Take off with snow on wing

[lomapaseo]

Boguing

Taking what FAR 121 actually says:-

"(d) A certificate holder may continue to operate under this section without a program as required in paragraph (c) of this section, if it includes in its operations specifications a requirement that, any time conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected to adhere to the aircraft, no aircraft will take off unless..."

Then if conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably expected NOT to adhere.. then it does NOT apply.

That is a very misleading quote since it leaves out the conditional statements after the word "unless"

That regulation is what it is, and not subject to personal intertpretations by exclusions and/or additions.

[boguing]

Lompaseo, you are one of the last people that I would dare to open a debate with - for fear of losing tragically!

I'm really not trying to let this crew off the hook.

But the 'unless' is irrelevant if the earlier test (reasonably expected..) is not met.

I don't even know whether FAR 121 was relevant to this flight.

Your first quote of my quote - if you follow?! Was lifted from preceding posts, so if it was wrong, mea culpa.

The second quote you used was all my own words.

And I stand by it. If you reasonably expect the snow to fall off without any help other than airspeed, then I read that you are 'good to go'.

[ImbracableCrunk]

If you reasonably expect the snow to fall off without any help other than airspeed, then I read that you are 'good to go'.

I think reasonably is stronger than "a hunch." An inspection with a wand reveals nothing adhering, then you can reasonably expect. Not wanting to de-ice because you've got a waiting devushka u vodka at your kvartirye, is a reason, but not reasonable.

[boguing]

I don't know how much more clearly I can say that if I were there I would have been terrified.

But there are many people who could determine what is and is not dry snow. If that happened to be a teetotal Russian, I would not bet against him/her.

I'm just pointing out that local knowledge is valuable, and the test of 'reasonable' might hang upon that.

So many laws are open to driving the proverbial coach and horses through. This seems to be one of them.

[UUUWZDZX]

Apologize for leaving you all without new developments on this story.

Having received that reply from aeroflot (snow was blown off, no violations, etc) in the beginning of April, I was looking to receive another statement, as I sent them a brief outline of regulatory provisions which were apparently violated. Since there was no reply and it seemed that the story was about to get lost amongst others, I launched a dedicated website, link (it's all in russian) on the 1'st of May. Narrative is about 5000 words: facts of the case (differentiation between 'wet' and 'dry' snow, speculation about possible presence of ice, etc), violations (quotations from AFL's SOP, FCOM, Russian Air Law), outline of effect of wing contamination on aerodynamics (basic theory, quotations from Airbus, ICAO, NTSB, FAA, statistics on a number of fatal accidents caused by contamination on takeoff).

This website has caused quite a tornado in russian internet, and is now widely quoted on different websites (unfortunately not much media interest though). Finally russian aviation community woke up to the fact. Generally public (aviation-affiliated) condemns actions of aeroflot personnel and of their top managers who made the statement. Almost all airlines in russia and in CIS are now aware of this case. Aeroflot guys visit the website at least 5 times a day from their offices (IP-tracking). According to my sources, there is a sence of moderate panic among managers of aeroflot, and particulary among two individuals who made the statement (Mr. Chalik and Coldunov). This case is also widely discussed among aeroflot pilots.

I sent letters to EASA, SkyTeam, Airbus, IATA and Bermuda CAA. IATA indeed got interested and contacted russian CAA with fury (apparently) about the incident and aeroflot's reply. There was also a SAE conference on Aircraft De-Icing in Prague in the beginning of May, two of the people I know visited it and they reported loads of tea-room discussions condemning aeroflot's actions as well. Also, as you probably know, most russian airliners are registered in off-shore states, such as Bermuda. I sent them a quick letter and got the following reply (7'th of May):




Bermuda initiated talks and does take it seriously, how about russian CAA? Keep on reading...


Here starts the interesting part

A few days ago I wrote a public petition, signed by 80+ people, addressed to aeroflot and demanding apologies for gross misconduct of relevant regulations concerning removal of contaminants prior to takeoff.

Yesterday (on 14'th of May) I made a call to russian CAA (just out of curiosity), to the head of safety inspections department. To my total amazement his exact words (amongst other bluff) were: there were no violations of FCOM/SOP/Russian Air Law (1), snow was dry (2), there was no danger to people on board (3). I tried my best to almost quote excerpts from FCOM and SOP, but he delicately attempted to avoid my direct questions. Since I was not recording this call, I decided not to interrogate him further. So there is no case to answer, no one was punished, incident almost got lost quietly [almost, but not anymore ].

At the moment i'm preparing another petition, to russian CAA. By russian law, as a state department, they must respond to any inbound queries. So that will be an interesting reply to read. I very much doubt they will dare to confirm that there was no direct violation of FCOM/SOP or that the snow was dry indeed.

PS. For those of you who don't know, as per russian air law, it is not permitted to takeoff with wet snow (amongst other contaminats), unless otherwise stated in FCOM. Aeroflot A320 FCOM and SOP is a standard Airbus-recommended text, so it prohibits to takeoff with any contamination on the upper surface of the wing.

Anyway, their argument will be very weak, if they produce it and don't change their mind. Snow shown on the video demonstrates qualities of a wet snow, so that's a violation of russian air law (1), FCOM cleary prohibits to takeoff with any contamination - another violation (2).

Once we get a reply from CAA, if they still argue that there were no violations, we'd probably forward the whole case to transport judiciary for their own independent inquiry.

BTW, Russian CAA is very well known to 'cooperate' with aeroflot. For instance recently they lost a case in court to other russian carrier for not allowing them to compete with aeroflot on certain routes, where aeroflot operated solely alone and held a monopolistic share.

PS. I also received accounts from pilots of aeroflot who reported captain of that flight to be totally arrogant, impulsive and cowboy-like. On one occasion, he called a group of queuing junior second officers in front of medical room 'shut up puppys and let me go' and skipped the queue. On the way out when they questioned him, reply was 'you'r too junior, or wanna speak?'. I'm also in contact with other AFL pilot who reporting him being arrogant on a flight deck [will post more details once I got them].

PS2. Please don't quote FAR requirements in this topic about 'adhering', it's irrelevant. Under russian air law, the key word is 'wet snow' (presence of).

PS3. Here is the video of another aeroflot takeoff, difference being - it is a dry snow - kind of thing which is allowed as per russian air law, but not as per FCOM -

You Tube

PS4. To those guys who fly to russia - you are welcome to takeoff with snow -- as per russian CAA

[aerobat77]

Once we get a reply from CAA, if they still argue that there were no violations, we'd probably forward the whole case to transport judiciary for their own independent inquiry.

hey ! do not expect to get another reply since they will not mess up with a major russian carrier to satisfy some heated internet discussions for a thing where finally nothing happened.

law prohibits a take off with snow on wings, not the take off run. drag calculations are given for operations in contaminated enviroments- and additional drag is also given with a deicing slush on the wings before it sheers off.

deicing alone is not the magic word for safe winter operation, it depends on many factors and real life serves you more questions than any fcom wil give you answers.

on the other hand...

the more interesting think you stated here is the arrogance and cowboy style of the captain. if he really is thatlike he should be eliminated not because of any snow , but because of intentionally operating close to the edge , with passengers on board.

there are far more situations than snow that blows off not instantly but short before rotation where a cowboy may run out of luck- in summer or winter !

UUUW: may we ask why you use up such resources to nail down this captain ? something personal?

cheers !

[lomapaseo]

UUUWZDZX

Seems to me that the problem is not the Captain's personality. judgement etc. but an edenmic shortfall in their CAA for promoting and fostering a unique difference in interpretations of the regulations in the world wide community.

For this corrective action one must start at the top of the chain and the pilots will follow.

I feel that too much criticism is being directed against the last guy in the chain (the captain). If continued nothing will be improved for the benefit of the flying public

in english slang, thowing the guy under the bus

[UUUWZDZX]

UUUW: may we ask why you use up such resources to nail down this captain ? something personal?

I don't consider this as a significant campaign... No, I don't know this person.

[UUUWZDZX]

It seems every time I post smth in this topic, it's outrageous

Been browsing AFL A320 SOP and found very familiar Boeing words, opened Boeing QRH and was lost for words...: SOP of Aeroflot for A319-320-321 (approved by CAA) includes upset recovery procedure - COMPLETELY copied (and translated) from B767 QRH. There is NO mention of FBW at all: bank angle, high AOA & pitch attitude protection, abnormal attitude law, etc..

On the left - AFL A319/320/321 SOP, on the right QRH of B767-300ER:

It's all copied word-to-word, even punctuation.






You might say it's an error (copied erroneously). Unfortunately it is not. Look at the next page. They copied actual procedure as well, BUT changed 'elevator' to 'side stick'. WTF??










It might be partly applicable to any conventional aircraft, but how about FBW logic?

Bank Angle Protection:

Bank angle protection prevents that any major upset, or PF mishandling, causes the aircraft to be in a high-bank situation (wherein aircraft recovery is complex, due to the difficulty to properly assess such a situation and readily react). Bank angle protection provides the PF with full authority
to efficiently achieve any required roll maneuver.

The maximum achievable bank angle is plus or minus:
• 67 °, within the Normal Flight envelope (2.5 g level flight)
• 40 °, in high Speed protection (to prevent spiral dive)
• 45 °, in high Angle-Of-Attack protection

High Pitch Attitude Protection:

Excessive pitch attitudes, caused by upsets or inappropriate maneuvers, lead to hazardous situations:

• Too high a nose-up ▸ Very rapid energy loss
• Too low a nose-down ▸ Very rapid energy gain

Furthermore, there is no emergency situation that requires flying at excessive attitudes. For these reasons, pitch attitude protection limits pitch attitude to plus 30 °/minus 15 °.

Pitch attitude protection enhances high speed protection, high load factor protection, and high AOA protection.

Abnormal Attitude Law:

If the aircraft is, for any reason, far outside the normal flight envelope and reaches an abnormal attitude, the normal controls are modified and provide the PF with maximum efficiency in regaining normal attitudes. (An example of a typical reason for being far outside the normal flight envelope
would be the avoidance of a mid-air collision).

The so-called "abnormal attitude" law is :
• Pitch alternate with load factor protection (without autotrim)
• Lateral direct law with yaw alternate

These laws trigger, when extreme values are reached:

• Pitch (50 ° up, 30 ° down)
• Bank (125 °)
• AOA (30 °, -10 °)
• Speed (440 kt, 60 kt)
• Mach (0.96, 0.1).

It is very unlikely that the aircraft will reach these attitudes, because fly-by-wire provides protection to ensure rapid reaction far in advance. This will minimize the effect and potential for such aerodynamic upsets.

The effectiveness of fly-by-wire architecture, and the existence of control laws, eliminate the need for upset recovery maneuvers to be trained on protected Airbus aircraft.

This would leave AFL crews "fighting" with FBW (especially those, who poorly know FCTM). Why posting such critical information in SOP without reference to aircraft systems, their capabilities and limitations? Also, why include references to the use of stabilizer trim without out any additional details -- in auto (under normal law) or manual mode?

[cwatters]

Sorry if silly question but..Does the A320 side stick have a stick shaker or did they change that bit when they did the translation?

I did look in the A320 Flight Crew Training Manual but can't see a reference suggesting the A320 has a stick shaker. The word shaker occurs just once in the section dealing with protections and that's to do with the A320 protections making it easier to fly at stick shaker AOA.

[J.O.]

There is no stick shaker in the Airbus FBW aircraft. There are aural warnings, such as "SPEED-SPEED -SPEED" or "STALL" when speed / energy targets are reached, but in normal comtrol laws,you can hold the sidestick at full back and the aircraft will fly at the lowest speed and it will adjust pitch / thrust accordingly to maintain it.

[up_down_n_out]

"Been browsing AFL A320 SOP and found very familiar Boeing words, opened Boeing QRH and was lost for words...:"

And you are suprised?

Fake Diplomas = Fake Modernization

Take two examples of a recently "relected" president who never left.

You are evidently just touching the tip of an enormous iceberg in a country where something like 50% of law degrees are fake, engineers work at Sukhoi with fake qualifications and fake companies are used to launder stolen companies.

...that is exactly the point about contemporary Russia: there is no proof of anything that happened.
Documents are missing.
People have disappeared or changed their identities.

Major companies are owned by nonexistent shell companies, and they mysteriously do the president’s bidding...

Have you been asleep for a decade?

Wake up smell the coffee!

[The SSK]

Presumably an unconnected development ...

Russia may blacklist air passengers, pilots - NY Daily News

[up_down_n_out]

And the person behind that move in the Duma, is none other than .....the...

Vitaly Saveliev, chief executive officer of Russian flag carrier Aeroflot, who cut his teeth on .....?

"...when the Sayano-Shushenskaya HEPP was completed, Vitaly Saveliev returned to Leningrad"..
..the same HEPP that was one of the greatest post war industrial disasters after the 1986 Chernobyl accident.


...a particularly well placed and appropriate personality it should be said for legifering into the pilot recruitment & safety of companies other than Aeroflot and protecting AFL's monopolies.


Just in case you see no connection in the obsessive "safety regime" in Russia watch

this.

A catastrophe that was completely avoidable like so many others.

[typhoid]

My understanding is that both Boeing and Airbus worked together to produce upset recovery procedures that are standard across the industry.

That is why they are the same.

[9.G]

a case to study not only contaminated wings takeoff performance but a egocentric personalities as such.

[lomapaseo]

a case to study not only contaminated wings takeoff performance but a egocentric personalities as such

Just where is the evidence of such

in the cockpit

in the airlne management ?

in the CAA ?

Until the facts are in, assigning personal traits specifically is out of place

[9.G]

Just where is the evidence of such

Evidence on a rumor network, that's the best joke I've ever heard. You've made my day amigo therefore you deserve another hint. Empty vessels makes the most noise. Go figure.

[de facto]

@de facto

How on earth do you conclude that aircraft could possibly have complied with:

Quote:
it has been checked to ensure that the wings, control surfaces, and other critical surfaces are free of frost, ice, and snow.
Never mind that conducting an inspection from outside the aircraft within 5 mins of takeoff at a Russian airport is probably impossible without the security guys getting very excited.

The FAR 121 is stating

"(d) A certificate holder may continue to operate under this section without a program as required in paragraph (c) of this section, if it includes in its operations specifications a requirement that, any time conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected to adhere to the aircraft, no aircraft will take off unless..."

The 'MAY BE REASONABLY be expected to adhere...' is leaving a lot on the unreasonable PICs out there...therefore maybe time for a review more strict FAR.

FAA is all about Would/should/could.....maybe its time it uses SHALL NOT more often.....

[RatherBeFlying]

Some years ago, I got SLFed through ORD while a low was dumping considerable quantities of lake effect wet snow over everything. We got deiced with what must have been type IV at the gate and then joined the conga line to departure. It took more than 5 minutes while considerable snow accumulated on the wing which I could see quite well. The several a/c ahead of us were not turning into fireballs on takeoff; so, I decided that the deicers knew their job and did not put up a fuss.

At about 50 kt, the blanket of snow sheared off in what looked like a single piece and the takeoff proceeded normally. I don't think ORD was removing the dumped snow after each takeoff, but I would not be surprised that clearing operations were in progress on the next runway to come in use.

UUUWZDZX has posted a video showing how easily dry snow comes off -- quite a bit quicker and more cleanly than the wetter stuff at M01 in the first video. Snow close to 0C worries me more than snow at -10C on both a/c and roads, but we also have to take account of surface temperature.

The videos show that there's different degrees of adhesion. If the adhesion is good past Vr, it's definitely too much. In the first video, the adhesion got pretty close to Vr and in some locations exceeded Vr. Not much margin there.