.

[jafflyer]

the F/A's have their own weblog asking for donations to pay for their trial.

I only post the link for you all to read and not asking to donate.

http://www.helpflightattendantcrew (http://www.helpflightattendantcrew.*************/).*************

(what about these stars?? should be dot ******** dot com)

[PAXboy]

Pax speaking.
Let us presume that there was no previous acrimonious interchange between the flight and cabin crew. Let us presume that all was harmony ...

The CC observe frosting and they are used to looking at the upper side of the wings a fair amount, whilst FC tend to look at the underside (!). In suggesting that a de-ice is required, the CC would KNOW the implications of cost and possible delay.

One of the FC need only step out of their office and walk down the aisle to have the CC show them their concern and can then make a decision. So - how do they get themselves into this mess?

Not for me to speculate but US Air has completely failed to understand how much bad publicity this can generate for them. Quite apart from sorting out their CRM problem, it would have saved them a bundle in PR if they had fixed this when the crew got into Phoenix. Whilst I am not contemplating a trip to the US this year, to any US Air staff reading this, you move down the rankings. Better tell your bosses to talk to the staff. Or is that the real problem?

[Earl]

There must be more to this story than is being said.
Maybe the Captain should have taken a look when the argument started, that would have been the end of it.
Cabin crew are good for reporting things and are always involved with CRM concerning things like this and they should be.
But since when are they taught the limitations of snow, ice or frost on the wings?
When in doubt, check it out, but if both pilots had visually inspected these wings and found them within limitations, would have been discussion over.

[Centreline747]

Hi, not saying that anyone 'bow' down to them and accept what they are saying is correct, but we get back to the good 'ol CRM and a polite explanation of the situation from the flight crew does not go amiss:ok:
Any 'advisory' information from the cabin is welcomed on my a/c.:)

And you are quite correct, nobody here has the 'full' story so we can only go by what has been 'rumoured';)

Rgds

CL747

[Earl]

No one has posted what type aircraft this was or the limitations for this.
Poor F/O might have been doing his job and and those F/A without knowledge of the limitations took him to the cleaners!
If so no wonder he is suing in court.
But why did the Captain decide to de-ice, just to satisfy the ones in the back or maybe it did need de-icing?
More to this story folks.
I tend to side with the F/O, he knows the limitations.
Bad CRM on all counts.

[DocSullivan]

For what it's worth, here is a link to a much longer and more detailed version of the story from a website called PhoenixNewTimes.com

Three US Airways Flight Attendants Are Paying the Price for Speaking Up When They Thought Their Plane Was at Risk (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-01-29/news/three-us-airways-flight-attendants-are-paying-the-price-for-speaking-up-when-they-thought-their-plane-was-at-risk/)

If I am reading this correctly, the airline and union are not supporting the F/As because of "willful misconduct" on their part. In short, after they could not get the F/O to agree to de-ice, they lied to the pilots, telling them that the pax were concerned about the ice on the wings. Only then did the flightdeck agree to de-ice. That lie appears to be the "willful misconduct."

The story says the F/As first reported the incident to the company, after landing; company called FAA; FAA investigation was inconclusive; F/O now suing F/As for defamation.

Something about this story does not pass the smell test, but since we only have press reports like this to go on, I can't figure out where the bad smell is really coming from. Apparently the F/O is not making any public statements, so who knows...

[Centreline747]

At the end of the day they may have been wrong in the way they went about convincing the flight crew to de-ice, but it still doesn't detract from the fact that the flight crew should ignore their concerns with such contempt. (As 'rumoured');)

Rgds

CL747

[DocSullivan]

Oh, I absolutely agree.

I posted the link to the article because there seemed to be some confusion and mystery about why the airline and union were not supporting the F/As.

The "willful misconduct" -- i.e., telling a (white?) lie -- is the technicality that appears to have allowed the company and union to dodge the lawsuit mess.

[Earl]

Starting to sound like frost on the wings and a F/A not being convinced this is within the limits of cold weather operations for some aircraft.
Good she spoke up but when the F/O explained that it was ok she should have accepted this, if still in doubt she should have voiced her concerns to the Captain.
Lying to the cockpit is never a good thing.
All credibility is out the window after this for her and the cabin crew.
Light Frost is not much of an issue, snow ice buildup is!
Good luck to the F/O, seems he had to spend some money already to defend his self.
If this is true and not more to the story he should be able to recover it as it seems he had to put out a lot to defend his self.
And deserves it!
CRM could have been much better, but for some its a lost cause.

[turbowhat]

This is a great thread, I look forward to reading the final verdict.

I would draw attention to the Kegworth crash, where the flight crew told the pax and crew that they had shut down the wrong engine, even though they had witnessed flames from the damaged engine.

In that case asking a "silly" question may have saved lives.

As flight crew its our job to operate the aircraft safely, taking account of the ground and cabin crew as they can often see things we can't but in the end its the Captain's who is in charge of the aircraft not the cabin crew and not the F/O.

$21000, im off to law school if aviation goes tits up!

[Centreline747]

Here lies the burning question - what is within limits.
At this stage we still don't know what a/c type is involved and therefore we don't know the 'limits'. Until then we can only 'assume' that 'no ice is good ice'. hence I advocate that the cabin crew were quite within their rights to express their concern and if said F/O chose to argue about it rather than give a rational explanation regarding limits or admit that de-icing was required then that is probably why the case has come to a head. :ok:

Suppose you could say he is skating on thin ice (I'll get my coat!!)


Rgds

CL747

[Earl]

I think the government issue has already been decided by the FAA.
In the courts with the USA this is a civil suit for damages.
She probably will be found as not qualified to preflight or inspect wings for icing as she has had no training in such.
Years of looking at the wings don't count.
The lying to the cockpit will put her in deeper shxt.
I am not a lawyer but think she will be shelling out some bucks soon and if this story is true she should.
Down side to this is that it may put the fear of God into any other flight attendant from speaking up when really they should.
So no one really wins on this one.
Another benefit to promote CRM.
All this could have been handled better.
But I am not surprised why the company wont support her.

[Centreline747]

Quote
"Another benefit to promote CRM.
All this could have been handled better.
But I am not surprised why the company wont support her."

I agree, despite my earlier post defending her.
At the end of the day this sort of incident could severely damage CRM when it could be of greater importance.

I get a strong feeling that more went on between said parties than we are led to believe.:}

Be interesting to see the out come.



Rgds

CL747

[bvcu]

Frost is a bit of an issue , my understanding is that it is not allowed as there is no real clarification in the regulations between light frost or ice on the upper wing surface of any type as per FAA regs. Find this a bit of nuisance as see a regular problem with the A330 on a short turnround after a 7 hour sector , we end up with a couple of square feet of light frost over the main u/c mounting area which doesnt melt with fuel loaded if the OAT is a little cool . Unfortunately its in full view of the pax ! Understand the need for the regs due to various accidents , and certain types have had a problem , but it is a bit of a nuisance . As an LAE in these cases i'm more concerned for my colleagues at the pointy end if someone takes a photo !!!

[Earl]

Canadian Aviation Regulations - Part VI, Standard 622.11 (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part6/Standards/622.htm#7_0)

So the big question is what is the USAIR operation procedures for icing limitations on this aircraft?

[PC767]

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that cabin crew are not trained to deal with ice. Well here at BA we are advised about ice and how it affects lift every year during the CRM content of our SEP.

And personally speaking I have a PPL and a family to return home to.

What we don't do, obviously, is make the decisions. I'll speak for BA, every time that I have witnessed my colleagues contact the flight crew, and every time I have contacted the flight crew about a possible issue, they have taken the time to come and investigate and provide an explanation and reasurance.

[PA28Viking]

But why did the flight crew not file a statement to FAA at the time saying: "We decided de-icing was not called for, then after push-back we were advised by cabin crew about build up of ice on the wings and revised our decision. Thank you cabin crew. We learned from that. End of story"

[ChrisVJ]

As I understand it the suit is for defamation and the FO will be asking for costs incurred due to the defamation and presumably for loss of reputation.

If it is his case that the CCs reporting of the incident is that alleged defamation then we all may have a problem. It is in the nature of the law that the legal reporting of incidents and, for instance, the filing of a lawsuit, are protected in themselves. There would have to be a statement in the reporting that in itself defamed the FO. ie, Merely saying "I told the FO there was ice on the wings and he said there wasn't," in itself could hardly be defamation. Saying "The FO was incompetent and said there was no ice" might just be defamation but would be difficult to uphold in the light of the Ground crew report as the FO would be tying his competence to the non existence of ice which a third party has reported as being there

While the FO was declared not guilty of any misconduct in the enquiry into the incident, going to civil court where the balance of probabilities is the measure of proof required might be a double edged sword. He is risking the probability that he was defamed against the probability that he was wrong measured against an altogether different standard and the two are not synonymous. The court may find that even if he was right at the time the CCs words or actions do not constitute defamation. Whether the CC lied to the cockpit about the passenger's' concern may affect future relationships but is not really relevant to the defamation case, nor to the original enquiry.

One's opinion of the abilities of a pilot may be coloured by the relationship, but if I was reasonably au fait with the consequences of ice on the wings and truly believed that I could well die if the plane took off without de-icing I, too, might say just about anything either to get the plane de-iced or to get off the plane.

We went to Las Vegas at the tail end of the Christmas storms and the aircraft was de-iced as we boarded. Last year we flew with Cathay early one Spring morning and I was impressed as the plane was de-iced even though I could barely see it as frost. There's a chap I would fly with anytime.

In passing, I note that neither the airline or union, apparently, paid for the legal representation of the pilot at the enquiry and I guess the CC's union is shy about the court case as it is civil rather than disciplinary.

[Checkboard]

It has been mentioned that the 737 has a Boeing approved procedure to allow light frosting on some areas (which are marked on approved aircraft) on top of the wing.

From one of the newspaper articles:
The Phoenix-based flight crew was on its first flight of the morning, leaving Calgary to return to Arizona, and the weather was frigid — just about 4 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Boeing 737 procedure is not permitted if the temperature is below freezing.

I have no idea if the operating aircraft was a 737 or not.

[overthewing]

I'm puzzled about the Captain deferring the decision to the FO. Presumably, as the FO had already decided against de-icing, the Captain didn't want to countermand him?

Yet, when they ended up returning to gate, I'd have thought the Captain might have gone to take a look himself, if for no other reason than to check his cabin crew's judgement. But from the newspaper report, it looks as if the FO was sent to check?

Does this sequence of events make sense to those of you who are professional pilots? Something about it doesn't add up to me.

[belloldtimer]

:=The entire thread is pure rubbish. Shows how out of touch the American legal system can be. I mean one hears about judicial excesses like this but one really never believes it can happen. Any reasonable captain would respond to someone (cc or pax) expressing a concern about flight safety, that is if they are professional. If they have bruised egos as undoubtably this crew had then its a sad state of affairs. If the crew isn't concerned about safety who is? Is someone can't express that concern to a flight crew witout risiking legal proceedings being brought against them as I said it a sad day for everyone in aviation. Our goal afterall is afterll a safe flight isn't it? Who begins a day by saying "I'm going out to fly and endanger everyone's lives, myself included. Because afterall the first ones to the scene of the accident are always in the pinty section of the aircraft. Sorry, its just the American letal system is the only system I have ever heard of allowing this type of thing. Amazing, just when you think you've seen it all, some bozo comes along and proves you wrong.

I mean does anyone see this differently? Its a shame someone who needs the use of the courts is made the wait behind this type of mickey mouse law, its a wonder anything gets thru the courts in America..:ugh::ugh:

[CD]

Earl...

The icing operation regulation that was applicable to this flight departing a Canadian airport is actually 701.25 - Aircraft Icing Operations (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part7/701.htm#701_25). Compliance with this section is necessary for the company to hold a foreign air operator certifcate to operate in Canada. Your link was to the standard outlining the training requirements (which also must be complied with).

Not sure about flight attendants in the US, but here are the training requirements for flight attendants in Canada: Flight Attendant Training Standard - Section 3.3 - Surface Contamination (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp12296/initial3/section3.htm)

[merlinxx]

Thanks, it's all there in black & white:ok: This Flt Crew (F/O) is a numpty:ugh: Well done that Cabin Crew:ok:

[privateer01]

Not to get sideways with CD......

But the reg you qouted specifically 4 (b)(i) allows an air carrier to use its own approved De-ice manual if it meets the standard. USA Icing regs under 121 and 135 are just about verbat. to the Canadian ones.

Personally I think a proper Captain could have nipped this whole thing in the bud.

A good rule: If any one on the crew (be it F/O, F/E, or cabin) ain't happy with the proposed parameters of the flight or the Aircraft...we ain't going.

We all go or no one goes.

Bet your sweet butt your all gonna get to the crash site at the same time.

[cresmer]

The entire thread IS pure rubbish. But it does show how litigious americans can be, and what a nonsense that is.

[Vage Rot]

Well done to the Cabin Crew! The Co-pilot, in my opinion, is a t055er.

lack of up-tiddly-up-up in an aircraft is a scary business! Having sat down the back of a Nimrod in the early 90's and listening to the stick shakers in for what seemed like ages as we struggled to make 1500ft will stay with me for the rest of my days! All because the captain ignored the warning of one of the NCO's, that during the taxy and hold we had accumulated a lot of snow on the wings. The captain's response was that it 'would blow off during the take-off roll!" It didn't!

Ditto the earlier remarks about the diference between delegation and decision!!

[heliski22]

Did I not hear somewhere that right after the NRA, the most powerful lobby group in the US is the Litigation Lawyers Association?

And was there not a story about a judge who allowed a case to go forward for trial after the family of a person killed by a drunk driver in a fatal crash sued the petrol station three miles back the way, claiming if they hadn't sold him petrol, he wouldn't have made it to the crash scene?

Full facts or not, it's a country ripe for this sort of thing!

[Earl]

It is sad to say that the civil court system has gotten way out of hand in the USA.
Most cases are settled before they get to court or even sometimes thrown out.
Maybe this would have been better handled in house with US AIR since the plane was de-iced.
Could have been used as a good training example for CRM.

[chuks]

A couple of points:

(I cannot quote the relevant FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) because I do not have a copy handy. Here I am operating under different regulations. I am citing them from what I remember of them so that I stand to be corrected.)

1. The regulations simply state that you cannot take off with contaminants (ice or frost) on the wings. It may be that there is some specific get-out for types that have persistent patches of ice inboard where the cold fuel is stored in the wet wings but in general the wings must be clear before take-off. To state that there were just "little patches of frost" or something similar generally would be to acknowledge that you had just violated this rule. (The obvious problem is that there is some crossover point between not enough frost or ice to matter and just enough to cause a crash that is completely unknowable so that the rule states that none is allowed.)

Here it may be so that the FAA weighed up what happened, nothing much since the aircraft was for whatever reason de-iced with the contaminants in question properly removed, and the difficulty of proving their case against the flight crew, including the trouble and expense of co-ordinating with far-off Canadian sources. Who ordered the de-icing, when, and why?

You can see how many holes in trying to nail down the flight crew's intent to depart without de-icing the aircraft might be in a court of law. Ever had one of the self-loading cargo point something out to be told that someone was on the way to sort that out? To him or her, it is clear that the engineer only showed up after the flight crew was told about the problem when the truth might be that Engineering had been notified about the problem already.

It might be reasonable to assume that the FAA simply settled for having sent a clear message to the FO, and the Captain behind him, on the order of, "Okay, you got guys away with it this time but don't even think about doing it again!" The next crew in this situation might well think, "Ooh, which is it going to be, pulled up on the carpet before the Feds or we just order the de-icing?" Whom do you fear more, your airline's bean-counters or the Feds?

2. The Captain always has full responsibility for the conduct of the flight. He cannot delegate that. He may delegate specific tasks, however.

For instance, he doesn't usually check that every passenger has his or her seatbelt fastened before take-off, or that all cabin baggage is properly stowed, does he? Those are tasks delegated to the cabin attendants but they are still his responsibility because he is in charge of the flight attendants.

Here, if he delegated the important task to the First Officer of checking that the wings were free of contamination that is still the his responsibility. If there were any reasonable doubt that some task hadn't been properly carried out the Captain has to sort that one out somehow because it is still his responsibility.

You can see how this one works, when it's a real no-brainer. Say I tell the FO to order the fuel, when this doesn't get done and then some sort of low-fuel situation occurs on the next sector. You really expect that I could tell the FAA, "Oh, I told the FO to sort that one out; it had nothing to do with me." Wrong, actually.

[Crossunder]

From the flight attendants' blog: "As they looked out the windows, they saw patches of frost along the wings"
Wow - imagine that! Patches of frost? Well, as it happens, both the B737 and A3xx, together with most other aircraft types are approved for take-off with frost on the wings. As an example, the B737 does not have any form of de- or anti-icing systems on the tail (or outer slats for the NG). This is because ice is not a problem on this aircraft.
This "clean wing concept" is mostly a political (FAA/Government) concept, and goes against what the manufacturers have found through testing. Of particular interest is the Airbus link further down in my post. Prior to 1983, Airbus allowed taking off with upper wing frost. Then the regulators told them they were wrong about their own aircraft, and the FCOM had to be changed. It has created mass hysteria, and has been blown completely out or proportions. A thin layer of frost will not cause a B737 or A320 to suddenly fall out of the sky!!! You can have three inches of rough ice on the wings and tail, make a single-engine missed approach in IMC, and the aircraft is certified for this. Come on! Whatever happened to "know your aircraft", experience and airmanship? Fortunately, the Airbus company has decided to embark on the long and arduous journey to bring back the old procedures, since tests clearly show that the FAA's rules are far too restrictive (lawyer friendly, if you will).

I'm shocked to find that so many on this forum without hesitation side with the CCs in this case!
This is the problem with CRM these days: Everyone's suddenly a captain. These CCs were apparently told that a bit of frost on the wings would not be a problem:
“At 6:15, my deicing partner Jeff Switner approached a member of the flight crew and, asking if they were going to require a deice. They said no, that they were fine. We were both surprised, because we could see the frost on the wings and fuselage.” ...and since when did frost on the fuselage become dangerous?
They voiced their concern, the pilots listened, and then made the initial decision not to de-ice.
From the paper article: "It took the common effort of all three flight attendants and three attempts, before the flight crew unwillingly agreed to de-ice the airplane". This is where the CCs should have accept that the pilots know more about flying and aerodynamics than they. They should have accepted the answer, and left the flight deck. The cabin crew members are not in charge - the captain is!!! If this trend continues, we'll soon have a CC on jumpseat telling us how to fly the goddamn approach and what flap- and autobrake setting to use for landing?!
Any relevant information pertaining to the safety of flight must be brought forward to the flight deck. It must be welcomed and take into consideration. But the final decision rests with the flight crew - not the cabin crew. CRM lets every voice be heard. CRM does not leave the CCs in charge of the flight. := Perhaps the FO or CDR did not explain the difference between huge amounts of ice and frost patches - I don't know.

Boeing recommendations (http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/plane/boeing/B737/instructor/B737-Cold_Soak_Fuel_Frost.pdf)

Airbus thoughts on upper wing frost (http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/flightops/flyingtechnique/Takeoff_With_Upper_Wing_Frost.pdf)

I see previous posts mentioning the Dryden accident. That accident has absolutely NOTHING to do with this case! Those guys tried to depart with huge amounts of snow and ice (not patches of frost), during heavy snow fall, after a long exposure time, in an aircraft without slats, and extremely ice-sensitive wings. Apples and pears.

I expect a storm of hostile posts, calling me dinosaur, dangerous and stupid idiot. So be it. That does not change the fact that frost is not dangerous, and that CCs are not pilots.

[MAKOLO]

Thank you Crossunder for this common sense post.

[BillS]

The Phoenix-based flight crew was on its first flight of the morning, leaving Calgary to return to Arizona, and the weather was frigid — just about 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
METAR CYYC 241400Z 00000KT 15SM BKN120 OVC240 M21/M25 A3012 RMK AC6CI2 SLP308

Boeing recommendations:Takeoff with light coatings of cold-soaked fuel frost on upper wing surfaces is permissible, provided the following are met:
The outside air temperature is above freezing

[PAXboy]

From one of the newspaper articles: The Phoenix-based flight crew was on its first flight of the morning, leaving Calgary to return to Arizona ...Ahhh ... first of the day?
What happened between the crew the previous evening and night?

[chuks]

Crossunder. Unfortunately I get the definite feeling you are the one mixing two things up, "apples and pears" as you put it.

There is that sort of frost you get from cold-soaked fuel, what the Boeing file refers to. You may see that forming on a parked aircraft at temperatures above freezing and I am sure Boeing are on firm ground in saying it is of little import.

There is another sort of frost that forms in temperatures below freezing that covers the whole aircraft, not just the patches of wing over the fuel cells. As you have so emphatically pointed out that MAY be of no import.

On the other hand, large accumulations of frost definitely have been known to cause crashes. There was a recent high-profile crash in Russia where a large business aircraft lifted off, immediately rolled into a steep bank and crashed, killing all onboard. The cause was taken to be wing contamination. This is the reason for the FAR I loosely cited: not being able to find a clear boundary between what is safe to fly with and what is deadly.

You, coming from Norway, may well know a lot more about flying with frost or ice than I do, given that I, coming from Africa, know very little. Does this superior knowledge of yours also mean that you would be happy to violate an FAR? That seems pretty sporty to me! Here you seem to be telling our readers that you really do not feel compelled to follow a rule that you somehow know is irrelevant, somehow being able to just tell what is safe and what is not from experience. I don't want to cause you any sleepless nights but it might be so that the FAR exists because no one can do that!

Okay, I have seen my aircraft all fuzzy with frost, when it was pretty clear even to this winter novice that no one was going anywhere until we got de-iced. And on the other hand I, too, have seen small patches of frost that I must have somehow forgotten to notice, when the aircraft didn't seem to mind one little bit. The problem is, "Where do we draw that line?" Well, we don't have to, do we? That is precisely why the FAA made that rule, I guess.

[Dengue_Dude]

That's why there's always two sets of tyre tracks over an attorney

- if you're unfortunate enough to knock one down in the car, make sure the b@st@rd's dead!

[Eboy]

A jury will be sympathetic toward the Cabin Crew, regardless of facts and the law. I expect this will be settled before it goes to trial. Both sides responsible for their own legal fees and nothing more. The attorneys win.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

From the flight attendants' blog: "As they looked out the windows, they saw patches of frost along the wings"
Wow - imagine that! Patches of frost? Well, as it happens, both the B737 and A3xx, together with most other aircraft types are approved for take-off with frost on the wings. As an example, the B737 does not have any form of de- or anti-icing systems on the tail (or outer slats for the NG). This is because ice is not a problem on this aircraft.
This "clean wing concept" is mostly a political (FAA/Government) concept, and goes against what the manufacturers have found through testing. Of particular interest is the Airbus link further down in my post. Prior to 1983, Airbus allowed taking off with upper wing frost. Then the regulators told them they were wrong about their own aircraft, and the FCOM had to be changed. It has created mass hysteria, and has been blown completely out or proportions. A thin layer of frost will not cause a B737 or A320 to suddenly fall out of the sky!!! You can have three inches of rough ice on the wings and tail, make a single-engine missed approach in IMC, and the aircraft is certified for this. Come on! Whatever happened to "know your aircraft", experience and airmanship? Fortunately, the Airbus company has decided to embark on the long and arduous journey to bring back the old procedures, since tests clearly show that the FAA's rules are far too restrictive (lawyer friendly, if you will).

These aircraft and others do not deice the tail because it has been demonstrated that IN FLIGHT a build up of ice on the leading edge of the tail - which is the only place ice forms in flight on the tail - does not affect compliance with the relevant regulations. Since the regulations do not require such a demonstration for takeoff - because ice is NOT ALLOWED on the tail at takeoff - there is absolutely no way of saying "its ok in flight so takeoff is ok" - in fact, it may well be very much "not ok".

The three inches of ice you refer to is the ice shape considered for certification on the NON-DEICED/ANTI-ICED sections of the airframe. I believe most of the wing LE of most aircraft is indeed protected - and if you were to have an anti-ice system failure in icing conditions you would not be in good shape - the "failure case" ice shape is usually half the size of the 3" shape, and often its necessary to recommend speed adders and other adjustments to cater for the very detrimental effects of this ice.

The tail is in any case a red herring here, because the discussion relates to wing frost. Even a thin layer of frost on the wing, even on a large aircraft such as a 737 or 320 class aircraft, even with slats can cause a loss of lift of 30%; that's by no stretch of the imagination trivial.

Oh, and I believe that Airbus intends to have similar rules to Boeing for the 737 once they have passed the regulatory hurdles, that is, "non environmental" frost only. Which means, in practice, cold fuel frost on a warm day would be ok, but winter frost - such as seems to be the case in the incident in question - would still be forbidden. (See slide #23 of the presentation you linked to)

[llondel]

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the de-icing, I'd say the F/O lost the plot when he decided to sue. Up to that point, the incident was relatively minor because nothing bad actually happened and it would most likely have disappeared into the filing cabinet never to emerge. Now it's major news and a lot more people in the industry know about it, which means that regardless of whether he wins the case or not, a lot of people will still point fingers. That is all self-inflicted.

[RatherBeFlying]

I once queried the CP about an A-310 takeoff from YYC with frost over the tanks. He replied that the FOM allowed for that.

After the Dryden report, attempting takeoff with any ice or frost was banned, but CD has usefully pointed out CAR 701.25(3):Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person may conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has frost caused by cold-soaked fuel adhering to the underside of its wings if the take-off is conducted in accordance with the aircraft manufacturer's instructions for take-off under those conditions.but note that this clause only applies to the underside.

So the attempted takeoff would have been a violation of CAR 701.25.

Note that pushback and taxi with contaminated wings would not be a violation of the CARs -- only the takeoff attempt.

I do not understand why USAir is not backing the FAs:confused: I would think your average airline management with any concern for maximising bums in seats would be looking for a way to fire the FO. If the union is preventing that, management would want to be seen on the side of the FAs.

[vanHorck]

Any which way, the captain should be reprimanded for poor CRM

[ChrisVJ]

Backing either side is a no-win for the airline. Better to be even handed with squabbling children.

[fourgolds]

like so many things in the media. how do we get the other (pilots side) of the story.

there is an old saying. there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth.

think about this for a minute. for the pilot to sue in a case like this , he must be pretty sure of himself as it could potentially backfire on him/her big time. off course the popular press / pprune etc will be all over this story like flies . but how do we know for sure.

I have done a a flight where a new cabin crew member spotted an aircraft (737)1000 ft below (RVSM). at the same time a pssemger called another flight attendant to say he had seen ( a military aircraft off our left wing),
the two flight attendants then immediately came up with the sollution that we were intercepted !!!!!!
Of course we took what they said very seriously by checking with ATC , and investigating a little farther. Off course it was only regular traffic 1000 ft below. NOw whilst it is their duty to speak up ( and on this day I am glad they did , as its for us to verify the event)

Let me put it this way. Imagine i was a little old school and I just laughed them off .( I would have been right about the assumed interception).
Next thing a little excitement gets going in the back with more and more crew and passegers buliding the scenario into something that just is not.Next day some passengers / or cabin crew go to the local papers and its all over the press about flights interception.
Next thing a few weeks later I get a letter from FAA saying that the cabin crew say I was intercepted yet I did nothing about it and they are investigating. Then they investigate with pentagon bla bla to discover NO such event took place.

OK it highlights the need for effective communication CRM etc , however it does also suggest that there is always the other side of the story , and peoples perceptions are often developed from the first story that gets out.

[pic_on_B737NG]

Only from the I.O.U.S.A can you hear of such non-sense!!!!

Lawyers are making a fortune, the Captain is putting the FO in charge of crutial decisions, 3 FA's are blamed for being dilligent and safety-conscious, the employer refuses to have anything to do with it all and the regulator (FAA) is quietly watching the bull fight.

Give me a bucket, I will be sick.

[cwatters]

> Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the de-icing, I'd say the F/O lost
> the plot when he decided to sue

Do you know the specifics of why he's taking them to court? I don't think you can side with any party without seeing the details of the claim. Link to the court papers anyone?

[cwatters]

> Any which way, the captain should be reprimanded for poor CRM

How so? Was he even involved? It sounds like he told the FO to go back and check on the ice. The whole incident may have happened miles away from the captain in cattle class.

[bubbers44]

First, after the first conversation with the cockpit concerning the deicing, was it a safety of flight and legality conflict or just another pissing contest pushed to the extreme? I have been a juror wasting a whole day because of the latter.

[Teddy Robinson]

The buck actually stops with the captain : if one chooses to ignore advise like this and something goes wrong no amount of delegation will change the fact.

This looks like either someone attempting to save their credibility through the courts, or there is a subplot we are not aware of here.

Either way, once the warning is received it becomes a no brainer firstly in terms of safety being paramount, and secondly should there be an issue regarding SOP it is for the company to sort out not the flight deck crew... there are tea and bikkies for cabin crew too.

I'm surprised this has got so obviously out of hand as it apparently has.

Certainly, many aircraft types have an allowable frost rider to the clean wing policy, and those caveats are usually very specific in terms of location and depth of deposit.

CRM applied, de-icing completed, no accident occurred.
There was only one decision to be made, and made it was ... and somehow, ludicrously, this ends up in court.

[Getoutofmygalley]

Could I just ask a very quick question. There have been a few references in this thread to Boeing permitting a small amount of frost on the wing surfaces of the 737 - and I know that this is true providing that the frost is within the pre-defined area on the upper wing surface.

BUT was this permitted back in 2003 when this incident took place? I was under the impression that this change on the 737 was fairly recent (as in the last 2 to 3 years or so).

[GlueBall]

Just curious as to how the F/O and his lawyer came up with a roundabout figure of USD $2 million ? . . . As if three flying waitresses could ever cough up that kind of money. :eek:

[A-V-8R]

Glueball, maybe the flight attendants were married to Captains.....:rolleyes:

This is not a thread drift, but under the US FAR's, Flight Attendants are NOT considered crewmembers.

That's why they have no Cockpit Jumpseat privileges or duty time limts except what is contractual.

My moneys on the First Officer winning.

[Jetwhine]

I think Greybeard has it nailed. My guess is the crew did not get along very well long before this incident.

[Teddy Robinson]

Glueball ... that explains a lot, which in Europe is taken for granted.

ie. 2 flightdeck + 4 cabin crew = a 6 crew aircraft, and a 6 person team.

[CD]

A-V-8R wrote: ...but under the US FAR's, Flight Attendants are NOT considered crewmembers ... That's why they have no ... duty time limts except what is contractual...
Gosh... sure glad to know you know the regs... :rolleyes:

"Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time." (14 CFR 1.1 - General definitions (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/6ACF727F7256CA83862574BF00705C59?OpenDocument))

Here's another quick link for you:
14 CFR 121.467 - Flight attendant duty period limitations and rest requirements: Domestic, flag, and supplemental operations (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/C3E9421BB00EA992852566EF006D086C?OpenDocument&)

[bugg smasher]

One of the flight attendants involved is the F/O's ex-wife, she is receiving large sums monthly in the form of alimony payments, taken directly from his paycheck by court order. The post-marital relationship continues to be a somewhat frigid one, any thaw previously considered may now be well out of reach.

[HotDog]

Glueball
As if three flying waitresses could ever cough up that kind of money.

Your somewhat chauvinistic remark prompted me to look up your personal profile. Now I understand where you are coming from.:rolleyes:

[OntimeexceptACARS]

One of the flight attendants involved is the F/O's ex-wife, she is receiving large sums monthly in the form of alimony payments, taken directly from his paycheck by court order. The post-marital relationship continues to be a somewhat frigid one, any thaw previously considered may now be well out of reach.Well there's a thread killer if ever I saw one...... :ok:

[mona lot]

Ha ha:D,

5 pages of rubbish, all because some FO fell out with his ex.

PPRUNE at its best:ok:

Back to Jeremy Kyle:ugh:

[RatherBeFlying]

Well if ex is enjoying large alimony payments, some may find satisfaction at making ex pay fat lawyer fees -- to say nothing of the prospect of a favorable judgement being paid back out of said alimony:E

Provided of course that you have a good case that will persuade a jury; if not, the downside is that you will get stuck with her costs and end up in an even more penurious existence:uhoh:

[Brian Abraham]

any thaw previously considered may now be well out of reach
So the de-icing didn't work then? Or applied to the wrong frost? :E

[chuks]

It is fascinating but a bit scary to read what sort of thoughts hit the screen here, sometimes.

We have one fellow who thinks the flight attendants are merely "flying waitresses," another who doesn't even know that they are crew members and a third who seems to think that the well-documented risks of frost contamination can safely be ignored, just because... yet according to their profiles they are all professional aviators!

I realise that there can be a wide range of opinions on various topics, usually more driven by personality than fact but is this the freedom of anonymity letting some of us go off the edge of the screen? Particularly, going into print to show contempt ("flying waitresses"), ignorance (not knowing the cabin crew is, umm, "crew") or a willingness to violate a regulation (3 inches of ice is no problem so why de-ice?). This is the sort of stuff we used to share in the privacy (?) of a bar, not as here in semi-public. Remember, the reptiles are watching us!

Is this why they have that warning about the people who post not necessarily being who they say they are? Golly, I hope so!

[Kenny]

Gents,

If I might make a few observations here:

I'm surprised, although I probably shouldn't be, at the speed with which a few have posted their support for the Cabin Crew and also been quick to lambaste the FO. This is based on nothing more than an article written in a newspaper. Aren't we normally, as a profession, fairly derisory and cynical about the level of journalism when it comes to articles about the aviation industry written in the mainstream press??

There are also a few posts that contain disbelief that this Captain would allow the FO to make a decision as to the need to de-ice. It's worth noting that until the last 12 months, USAir hadn't hired in almost 10 years and that there is every reason to believe that if this was an A320/B737, the FO has probably been with the company for at least 18 years and was very likely a Captain prior to 9-11. I don't know about others but I fly with FO's that have not only the initiative and common sense but also the experience to work out if we need to de-ice. If not then I check, myself.

And thirdly, although not a Yank, I've flown in the US for the last 10 years and I know USAir's deicing procedure intimately. It's simple: Clean Aircraft Concept. To think that any professional pilot whether Captain or FO at USAir would knowingly not de-ice, when it's obviously needed, is asinine. Whether Euro, Aussie or American, we all know what happens when an airliner tries to take off with contaminated wings. The results have been widely documented.

Personally, I think that this has more to do with a personal grudge than de-icing.

[vanHorck]

So the captain sends the ex husband to go and sort out the icing issue with the ex wife... Good CRM!

[captplaystation]

With the widespread usage of computerised rostering systems, would it not have been better if the company had used a little foresight and avoided rostering Mr & (ex) Mrs on the same flight? :}
Not too difficult to administer and certainly happens in other companies if a "personal" relationship is obviously too difficult, even when it hasn't involved previous carnal knowledge & alimony payments. :rolleyes:


And to those of you who are now going to say "they are all professionals they should just get on with it", are you PERSONALLY familiar with the inspiration for the (misquoted in this instance from the historically correct) quote " Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" ?
If you are not. . . . . . I am very happy for you, but I can assure you this crew combination is unworkable, and was fated to end in tears at some stage. :=

[Graybeard]

"One of the flight attendants involved is the F/O's ex-wife, she is receiving large sums monthly in the form of alimony payments, taken directly from his paycheck by court order. The post-marital relationship continues to be a somewhat frigid one, any thaw previously considered may now be well out of reach."

Unless the F/O is independently wealthy, I doubt "Large sums.. alimony." Last I knew, F/O pay was meager. And unless there were a great pay disparity between them, I would doubt there were any alimony involved at all. Also, wasn't this before the merger?

GB

[Capot]

Perhaps by "large sums" the writer really meant "large share". Now that would be grounds for a law suit as and when the opportunity offered itself. Why do I get the feeling that there's an avaricious, opportunistic member of the oldest profession in the background here, manipulating all concerned for his or her financial gain and their detriment?

[overthewing]

I'm intrigued to know how Bugg Smasher is so well acquainted with the case that he can tell us not only about the divorce and the alimony, but also about the probable future relations between the ex-spouses.

Is this information in the public domain somewhere?

[SpacePilot]

I reported a pilot to my company and like the cabin crew in this case, all I got was a **** storm for my troubles.

It wasn't until we had to make an emergency landing a week later that anyone believed me. Pilot had a fit at 10,000ft, he was suffering from vertigo but had managed to keep it secret as he was a helicopter pilot. Unfortunately our operation required a high level flight to calibrate our instruments.

I was made to feel like traitor for exposing his 'little' problem.

There seems to be an unwritten rule between pilots that they will never support criticism of another pilot, unless it's from a pilot. Similar to the way attorneys behave.

[fourgolds]

spacepilot . the question is " did you have the integrity to tell him you were concerned and you were going to take it higher , therefore allowing him/her the option too get himself the help required? " , if you did this then thats ok . if you simply went ahead and "told" on him/her like a child then I would support the "storm" you experienced fully.

[justlooking_tks]

Looks to me like the old 3rd world problem of loss of face rearing it's ugly head again. As mentioned previously hopefully a lot of this macho stuff was stamped out during CRM training but clearly we have a long way to go. Most responsible flight deck crew encourage other crew members to speak up if they have concerns about state of the a/c.

[Earl]

I think bug smashers post was just a joke and play on words.

[bugg smasher]

Earl, you are correct. I have no knowledge of the event in question, or the folks involved.

Suffice to say, in the annals of frivolous lawsuits here in America, this one belongs to the by-now-proverbial Ministry of Silly Walks. The intense labor strife at the yet-to-be-merged America West/US Air is a well known story here in the colonies, the subject of this thread only serves to bring it to ever new lows.

Regarding the question of ice present on the wings, or any other safety related concern for that matter, any and all input from the cabin is most welcome, even necessary, in this writer’s opinion, at any time before, during or after the flight. They would, in truth, be remiss in not reporting to the flight deck.

I apologize for the red herring, I can only hope our passengers out there appreciate my general drift. Although we remain, mostly, a pretty dedicated group, there are those amongst us who take things just a little too personally.

[mona lot]

Facts;

1. An aircraft may or may not have had wings contaminated with ice
2. Said aircraft was de-iced
3. Aircraft took off normally
4. Cabin crew fell out with FO
5. FO to CC to court

Sounds like a serious failure of CRM to me, but I can't see a court of law wasting much time over this!

NEXT!

[Finn47]

The story is getting more publicity, want it or not. See here:

Aero-News Network: The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily/Real-Time News and Information Service (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=59a376f1-b5bd-4aaf-900f-a5938321c5fe&)

[2close]

spacepilot . the question is " did you have the integrity to tell him you were concerned and you were going to take it higher , therefore allowing him/her the option too get himself the help required? " , if you did this then thats ok . if you simply went ahead and "told" on him/her like a child then I would support the "storm" you experienced fully.

Unless I'm reading your post wrong, you seem to be suggesting that this should have been sorted out behind closed doors.

Okay, agreed that it may have been the decent thing to let the pilot know the incident would be reported to give him the opportunity to prepare his case but once the decision had been made to report it, it has to be reported, regardless of any other supplementary actions.

It is a very difficult call to make but nevertheless a call that had to be made.

Unless the report was made out of spite, which doesn't seem to be the case on the face of it, the hard call was probably a damn sight more responsible and adult than childish.

What if he hadn't reported it and the guy had flown another similar sortie later that same day, with fatal consequences, not just for the pilot but other observers or innocent parties on the ground? He'd have a lot more on his conscience than having to worry about whistle blowing.

[LYKA]

Crossunder (post #57):

The Possibility exists that pilots may make their own judgement about the severity of a ‘small’ patch of frost and not de-ice – …But pilot actually has no means of quantifying the effect


The effect of the frost may be significant or insignificant, depending on its location, size and thickness
�� This is unknown at present on Airbus A/C, since design and certification assumes a clean wing
�� Dependent on individual aircraft design (up to 30 % wing lift reduction already measured on non Airbus aircraft)

Under current recommendations, this frost, whatever the thickness or extent, has to be removed with a full and symmetric de-icing.

ATB

[Scrubbed]

They are your eyes and ears in places you have no hope of seeing or knowing. The Cabin Crew are absolutely integral to the safety of the operation.

Well, maybe they can be in an airline with experienced, switched-on cabin crew. Usually the old "boilers."

Unfortunately, some global airlines we all know of hire them young and dumb and from subservient cultures where they'd cut their own heads off before actually saying anything to anyone up the front. That's IF they even thought of noticing anything outside their own little sphere.

Sad but true. I'm sure this won't go down well with the yanks but welcome to the rest of the world.

Yes they can be useful but let's keep it in context.

Most of the howling going on here is based on the article as it was worded by a journalist who wasn't even there. So let's jump to another conclusion: pilot has ex-wife turn up on his crew, huge fight ensues. Coincidence?????? Not likely!

[Finn47]

Judge tosses pilot´s lawsuit, so cabin crew are safe at least for the time being:

Phoenix - Valley Fever - Pilot's Suit Against Whistleblowing Flight Attendants Tossed by Judge (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/03/pilots_suit_against_whistleblo.php)