Cabin crew face trial after speaking up about icing on the wing
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
The three inches of ice you refer to is the ice shape considered for certification on the NON-DEICED/ANTI-ICED sections of the airframe. I believe most of the wing LE of most aircraft is indeed protected - and if you were to have an anti-ice system failure in icing conditions you would not be in good shape - the "failure case" ice shape is usually half the size of the 3" shape, and often its necessary to recommend speed adders and other adjustments to cater for the very detrimental effects of this ice.
The tail is in any case a red herring here, because the discussion relates to wing frost. Even a thin layer of frost on the wing, even on a large aircraft such as a 737 or 320 class aircraft, even with slats can cause a loss of lift of 30%; that's by no stretch of the imagination trivial.
Oh, and I believe that Airbus intends to have similar rules to Boeing for the 737 once they have passed the regulatory hurdles, that is, "non environmental" frost only. Which means, in practice, cold fuel frost on a warm day would be ok, but winter frost - such as seems to be the case in the incident in question - would still be forbidden. (See slide #23 of the presentation you linked to)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the de-icing, I'd say the F/O lost the plot when he decided to sue. Up to that point, the incident was relatively minor because nothing bad actually happened and it would most likely have disappeared into the filing cabinet never to emerge. Now it's major news and a lot more people in the industry know about it, which means that regardless of whether he wins the case or not, a lot of people will still point fingers. That is all self-inflicted.
I once queried the CP about an A-310 takeoff from YYC with frost over the tanks. He replied that the FOM allowed for that.
After the Dryden report, attempting takeoff with any ice or frost was banned, but CD has usefully pointed out CAR 701.25(3):
but note that this clause only applies to the underside.
So the attempted takeoff would have been a violation of CAR 701.25.
Note that pushback and taxi with contaminated wings would not be a violation of the CARs -- only the takeoff attempt.
I do not understand why USAir is not backing the FAs
I would think your average airline management with any concern for maximising bums in seats would be looking for a way to fire the FO. If the union is preventing that, management would want to be seen on the side of the FAs.
After the Dryden report, attempting takeoff with any ice or frost was banned, but CD has usefully pointed out CAR 701.25(3):
Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person may conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has frost caused by cold-soaked fuel adhering to the underside of its wings if the take-off is conducted in accordance with the aircraft manufacturer's instructions for take-off under those conditions.
So the attempted takeoff would have been a violation of CAR 701.25.
Note that pushback and taxi with contaminated wings would not be a violation of the CARs -- only the takeoff attempt.
I do not understand why USAir is not backing the FAs
I would think your average airline management with any concern for maximising bums in seats would be looking for a way to fire the FO. If the union is preventing that, management would want to be seen on the side of the FAs.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: united arab emirates
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like so many things in the media. how do we get the other (pilots side) of the story.
there is an old saying. there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth.
think about this for a minute. for the pilot to sue in a case like this , he must be pretty sure of himself as it could potentially backfire on him/her big time. off course the popular press / pprune etc will be all over this story like flies . but how do we know for sure.
I have done a a flight where a new cabin crew member spotted an aircraft (737)1000 ft below (RVSM). at the same time a pssemger called another flight attendant to say he had seen ( a military aircraft off our left wing),
the two flight attendants then immediately came up with the sollution that we were intercepted !!!!!!
Of course we took what they said very seriously by checking with ATC , and investigating a little farther. Off course it was only regular traffic 1000 ft below. NOw whilst it is their duty to speak up ( and on this day I am glad they did , as its for us to verify the event)
Let me put it this way. Imagine i was a little old school and I just laughed them off .( I would have been right about the assumed interception).
Next thing a little excitement gets going in the back with more and more crew and passegers buliding the scenario into something that just is not.Next day some passengers / or cabin crew go to the local papers and its all over the press about flights interception.
Next thing a few weeks later I get a letter from FAA saying that the cabin crew say I was intercepted yet I did nothing about it and they are investigating. Then they investigate with pentagon bla bla to discover NO such event took place.
OK it highlights the need for effective communication CRM etc , however it does also suggest that there is always the other side of the story , and peoples perceptions are often developed from the first story that gets out.
there is an old saying. there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth.
think about this for a minute. for the pilot to sue in a case like this , he must be pretty sure of himself as it could potentially backfire on him/her big time. off course the popular press / pprune etc will be all over this story like flies . but how do we know for sure.
I have done a a flight where a new cabin crew member spotted an aircraft (737)1000 ft below (RVSM). at the same time a pssemger called another flight attendant to say he had seen ( a military aircraft off our left wing),
the two flight attendants then immediately came up with the sollution that we were intercepted !!!!!!
Of course we took what they said very seriously by checking with ATC , and investigating a little farther. Off course it was only regular traffic 1000 ft below. NOw whilst it is their duty to speak up ( and on this day I am glad they did , as its for us to verify the event)
Let me put it this way. Imagine i was a little old school and I just laughed them off .( I would have been right about the assumed interception).
Next thing a little excitement gets going in the back with more and more crew and passegers buliding the scenario into something that just is not.Next day some passengers / or cabin crew go to the local papers and its all over the press about flights interception.
Next thing a few weeks later I get a letter from FAA saying that the cabin crew say I was intercepted yet I did nothing about it and they are investigating. Then they investigate with pentagon bla bla to discover NO such event took place.
OK it highlights the need for effective communication CRM etc , however it does also suggest that there is always the other side of the story , and peoples perceptions are often developed from the first story that gets out.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nacada
Age: 54
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only from the I.O.U.S.A can you hear of such non-sense!!!!
Lawyers are making a fortune, the Captain is putting the FO in charge of crutial decisions, 3 FA's are blamed for being dilligent and safety-conscious, the employer refuses to have anything to do with it all and the regulator (FAA) is quietly watching the bull fight.
Give me a bucket, I will be sick.
Lawyers are making a fortune, the Captain is putting the FO in charge of crutial decisions, 3 FA's are blamed for being dilligent and safety-conscious, the employer refuses to have anything to do with it all and the regulator (FAA) is quietly watching the bull fight.
Give me a bucket, I will be sick.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the de-icing, I'd say the F/O lost
> the plot when he decided to sue
Do you know the specifics of why he's taking them to court? I don't think you can side with any party without seeing the details of the claim. Link to the court papers anyone?
> the plot when he decided to sue
Do you know the specifics of why he's taking them to court? I don't think you can side with any party without seeing the details of the claim. Link to the court papers anyone?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> Any which way, the captain should be reprimanded for poor CRM
How so? Was he even involved? It sounds like he told the FO to go back and check on the ice. The whole incident may have happened miles away from the captain in cattle class.
How so? Was he even involved? It sounds like he told the FO to go back and check on the ice. The whole incident may have happened miles away from the captain in cattle class.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, after the first conversation with the cockpit concerning the deicing, was it a safety of flight and legality conflict or just another pissing contest pushed to the extreme? I have been a juror wasting a whole day because of the latter.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The buck actually stops with the captain : if one chooses to ignore advise like this and something goes wrong no amount of delegation will change the fact.
This looks like either someone attempting to save their credibility through the courts, or there is a subplot we are not aware of here.
Either way, once the warning is received it becomes a no brainer firstly in terms of safety being paramount, and secondly should there be an issue regarding SOP it is for the company to sort out not the flight deck crew... there are tea and bikkies for cabin crew too.
I'm surprised this has got so obviously out of hand as it apparently has.
Certainly, many aircraft types have an allowable frost rider to the clean wing policy, and those caveats are usually very specific in terms of location and depth of deposit.
CRM applied, de-icing completed, no accident occurred.
There was only one decision to be made, and made it was ... and somehow, ludicrously, this ends up in court.
This looks like either someone attempting to save their credibility through the courts, or there is a subplot we are not aware of here.
Either way, once the warning is received it becomes a no brainer firstly in terms of safety being paramount, and secondly should there be an issue regarding SOP it is for the company to sort out not the flight deck crew... there are tea and bikkies for cabin crew too.
I'm surprised this has got so obviously out of hand as it apparently has.
Certainly, many aircraft types have an allowable frost rider to the clean wing policy, and those caveats are usually very specific in terms of location and depth of deposit.
CRM applied, de-icing completed, no accident occurred.
There was only one decision to be made, and made it was ... and somehow, ludicrously, this ends up in court.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: LGW
Age: 51
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could I just ask a very quick question. There have been a few references in this thread to Boeing permitting a small amount of frost on the wing surfaces of the 737 - and I know that this is true providing that the frost is within the pre-defined area on the upper wing surface.
BUT was this permitted back in 2003 when this incident took place? I was under the impression that this change on the 737 was fairly recent (as in the last 2 to 3 years or so).
BUT was this permitted back in 2003 when this incident took place? I was under the impression that this change on the 737 was fairly recent (as in the last 2 to 3 years or so).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious as to how the F/O and his lawyer came up with a roundabout figure of USD $2 million ? . . . As if three flying waitresses could ever cough up that kind of money. 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: hoschton, GA, USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball, maybe the flight attendants were married to Captains.....
This is not a thread drift, but under the US FAR's, Flight Attendants are NOT considered crewmembers.
That's why they have no Cockpit Jumpseat privileges or duty time limts except what is contractual.
My moneys on the First Officer winning.
This is not a thread drift, but under the US FAR's, Flight Attendants are NOT considered crewmembers.
That's why they have no Cockpit Jumpseat privileges or duty time limts except what is contractual.
My moneys on the First Officer winning.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A-V-8R wrote: ...but under the US FAR's, Flight Attendants are NOT considered crewmembers ... That's why they have no ... duty time limts except what is contractual...
"Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time." (14 CFR 1.1 - General definitions)
Here's another quick link for you:
14 CFR 121.467 - Flight attendant duty period limitations and rest requirements: Domestic, flag, and supplemental operations
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the flight attendants involved is the F/O's ex-wife, she is receiving large sums monthly in the form of alimony payments, taken directly from his paycheck by court order. The post-marital relationship continues to be a somewhat frigid one, any thaw previously considered may now be well out of reach.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball
Your somewhat chauvinistic remark prompted me to look up your personal profile. Now I understand where you are coming from.
As if three flying waitresses could ever cough up that kind of money.
The ex-wife angle....
One of the flight attendants involved is the F/O's ex-wife, she is receiving large sums monthly in the form of alimony payments, taken directly from his paycheck by court order. The post-marital relationship continues to be a somewhat frigid one, any thaw previously considered may now be well out of reach.
