Just the wings. The FO could easily do that. If the wings are clean, then trust is reasonable for the other areas.

Turbo-props also need de-icing. How do you, as crew, check the upper surface of a high-wing aircraft?

Anyone remember the saga of IB 6166 BOS-MAD A340 DEC 2, 2007. Several professional airline crews pointed out to the taxiing IB crew that in their opinion, the aircraft had contaminated wings that required deicing. Tower controllers politely pointed out several times that every other airplane in the takeoff queue had undergone deicing. But the crew dug in their heels and refused to reconsider. Did the crew ever have any repercussions from their potentially hazardous decision, or did the fact that no accident occurred make it moot?

Typically a "representative" surface. Often pop the spoilers, which would be painted a contrasting colour, and which would be visible from the pointy end.

Lake1952

As SLF, I would respectfully suggest that their decision was hazardous regardless of the outcome. They 'got lucky'.

I suspect that the flight crew in question never realised how fortunate they and their passengers were that day. Consequently, their successful takeoff from Boston would have served to reinforce their unsafe attitude to de-icing.

Certainly good CRM and all kudos to the cabin crew. But surely this should go without saying - at least in those airlines where all staff (ground or air) are respected for the job they do.
Certainly in my flying days I expressly said to the entire crew during the pre-flight brief that they were expected to bring any concerns (even those from pax) to my attention - without any fear at all of me being dismissive. This was particularly & specifically emphasised during ops where de-ice was expected / a possibility. It was part of my job & responsibilities. Don't all airline Captains do this still? If the upcoming professional flight crews don't have a similar, personal, policy then they should! Learn something from us old dinosaurs.
Also HOT can be extremely brief - especially so in freezing rain! It would be impossible as well as impractical for a pilot to visually check all flying surfaces. Leaning out of open doors to inspect a tail surface would also be personally very hazardous - not to mention alarming the pax! Daft & dangerous. And sooner or later someone would blow a chute......

John Marsh

Back to IB in Boston... wouldn't you think that after several other crews and the tower controllers politely pointed out that deicing was a good idea on a recorded frequency, the IB captain would have felt that he was "painted into a corner " and had no choice but to accede to the suggestions.

Which airplane type would this be being good to go with frost on the upper wing surface?
Any references from the manufacturer or Flt Ops Manual would be interesting.

Boeing 737NG. Widely available in the FCOM, however, separate approval by the relevant authority is needed.

Takeoff with light coatings of cold-soaked fuel frost on upper wing surfaces is allowable, provided
the following conditions are met:
• the frost on the upper surface is less than 1/16 inch (1.5 mm) in thickness
• the extent of the frost is similar on both wings
• the frost is on or between the black lines defining the allowable cold-soaked fuel frost area (see figure) with no ice or frost on the leading edges or control surfaces
• the ambient air temperature is above freezing (0°C, 32°F)
• there is no precipitation or visible moisture (rain, snow, drizzle or fog with less than 1 mile visibility, etc.)

I Ford,
Same on the 747.

Yep, the same paragraph is in the 737NG FCOM as well, in supplementary procedures as well. However, the above paragraph is in the normal procedures for those airplanes that have been approved for that operation.

It was developed by Boeing under considerable pressure, after the launch customer (TUI and Air Berlin) discovered that they could not use the 737NG at all on any operation to the canary islands and similar destinations, as they would develop cold soaked fuel frost on the wing which could persist for hours and would have required complete defueling and refueling with warm fuel. No de-icing equipment is available at those airports. I believe the same problem existed for north american operation to the caribbean.

Denti, not sure how old is your FCOM/AFM, but ours has been showing for at least couple of years now that OAT has to be 4C or more and fuel tank temperature -16C or more, in order for the relief to be valid.

The 320 also suffer from a cold spot on the wing. No go without deicing. Funny is, you can fly and land with this ice/frost, but not take off.
I belive there is pressure on Airbus to allow this ice in the same way Boeing does on the 737.

FlyingStone

Yes, terms and conditions apply. Above 4 degrees and no precipitation are two of them.

FlyingStone

Yes, it is a few years old, so thanks for that update on the conditions.

Was just showing that it is quite easy to mistake procedures for the aircraft one is rated on for those one is not rated on or has no experience with. On my current type it is a very clear clean wing rule (upper side, normal stuff lower side) and of course i do follow that.

Lake1952

I'd like to think so. Perhaps the 'doubling down' mindset came into play. Or face-saving. I know de-icing isn't cheap, but surely cost wouldn't be a factor? Concern about the delay is no excuse either. There is no excuse.

Although of course, in the Air Florida accident into the Potomac, a very big factor was the EAI being OFF and the take-off being attempted with very reduced thrust because of that!

'Make it Clean and Keep it Clean'

Keep in mind that this was a self proclaimed Ultra low cost airline that contracted with the lowest bottom feeding support companies for ground servicing. The company in question is used almost exclusively by low cost airlines. It’s employee turnover rate is weeks not months but you do get the lowest bid!

Sorry to interrupt, but AF 90 (Potomac) was not related to faulty deicing by airport workers. The issue was with the crew omitting engine anti-ice switch, that resulted in erroneous EPR reading (too high) due to ice-blocked P2 Pitot tubes.

Your comment is incorrect hoistop; faulty de-icing was indeed a contributing factor. Read the report.