Doves
If you intend to use quotes, then please use the quote function If you have questions by all means use a question mark If you have already concluded something, then don't atempt to intermix your opinion being supported by somebody elses quote. I really can't sort out which is which in your post above |
Originally Posted by Doves
It's really moving the ardor with which you defend the actions of the crew of Air Florida Flight 90 which crashed into the Potomac January 13, 1982.
Nevertheless you will agree with me that the following illegalities were committed:
Originally Posted by Doves
They did not insert Engine Anti-ice after start, and did perform the periodic engine run up.
Originally Posted by Doves
They tried invain to push back (the tug connected) through the use of reverse (thus raising clouds of snow and slush).
“Witnesses estimated that both engines were operated in reverse thrust for a period of 30 to 90 seconds. During this time, several Air Florida and American Airlines personnel observed snow and/or slush being blown toward the front of the aircraft. One witness stated that he saw water swirling at the base of the left (No. 1) engine inlet. Several Air Florida personnel stated that they saw an area of snow on the ground melted around the left engine for a radius ranging, from 6 to 15 feet. No one observed a similar melted area under the right (No. 2) engine. Note that there is no indication of “raising clouds of snow and slush” as you’ve indicated.
Originally Posted by Doves
They knew they had snow on the wings, so that they approached the preceding DC9, in the vain hope that their jet engines would swept it away.
1. (1546:21) “Tell you what, my windshield will be deiced' don't know about my wing” 2. (1551:54) “Don't do that Apple, I need to get the other wing done ((sound of laughter)).” In the first example, if you are at all familiar with the taxi process from the ramp to what was then Runway 36 (now Runway 1) you know it involves crossing runway 3 (now runway 4). In that the accident airplane was following behind a New York Air DC-9, when that DC-9 added power to cross that runway, given where the DC-9 engines are mounted and the fact that even more engine thrust would be needed to climb the slight incline to cross the runway than would be needed to begin taxiing again, it is likely that the thrust encountered by the accident airplane was noticeably more, and that thrust was commented on by the Captain who could just as easily – and very likely – meant it as a satirical comment – just as you might say – “just my lucky day” when you find out from your operations that the airplane you’re changing to when at JFK is on the other side of the airport! In the second example, and again, as you may already know, the waiting area between runway 3 and runway 36 is a larger area where airplanes can wait without blocking access to the entrance to runway 36, and most airplanes park in that space angled away from blowing exhaust directly on the airplane behind them in line. However, when an airplane begins to move – either to move up to the next space in that waiting area or to taxi onto the runway, additional thrust is used, and through the turn, blows all that additional exhaust directly on the airplane waiting in that area. Additionally, as the end of that comment there are the words “sound of laughter,” indicating that the flight crew was commenting in a jocular (or frivolous) manner – indicating to many readers that the flight crew was not very serious about their jobs – I’ll call your attention, once again, to the fact that even the committee who listened intently, very likely for hours, still could not determine exactly what was recorded on the CVR, and that is why those words are contained in those parentheses.
Originally Posted by Doves
They started the take off run 50 minutes after the de-icing.
Originally Posted by Doves
They accepted a very little separation with the landing traffic despite the poor visibility and the snow storm. (If they had to abort the takeoff? If the others were to go around?)
Originally Posted by Doves
They underestimated the irregularity of the engines parameters for takeoff
Originally Posted by Doves
They had found that the acceleration was so poor that they had reached 120 knots after 45 seconds.
Originally Posted by Doves
They began to rotate as per “the soft field” (I began to hear such an expression only since I'm instructing in general aviation) and then starting the rotation well before Vr.
Originally Posted by Doves
I'm sorry but I have to tell you that History has been written.
|
I will reply later point by point.
But, what about: Let’s shout together: “HOW CAN YOU KNOW IF ANY KIND OF SNOW IS ‘ADHERING’ TO THE SURFACES OF YOUR AIRPLANE, AND NO ICE IS BENEATH IT, IF YOU DON'T REMOVE IT?” “No clean aircraft? No Fly!” |
Let’s shout together: “HOW CAN YOU KNOW IF ANY KIND OF SNOW IS ‘ADHERING’ TO THE SURFACES OF YOUR AIRPLANE, AND NO ICE IS BENEATH IT, IF YOU DON'T REMOVE IT?” “No clean aircraft? No Fly!” FAA 8900.1 Volume 3, Chapter 27, Section 2 pertains to the process by which ground de-icing programs are approved for air carriers under parts 121, 125, and 135. For scheduled air carriers, by regulatory requirement of FAR 121.629, a manner by which the operator can determine whether or not contamination is "adhering" to the wing must be described in detail. All flight crew members and de-icing technicians and vendors must be trained on the recognition and removal of ice and other contamination on the critical aircraft surfaces. If an air carrier lacks these procedures they cannot operate in ground icing conditions. The common practice is a close visual inspection of areas suspected of having contamination and often a tactile inspection to determine whether or not de-icing is required and after the de-icing process to determine that the contamination has been adequately removed. In short, in the US all snow must be removed from the wing either by mechanical means (guys with brooms), by putting the aircraft in s heated hangar and letting the snow melt off, or if the temperature is such that ice will not accrue - using heated water to remove the snow. Of course using the glycol/water mixture is also an option though airlines try to avoid it due to the cost. |
I guess there is not much scope to experience deicing methods in Hawaii but your hot water choice conjours images of the FO climbing out of the overwing exit with a jug of boiling water from the galley.:E
|
Island-Flyer Welcome on board. I envy you for the place where you are living. I remember that all American pilots who flew with me for an airline in the Gulf, in the late 90's, often said that they would be retiring in Honolulu. It never snows there does it!? Thank you for copying / pasting the FAA rules (I’m supposed to know them because I have an ATP), about aircraft de-icing.
The common practice is a close visual inspection of areas suspected of having contamination and often a tactile inspection to determine whether or not de-icing is required and after the de-icing process to determine that the contamination has been adequately removed. Whether a pilot has 20,000 hours or 2000 hours they can both make critical mistakes. At my company we call "experience" "tribal knowledge" and actively discourage it. |
Originally Posted by Doves
But, what about:
Let’s shout together: “HOW CAN YOU KNOW IF ANY KIND OF SNOW IS ‘ADHERING’ TO THE SURFACES OF YOUR AIRPLANE, AND NO ICE IS BENEATH IT, IF YOU DON'T REMOVE IT?” “No clean aircraft? No Fly!” Which is at the root of this thread. |
to AirRabbit
what do you actually mean:
" Is that acceptable to the myriad of operations that take place daily in locations where snow appears during winter operations?" are you trying to suggest, that because it snows so often and so many airplanes operate in winter conditions, a clean wing concept is not acceptable? It might even cost money and maybe cause delays? By all respect to your ex mil, ex airline, now evaluation what ever that means -background and even claiming to have an ATPL, you should know better. There is no option for clean wing! How farking difficult is that to understand? Why do all evaluators, midwifes, clerks, PPLs, wanna be pros etc try to prove it different? A lot of lives have been lost because persons thought a clean wing concept is not necessary. A lot of lifes will be lost in future, because still some idiots dont learn from mistakes and try to know it better. make it clean and keep it clean |
"make it clean and keep it clean"
Nothing more needs to be said. delay? Extra cost? So damned what. The flight before got airborne, as did the one after eh? Simple maths therefore suggests a one in three chance of not making it. Not particularly good odds are they? Really, there is enough experience and worse, enough buried dead, to make the point perfectly clear. The regulations stipulate it. The SOPs stipulate it. Common sense stipulates it. Even the 'Bus computers can't change the basic physics of flight. Contamination = no go. |
Mr. warmkiter and Mr. rabski:
Thanks for the simplistic response (and that is NOT an insult) – with which, by the way, I completely agree! As I said earlier, from your lips to the hearts and minds of aviators everywhere! It certainly isn’t me that you have to convince ... it’s the airline owners/operators and the various regulators who have to deal with those owners/operators. |
AirRabbit
Code:
Nevertheless you will agree with me that the following illegalities were committed: Code:
- They did not insert Engine Anti-ice after start, and did not perform the periodic engine run up. Code:
They tried invain to push back (the tug connected) through the use of reverse (thus raising clouds of snow and slush). Code:
They knew they had snow on the wings, so that they approached the preceding DC9, in the vain hope that their jet engines would swept it away. Code:
They started the take off run 50 minutes after the de-icing. Code:
They accepted a very little separation with the landing traffic despite the poor visibility and the snow storm. (If they had to abort the takeoff? If the others were to go around?) Code:
They underestimated the irregularity of the engines parameters for takeoff Code:
They had found that the acceleration was so poor that they had reached 120 knots after 45 seconds. Code:
They began to rotate as per “the soft field” (I began to hear such an expression only since I'm instructing in general aviation) and then starting the rotation well before Vr. Let’s shout together: “HOW CAN YOU KNOW IF ANY KIND OF SNOW IS ‘ADHERING’ TO THE SURFACES OF YOUR AIRPLANE, AND NO ICE IS BENEATH IT, IF YOU DON'T REMOVE IT?” “No clean aircraft? No Fly!” Fly Safe DOVE |
Originally Posted by rabski
The flight before got airborne, as did the one after eh? Simple maths therefore suggests a one in three chance of not making it.
Not particularly good odds are they? Really, there is enough experience and worse, enough buried dead, to make the point perfectly clear. The regulations stipulate it. The SOPs stipulate it. Common sense stipulates it. |
to AirRabbit
thats good news. one aviator less to be concerned about. :-)
I have to say that i havent met too many operators/airlines you have to convince, that the clean wing concept is the only way to do it. Its quite the opposite. In the SOPs its clearly written, that the aircraft must be operated with a clean wing only. No manufacturer or legislator would accept any deviation from this. Its us, the pilots who deviate from the SOPs and finally cause the accidents. We as pilots have to take care that every one of us understands the importance of the clean wing concept. Here comes the tricky part. As soon as some pilot starts to fool around and takes a chance not to de-ice or communicates to other pilots why it is not necessary to de-ice, the seed for the next accident is laid. The foolish comments like:"dry snow will be blown away" or "the snow is not "adhering" to the surface", are perfect examples of how the cancer of misinformation is passed on. That particular flight may get away with it, but somebody will take an example of it and he might not be as lucky. Thats why we, as the last line of defence, have to show zero tolerance to any deviation of the SOPs. If not us, then who? This by the way. this applies pretty much to all other SOPs too. Its the collective behaviour of a group of pilots within a company, which makes the safety culture. Deviation may work well once for a pilot with superior skills or just plain stupid luck, but for a group of pilots it will be deteriorating the level of safety. Flying is expensive, delays and de-icing cost money. Try an accident, that is even more expensive. |
AirRabbit wrote:
the reason that the airplane preceding the accident airplane and the airplane following the accident airplane did NOT crash is that they were merely exposed to the same snow fall experienced by the accident airplane – NEITHER of them were deiced with WATER – as WAS the accident airplane. |
"I’m not sure how many more times I’ll have to say this to get the point across ... the accident airplane DID NOT crash because of the accumulation of snow fall experienced between the gate and the takeoff. The aircraft crashed because it was deiced with hot water – that process specifically deposited water on the entire aircraft – fuselage, wings, engine inlets, everything. Where upon that water promptly froze – deforming the wings, and producing the effect that the B-737 had been known for doing – producing the same effect that almost crashed the B-737 departing from Oslo, Norway on that same day – producing an unexpected and uncontrollable pitch-up – to a point that was not recoverable – regardless of what control application was applied by the flight crew. This was not a “one-in-three” chance of snow fall exposure resulting in an accident - the reason that the airplane preceding the accident airplane and the airplane following the accident airplane did NOT crash is that they were merely exposed to the same snow fall experienced by the accident airplane – NEITHER of them were deiced with WATER – as WAS the accident airplane."
You can say it as many times as you like, but you will still be missing the basic point. It doesn't matter whether you have ben de-iced with standard fluids, hot water or Bishop's Finger mixed with Baileys, as a flyer, it's YOUR responsibility to ensure surfaces are clean before aiming at the blue bit. How bloody complicated is this FFS? Left seat? YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALL CLEAN. So, it wasn't proerly de-iced and it froze again. IME, nothing new there. FFS, it's really not that difficult is it? OK, somebody didn't de-ice properly. The de-icing mixture wasn't correct. The Lear Jet in front of me didn't blow the snow off the way I expected, etc. etc. Christ, despite my comments in another thread, I hope to hell I never get anyone with your attitudes in the RH seat when I'm flying. I want to live to retirement thank you. If that means spending some of my employers' hard earned on excessive de-icing, then I couldn't care in the slightest. Beats the hell of of the alternative... |
Mr. Doves:
I’m not going to go through the process of quoting your recent post ... so please forgive the fact that you may have to re-read your post to determine the specific points to which I’m addressing my comments ... but, I suspect you’ll probably be able to figure it out.... as I think you kindly provided “red” type for the relevant comments...
Originally Posted by Boeing Airplane Flight Manual, B-737
The B-737 engine “anti-ice” switches send a signal to the engine anti-ice valves (plural) and to the main engine control. Each anti-ice valve is electrically controlled and pressure actuated.
Originally Posted by Accident Report, page 137
ENGINE ANTI-ICE VALVES FAIL IN THE CLOSED POSITION (AVOID ICING AREAS)
Originally Posted by Doves
When the use of reverse thrust proved unsuccessful in moving the aircraft / back, the engines were shut down with the reversers deployed.
Originally Posted by Doves
They underestimated the irregularity of the engines parameters for takeoff.
Originally Posted by Doves
They started the take off run 50 minutes after the de-icing.
Originally Posted by Doves
They began to rotate as per “the soft field” (I began to hear such an expression only since I'm instructing in general aviation) and then starting the rotation well before Vr.
If what you’re concerned about was the fact that the crew elected to depart with some accumulation of snow on the wings – I’ll agree that is just what they did. Although, being able to see the wings from the cockpit is not an easy thing to do in a B-737 – where only about the outboard 10 -12 feet are typically observable from the cockpit. If you want to criticize them for taking off with whatever snow accumulated during their taxi – you would be correct and I won’t argue ... but the same thing would have to be said for Apple 58 and Six Eight Gulf. Leaving the same question ... why would only one of those three aircraft not be able to fly? And clearly, it was the inadequate and insidious deicing process this one airplane experienced – and had nothing to do with the snow that accumulated.
Originally Posted by rabski
You can say it as many times as you like, but you will still be missing the basic point.
It doesn't matter whether you have ben de-iced with standard fluids, hot water or Bishop's Finger mixed with Baileys, as a flyer, it's YOUR responsibility to ensure surfaces are clean before aiming at the blue bit. How bloody complicated is this FFS? To the contrary ... I'm not missing any point. I know what happened and why. I fear it is you who fail to understand what happened. I am disappointed in that you absolutely refuse to understand the thought processes that were routine some 30 years ago – we used to think that asbestos was a good insulator – we used to think that cigarette smoking was a pleasant past-time – we used to think that 8 miles-per-gallon was reasonable mileage for a car – we used to think it appropriate for parents to send their kids to the park to play all by themselves – we used to think that taking off with a small amount of snow accumulation on a wing that had been recently deiced was OK (and there are some who STILL think that way – apparently including the various regulatory authorities). If you too wish to criticize that flight crew for taking off with some accumulation of snow on the wing ... be my guest. They did that. However, as I’ve been saying all along ... THAT was not the reason they crashed! |
the thought processes that were routine some 30 years ago . . . . we used to think that taking off with a small amount of snow accumulation on a wing that had been recently deiced was OK |
I still think it's appropriate to send children off to play by themselves I'm afraid, but then I often find myself apart from current thinking in some cirsumstances.
However, something like 30 years ago I was doing my PPL. With an instructor, God bless him, who told me in no uncertain terms more than once that it wasn't OK to go for it if there was so much as a squashed gnat on the wing, let alone some snow. He was qute right then and he still is now. Whichever way you look at it, the reason for the crash was contamination on the flying surfaces, and it's been the reason for a number of fatal incidents. It wasn't permitted or excusable then, and it isn't now. Enough lives have been lost to make this a point that never needs to be debated surely. |
AirRabbit Of course it would be somewhat foolish to completely dismiss your recommendation – but, at the same time, if the wing must be absolutely clear of any accumulation of snow (to see that there is absolutely no ice adhering) wouldn’t that effectively eliminate any takeoff during a snow shower? Is that acceptable to the myriad of operations that take place daily in locations where snow appears during winter operations? In any case, no matter how you're trying to parse it, if it's not a dry, feathering snow readily sliding off a cold-soaked wing but is accumulating on it instead, then it must be adhering somewhere...you certainly can't make a definitive determination that it isn't. If it has accumulated on the surface of de/anti-ice fluid, the fluid has failed. In either case, this "accumulation" of snow it doesn't meet the criteria "free of". It's contaminated. Period. some 30 years ago – we used to think that asbestos was a good insulator – we used to think that cigarette smoking was a pleasant past-time – we used to think that 8 miles-per-gallon was reasonable mileage for a car – we used to think it appropriate for parents to send their kids to the park to play all by themselves – we used to think that taking off with a small amount of snow accumulation on a wing that had been recently deiced was OK |
Island-Flyer Welcome on board. I envy you for the place where you are living. I remember that all American pilots who flew with me for an airline in the Gulf, in the late 90's, often said that they would be retiring in Honolulu. It never snows there does it!? Thank you for copying / pasting the FAA rules (I’m supposed to know them because I have an ATP), about aircraft de-icing. We often discuss how much ice is too much for take off. We determined that if there isn't enough room for at least six drinks in the cooler then we must de-ice. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.