Cabin crew face trial after speaking up about icing on the wing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Denmark
Age: 64
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why did the flight crew not file a statement to FAA at the time saying: "We decided de-icing was not called for, then after push-back we were advised by cabin crew about build up of ice on the wings and revised our decision. Thank you cabin crew. We learned from that. End of story"
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes
on
10 Posts
As I understand it the suit is for defamation and the FO will be asking for costs incurred due to the defamation and presumably for loss of reputation.
If it is his case that the CCs reporting of the incident is that alleged defamation then we all may have a problem. It is in the nature of the law that the legal reporting of incidents and, for instance, the filing of a lawsuit, are protected in themselves. There would have to be a statement in the reporting that in itself defamed the FO. ie, Merely saying "I told the FO there was ice on the wings and he said there wasn't," in itself could hardly be defamation. Saying "The FO was incompetent and said there was no ice" might just be defamation but would be difficult to uphold in the light of the Ground crew report as the FO would be tying his competence to the non existence of ice which a third party has reported as being there
While the FO was declared not guilty of any misconduct in the enquiry into the incident, going to civil court where the balance of probabilities is the measure of proof required might be a double edged sword. He is risking the probability that he was defamed against the probability that he was wrong measured against an altogether different standard and the two are not synonymous. The court may find that even if he was right at the time the CCs words or actions do not constitute defamation. Whether the CC lied to the cockpit about the passenger's' concern may affect future relationships but is not really relevant to the defamation case, nor to the original enquiry.
One's opinion of the abilities of a pilot may be coloured by the relationship, but if I was reasonably au fait with the consequences of ice on the wings and truly believed that I could well die if the plane took off without de-icing I, too, might say just about anything either to get the plane de-iced or to get off the plane.
We went to Las Vegas at the tail end of the Christmas storms and the aircraft was de-iced as we boarded. Last year we flew with Cathay early one Spring morning and I was impressed as the plane was de-iced even though I could barely see it as frost. There's a chap I would fly with anytime.
In passing, I note that neither the airline or union, apparently, paid for the legal representation of the pilot at the enquiry and I guess the CC's union is shy about the court case as it is civil rather than disciplinary.
If it is his case that the CCs reporting of the incident is that alleged defamation then we all may have a problem. It is in the nature of the law that the legal reporting of incidents and, for instance, the filing of a lawsuit, are protected in themselves. There would have to be a statement in the reporting that in itself defamed the FO. ie, Merely saying "I told the FO there was ice on the wings and he said there wasn't," in itself could hardly be defamation. Saying "The FO was incompetent and said there was no ice" might just be defamation but would be difficult to uphold in the light of the Ground crew report as the FO would be tying his competence to the non existence of ice which a third party has reported as being there
While the FO was declared not guilty of any misconduct in the enquiry into the incident, going to civil court where the balance of probabilities is the measure of proof required might be a double edged sword. He is risking the probability that he was defamed against the probability that he was wrong measured against an altogether different standard and the two are not synonymous. The court may find that even if he was right at the time the CCs words or actions do not constitute defamation. Whether the CC lied to the cockpit about the passenger's' concern may affect future relationships but is not really relevant to the defamation case, nor to the original enquiry.
One's opinion of the abilities of a pilot may be coloured by the relationship, but if I was reasonably au fait with the consequences of ice on the wings and truly believed that I could well die if the plane took off without de-icing I, too, might say just about anything either to get the plane de-iced or to get off the plane.
We went to Las Vegas at the tail end of the Christmas storms and the aircraft was de-iced as we boarded. Last year we flew with Cathay early one Spring morning and I was impressed as the plane was de-iced even though I could barely see it as frost. There's a chap I would fly with anytime.
In passing, I note that neither the airline or union, apparently, paid for the legal representation of the pilot at the enquiry and I guess the CC's union is shy about the court case as it is civil rather than disciplinary.
It has been mentioned that the 737 has a Boeing approved procedure to allow light frosting on some areas (which are marked on approved aircraft) on top of the wing.
From one of the newspaper articles:
The Boeing 737 procedure is not permitted if the temperature is below freezing.
I have no idea if the operating aircraft was a 737 or not.
From one of the newspaper articles:
The Phoenix-based flight crew was on its first flight of the morning, leaving Calgary to return to Arizona, and the weather was frigid — just about 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
I have no idea if the operating aircraft was a 737 or not.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm puzzled about the Captain deferring the decision to the FO. Presumably, as the FO had already decided against de-icing, the Captain didn't want to countermand him?
Yet, when they ended up returning to gate, I'd have thought the Captain might have gone to take a look himself, if for no other reason than to check his cabin crew's judgement. But from the newspaper report, it looks as if the FO was sent to check?
Does this sequence of events make sense to those of you who are professional pilots? Something about it doesn't add up to me.
Yet, when they ended up returning to gate, I'd have thought the Captain might have gone to take a look himself, if for no other reason than to check his cabin crew's judgement. But from the newspaper report, it looks as if the FO was sent to check?
Does this sequence of events make sense to those of you who are professional pilots? Something about it doesn't add up to me.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: western coast of USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubbish!
The entire thread is pure rubbish. Shows how out of touch the American legal system can be. I mean one hears about judicial excesses like this but one really never believes it can happen. Any reasonable captain would respond to someone (cc or pax) expressing a concern about flight safety, that is if they are professional. If they have bruised egos as undoubtably this crew had then its a sad state of affairs. If the crew isn't concerned about safety who is? Is someone can't express that concern to a flight crew witout risiking legal proceedings being brought against them as I said it a sad day for everyone in aviation. Our goal afterall is afterll a safe flight isn't it? Who begins a day by saying "I'm going out to fly and endanger everyone's lives, myself included. Because afterall the first ones to the scene of the accident are always in the pinty section of the aircraft. Sorry, its just the American letal system is the only system I have ever heard of allowing this type of thing. Amazing, just when you think you've seen it all, some bozo comes along and proves you wrong.I mean does anyone see this differently? Its a shame someone who needs the use of the courts is made the wait behind this type of mickey mouse law, its a wonder anything gets thru the courts in America..
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earl...
The icing operation regulation that was applicable to this flight departing a Canadian airport is actually 701.25 - Aircraft Icing Operations. Compliance with this section is necessary for the company to hold a foreign air operator certifcate to operate in Canada. Your link was to the standard outlining the training requirements (which also must be complied with).
Not sure about flight attendants in the US, but here are the training requirements for flight attendants in Canada: Flight Attendant Training Standard - Section 3.3 - Surface Contamination
The icing operation regulation that was applicable to this flight departing a Canadian airport is actually 701.25 - Aircraft Icing Operations. Compliance with this section is necessary for the company to hold a foreign air operator certifcate to operate in Canada. Your link was to the standard outlining the training requirements (which also must be complied with).
Not sure about flight attendants in the US, but here are the training requirements for flight attendants in Canada: Flight Attendant Training Standard - Section 3.3 - Surface Contamination
This Flt Crew (F/O) is a numptyJoin Date: Oct 2003
Location: In an Airplane
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to get sideways with CD......
But the reg you qouted specifically 4 (b)(i) allows an air carrier to use its own approved De-ice manual if it meets the standard. USA Icing regs under 121 and 135 are just about verbat. to the Canadian ones.
Personally I think a proper Captain could have nipped this whole thing in the bud.
A good rule: If any one on the crew (be it F/O, F/E, or cabin) ain't happy with the proposed parameters of the flight or the Aircraft...we ain't going.
We all go or no one goes.
Bet your sweet butt your all gonna get to the crash site at the same time.
But the reg you qouted specifically 4 (b)(i) allows an air carrier to use its own approved De-ice manual if it meets the standard. USA Icing regs under 121 and 135 are just about verbat. to the Canadian ones.
Personally I think a proper Captain could have nipped this whole thing in the bud.
A good rule: If any one on the crew (be it F/O, F/E, or cabin) ain't happy with the proposed parameters of the flight or the Aircraft...we ain't going.
We all go or no one goes.
Bet your sweet butt your all gonna get to the crash site at the same time.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done to the Cabin Crew! The Co-pilot, in my opinion, is a t055er.
lack of up-tiddly-up-up in an aircraft is a scary business! Having sat down the back of a Nimrod in the early 90's and listening to the stick shakers in for what seemed like ages as we struggled to make 1500ft will stay with me for the rest of my days! All because the captain ignored the warning of one of the NCO's, that during the taxy and hold we had accumulated a lot of snow on the wings. The captain's response was that it 'would blow off during the take-off roll!" It didn't!
Ditto the earlier remarks about the diference between delegation and decision!!
lack of up-tiddly-up-up in an aircraft is a scary business! Having sat down the back of a Nimrod in the early 90's and listening to the stick shakers in for what seemed like ages as we struggled to make 1500ft will stay with me for the rest of my days! All because the captain ignored the warning of one of the NCO's, that during the taxy and hold we had accumulated a lot of snow on the wings. The captain's response was that it 'would blow off during the take-off roll!" It didn't!
Ditto the earlier remarks about the diference between delegation and decision!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I not hear somewhere that right after the NRA, the most powerful lobby group in the US is the Litigation Lawyers Association?
And was there not a story about a judge who allowed a case to go forward for trial after the family of a person killed by a drunk driver in a fatal crash sued the petrol station three miles back the way, claiming if they hadn't sold him petrol, he wouldn't have made it to the crash scene?
Full facts or not, it's a country ripe for this sort of thing!
And was there not a story about a judge who allowed a case to go forward for trial after the family of a person killed by a drunk driver in a fatal crash sued the petrol station three miles back the way, claiming if they hadn't sold him petrol, he wouldn't have made it to the crash scene?
Full facts or not, it's a country ripe for this sort of thing!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sad to say that the civil court system has gotten way out of hand in the USA.
Most cases are settled before they get to court or even sometimes thrown out.
Maybe this would have been better handled in house with US AIR since the plane was de-iced.
Could have been used as a good training example for CRM.
Most cases are settled before they get to court or even sometimes thrown out.
Maybe this would have been better handled in house with US AIR since the plane was de-iced.
Could have been used as a good training example for CRM.
Last edited by Earl; 31st Jan 2009 at 10:49.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad news...
A couple of points:
(I cannot quote the relevant FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) because I do not have a copy handy. Here I am operating under different regulations. I am citing them from what I remember of them so that I stand to be corrected.)
1. The regulations simply state that you cannot take off with contaminants (ice or frost) on the wings. It may be that there is some specific get-out for types that have persistent patches of ice inboard where the cold fuel is stored in the wet wings but in general the wings must be clear before take-off. To state that there were just "little patches of frost" or something similar generally would be to acknowledge that you had just violated this rule. (The obvious problem is that there is some crossover point between not enough frost or ice to matter and just enough to cause a crash that is completely unknowable so that the rule states that none is allowed.)
Here it may be so that the FAA weighed up what happened, nothing much since the aircraft was for whatever reason de-iced with the contaminants in question properly removed, and the difficulty of proving their case against the flight crew, including the trouble and expense of co-ordinating with far-off Canadian sources. Who ordered the de-icing, when, and why?
You can see how many holes in trying to nail down the flight crew's intent to depart without de-icing the aircraft might be in a court of law. Ever had one of the self-loading cargo point something out to be told that someone was on the way to sort that out? To him or her, it is clear that the engineer only showed up after the flight crew was told about the problem when the truth might be that Engineering had been notified about the problem already.
It might be reasonable to assume that the FAA simply settled for having sent a clear message to the FO, and the Captain behind him, on the order of, "Okay, you got guys away with it this time but don't even think about doing it again!" The next crew in this situation might well think, "Ooh, which is it going to be, pulled up on the carpet before the Feds or we just order the de-icing?" Whom do you fear more, your airline's bean-counters or the Feds?
2. The Captain always has full responsibility for the conduct of the flight. He cannot delegate that. He may delegate specific tasks, however.
For instance, he doesn't usually check that every passenger has his or her seatbelt fastened before take-off, or that all cabin baggage is properly stowed, does he? Those are tasks delegated to the cabin attendants but they are still his responsibility because he is in charge of the flight attendants.
Here, if he delegated the important task to the First Officer of checking that the wings were free of contamination that is still the his responsibility. If there were any reasonable doubt that some task hadn't been properly carried out the Captain has to sort that one out somehow because it is still his responsibility.
You can see how this one works, when it's a real no-brainer. Say I tell the FO to order the fuel, when this doesn't get done and then some sort of low-fuel situation occurs on the next sector. You really expect that I could tell the FAA, "Oh, I told the FO to sort that one out; it had nothing to do with me." Wrong, actually.
(I cannot quote the relevant FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) because I do not have a copy handy. Here I am operating under different regulations. I am citing them from what I remember of them so that I stand to be corrected.)
1. The regulations simply state that you cannot take off with contaminants (ice or frost) on the wings. It may be that there is some specific get-out for types that have persistent patches of ice inboard where the cold fuel is stored in the wet wings but in general the wings must be clear before take-off. To state that there were just "little patches of frost" or something similar generally would be to acknowledge that you had just violated this rule. (The obvious problem is that there is some crossover point between not enough frost or ice to matter and just enough to cause a crash that is completely unknowable so that the rule states that none is allowed.)
Here it may be so that the FAA weighed up what happened, nothing much since the aircraft was for whatever reason de-iced with the contaminants in question properly removed, and the difficulty of proving their case against the flight crew, including the trouble and expense of co-ordinating with far-off Canadian sources. Who ordered the de-icing, when, and why?
You can see how many holes in trying to nail down the flight crew's intent to depart without de-icing the aircraft might be in a court of law. Ever had one of the self-loading cargo point something out to be told that someone was on the way to sort that out? To him or her, it is clear that the engineer only showed up after the flight crew was told about the problem when the truth might be that Engineering had been notified about the problem already.
It might be reasonable to assume that the FAA simply settled for having sent a clear message to the FO, and the Captain behind him, on the order of, "Okay, you got guys away with it this time but don't even think about doing it again!" The next crew in this situation might well think, "Ooh, which is it going to be, pulled up on the carpet before the Feds or we just order the de-icing?" Whom do you fear more, your airline's bean-counters or the Feds?
2. The Captain always has full responsibility for the conduct of the flight. He cannot delegate that. He may delegate specific tasks, however.
For instance, he doesn't usually check that every passenger has his or her seatbelt fastened before take-off, or that all cabin baggage is properly stowed, does he? Those are tasks delegated to the cabin attendants but they are still his responsibility because he is in charge of the flight attendants.
Here, if he delegated the important task to the First Officer of checking that the wings were free of contamination that is still the his responsibility. If there were any reasonable doubt that some task hadn't been properly carried out the Captain has to sort that one out somehow because it is still his responsibility.
You can see how this one works, when it's a real no-brainer. Say I tell the FO to order the fuel, when this doesn't get done and then some sort of low-fuel situation occurs on the next sector. You really expect that I could tell the FAA, "Oh, I told the FO to sort that one out; it had nothing to do with me." Wrong, actually.
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many captains on board?
From the flight attendants' blog: "As they looked out the windows, they saw patches of frost along the wings"
Wow - imagine that! Patches of frost? Well, as it happens, both the B737 and A3xx, together with most other aircraft types are approved for take-off with frost on the wings. As an example, the B737 does not have any form of de- or anti-icing systems on the tail (or outer slats for the NG). This is because ice is not a problem on this aircraft.
This "clean wing concept" is mostly a political (FAA/Government) concept, and goes against what the manufacturers have found through testing. Of particular interest is the Airbus link further down in my post. Prior to 1983, Airbus allowed taking off with upper wing frost. Then the regulators told them they were wrong about their own aircraft, and the FCOM had to be changed. It has created mass hysteria, and has been blown completely out or proportions. A thin layer of frost will not cause a B737 or A320 to suddenly fall out of the sky!!! You can have three inches of rough ice on the wings and tail, make a single-engine missed approach in IMC, and the aircraft is certified for this. Come on! Whatever happened to "know your aircraft", experience and airmanship? Fortunately, the Airbus company has decided to embark on the long and arduous journey to bring back the old procedures, since tests clearly show that the FAA's rules are far too restrictive (lawyer friendly, if you will).
I'm shocked to find that so many on this forum without hesitation side with the CCs in this case!
This is the problem with CRM these days: Everyone's suddenly a captain. These CCs were apparently told that a bit of frost on the wings would not be a problem:
“At 6:15, my deicing partner Jeff Switner approached a member of the flight crew and, asking if they were going to require a deice. They said no, that they were fine. We were both surprised, because we could see the frost on the wings and fuselage.” ...and since when did frost on the fuselage become dangerous?
They voiced their concern, the pilots listened, and then made the initial decision not to de-ice.
From the paper article: "It took the common effort of all three flight attendants and three attempts, before the flight crew unwillingly agreed to de-ice the airplane". This is where the CCs should have accept that the pilots know more about flying and aerodynamics than they. They should have accepted the answer, and left the flight deck. The cabin crew members are not in charge - the captain is!!! If this trend continues, we'll soon have a CC on jumpseat telling us how to fly the goddamn approach and what flap- and autobrake setting to use for landing?!
Any relevant information pertaining to the safety of flight must be brought forward to the flight deck. It must be welcomed and take into consideration. But the final decision rests with the flight crew - not the cabin crew. CRM lets every voice be heard. CRM does not leave the CCs in charge of the flight. Perhaps the FO or CDR did not explain the difference between huge amounts of ice and frost patches - I don't know.
Boeing recommendations
Airbus thoughts on upper wing frost
I see previous posts mentioning the Dryden accident. That accident has absolutely NOTHING to do with this case! Those guys tried to depart with huge amounts of snow and ice (not patches of frost), during heavy snow fall, after a long exposure time, in an aircraft without slats, and extremely ice-sensitive wings. Apples and pears.
I expect a storm of hostile posts, calling me dinosaur, dangerous and stupid idiot. So be it. That does not change the fact that frost is not dangerous, and that CCs are not pilots.
Wow - imagine that! Patches of frost? Well, as it happens, both the B737 and A3xx, together with most other aircraft types are approved for take-off with frost on the wings. As an example, the B737 does not have any form of de- or anti-icing systems on the tail (or outer slats for the NG). This is because ice is not a problem on this aircraft.
This "clean wing concept" is mostly a political (FAA/Government) concept, and goes against what the manufacturers have found through testing. Of particular interest is the Airbus link further down in my post. Prior to 1983, Airbus allowed taking off with upper wing frost. Then the regulators told them they were wrong about their own aircraft, and the FCOM had to be changed. It has created mass hysteria, and has been blown completely out or proportions. A thin layer of frost will not cause a B737 or A320 to suddenly fall out of the sky!!! You can have three inches of rough ice on the wings and tail, make a single-engine missed approach in IMC, and the aircraft is certified for this. Come on! Whatever happened to "know your aircraft", experience and airmanship? Fortunately, the Airbus company has decided to embark on the long and arduous journey to bring back the old procedures, since tests clearly show that the FAA's rules are far too restrictive (lawyer friendly, if you will).
I'm shocked to find that so many on this forum without hesitation side with the CCs in this case!
This is the problem with CRM these days: Everyone's suddenly a captain. These CCs were apparently told that a bit of frost on the wings would not be a problem:
“At 6:15, my deicing partner Jeff Switner approached a member of the flight crew and, asking if they were going to require a deice. They said no, that they were fine. We were both surprised, because we could see the frost on the wings and fuselage.” ...and since when did frost on the fuselage become dangerous?
They voiced their concern, the pilots listened, and then made the initial decision not to de-ice.
From the paper article: "It took the common effort of all three flight attendants and three attempts, before the flight crew unwillingly agreed to de-ice the airplane". This is where the CCs should have accept that the pilots know more about flying and aerodynamics than they. They should have accepted the answer, and left the flight deck. The cabin crew members are not in charge - the captain is!!! If this trend continues, we'll soon have a CC on jumpseat telling us how to fly the goddamn approach and what flap- and autobrake setting to use for landing?!
Any relevant information pertaining to the safety of flight must be brought forward to the flight deck. It must be welcomed and take into consideration. But the final decision rests with the flight crew - not the cabin crew. CRM lets every voice be heard. CRM does not leave the CCs in charge of the flight.
Perhaps the FO or CDR did not explain the difference between huge amounts of ice and frost patches - I don't know.Boeing recommendations
Airbus thoughts on upper wing frost
I see previous posts mentioning the Dryden accident. That accident has absolutely NOTHING to do with this case! Those guys tried to depart with huge amounts of snow and ice (not patches of frost), during heavy snow fall, after a long exposure time, in an aircraft without slats, and extremely ice-sensitive wings. Apples and pears.
I expect a storm of hostile posts, calling me dinosaur, dangerous and stupid idiot. So be it. That does not change the fact that frost is not dangerous, and that CCs are not pilots.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Phoenix-based flight crew was on its first flight of the morning, leaving Calgary to return to Arizona, and the weather was frigid — just about 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Boeing recommendations:
Takeoff with light coatings of cold-soaked fuel frost on upper wing surfaces is permissible, provided the following are met:
The outside air temperature is above freezing
The outside air temperature is above freezing
Last edited by BillS; 31st Jan 2009 at 10:59. Reason: added METAR
Paxing All Over The World
From one of the newspaper articles:
Ahhh ... first of the day?
What happened between the crew the previous evening and night?
The Phoenix-based flight crew was on its first flight of the morning, leaving Calgary to return to Arizona ...
What happened between the crew the previous evening and night?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your thoughts on this one...
Crossunder. Unfortunately I get the definite feeling you are the one mixing two things up, "apples and pears" as you put it.
There is that sort of frost you get from cold-soaked fuel, what the Boeing file refers to. You may see that forming on a parked aircraft at temperatures above freezing and I am sure Boeing are on firm ground in saying it is of little import.
There is another sort of frost that forms in temperatures below freezing that covers the whole aircraft, not just the patches of wing over the fuel cells. As you have so emphatically pointed out that MAY be of no import.
On the other hand, large accumulations of frost definitely have been known to cause crashes. There was a recent high-profile crash in Russia where a large business aircraft lifted off, immediately rolled into a steep bank and crashed, killing all onboard. The cause was taken to be wing contamination. This is the reason for the FAR I loosely cited: not being able to find a clear boundary between what is safe to fly with and what is deadly.
You, coming from Norway, may well know a lot more about flying with frost or ice than I do, given that I, coming from Africa, know very little. Does this superior knowledge of yours also mean that you would be happy to violate an FAR? That seems pretty sporty to me! Here you seem to be telling our readers that you really do not feel compelled to follow a rule that you somehow know is irrelevant, somehow being able to just tell what is safe and what is not from experience. I don't want to cause you any sleepless nights but it might be so that the FAR exists because no one can do that!
Okay, I have seen my aircraft all fuzzy with frost, when it was pretty clear even to this winter novice that no one was going anywhere until we got de-iced. And on the other hand I, too, have seen small patches of frost that I must have somehow forgotten to notice, when the aircraft didn't seem to mind one little bit. The problem is, "Where do we draw that line?" Well, we don't have to, do we? That is precisely why the FAA made that rule, I guess.
There is that sort of frost you get from cold-soaked fuel, what the Boeing file refers to. You may see that forming on a parked aircraft at temperatures above freezing and I am sure Boeing are on firm ground in saying it is of little import.
There is another sort of frost that forms in temperatures below freezing that covers the whole aircraft, not just the patches of wing over the fuel cells. As you have so emphatically pointed out that MAY be of no import.
On the other hand, large accumulations of frost definitely have been known to cause crashes. There was a recent high-profile crash in Russia where a large business aircraft lifted off, immediately rolled into a steep bank and crashed, killing all onboard. The cause was taken to be wing contamination. This is the reason for the FAR I loosely cited: not being able to find a clear boundary between what is safe to fly with and what is deadly.
You, coming from Norway, may well know a lot more about flying with frost or ice than I do, given that I, coming from Africa, know very little. Does this superior knowledge of yours also mean that you would be happy to violate an FAR? That seems pretty sporty to me! Here you seem to be telling our readers that you really do not feel compelled to follow a rule that you somehow know is irrelevant, somehow being able to just tell what is safe and what is not from experience. I don't want to cause you any sleepless nights but it might be so that the FAR exists because no one can do that!
Okay, I have seen my aircraft all fuzzy with frost, when it was pretty clear even to this winter novice that no one was going anywhere until we got de-iced. And on the other hand I, too, have seen small patches of frost that I must have somehow forgotten to notice, when the aircraft didn't seem to mind one little bit. The problem is, "Where do we draw that line?" Well, we don't have to, do we? That is precisely why the FAA made that rule, I guess.
Everything is under control.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A jury will be sympathetic toward the Cabin Crew, regardless of facts and the law. I expect this will be settled before it goes to trial. Both sides responsible for their own legal fees and nothing more. The attorneys win.