Take off with snow on wing
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very clear that FCOM and AFL SOP were not followed (AFL's SOP take precedence over FCOM, but it contains pretty much the same procedures - I quoted them before).
I also looked at russian Federal Aviation Rules (used by russian operators), current edition.
It states that it is prohibited to commence a flight if hoarfrost, wet snow or ice is present on surfaces on wings, fuselage, control mechanisms, tail fin and stabilizer, propellers, windshield and engine, unless otherwise stated in FCOM.
I knew before about ban of snow on wing surface, but not that it is specifically wet snow which is banned. Now I begin to see why Aeroflot carefully crafted their statement:
"There are no violations whatsoever and this can be clearly seen on the video - snow has been blown off instantly during takeoff roll and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics and safety."
By saying it has been blown off instantly, they are trying to imply it was a DRY snow, which according to federal rules is permissible to be present on the wings (not mentioned).
Video approximately started at the time of application of takeoff thrust. Majority of snow was blown by the 40'th second, while rotation started on 45'th second, therefore by any standards you can not define this as "blown off instantly". Needless to say, some patches of snow remained stuck to inner flap panel long after rotation.
I quoted METARs of the day this video was taken in the similiar topic in Tech Log.
Nor Russian FAR, neither other related statutes define "wet snow" by the way.
PS. Because addition of 'unless otherwise stated in FCOM' is used in that FAR requirement, you can also argue that FCOM/SOP of A320 does not distinguish between wet and dry snow - it should be removed anyway.
The reason why Aeroflot might be less concerned about violation of their SOP of A320 is because they can always say 'we actually implied that it is wet snow (not dry) which must be removed from critical surfaces when conducting exterior inspection of A320' (they can amend their SOP of A320 at any time, with just formal approval of each amendment by russian CAA). While FAR is far too superior for them to argue with and try to violate, so they 'shaped' their statement to fit FAR rather then SOP/FCOM/Airbus approach of clean wing policy. Btw, it's Mr. Koldunov or Chalik who signs off SOP of Aeroflot, statement regarding takeoff was also made by Koldunov and Chalik. Looks like they attempted to avoid problems with CAA by producing that kind of statement, though if will be hard for them to argue that snow was not wet
Suggestions?
I also looked at russian Federal Aviation Rules (used by russian operators), current edition.
It states that it is prohibited to commence a flight if hoarfrost, wet snow or ice is present on surfaces on wings, fuselage, control mechanisms, tail fin and stabilizer, propellers, windshield and engine, unless otherwise stated in FCOM.
I knew before about ban of snow on wing surface, but not that it is specifically wet snow which is banned. Now I begin to see why Aeroflot carefully crafted their statement:
"There are no violations whatsoever and this can be clearly seen on the video - snow has been blown off instantly during takeoff roll and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics and safety."
By saying it has been blown off instantly, they are trying to imply it was a DRY snow, which according to federal rules is permissible to be present on the wings (not mentioned).
Video approximately started at the time of application of takeoff thrust. Majority of snow was blown by the 40'th second, while rotation started on 45'th second, therefore by any standards you can not define this as "blown off instantly". Needless to say, some patches of snow remained stuck to inner flap panel long after rotation.
I quoted METARs of the day this video was taken in the similiar topic in Tech Log.
Nor Russian FAR, neither other related statutes define "wet snow" by the way.
PS. Because addition of 'unless otherwise stated in FCOM' is used in that FAR requirement, you can also argue that FCOM/SOP of A320 does not distinguish between wet and dry snow - it should be removed anyway.
The reason why Aeroflot might be less concerned about violation of their SOP of A320 is because they can always say 'we actually implied that it is wet snow (not dry) which must be removed from critical surfaces when conducting exterior inspection of A320' (they can amend their SOP of A320 at any time, with just formal approval of each amendment by russian CAA). While FAR is far too superior for them to argue with and try to violate, so they 'shaped' their statement to fit FAR rather then SOP/FCOM/Airbus approach of clean wing policy. Btw, it's Mr. Koldunov or Chalik who signs off SOP of Aeroflot, statement regarding takeoff was also made by Koldunov and Chalik. Looks like they attempted to avoid problems with CAA by producing that kind of statement, though if will be hard for them to argue that snow was not wet
Suggestions?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: planet earth
Age: 59
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you take off with this much snow on the wing?
My previous post did not get any attention. Is that because there's still a "I'm new here"-banner under my username or because people don't bother to open the links I posted and do the reading I suggested?
So, I thought that inserting the picture itself in the post might get your attention.
http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/CCFB/CCFB33.pdf
Since you're probably to lazy to open the link and read the article on page 2, I'll paste the text here:
"IMPORTANCE OF DE -ICING …
Report Text: I was flying as a passenger on another (Non-UK EU) airline. My company has a policy that if it is snowing, all aircraft must be de-iced prior to departure.
On the outbound flight we we re boarding during a light snow shower and no snow had accumulated on the wings yet the Captain informed us that we would have a delayed departure while we were waiting to be de-iced.
However, on the inbound flight the aircraft arrived during a heavy snow flurry which continued whilst we boarded. It continued to snow and ceased shortly
before the front and rear doors were closed. We then started to taxi with the snow on the wings. I was 3 rows behind the overwi ng exit and noticed that
the LHS wing surfaces were covered in snow. I presumed that based on my experiences with my company and also on the outbound flight that there
would be a delay while we were de-iced. After the safety demonstration, I asked the SCCM if it was normal to leave without being de-iced whilst there was snow on the wings?, to which he/she immediately replied without
looking at the wing, "The Captain says it's OK" (or words to that effect).
We shortly afterwards entered the runway, accelerated and took-off with the vast majority of the snow remaining coated to the wing. The flight proceeded with no problems although ice remained on the wing in
certain areas (see photograph taken 20 mins into flight). The wing was visibly not clear of snow/ice with approximately 10 mins to landing.
I was concerned that the SCCM did not respond to a flight safety observation from a passenger. It might also be worth noting that the inbound flight was
early and we pushed-back app rox 10-15 mins early, this meant that sufficient time was available to de-ice without picking-up a delay. "
This looks like it was wet snow which fell on a sub zero wing surface and froze to it. Perhaps on the ground it didn't look as bad as the snow on Aeroflot's wing, but if you compare the picture of the wings once airborn, this case was even more dangerous then the Aeroflot flight. Which airline would this be?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggestions:-
1/Being naive just makes them laugh at you.
75%+ of the heads of all russian companies are headed by former
.
The absolute masters of disinformation, they run the media & make sliding goal posts+make the rules.
You are just a fly to be shaken off, like the powder snow.
2/ Do background checks on the AFL board, find out how things are REALLY done, rebranding & all the other bs, BEFORE you start posting here.
Get it?
Reality kicking in?
(not unsympathetic btw)
Eg, the photo in the post before was a fake.
3/ Check everything out..
1/Being naive just makes them laugh at you.
75%+ of the heads of all russian companies are headed by former
.The absolute masters of disinformation, they run the media & make sliding goal posts+make the rules.
You are just a fly to be shaken off, like the powder snow.
2/ Do background checks on the AFL board, find out how things are REALLY done, rebranding & all the other bs, BEFORE you start posting here.
Get it?
Reality kicking in?
(not unsympathetic btw)
Eg, the photo in the post before was a fake.
3/ Check everything out..
Cagedh,
That's outrageous!
OTOH, perhaps wings SHOULD have a dimpled surface - like golfballs
Deviating a bit; did you read the last entry in that CHIRP?
I detect one small problem: If, instead of disarming it, you inadvertently blow the slide, it will eject into the airbridge and injure or kill anyone standing there.
That's outrageous!
OTOH, perhaps wings SHOULD have a dimpled surface - like golfballs
Deviating a bit; did you read the last entry in that CHIRP?
Can we amend our policy to do the door checks only once the aircraft has finally stopped?
DX Wombat
Thank you GG. It sounds as if what is really needed is a drive-through huge hangar heated to such a temperature that all snow and ice are completely removed and the wings dried completely. That is just one of my fanciful ideas and would probably have the energy saving brigade up in arms at the thought of it.
Thank you GG. It sounds as if what is really needed is a drive-through huge hangar heated to such a temperature that all snow and ice are completely removed and the wings dried completely. That is just one of my fanciful ideas and would probably have the energy saving brigade up in arms at the thought of it.
The nicest by-product of such a system is that it pits the energy-saving brigade against the ground-pollutant brigade. The rest of us can sit back, relax, and enjoy watching the handbag duel.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good idea Basil, those hand dryers are great. Perhaps a combination of blasting the snow away followed by finishing with the infrared to make absolutely sure might be the way to go. Even better, the snow could be recycled as water for such things as washing the airport vehicles. That might go some way towards keeping the peace with the environmentalists and reduce the risk of drought.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: planet earth
Age: 59
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That picture was NOT fake!
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
Eg, the photo in the post before was a fake.
Check out these links:
http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/CCFB/CCFB33.pdf (page 2)
http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/ATFB/ATFB92.pdf (page 11)
http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/394...-question.html
This, on the other hand, might be fake
: 
Sadly enough, the original one isn't.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it's a fake picture. The snow looks like it's not adhering. It's probably taken from an a/c sitting on the ramp and then placed against a sky background. The winds in excess of 400 mph would've blown that snow away very quickly.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it's a fake picture. The snow looks like it's not adhering. It's probably taken from an a/c sitting on the ramp and then placed against a sky background. The winds in excess of 400 mph would've blown that snow away very quickly.
I've done some photo re-work and I know the difference.
The clear leading edges and the likely depth of the boundary layer make this picture credible. Once you get airborne with a load like that, the only thing that will remove it is sublimation.
Not to mention it looks like he is cruising at FL 650 or thereabouts.
Last edited by Machinbird; 15th Apr 2012 at 14:36. Reason: Add comment.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the only thing that will remove it is sublimation.
If you fly the 737 and you pick up ice during climb out, what is left on the outer slats (not heated) after you use the wing deice, will also be gone rather fast.
I'm not saying it's fake, but it doesn't look right to me.
FL650 was just a number, but it looks like a lot higher than the usual 350-370. My opinion.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then, I didn't post a pretty picture above the clouds, so guess I am just a "dreamer" 
so its for sure self explanatory that you will not be able to present a self made pic from a flying 737, how could you? - and you did not.
further you mentioned several times the PA34 in my profile with such comments :
aerobat 77, I will defer to your greater knowledge of Piper Senecas & Seminoles
well, the seminole is not a PA34 as wikipedia can teach you easily, and beyond this the seneca is a lot of fun and i have good memories on this light twin, i guess you would pee the pants to get a chance to steer one for a minute. further you can type here in your profile what you want, and in my case its not the space shuttle but just a pa34 ...
so long, i do not know in real life anyone of a college who claims himselfs location
"fubar"
FUBAR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and not one actual flying guy who feels the need to be offensive and rush to other fellows , even when they have another opinion.
so as a classic ( especially here) be proud of yourself seeking internet reputation lacking any in real life, claim behind the anonymous internet being somebody you never was and feel free to continue your tour since you have nothing other to loose.
please feel free to be erected in argueing in an open aviation forum claiming your superior virtual experience , it may be the only thing you can say about this terminology
.but its not my job to be offensive against you and discuss things which are beyond the theme of this thread. further i have not the luxury to stay online here the whole day like you and so its a net win for you- like said, feel free !
i am sure you will have enough resources to reply quickly to this in your 737 with internet connection - a man who claims to have xx thousands command hours on a jet for sure can fly and type simulatany !
ok... enough offtopic...
I blew that picture up and looked at the leading edge pixels. They seem to blend smoothly into the background all along the leading edge.
best regards !
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Threshold
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
May be it's already been mentioned, it's not the first that I see a Russian pilot get airborne with snow on the wings, one time in Kaliningrad, I saw a Beech Premier taxing out with many inchees of heavy snow on the wings.
May be it's already been mentioned, it's not the first that I see a Russian pilot get airborne with snow on the wings, one time in Kaliningrad, I saw a Beech Premier taxing out with many inchees of heavy snow on the wings.
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take off with snow on wing
From the very first moment I’ve seen the photograph (let's assume it to be true) in this link: http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/CCFB/CCFB33.pdf
this question is whirling in my mind:
"In such a condition there will certainly be an increase in the low speed buffet and a decrease in the high speed buffet".
Is there anyone who can tell me if the Air Data Computer is able to detect, calculate and represent these new values in the Airspeed Indicator?
Thank you .
this question is whirling in my mind:
"In such a condition there will certainly be an increase in the low speed buffet and a decrease in the high speed buffet".
Is there anyone who can tell me if the Air Data Computer is able to detect, calculate and represent these new values in the Airspeed Indicator?
Thank you .
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aerobat77,
I don't really know why I bother, but . . . . . so, poor you, I confused your super advanced PA41 on your profile with a Seminole, which I see indeed from Wikipedia is in fact a PA44. Well,I have about as much need to remember the exact names of aircraft I never flew, as you have to remember the difference, on intermediate approach, if a little hot/high, between a B738 equipped with the short-field kit, & a common or garden variety.
Strangely enough around 80% of the fleet I will fly, when my company conversion training is complete, do indeed have wifi, but it is not permitted to use it in the cockpit. Indeed I have been sitting home a bit recently, so what ?
I really don't give a toss whether you believe/disbelieve anything about me or not.
The fact remains however, that you came on here & talked absolute bollox about the relevance/ neccesity to de-ice public transport swept wing jets, & I could not let such ignorance & misinformation pass unremarked.
Peeing my pants would only be happening if I was in the back of something commanded by someone with your level of knowledge of de-icing sitting up front. . . . & erected ? did you really type that ?
Your wikipedia definition of FUBAR is a little wide of the mark BTW, ask anyone of a certain age/with some aircrew experience, they will explain it nicely to you.
In short, don't come on here & pontificate on that which you patently know nothing of relevance. And don't really expect us all to wet our pants (for any reason ) at a cockpit shot taken from a Cheyenne.
Sad
I don't really know why I bother, but . . . . . so, poor you, I confused your super advanced PA41 on your profile with a Seminole, which I see indeed from Wikipedia is in fact a PA44. Well,I have about as much need to remember the exact names of aircraft I never flew, as you have to remember the difference, on intermediate approach, if a little hot/high, between a B738 equipped with the short-field kit, & a common or garden variety.
Strangely enough around 80% of the fleet I will fly, when my company conversion training is complete, do indeed have wifi, but it is not permitted to use it in the cockpit. Indeed I have been sitting home a bit recently, so what ?
I really don't give a toss whether you believe/disbelieve anything about me or not.
The fact remains however, that you came on here & talked absolute bollox about the relevance/ neccesity to de-ice public transport swept wing jets, & I could not let such ignorance & misinformation pass unremarked.
Peeing my pants would only be happening if I was in the back of something commanded by someone with your level of knowledge of de-icing sitting up front. . . . & erected ? did you really type that ?
Your wikipedia definition of FUBAR is a little wide of the mark BTW, ask anyone of a certain age/with some aircrew experience, they will explain it nicely to you.
In short, don't come on here & pontificate on that which you patently know nothing of relevance. And don't really expect us all to wet our pants (for any reason ) at a cockpit shot taken from a Cheyenne.
Sad
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so, poor you, I confused your super advanced PA41 on your profile with a Seminole
this question is whirling in my mind:
"In such a condition there will certainly be an increase in the low speed buffet and a decrease in the high speed buffet".
Is there anyone who can tell me if the Air Data Computer is able to detect, calculate and represent these new values in the Airspeed Indicator?
"In such a condition there will certainly be an increase in the low speed buffet and a decrease in the high speed buffet".
Is there anyone who can tell me if the Air Data Computer is able to detect, calculate and represent these new values in the Airspeed Indicator?
the real danger in lifting off with a iced wing is that the ice will reduce the angle of attack for stall so you may stall at an AOA where the stall warning , which is based on the actual AOA, does not even kick in -you may suddenly stall whithout any warning and without knowing why.
further the ice will increase your mass for an unknown factor so you are heavier than you believe.
and more mass with reduced lift is not a good combination.
but this applies only when contamination keeps on the wing/frame after rotation. and - here it depends on the aircraft, some are able to deal with more contamination and some are known to be critical here- we have to talk about a significant amount of ice not some few snowflakes or ice crystals.
the dicussion about the difference between official statements and inofficial pressure for the pilots to avoid expensive deicing and delays whenever possible is surely beyond an open forum i would say.
cheers !
