Frontier de-icing oops in Nashville
I don't know what sort of aeroplane BA/BY has been flying but I simply cannot go along with his statement that "the wing, stab and fin are completely clear of contamination. Each time, every time without exception". Is he really telling me that every time I taxied my DC-10 through the de-icing rig at CDG I did this? Not once on a BAe146 did I ever get out, mount a 30 foot cherry-picker and check the upper surface of the stabiliser. There are times in aviation that you have to rely on others to have done their job.
ASRAAMTOO
Well, I have been retired for 24 years but flew jets for all of my 34 years of jet flying, since I was 18. I have never been deiced engines running, so I checked the wings, stab, and fin from pax and service doors of my 73/ 75/76 or whatever. Seen no reason why the wings, at least can’t be checked via the D. V windows or the pax windows.
Ice contamination is a potential killer , remember the Potomac, hence my extreme caution, for which I make no apology.
Perhaps the world has moved , but in this aspect Im not sure it has improved.
Well, I have been retired for 24 years but flew jets for all of my 34 years of jet flying, since I was 18. I have never been deiced engines running, so I checked the wings, stab, and fin from pax and service doors of my 73/ 75/76 or whatever. Seen no reason why the wings, at least can’t be checked via the D. V windows or the pax windows.
Ice contamination is a potential killer , remember the Potomac, hence my extreme caution, for which I make no apology.
Perhaps the world has moved , but in this aspect Im not sure it has improved.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have mentioned, we always have to rely on others. Be it maintenance doing their job correctly (not all always do), be it cabin crew, or deicing crews. All of those are (hopefully) well trained professionals and we do have to rely on them. And yes, deicing with running engines, often right next to the runway, is nowadays the norm, has been for a long time in the area i operate in. Additionally, there is of course the thing with the holdover times, getting out of the plane, do a leisurely walk around, organizing stairs to the wing and stabilizer, climbing up there and check myself and then climbing back into the flightdeck, do the last bit of checklists and briefing and then the normal sequence would most likely violate the holdover times, especially in precipitation.
In this case i am very happy that a professional cabin crew and a professional flight deck worked as they should and assured a safe course of action.
In this case i am very happy that a professional cabin crew and a professional flight deck worked as they should and assured a safe course of action.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Back of Beyond
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired BA/BY - you have no clue how things operate these days, so please refrain from positing nonsense if you don't mind.
Obviously, we all rely on engineers on the bay, and remote rigs with engines running to deice. We never, ever inspect the wings as pilots before take off. I have personally, as a 747 captain, never looked at a wing post deice. I just want to get to the bloody runway and get the show on the road.
Anyway, it'll all slide off before V1, so she'll be right!
Obviously, we all rely on engineers on the bay, and remote rigs with engines running to deice. We never, ever inspect the wings as pilots before take off. I have personally, as a 747 captain, never looked at a wing post deice. I just want to get to the bloody runway and get the show on the road.
Anyway, it'll all slide off before V1, so she'll be right!
Only half a speed-brake
I second the agreement about the gameplay having changed procedure-wise. The trade-off between ability to check in person and being deiced while #2 for take off is an easy one.
Keeping a good flow of aircraft through the parking bays is helpful to everyone too, keeping the stress level low and having a beneficial effect on the safety margin in snowy precipitation.
The PAX / CC / FC team work had been praised deservedly above, so only one thing remains:
How much (little) do they pay the trucksmen, so they could not be bothered advising the job is not done. My fearestimate is that those were not trained hands who did (not do) the job.
Keeping a good flow of aircraft through the parking bays is helpful to everyone too, keeping the stress level low and having a beneficial effect on the safety margin in snowy precipitation.
The PAX / CC / FC team work had been praised deservedly above, so only one thing remains:
How much (little) do they pay the trucksmen, so they could not be bothered advising the job is not done. My fearestimate is that those were not trained hands who did (not do) the job.
Well, may be I don’t but I DO know how it was done in my day, kept me and my crew and pax. safe for all those years, so hardly nonsense, thank you.
I, too, wanted to get to the B runway, BUT with a clean wing !
I, too, wanted to get to the B runway, BUT with a clean wing !
Last edited by RetiredBA/BY; 5th Mar 2021 at 20:12.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for coming here and sharing the wisdom of your experience with us. Your method would indeed be ideal, but it’s either impractical, or impossible, given how I’ve seen airlines do it nowadays.
As an example, at my current airline, we deice with both engines running, and (usually) well away from the gate. If and when required, a crewmember will inspect the wing, but opening a door to inspect the tail is out of the question under normal circumstances.
As an example, at my current airline, we deice with both engines running, and (usually) well away from the gate. If and when required, a crewmember will inspect the wing, but opening a door to inspect the tail is out of the question under normal circumstances.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hazard a guess that our retired friend did not deice very often. The one time i deiced in LHR it was done at the gate, and it would have been possible to open the door/window and have a look. If I wanted to.
The last time I went to work was a four sector day and I deiced on three of them. Engines running. No way I can open doors or have time to enter the cabin to check the wings.
That is what a HOT is for.
The last time I went to work was a four sector day and I deiced on three of them. Engines running. No way I can open doors or have time to enter the cabin to check the wings.
That is what a HOT is for.
Yes, I am retired (how did you guess ?) However, I respectfully suggest you guys read the Boeing winter ops. procedures, the requirements of the FAA , CAA, EASA, and Transport Canada. So far as I can see they are not type specific.They all relate to the “clean” concept. Except, of course for frost under the wing tank surface due cold fuel.
Then go and read the accident reports of : AF 90
SAS 751,
China Eastern 5210
Arrow 1285
Air Ontario 1363
US 405
All very sobering and all relate to improper deicing procedures, and reflect on what might have happened to that flight, if the ice had not been seen by the cabin attendant as say, at night !
...and if the cabin crew could see out of a cabin window, why could’nt the captain take a look himself ?
Coffee finished !
You might learn something.
Then go and read the accident reports of : AF 90
SAS 751,
China Eastern 5210
Arrow 1285
Air Ontario 1363
US 405
All very sobering and all relate to improper deicing procedures, and reflect on what might have happened to that flight, if the ice had not been seen by the cabin attendant as say, at night !
...and if the cabin crew could see out of a cabin window, why could’nt the captain take a look himself ?
Coffee finished !
You might learn something.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody here is contradicting the clean wing concept, just the fact that pilot inspecting all surfaces post de-icing is just not something that can realistically be done in many situations.
HOT can be sometimes as short as 10 or 15 minutes, depending on the conditions. If you can tell me how it is possible for a pilot to inspect all de-iced surfaces after de/anti-icing has been completed and still depart within the HOT period, I would be more than happy to learn something new.
HOT can be sometimes as short as 10 or 15 minutes, depending on the conditions. If you can tell me how it is possible for a pilot to inspect all de-iced surfaces after de/anti-icing has been completed and still depart within the HOT period, I would be more than happy to learn something new.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the „pleasure“ once being advised by a colleague in the cabin from another airline and rated for a different type that we were not allowed to take off as we had cold soaked fuel frost on the wings, while already being cleared for takeoff. After a short chat with the Senior Cabin Crew and on her advise, we taxied back de iced, right at the runway of course and with engines running, and went on our way. After the flight we asked him into the flight deck and kindly explained that cold soaked fuel frost in certain limits (black lines on the wing) is actually allowed on this type.
Knowing a little can both be costly and ultimately dangerous.
Knowing a little can both be costly and ultimately dangerous.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport has a legal obligation to ensure de-icing contractors are familiar with both the rules and specifics for individual types, having said that, commercial pressures, boredom and being human means mistakes are made. but the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the aircraft is fit to fly is with the Captain.
Cabin crew are usually briefed in cold weather ops and in fact encouraged to look out of the windows, the wing inspection lights are not just ornaments.
Flight deck to ground ops and cabin communications should be sufficient to cover most scenarios, of course you cannot plan for them squirting guilds where they are not meant too. e.g 737 horizontal stabiliser tracks.
It is not practical for the Flight crew to physically inspect post de-icing, unless it was done on the ramp before boarding and there are no HOT issues, having said that it is again usually not practical as pax marching through dripping fluid and contaminating the interior and steps is a bigger problem.
De-icing with engines running, or one running is not uncommon is packs are off and the crew make an had about the blasting going on outside,
This event merely shows the system "works" and cabin crew suggestions should be encouraged, of course, we've all had the "know it all" pax in the cabin, "difficult decisions are the privilege of rank"
Cabin crew are usually briefed in cold weather ops and in fact encouraged to look out of the windows, the wing inspection lights are not just ornaments.
Flight deck to ground ops and cabin communications should be sufficient to cover most scenarios, of course you cannot plan for them squirting guilds where they are not meant too. e.g 737 horizontal stabiliser tracks.
It is not practical for the Flight crew to physically inspect post de-icing, unless it was done on the ramp before boarding and there are no HOT issues, having said that it is again usually not practical as pax marching through dripping fluid and contaminating the interior and steps is a bigger problem.
De-icing with engines running, or one running is not uncommon is packs are off and the crew make an had about the blasting going on outside,
This event merely shows the system "works" and cabin crew suggestions should be encouraged, of course, we've all had the "know it all" pax in the cabin, "difficult decisions are the privilege of rank"
Flying Clog ‘Anyway, it'll all slide off before V1, so she'll be right!’
If thats for real; … or even making an erroneous statement, which could mislead others, you should first reconsider other cultures, language, or humour in this forum.
The properties of deicing fluid affect the amount of fluid which remains on the wing.
A Boeing study many years ago (737 re T1 and T2 fluids), suggested that more than the assumed 6% of deicing fluid remained on the wing. However, there was a reassuring statement that the climb performance was not affected, but no proof given.
Following initial difficulties with T4 (dry-out, gel, refreezing), several manufacturers flight tested the residual effects of T4; significant amounts of fluid remained on the wing. I cannot recall if any aircraft had revised performance data for use after deicing, but some required special procedures and restricted configurations, trim settings.
‘… these new fluids were sub-misted for aerodynamic acceptance and holdover time testing, it became apparent that the differences among Type IV fluids were greater than those among Type II fluids. Experience with Type IV fluids also showed that some fluids had unacceptable dryout characteristics.’
We cannot judge how a residual mix of fluid and contaminant will behave during takeoff; see refs below re dilution. A worst case is partial melting and refreezing of the lower levels of contaminant on a cold wing - solid ice.
Flow off characteristics Fig 4, 25% pass/fail boundary.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...o_08/deice.pdf
Fluid characteristics, page 72 -
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3404.pdf
Info;
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...7_article3.pdf
If thats for real; … or even making an erroneous statement, which could mislead others, you should first reconsider other cultures, language, or humour in this forum.
The properties of deicing fluid affect the amount of fluid which remains on the wing.
A Boeing study many years ago (737 re T1 and T2 fluids), suggested that more than the assumed 6% of deicing fluid remained on the wing. However, there was a reassuring statement that the climb performance was not affected, but no proof given.
Following initial difficulties with T4 (dry-out, gel, refreezing), several manufacturers flight tested the residual effects of T4; significant amounts of fluid remained on the wing. I cannot recall if any aircraft had revised performance data for use after deicing, but some required special procedures and restricted configurations, trim settings.
‘… these new fluids were sub-misted for aerodynamic acceptance and holdover time testing, it became apparent that the differences among Type IV fluids were greater than those among Type II fluids. Experience with Type IV fluids also showed that some fluids had unacceptable dryout characteristics.’
We cannot judge how a residual mix of fluid and contaminant will behave during takeoff; see refs below re dilution. A worst case is partial melting and refreezing of the lower levels of contaminant on a cold wing - solid ice.
Flow off characteristics Fig 4, 25% pass/fail boundary.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...o_08/deice.pdf
Fluid characteristics, page 72 -
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3404.pdf
Info;
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...7_article3.pdf
The bottom line is the deice crew told the captain that the aircraft wing was clean, when in fact it had a foot of snow on it. The FA action prevented an accident but she was the final link in the safety chain.
This in IMO, is criminal negligence on the part of the deice lead
This in IMO, is criminal negligence on the part of the deice lead
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Trondheim
Age: 37
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safetypee
Without having de-iced in the US, it seems like Type IV fluid is more common there than Type II. I don't have any experience with Type IV, but from reading up on it, it does provide a longer HOT. In Norway, where I do 99% + of my flying, the only types used are I and II, and I've never had any issue with HOT. Is the reason it's used longer taxi times from the de-ice pad to the runway compared to other places?
Without having de-iced in the US, it seems like Type IV fluid is more common there than Type II. I don't have any experience with Type IV, but from reading up on it, it does provide a longer HOT. In Norway, where I do 99% + of my flying, the only types used are I and II, and I've never had any issue with HOT. Is the reason it's used longer taxi times from the de-ice pad to the runway compared to other places?
There have been some really awful avoidable crashes owing to airframe icing.
The manuals talk about the importance of a proper inspection of the aircraft's surfaces, yet in my experience there were never steps provided on the ramp during icing conditions, with which to check the upper wing surfaces. One had to do a visual check from an aircraft doorway, or ask to go up the refueller's steps, (which were never quite high enough to reach the upper wing surface).
I never got a satisfactory answer about whether the de-ice crews understood that, while the tops of the wings must be clear, the bottom of the THS is the important surface to be sprayed since it operates "upside down".
OMA specifies the need for a pre-take-off contamination check, Opening the locked cockpit door to check through the cabin windows with the engines running has security risks. DV windows, wing lights, and the difficulty of checking wings at night or in LVPs is not very satisfactory.
So we are left with the poor sod(s) freezing his nuts off on the de-icing rig; on his 12th aircraft on the ramp or through the de-icing bay in steadily worsening conditions. Is he able to give a truly objective report, and did he do all the wings, or did he miss one out? Is his eyesight annually tested?
The manuals talk about the importance of a proper inspection of the aircraft's surfaces, yet in my experience there were never steps provided on the ramp during icing conditions, with which to check the upper wing surfaces. One had to do a visual check from an aircraft doorway, or ask to go up the refueller's steps, (which were never quite high enough to reach the upper wing surface).
I never got a satisfactory answer about whether the de-ice crews understood that, while the tops of the wings must be clear, the bottom of the THS is the important surface to be sprayed since it operates "upside down".
OMA specifies the need for a pre-take-off contamination check, Opening the locked cockpit door to check through the cabin windows with the engines running has security risks. DV windows, wing lights, and the difficulty of checking wings at night or in LVPs is not very satisfactory.
So we are left with the poor sod(s) freezing his nuts off on the de-icing rig; on his 12th aircraft on the ramp or through the de-icing bay in steadily worsening conditions. Is he able to give a truly objective report, and did he do all the wings, or did he miss one out? Is his eyesight annually tested?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ortac
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in Europe as I imagine the USA most deicing operations are carried out by third party handling agents, most employees are payed just above the minimum wage, many been furloughed for months, many with no job security, high turnover of staff, handling agents making a big loss due covid. I’m not questioning their training but maybe the post deicing check should be carried out by engineers in these current times or at least the regulators need to inspect the handling agents ability to de-ice.