New reason to divert!?

[Frogman1484]

Really!? Divert for better deicing?:confused:


United Airlines plane diverts to Heathrow for de-icing 90 minutes after taking off from Brussels | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2890163/United-Airlines-captain-aborts-transatlantic-journey-diverts-plane-Heathrow-additional-icing-just-90-minutes-taking-Brussels.html)

[Shep69]

Hard to believe, maybe just the media getting it wrong (again). Maybe an engine anti-ice or wing anti-ice or bleed air problem, etc. which developed precluding it from flying in icing conditions. Pilot may have wisely decided to land vice continue across the Atlantic and into who knows what.

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

Shep,

Reckon you've hit the nail on the head with there being a problem; de-icing and anti-icing is only designed to get you airborne. There are lots of MEL items that say 'avoid flying in icing conditions' which is hard to do over the atlantic, mid-winter.

Hugo

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Why couldn't he have noticed a performance degradation and suspected a poorly done de/anti icing? Maybe even substantiated by a visual check?

Or do we now have to assume the minimum-wage dude freezing his b@lls off in the nacelle spraying toxic stuff all day always does a good job?...

The shadow of a doubt is enough reason to divert. Especially before an arctic crossing in wintertime.

Safety first, remember? Or has the company drivel got you to start thinking like them?

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

Here's a clue: "A spokesman for United Airlines said the plane was carrying 227 passengers and 14 crew when it landed in order to deal with a ‘mechanical issue’."

[caber]

It was indeed a valve issue that precluded flight in icing conditions, nothing to do with ground based ice removal or prevention at all.

[404 Titan]

Caber

You are correct. My brother in law and his wife who is UA staff were on board. A mechanical issue developed in flight with the anti ice system requiring a diversion. Aircraft was AOG in London awaiting parts and all pax were transferred to other flights. It took them 48 hours to get on a flight back to the U.S.

[5LY]

Yonosoy Marinero (http://www.pprune.org/members/344683-yonosoy-marinero)


Look up sublimation. You're talking nonsense

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Absolute sublimation doesn't happen at pressures and temperatures that are much lower than anything an airliner will ever experience.

As far as ablative sublimation, or that caused by the sunrays, it works extremely slowly, especially for any surface that is somewhat tangential to the airflow, as the boundary layer will effectively 'protect' it.

So in the hypothetical scenario I evoked, here's to hoping you wouldn't rely on that to get rid of any ice that might have blown back on T/O and reattached itself to the back of the wing or crawled into the control surfaces rather than land and get rid of it.

Call me paranoid.

[de facto]

Paranoid:E

[Frogman1484]

Yonosoy Marinero ...ummmm maybe you do not understand what ground deicing does and how it works...maybe wing anti ice is a good place to start reading. :ok:

[Captn_Kirk]

Take-off being the most critical part of the flight, lift wise, why would you come back and land, instead of continuing the flight and... land.

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

because the deicing was messed up, Captn Kirk, and it says so not just in the Daily Mail but the Daily Mirror! It must be true!

[FERetd]

Sorry Hugo, but if it's not in the Daily Star, then how can you be so sure?

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

Well, suddenly i'm not sure anymore….any comment from the Sun?

[FERetd]

Hard to say Hugo. The Sun normally puts important stuff like this on Page 3 and I'm easily distracted.