RBF,
May we know the name of the airine?

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.

That was some ten years ago. It was a major US carrier, perhaps United. It's competitors were ahead and behind with similar snow accumulations.

Thank you.
That's a worry.

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. When there is a misunderstanding … or there is reason to provide more specific justification for what has been included in the rules, this particular regulator likes relying on Advisory Circulars, Notices, Bulletins, etc. to effectively accomplish what they fear would be something that they had not intended – primarily because they have a process that takes decades to effectively overhaul an existing regulation. This reminds me of the race car driver who loses control of his race car but continues in the race by bouncing off the walls and other cars in the race … and he continues because he believes no one can condemn him for “giving up” and leaving the race … no one can condemn him for not wanting to win the race … and no one can condemn him for forgetting to put a friggin steering wheel in his race car … because they will never know – unless he stops!

One does not write the rules for idiots

That's the job of the state's governing process to write laws not rules.

Not going to get into the discussion of Type IV fluid failure, but you should be aware that Type IV fluid is a non-Newtonian fluid, meaning that the viscosity decreases as shear stress is applied. 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.

muuah. i think the FAA , CAA or the german LBA are rigid enough !

the regulations are in my opinion here perfectly written and match real life, you will find many more regulations tah are more stupid .

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.

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? :)

Not incorrect. I did predicate my post with the disclaimer that I wasn't going to discuss fluid failure. By the description of the scenario, the type IV had failed, however, I wasn't there to judge it. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word contamination, as that might have thrown you off. However, prior to failure, in a snowfall scenario, the fluid does absorb contamination. That is what it is designed to do. Prior to fluid failure, the contamination will not prevent the fluid from performing properly. That performance involves shearing off, and taking any contamination that it had absorbed with it.

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

Captain of that flight has transfered to FO position. 01.06.12

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.

Very good news indeed.

Glad to hear that action has been taken. As has been said, hopefully it will show that taking risks like that does not go unpunished.

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?