Westjet Deicing
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: right here
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jumpy737
If your concern was safety, then why CC the Globe and wings magazine. I would have bought this as a legitmate concern but why bring the media into this as it now smacks of sensationalism. SHAME...
However, if the allegations are true about the snow & ice build-up on the wing, then this would appear to be a valid concern. Hopefully West Jet will get to the bottom of this matter, as I'm sure they will, being a responsible company and all.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One way or another, it all burns off in the end. Chalk that one up as luck, you may not get that lucky next time.
As the old saying goes, learn from the mistakes of others, you will not live long enough to make them all yourself.
I am sure the Captain is reading this, hope you have learned.
As the old saying goes, learn from the mistakes of others, you will not live long enough to make them all yourself.
I am sure the Captain is reading this, hope you have learned.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Guy
You make a couple of very good points with which I wholeheartedly agree.
How do you know this crew was in violation of the CARs??? Have you already conducted your investigation? I don't for a minute suggest "they got away with it this time" and neither should you. However, it does appear as though they flew off from A to B safely, unless I got it wrong. I'm not suggesting they got away with anything. I'm confident but accept the fact I wouldn't know, they did a walkaround and decided they had a clean wing based on what they saw. Or, should I assume otherwise? I don't think so.
I credit a professional crew with believing what was seen on a walkaround, that they had a clean wing and made the right decision to depart without deicing and no CAR was violated.
A simple PA to inform the passengers that a thorough inspection of the aircraft exterior and wings was conducted removing the necessity for deicing. It's recorded for the investigators in case they made a boo boo.
I am also crediting a professional pilot who was a passenger on that flight with the ability to observe, identify and claim that there was ice adhering to the wing. This person says he had no opportunity to bring it to the crews attention. I am accepting that as well and applaud him for doing the right thing.
So, now what? Who's right and who's wrong and why not bring it to someones attention? Who better than officials at West Jet? After all, the PAX has a customer complaint. Doesn't he?
The sarcastic part of my comment was, "Why wasn't the aircraft sprayed/deiced? Captain's responsibility. Captain's call."
It's never that simple, is it?
Perhaps it would have stirred more emotion to say this. "Captain screwed up. Off with his head!"
I don't think so.
As previously stated (by someone closer to the action than me) there are two sides to the story here and until a 'judge' hears both sides, we have only the innocent to listen to.
A310GUY
Excellent posts. Well said.
You make a couple of very good points with which I wholeheartedly agree.
How do you know this crew was in violation of the CARs??? Have you already conducted your investigation? I don't for a minute suggest "they got away with it this time" and neither should you. However, it does appear as though they flew off from A to B safely, unless I got it wrong. I'm not suggesting they got away with anything. I'm confident but accept the fact I wouldn't know, they did a walkaround and decided they had a clean wing based on what they saw. Or, should I assume otherwise? I don't think so.
I credit a professional crew with believing what was seen on a walkaround, that they had a clean wing and made the right decision to depart without deicing and no CAR was violated.
A simple PA to inform the passengers that a thorough inspection of the aircraft exterior and wings was conducted removing the necessity for deicing. It's recorded for the investigators in case they made a boo boo.
I am also crediting a professional pilot who was a passenger on that flight with the ability to observe, identify and claim that there was ice adhering to the wing. This person says he had no opportunity to bring it to the crews attention. I am accepting that as well and applaud him for doing the right thing.
So, now what? Who's right and who's wrong and why not bring it to someones attention? Who better than officials at West Jet? After all, the PAX has a customer complaint. Doesn't he?
The sarcastic part of my comment was, "Why wasn't the aircraft sprayed/deiced? Captain's responsibility. Captain's call."
It's never that simple, is it?
Perhaps it would have stirred more emotion to say this. "Captain screwed up. Off with his head!"
I don't think so.
As previously stated (by someone closer to the action than me) there are two sides to the story here and until a 'judge' hears both sides, we have only the innocent to listen to.
A310GUY
Excellent posts. Well said.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
The bottom line to me after reading all this is this. 1 Captain decides one thing and another one chooses a different path. Past experiences cost saving blah blah. The point is the WJ captain chose to takeoff while a passenger in the back end had a concern. He says it was too late at this point.
In my opinion he should not have envolved the media and the point of this to me sounds like he was pis*ed off that he told his kid they were gonna de-ice because HE would have as Captain but they didnt so he got mad and wrote a letter in the heat of anger or frustration. That being said there are assumably no pictures or video or any kind of proof at all. However the Captain being quoted as saying "I hope you don't take this any further" makes me wonder a little that he had be caught doing something he bounced back and forth in his mind before deciding to takeoff.
The crews choice to takeoff is like everyone is saying here. Captain's finally responsible and its pretty well going to be his decision. Hind sight in this is that it brings up good discusions from different crews at different airlines and sheds little to no light on the facts of this incident except for what the passenger viewed as unsafe. All TC will do is review the wxx that day and conditions however long it sat on the ground etc. If they even take it that far. My hats off to Flight Nav for following it up promptly.
I think the WJ Captain did the 50/50 call made it but got called on it from a FCM sitting in the back of his airplane got mad and wrote a letter. That being said he is entitled to his opinion and he should have wrote a letter but not to the media. This makes no sense to me.
If I was onboard though and I felt something was unsafe and it was too late perhaps a conversation with the flight crew at the end would be prudent.
Good thread though started some good info rolling.
B757FO
In my opinion he should not have envolved the media and the point of this to me sounds like he was pis*ed off that he told his kid they were gonna de-ice because HE would have as Captain but they didnt so he got mad and wrote a letter in the heat of anger or frustration. That being said there are assumably no pictures or video or any kind of proof at all. However the Captain being quoted as saying "I hope you don't take this any further" makes me wonder a little that he had be caught doing something he bounced back and forth in his mind before deciding to takeoff.
The crews choice to takeoff is like everyone is saying here. Captain's finally responsible and its pretty well going to be his decision. Hind sight in this is that it brings up good discusions from different crews at different airlines and sheds little to no light on the facts of this incident except for what the passenger viewed as unsafe. All TC will do is review the wxx that day and conditions however long it sat on the ground etc. If they even take it that far. My hats off to Flight Nav for following it up promptly.
I think the WJ Captain did the 50/50 call made it but got called on it from a FCM sitting in the back of his airplane got mad and wrote a letter. That being said he is entitled to his opinion and he should have wrote a letter but not to the media. This makes no sense to me.
If I was onboard though and I felt something was unsafe and it was too late perhaps a conversation with the flight crew at the end would be prudent.
Good thread though started some good info rolling.
B757FO
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie:
You make good points as well. As I am not a party to what happened in YUL I can't conduct an investigation. I did not say the Westjet Captain violated the CARs, it was implied in the original post of this thread. What I did say was that taking off with a contaminated aircraft is a CARs violation.
I am all for use of good judgement, it's what Captains get paid for. But, there are times when we should not apply judgement, but rather we should follow the regs because they were written to protect the travelling public. The reg with respect to contamination is quite clear; clean wings are mandatory, and a little bit of ice or snow is not acceptable unless the manufacturer has given a statement to the contrary in their approved manuals. To me, this regulation takes the pressure off from that particular decision making exercise. I'll take those whenever I can get them, as there are more than enough complex decisions to make on a given day, especially when mother nature takes her best shot. Given the clarity of the regulatory language, I can't understand why anyone would knowingly decide to depart in an obviously contaminated aircraft with dozens of witnesses to a potential regulatory violation looking out the windows at the evidence of my "crime". It ain't worth the risk to our lives, or my license, IMHO.
You make good points as well. As I am not a party to what happened in YUL I can't conduct an investigation. I did not say the Westjet Captain violated the CARs, it was implied in the original post of this thread. What I did say was that taking off with a contaminated aircraft is a CARs violation.
I am all for use of good judgement, it's what Captains get paid for. But, there are times when we should not apply judgement, but rather we should follow the regs because they were written to protect the travelling public. The reg with respect to contamination is quite clear; clean wings are mandatory, and a little bit of ice or snow is not acceptable unless the manufacturer has given a statement to the contrary in their approved manuals. To me, this regulation takes the pressure off from that particular decision making exercise. I'll take those whenever I can get them, as there are more than enough complex decisions to make on a given day, especially when mother nature takes her best shot. Given the clarity of the regulatory language, I can't understand why anyone would knowingly decide to depart in an obviously contaminated aircraft with dozens of witnesses to a potential regulatory violation looking out the windows at the evidence of my "crime". It ain't worth the risk to our lives, or my license, IMHO.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am quite shocked at what I’m reading on this thread concerning the criteria that some folks think is acceptable procedure in determining whether or not a spray is required. As I said in an earlier post the tail plane must be inspected and a walk around just doesn’t cut it. How do you know what’s on your tail plane unless you are in a position to actually inspect it? Do you jump up and down trying to observe your tail plane or do you just assume a clean wing indicates a clean tail plane. A contaminated tail plane is going to cause you to crash just as easily as a contaminated wing. If your tail plane is not getting inspected you're rolling the dice.
I have certainly witnessed carriers that were rumored to be in financial straits forgoing the de-icing spray while everyone else was getting sprayed. For someone to say that financial considerations are not playing a part in some de-icing decisions is pure folly.
IMHO there certainly appears to be a wide gap in the operational philosophy between what the legacy carriers and LCC’s are putting in their manuals. The legacy carriers build the proper method of de-icing into their infrastructure and follow through. Others prefer to go the cheap way and rely only on input from one source after a cursory inspection.
As others have wisely noted if you think de-icing is expensive, try an accident..
I have certainly witnessed carriers that were rumored to be in financial straits forgoing the de-icing spray while everyone else was getting sprayed. For someone to say that financial considerations are not playing a part in some de-icing decisions is pure folly.
IMHO there certainly appears to be a wide gap in the operational philosophy between what the legacy carriers and LCC’s are putting in their manuals. The legacy carriers build the proper method of de-icing into their infrastructure and follow through. Others prefer to go the cheap way and rely only on input from one source after a cursory inspection.
As others have wisely noted if you think de-icing is expensive, try an accident..
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 51
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From 1998 to 1999 I worked with Hudson General at CYYZ. The first winter I worked the ramp, we would see AirTransat aircraft skip de-icing on a regular basis. They used to have a van, with a cherry picker, and a large air compressor in back. They would get in the basket, and blow the contamination off the wings prior to depatrue. The De-icing pad was new at that time, and yes....Hudson General had the contract for-de-icing with their new yellow de-ice trucks. Elephant trucks they called them I believe. AirTransat would only come buy in heavy snows and ice, but under any other conditions, when others would de-ice, you would never see them. I am pretty sure things have changed now a days. But buy the sounds of the letter posted.....I dunno.
I am also surprised at the Captains actions, if accurate, as alot of Westjet crews are ex-Canadian Forces. They are pretty strict when it comes to following SOP's and regulations.
One last thing......what are WJ's SOP for ice and contamination? I would think that contaminated wings means no departure.
I am also surprised at the Captains actions, if accurate, as alot of Westjet crews are ex-Canadian Forces. They are pretty strict when it comes to following SOP's and regulations.
One last thing......what are WJ's SOP for ice and contamination? I would think that contaminated wings means no departure.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started flying 737-200s in 1981 and remember a lot of departures with contaminated wings. The airplane never seemed to "notice" and it was accepted practice. All we had then was Type 1 and, when we did spray we would often sit around for what now seems like a l-o-o-o-ng time! That's how it was until Dryden came along and smartened us up.
I remember a light going on one day when I read an article on simulated contamination. I think the researchers used sandpaper to simulate contamination. Their results showed that performance was not degraded a great deal as long as both engines were operating. I had my eyes opened by a set of results that showed only a slightly degraded climb rate with both engines operating but a negative value with one engine out!
It seems to me that these airplanes will more or less "muscle" their way around the sky with both fans operating but if you lose one with contaminated wings you are probably going to make a big hole in the ground.
If the airlines want to save money on de-iceing then they should invest hugely in an alternative measure. As for me, if I can't decide I spray.
I remember a light going on one day when I read an article on simulated contamination. I think the researchers used sandpaper to simulate contamination. Their results showed that performance was not degraded a great deal as long as both engines were operating. I had my eyes opened by a set of results that showed only a slightly degraded climb rate with both engines operating but a negative value with one engine out!
It seems to me that these airplanes will more or less "muscle" their way around the sky with both fans operating but if you lose one with contaminated wings you are probably going to make a big hole in the ground.
If the airlines want to save money on de-iceing then they should invest hugely in an alternative measure. As for me, if I can't decide I spray.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Going back to the comments on revealing this to the press, I think that it was a good idea. The travelling public deserves to know what the risks are. As a customer, they deserve to have the right to comment on a possible safety problem. Do you think TC would advise the public? They never do. It's not their job. Many of us have seen WJ skip the deicing. I witnessed it just recently in YUL and it wasn't the first time. The wings were clearly contaminated and noticable. Are they the only ones doing it? Probably not but chances are it's not a common incident at AC. Even if the crew wanted to get away with it we can't because we have a trained ramp crew that would have us go deice wether we agree or not. Not just a flight deck decision anymore. It involves anyone around the airplane. Maybe WJ should have the same system. It is not a reflection on the company. I'm sure WJ does not condone this. Rather the individuals at the controls are to blame.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes me wonder, if LCC aircraft are not been de-iced at the major airports in the presence of knowledgeable observers what’s happening at the smaller airports. Is TC waiting for another accident to occur before doing something about it or is TC being politically correct by looking the other way?
Maybe we should be asking the owners?
Maybe we should be asking the owners?
Last edited by Tan; 31st Jan 2006 at 17:52.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: A large cold land...
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an "Owner" I will not knowingly take-off with contamination on the wings. That's just common sense, not to mention S.O.P. and the law according to the CARs...
However, I will not use a "PR" spray just to be "seen" to do the right thing. It's a waste of time, and money, hard on the aircraft and it's systems, not to mention the environment...
I am thoroughly familiar with the WestJet S.O.P's regarding dry loose snow as well as "Cold Soaked Fuel Frost". How many on this board are also well versed?
It's all well and good to speak from experience gained in your own operations, but to chastise another Airline for operating according to it's own Transport Canada approved F.O.M. is counter-productive and pointless...
However, I will not use a "PR" spray just to be "seen" to do the right thing. It's a waste of time, and money, hard on the aircraft and it's systems, not to mention the environment...
I am thoroughly familiar with the WestJet S.O.P's regarding dry loose snow as well as "Cold Soaked Fuel Frost". How many on this board are also well versed?
It's all well and good to speak from experience gained in your own operations, but to chastise another Airline for operating according to it's own Transport Canada approved F.O.M. is counter-productive and pointless...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slapshot.
Interesting point of view. Are there any TC inspectors on this forum? A PR spray? Wow. I thought TC and your SOP was pretty clear. ANY contamination has to be removed. Period. This doesn't necessarilly mean a full spray. It could be as simple as just one small section of the airplanes' lift surfaces. You have just proved exactly what many on this forum have said against you.
Interesting point of view. Are there any TC inspectors on this forum? A PR spray? Wow. I thought TC and your SOP was pretty clear. ANY contamination has to be removed. Period. This doesn't necessarilly mean a full spray. It could be as simple as just one small section of the airplanes' lift surfaces. You have just proved exactly what many on this forum have said against you.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Slapshot
As an "Owner" I will not knowingly take-off with contamination on the wings. That's just common sense, not to mention S.O.P. and the law according to the CARs...
However, I will not use a "PR" spray just to be "seen" to do the right thing. It's a waste of time, and money, hard on the aircraft and it's systems, not to mention the environment...
I am thoroughly familiar with the WestJet S.O.P's regarding dry loose snow as well as "Cold Soaked Fuel Frost". How many on this board are also well versed?
It's all well and good to speak from experience gained in your own operations, but to chastise another Airline for operating according to it's own Transport Canada approved F.O.M. is counter-productive and pointless...
However, I will not use a "PR" spray just to be "seen" to do the right thing. It's a waste of time, and money, hard on the aircraft and it's systems, not to mention the environment...
I am thoroughly familiar with the WestJet S.O.P's regarding dry loose snow as well as "Cold Soaked Fuel Frost". How many on this board are also well versed?
It's all well and good to speak from experience gained in your own operations, but to chastise another Airline for operating according to it's own Transport Canada approved F.O.M. is counter-productive and pointless...
The Enquire would sure like to know…
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: A large cold land...
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It's a cowboy thing dude."
As for
"I thought TC and your SOP was pretty clear. ANY contamination has to be removed. Period."
Also: Cold dry snow on a cold wing - the application of de-icing/anti icing fluid to the wing of the aircraft would result in the snow sticking to the fluid. Under such conditions it may not be prudent to apply fluids to the wing.
As I said: It's all well and good to speak from experience gained in your own operations, but to chastise another Airline for operating according to it's own Transport Canada approved F.O.M. is counter-productive and pointless...
Guest
Posts: n/a
What I have witnessed on WJ airplanes was a little more than what you state. But hey, who am I to judge? You guys know your airplanes, I don't. I remember some years ago a 737 going in the Potomac River off DCA. The Capt thought it was just a little snow on the wings. No big deal. Luck will only last so long. Eventually it runs out. Don't be a hero cause at the end of the day, Clive will be more angry if you destroy one of his airplanes than if you spend a little money on deicing. If you guys don't buy that concept, I wouldn't put my wife and kids on your planes.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brucelee
What I have witnessed on WJ airplanes was a little more than what you state. But hey, who am I to judge? You guys know your airplanes, I don't. I remember some years ago a 737 going in the Potomac River off DCA. The Capt thought it was just a little snow on the wings. No big deal. Luck will only last so long. Eventually it runs out. Don't be a hero cause at the end of the day, Clive will be more angry if you destroy one of his airplanes than if you spend a little money on deicing. If you guys don't buy that concept, I wouldn't put my wife and kids on your planes.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slapshot:
You're trying to deflect the discussion from the real issue. It has been alleged that one of your flights departed with a contaminated wing that was not covered under either of the ops manual stipulations you quoted. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I'd say that from the Captain's alleged reaction, it bears some truth. Spraying that aircraft prior to departure would not have been PR spray, it would have been indicative of a Captain who was operating his aircraft with safety as his first priority, and in compliance with the CARs. If you feel that the CARs are too restrictive, then do the honourable thing and lobby the Minister for a change.
Whether it was the first time that it's happened, or whether everyone at your company does it really doesn't matter. All we're saying is that such actions are not indicative of the kind of safety culture we all should be encouraging.
You're trying to deflect the discussion from the real issue. It has been alleged that one of your flights departed with a contaminated wing that was not covered under either of the ops manual stipulations you quoted. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I'd say that from the Captain's alleged reaction, it bears some truth. Spraying that aircraft prior to departure would not have been PR spray, it would have been indicative of a Captain who was operating his aircraft with safety as his first priority, and in compliance with the CARs. If you feel that the CARs are too restrictive, then do the honourable thing and lobby the Minister for a change.
Whether it was the first time that it's happened, or whether everyone at your company does it really doesn't matter. All we're saying is that such actions are not indicative of the kind of safety culture we all should be encouraging.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: right here
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brucelee
Going back to the comments on revealing this to the press, I think that it was a good idea....
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=brucelee]What I have witnessed on WJ airplanes was a little more than what you state. But hey, who am I to judge? You guys know your airplanes, I don't.
You should have quit while you were ahead. For you to judge ANY other operator is the height of arrogance. I'm sure you could tell if the snow was (magic word here) ADHERING to the wing from where ever you were "observing". Slapshot tried to educate you. You choose to go off on your own self righteous tangent...I guess it makes you feel better. Good luck with that.
I don't think anyone here is arguing the need for proper deicing when it is required. What I don't understand is the need to go off with a bunch of half baked theories. Why is it that you feel the need to denigrate fellow pilots with this crap? Surely you don't believe that someone that has reached this level of flying is going to purposely takeoff with a contaminated wing? Has anyone here even considered that maybe the crew involved felt the light snow was NOT adhering and possibly made an honest mistake? I have no idea what happened but there seem to be a few out there ready to draw and quarter these guys and all of WestJet just for good measure.There are many possibilities regarding this whole sad posting that may or may not be but the one thing I am sure of is that those that choose to use this as some sort of example to prove they are superior are sad indeed. You know who you are.
You should have quit while you were ahead. For you to judge ANY other operator is the height of arrogance. I'm sure you could tell if the snow was (magic word here) ADHERING to the wing from where ever you were "observing". Slapshot tried to educate you. You choose to go off on your own self righteous tangent...I guess it makes you feel better. Good luck with that.
I don't think anyone here is arguing the need for proper deicing when it is required. What I don't understand is the need to go off with a bunch of half baked theories. Why is it that you feel the need to denigrate fellow pilots with this crap? Surely you don't believe that someone that has reached this level of flying is going to purposely takeoff with a contaminated wing? Has anyone here even considered that maybe the crew involved felt the light snow was NOT adhering and possibly made an honest mistake? I have no idea what happened but there seem to be a few out there ready to draw and quarter these guys and all of WestJet just for good measure.There are many possibilities regarding this whole sad posting that may or may not be but the one thing I am sure of is that those that choose to use this as some sort of example to prove they are superior are sad indeed. You know who you are.