Take off with snow on wing [Archive]

Checkboard

10th Apr 2012, 14:55

I thought the thing was meant to Auger in if one was reckless enough to attempt a T/O with a teensy fraction of what these guys had on their wing?

Further research after the US Air 405 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_405) accident showed the rapid degradation of lift with ice - but also highlighted that aircraft without leading edge devices were much more susceptible to icing increased stall speeds and reduced lift than those with them.

US Air 405, and the similar Air Ontario 1363 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Ontario_Flight_1363) accident were both F28s.

The more "well known" Air Florida flight 90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90), a 737 which crashed into the Potomac river was more an issue of incorrectly set engine thrust (due icing of the P2T2 engine sensors) than ice on the wing.

Doug E Style

10th Apr 2012, 15:03

It wouldn't surprise me if there are a few airline managers that have seen this video and are thinking to themselves, "why have we been wasting all that money on deicing fluid for all these years?"

DX Wombat

10th Apr 2012, 15:10

it's difficult to asses if it's just powder snow or snow with ice underneathHow can you possibly tell if there is ice underneath any type or amount of snow if you don't remove the snow?

pudoc

10th Apr 2012, 15:18

My god.

If I was a passenger I wouldn't even have let us enter the runway.

Is this in Russia? I recently read a report Russia is the most dangerous place for aviation, I now see why!

pineridge

10th Apr 2012, 15:30

"Don`t worry-it`ll blow off during the take off roll-won`t it?"

SLF

10th Apr 2012, 15:40

What if the flight was empty/positioning...?

Just a thought - SLF

seat 0A

10th Apr 2012, 15:54

If you see all the taxiways and aprons that are clear of snow, this means it wasn't a recent snow shower. It must have been sitting on the wings for hours before take off. Indeed no telling how much of it was frozen to the surface.

But it did take off quite nicely :E

Checkboard

10th Apr 2012, 16:01

What if the flight was empty/positioning...?

Just a thought - SLF

Smashing a $50 million aircraft into houses off the end of the runway is OK if it only has a few crew lives on it? :confused: :ugh:

hetfield

10th Apr 2012, 16:05

What if the flight was empty/positioning...?

Just a thought - SLF Are you serious....?
:ugh:

SLF

10th Apr 2012, 16:24

No, presumably the tolerances to ice are higher on an empty aircraft...?

Callsign Kilo

10th Apr 2012, 16:29

"ahh, no problem Sergey, use maximum thrust and increase rotation speed. Snow will blow off. I do many time in Tupolev."

Pair of ar5eholes! :mad:

hetfield

10th Apr 2012, 16:32

No, presumably the tolerances to ice are higher on an empty aircraft...?

There are NO tolerances.

Snow on the wing is a no go and most (russians?) pilots prefere to exit an aircraft alive.

2EggOmelette

10th Apr 2012, 16:45

A question. Now that this is on the net, undoubtedly the flight number and ergo the crew will be made public in due course. So, will they face charges for this? And if so what would they be?

Basil

10th Apr 2012, 16:55

No, presumably the tolerances to ice are higher on an empty aircraft...?
No, that was criminal.

up_down_n_out

10th Apr 2012, 16:57

I mentioned this on the other thread but it bears repeating:-

Belavia Flight 1834 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Yerevan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerevan), Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia), to Minsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk), Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus), operated by Belavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavia). On the morning of February 14, 2008, the Bombardier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Aerospace) Canadair Regional Jet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_Regional_Jet) carrying 18 passengers and 3 crew crashed and burst into flames shortly after take off (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeoff) from Zvartnots International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvartnots_International_Airport) near the capital city of Yerevan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerevan), in the country of Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia).
The jet hit its left wing on the runway during takeoff, crashed to the ground, flipped over, and came to rest inverted near the runway. All passengers and crew managed to escape the aircraft before it erupted into flames, partly due to the timely response of the fire and rescue crews.

Eyewitness reports stated that the aircraft banked sharply to the left immediately after rotation when it was only 3 to 5 meters airborne, clipped its left wing on the runway, crashed to the ground and rolled many times until coming to a stop inverted near the runway

Initial Findings
Initial speculation pointed to icing on the wings which caused the left wing to stall upon lift-off.

Icing conditions were reported at the airport during the crash, and the CRJs are very prone to wing contamination and icing since they do not have any leading edge devices.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavia_Flight_1834#cite_note-tannerpaper-8) The Russian Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Aviation_Committee) heading the investigation, and the Russian investigators initially stated that the aircraft began to roll left immediately after liftoff, inverting before crashing

dvv

10th Apr 2012, 17:06

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/481538-utair-atr-72-crash-siberia-4.html#post7125790

And BTW the response from Aeroflot's PR dept was exactly like that — there were no problem, the snow got blown off the wings, nothing to worry about, and the safety of our passengers is our number one priority. So all's good.

Peterd28

10th Apr 2012, 17:09

Interesting comments but most of you seem to discount the vast experience Aeroflot has in Winter Ops, and in any case such practices used to be quite commonplace in North America.

When we first operated the 747-400 through Mirabel we routinely operated in Arctic conditions and IF the weather was around -10 C with snow, I think BA were about the only airline to remove the considerable accumulations of very powdery snow from the wings. The locals couldn't understand this as it cost $4000 to de-ice a 747, spending the first 10minutes turning de-icing fluid into slush on the wings. (CAA Rules. thou shalt not depart with any snow present) The very winterwise Quebecois chums used to depart in a postive snowstorm ( sans le degivreur) .

In the bad old days at Kennedy ( early 70's) when queues for T/O could exceed three hours, I can remember burning 6000Kgs in a Classic waiting for T/O ( I think we started out as No 80) - Met conditions Temp -12C and light snow and EVERY aircraft in the queue must have had about an inch and a half of fine dry snow by the time it reached the holding point. Not one pulled out of the line to de-ice - the majority big US registered airlines. Fairly new in the RHS and my sector, I was re-assured by my hairy arsed colleagues that it wouldn't be a problem. There was a very significant delay on rotate before the a/c leaped into the air like a frightened horse. Not much conversation before Nantucket... well we didn't know about health and safety in those days... so what was there to talk about

Kelly Hopper

10th Apr 2012, 17:11

AEROFLOT ARE GUILTY!

I don't know about this one but having been on 2 Aeroflot 320 flights taking off with ice and frost on the wings in the last 12 months I can assure you my ar5e muscles have never worked so hard!
I hate flying them with a passion but my company like it cos they're cheap. So is my life it seems. :eek:

pudoc

10th Apr 2012, 17:12

most of you seem to discount the vast experience Aeroflot has in Winter Ops

Well the fact that a poster above me said that even Aeroflot crews were shocked says enough for me.

DX Wombat

10th Apr 2012, 17:15

the safety of our passengers is our number one priority.What a whopper! May they be forgiven!
Kelly, show them this thread and tell them you will NOT fly with that airline again.

boeingboy737

10th Apr 2012, 17:26

wonder what and how the folks at airbus are thinking after seeing this..I bet they would like to know who this was so they could try to stop these guys from operating wonder if there is a time stapm on the video Im sure someome out their can id the airport...

up_down_n_out

10th Apr 2012, 17:31

Airport is SVO, it even says so with the a/c name

...So that only leaves S7 with a no-crash safety record intact since the 2006 RU778 pilot error.

SU :ooh:
UT :rolleyes:

SunderlandMatt

10th Apr 2012, 17:32

$hit! I was almost sick with fear! Thought that video was going to end in a crash but the aircraft just kept on accelerating.

It's a blatant disregard for ICAO Doc 9640 which details that this not how Operators should be running things. Clean Aircraft Policy anyone?!

Pilots are trusted with people's lives, both those in the aircraft and those on the ground below. I wouldn't trust that lot with a penny no matter my life.

They got away with it this time but next time.......

:yuk:

dvv

10th Apr 2012, 17:34

Peterd28, it wasn't -10°C, and I really doubt it was dry snow — the METAR was saying M01/M02 at that time.

alcorfr

10th Apr 2012, 17:46

Who cares about the ******* OAT, the ******* experience of the operator or of the pilots or of the passengers or of the president of the intergalactic alliance ??

Clean aircraft, clean aircraft, CLEAN AIRCRAFT.

TLBird

10th Apr 2012, 17:53

Sickening.

Syntax

10th Apr 2012, 18:00

It's really hard to comprehend that video. The cost of de-icing fluid is meaningless in the context of all those peoples lives.

There is no way to know what lies under that snow. No way to know if it has melted and frozen overnight, or if one wing will clear or the other will not. Or if an Airbus will take off with snow and a CRJ can't. You are a test pilot with that much contamination. Airbus does not test the aircraft to that limit.

All those previously lost lives, rules written in the blood from previous fatalities. I guess it doesn't translate into Russian or perhaps they just know better?

Peterd28

10th Apr 2012, 18:05

Oh Yeah dvv - were you there ? If it was that warm then everyone in that line was significantly more culpable. In any case the point of my post was simply to point out that such practices were commonplace in North America and anywhere else for that matter that had a serious winter- not just the naughty old Russians up to their tricks again.

The CAA /FAA rules at the time were always NO DEPOSITS which we certainly in UK always adhered to but they were often observed in the breach in significantly sub zero conditions in Canada and the USA. (Such conditions rarely apertained in High Holborn).

Callsign Kilo

10th Apr 2012, 18:21

Why are people debating what's what? Their wing's contaminated. Who or what has experience with this, that or another is irrelevant. This is truly the act of clampats and anyone who suggests reasons for their motives appears to me that they may actually be willing to justify them.

Contamination will kill you. End of!

captplaystation

10th Apr 2012, 18:27

Peterd28,
Agreed, but most other places have come a little way forward and have given up operating like this. These guys haven't.
I have heard first hand from Western FO's that former Soviet era Capts do tend to place less emphasis on the clean wing policy, than us Westerners now do.
Ask any Scandi FO who has worked for airBaltic, how many times he /she had to insist to ex Aeroflot guys that they de-iced (unless he fancied departing single crew. )

Basil

10th Apr 2012, 19:20

No ice or snow or any contamination is acceptable on the upper surface of the wings and, IMO, neither on the top nor bottom of the tailplane.

ABZ one winter night. Civil Argosy skip decided he didn't have to remove accumulations of snow and ice. Taxied out and found they couldn't get full UP elevator due snow/ice lying on curtain between elevator and tailplane.

Recollect, in some European country or other, I insisted upon steps being brought so that I could personally have a feel of the upper wing surface for ice. Ground handling not pleased. I fear that they failed to appreciate how great was the f--k I could not give about their feelings.

Ovda; ice on wings due sub zero fuel. Resident ESN employee chucked bucket of hot water over same. More ice to remove; longer delay.

B747. "You've left snow on top of wings" "It isn't much, you'll be OK!" (Red rag to bull effect). "We have pictures which will go to your CAA!" "We'll send the de-icer back."

In these situations only one person calls the shots. Why do people argue? They're only going to lose and possibly incur an ASR across their boss's desk.

XPMorten

10th Apr 2012, 19:26

Same pilot?

Aeroflot--snow and ice on a wing and a prayer - YouTube

Checkboard

10th Apr 2012, 19:38

I was thinking of the CRJ that rolled over on T/O at Birmingham after the APU exhaust melted a thin layer of frost on one wing only.
I see a reference to another CRJ accident above. Clearly it's a type that REALLY needs the wings clear.
That was a Canadair Challenger CL600, the business jet from which the CRJ was developed, however - point taken.

... and Belavia Flight 1834 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavia_Flight_1834), a CRJ-100ER, and China Eastern Flight 5210 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Eastern_Flight_5210), a CRJ-200LR. All aircraft without leading edge devices.

... not sayin' it's any less of a dereliction of duty in an aircraft WITH leading edge devices, mind. :=

Fairly new in the RHS and my sector, I was re-assured by my hairy arsed colleagues that it wouldn't be a problem. There was a very significant delay on rotate before the a/c leaped into the air like a frightened horse. Not much conversation before Nantucket... well we didn't know about health and safety in those days... so what was there to talk about

... so you admit you knew nothing. You admit that the operation frightened you. I am failing to get your point that managing to survive one take off means this is a good procedure. :ugh:

... the airline, and METARs (weather reports) are posted on the Tech Log forum for anyone interested. Temperature hovering around 0º-1ºC and last snow fall about two hours before the flight.

Same pilot?
Same airline - it's called "Corporate Safety Culture" :ugh:

PENKO

10th Apr 2012, 19:53

And who cares about the outside air temperature? All this 'if it is below -XX degrees it is powdery dry snow which will blow off' is nonsense. The wing temperature might be (and will be in the case of Airbusses with heated fuel returning from the engine) way above the air temperature. On the video you can see clearly that the fuel is so warm it melted ALL the snow sitting over the outer wing tank. The crew could have had absolutely no idea if the snow would blow off or stick closer to the wing root.

You know, this is the kind of stuff that will be okay for 99 departures, you can get away with it as the video shows. Other idiotic crews will see it and think 'hey, Sergei is a good pilot, he knows his winter stuff, I try also'. Well...the 100th departure might just dip a wing. You cannot get away with this kind of recklessness in civil aviation.

Trash 'n' Navs

10th Apr 2012, 20:16

Not sure that Aeroflot's the only one doing this.

Have heard of a UK airline departing an outstation with ice on the wings but electing not to de-ice because the Captain wanted "to get home". Don't have the full details but it was a widebody departing Nth America.

Reasoned, logical thought process by the Captain in accordance with SOP or disregard for safety? I'll never know because I wasn't there.

Stuart Sutcliffe

10th Apr 2012, 20:18

Ovda; ice on wings due sub zero fuel. Resident ESN employee chucked bucket of hot water over same. More ice to remove; longer delay.
I watched RAF ground crew do precisely the same thing to a pair of Tornado bombers (with their engines running) at a major Canadian airport several years ago. Buffoons. I was in the tanker aircraft that was supposed to be refuelling these Tonkas. :rolleyes:

BALLSOUT

10th Apr 2012, 20:19

I too would be unwilling to sit in my seat as a passenger on that aircraft for take off without a good de-ice. As Capt Playstation said, i would do anything to stop the take off unless they off loaded me first. I am amazed it got airborne!

pigboat

10th Apr 2012, 20:31

Scary thing is, the guy got away with it today. You can bet he's gonna try it again sometime, maybe with different results.

mary meagher

10th Apr 2012, 20:46

Twenty years ago, at Newark, USA. Waiting to depart, as pax, in window seat.

Weather not rain, not snow, but sleet. Looking out at the wing beside me, it was best described as pebble-dashed. A deicing chap on a rickety moveable tower duly turned up and began to douse the 747 wing with fluid. Took about 8 minutes to do. Then he moved back and squirted the empenage. Another 8 minutes. And round to the other wing. By that time, my wing was pebble dash again! I was not a happy bunny, I rang the bell for the flight attendant and pointed out the window. "Not very nice trying to take off with all that ice" I commented. She had a look and sent for the first officer, who had a good look, thanked me for my concern and said not to worry, there were three de-icing rigs waiting at the end of the taxiway and we would get a thorough dousing before departure.

It came to pass exactly as he promised.. A bit like going through a really top line car wash, and we took off pronto, up through the murk and into the clear air in no time. Was I silly to fuss about it, do you think?

pigboat

10th Apr 2012, 20:59

It came to pass exactly as he promised.. A bit like going through a really top line car wash, and we took off pronto, up through the murk and into the clear air in no time. Was I silly to fuss about it, do you think?

No you weren't. It got the attention of the flight crew. Another thing, Your concerns were handled in a concise and professional manner. I don't know what airline it was, but they deserve a thumbs up for the attention you were given.

ZeBedie

10th Apr 2012, 21:00

45 sec is quite a long t/o roll for a minibus. I guess he held it on the runway to build up a 'safe' airspeed?

I say "he" with some confidnece ;)

Max Angle

10th Apr 2012, 21:02

It was nearly all gone by the time he rotated, can't see what all the fuss is about.

Hotel Tango

10th Apr 2012, 21:08

4 pages of mainly rot and speculation. Well here's my contribution of rot and speculation: that the crew new exactly what the condition of the wings were - as became apparent during the take off run when it all blew away leaving a clean wing.

EDDNHopper

10th Apr 2012, 21:15

MA and HT, if your comments weren't tongue-in-cheek then I'd suggest you take a look here: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482210-upper-wing-covered-snow-during-takeoff-roll.html

deSitter

10th Apr 2012, 23:08

Rollingthunder

10th Apr 2012, 23:28

It was nearly all gone by the time he rotated, can't see what all the fuss is about.

Just how thick was the ice underneath the snow?

Air Ontario Flight 1363 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Ontario_Flight_1363)

Oh, when will they ever learn?

deSitter

10th Apr 2012, 23:37

We have to assume that the pilots were aware that the snow was powder (and even in the video, it sure looks and behaves like powder to me), and there was no ice beneath. Pilots are generally loath to kill themselves with stupidity.

pudoc

10th Apr 2012, 23:38

Powder snow on the wing is of no importance. The dangerous thing is rime ice on the leading edge (slats) or just behind it. By the time the air flow is to the flaps, any powder snow will quickly be blown off, as you see here. If the leading edge is disrupted, then the snow on the flaps will remain and not be dispersed, because the flow is already rendered turbulent and separated farther up the wing. Then there is no lift.

My concern was:

1. the aircraft had contamination, "no importance" or not, it's not allowed. It's something that's been drilled into pilots since the PPL, and the ATPL books ramble on about that there must be nothing on the wings at all many times.

2. There could have been inches of ice under that snow and nobody would have known.

I wonder if any officials have seen this. I don't think it should go on pprune and no further.

deSitter

10th Apr 2012, 23:46

Well snow has a personality that is known to those who live in it. Ice below snow would not be confused with harmless powder on the surface. In fact a cursory de-icing might be more dangerous, because a condition with no melting and no actual contamination would be turned into one with at least partial melting and then being "on the clock", in very cold conditions.

overun

10th Apr 2012, 23:51

lt doesn`t work like that.

Maybe you could leave the ones with professional licences to get on with

it.

The renegades do not reflect on the rest.

Do you remember the fatal stabbing in lstanbul in 2000, or maybe late

1999, when one of Britains finest, a footie supporter, took to doing what

he did regularly at home ?

The point is not everyones keys are in the hat.

As Clint Eastwood said, or to paraphrase, do you feel lucky ?

Pay the extra for a brand, otherwise toss a coin.

x FAI 232

Checkboard

10th Apr 2012, 23:59

Fishes in a barrel, I know - apologies to the pilots on the forum - move on to the next post.

We have to assume that the pilots were aware that the snow was powder (and even in the video, it sure looks and behaves like powder to me), and there was no ice beneath. Pilots are generally loath to kill themselves with stupidity.

You might have to assume - I assume that, the pilots on this flight had no idea what condition the snow was.

"even in the video" - it's hard to see ice on a cheap phone recording - have a look ar the second take off vid posted on this thread - the ice barely shows up, but was obvious to the filmer.

Clear ice can hardly be seen in real life - even from the cabin windows, you have to feel for it.

"No ice beneath" - what was holding on to the bits of snow we can see even after the take off?

"Pilots are loath to kill themselves" - like idiots in cars, idiots on unstable ladders, etc etc, pilots can be stupid as well. The problem isn't that they are "loath to kill themselves" - its that they can't see the guy with the hood and sickle (http://angelsofdeathclanship.webs.com/Angel-of-Death.jpg) walking up behind them while they are laughing at the view out of the front window .... :rolleyes:

deSitter

11th Apr 2012, 00:00

OK well I defer to regulations. But there was no danger.

-drl

Checkboard

11th Apr 2012, 00:07

Of COURSE there was danger. You can only even think "there was no danger" because you have seen the outcome.

If that film was shown only up to the point of V1 and then stopped, with a "what happens next" question ...

... what would be your response?? :ugh:

P.S. Are you a Russian Public Relations spammer?? Or are you really THAT stupid??

overun

11th Apr 2012, 00:21

Continue the take off .....

de facto

11th Apr 2012, 00:43

De Sitter wrote Don't lecture me on accident reports. I'm well aware of all the things that can and do go wrong. But I always have confidence that the men and women up front will do their best on bad days. I assume there exists a culture of aviation that has its own internal rules, that are not all based on politics, and that in particular, pilots, like concert pianists, would be especially jealous of the honor of their guild, and would not admit members who were not up to snuff.

Apparently not aware of all the 'things than can and do go wrong'.
And yes aviation admits members who were not up to snuff, a prime example in this video.
Mistakes must be corrected,hence their licenses must be revoked.

GOOD NEWS is that you obviously aint a pilot.:ugh:

overun

11th Apr 2012, 00:58

Good news indeed !

Are you a pilot ?

de facto

11th Apr 2012, 03:13

and laziness goes on ....
Are you a pilot ?

yes i am.

overun

11th Apr 2012, 04:08

Brilliant !

now just remind me, my memory isn`t what it was, what are the

advantages of winglets ?

and the downside ?

overun

11th Apr 2012, 04:29

Thankfully you`ve stopped that headbanging nonsense.

After you`ve finished checking the books explain a sideslip to

me please.

de facto

11th Apr 2012, 06:17

Brilliant !

now just remind me, my memory isn`t what it was, what are the

advantages of winglets ?

and the downside ?

Priceless, thanks for the laugh:ok::E

sitigeltfel

11th Apr 2012, 06:33

Pilots are generally loath to kill themselves with stupidity.

The problem with the stupid ones is that they can also take others with them.

up_down_n_out

11th Apr 2012, 06:41

Especially when you are only 24/27 and fly out of Tiumen, + the officials repeat the ever present official B.ll.x!

"Antsin, the pilot-in-command of the crashed plane, was a “responsible” and “highly professional” person......graduated from the Ulyanovsk Higher Civil Aviation School, one of Russia’s most prestigious civil aviation universities.

“No one could ever imagine that such thing could happen to Sergei, that he could make a mistake. He was smart and successful in his studies,” he said.

"Second pilot Nikita Chekhlov was only 24 years old"

“You can do everything right, just the way it is written in the flight manual, and get an absolutely unexpected result. None of us pilots is guaranteed against it.
Investigation will show what happened there,” he said.

Da da! Konieshno!

bavarian-buddy

11th Apr 2012, 07:08

This discussion is ridiculous. Contaminated wing. NoGo. Thats it. Nobody cares about dry snow or whatever.
It flys in this video. Yes. But at what margins? The wing is not clean, Critical AOA WILL reduce, thats a physical fact. When will it stall? I don't know, and you don't know and those pilots also didn't knew. And because we all don't know, there is only one solution: keep you wings fu***** clean.
Maybe one gust, one engine failure ore a higher rotation rate could have lead us to disaster. This may work 1 time, maybe 10 ore 100 times. Maye a thousand times, but one day it won't work.
Clean aircraft is clean aircraft is clean aircraft.
I am shocked about this discussion is 2012.:ugh:

PENKO

11th Apr 2012, 07:12

The only reason the snow blew off is that they held the plane on the ground for an extremely long time, increasing the wind speed as much as possible before they rotated (and even then it is the most idiotic thing I have seen in years). What if they suffered an engine failure and had to limp it in the air with one wing still covered with a lot of snow?

And with Checkboard I agree that there is no way to see from the video if the wing was clear at all. There probably were a lot of rough patches of clear ice left along with the spots of snow that did not blow off at all.

Bavarian, I am as shocked as you, but there are still idiots around, and I'm not talking about these Russians, who think they can get away with not de-icing.

stepwilk

11th Apr 2012, 07:48

This thread is a classic example ofd The New PPRuNe. Five pages of idiocy by numerous nonpilots who haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about.

Bobbsy

11th Apr 2012, 09:41

I hope you will tolerate a quick comment from an SLF--but one who spent his formative years on the Canadian prairies where the sort of cold temperatures and powder snow that some have mentioned was very common. At sub zero (in Fahrenheit that is) temperatures, snow does indeed blow off far more easily than the heavy wet stuff that I saw when I lived in the UK.

I can half see where the "it'll blow off" posters are coming from.

But...and it's a huge but...the same soft, dry snow is also a great insulator. Any place you have even a weak source of warmth (perhaps the in-wing fuel system heating mentioned in an earlier post) the thickness of the snow can insulate the parts touching the metal from the extremes of the outside temperature and allow it melt or at least soften. Many was the time that the snow on the bonnet or roof of my car could create a layer of ice or at least sticky, adhering snow before it had a chance to completely blow off in normal driving.

Not a problem at all on a car but a huge risk, I'm sure, on an aircraft. Even worse, you can't tell from looking at the snow what's happening at the bottom of the pile and it would only take one mistake from an "expert" to have disastrous consequences. I have to think that the rules are there for a good reason.

de facto

11th Apr 2012, 09:57

Even worse, you can't tell from looking at the snow what's happening at the bottom of the pile and it would only take one mistake from an "expert" to have disastrous consequences. I have to think that the rules are there for a good reason.

You see, even a passenger from AUSTRALIA has better common sense in winter operation that these two RUSSIAN 'professional' crew members..:ok:

2EggOmelette

11th Apr 2012, 10:04

surprised by that? :cool:

R04stb33f

11th Apr 2012, 10:52

Given that a large portion of people on PPRUNE appear to hate it when a passenger (sorry - SLF) or other non-pilot tries to comment on some of these matters, to some of us with a basic knowledge, it does seem obvious that this is dangerous.

Now, a non-pilot is sitting by the window over the wing which is covered in an inch of snow and he can hear the engines spooling up. What is he/she supposed to do? Make a fuss like some people have suggested? Or bite their tongue and hope for the best?

There may be many things that appear to be dangerous to a non-pilot and I don't think that any of you pilots would appreciate non-pilot passengers voicing their concerns all the time.

It is possible that the person filming the original video wanted to say something.. but somehow felt he couldn't.... What about the guy in the second video? He KNEW it was wrong and didn't say anything? Why is that?

PENKO

11th Apr 2012, 11:27

Do planes fly differently in Russia?
Has Airbus given the Russians special dispensation to fly with snow on the wings?

I know for a fact that they do things differently up north, but I also know for a fact that I will not pax on any of their aircraft. Ever. One captain with experience in those regions explained their reasoning to me: these aircraft are massively overpowered anyway.

There you go.

up_down_n_out

11th Apr 2012, 13:58

can't resist here....:E

Didn't seem massively overpowered at Habsheim did it?? :O

Checkboard

11th Apr 2012, 14:24

Let's face it, when it comes to 'snow', we're rank amateurs here, as we demonstrate year after year after year. We haven't got a bloody clue, so, we simply de-ice at any and every hint of frozen anything on the a/c.

Speak for yourself. :hmm: The airbus I fly has enough range to leave the UK - and (surprise, surprise) it does just that each winter as it flies into mainland snowy Europe :rolleyes:

I remember seeing a very clean a/c getting de-iced one morning and scratching my head about his decision to de-ice and ours not to. Our a/c was spotless.
Why were you scratching your head? The other aircraft may have recently spent several hours at altitude and have fuel frost. The other Captain may have looked at the weather shortly to arrive and decided to beat any queues. There are many reasons for different decisions to both be correct. If your aircraft was spotless - that's all you need worry about.

Over here we do things our way-and for a reason.

Maybes other places, where they have MUCH more experience of snow, they do things differently?
The pilots may well have checked for ice under the powder with some sort of approved tactile check. Who knows? (mind you- I doubt it.)

Not me, nor the posters on here who howl their righteous derision.
Not you :hmm: As to me, I can categorically state there is no "approved tactile check" for ice under snow which leaves snow on the wing. :ugh: If you don't know that, then it's time for you to get back into the books.

For those who go on about cold conditions and powder snow, using all of their vast car-driving experience - sure, some snow is easy to remove - in which case the procedure is to remove it. :mad: No one cares if you use a broom, or compressed air to do that rather than de-icing fluid - but you still have to do it.

I'm not defending what these guys did-
Really? ? :rolleyes: Who wrote all of that rubbish then? The Russian snow fairy?

2EggOmelette

11th Apr 2012, 14:37

Still haven't heard if and what the repercussions may be, from a legal standpoint? Can and will there be any?

lomapaseo

11th Apr 2012, 14:57

Still haven't heard if and what the repercussions may be, from a legal standpoint? Can and will there be any?

Check out the duplicate thread running in the Tech section for some views.

No sense in doubling up the rhetoric here :)

Piltdown Man

11th Apr 2012, 15:42

Not for one minute am I going to condone the actions of this crew but I would like to know the answers to these questions:

1. Was this aircraft held on the runway beyond its calculated Vr?
2. How close to the the aircraft's performance and aerodynamics limit was this flight?
3. Did the crew actually know their aircraft was contaminated?
4. Would the aircraft have flown with the snow on the wings (engine-out)?
5. Is this normal for this airline?

cockygashandlazy

11th Apr 2012, 16:06

Has anybody confirmed the airline yet? (Apart from a youtube video comment). I see a lot of Russia bashing on here. My experience of the main Russian operators is good in regards to cold weather operations. They generally don't abuse their experience anymore than anyone else.

Bearcat

11th Apr 2012, 16:08

God bless icp speeds and long Russian runways.

Checkboard

11th Apr 2012, 16:16

1. Was this aircraft held on the runway beyond its calculated Vr?
How could anyone not on the flightdeck possibly know? :rolleyes:

2. How close to the the aircraft's performance and aerodynamics limit was this flight?
The point of ice contamination is that no one knows where "the limit" is. :rolleyes:

3. Did the crew actually know their aircraft was contaminated?
How could they not? It's not snowing, so they taxied out with the wings covered in snow. :rolleyes:

4. Would the aircraft have flown with the snow on the wings (engine-out)?
See point 2. :rolleyes:

5. Is this normal for this airline?
It's not "normal" for ANY airline. That's the point. :rolleyes:

Has anybody confirmed the airline yet?
Yes - see the thread in Tech Log.

UUUWZDZX

11th Apr 2012, 16:44

Still haven't heard if and what the repercussions may be, from a legal standpoint? Can and will there be any?

Once I receive reply from Airbus ( Mentioned here http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482210-upper-wing-covered-snow-during-takeoff-roll.html ), I will add to it to my wider letter and send it to EASA and IATA (more ideas?). I will contact russian CAA only in the end, since it's a highly corrupted environment, Aeroflot is a state-owned company and it's all interlinked with CAA.

speedbird320

11th Apr 2012, 16:57

unbelievable video in this day and age..criminal in my view.

stepwilk

11th Apr 2012, 17:11

Given that a large portion of people on PPRuNe appear to hate it when a passenger (sorry - SLF) or other non-pilot tries to comment on some of these matters,

Read the name of the forum, not just the acronym.

xxgunnerxx

11th Apr 2012, 17:13

People here are so judgmental its ridiculous. "If its not done our way its clearly wrong" attitude. Russians have experience in deicing pure and simple - how many western crashes were there due to icing? Too many to count! How many in Soviet Bloc? Ya I thought so! We'll see what the outcome of the UTair investigation will be, so again lets not jump to conclusions.

If you watch the video, you'll clearly see at the end of the wing, some snow mechanically brushed off. Obviously the crew is not kamikaze and checked for ice underneath the snow. Some of you will then jump and say well what about the leading edge??? Well Shirley, if they checked the end of the wing they will check that area too, don't you think? I would and I'd wager they did too!

Look all I'm saying here is to be objective and cautious. Yes the Bus manual wasn't followed, but at the end of the day its up to the Captain's discretion. For all you know he could have 20 years experience flying An-2s in the Kamchatka area while you were still learning how to tie your shoelaces. Just because you were taught to deice when there is snow on the wings, does not make you correct.

UUUWZDZX

11th Apr 2012, 17:22

but at the end of the day its up to the Captain's discretion

It's not up to his discretion. Wording in FCOM and SOP is different.

speedbird320

11th Apr 2012, 17:38

Ignorance is bliss for some people Gunner! you can't defend the indefensible and that kind of evidence is pretty damning in my view. But hey! lets see what the Russian investigators come up with shall we!!??

captplaystation

11th Apr 2012, 18:05

As someone posted earlier, if you stopped the video at the moment of rotation & asked 99% of pilots "what happened next" ? the answer would be in the negative sense. That this didn't happen, is down to luck, not good judgement.
As a Commander of an aircraft conducting public transport operations, your primary duty is to exercise good judgement.
QED, dereliction of duty in the most basic sense.

ImbracableCrunk

11th Apr 2012, 19:01

Look all I'm saying here is to be objective and cautious. Yes the Bus manual wasn't followed, but at the end of the day its up to the Captain's discretion.

That's to prevent or in the event of an emergency, not to cause one.

RA44471

11th Apr 2012, 19:03

Yes, in Russia we are used to fly in severe winter.
Yes, in some cases, take-off with snow powder on the wing is acceptable.
Yes, in some cases, deicing will deteriorate aircraft perfomance.
Yes, Tupolev154 was more winterproof
(on my opinion)

No. This case is unique.
No. I can't understand captains judgement.

Checkboard

11th Apr 2012, 19:13

xxgunnerxx - perhaps you should add to your post that you are SLF (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/311882-bmi-40.html#post4579889), who knows very little about aircraft operation (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/350693-vref-landing-3.html#post4542055), in order for people to put that opinion in perspective?

... and seeing as your post history is 99% about Russian operations, I don't think you live in Toronto, either ;)

PENKO

11th Apr 2012, 19:13

If you watch the video, you'll clearly see at the end of the wing, some snow mechanically brushed off.

No sir, what you probably see is the warm fuel in the outer tank melting the snow sitting on top of that tank. In the 320 fuel is circulated to cool the generators. The surplus of this fuel is returned to the outer tank. Or it might simply be fuel that was already much warmer than OAT when it was uplifted, again, melting the snow sitting on top of the tank. Whatever it is, ice melting on top of the fuel tanks is a sight very well known to any busdriver.

Green guard, nice googling, but what is the Inuit word for 'snow sitting on top of the wing being melted by the IDG-cooling fuel'?

Warmkitter below, excellent post, but may I point out that the wing was NOT clean on liftoff. There was still some snow and lots of ice, you can see bits of it fly off after liftoff.:ok:

pudoc

11th Apr 2012, 19:35

Look all I'm saying here is to be objective and cautious. Yes the Bus manual wasn't followed, but at the end of the day its up to the Captain's discretion. For all you know he could have 20 years experience flying An-2s in the Kamchatka area while you were still learning how to tie your shoelaces. Just because you were taught to deice when there is snow on the wings, does not make you correct.

But at the end of the day procedure in the Airbus manual was not followed, as you point you. Just because he is captain doesn't make him king of all decisions. Captain's best interest surely should be safety and not following procedure doesn't spell safety to me. Unless it was an emergency situation, I've never heard of an emergency prompting crew to get airborne asap and skip de-icing.

warmkiter

11th Apr 2012, 19:35

I know, clean looks different. Just wanted to point out to these armchair quarterbacks that an asymmetric lift situation, due to uneven breakoff of ice and snow, will be guaranteed if not deiced!

xxgunnerxx

11th Apr 2012, 20:15

Checkboard (http://www.pprune.org/members/2609-checkboard), Did my post hit a couple of your nerve endings? If you have some genuine rebuttals, please post them. I've never hidden anything and where my current place of residence has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

PENKO (http://www.pprune.org/members/68328-penko) - If that were the case, the area free of snow would be much greater and more uniform.

warmkiter (http://www.pprune.org/members/139910-warmkiter) - "...it doesnt change the aerodynamics". It doesn't if it comes off during the takeoff. I don't see you being worried when there is water on your wing, because you know it will be flying off during the takeoff. Same thing with dry snow. I think you are talking about the age of the UTair pilots. I was referring to the SU crew of this video.

pudoc (http://www.pprune.org/members/343520-pudoc) - That is not the issue, everybody here can acknowledge that its idiotic to ignore it, however. The greater issue that was brought up is taking off with snow on the wing and if it safe to do so.

UUUWZDZX

11th Apr 2012, 20:28

UPDATE TO THE STORY. Author of the video just said (see comments to the video on youtube, in russian) that de-icing procedure was NOT performed. The only thing that was done - ground personnel used a broom with a long handle (no joke) to remove contamination from the very edge of the wing -- that's all. He also said that other aircrafts were undergoing de-icing properly, there was a queue apparently for this procedure. Flight crew of this flight decided to skip it.

Max Angle

11th Apr 2012, 20:34

Maxangle, yeah the snow was gone on the right wing. What about the left wing? Sucks if its still there, doesnt it. These guys deiced, but still crashed. Guess what was the cause?
It was probably gone from the other wing as well but don't worry, my comment was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek as most of the pros on the board will have realised.

"Clean wing" is gospel in our airline and anyone who deliberately flouts the rule would expect a P45 (boot firmly applied to arse in the direction of the door for those not it the UK) and rightly so.

warmkiter

11th Apr 2012, 20:47

1. How the hell do you know its going to be blown off before liftoff?
2. Is it going to do so symmetrically?
3. How big is the increased drag until its blown off?
4. Does this affect your ASD/TOD?
5. What is below the dry snow?
6. The wing has different temperatures due to fuel, sun, wind etc. So does the snow. How does this effect?

If you want to become a testpilot, do so. Flying commercial is not a place to operate at the very end of the envelope.

By all respect, in airline biz there is no room for speculations, no dry-snow-will-blow-off-during-TO procedures and no room for morons who think so.

With that attitude, knowledge and adherence to procedures you are demonstrating here i dont give you any change to survive in any airline. If i am wrong just give me the 2 lettercode so i can avoid it.

UUUWZDZX

11th Apr 2012, 20:50

Just for those, who didn't see the other topic (Link). The official reply from Aeroflot (by deputy director of operations and director of air safety) "There is no violation - snow has been blown off instantly and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics and safety. Safety is our first priority ".

Link (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gsn0l8) (in russian)

How foolish...

I will use this statement when contacting EASA, IATA and russian CAA.

up_down_n_out

11th Apr 2012, 21:13

I wouldn't bother "round robin" the CAA or anyone, they will have read it by now. :ooh: :eek:

Probably not the moment to get TOO excited. :zzz:
:ouch:

xxgunnerxx

11th Apr 2012, 21:22

warmkiter: One word - Experience. This crew wants to live as much as you do. You really think they came up with this method out of thin air? I can't answer your questions, but maybe the crew can. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here to show that just because you were taught to de ice doesn't make everyone else wrong because they do things differently!

Lord Spandex Masher

11th Apr 2012, 21:30

No Gunner, the crew cannot answer those questions.

Pub User

11th Apr 2012, 23:39

Just because you were taught to deice when there is snow on the wings, does not make you correct.

This crew wants to live as much as you do. You really think they came up with this method out of thin air?

The crew had probably done it hundreds of times, and got away with it. However, one in several hundred chance of a disaster is not nearly short enough odds for for commercial air transport operations (in the West), where odds in one in a million are deemed more acceptable.

RobertS975

12th Apr 2012, 01:18

A long thread with lots of different opinions!

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/302971-iberia-ib6166-bos-mad-2nd-dec-cowboys.html

tbaylx

12th Apr 2012, 03:51

To all those who say the snow was blown off...don't know what video you are looking at but snow was adhering to sections of the wing and aileron long after they were airborne.

There is no captain's discretion with regards to contamination..if there is any you deice. period.

Lots of people have died to learn that lesson, no need to learn it again the hard way.

Brian Abraham

12th Apr 2012, 06:15

MD-11 Captain told me the story of landing in some European port and wanted to deice prior to departure. "What for" was the question put. No one else was, but his reason was he had tankered fuel in. Prudence.

sabenaboy

12th Apr 2012, 07:48

By all respect, in airline biz there is no room for speculations, no dry-snow-will-blow-off-during-TO procedures and no room for morons who think so.

I am certainly not defending these Aeroflot cowboys. On the contrary. (Just read my contributions in the parallel topic on the tech log (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482210-upper-wing-covered-snow-during-takeoff-roll.html))

But... let me tell you the story of an ex-colleague. He was DFO of our airline at that time. He was operating an A320 winter charter flight to Finnish Lapland with pax who were going to visit Santa Claus. I believe it was to Enontekio (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Enonteki%C3%B6+airport,+Finland&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&ll=68.357686,23.506279&spn=0.108261,0.528374&sll=68.353127,23.740768&sspn=0.216565,1.056747&hq=Enonteki%C3%B6+airport,+Finland&t=m&z=12). It was EXTREMELY cold that day. Can't remember the exact temperature he said, but it must have been below -30°C for sure. They arrived early in the morning.

The same evening when they wanted to depart, the wings were covered by aprox. 1,5 cm of dry snow which had fallen during the afternoon. So, the captain requested de-icing. The Finair de-icing team that had been dispatched to Enontekio from Rovaniemi told him that de-icing was not an option because the de-icing fluid would be ineffective and would freeze! They brought a ladder and showed him that the snow was extremely dry and light and absolutely not sticking to the wings. The snow had fallen on a very cold and dry wing surface. The de-icing team said that Finair has procedures authorizing take-off in such conditions.

The captain decided to depart (engine intakes were cleaned with a brush) and even made a PA to the pax explaining his decision. Some pax later confirmed that the snow had completely been blown of the wing early during the take-off roll.

Was this particular captain a moron or a cowboy? In my opinion certainly not. Rules are there to be followed, but sometimes common sense has to prevail! Follow rules? Of course, but there should always be room for intelligently used common sense!

de facto

12th Apr 2012, 07:52

Couldnt they brush it off at the gate then if the snow was so 'dry' ?:sad:
Some pax later confirmed that the snow had completely been blown of the wing early during the take-off roll.
So someone wasnt so sure after all?

sabenaboy

12th Apr 2012, 08:01

Couldnt they brush it off at the gate then if the snow was so 'dry'
The captain also suggested that to the de-icing team. Apparently first they laughed at him and told him he would have to do that himself at that temperature :ooh: and then more seriously explained him that brooming the snow off the wings is a less good idea because you would inevitably compact the snow on some spots on the wing and that the snow might get brushed into flight control hinges. Sounds acceptable to me as well!

up_down_n_out

12th Apr 2012, 08:05

Read this:-

supercooled water (http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/multimedia/story.aspx?id=851)

The little article from Leeds university should serve as a sharp reminder to the know it all,- "it will blow off" brigade.

Drop down to the noisy video in the page.

Surface contamination serves as a perfect seed (ice nucleation) environment for the formation of new crystals.

(This was implicated in the BA038 LHR near disaster caused by in the end by fuel cavitation).

The phenomenon might be the EXACT cause of the Tiumen crash.

de facto

12th Apr 2012, 08:33

you would inevitably compact the snow on some spots on the wing and that the snow might get brushed into flight control hinges. Sounds acceptable to me as well!
Yes and that is the problem in the first place,snow into the flight control hinges.
If FINNAIR had a special procedures in case of weather colder than lets say -30c, why wasnt the captain made aware of it via fcom,safety bulletin or else.
Why did he have to rely on the maintenance supposely knowledge of deicing procedures?
I also flew from airports where snow accumulated.It was initially brushed off then 2 steps deicing was done within close distance of the holding point.(temp was below -20c),snow had accumulated mostly on the root area of the wing(easily 20cm).Two deicing trucks used to reduce deicing time.

I wouldnt have personally accepted the maintenaNce word unless clearly stated in a written form and under what circumstances.

I guess they would have had also a concern on their fuel temperature...

hetfield

12th Apr 2012, 08:49

Found this comment below the youtube vid:

How dangerous for someone to be using an electronic device during takeoff... In the US you'd be escorted from the plane at the arrival end of your journey by air marshals...Couldn't agree more.....

sabenaboy

12th Apr 2012, 09:24

De Facto, this isn't the first time we start discussing. From what I've read in this and other posts, you appear to be someone who sticks to rules and SOP in what I consider to be an extreme way.

Although I wouldn't mind being a pax on your Boeing, I'd still prefer the cockpit crew of a slightly more flexible kind. I'm pretty sure that if you really ALWAYS blindly stick to the procedures and written rules, you would too often ground a plane and cause unnecessary inconvenience to your pax and financial losses for your airline.

If you are an experienced airline captain, which I can believe you are, surely you must have come in situations before where you could have said: "I'm grounding this plane" and have something on paper that would back you up, but where you didn't after using some intelligence. If that never happened in your career, but instead you used a written rule as an excuse EVERY time you saw something allowing you to ground the A/C, that might explain why you (have to?) fly in China.

I despise cowboys in the cockpit. I do not like nitpickers without any flexibility either. Following rules blindly without thinking and any flexibility can sometimes be disastrous as well!

Do I follow rules and SOP's. YES, I DO... but not like a robot. Isn't that what we call airmanship? Have I made (minor) mistakes in my career? Yes, and I'm sure I will make some more in the days, weeks and years to come. I even dare to say that I haven't made a single PERFECT flight in my whole life, even if I try it every single time! I think the difference between you and me is that I will more easily admit that I'm not infallible.

Happy flights! :ok: other captains in the situation you describe would have opted not to operate the flight. Absolutely, and I wouldn't criticize a captain for doing so. Of course that's also a safe option. But the question is: Is that the best option? Me thinks not. (trying to look at what a mess it would be trying to put up 180 pax and 6 crew in hotel beds...that weren't available.)

The Bartender

12th Apr 2012, 09:36

The captain also suggested that to the de-icing team. Apparently first they laughed at him and told him he would have to do that himself at that temperature :ooh: and then more seriously explained him that brooming the snow off the wings is a less good idea because you would inevitably compact the snow on some spots on the wing and that the snow might get brushed into flight control hinges. Sounds acceptable to me as well!

Not a pilot myself (microlights and models don't count in here, right?:ok:), but as a former sprayer, de-icing coordinator, instructor, and head of training on the subject, i agree with them.

Attacking the snow with a broom is good for three things:
1. It may save you time in the de-icingbay, as brooming can be done at gate, during boarding, etc.
2. It will save the airline a lot of money (de-icing fluids and fuel).
3. Very enviromentaly friendly because of 1 and 2.

Brooming is however, not a replacement for proper de-icing treatment, it is a supplement, to be able to perform a more efficient de-icing treatment later on.

But rather than reccommend leaving the wing contaminated, i would take a closer look at the fluid limitations vs actual conditions, alternate de-icing positions for minimum exposure, tactile-check before line-up, and so on.
I'd rather tell you to leave the aircraft until spring, than tell you that departing with a contaminated wing is ok...

As for the video, i would probably pleed self-defence for trying out the aircrafts emergency exits in an attempt to stop the pilots from trying to kill me..:sad:

Basil

12th Apr 2012, 09:46

Can't remember the exact temperature he said, but it must have been below -30°C for sure.
The Finair de-icing team that had been dispatched to Enontekio from Rovaniemi told him that de-icing was not an option because the de-icing fluid would be ineffective and would freeze!

Perhaps they hadn't heard of this (http://www.aviation.clariant.com/C12575E4001FB2B8/vwLookupDownloads/Aviation_Newsroom_FactSheets_SafewingEGI1996.pdf/$FILE/Aviation_Newsroom_FactSheets_SafewingEGI1996.pdf) de-icing fluid.

Freezing point: -45C

sabenaboy

12th Apr 2012, 09:48

As for the video, i would probably pleed self-defence for trying out the aircrafts emergency exits in an attempt to stop the pilots from trying to kill me

I already agreed with that. Link 1 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482210-upper-wing-covered-snow-during-takeoff-roll.html#post7127457), 2 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482210-upper-wing-covered-snow-during-takeoff-roll-2.html#post7127608) and 3 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482210-upper-wing-covered-snow-during-takeoff-roll-2.html#post7128115).

@Basil: That would of course have been the best solution and I'm sure it would have been used if they had had that option. :ok:

de facto

12th Apr 2012, 09:59

Sabenaboy,
This is a discussion,lets not get personal,shall we?
you would too often ground a plane and cause unnecessary inconvenience to your pax and financial losses for your airline
Only time i refused an aircraft was a night flight in europe with anti ice valve dispatched in the closed position and obvious icing enroute.
I dont write the MEL nor the DDG.:rolleyes:
If that never happened in your career, but instead you used a written rule as an excuse EVERY time you saw something allowing you to ground the A/C, that might explain why you (have to?) fly in China.
Quite a childish note.
I use the rules i am given by my airline and my licencing department to judge wether a flight can be operated or not.
If my airline leaves the final decision on me in case of a grey area,i will use my knowledge,experience to decide wether the potential risks are manageable.
I am flying in China because my previous airline went bust and the other airlines pay in europe are crap,i save 110 000 +eur/year here.:E
I follow rules and SOP's
Sops are what they are,mostly guidlines, Rules are regulations,rigid.
If you bend the rules and anything wrong happens,the airline you tried to save money or be so flexible for will be at the day of the hearing,not on your side but on the other side of the bench.
I think the difference between you and me is that I will more easily admit that I'm not infallible.
We are all fallible,we are humans,however i put all the chances on my side to provide my crew and passengers the safest flight i can provide.
Sometimes safety comes before profit.
You may read that i am all for fuel saving...some consider not uplifting extra fuel each flight is dangerous,i think this philosophy costs the airline money not some rare occasions when i deem as the final authority that the aircraft should be operated in the higher scale of safety net.
I despise cowboys in the cockpit. I do not like nitpickers without any flexibility either
I despise cowboys too,i dont enjoy nitpickers either,however,i always respected prudent and knowledgeable,less influenceable captains.

Sabena,are you a first officer?if so, i believe the day you will change seat,yoour perspective may change...there are times company financial benefit do not and should not cross the boundery of safety/potential hazardous odds.

It may not seem so but Im quite fun to fly with:E and i often helped the CC cleaning the aircraft in short turn arounds to make the turn around slot,so you see im not the DEVIL white gloved captain you may think,i take account of my airline and my passengers confort /ontime performance,but my final goal is the flight safety.

I wish you safe flight too:ok:

andrasz

12th Apr 2012, 10:34

Many moons ago I was involved with an airline as a low level life form usually referred to as bean counter. I had the privilege of having worked alongside a COO who could actually think in 256 shades of grey as opposed to the usual #000000 and #FFFFFF. In this outfit flight crews were actively encouraged to use sound judgement within the bounds of regulations, and also to consider the financial impact of their action when making decisions.

There were two scenarios (among some others), where crews were explicitly instructed to ignore any financial consequences - when deciding to go-around or when considering to de-ice. In both cases SOP called for "if in doubt, do it - no questions will be asked later".

Over the years the most serious incident we had was someone getting the nosewheel muddy after the 'caution, slippery when wet' sign was removed from the piano keys.

Teddy Robinson

12th Apr 2012, 10:42

Astonishing to see some posters defending the right of this crew to have an accident, along with countless fare paying passengers.
Quite sincerely, I hope the airline is properly identified, that the video goes viral, and said airline ceases trading.

What makes this video remarkable is that it did not include pitch & roll oscillations, and the moment of impact with the loss of all souls.

OUTRAGEOUS :mad:

2EggOmelette

12th Apr 2012, 10:50

To be fair, I don't think anyone here has actually defended the actions of the pilots involved, they have just given varying points of view as to why it may have occurred.
What gets me is the amount of supposition on this thread.
Lomapaso was very helpful at pointing out the parallel thread on the Tec log. Worth a look, some very enlightening discussion.

aerobat77

12th Apr 2012, 11:59

not pretty but also not such a brainer you discuss here. its just snow which gets blown off , the very few of us here which earn their money with sitting in the cockpit more than once made a take off with some snow on the wing or the tail .

the vast majority of the others may not understand that its today a tough market and a small margin between doing something dangerous and satisfying your company. definitvly you will not get the job done by just reading the SOP,s . :uhoh:

cheers !

Bearcat

12th Apr 2012, 12:28

And this aircraft departed from a large airport where numerous people would have been in attendance with aircraft at dispatch and would have seen the wings caked in snow?

I'm glad I work in an outfit that my f/o would have got the restraining kit if I attempted to do what this clot Did re dispatch together with redcaps, engineers and our ccm's are trained to report to the cockpit if they see ice / snow of wings before dispatch.

This video is vile and I said said in a previous they got out of jail with a monstrous runway length, using high icp speeds and when v1 came it was ignored with another 15 kts thrown in the bag before rotation says me.

So Capt:D a big clap on the back for winning the bell end award of stupidity for putting your pax lives in danger, your crews lives and those people in the surrounding area where you could have crashed.:ok:

UUUWZDZX

12th Apr 2012, 12:38

If you are angry about this kind of airmanship and airline management AND you have twittеr (and even if you don't that's the reason to sign-up for it:) ), then RETWEET:

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?source=webclient&text=RT%20@aeroflot%20officials%20claim%20it%20is%20OK%20to% 20takeoff%20with%20snow%20on%20the%20wing,%20disregarding%20 FCOM%20and%20SOP%20procedures%20VIDEO%20tinyurl.com/d96xm26

Text to be retweeted in this link: RT @aeroflot officials claim it is OK to takeoff with snow on the wing, disregarding FCOM and SOP procedures VIDEO tinyurl.com/d96xm26

lomapaseo

12th Apr 2012, 12:41

I still have that burning lesson in me from being told by airline managenent that the Captain is a captain and makes decisions (some right and some wrong)

However, we do look to place some limitations on those decisions being answerable to a higher judge (after the fact) After all we are not operating completely ad-hoc in flying.

Immediately in a case like this I look to the SOP provided to him in the cockpit. If he is within the SOP then it's purely hindsight about good or bad decsicion making (food for PPrune). If he is outside the SOP it's up to the airline to offer him a chance to explain.

If the SOP is wrong or in some cases I'm familar with (not even available) than its a enforceable regulatory function to correct with the operator.

In this case I've seen enough to feel it's the latter

DX Wombat

12th Apr 2012, 12:51

If blowing snow off the wing is so effective why not use giant blowers/fans to do so before taxiing out to the runway? That way you could see if the wing was clean and whether there were any remaining sticky patches where ice may be lurking which could then be treated; or is this too simplistic an idea?

sabenaboy

12th Apr 2012, 12:58

Sabena,are you a first officer?if so, i believe the day you will change seat,yoour perspective may change...

De facto, I've been spending the last six years in the left seat of the A320 and yes, my perspective has changed to what it is now.
Only time i refused an aircraft was a night flight in europe with anti ice valve dispatched in the closed position and obvious icing enroute.
I dont write the MEL nor the DDG. Well, I've done it twice in those six years. And once even with a "MELable" defect. I don't feel good about taking an A320 with the nose wheel steering inop, even if the MEL allows me to! (Can't understand that's a MELable item with fare-paying pax. :rolleyes:). Didn't fancy explaining the pax that it was now ok to depart after first having returned to gate twice to try to get it fixed.
It may not seem so but Im quite fun to fly with and i often helped the CC cleaning the aircraft in short turn arounds to make the turn around slot,so you see im not the DEVIL white gloved captain you may think,i take account of my airline and my passengers confort /ontime performance,but my final goal is the flight safety. Well, I'm the first to realise that discussing by posts on PPRuNe is not an ideal way to communicate. Having to miss the body-language and intonation in speech is a handicap! I don't think we're that different after all. Perhaps we would get along if we could have a beer together, but I don't get to China very often :8. BTW, can we swap salaries, please :}? And I wasn't thinking you were the devil. (Just one of his apprentices :\. Hey, just kidding, really!)
...a COO who could actually think in 256 shades of grey as opposed to the usual #000000 and #FFFFFF Wow, that's a nice quote and exactly the point I was trying to make. A situation is almost never completely black or completely white. For instance: would I consider departing like the Aeroflot A320 did with the same contamination and the same weather? The answer is NO WAY, unless... I was sitting in the A320 on the apron in Kabul and the airport was about to be conquered by an army of Afghan Al Qaida soldiers. I would sure consider it in that case! See? Never say never and (almost) nothing is completely black or white!

bizjetbus

12th Apr 2012, 13:16

not pretty but also not such a brainer you discuss here. its just snow which gets blown off , the very few of us here which earn their money with sitting in the cockpit more than once made a take off with some snow on the wing or the tail .

What a load of BS. Pure ignorance. :mad::mad:

I hope that my family NEVER gets on an aircraft with you sitting up front.

cptkris

12th Apr 2012, 13:30

to the wombat...Remember the Scandinavian Airways MD80 that went down shortly after takeoff when the clear ice - near invisible to the crew broke off and got sucked into the engines....

yeah you cant always see the ice as it turns out.

aerobat77

12th Apr 2012, 13:58

What a load of BS. Pure ignorance. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

here an american airlines 737 takes off with some snow /slush on the wings/airframe

INSANE 737 take off Kphl in snow - YouTube

call them all ignorant and go by train- we will respect your decision.

like said , not pretty but not such a brainer as long its just loose snow . its a good idea to at least check by hand if not solid ice is under the snow, in this case of course de-ice.

the rest is a discussion for disgusted chairman experts and balcony spectators :8

cheers gents !

69flight

12th Apr 2012, 14:08

You just don't get it, aerobat, do you? And that's why you should not be in command of an aircraft. No "cheers"

sabenaboy

12th Apr 2012, 14:14

"Type II fluids are "pseudoplastic", which means they contain a polymeric thickening agent to prevent their immediate flow off aircraft surfaces. Typically the fluid film will remain in place until the aircraft attains 100 knots or so (almost 200 km/h), at which point the viscosity breaks down due to shear stress. The high speeds required for viscosity breakdown means that this type of fluid is useful only for larger aircraft. The use of type II fluids is diminishing in favour of type IV. Type II fluids are generally light yellow in color."
source: wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deicing_fluid)

The AA 737 in your video has almost certainly been de-iced before departure. Modern de-icing fluid is designed to shear off before a certain speed and will take some snow laying on top of it with it when shearing off. This AA crew were most probably well within the published holdover time for the type of weather and fluid they were dealing with!
I think you have a lot to learn about de-icing.

pigboat

12th Apr 2012, 14:14

I just watched the vid titled "Insane 737 take off Kphl in snow." What was insane about it? :confused:

warmkiter

12th Apr 2012, 14:57

Dear Aerobat pilot.

As a previous poster said, that AA aircraft was pretty sure deiced before. You can see the runback of the yellow fluid at about 0:35 when the aileron turns yellowish. Turn the clip on HD+Full screen and enjoy the modern marvels of a pseudoplastic type II fluid starting to shear off at a speed of about 100 KTAS

"not pretty but also not such a brainer you discuss here. its just snow which gets blown off"

The only not so pretty thing is, that you might have a pilot licence....

"the very few of us here which earn their money with sitting in the cockpit more than once made a take off with some snow on the wing or the tail"

No dude, i think the majority here never takes off with snow on the wing or tail. Thats because it is here the Professional PRUNE:ugh:

"the vast majority of the others may not understand that its today a tough market and a small margin between doing something dangerous and satisfying your company. definitvly you will not get the job done by just reading the SOP,s . http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif"

Wrong again aerobat. Especially in a tough market one mistake will take down the whole company. Standart operational procedures are exactly how you get the job done. Not by just reading them as you said, but also executing the SOPs as they are supposed to.

Talk to your chief pilot and tell him that your SOPs are not good enough to get the job done the way the company is satisfied. Show him the video of "blown away snow" and how cool that was and how much you would have saved money instead of having it wasted for deicing. Also you might add, that you are operating close to the margin of doing something dangerous on a daily basis to make the ends meet in this tough world. I am sure that some fellow PPRUNErs are also interested in, if you got the P45 and what his verbal reply was:E

aerobat77

12th Apr 2012, 15:18

As a previous poster said, that AA aircraft was pretty sure deiced before. You can see the runback of the yellow fluid at about 0:35 when the aileron turns yellowish. Turn the clip on HD+Full screen and enjoy the modern marvels of a pseudoplastic type II fluid starting to shear off at a speed of about 100 KTAS

pretty right , and because of that regulations call for a contamination free aircraft latest at rotation speed. that was the case at the aeroflot a320 as well the 737 and , like the company stated correctly, nothing unlawful happened. so what ?

the whole discussion is dump because the russians did not take off with a contaminated wing, they just started the take off run with it.

pigboat

12th Apr 2012, 15:21

the whole discussion is dump because the russians did not take off with a contaminated wing, they just started the take off run with it.
Ya need a pretty sharp knife to split hairs I'll tell ya. :E

Sampan Angkasa

12th Apr 2012, 15:42

Sorry to seem naive, but is there any chance that the aircraft had indeed been deiced but had dry snow on the upper surfaces due to dry snow that had just fallen prior to takeoff? They could have just be within the hold over time and reckoned that they still had sufficient protection as evidenced by the ease the dry snow slid off.

warmkiter

12th Apr 2012, 15:50

There are no naive questions. Just ask.

No, thats not possible. The holdover time is expired when the time is over. These times are given for light and medium precipitation rates. It is also over when there is accumulation of snow or ice on the wing. Both cases require new deicing.

Besides Anti-ice is like gel, its liquid. There is no "dry snow" on a liquid gel. It will be wet and has to be removed again.

2EggOmelette

12th Apr 2012, 16:42

Ok, important question. Was the aircraft de-iced, within the allotted time frame? and if so/or not so, can this be verified? (Verification is a BIG issue here) It is an essential point to the entire argument, because depending on the result, should, under certain conditions, this be revised?
99% of us say we would not go with that on the wings (me included). But if it was de-iced, this surely raises serious issues about de-icing that perhaps have been previously overlooked.

sabenaboy

12th Apr 2012, 16:54

Ok, important question. Was the aircraft de-iced, within the allotted time frame? and if so/or not so, can this be verified?

Here's (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/482248-take-off-snow-wing-6.html#post7129963) the answer!

I think member RA44471 (http://www.pprune.org/members/188243-ra44471) contribution 1 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/482248-take-off-snow-wing-post7127530.html#post7127530) and contribution 2 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/482248-take-off-snow-wing-post7129843.html#post7129843) to this thread are very valuable.

2EggOmelette

12th Apr 2012, 16:58

Cheers Sabenaboy, i missed that one this time round. :ok:

one post only!

12th Apr 2012, 17:13

Various quotes from Airbus. Either from FCOM or Airbus cold weather ops.

An aircraft ready for flight must not have ice, snow, slush or frost adhering to its critical
flight surfaces (wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers and rudder)

When removing ice, snow or slush from aircraft surfaces, care must be taken to prevent it
entering and accumulating in auxiliary intakes or control surface hinge areas, i.e.
remove snow from wings and stabilizer surfaces forward towards the leading edge and
remove from ailerons and elevators back towards the trailing edge.

No aircraft should be dispatched for departure under icing conditions or after a de-icing /
anti-icing operation unless the aircraft has received a final check by a responsible
authorized person. The inspection must visually cover all critical parts of the aircraft and be performed from points offering sufficient visibility on these parts (e.g. from the de-icer itself or another elevated piece of equipment). It may be necessary to gain direct access to physically
check (e.g. by touch) to ensure that there is no clear ice on suspect areas.

Aircraft contamination endangers takeoff safety and must be avoided. The aircraft
must be cleaned.
To ensure that takeoff is performed with a clean aircraft, an external inspection has to
be carried-out, bearing in mind that such phenomenon as clear-ice cannot be visually
detected. Strict procedures and checks apply. In addition, responsibilities in accepting
the aircraft status are clearly defined.
If the aircraft is not clean prior to takeoff it has to be de-iced.

Why de-ice/anti-ice on ground? The aircraft performance is certified based upon an
uncontaminated or clean structure. If the clean aircraft concept were not applied, ice,
snow or frost accumulations would disturb the airflow, affect lift and drag, increase weight
and result in deterioration.

It must always be remembered that below a snow / slush / anti-icing fluid layer
there can be clear ice.

fuel added to the aircraft during the current ground stop, adding
(relatively) warm fuel can melt dry snow with the possibility of re-freezing.

My favourite airbus quote:
Ice and snow due to ground precipitation, or overnight stay, should be totally
cleared before takeoff, regardless of the thickness. Otherwise aircraft is not
certified for flying.
Ensure that all the contaminants are removed from aircraft surfaces.

So make of all this what you will but it seems fairly clear to me. All of the above quotes are taken directly from airbus publications.

PENKO

12th Apr 2012, 17:18

Sabenaboy, did your captain take into account the fact that the fuel would be much warmer than the OAT and that the outer tank fuel would warm up even more in case of extended ground ops due to the heated fuel being returned from the IDG's?

captplaystation

12th Apr 2012, 17:37

aerobat 77, I will defer to your greater knowledge of Piper Senecas & Seminoles, but please, stop making an ass of yourself & taking the rest of us for a bunch of imbeciles, by continuing with the facade that this video showed anything other than, a criminal dereliction of his duty of care to his passengers by the PIC.

This horse-manure about maybe it was de-iced /maybe they checked what was under the snow/it blew off, what was the problem ? etc etc is becoming a bit tedious.
It is (I sincerely hope :eek: ) quite obvious that you have no practical experience, & pretty much b*gger all knowledge, regarding Winter Ops/Swept wing Public Transport jets, so please, "Walter Mitty" yourself onto a more suitable thread where some unfortunate may actually take you seriously.

You are talking Tosh :=

DX Wombat

12th Apr 2012, 17:53

fact is that the wing was clear at rotationNo it isn't. Look again.
CptKris, I didn't know about that one but I was taught that ice must be cleared and NEVER to fly when rain-ice is present or forecast. (No de-icing on a C152 or a DA40TDi :( )

up_down_n_out

12th Apr 2012, 18:08

"Me thinks not. trying to look at what a mess it would be trying to put up 180 pax and 6 crew in hotel beds...that weren't available"

This is BS too.
It's well known that in the case of over booking at SVO
(been there, done that too thanks SU!).

It shows you don't know RU.
SVO, DME and VKO all have special accomodation available* as well as all the main MSK RLY terminals for precisely this contingency.
SVO is now a modern place.

*Applies to LED also btw, so no excuses possible.

In a country with 11 time zones, & 1000s of nuclear weapons would you expect otherwise...

talking of which.... :eek:

DOVES

12th Apr 2012, 18:56

For each mission there is a purpose, with which every flight operation is calibrated.
For example, I quote an old ex-Sabena flight instructor, I made the transition to the B-737 300 on the simulator with.
He included in his lessons one where you had to take off with a single engine ... ("Who knows?! It may happen one day that you have to depart from an airport in a rush due to war).
A very different case is the one of the flight to be carried from A to B with a load of paying passengers who are entitled to maximum security, regularity, comfort and economy.
I will never forget one of those winter nights when we were about to leave from an airport in Southern Europe, while a snowstorm raged.
In addition to the usual preparatory operations we had to:
- Get in line for the de-icing
- Wait, if necessary, for the runway in use and taxiways to be cleared from snow.
- Based on the estimated time of completion of the above procedures, request a slot for departure.
- Calculating the result of all of this to decide on the passenger boarding time
(It is now clear that the punctuality of flight had gone).
It's obvious that it was wishful thinking the synchronization of all the above operations .
If the runway had been cleared, the plane was not yet being deiced / anti-iced, or vice versa, or the slot provided was expired and reassigned half an hour later, and then we had to go back to the starting point.
If the passengers had boarded, we had to invite them (risking a complaint for kidnapping) to stay on board for not losing the priority acquired; maybe we prayed the flight attendants to serve a refreshment.
Finally everything was ready to start (there was a tyrannical "holdover time"), but not without having alerted the Purser not to hesitate to advise if he saw some snow on the wings.
And then (correct me if I'm wrong or if something has changed):
There were extraordinary procedures to apply: special operations, "Cold Weather Operations" and "T.O. and Landing on Contaminated Rwys ".
They had to be performed, with the contribution of PF and PNF; a flight controls test at the beginning and at the end of taxi, a maneuver of extension and retraction of the flaps / slats, the activation of Engine Anti-ice (with engine run-up every ten minutes to remove any ice formed on the intake of the engines and on PT2 probes), and the preselection of the Airfoil anti-ice, after start.
After rotation we were expected to cycle the “retraction / extension / retraction” of the under carriage in order to shake away the slush.
It's clear that avoiding all of this fuss made life much more easy, and I confess that more than once I found myself in the embarrassing
position to explain to some of my passenger: "This guy did not perform the deicing, while we are having such a delay ... "
Invariably I said: "Safety is our first goal."

In conclusion that crew has:
- Put at risk their own lives, those of their passengers, and perhaps those of others on the ground
- Risked to produce an immeasurable economic damage
- Put a stain on the good name and honor of their company, their colleagues and the pilots all over the world.
- Given a bad example of unruliness and airmanship especially to those of us who are joining this wonderful profession.

Finally.
Extract from the question data base for the issue of a ULM pilot license:
-The frost has not been removed from the ULM surfaces before flight:
A) It does not create problems, as it is swept away with the speed increase in the take-off run.
B) may cause a take-off with an angle of incidence and an IAS below the normal values
C) causes a variation of the curvature of the airfoil, with a consequent increase in lift during take-off
D) may affect the safety of the flight since take-off trajectory.

"Last bat not least," I quote my Navigation Code:
The commander of a flight must ensure the perfect airworthiness... the correct supply of fluids ... the complete absence of any contaminant from surfaces of the aircraft.

Fly Safe
DOVE

Skyerr

12th Apr 2012, 19:20

My translation from the Russian website "Butter Bread’s Laws." (z-bb.ru). Here's Brad's laws for this case (my apologies for the translation)

Butter Bread’s Lows of deicing aircraft

The first low of Butter Bread’s Lows of deicing aircraft.

The biggest problem of an icy airplane take off is that a lot more planes take off successfully than unsuccessfully.

The second low of Butter Bread’s Lows of deicing aircraft.

Takeoff on the icy jet is the same as Russian roulette, if you pressed the trigger and the shot is not heard, it only means that the next press the trigger PROBABILITY SHOT increases.

The third low of Butter Bread’s Lows of deicing aircraft.

If you decided to risk make sure that you risk only to themselves.

captplaystation

12th Apr 2012, 19:58

Amazing what one, of little imagination, can assume from a "user-name".

Well, I don't put PA34/PA42 on my profile, but 17400 inc 13200 command on B737 does perhaps justify me calling "Tosh" when it patently is.
But then, I didn't post a pretty picture above the clouds, so guess I am just a "dreamer" :rolleyes:

sabenaboy

12th Apr 2012, 20:23

"Me thinks not. trying to look at what a mess it would be trying to put up 180 pax and 6 crew in hotel beds...that weren't available"

This is BS too.
It's well known that in the case of over booking at SVO
(been there, done that too thanks SU!).

:ugh::ugh: Read again. I wasn't talking about this Aeroflot cowboys in SVO, but the decision made by a colleague of mine in Enontekio, Finnish Lapland. Read my post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/482248-take-off-snow-wing-7.html#post7130598) before commenting, please

mercurydancer

12th Apr 2012, 23:24

I have family in Russia so I tend to do the LHR to SVO or DME trip quite a lot of times.

I wont comment on the aircraft's airworthiness as 1. I'm not a pilot and 2. I dont need to. If pilots like Captplaystation say its unsafe I'll take their word for it.

What I will comment on is that the video clip scared me. How badly did it scare me? Enough for me to want to fly on any other airline than Aeroflot. SLF power!

If anyone in Aeroflot is listening then you have a lot of PR work to do to get the likes of me flying with you again. If Aeroflot's idea of PR is to set loose someone in this site with the express intent of disinformation, then think again. It compounds the problem.

peterpuck

13th Apr 2012, 04:53

I don't know about this situation because I wasn't there (although the amount of snow seems a little bit much). I can assure you however that spraying hot liquid on DRY POWDER snow below -10 degrees is worse than leaving it be. Take a broom to it, or in a quick turn just a tactile inspection is all you need. I have 40 Canadian winters under my belt, 20 of them as a pilot...trust me.

dvv

13th Apr 2012, 05:47

peterpuck, what hot liquid? And what -10? Here are relevant METARs based on the info in the youtube comments:

METAR UUEE 011300Z 26003MPS 5000 BR BKN007 OVC013 M01/M02 Q1011 NOSIG RMK 25510145 75510145
METAR UUEE 011330Z 27002MPS 5000 BR OVC016 M01/M02 Q1011 NOSIG RMK 75510145 25510145
METAR UUEE 011400Z 30003MPS 5000 BR OVC017 M01/M02 Q1011 NOSIG RMK 75510145 25510145

Jake.f

13th Apr 2012, 06:55

Far out. I fly a lightie in a warm/hot climate where ice will never be an issue to my flying, but even in this case my instructor drilled into me right from my first or second lesson "NEVER take of with snow, ice, dirt, lots of bugs or ANY other contaminant on the wing"
If it was me sitting in the seat of the guy filming this video I would have made them let me off the plane, f*** how ever much I paid for the damned ticket. However if I was in this situation two years ago before I started flying I probably wouldn't have thought much of it at all. Scary......

vordmeafl

13th Apr 2012, 08:40

Hi! I am a pilot from Aeroflot. I would like to add some comments about this video. Many Aeroflot pilots and I were very shocked after watching this video. We have been discussing it on our forum as well, and I think it will not be unpunished.

captplaystation

13th Apr 2012, 08:52

For the sake of the companies reputation/future success, one has to hope you are proved correct.

It is to be hoped the punishment may also include the management idiots that responded to the complaint with assurances that "all is OK".

The damage they caused to your companies reputation is just as deep as that inflicted by the pilots who flaunted the rules.

vordmeafl

13th Apr 2012, 09:36

I completely agree with you. Shame on us. We can't clean our reputation for a long time.

up_down_n_out

13th Apr 2012, 09:41

A particularly apt and fitting punishment would be for them (pilots and company directors of AFL) to visit that freezing field in Tiumenskaya oblast, then meet the next of kin, and friends/family of the UT ex-pilots.

Just to make sure they got the message.

Don't you think?
:rolleyes:

de facto

13th Apr 2012, 09:43

vordmeafl
*
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: russia, moscow
Posts: 5
Hi! I am a pilot from Aeroflot. I would like to add some comments about this video. Many Aeroflot pilots and I were very shocked after watching this video. We have been discussing it on our forum as well, and I think it will not be unpunished.

What forum?:-)

vordmeafl

13th Apr 2012, 09:52

It`s a special aeroflot pilots` chat site (in russian)
forum.aflcrew.com • (http://forum.aflcrew.com/)

de facto

13th Apr 2012, 10:14

Vordmeafl,

I think it is very good news that some of your Airline pilots have noticed this video and are discussing it.
In no way do I believe in generalization of such a dangerous act,(ie all aeroflot pilots are that reckless) but it is your duty to get to the bottom of it.
A picture of the aircraft in the beginning of the rolling take off placed in your main base briefing room would be a good start;-) with a note...the aviation world knows about it;-)

On another note, my significant other used your airline,,,please do something about the CA service..terrible apparently,she said it made the luftwaffe look like angels...she said Qatar is the best.

de facto

13th Apr 2012, 10:55

Sabenaboy,
Perhaps we would get along if we could have a beer together, but I don't get to China very often . BTW, can we swap salaries, please
Now you know my finances,guess the first ones are on me.:E

DX Wombat

13th Apr 2012, 11:00

However if I was in this situation two years ago before I started flying I probably wouldn't have thought much of it at all.Perhaps they have also been relying on the passengers sitting within sight of the wings all being in a similar state of blissful ignorance as you were or too indoctrinated to question their actions.
Vordmeafl - it's good to hear from you. Please don't think we assume you are all tarred with the same brush. The problem is that this pilot has brought your company into serious disrepute as have the people in the press department who apparently condoned the pilot's actions.

BabyBear

13th Apr 2012, 11:15

as have the people in the press department who apparently condoned the pilot's actions.

The above renders it hard to accept this was an isolated occurence through error or 'maverick' crew. Unlike the the crew who felt the risk worth taking I will not be risking whether the opertator actually puts it right or not. Irrespective of findings and promises I will never fly with this operator, period.

Gertrude the Wombat

13th Apr 2012, 12:31

What's the betting that on a certain airline the rules about not using electronic gadgets during take-off will be enforced much more rigorously now? Plus, perhaps, an attempt to find and prosecute the person who posted the video, for illegal use of electronics during take-off?

Pontius Navigator

13th Apr 2012, 13:01

40 years ago we were cleared to take-off with 2-3 inches os snow on the wing.

I know the world has moved on since then but the conditions were above freezing in April and the aircraft had been deiced before the snow fell. We were assured that the snow would come off the wing at 50 kts.

As advertised the snow indeed fell clear at exactly the moment we were told it would. But . . .

We were #10 in a stream of aircraft departing at 30 second intervals. The previous 9 had all dumped their 4000 sq ft of snow at exactly the same point. As we reached 50 kts the snow fell off our wing and we hit a snow wall. There was a definite deceleration before we continued our take-off.

That snow has to go somewhere. And I have also experienced conditions were the deicing fluid wet the wing and froze in place. The moral - don't enter the active with snow on the wing.

UUUWZDZX

13th Apr 2012, 13:03

as have the people in the press department who apparently condoned the pilot's actions.

It was not a press department. Statement was made by Director of air safety deparment Alexandr Koldunov and deputy to CEO/operations director Igor Chalik. Both are also members of the board.

What is more astonishing is that these both persons hold commericial pilot licences:

Koldunov (born in 1952) in Aeroflot since 1976. Advanced from FO to Instructor pilot and head of safety department. Honoured pilot (state-award) of Russian Federation. Type-rated for IL-96 and B767 as instructor. Over 15 thousand flight hours.

http://www.aeroflot.ru/cms/files/category_pictures/about/koldunov.jpg

Chalik (born in 1957) in Aeroflot since 1983. Used to be a pilot of TU-134, IL-86, A310, A320, A330 (chief pilot in AFL for A330). Honoured pilot (state-award) of Russian Federation. Around 14 thousand flight hours.

http://www.aeroflot.ru/cms/files/category_pictures/about/chalik.jpg

Source (in russian): link (http://www.aeroflot.ru/cms/about/management)

PS. Images are official and from Aeroflot website.

Koldunov and Chalik's statement (be prepared, you won't believe these words): There are no violations whatsoever and this can be clearly seen on the video - snow has been blown off instantly [really ?!] during takeoff roll and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics [really ?!] and safety. Safety is our priority.

Link (in russian): link (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gsn0l8)

Needless to say that it was not blown off instantly (1), it was not blown off completely (2), it DID affect aerodynamics (deformed laminar flow thus increased stall speed, increased actual Vr speed and reduced critical AOA, among other things) (3), it also a clear violation of FCOM (4).

Clearly no pilot with a good state of mind will ever produce such a statement. They know it too, all this is - is an attempt to condone their pilots (or may be they genuinely think they are correct, who knows...). They given this statement thinking noone will dare to criticize it OR (which is more likely) noone in russia will ever appreciate how reckless such behavior is and therefore will never raise a concern (I did - sent them a link to youtube video with a word "shame" :) After receiving this statement from them, i've written a summary of A320 FCOM and Aeroflot SOP violations and basic outline why it did affect aerodynamics. Never heard a word from them since.).

Ottoforce

13th Apr 2012, 14:49

Maybe it's a THY A320 as the locals do it all the time !
They are beyond responsibility and safety flying.
Just say "IYI UCUSLAR" (god flight) and all will be well
Safe Flighting
OTTO::O

Cagedh

13th Apr 2012, 16:01

http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/CCFB/CCFB33.pdf

Read the article and look at the picture on page 2 of this CHIRP report.
Interesting reading material.

There's a topic about in the cabin crew section (http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/394459-interesting-chirp-question.html) and a blog page on flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/11/would-you-take-off-with-this-m.html).

Craggenmore

13th Apr 2012, 16:47

1:39 and flaps 1+F are still out

JCviggen

13th Apr 2012, 16:49

I flew Aeroflot on the 14th of march (just checked) SU231 - A320 MOW-BRU and pretty much the same thing happened.

I was near the wing and could very clearly see a layer of snow (not quite as thick as in this video but considerable regardless) on the wing that was swept off as we gathered speed during the take-off roll.

So to say this is an isolated case...don't think so. And I don't recall that we were in any kind of hurry to go. Plane was at the gate when I got there more than an hour before the flight and we boarded on time and landed 10 mins ahead of schedule (although there was a bit of a queue for TO with 1 RWY out of service due to snow crews working on it)

jonseagull

13th Apr 2012, 16:56

UUUWZDZX

13th Apr 2012, 17:13

I saw an Aeroflot A320 taxi out at Oslo in heavy snow having heard him refuse de-icing. Following aircraft in the queue at the hold told the tower to inform him he had snow on the wings, which they did. He acknowledged it, then took the take off clearance.

jonseagull, can you recall date and time?

JCviggen, thanx for sharing! Do you remember actual time of takeoff?

Anyone who also remembers such instances with Aeroflot, please come forward and post info here. It all will be forwarded to numerous aviation authorities.

9.G

13th Apr 2012, 18:54

That clip is a pure crime no doubt bout it. We all know the standard ICAO rule of no one must operate in reckless manner endangering safety etc. Very clear violation of all possible rules and procedures. Reasons unknown. However it's obvious UUUWZDZX, is waging a war against AFL and it's functionaries. The question is why? You post names here and you speak russian and you use AFTN address of Main Air Traffic Flow Management Center (M.A.T.F.M.C.), a unit charged by the Federal Aviation Authority of Russia (FAAR). All this indicates that you're insider. Are you fighting in the name of safety or is it perhaps personal vendetta? I'm not really sure any more. If you're safety concerned do report it to the Russian CAA and demand an answer. Please spare me all this crap about corruption etc. After the crash in USRR no authority can afford to neglect such gross misconduct. Answers from the functionaries is a mitigation strategy though a dumb one, it seems to me. Being a whistle blower isn't enough to improve safety, do something.

p.s. Word of caution a official report on Russian CAA site requires credentials, as you're well aware of, I'm sure.

M609

13th Apr 2012, 19:01

Quote:

JCviggen, thanx for sharing! Do you remember actual time of takeoff?

Anyone who also remembers such instances with Aeroflot, please come forward and post info here. It all will be forwarded to numerous aviation authorities.

Since I don't see the wings I cannot prove the practice, but some of us approach controllers at Oslo have noticed (On our A-SMGCS display) that AFL do seem to bypass the deice on their way to the runway from time to time, when everyone else stops at the "bird bath".

UUUWZDZX

13th Apr 2012, 19:12

However it's obvious UUUWZDZX, is waging a war against AFL and it's functionaries. The question is why? You post names here and you speak russian and you use AFTN address of Main Air Traffic Flow Management Center (M.A.T.F.M.C.), a unit charged by the Federal Aviation Authority of Russia (FAAR). All this indicates that you're insider.

I'm not affiliated with MATFMC UUUWZDZX, took this nickname as it was was the first thing that came into my mind when registering on this forum.

Are you fighting in the name of safety or is it perhaps personal vendetta? I'm not really sure any more. If you're safety concerned do report it to the Russian CAA and demand an answer.

I first stumbled upon this video a few days ago, when searching for other videos on youtube. From the start it was apparent for me that violation of FCOM took place. I then sent a link to Aeroflot. They replied with that famous statement. On the day Aeroflot replied, an emergency bulletin was communicated to all aviation entities by russian CAA regarding ATR72 crash saying that gross misconduct took place: aircraft was not de-iced. This bulletin was sent in the morning, while I got reply from Aeroflot in the afternoon. The fact that even despite content of that bulletin and seriousness of matters highlighted, Aeroflot officials still replied that it was OK to takeoff like this (they could have changed their statement later, but never did), forced me to take initiative. Immediately I wrote to Airbus (still waiting for a reply). Once I have official position of Airbus (and even if they won't respond, it is still clear that procedures were not followed), I will then contact EASA, IATA and Russian CAA, may be other institutions too. As I mentioned before, I replied to Aeroflot's statement with a quotations of FCOM and SOP procedures that were not followed, but of course they never responded.

JCviggen

13th Apr 2012, 19:13

JCviggen, thanx for sharing! Do you remember actual time of takeoff?

Not exactly, but it was quite late 22:50 ish iirc. (sched 22:20)

I remember seeing 5-6 planes behind us in the queue and 2 or 3 in front but no de-icing rig (the others might not have needed it mind)
It's somewhat unusual to have much of a queue at SVO especially the times of day that my flights tend to be at probably that's why I remember.

ManaAdaSystem

13th Apr 2012, 19:52

Well, I have a tiny bit of experience in winter ops, and there is one thing that always amazes me when we have these discussions: Other pilots who says that deicing of aircraft is on some occasions worse than not deicing.
For all of you:

Please state how many aircraft have crashed because they deiced, and how many have crashed because they did not?
As far as Russia goes, over the years, there seem to have been a number of aircraft that for some unknown reason just crashed just after take off.

On the issue of powder snow and low temperatures (the video we are discussing in this thread has nothing to do with this phenomena), yes, certain snow textures (feather like) and very low temperatures will let the snow blow right off. In fact, even the slightest wind will prevent the snow for accumulating.
I'm happy to go without deicing as long as the snow blows off during taxi out, but the only way to confirm this is to taxi via the deice area. A quick inspection from the deice team confirming clean wings, and I'm happy to taxi for takeoff without any worries. This costs nothing and only takes a minute.
If there is anything on the wing, deice is my only option.

And no, this will not endanger my flight.

What these Aeroflot guys did was criminal, plain and simple!

RA44471

13th Apr 2012, 19:55

Soviet regulations with GREAT experience of fligts in "dry snow" conditions were transferred to Russian regulations.
Dry snow on upper wing surface is OK for take-off, but captain Must be sure there is no ice.
If previos approach was conducted out of icing coditions, OAT is well below 0C, re-fuelled fuel temp was below 0C there was NO chance to get ice on the wing.

My best regards to Sabenaboy.

Regardless:

Snowbank take-off is MAD
Today I' ve spoken with tech-cheif. He considers this take-off mad too. So did the guy from Labour Union Commitee.
I hope IT will leave my company.

DX Wombat

13th Apr 2012, 20:46

With the following definition in mind could someone please explain to me just what dry snow is?

snow
[snoh]

noun
1.
Meteorology . a precipitation in the form of ice crystals, mainly of intricately branched, hexagonal form and often agglomerated into snowflakes, formed directly from the freezing of the water vapor in the air. Compare ice crystals, snow grains, snow pellets.

2.
these flakes as forming a layer on the ground or other surface.

3.
the fall of these flakes or a storm during which these flakes fall.

UUUWZDZX

13th Apr 2012, 20:57

It is irrelevant whatever type of snow was there. As per procedures there is no distinction between wet and dry snow. At least as per Boeing/Airbus procedures. Must be removed regardless and this is a correct methodology, because it is consistent and simple to remember for crews, rather then to define what type of snow you have, which will inevitably involve subjectivity and errors. Just look at our example - aeroflot officials claim it "was blown-off instantly" implying it was a dry snow, while it was WET (check METARs I supplied in similar thread in Tech Log) and was not blown off instantly at all, but in patches and only partially by the time of rotation.

If you are asking out of curiosity though, check meteorology handbooks for generally accepted definitions.

ManaAdaSystem

13th Apr 2012, 20:59

I can't give you a definition, but you'll typically get dry, powder type snow in low temperatures (apx -10 C and below) and in dry conditions. It behaves in pretty much the same manner as when you blow on a dandelion.
It's the best explanation I can give.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuLFIAJJ8OH4mgZcEbKiHbbWJ5WZfAtLsuQE3hW0o eVv4Prgi_

BobnSpike

13th Apr 2012, 21:21

That is actually a pretty good explanation.

Speaking for myself: our (Boeing) manuals do specifically address dry snow/cold temps and specifically permit departure without being sprayed under these conditions provided the snow is dandelion seeds.

However, those same manuals also specifically prohibit takeoff with any snow on the wing regardless of whether it is actually adhering. Whether it is stuck fast or just lying there, we are REQUIRED, by whatever means, to ensure the critical surfaces are 100% clear of contaminants before initiating the takeoff.

I don't know about Aeroflot's or Airbus's manuals, but the takeoff in the video would have been a gross violation from my particular seat.

UUUWZDZX

13th Apr 2012, 21:35

I don't know about Aeroflot's or Airbus's manuals, but the takeoff in the video would have been a gross violation from my particular seat.

They don't differ from Boeing procedures on this matter:

A320 FCOM SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES - ADVERSE WEATHER - COLD WEATHER:

EXTERIOR EXPECTION
[...]
SURFACES....CHECKED FREE OF FROST, ICE AND SNOW

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

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

Note: Thin hoarfrost is typically a white crystalline deposit which usually develops uniformly on exposed surfaces on cold and cloudless nights; it is so thin that a person can distinguish surface features (lines or markings) beneath it.

SOP of Aeroflot part B (operation of A320):

COLD WEATHER AND FLUID RUNWAY CONTAMINATED OPERATIONS

EXTERIOR INSPECTION
[...]
SURFACES ... CHECKED FREE OF FROST, ICE AND SNOW

All surfaces of the aircraft (critical surfaces: leading edges and upper surfaces of wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, all control surfaces, slats and flaps) must be clear of snow, frost and ice, otherwise consider to perform de-/anti-icing. [ They even added this bit to reinforce that de-/anti-icing must be performed in this case ]

Note: Thin hoarfrost is acceptable on the upper surface of the fuselage and pilot can distinguish surface features (lines and markings) beneath it. Frost is acceptable on the underside of the wing tank area, a max layer of 3mm.

SOP of Aeroflot part A (General Procedures)

Written wholly in russian, it specifically states that if OAT is 6C and below, person charged with preparing acft for departure must check for hoarfrost or snow/ice deposits on all parts of acft. If found, then he orders de-icing procedure to remove these deposits. If OAT is below 15C, check for fuel frost and order de-icing if fuel frost present.

Just for the record, here is the original:

ИТП АТЦ, ответственный за подготовку ВС к вылету:

- при температуре наружного воздуха +15°С и ниже обязан проверить верхнюю и нижнюю поверхности крыла в районе расходных секций топливных баков на предмет отсутствия топливного льда (особенно при подготовке ВС к вылету при кратковременной стоянке после выполнения полета);

- при температуре наружного воздуха от +6°С и ниже, обязан проверить
отсутствие инея и снежно-ледяных отложений на всей поверхности самолета;

- при обнаружении инея или снежно-ледяных отложений на поверхности
самолета ИТП ответственный за подготовку ВС к вылету принимает
меры по их удалению, для чего заказывает спецмашину для проведения
процедуры удаления обледенения;

- по прибытию на ВС экипажа, ИТП докладывает КВС о результате
осмотра поверхностей самолета и о необходимости выполнения ПОО.

BobnSpike

13th Apr 2012, 21:46

The wording in my FCOM (in English) is almost identical to that. Here is what I was getting at with the dry snow/accumulation thing:

Copied/pasted from my Deice manual:

...3. In very cold conditions (generally below -10 to -15°C (14 to 5°F) or colder) dry snow can fall onto cold aircraft wings. Under these conditions, dry snow will swirl as it blows across the wings, making it evident the snow is not adhering. But if snow has accumulated on the surface of the wings it has to be removed prior to takeoff. It cannot be assumed that accumulations of snow will blow off during takeoff

NOTE: An accumulation is any amount of snow beneath which defined
markings (decals, paint stripes, rivets, etc.) cannot be observed.

Not much room for interpretation there.

DX Wombat

13th Apr 2012, 22:36

MAS, thank you, it was genuine curiosity. :ok:

UUUWZDZX

13th Apr 2012, 22:43

Finally we have some progress with media

Video of Snow-Covered Aeroflot Wing Goes Viral Amid Air Safety Fears | News | The Moscow Times (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/video-of-snow-covered-aeroflot-wing-goes-viral-amid-air-safety-fears/456553.html)

up_down_n_out

14th Apr 2012, 05:50

"Finally we have some progress with media"
yeaa right so you know how to make a yandex search

I think the mere quantities of posts you are making & this comment using "we", could lay you open to charges of ulterior motives, inbalance, or vendetta in a country where these are easily turned into criminal charges.

(by now the AFL seat number, ID, IP address, provider, home address of the video's author will have been sent to the FSB).
Easy homework in reality.

There is nothing called anonymity in a country where everyone is registered somewhere, & easy covert surveying.

There was one like this (polish, can't remember his name) on the Smolensk TU154 tragedy thread.
In the end the "slavic" dog & a bone temperament so gets up people's noses it p...ses people off. BADLY.

Thinly disguised, all the bloke wanted to get across was that public life in his country was corrupt and cynical.

YEAA right, so what? You know that.

For this reason if none other, it would be well advised to "lay off" the "campaign" and relax a bit while real pilots are given a chance.

pazhalsta! :ok:

1999

14th Apr 2012, 08:15

Up-down-n-out .. what's the point you are trying to make here?
I aplaude the guy who posted that video and let the interested public know about the matter...
"You" can talk about do rights and do wrongs here as long as you want... and naming in the public the involved airliners/pilots and their rights of a fair trials etc ...
Although as I do work in the safety field of the aviation bussines, my post is strictly as a potential passenger - and I DO want to know which airliners are prone to/or have the history or evidence of avoiding or not being strict to the prescribed procedures and thus putting my life at risk.
So as long as I'm a paying customer I will chose which airliners to avoid at all costs. The evidence in that video in MY opinion is self explanatory. PERIOD.

It's not about the nationality/race etc - bad apples can be found anywhere around the globe - but the fact is "the slavic" folks as you mentioned them in your post do have a different mentality in that regard primarly because of the "****** up political system" they lived in/for after the 2nd WW - and unfortunately it's still present to this day in all walks of life - and YES IT IS CORRUPT and PRONE TO COVER UP WRONG THINGS AND DOINGS and insted of changing things for the better such mentality would rather search for and "kill the messenger" - you just gave me the proof I was again unfortunately right about such mindset.
And trust me - I know what I'm talking about since I have lived amongst this f*** ups and witnessed it for the last 40 years or so and still do to this day.

1999

5 APUs captain

14th Apr 2012, 08:39

1999
...but the fact is "the slavic" folks as you mentioned them in your post do have a different mentality in that regard primarly because of the "****** up political system" they lived in/for after the 2nd WW....
======================================================
Political system has crashed with Gorbachev and Eltsin - USSR collapse made a collapse in everything! - education, SOPs etc
Now about the topic:
1. The wing profile of soviet airplanes is much thicker then westerns! That's why it is permitted to have some DRY snow on a wing of "russian" airplane - it is not so vital like for CRJ for example. And that should be explained to ex-soviet drivers!
2. According UTair SOPs - the technician at base airport is responsible to check the contaminant on a wing and inform the captain about....
3. Anyway final decision shall be made by Captain - desicion was wrong.......

CaptainProp

14th Apr 2012, 09:14

1:39 and flaps 1+F are still out

This is not necessarily something strange on some of the departures out of SVO as there are speed restrictions and multiple < 90˚turns as you climb out. If you are heavy, maintaining slats/flaps will give you better speed margins during these turns.

hetfield

14th Apr 2012, 09:27

The only reason for AFL to make such an ignorant statement is, for me at least, there must have been some big shots up front, not of those thousands of ordinary aeroflot jockeys.

9.G

14th Apr 2012, 11:43

to label certain nations or bloodlines etc is wrong in my opinion. It's the system in place which either supports safety or erodes such. Fair proceedings and accountability for actions are two ingredients certainly supporting safety. I've seen similar screw ups elsewhere and all places lacked accountability and had established nepotism along in-transparent proceedings with unfair results. There's a common trait in general towards most things in life, it's nihilism.
It's a free market and everyone should have a choice. It's up to the operator to create it's reputation and marketing image. AFL didn't do well in this particular case. Neither was their mitigation tactic appropriate resulting in significant image damage. All this fuss about CIA and they're gonna get you is utter BS. They're way too busy planting agents all over US. Anyways, the transportation devision of DA office will get involved for sure provided there's a official report. According to their laws a unanimous report will NOT be processed. I'm sure UUUWZDZX knows that. Thus if you wanna do something do it officially.
For your info, just tip, FCOM isn't a binding document it's a manufacturer's recommendation whereas part A is approved by CAA. Any violation of part A will be prosecuted by authorities. There's a moral side and a legal side.

1999

14th Apr 2012, 13:00

9G - if you by any chance refer to my post regarding "nation labelling and stuff " then i would like to emphesise as in my post again :
IT IS NOT about nationality/race - but about the COVER UP and "unsuccesfull "damage control on AFL part ... it's about the mind set SYSTEM of the many from the former Eastern block where second questioning of the higher authorities and pointing out the wrongs was not generally acceptable and definitely not promoted. The same mindset unfortunately remained unchanged despite the known "political" changes at the end of 90's amongst the great general population. That is the "menthality" I was talking about - and as i said earlier - it's still present in all fields and aspects of life(although things are slowly progressing in positive direction - if the few guys who posted here and condemned the action of their colleague are really AFL pilots I salute them).
To clarify things on my part - I come from (and have spent 40+ years here) one of the countries from the former eastern block(not Russia or any of the former SU states though) therefore i'm "Slavic" according to such classification - so my comments of the subject are based on my personal experiance and observations of everyday life .
The fact is - I personally would take for example German efficiency/safety/strictness over so called "Slavic" or "Mediteranean " any day! And again - I am so called "Slavic" .

But in this "politically correct" times when naming things with their true names is a big NO-NO, IMO just helps the fact that matters and standards in certain regions of the globe don't get sorted out as quickly as they should and could.( e.g. language proficiency, adherence to the standards etc..etc..) .
And to stay on the subject - whether to de-ice or not ..just opened the second bigger question to which I was reffering - whether to publicise such events or not ( as was the similar case back in Boston with IBE) - and to the 2nd one I say hell YES .
I don't mind and dare to question the authority of the Captains on their airplanes - but I do want to, as a paying soul, have the freedom of choice (and all the information possible regarding their standards of operation) not to board their airplanes in the first place .

1999

lomapaseo

14th Apr 2012, 13:19

up down n out

"Finally we have some progress with media"
yeaa right so you know how to make a yandex search

I think the mere quantities of posts you are making & this comment using "we", could lay you open to charges of ulterior motives, inbalance, or vendetta in a country where these are easily turned into criminal charges.

(by now the AFL seat number, ID, IP address, provider, home address of the video's author will have been sent to the FSB).
Easy homework in reality.

There is nothing called anonymity in a country where everyone is registered somewhere, & easy covert surveying.

There are right ways and wrong ways of yelling "fire" et al. The context and audience are important. The sheer fact that an alert to authoritative multiple sources has been given is sufficient. The fact that a rejection of this alert has been received which is contrary to multiple opinions is IMO grounds to escalate the alert.

Considering the broad impications of trying to silence the message among all its supporters, it would be very unwise to even atempt it. The best that could be done would be to ignore it and try to hide from its message (lots of luck)

gem380

14th Apr 2012, 13:58

Please forgive my ignorance, I'm not a pilot, nor am I a member of any flight crew. I just have a keen interest in aviation.

The video was shocking, that's all I can say.
I can't comment on the airworthiness of the aircraft, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
But as a passenger, there is no way I would fly on an aircraft that has snow covered wings!!!! :ugh:

Thanks to all the pilots out there that keep us safe in the air and take safety seriously! You do an amazing job, and I can imagine you don't often see much gratitude for the job you do!!

Green Guard

14th Apr 2012, 16:05

DX Wombat

nobody stops you of "deicing" your wings from "dandelion" type of DRY snow.... but you may run afterwords in different problems, like freezing of areas that were not frozen before...:oh:

Inuit Words for Snow (http://www.mendosa.com/snow.html)

DX Wombat

14th Apr 2012, 16:15

Thank you GG. It sounds as if what is really needed is a drive-through huge hangar heated to such a temperature that all snow and ice are completely removed and the wings dried completely. That is just one of my fanciful ideas and would probably have the energy saving brigade up in arms at the thought of it. ;) Having said that, when I was a District Midwife my car often got soaking wet and/or freezing in winter but a quick visit to the local Ambulance Dept which was beautifully warm usually solved the problem. Warmed me up too especially when I could scrounge a cup of hot coffee. :)

ImbracableCrunk

14th Apr 2012, 16:35

As an aside, I sat next to an Inuit on a flight to Fairbanks a few months ago (college student, not Inuit territory). She told me that whole, "There's 10,000 Inuit words for snow," is BS. They just have compound words, like German.

Drysnow
Westsnow
Blowingsnow
Snowflurries
Snowshowers
Snowbank
Snowdrift
Drivensnow
Snowberm
Powdersnow
Heavysnow
Moderatesnow
Lightsnow
etc.

OMG! Did you know English has 10,000 words for snow?

hahatla small packages of snow given as gag gifts semtla partially melted snow ontla snow on objects intla snow that has drifted indoorsReally? Intla means In snow? Ontla means On snow? Hahatla. . . Again: BS for the tourists and that list is satire.

flying lid

14th Apr 2012, 18:34

As an interlude to this long, interesting and rather frightening thread, this is a brilliant video of how "another" mode of transport dealt with snow nearly 50 years ago. (Bear with the backing music - it gets better !!).

(P.S. This was "The right kind" of snow !!!!)The wrong type of snow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_wrong_type_of_snow)

Snow (1963) - YouTube

Lid

ManaAdaSystem

14th Apr 2012, 18:34

BobnSpike

14th Apr 2012, 20:36

nobody stops you of "deicing" your wings from "dandelion" type of DRY snow.... but you may run afterwords in different problems, like freezing of areas that were not frozen before. Said "different problems" are specifically addressed by the LOUT table: Lowest Operational Use Temperature, below which the fluid does not meet viscosity requirements. The LOUT table is included in the same publication as the HOT table.

It is clear-cut and in writing. There is no guesswork here and no supposition. There is no "but what if?" Either "you do" or "you don't" get sprayed. If there is contamination on the critical surfaces, they need to be de-iced. If the temperature is below LOUT for the fluid used and there is contamination on the critical surfaces you don't fly.

Teddy Robinson

14th Apr 2012, 23:09

A passionate connoisseur of fresh powder snow can tell you with authority that on that perfect Alpine day, it refuses to stick to anything, and leaves any smooth surface readily .. however we are pilots, there are policies in place to encourage good practice and avoid unnecessary loss of life, and that is our job.
Clean wing policy is what it says .. and if you think you know better on any given day? fine, take it for a circuit with no pax first and see how much your company thanks you. Test flying with pax is not professional whatever the departure from SOP .. QED

mini

15th Apr 2012, 00:46

I don't care what the "experts" say.

Clean wings or I'm off it.

Poxy chancers in my book,

Life's too short.

UUUWZDZX

15th Apr 2012, 02:23

It is very clear that FCOM and AFL SOP were not followed (AFL's SOP take precedence over FCOM, but it contains pretty much the same procedures - I quoted them before).

I also looked at russian Federal Aviation Rules (used by russian operators), current edition.

It states that it is prohibited to commence a flight if hoarfrost, wet snow or ice is present on surfaces on wings, fuselage, control mechanisms, tail fin and stabilizer, propellers, windshield and engine, unless otherwise stated in FCOM.

I knew before about ban of snow on wing surface, but not that it is specifically wet snow which is banned. Now I begin to see why Aeroflot carefully crafted their statement:

"There are no violations whatsoever and this can be clearly seen on the video - snow has been blown off instantly during takeoff roll and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics and safety."

By saying it has been blown off instantly, they are trying to imply it was a DRY snow, which according to federal rules is permissible to be present on the wings (not mentioned).

Video approximately started at the time of application of takeoff thrust. Majority of snow was blown by the 40'th second, while rotation started on 45'th second, therefore by any standards you can not define this as "blown off instantly". Needless to say, some patches of snow remained stuck to inner flap panel long after rotation.

I quoted METARs of the day this video was taken in the similiar topic in Tech Log.

Nor Russian FAR, neither other related statutes define "wet snow" by the way.

PS. Because addition of 'unless otherwise stated in FCOM' is used in that FAR requirement, you can also argue that FCOM/SOP of A320 does not distinguish between wet and dry snow - it should be removed anyway.

The reason why Aeroflot might be less concerned about violation of their SOP of A320 is because they can always say 'we actually implied that it is wet snow (not dry) which must be removed from critical surfaces when conducting exterior inspection of A320' (they can amend their SOP of A320 at any time, with just formal approval of each amendment by russian CAA). While FAR is far too superior for them to argue with and try to violate, so they 'shaped' their statement to fit FAR rather then SOP/FCOM/Airbus approach of clean wing policy. Btw, it's Mr. Koldunov or Chalik who signs off SOP of Aeroflot, statement regarding takeoff was also made by Koldunov and Chalik. Looks like they attempted to avoid problems with CAA by producing that kind of statement, though if will be hard for them to argue that snow was not wet :)

Suggestions?

Cagedh

15th Apr 2012, 05:08

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/Snow%20pic.jpg

My previous post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/482248-take-off-snow-wing-10.html#post7133400) did not get any attention. Is that because there's still a "I'm new here"-banner under my username or because people don't bother to open the links I posted and do the reading I suggested?

So, I thought that inserting the picture itself in the post might get your attention.

http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/CCFB/CCFB33.pdf
Since you're probably to lazy to open the link and read the article on page 2, I'll paste the text here:

"IMPORTANCE OF DE -ICING …
Report Text: I was flying as a passenger on another (Non-UK EU) airline. My company has a policy that if it is snowing, all aircraft must be de-iced prior to departure.
On the outbound flight we we re boarding during a light snow shower and no snow had accumulated on the wings yet the Captain informed us that we would have a delayed departure while we were waiting to be de-iced.
However, on the inbound flight the aircraft arrived during a heavy snow flurry which continued whilst we boarded. It continued to snow and ceased shortly
before the front and rear doors were closed. We then started to taxi with the snow on the wings. I was 3 rows behind the overwi ng exit and noticed that
the LHS wing surfaces were covered in snow. I presumed that based on my experiences with my company and also on the outbound flight that there
would be a delay while we were de-iced. After the safety demonstration, I asked the SCCM if it was normal to leave without being de-iced whilst there was snow on the wings?, to which he/she immediately replied without
looking at the wing, "The Captain says it's OK" (or words to that effect).
We shortly afterwards entered the runway, accelerated and took-off with the vast majority of the snow remaining coated to the wing. The flight proceeded with no problems although ice remained on the wing in
certain areas (see photograph taken 20 mins into flight). The wing was visibly not clear of snow/ice with approximately 10 mins to landing.
I was concerned that the SCCM did not respond to a flight safety observation from a passenger. It might also be worth noting that the inbound flight was
early and we pushed-back app rox 10-15 mins early, this meant that sufficient time was available to de-ice without picking-up a delay. "

This looks like it was wet snow which fell on a sub zero wing surface and froze to it. Perhaps on the ground it didn't look as bad as the snow on Aeroflot's wing, but if you compare the picture of the wings once airborn, this case was even more dangerous then the Aeroflot flight. Which airline would this be?

up_down_n_out

15th Apr 2012, 08:27

Suggestions:-

1/Being naive just makes them laugh at you.
75%+ of the heads of all russian companies are headed by former :mad:.

The absolute masters of disinformation, they run the media & make sliding goal posts+make the rules.
You are just a fly to be shaken off, like the powder snow.

2/ Do background checks on the AFL board, find out how things are REALLY done, rebranding & all the other bs, BEFORE you start posting here.

Get it?

Reality kicking in? :ugh:

(not unsympathetic btw)

Eg, the photo in the post before was a fake.
3/ Check everything out..

Basil

15th Apr 2012, 09:43

Cagedh,
That's outrageous!
OTOH, perhaps wings SHOULD have a dimpled surface - like golfballs ;)

Deviating a bit; did you read the last entry in that CHIRP?
Can we amend our policy to do the door checks only once the aircraft has finally stopped?
I detect one small problem: If, instead of disarming it, you inadvertently blow the slide, it will eject into the airbridge and injure or kill anyone standing there.

PukinDog

15th Apr 2012, 10:21

DX Wombat

Thank you GG. It sounds as if what is really needed is a drive-through huge hangar heated to such a temperature that all snow and ice are completely removed and the wings dried completely. That is just one of my fanciful ideas and would probably have the energy saving brigade up in arms at the thought of it.

Someone beat you to the idea. The drive-through de-icing system (using Infrared) is already in operation at a few airports including a smaller field in Wisconsin for RJ-sized aircraft (1998), Newark (2000) and JFK (2006).

The nicest by-product of such a system is that it pits the energy-saving brigade against the ground-pollutant brigade. The rest of us can sit back, relax, and enjoy watching the handbag duel.

DX Wombat

15th Apr 2012, 10:31

:) Perhaps I'm not quite so daft after all! :) Thank you PD, that made me smile. :ok:

Basil

15th Apr 2012, 11:00

PD & DX,
Perhaps Mr Dyson, he of vortex vacuum cleaner and Airblade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_Airblade) fame, could turn his development skills in this direction.

DX Wombat

15th Apr 2012, 11:39

Good idea Basil, those hand dryers are great. Perhaps a combination of blasting the snow away followed by finishing with the infrared to make absolutely sure might be the way to go. Even better, the snow could be recycled as water for such things as washing the airport vehicles. That might go some way towards keeping the peace with the environmentalists and reduce the risk of drought.

Cagedh

15th Apr 2012, 12:06

Eg, the photo in the post before was a fake.

No, there's no indication that that's a fake picture.

Check out these links:
http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/CCFB/CCFB33.pdf (page 2)
http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/ATFB/ATFB92.pdf (page 11)
http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/394459-interesting-chirp-question.html

This, on the other hand, might be fake ;) :
http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu230/tjwrangl/Snow-pic.jpg
Sadly enough, the original one (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/Snow%20pic.jpg) isn't.

Flying-Corporal

15th Apr 2012, 12:33

ManaAdaSystem

15th Apr 2012, 13:31

Not to mention it looks like he is cruising at FL 650 or thereabouts.

Maybe we should concentrate on the Youtube video?

Machinbird

15th Apr 2012, 14:28

I believe it's a fake picture. The snow looks like it's not adhering. It's probably taken from an a/c sitting on the ramp and then placed against a sky background. The winds in excess of 400 mph would've blown that snow away very quickly. I believe you are incorrect. I blew that picture up and looked at the leading edge pixels. They seem to blend smoothly into the background all along the leading edge.
I've done some photo re-work and I know the difference.

The clear leading edges and the likely depth of the boundary layer make this picture credible. Once you get airborne with a load like that, the only thing that will remove it is sublimation.

Not to mention it looks like he is cruising at FL 650 or thereabouts. Not really that high I think. The horizon looks unduly curved, but the sky would be darker above and the bright horizon would be a bit thinner. Then, again, I've only got experience up to FL520.

ManaAdaSystem

15th Apr 2012, 14:41

the only thing that will remove it is sublimation.

And that happens fairly quickly. Many years ago, I had the misfortune to on board an aircraft (as a passenger) that departed with a lot of ice and rime on the wings, and it was all gone (due to sublimation) before we reached cruise level.
If you fly the 737 and you pick up ice during climb out, what is left on the outer slats (not heated) after you use the wing deice, will also be gone rather fast.

I'm not saying it's fake, but it doesn't look right to me.

FL650 was just a number, but it looks like a lot higher than the usual 350-370. My opinion.

aerobat77

15th Apr 2012, 16:05

But then, I didn't post a pretty picture above the clouds, so guess I am just a "dreamer" :rolleyes:

captplaystation... we cannot be sure here- maybe a dreamer, maybe just FUBAR. in every case you must have one of this fancy WIFI equipped B737 since when you are always green here ( like now)- when are you flying? ;)

so its for sure self explanatory that you will not be able to present a self made pic from a flying 737, how could you? - and you did not. :O

further you mentioned several times the PA34 in my profile with such comments :
aerobat 77, I will defer to your greater knowledge of Piper Senecas & Seminoles
so its seems to be very imprortant for you to point this out to make sure your reputaion will not be overheared- dont, worry ! :ok:

well, the seminole is not a PA34 as wikipedia can teach you easily, and beyond this the seneca is a lot of fun and i have good memories on this light twin, i guess you would pee the pants to get a chance to steer one for a minute. further you can type here in your profile what you want, and in my case its not the space shuttle but just a pa34 ...

so long, i do not know in real life anyone of a college who claims himselfs location
"fubar"
FUBAR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR)

and not one actual flying guy who feels the need to be offensive and rush to other fellows , even when they have another opinion.

so as a classic ( especially here) be proud of yourself seeking internet reputation lacking any in real life, claim behind the anonymous internet being somebody you never was and feel free to continue your tour since you have nothing other to loose.

please feel free to be erected in argueing in an open aviation forum claiming your superior virtual experience , it may be the only thing you can say about this terminology :8.

but its not my job to be offensive against you and discuss things which are beyond the theme of this thread. further i have not the luxury to stay online here the whole day like you and so its a net win for you- like said, feel free !

i am sure you will have enough resources to reply quickly to this in your 737 with internet connection - a man who claims to have xx thousands command hours on a jet for sure can fly and type simulatany ! :zzz:

ok... enough offtopic...

I blew that picture up and looked at the leading edge pixels. They seem to blend smoothly into the background all along the leading edge.

machinbird- thats interesting. i on the one hand cannot imagine how this picture can be real since its clearly a loose thin snowlayer which would have little chance to stay on the upperside all the time , but when you say you have experience in photohopping and you do not see any fakes" here ...hm.

best regards !

RFGN

15th Apr 2012, 16:11

Hello,

May be it's already been mentioned, it's not the first that I see a Russian pilot get airborne with snow on the wings, one time in Kaliningrad, I saw a Beech Premier taxing out with many inchees of heavy snow on the wings.:ooh:

DOVES

15th Apr 2012, 16:25

From the very first moment I’ve seen the photograph (let's assume it to be true) in this link: http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/CCFB/CCFB33.pdf
this question is whirling in my mind:
"In such a condition there will certainly be an increase in the low speed buffet and a decrease in the high speed buffet".
Is there anyone who can tell me if the Air Data Computer is able to detect, calculate and represent these new values in the Airspeed Indicator?
Thank you .

ManaAdaSystem

15th Apr 2012, 17:38

How could it? No, you are on your own, treading into unknown territory. One thing is surviving a normal takeoff, another is surviving a combination of contaminated wings and engine failure.

captplaystation

15th Apr 2012, 18:27

aerobat77,

I don't really know why I bother, but . . . . . so, poor you, I confused your super advanced PA41 on your profile with a Seminole, which I see indeed from Wikipedia is in fact a PA44. Well,I have about as much need to remember the exact names of aircraft I never flew, as you have to remember the difference, on intermediate approach, if a little hot/high, between a B738 equipped with the short-field kit, & a common or garden variety.
Strangely enough around 80% of the fleet I will fly, when my company conversion training is complete, do indeed have wifi, but it is not permitted to use it in the cockpit. Indeed I have been sitting home a bit recently, so what ?
I really don't give a toss whether you believe/disbelieve anything about me or not.
The fact remains however, that you came on here & talked absolute bollox about the relevance/ neccesity to de-ice public transport swept wing jets, & I could not let such ignorance & misinformation pass unremarked.
Peeing my pants would only be happening if I was in the back of something commanded by someone with your level of knowledge of de-icing sitting up front. . . . & erected ? did you really type that ?
Your wikipedia definition of FUBAR is a little wide of the mark BTW, ask anyone of a certain age/with some aircrew experience, they will explain it nicely to you.
In short, don't come on here & pontificate on that which you patently know nothing of relevance. And don't really expect us all to wet our pants (for any reason ) at a cockpit shot taken from a Cheyenne.

Sad :hmm:

aerobat77

15th Apr 2012, 21:27

so, poor you, I confused your super advanced PA41 on your profile with a Seminole

yes... she is super advanced. such advanced that a PA41 never existed. so this after the seminole laugh is really no need to be poor about me :)

this question is whirling in my mind:
"In such a condition there will certainly be an increase in the low speed buffet and a decrease in the high speed buffet".
Is there anyone who can tell me if the Air Data Computer is able to detect, calculate and represent these new values in the Airspeed Indicator?

well, currently no. the air data computer calculates such things based on a given mass and a configuration ( flaps, slats ) for a clean aircraft . there are no calculations how much contamination on the wing affects the lift , also no calculations about the additional mass -it depends on many items.

the real danger in lifting off with a iced wing is that the ice will reduce the angle of attack for stall so you may stall at an AOA where the stall warning , which is based on the actual AOA, does not even kick in -you may suddenly stall whithout any warning and without knowing why.
further the ice will increase your mass for an unknown factor so you are heavier than you believe.

and more mass with reduced lift is not a good combination.

but this applies only when contamination keeps on the wing/frame after rotation. and - here it depends on the aircraft, some are able to deal with more contamination and some are known to be critical here- we have to talk about a significant amount of ice not some few snowflakes or ice crystals.

the dicussion about the difference between official statements and inofficial pressure for the pilots to avoid expensive deicing and delays whenever possible is surely beyond an open forum i would say.

cheers !

mary meagher

15th Apr 2012, 22:22

Aerobat77, in your post number 243, was it necessary to be quite so offensive? Surely you are mature enough to think twice before pressing the send button? The post is more like a rant than a mature response: if you wish to correct a previous posters' misunderstanding, or to clarify your points, good manners are more effective, and will give the readers a better impression of you.

It is not too late for you to edit your post....

Wisden Wonder

16th Apr 2012, 00:28

Just read the German accident report of the Manchester United crash at Munich. They failed to take off because of snow on the WINGS, nothing to do with slush building up in front of the WHEELS, other aircraft were taking off on the same surface, but with WINGS de-iced. If you have a problem reading your fuselage registration, have a discussion about wing de-icing, and live to tell the tale. Chug-a-lug.

JanetFlight

16th Apr 2012, 01:34

According some sources it was Aeroflot VP-BKY some months ago between Moscow and St.Petersbourg.
IMHO unless AFL does a press release, their Skyteam alliance could be in dangerous fields after all of this...just my 2 cents :rolleyes:

DOVES

16th Apr 2012, 09:33

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/Snow%20pic.jpg

And so, as more as higher were their weight and height, they unknowingly approacched the coffin corner, risking, among other things, to loose several thousand feet, going through the high-speed stall to low speed stall and vice versa

From Wikipedia:
As an airplane approaches its coffin corner, the margin between stall speed and critical Mach number becomes smaller and smaller. Small changes could put one wingor the other above or below the limits. For instance, a turn causes the inner wing to have a lower airspeed, and the outer wing, a higher airspeed. The aircraft could exceed both limits at once. Or, turbulence, could cause the airspeed to change suddenly, to beyond the limits.

up_down_n_out

16th Apr 2012, 09:57

Russians don't believe in coffins, they only need to bury it all in birch forest, thick snow or tundra, and worry about it years later. :rolleyes:

dns

16th Apr 2012, 10:14

I am cabin crew for a British flag carrier which operates to Moscow.

Years ago I called the flight crew because I was concerned that we hadn't been de-iced and there was a large volume of snow on the wings of our 767. I was told that it had been discussed between them, the wings had been inspected by the ground engineer and it had been decided that due to the intense cold (minus 20) the snow hadn't adhered to the wings and that they were completely clean underneath.

We started the takeoff roll and as predicted, the snow shot off the wings and left them clean at about 50 knots.

Quite possibly the exact same circumstances at in the original video.

warmkiter

16th Apr 2012, 10:15

You keep posting so much BS and try to be smart. Cptplaystation has been here posting valid comments for a while. Your participation in the contrary consists of BS written in poor english, almost beyond understanding. Is that supposed to be level 4 english?

You keep talking this utter toss about taking off with snow is ok, as long as it is blown away before rotation. According to you this will have no affect on safety. Dude, this is absolute Bull$hit!

It is clearly a NO-GO to operate an A/C with any contamination on the wing. There is no discussion about that. But because you are such a smarta$$ try to figure out this.

Assume we have a balanced T/O calculation with stopmargin 0. Lets pretend that because we have snow on the wing there is also some snow on the rwy too. Let it be 1mm dry snow, or 1mm wet snow or even just 3mm standing water.

How do you think the increased drag until Vr + the increased weight ( assuming that the snow is blown off just before Vr) does affect your :

1. screenheight for TO with all engines on?
2. screenheight for TO with one engine inop?

Your screenheight on contaminated RWY with one engine inop it will be only 15ft! Thats less 5 meters! Lets assume you do know that you have snow on your wing, its all blown off as you thought, but you lose and engine. Because the snow on the wing smart guys delay the rotation a bit. :} Even if your performance was not even affected by the snow you just will have a lot less than 15ft screenheight left:D A lot less of almost nothing is 0

Here is some lecture for you, its from smartcockpit. But smarta$$es can read it too. http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/flightops/aerodynamics/CONTAMINATED_and_SLIPPERY_RUNWAY.pdf

Winter operations is a wide field and needs a lot of experience and a lot of knowledge. Winter operations require us to act even a little more safetyminded, operate a little more on the safe side and not to cut corners when it comes to safetymargins. Winter operation will reduces the safetymargins in all areas of our operations allready, so we have to take them back not give them away! For just an example stopmargins are suddenly only 15% and the reversers are allready calculated into the stopping distance.

A solid knowledge of the rules and regulations and a strict adherence to them is the key element to avoid accidents. Trying to be an smarta$$ and cut corners will lead to an accident. If not while you operate the flight, maybe it will be another pilot who took the lesson from you and thought it was cool. People who think and talk like you, plant the seeds of accidents and we all will harvest the crop. Think about that, shut up, listen to your more experienced colleagues and improve your knowledge.

warmkiter

16th Apr 2012, 10:29

Dear cabin colleague dns

Even if you operated on board of a british flag carrier, it was a violation of the rules and plain stupid.

Its not enoug that the wing is clean underneath the snow. It has to be clean, without snow;)

These guys had also inspected the wing. They even decided to deice! They had some clear ice which was undetected and the rest is history. How do you think your groundengineer detects clear ice below snow? ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas MD-81 OY-KHO Gottrra (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19911227-0)

The wings are big and full of different materials, systems, heatsources, some parts are cold, some heat up due to the warm fuel or systems like oilcoolers, fuelheaters, hydraulic lines etc. During the approach the leading edges will be heated up to prevent ice accumulation. They are still warm for a while after touchdown. So there are an awfull lot of factors affecting the state of the wing in precipitation. How can you be sure the whole wing is the same as the tiny part in front of your ladders. Nobody walks in the winter on the wing, because they are afraid its slippery and they might fall down because of ICE!

Britis flag carriers have to stick to the rules too.

You were just lucky. Next time talk to your cockpit if you see snow on the wing. Ask how much delay the de-icing will cause. If they say "zero, cause we dont have to" Raise your voice and be assertive.