Westjet Deicing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westjet Deicing
Below is a letter I sent to Westjet, Transport Canada, and various other publications a few weeks ago. I have had no positive feedback as of yet from the airline.
I have been a viewer of posts on this website for years and have not made any postings, but have decided I would like to see more feedback from other viewers regarding this issue.
Thanks
West Jet Airlines
5055, 11th ST NE
Calgary, AB Canada
T2E 8N4
We departed on a West Jet flight shortly before Christmas from CYUL. It had been snowing lightly for the previous two hours. When our aircraft arrived at the gate thirty minutes before our departure, it was prepared and we were boarded. Our seats had us sitting at the trailing edge of the flaps with a very good view of the right wing. On taxi out from the main terminal I was pointing out the ice and snow on the wings to my five year old son explaining how we were going to the deicing pad to have our wings sprayed. At this point, I believe we are on Alpha taxiway holding short of Runway 28. Next thing you know we roll on to Runway 28 and begin the take off with heavy wing contamination. I was in complete shock, and there was nothing I could do about it at this point. Had we been taxiing for any of CYUL’s five other runways I would have had time to relay my concerns to the crew. I thought we would be taxiing across Runway 28 to taxiway Juliet or Kilo, which would lead us into the deicing pad.
It was not just a few specks of ice on the wing (which is still unacceptable), after observing loose snow and ice blow off, there was still moderate contamination left on the wing at rotation. The contamination did not blow off the flaps and outer wing areas until about 1200ft, and on the middle and root of the wing there was ice that did not sublimate until over 15,000 ft. It is well understood that even light contamination can have a dramatic effect on the wing’s lift characteristics causing the wing to stall. Given the number of accidents that occur due to icing, this should not be happening.
This was the first time I have been concerned on a commercial flight.
I approached the Captain after the flight and asked him why we departed without deicing. He said they were ‘cold soaked from the arrival and that they thought everything would blow off'. I told him that I saw ice well after we took off and asked if that was normal operating procedure in the 737 (knowing very well it is not). He admitted it wasn't. The First Officer then began to explain that deicing during these conditions would make things worse. That is when I expressed my displeasure at their lack of understanding and professionalism, and for making a decision that put my family, the passengers, and the crew at risk. I also enquired if it was not their responsibility to visually check the wings prior to takeoff in their company S.O.P’s, at which point they would have seen what I saw.
After a few more exchanges, the Captain said he ‘hoped I would not take this any further, and that he was sorry he disappointed us’. Conditions (see below) may have been present to assume any snow would just ‘blow off’, but not taking into account the many factors that may have raised the temperature enough to create ice (fuel temperatures, drifting exhaust gasses etc.) and not visually inspecting the wings prior to departure is a very hazardous attitude. If I was to conduct one of my flights in such a manor I believe I would be out of a job or severely reprimanded.
On our return to CYUL in the new year I observed another situation that reinforces the importance of addressing this issue. Our West Jet flight pushed back from the gate to proceed to the deicing pad, while at the same time another West Jet flight pushed back and did not deice. After sitting in the same conditions as our flight that morning, and observing aircraft from other companies deicing, I find it hard to believe that one crew could decide, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was safe to depart their aircraft.
I have been a viewer of posts on this website for years and have not made any postings, but have decided I would like to see more feedback from other viewers regarding this issue.
Thanks
West Jet Airlines
5055, 11th ST NE
Calgary, AB Canada
T2E 8N4
January 11th, 2006
Attn: Bruce Flodstedt
Director of Flight Operations
Subject: Ground Deicing Procedures
Director of Flight Operations
Subject: Ground Deicing Procedures
My family and I were passengers on a West Jet flight departing out of Montreal in late December 2005. We experienced something I still cannot believe occurred on a commercial flight in Canada. I would like to begin by stating that I am a pilot by profession, working for a large international corporate flight department, and feel it is my responsibility to report what the aviation industry knows is an extremely serious, potentially fatal, and 100% avoidable incident. Also, to be clear, I have no affiliation with, or any grievances of any kind, with any airline.
It was not just a few specks of ice on the wing (which is still unacceptable), after observing loose snow and ice blow off, there was still moderate contamination left on the wing at rotation. The contamination did not blow off the flaps and outer wing areas until about 1200ft, and on the middle and root of the wing there was ice that did not sublimate until over 15,000 ft. It is well understood that even light contamination can have a dramatic effect on the wing’s lift characteristics causing the wing to stall. Given the number of accidents that occur due to icing, this should not be happening.
This was the first time I have been concerned on a commercial flight.
I approached the Captain after the flight and asked him why we departed without deicing. He said they were ‘cold soaked from the arrival and that they thought everything would blow off'. I told him that I saw ice well after we took off and asked if that was normal operating procedure in the 737 (knowing very well it is not). He admitted it wasn't. The First Officer then began to explain that deicing during these conditions would make things worse. That is when I expressed my displeasure at their lack of understanding and professionalism, and for making a decision that put my family, the passengers, and the crew at risk. I also enquired if it was not their responsibility to visually check the wings prior to takeoff in their company S.O.P’s, at which point they would have seen what I saw.
After a few more exchanges, the Captain said he ‘hoped I would not take this any further, and that he was sorry he disappointed us’. Conditions (see below) may have been present to assume any snow would just ‘blow off’, but not taking into account the many factors that may have raised the temperature enough to create ice (fuel temperatures, drifting exhaust gasses etc.) and not visually inspecting the wings prior to departure is a very hazardous attitude. If I was to conduct one of my flights in such a manor I believe I would be out of a job or severely reprimanded.
On our return to CYUL in the new year I observed another situation that reinforces the importance of addressing this issue. Our West Jet flight pushed back from the gate to proceed to the deicing pad, while at the same time another West Jet flight pushed back and did not deice. After sitting in the same conditions as our flight that morning, and observing aircraft from other companies deicing, I find it hard to believe that one crew could decide, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was safe to depart their aircraft.
After deliberating and speaking with peers on how to approach this issue, I have decided at this point, to keep this anonymous. It is my intention that the issue be brought forward to the whole West Jet pilot group, Transport Canada, and the public because if the specific flight were to be revealed, I would be concerned that West Jet and Transport Canada would simply punish the crew and there would be no further action or responsibility taken.
I am hoping to see awareness raised outside the company and I want to ensure this incident is on record if West Jet is to have an accident due to icing. If West Jet’s S.O.P.s do not reflect it, more stringent guidelines should be outlined for deciding when deicing is required, and greater explanation on the seriousness at lack of respect for this issue is necessary. Hidden pressures due to saving the company money, or keeping to the schedule, are issues that may also need to be addressed by West Jet and its pilot group.
Finally, I would like to state that until I’m convinced otherwise, my family, friends, and colleagues will be strongly advised by myself not to fly on this airline.
I can be contacted at [email protected]. I would like to be notified of your actions.
Conditions upon aircraft arrival in CYUL – 160/6 4S- 18SCT 30OVC –7/-9 29.96
Conditions upon aircraft departure from CYUL– 160/10 8S- 27OVC –6/-8 29.92
______________________________________________
CC Paul Ysselmuiden – West Jet Chief Pilot
CC Kevin Pickett – West Jet Director of Inflight Safety
CC Ken Graham – Transport Canada, Calgary
CC Fred Damico – Transport Canada, Winnipeg
CC Editor – Wings Magazine
CC Editor – Globe and Mail Newspaper
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEICE05
Excellent post.
How you handled it, obviously, will raise debate. Debate is a good thing.
But the greater issue is safety.
I had friends on the Air Ontario F28 out of Dryden. I think you'd find similar concerns among them regarding icing and deicing.
But the reality in aviation right now is the rate at which the airlines are expanding and the rate at which 'experience' is descending.
We (the industry) are going to pay for it unfortunately. And that usually means "payment in blood".
Let's hope your message is responsibly and professionally received.
I often wonder (whilst seated as a PAX) why professional pilots don't make their presence know to the crew when boarding a flight? Is it an ego thing?
I hope not. But it never hurts for the cabin crew at least, to know you have a qualified able bodied person on board in case of an emergency, or urgency. We all speak the same lingo.
Excellent post.
How you handled it, obviously, will raise debate. Debate is a good thing.
But the greater issue is safety.
I had friends on the Air Ontario F28 out of Dryden. I think you'd find similar concerns among them regarding icing and deicing.
But the reality in aviation right now is the rate at which the airlines are expanding and the rate at which 'experience' is descending.
We (the industry) are going to pay for it unfortunately. And that usually means "payment in blood".
Let's hope your message is responsibly and professionally received.
I often wonder (whilst seated as a PAX) why professional pilots don't make their presence know to the crew when boarding a flight? Is it an ego thing?
I hope not. But it never hurts for the cabin crew at least, to know you have a qualified able bodied person on board in case of an emergency, or urgency. We all speak the same lingo.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Age: 44
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a good letter, and kudos for taking the time to address the issue with Westjet. However, I have to agree with what was said above, why would you bother to send a copy to the Globe and Mail and Wings Magazine?
You said you received no positive feedback from the airline. Did you get any feedback @ all?
You said you received no positive feedback from the airline. Did you get any feedback @ all?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response
For the record; it should be noted that I sent an email to this individual with my contact information as a means of following up. To date I have not received anything from this individual, which in my mind raises questions as to the legitimacy of the letter. If safety is indeed the concern, then I am more than willing to look into the matter. I can't conduct a proper investigation without knowing more of the details. There are always two sides to any story.
It should also be noted that I refuse to discuss this any further on a public forum. If you're truly concerned, you have my contact information.
Bruce Flodstedt
VP Flight Ops
WestJet
It should also be noted that I refuse to discuss this any further on a public forum. If you're truly concerned, you have my contact information.
Bruce Flodstedt
VP Flight Ops
WestJet
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deice05
Let me start with the obvious. Deicing and the clean wing concept are well understood by proffessional pilots. Nothing less is expected.
The not so obvious. Your motives. "I have decided at this point , to keep this anonymous". Are you kidding me? cc'ing media? The only thing anonymous is your name. Surely you must realise that accusations as serious as this will not be able to be addressed on the basis of an "anonymous letter". It brings into question your own real motives. I am dissapointed that a proffessional pilot as you call yourself has made assumptions on the actions of other proffessional pilots and worse yet posted these assumptions and accusations to various people and organisations anonymously. You should know better.
Instead of making a phone call to Capt. Flodstedt to hopefully clear up your concerns and address possible issues you chose to publicly smear WestJet on the internet.
If you were so concerned about the safety of WestJet's operation , what the hell were you doing putting your family on them on the return flight? Words fail me.
Let me start with the obvious. Deicing and the clean wing concept are well understood by proffessional pilots. Nothing less is expected.
The not so obvious. Your motives. "I have decided at this point , to keep this anonymous". Are you kidding me? cc'ing media? The only thing anonymous is your name. Surely you must realise that accusations as serious as this will not be able to be addressed on the basis of an "anonymous letter". It brings into question your own real motives. I am dissapointed that a proffessional pilot as you call yourself has made assumptions on the actions of other proffessional pilots and worse yet posted these assumptions and accusations to various people and organisations anonymously. You should know better.
Instead of making a phone call to Capt. Flodstedt to hopefully clear up your concerns and address possible issues you chose to publicly smear WestJet on the internet.
If you were so concerned about the safety of WestJet's operation , what the hell were you doing putting your family on them on the return flight? Words fail me.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
royalterrace
quote "I am dissapointed that a proffessional pilot as you call yourself has made assumptions on the actions of other proffessional pilots and worse yet posted these assumptions and accusations to various people and organisations anonymously."
Why should you be disappointed that a fellow pilot questioned another pilot's decision? Are we to believe all pilot's decisions are always correct and always unquestionable? Or is there the possibility we get a few wrong on occasion?
Anonymity?
If you've been in the airline idustry for awhile you'll know this industry uses anonimity in many, many areas of reporting maintenance, flt. operations issues. From FOQA to ASRs to just about anything else in between. Yet, you claim to be disappointed. Look around you. Airline pilots occasionally need and use anonimity to get the safety message out, so it shouldn't surprise any professional pilot. Is West Jet special?
I think West Jet is more than capable of looking into a safety matter just as I'm sure they can look into any customer service complaint. I'm sure they have a Safety Officer assigned to look into complaints like this. As Flite Nav has indicated, there are two sides to the story and one can't simply go into hush, hush mode because it causes bad publicity. Sometimes safety issues DO cause bad publicity just as investigations internal or public vindicate the accused.
Watch this space.
quote "I am dissapointed that a proffessional pilot as you call yourself has made assumptions on the actions of other proffessional pilots and worse yet posted these assumptions and accusations to various people and organisations anonymously."
Why should you be disappointed that a fellow pilot questioned another pilot's decision? Are we to believe all pilot's decisions are always correct and always unquestionable? Or is there the possibility we get a few wrong on occasion?
Anonymity?
If you've been in the airline idustry for awhile you'll know this industry uses anonimity in many, many areas of reporting maintenance, flt. operations issues. From FOQA to ASRs to just about anything else in between. Yet, you claim to be disappointed. Look around you. Airline pilots occasionally need and use anonimity to get the safety message out, so it shouldn't surprise any professional pilot. Is West Jet special?
I think West Jet is more than capable of looking into a safety matter just as I'm sure they can look into any customer service complaint. I'm sure they have a Safety Officer assigned to look into complaints like this. As Flite Nav has indicated, there are two sides to the story and one can't simply go into hush, hush mode because it causes bad publicity. Sometimes safety issues DO cause bad publicity just as investigations internal or public vindicate the accused.
Watch this space.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie
In my view anonymity calls into question these accusations. I give this pilot credit in questioning the PIC directly. Where I have a problem is in his follow up.
If this pilot was TRULY concerned he would have made contact with the appropriate people immediately and directly and not waffle for two weeks and then only anonymously. I sure wouldn't handle it that way. Would you?
As Capt Flodstedt stated above , he contacted "Mr Anonymous" and has recieved no reply. Instead , we see his true colors with an internet smear.
With Capt Flodstedt's invitation , I guess it's up to Mr. Anonymous now.
In my view anonymity calls into question these accusations. I give this pilot credit in questioning the PIC directly. Where I have a problem is in his follow up.
If this pilot was TRULY concerned he would have made contact with the appropriate people immediately and directly and not waffle for two weeks and then only anonymously. I sure wouldn't handle it that way. Would you?
As Capt Flodstedt stated above , he contacted "Mr Anonymous" and has recieved no reply. Instead , we see his true colors with an internet smear.
With Capt Flodstedt's invitation , I guess it's up to Mr. Anonymous now.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deice05:
You appear to be painting all Westjet pilots with the same brush, and in my opinion, that is patently unfair and unwarranted. I know many Westjet pilots, including some of the ones you addressed in your letter, and I can tell you that taking off with contaminated wings (as you have alleged), is not an acceptable practice for any of them.
Some of your story doesn't hold water. In case you didn't know (and as a professional pilot you should), the Captain is required by regulation (refer to CAR 602.11 (7)) to inform his passengers that he will be deicing the aircraft prior to departure. When no such announcement was made prior to leaving the gate, you should have asked a member of the cabin crew if deicing would be taking place. I know that I certainly would have if I saw conditions out the window that you claim to have seen.
If you truly believe that the flight was conducted unsafely and in contravention of the regulations, then you need to step up and do the right thing. I suggest that you write another letter to Transport Canada only, giving the specifics of the flight in question. They will contact Westjet and ask for a response. In doing so, your name will not be used. If the response is acceptable (which I firmly believe it would be), they will get back to you with their findings. If it is not, they may bring the matter to TC Enforcement for further action.
SG
You appear to be painting all Westjet pilots with the same brush, and in my opinion, that is patently unfair and unwarranted. I know many Westjet pilots, including some of the ones you addressed in your letter, and I can tell you that taking off with contaminated wings (as you have alleged), is not an acceptable practice for any of them.
Some of your story doesn't hold water. In case you didn't know (and as a professional pilot you should), the Captain is required by regulation (refer to CAR 602.11 (7)) to inform his passengers that he will be deicing the aircraft prior to departure. When no such announcement was made prior to leaving the gate, you should have asked a member of the cabin crew if deicing would be taking place. I know that I certainly would have if I saw conditions out the window that you claim to have seen.
If you truly believe that the flight was conducted unsafely and in contravention of the regulations, then you need to step up and do the right thing. I suggest that you write another letter to Transport Canada only, giving the specifics of the flight in question. They will contact Westjet and ask for a response. In doing so, your name will not be used. If the response is acceptable (which I firmly believe it would be), they will get back to you with their findings. If it is not, they may bring the matter to TC Enforcement for further action.
SG
Last edited by Safety Guy; 28th Jan 2006 at 16:56.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were that concerned about de-icing, why didn't you speak up when the Capt. did not mention it in his briefing prior to the flight? I believe that Transport Canada requires the pax to be told about de-icing proceedure.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen
Deice05 reported the weather conditions upon aircraft arrival in CYUL – 160/6 4S- 18SCT 30OVC –7/-9 29.96
Conditions upon aircraft departure from CYUL– 160/10 8S- 27OVC –6/-8 29.92
It should have been a fairly easy job for any pilot let alone a chief pilot to correctly match the reported weather conditions with WJ’s flight schedule in the time frame given.
Deice05 reported the weather conditions upon aircraft arrival in CYUL – 160/6 4S- 18SCT 30OVC –7/-9 29.96
Conditions upon aircraft departure from CYUL– 160/10 8S- 27OVC –6/-8 29.92
It should have been a fairly easy job for any pilot let alone a chief pilot to correctly match the reported weather conditions with WJ’s flight schedule in the time frame given.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Boeing, and many other aircraft manufacturers define their requirement for deicing as "OAT less than 10 degrees Celcius and visible moisture" with "no ice or snow adhering to the wing surface."
Short of the tactile scrathing with the fingernails of your hand, how does this crew (or any other crew at this airline or any other airline) determine or eliminate the adhering part?
Besides, if the reported weather at the arrival and departure times is accurate for the case in point, light snow IS "visible moisture" and the OAT was reported as less than 10 degrees. That leaves visibility less than a mile, which is wasn't.
Why wasn't the aircraft sprayed/deiced? Captain's responsibility. Captain's call.
To attack the crew in this instance for NOT deicing is folly. I'm sure the Captain considered the "usual" pre-departure stuff and decided not to deice. That's the end of it. Discussion over.
Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.
The interesting part of this (for me at least) is the lack of concern pilots can have when operating in these conditions. We sometimes forget that we have people in the back who are scared sh**less. For some, it can be traumatic. A comforting word might have been prudent and if the author in question was still aprehensive then he would have had the opportunity to say something.
Doesn't sound like that's the way it went down.
Discussion is good. Debate even better.
Short of the tactile scrathing with the fingernails of your hand, how does this crew (or any other crew at this airline or any other airline) determine or eliminate the adhering part?
Besides, if the reported weather at the arrival and departure times is accurate for the case in point, light snow IS "visible moisture" and the OAT was reported as less than 10 degrees. That leaves visibility less than a mile, which is wasn't.
Why wasn't the aircraft sprayed/deiced? Captain's responsibility. Captain's call.
To attack the crew in this instance for NOT deicing is folly. I'm sure the Captain considered the "usual" pre-departure stuff and decided not to deice. That's the end of it. Discussion over.
Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.
The interesting part of this (for me at least) is the lack of concern pilots can have when operating in these conditions. We sometimes forget that we have people in the back who are scared sh**less. For some, it can be traumatic. A comforting word might have been prudent and if the author in question was still aprehensive then he would have had the opportunity to say something.
Doesn't sound like that's the way it went down.
Discussion is good. Debate even better.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Willie Everlearn
To attack the crew in this instance for NOT deicing is folly. I'm sure the Captain considered the "usual" pre-departure stuff and decided not to deice. That's the end of it. Discussion over.
Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.
Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.
As for giving a comforting word, please give an example of an announcement I can make to my passengers to tell them I am about to violate the CARs, but "it's okay".
This thread and discussions like it, are precisely why I will not go flying with any amount of contamination on my wings. You just never know who is watching, and many of them carry cameras. I have received email messages with pictures of aircraft in flight with icy wings on more than one occasion. I do not want to have to answer to TC for my actions, no matter how much I feel I can get away with it.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safey guy says:
This thread and discussions like it, are precisely why I will not go flying with any amount of contamination on my wings. You just never know who is watching, and many of them carry cameras....... I do not want to have to answer to TC for my actions, no matter how much I feel I can get away with it.
This thread and discussions like it, are precisely why I will not go flying with any amount of contamination on my wings. You just never know who is watching, and many of them carry cameras....... I do not want to have to answer to TC for my actions, no matter how much I feel I can get away with it.
Anyhow, having said all that and after reading the original post, it doesn't seem that there was that much contaminant left on the wing anyhow. Don't get me wrong - I don't condone taking off with a contaminated wing. It is just that the 'sky is falling tone' and legitimacy of the posters' alleged submissions leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And by the way - the Dryden accident didn't occur because "people are willing to drift away from the acceptable standard." It was alot more complicated than that.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A310GUY
I find the last post quite revealing in itself. I personally don't care who is watching and whether or not they have cameras. I operate an aircraft based on my experience, knowledge and training and take the safest and most judicious course of action taking into account the conditions and circumstances presented. In reference to spraying - I don't spray just because the guy next to me is or isn't getting sprayed. It is just another piece of information.
Originally Posted by A310GUY
And by the way - the Dryden accident didn't occur because "people are willing to drift away from the acceptable standard." It was alot more complicated than that.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SG
I think you are being a little hard on A310. I agree with him that just because some others are deicing does not mean I'm going to also. It sure will alert me to the fact that deice MAY be needed but after inspection and satisfied that the wings are clean it will be a cold day in **** that I deice just because everyone else is doing it. I'm paid to make those decisions regarding the safety of MY aircraft.
The example being set is that there are a lot of variables involved and that one has to stay on top of the situation to make a safe decision. I have climbed on top of many a ladder to personally verify the condition of the wing instead of staying in my warm cockpit and saying lets go get sprayed just in case. I hope the FO's ARE learning from that example.
I think you are being a little hard on A310. I agree with him that just because some others are deicing does not mean I'm going to also. It sure will alert me to the fact that deice MAY be needed but after inspection and satisfied that the wings are clean it will be a cold day in **** that I deice just because everyone else is doing it. I'm paid to make those decisions regarding the safety of MY aircraft.
The example being set is that there are a lot of variables involved and that one has to stay on top of the situation to make a safe decision. I have climbed on top of many a ladder to personally verify the condition of the wing instead of staying in my warm cockpit and saying lets go get sprayed just in case. I hope the FO's ARE learning from that example.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only proper way to determine if your aircraft has to be de-iced is to do the inspection from a cherry picker as a clean tail plane is just as important as the main wing. That is why at my company the inspection is carried out by qualified personal and not by a quick look at the wing.
If at any time if there is a disagreement on whether or not a spray is required the spray is done regardless.
If at any time if there is a disagreement on whether or not a spray is required the spray is done regardless.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm assuming here that the story is correct for debating sake. Whether it is or not is to be determined.
Not sure about Boeing but is not exactly correct for Airbus. As per Airbus FCOM,
For operation of the engine anti-ice system, pilots must turn it on with the above criteria are met and not wait until they see ice building up. It's slightly different for de-icing and/or anti-icing of the critical surfaces. In this case, all critical surfaces must be clear of snow, frost and ice for takeoff.
Yes and no. Usually the FCOM will stipulate that in all circumstances, it is the Captain's responsibility to decide whether or not to de-ice/anti-ice the aircraft, or to order a repeated treatment.
But many companies go a little further and include in their operations manuals (excerpts from our Operations Manual and Route Manual):
The clean wing concept is an excellent rule. When flying these bigger aircraft, it's extremely difficult to assess if snow is adhering or not to the surface. Why chance it? Get sprayed, you have many, many lives depending on you, not to mention your own skinny rear-end. The evidence is overwhelming about what can happen if you takeoff with a contaminated wing. The manufacturer, the company, and the governing authorities give vasts amount of info about operating in icing conditions. If after taking into consideration all this info, I'm still not 100% certain if I should spray or not, then I spray. Safety is paramount and I'd rather err on the safe side.
I could not disagree with you more. I don't condone attacking the crew, but an investigation is warranted if the story is correct. Again if the story is correct then I sincerely believe that it was the wrong decision, as stated by the fact that contamination still existed after takeoff. Just cause a flight arrives at destination does not mean it was not in any potential danger at some point. Being a captain means being the one responsible and having to answer for your decisions. Should you ever have to answer for your actions then hopefully your answers will be the right ones. If not, then he/she/we must learn from the mistakes in order to avoid them in the future. In some cases that requires extra training. It's not about hanging anyone out to dry, unless true negligence or diseregard for the rules/procedures was exercised; it is about safety.
"I believe Boeing, and many other aircraft manufacturers define their requirement for deicing as "OAT less than 10 degrees Celsius and visible moisture" with "no ice or snow adhering to the wing surface."
"Icing conditions may be expected when the OAT (on ground and for take-off), or the TAT (in-flight) is 10 degrees C or below, and there is visible moisture in the air (such as clouds, fog with low visibility of one mile or less, rain, snow, sleet, ice crystals) or standing water. slush, ice or snow is present on the taxiways."
Why wasn't the aircraft sprayed/deiced? Captain's responsibility. Captain's call.
But many companies go a little further and include in their operations manuals (excerpts from our Operations Manual and Route Manual):
No aircraft will be released for take-off from any station until the flight crew and the qualified de-icing person, as dictated in the contractor’s Standards and Procedures Manual, are satisfied that the critical surfaces are free from frost, ice and snow.
Flights may be dispatched when it is agreed by the Captain and the Qualified Person that the snow on the surfaces is light, not adhering to the wing surface and is of such consistency that it will blow off during taxi or the immediate start of the take-off roll. However, such snow should be blown off using dry unheated air or nitrogen wherever possible prior to dispatch from the gate.
The reverse of cold soaking can take place when dry, cold snow encounters wing surfaces warmed by fuel pumped from underground storage, the snow may melt and re-freeze. As is the case for cold soaking, the hazard may not occur until just prior to take-off. Remember, underlying snow or slush can be a layer of clear ice.
The decision to de-ice may be made by a Qualified Person or by the flight crew. However, once the decision to de-ice has been made, it cannot be over-ridden by the other party.
Flights may be dispatched when it is agreed by the Captain and the Qualified Person that the snow on the surfaces is light, not adhering to the wing surface and is of such consistency that it will blow off during taxi or the immediate start of the take-off roll. However, such snow should be blown off using dry unheated air or nitrogen wherever possible prior to dispatch from the gate.
The reverse of cold soaking can take place when dry, cold snow encounters wing surfaces warmed by fuel pumped from underground storage, the snow may melt and re-freeze. As is the case for cold soaking, the hazard may not occur until just prior to take-off. Remember, underlying snow or slush can be a layer of clear ice.
The decision to de-ice may be made by a Qualified Person or by the flight crew. However, once the decision to de-ice has been made, it cannot be over-ridden by the other party.
To attack the crew in this instance for NOT deicing is folly. I'm sure the Captain considered the "usual" pre-departure stuff and decided not to deice. That's the end of it. Discussion over.
Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.
Why should he have to defend that decision. Obviously it was the right one because the flight not only operated safely from A to B but is history.
Last edited by Twinpacks; 28th Jan 2006 at 23:36.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by royalterrace
I hope the FO's ARE learning from that example.
I think you misread what I said. I never suggested that one should deice an obviously clean aircraft, providing that it has been determined by a proper inspection process (which as Tan said, must include the tail). What I said was that I question what motivates someone to take off in an obviously contaminated aircraft, as I have witnessed in the past, and as is alleged in the starting post in this thread. That to me is not only unsafe but foolhardy in today's world, where the consumer is often well informed.