Plane crashes near Kazakhstan airport

[PaulH1]

It works well in the Exec Jet world! Aircraft kept in a hangar. Passengers board in the hangar to keep dry and warm. Then the aircraft rolled out and de-iced if required.

[Herod]

Hey guys; don't flame segfault. He's new to Pprune, and we don't know his background. He does start with saying it might be a stupid idea. Lots of good ideas have been written off before (electricity, what is that useful for?). Yes, segfault; it's an impractical idea, but don't be put off posting

[172_driver]

Segfault isn't way off the mark either, we bring our airliner into the hangar when the cost of doing so seem to beat the cost of a de/anti-icing treatment. It's a judgement call. However, this is at a place where we're normally the only company over night. Wouldn't be practical at any larger airport.

[UltraFan]

Originally Posted by segfault

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but in places like this where ice is a known issue, and as an addition to anti-ice procedures, would it help to have a climate controlled environment to store aircraft in the last hour or so before flight? I am thinking about something like a hangar with low humidity, increased temperature, instruments to detect ice, and obviously protection from precipitation.

Several factors need to be considered. One, as any glasses wearer will tell you, it doesn't matter what humidity is inside, when you enter from the cold, your glasses fog up massively. Another example is an instruction manual to almost any electronic device that advises you to NOT turn it on immediately after it was brought in from the cold. The reason is the same - condensation. If you bring in an airplane inside from the cold, you have no other option but to leave it there for a few hours or maybe even days to let the condensation evaporate. Otherwise, when you turn the power on, you will have multiple shorts all over the plane.

Second is the sheer size of hangars you need for such an operation. Some companies in Canada and Alaska who fly relatively small planes (I'd say, Beechcraft 1900 max) store their machines in hangars overnight to avoid using the unbelievably expensive de-icing fluid in the morning. Storing several even single-aisle planes in a hangar, however, would be prohibitively expensive. Keeping the hangars warm and dehumidified with constant movements would be astronomical.

[Winemaker]

... to avoid using the unbelievably expensive de-icing fluid...

I've wondered about that; we use glycol in our cooling system at the winery and it's very expensive, about $1000/50 gallons or so. I looked at airport de-icing systems and it seems that glycol is not separated and reused but is eventually flushed down the drain. Are there systems to recycle glycol? That must be a huge bill at someplace like ORD.

[750XL]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

I've wondered about that; we use glycol in our cooling system at the winery and it's very expensive, about $1000/50 gallons or so. I looked at airport de-icing systems and it seems that glycol is not separated and reused but is eventually flushed down the drain. Are there systems to recycle glycol? That must be a huge bill at someplace like ORD.

There are systems being developed and in place but not widely used at the majority of airports across the globe.

From what I gather, ballpark figures for Type 1/Type 4 figures are purchase for $2 a litre and sell for $5 a litre... Taking into account Type 1 fluid is mixed with water, anything down to 30/70 if your temps don't get much below freezing.

Liquid gold

[UltraFan]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

I've wondered about that; we use glycol in our cooling system at the winery and it's very expensive, about $1000/50 gallons or so. I looked at airport de-icing systems and it seems that glycol is not separated and reused but is eventually flushed down the drain. Are there systems to recycle glycol? That must be a huge bill at someplace like ORD.

Oh, ORD doesn't know the half of it. They still have road access and all the modern infrastructure. Imagine a place like Barrow or Deadhorse, as just two examples, where everything, including the de-icying fluid, has to be flown in. So add shipment costs to the price of the fluid itself. And they have freezing temperatures 9-10 months a year.

As for recycling, I'm not sure I understand the question. Isn't the de-icying fluid supposed to stay on the surface of the wings?

[Beamr]

Originally Posted by 750XL

There are systems being developed and in place but not widely used at the majority of airports across the globe.

I don't know about others, but at HEL the de-ice liquids are being collected, even the snow which becomes saturated by de-ice is being collected.

[750XL]

Originally Posted by UltraFan

As for recycling, I'm not sure I understand the question. Isn't the de-icying fluid supposed to stay on the surface of the wings?

No, you don't want any de-icing fluid to stay on your airframe at all.

Anti-icing fluid, however, you do want to stay on your wings (until it sheers off near rotation speed)

[chrisms86]

Originally Posted by UltraFan

1.7 million isolated people. HAHAHAHA! I don't think anyone can get any more American than this. But I get it, any place outside the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, is gloomy, dark and isolated.

Oh, and btw, 70% of population "there" don't celebrate Christmas.

PS Have I just been trolled?

I have lived in Almaty for several years. Celebrating Christmas is not relevant to the school calendar I referenced. In any case a city of 1.7 million is small relatively speaking, especially if there is little else for thousands of kilometers in most directions.

[Strumble Head]

Thanks for the informed comment

A quick thank you to the informed sources who have commented to date (and those to come.) As a confirmed PPRuNe lurker with long experience in various facets of aviation ops, it was a shock to me to realise that I'd never had to get into the fine detail of what determines the need for de-icing on the ground, nor how it gets done in today's world.

So the steers to relevant sources have been invaluable. I've also been reminded that safe operations in icing or snowy conditions are very expensive in time, direct cost and indirect cost (people time, reduced throughput etc.)

This brought back a memory of being SLF on a jet where the first de-icing was not successful. There were well-meant if ignorant suggestions from some (management) quarters, keen to see the aircraft depart, that 'most' areas met standard and this was good enough.

This provoked some very very blunt responses for which I am now even more grateful. Classic situation where ground engineering and/or PIC can come under an awful lot of pressure to cut corners.

[Herod]

[QUOTE][Classic situation where ground engineering and/or PIC can come under an awful lot of pressure to cut corners./QUOTE]

Precisely. I always made a point to the First officer that he was the professional with no pressure on him. I might make a bad decision because of pressure (although I don't think I made many). More than once the F.O. queried my decisions, and many times he was right.

[Willie Everlearn]

Did we not learn about the “clean wing” concept following the Air Florida accident in Washington waaaaay back in the early 80s?

Willie Everlearn

[750XL]

Originally Posted by Strumble Head

A quick thank you to the informed sources who have commented to date (and those to come.) As a confirmed PPRuNe lurker with long experience in various facets of aviation ops, it was a shock to me to realise that I'd never had to get into the fine detail of what determines the need for de-icing on the ground, nor how it gets done in today's world.

So the steers to relevant sources have been invaluable. I've also been reminded that safe operations in icing or snowy conditions are very expensive in time, direct cost and indirect cost (people time, reduced throughput etc.)

This brought back a memory of being SLF on a jet where the first de-icing was not successful. There were well-meant if ignorant suggestions from some (management) quarters, keen to see the aircraft depart, that 'most' areas met standard and this was good enough.

This provoked some very very blunt responses for which I am now even more grateful. Classic situation where ground engineering and/or PIC can come under an awful lot of pressure to cut corners.

Just to further your post, in a previous company I worked for we used to charge about $5 a litre of de-ice/anti ice fluid and approx $400 vehicle callout fee. On a frost, you're looking about 250-300 litres on a mid size jet. On a snow day, anything upwards of 1000 litres


Not sure what the costs are like these days, tho

[admiral ackbar]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

I've wondered about that; we use glycol in our cooling system at the winery and it's very expensive, about $1000/50 gallons or so. I looked at airport de-icing systems and it seems that glycol is not separated and reused but is eventually flushed down the drain. Are there systems to recycle glycol? That must be a huge bill at someplace like ORD.

YUL has been recycling glycol since 2014 to protect the environment around the airport (and save $$$)

https://www.admtl.com/en/adm/communi...tection-milieu

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by pilotmike

Simple answer: No. It wouldn't work.

Rationale:
Humans are good at inventing systems and procedures which can be put in place to prevent known problems. Call it SOPs if you will. The de-icing / anti-icing procedure is a fine example: it works just fine when rigorously, conscientiously and consistently applied. And it isn't overly expensive in the grand scheme of things.

Humans are also very good at circumventing / flouting / ignoring systems and procedures to suit themselves whenever they believe it will save them time, bother or cost. And often it bites them and others in the a$$ - very hard, very painful and usually at very considerable cost. That might have happened here.

So your suggestion is to invent a very expensive, massively cumbersome, highly inconvenient, almost impossibly difficult to implement system to cater for the few cases where someone chooses not to comply with a simple, relatively cheap, highly effective, known good procedure...

Could you suggest one good reason why anybody who refuses to comply with the simple, effective, cheap, known good (de-icing) procedure will comply with a hugely cumbersome and expensive replacement procedure which only becomes necessary after they fail to comply with a simple de-icing procedure?

Hence my earlier simple answer - NO!

https://www.wingsmagazine.com/infrar...ts-money-1325/

[hunbet]

Before you all waste any more bandwidth on reinventing the wheel, here is a comprehensive study about deicing that contains every conceivable method :

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...g-pds-2000.pdf

SLC has used a recycling system for years.This report is from 2017 but it was in place well before that time :

https://slcairport.com/blog/2017/11/...deicing-fluid/

[WBryanH]

The deceased Captain, 58yo Marat Muratbaev, is apparently very experienced, having flown over 20,000 hours since 1982. At least that's what Sputnik reports, for what that's worth (see link below, in Russian).

If Sputnik is correct, it makes me wonder, why was Muratbaev flying for a new-ish LLC? Does Kazakhstan have a glut of experienced pilots and not enough seats for them? Does he have issues on his record? Other reasons?

ru (dit) sputniknews (dit) kz/society/20191228/12403390/pogibshy-komandir-samolet-almaty (dit aitch tee em el)

Per the Sputnik link below (in Russian), the 54yo FO Mirzhan Muldakulov has over 11,500 hours, over 4,000 of which on the Fokker 100.

That's pushing 32,000 hours for the pair of 50-something pilots.

Ru (dit) sputniknews (dit) kz/society/20191228/12408518/vyzhivshiy-pilot-samolet-bek-air-strazha (dit aitch tee em el)

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by pilotmike

Simple answer: No. It wouldn't work

ESPA in nothern Sweden have been using recycling of deicing fluid since the middle of the ’80:s.

Right now building another lane to keep up with the increased traffic.
Not a very big airport, 6:th in Sweden I think. Only one apron, one runway.
all departing A/C can leave via the deicing lane from the (only) apron.
Its a lot easier like this, they even had the spot for this available.

At bigger, already built up airports it wouldnt come very easy.

I would guess your answer is correct; At bigger airports, already out of space with the wrong layout it wouldnt work.

”Would you like to deice at the gate or would you like to deice at our recycling enviromental safe deicing apron, only 50% extra charge?”

On a long term basis, its of course possible, taking the time to incorporate the infrastructure and costs.


I also think that the actual price for deicing fluid isnt what makes up the bigger part of the bill ?

[IcanCmyhousefromhere]

As usual in such a sad event, no facts are available only conjecture. However, to make suggestions against a guy who is still warm on the slab is beyond the purpose of this forum. WBryanH, maybe you would care to reconsider your post and amend it?