Take off with snow on wing
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
De-icing ...
as a cautionary note .. occasionally the de-icers get it wrong.
I refer you to the BA46 incident at CDG circa 2005, when the aircraft was mistakenly de-iced with 100% water.
An aircraft following it in line for departure noticed large icicles forming on the tail and informed ATC.
Aircraft returned to stand.
I refer you to the BA46 incident at CDG circa 2005, when the aircraft was mistakenly de-iced with 100% water.
An aircraft following it in line for departure noticed large icicles forming on the tail and informed ATC.
Aircraft returned to stand.
RBF,
Quote: At about 50 kt, the blanket of snow sheared off
May we know the name of the airine?
Quote: At about 50 kt, the blanket of snow sheared off
May we know the name of the airine?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Residence - Georgia || Flying Domicile Changes Periodically
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by de facto
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.
Originally Posted by de facto
FAA is all about Would/should/could.....maybe its time it uses SHALL NOT more often.....
Unfortunately, it would appear that this particular regulator is intent on using rather ambiguous terms out of fear of generating unintended consequences with more specifically worded regulations
That's the job of the state's governing process to write laws not rules.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At about 50 kt, the blanket of snow sheared off in what looked like a single piece and the takeoff proceeded normally.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA is all about Would/should/could.....maybe its time it uses SHALL NOT more often.....
the regulations are in my opinion here perfectly written and match real life, you will find many more regulations tah are more stupid .
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What that means on an aircraft is that as the speed gets up to around 80kts, the layer of fluid will slide off the wing, taking any contamination with it.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brief update on the story:
1. My friend and I asked a member of Russian Parliament to prepare an inquiry into this case, since it seems that russian CAA allied with aeroflot and denies any violations. Shortly he will be sending demands to explain reasons for denial of Russian air law by aeroflot and russian CAA.
2. The guy who was behind the statement (flight director of Aeroflot, Mr. Chalik) was visiting a TV show just 4 days before making that statement. Show was about UTAIR ATR72 crash, specifically about de/anti-icing procedures (take off with contaminated wings is being viewed as the most probable cause at this time). In his speech he mentioned ICAO doc 9640 (and hence clean aircraft concept) and that aircraft must be clean before PIC arrives (implying ground staff must perform de-icing => not acceptable to takeoff assuming contamination will be blown away).
Clearly 4 days later he turned a blind eye in relation to identical case, but on Aeroflot flight -- 'there were no violations, snow was blown away during takeoff roll'. Ignored doc 9640 and all the rest he said 96 hours earlier. What a short memory or may be reluctance to admit wrong doing by one of his own pilots?
1. My friend and I asked a member of Russian Parliament to prepare an inquiry into this case, since it seems that russian CAA allied with aeroflot and denies any violations. Shortly he will be sending demands to explain reasons for denial of Russian air law by aeroflot and russian CAA.
2. The guy who was behind the statement (flight director of Aeroflot, Mr. Chalik) was visiting a TV show just 4 days before making that statement. Show was about UTAIR ATR72 crash, specifically about de/anti-icing procedures (take off with contaminated wings is being viewed as the most probable cause at this time). In his speech he mentioned ICAO doc 9640 (and hence clean aircraft concept) and that aircraft must be clean before PIC arrives (implying ground staff must perform de-icing => not acceptable to takeoff assuming contamination will be blown away).
Clearly 4 days later he turned a blind eye in relation to identical case, but on Aeroflot flight -- 'there were no violations, snow was blown away during takeoff roll'. Ignored doc 9640 and all the rest he said 96 hours earlier. What a short memory or may be reluctance to admit wrong doing by one of his own pilots?
Last edited by UUUWZDZX; 28th May 2012 at 03:00.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ice-bore
jurassicjockey, the information you are providing here is incorrect. The fluid will have failed at this stage and a further de-icing/anti-icing treatment will be required. Please see posts 331 and 339 for further information."
Last edited by jurassicjockey; 28th May 2012 at 14:41.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OUTCOME OF THE STORY. After receiving public petition I mentioned earlier, Russian CAA finally acted upon this incident. They ordered Aeroflot to conduct investigation. Aeroflot swiftly assembled committee and on 28'th of May concluded:
1. There was indeed a violation of Aeroflot SOP (crew and ground personnel made a wrong decision not to conduct de/anti-icing of aircraft after overnight stay with snow precipitation)
2. Amendments were made to Aeroflot SOP regarding de/anti-icing procedures.
3. Captain of the flight was demoted to First Officer.
4. Other personnel received various disciplinary sanctions.
That's 6 months after actual incident and 2 months after initial reaction of Aeroflot and Russian SOP that there was no violations
More info (in Russian) on link
1. There was indeed a violation of Aeroflot SOP (crew and ground personnel made a wrong decision not to conduct de/anti-icing of aircraft after overnight stay with snow precipitation)
2. Amendments were made to Aeroflot SOP regarding de/anti-icing procedures.
3. Captain of the flight was demoted to First Officer.
4. Other personnel received various disciplinary sanctions.
That's 6 months after actual incident and 2 months after initial reaction of Aeroflot and Russian SOP that there was no violations
More info (in Russian) on link
Last edited by UUUWZDZX; 3rd Jun 2012 at 08:26.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is very reassuring to hear. Aeroflot do have to maintain its image as a reliable airline, as do any airlines for that matter. It is good to see something positive come out of this. Maybe Aeroflot captains wont be so cavalier next time.
And now, science has come up with a solution:
New spin on antifreeze: Researchers create ultra slippery anti-ice and anti-frost surfaces
No more de-icing required. EVER. in the near future?
New spin on antifreeze: Researchers create ultra slippery anti-ice and anti-frost surfaces
No more de-icing required. EVER. in the near future?