Icing and De-Icing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icing and De-Icing
Happened to be in Msocow yesterday and left the aiport late in the evening.
At the time the OAT was -7 C with light snow.
Due to the above, aircraft (A320) required de-icing and we pushed back and stopped to allow this to happen. I had a good view over the wing from my seat.
The operator appeared to do a thorough job and it took 25 mins from 1st de-icing to lining up. On looking at the wing at the hold point it "appeared" to be covered in ice.
From my previous (numerous) experiences at different airports, this seemed most odd as I have not seen the de-icing fluid appear this way on the wing.
I have 2 questions:
1) Does the type of fluid now used appear to "set" on the wing ? and if so how do you tell if its fluid against it being ice ?
2) After the incindent many years back with the Air Florida 737, it used to be a requirement after de-icing for the pilot to come back and look at the wing prior to take-off. I had experiences of pilots with torches looking out the pax window and am not sure how effective this was but it may have helped. From the front seat, how do you tell if the de-icing has been sucessful (other than time before next one needed)
At the time the OAT was -7 C with light snow.
Due to the above, aircraft (A320) required de-icing and we pushed back and stopped to allow this to happen. I had a good view over the wing from my seat.
The operator appeared to do a thorough job and it took 25 mins from 1st de-icing to lining up. On looking at the wing at the hold point it "appeared" to be covered in ice.
From my previous (numerous) experiences at different airports, this seemed most odd as I have not seen the de-icing fluid appear this way on the wing.
I have 2 questions:
1) Does the type of fluid now used appear to "set" on the wing ? and if so how do you tell if its fluid against it being ice ?
2) After the incindent many years back with the Air Florida 737, it used to be a requirement after de-icing for the pilot to come back and look at the wing prior to take-off. I had experiences of pilots with torches looking out the pax window and am not sure how effective this was but it may have helped. From the front seat, how do you tell if the de-icing has been sucessful (other than time before next one needed)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cabin Check
>>"2) After the incindent many years back with the Air Florida 737, it used to be a requirement after de-icing for the pilot to come back and look at the wing prior to take-off. I had experiences of pilots with torches looking out the pax window and am not sure how effective this was but it may have helped. From the front seat, how do you tell if the de-icing has been sucessful (other than time before next one needed)"
Mike Jenvy has given a thorough response. I would like to tag on with a follow up to your second question. The rules are quite extensive, probably to accommodate the many varieties of icing environments which might be encountered. In this light, the operation I am with developed a flow diagram.
The post-deicing section shows that a cockpit check (a check of representative aircraft surfaces which are visible from the cockpit) is required prior to every takeoff.
The cockpit check is not sufficient when the holdover time has expired. The holdover time varies depending on the type of deicing fluid used, as well as the type of icing environment the aircraft is being exposed to. In this case a cabin check is required. The cabin check is accomplished from the "best vantage point(s)" in the cabin. Normally the pilot would look at the leading and trailing edges, because that is where evidence of fluid failure will present itself first. The engine inlets would also be checked. We have wing illumination lights that help in this visual inspection. The flashlight/torch is helpful in checking the mid section of the wing.
The takeoff roll must commence within a specified time after accomplishing either the cockpit or the cabin check.
The fluid will remain on the wing until a certain speed during the takeoff roll (depends on the type of fluid). All fluids should be shed by the time the jet lifts off.
Mike Jenvy has given a thorough response. I would like to tag on with a follow up to your second question. The rules are quite extensive, probably to accommodate the many varieties of icing environments which might be encountered. In this light, the operation I am with developed a flow diagram.
The post-deicing section shows that a cockpit check (a check of representative aircraft surfaces which are visible from the cockpit) is required prior to every takeoff.
The cockpit check is not sufficient when the holdover time has expired. The holdover time varies depending on the type of deicing fluid used, as well as the type of icing environment the aircraft is being exposed to. In this case a cabin check is required. The cabin check is accomplished from the "best vantage point(s)" in the cabin. Normally the pilot would look at the leading and trailing edges, because that is where evidence of fluid failure will present itself first. The engine inlets would also be checked. We have wing illumination lights that help in this visual inspection. The flashlight/torch is helpful in checking the mid section of the wing.
The takeoff roll must commence within a specified time after accomplishing either the cockpit or the cabin check.
The fluid will remain on the wing until a certain speed during the takeoff roll (depends on the type of fluid). All fluids should be shed by the time the jet lifts off.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew on an EZY 737 in May last year that needed de-icing after a particularly unseasonal frost. The de-icing fluid on top of the wing looked sticky and gooky to me. On the take off roll it slowly spread backwards until it reached the trailing edge, and dripped off into the airflow. Interestingly it was still glooping off the fairings and the wingtip lightning conductors by the time we approached Bristol some fifty minutes later.
An excellent link provided by Mike J. The AEA de-icing regs are the 'bible' for most GHA's, and if they can comply with those regs then they will pass the de-ice audits carried out by the major airlines and AEA.
Without doubt the monitoring and auditing of de-icing training and procedures has moved on a long way in the last 8-10 years, and the old Fliteliners are no longer acceptable to most operators. Modern de-icing vehicles, rigs and fluids offer a much improved service over the older ways.
Having said that I used to be quite surprised at some crew who would decline de-icing unless it was really severe. Usually the same airline it has to be said
Without doubt the monitoring and auditing of de-icing training and procedures has moved on a long way in the last 8-10 years, and the old Fliteliners are no longer acceptable to most operators. Modern de-icing vehicles, rigs and fluids offer a much improved service over the older ways.
Having said that I used to be quite surprised at some crew who would decline de-icing unless it was really severe. Usually the same airline it has to be said
Wascally Welsh Wabbit
Join Date: May 2002
Location: a bar somewhere
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent link indeed.
Have issued contents to all relevant staff and hope that they read it.
Can't be too careful with icing...after all, if it's got ice on it..it won't fly...simple as that
Rabbs
Have issued contents to all relevant staff and hope that they read it.
Can't be too careful with icing...after all, if it's got ice on it..it won't fly...simple as that
Rabbs
Many recent de-icing fluid related incidents relate to incorrect application or inappropriate use of the fluid. Thus it is good to see AEA reissuing their De-icing guide with due ‘cautions’, and the new Training Manual, something that has been long overdue in the industry and is still a mystery as to why the European regulatory authorities did not take the responsibility for such a document (the FAA did).
There is an entry in the Training Guide that may be ambiguous, where the second application of a two-stage procedure calls for the covering of all existing fluid. It is my understanding that all fluid from the first stage must be washed off first, as it could contain contaminants; thus, it is the ‘wet’ surface that has to be covered with the anti-icing layer. The problem is that the new fluid applied at stage two may stick to the residual stage one fluid and form a very thick layer that is both unnecessary for anti-icing, may not provide the advertised HOT due to embedded contaminants, and may cause subsequent dry out or gel problems (and deposits a lot of fluid on runway when it comes off). Similarly, if the new thicker type 2 and 4 fluids are applied too thickly, more than 1 litre/square meter, then similar problems arise.
The theory is that approx 80% of the applied fluid will shear off the aircraft during the take-off run (based on a 737), but if there is excess fluid then even after 80% has sheared off there is still ‘a lot’ left on the surface. This fluid can seep into gaps and crevices, dry out, and re gel in wet conditions. Some thickeners in de-icing fluid can absorb up to 10 times their own volume of water, which can then freeze.
Problems have also occurred with anti frosting coatings; if the fluid has been left on the structure overnight it should be cleaned off as it may have started to gel ( reverserunlocked - sticky and gooey); never recoat an anti frosting layer for the reasons above.
Follow skyrabbit’s advise, never takeoff with a contaminated aircraft. Also, remember that the process of de/anti-icing replaces a contaminant of unknown aerodynamic qualities with another contaminant with qualities that we think we know something about, but recent incidents suggest that we still have much to learn.
There is an entry in the Training Guide that may be ambiguous, where the second application of a two-stage procedure calls for the covering of all existing fluid. It is my understanding that all fluid from the first stage must be washed off first, as it could contain contaminants; thus, it is the ‘wet’ surface that has to be covered with the anti-icing layer. The problem is that the new fluid applied at stage two may stick to the residual stage one fluid and form a very thick layer that is both unnecessary for anti-icing, may not provide the advertised HOT due to embedded contaminants, and may cause subsequent dry out or gel problems (and deposits a lot of fluid on runway when it comes off). Similarly, if the new thicker type 2 and 4 fluids are applied too thickly, more than 1 litre/square meter, then similar problems arise.
The theory is that approx 80% of the applied fluid will shear off the aircraft during the take-off run (based on a 737), but if there is excess fluid then even after 80% has sheared off there is still ‘a lot’ left on the surface. This fluid can seep into gaps and crevices, dry out, and re gel in wet conditions. Some thickeners in de-icing fluid can absorb up to 10 times their own volume of water, which can then freeze.
Problems have also occurred with anti frosting coatings; if the fluid has been left on the structure overnight it should be cleaned off as it may have started to gel ( reverserunlocked - sticky and gooey); never recoat an anti frosting layer for the reasons above.
Follow skyrabbit’s advise, never takeoff with a contaminated aircraft. Also, remember that the process of de/anti-icing replaces a contaminant of unknown aerodynamic qualities with another contaminant with qualities that we think we know something about, but recent incidents suggest that we still have much to learn.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question..
If you are flying to an airport and the ATIS report Freezing Rain or Freezing drizzle,you continue the approach or divert??
In which conditions (concerning ice ) is recommended to cancel the approach or delay it if you have fuel to .?
In which conditions (concerning ice ) is recommended to cancel the approach or delay it if you have fuel to .?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please do not feel content to rely on the audit. The GHAs that I and some of me colleagues deal with perform this critical functions often below par. GHA staff are continually hired and fired and obtaining levels of competance and conformance is very difficult. The USA in my experience is one of the first to fail audits and to have staff that have little or no training, one has only to observe their security staff performance levels and expertise.
HZ123 I agree that the audit is but one part of the checks in place to try to ensure that the standards do not fall below acceptable levels.
It is quite surprising how varied the audits are by airlines. Some follow the very thorough procedure as listed in the AEA documentation, others simply arrive and do little more than ask 'is everything Ok?'
It is quite surprising how varied the audits are by airlines. Some follow the very thorough procedure as listed in the AEA documentation, others simply arrive and do little more than ask 'is everything Ok?'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sometimes even home...
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello!
All over CIS countries (formet Soviet Union) the anti-icing fluid used is commonly called "Arctica".
I do not know if it is an actual name or just a nick name for it.
It is not a standard Type IV fluid,but something similar.
It is indeed extreamly sticky.
You can find it on you aircraft after hours of flight.
Also, when de-icing with Arctica, be extreamly careful not to get it on your windshield. When windshield heat is selected on and the fluid is heated, it becomes impossible to see through it. Even, when very small amount is present.
I know an incident where windshield heat was selected on during line up checks and while accelerating on runway, crew's view got completely blocked. So they had to aboart.
Arctica works,but it is a bit different from standard western stuff.
Happy New Year and Happy Landings!
All over CIS countries (formet Soviet Union) the anti-icing fluid used is commonly called "Arctica".
I do not know if it is an actual name or just a nick name for it.
It is not a standard Type IV fluid,but something similar.
It is indeed extreamly sticky.
You can find it on you aircraft after hours of flight.
Also, when de-icing with Arctica, be extreamly careful not to get it on your windshield. When windshield heat is selected on and the fluid is heated, it becomes impossible to see through it. Even, when very small amount is present.
I know an incident where windshield heat was selected on during line up checks and while accelerating on runway, crew's view got completely blocked. So they had to aboart.
Arctica works,but it is a bit different from standard western stuff.
Happy New Year and Happy Landings!
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fluid is very sticky when the aircraft is still on ground, but its viscosity changes as airspeed increases and air presure changes around the wing during take-off. It becomes less sticky and will run quite smoothly off the wing. Most companies have fixed performance penalties (increased V-speeds etc) for the diferent types of fluids.
The problem is, as someone's already mentioned here, that the "stickiest" fluids, like type IV, can dry out and later soak up a lot of water before it freezes up. I believe an Alitalia MD80 experienced "stuck tailplane" some years back (due to type IV fluid blocking tailplane movement), which promped the companies to re-evaluate their procedures for checking for residue fluid at reguar intervals...
The problem is, as someone's already mentioned here, that the "stickiest" fluids, like type IV, can dry out and later soak up a lot of water before it freezes up. I believe an Alitalia MD80 experienced "stuck tailplane" some years back (due to type IV fluid blocking tailplane movement), which promped the companies to re-evaluate their procedures for checking for residue fluid at reguar intervals...
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR-OPS 1 Amendment 8 (dated 01/01/2005) now has a 6-page update designed to tie up the loose ends and "grey areas" associated with de-icing, particularly post-application inspections, something that the regulators clearly felt was lacking up until now...
PHX
PHX
phoenix son, any chance of a link to an electronic copy; or is the amendment the same as the adopted NPA OPS 36?
I wonder if this document will also tidy up several other problems; i.e.
who certificates (regulatory sense) the fluids,
who tests them on aircraft from aerodynamic acceptability,
who certificates (regulatory sense) the procedures for fluid use,
These all seen to be ‘grey areas’ that the operator has to fill, but many are ill equipped to do so.
I wonder if this document will also tidy up several other problems; i.e.
who certificates (regulatory sense) the fluids,
who tests them on aircraft from aerodynamic acceptability,
who certificates (regulatory sense) the procedures for fluid use,
These all seen to be ‘grey areas’ that the operator has to fill, but many are ill equipped to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safetypee raises a number of valid issues. With regard to points 1 and 3, these areas are covered in the US and Canada by the FAA and Transport Canada, however, within Europe they still do not appear to have been addressed by the regulatory authorities. The basic procedures are available from the AEA, fluid specifications from the SAE and appropriate test houses (certify fluids meet the aerodynamic, holdover and materials compatibility requirements of the appropriate specification) have previously been approved by the FAA and TC. However, until points 1 and 2 are addressed within Europe and the loop effectively closed, misunderstandings will continue to occur as to whether a specific fluid has, or has not, been certified for use on a particular aircraft type.
As an example, you may wish to check the Maintenance Manual of the aircraft you operate, in order to establish whether the fluid mentioned earlier in this thread has been certified by the aircraft manufacturer.
With regard to point 2, it would be the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer to establish whether a fluid is ‘aerodynamically’ acceptable, prior to use on a particular aircraft type.
Apologies, last sentence in the first paragraph of the above should have read,
"However, until points 1 and 3 are addressed within Europe and the loop effectively closed, misunderstandings will continue to occur as to whether a specific fluid has, or has not, been certified for use on a particular aircraft type."
As an example, you may wish to check the Maintenance Manual of the aircraft you operate, in order to establish whether the fluid mentioned earlier in this thread has been certified by the aircraft manufacturer.
With regard to point 2, it would be the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer to establish whether a fluid is ‘aerodynamically’ acceptable, prior to use on a particular aircraft type.
Apologies, last sentence in the first paragraph of the above should have read,
"However, until points 1 and 3 are addressed within Europe and the loop effectively closed, misunderstandings will continue to occur as to whether a specific fluid has, or has not, been certified for use on a particular aircraft type."
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safetypee,
Yes, NPA OPS 36 is the same document as Amendment 8, word for word.
Icebore,
Regarding point 2, whilst I can't comment regarding individual aircraft types, I would say that only a couple of years ago Type IV (i.e. very thick, gel-like fluid) was widely used, this now seems not to be the case, due to a number of "issues" where fluid settled in aerodynamically "quiet" areas with the obvious safety implications. Certainly from my experiences this winter, one of the main UK De-Icing providers is solely using Type II Plus fluid,
PHX
Yes, NPA OPS 36 is the same document as Amendment 8, word for word.
Icebore,
Regarding point 2, whilst I can't comment regarding individual aircraft types, I would say that only a couple of years ago Type IV (i.e. very thick, gel-like fluid) was widely used, this now seems not to be the case, due to a number of "issues" where fluid settled in aerodynamically "quiet" areas with the obvious safety implications. Certainly from my experiences this winter, one of the main UK De-Icing providers is solely using Type II Plus fluid,
PHX
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern-Europe
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering of de-icing, one question arised in my mind when I was at the airport recently. I noticed the departure of one MD-80 which took Type IV fluid de-icing prior to departure but only to the wings and stabilisers. The captain didn't seem to care to wash the top of fuselage even there was snow. It was also constantly snowing at the time so the amount of snow incresed all the time during taxi.
I know that aircrafts which have aft/tail mounted engines are very sensitive with this snow issue as during the take-off run all this snow might get ingested to engine causing a flame-out or in worst case dual flame out of engines just after V1.
At the time all other aircrafts (A320s, B737s, Turboprops) took de-icing and complete fuselage was treated as well so it was quite obvious that this particular MD-80 should have been treated similary.
My question is how common it is trying to save some money and time by deciding not to take de-icing? I know that a couple of times ATC has not issued take-off clearance as they have considered that the aircraft is not in flying condition. Sometimes also dispatchers/loadmasters have refused to send the aircraft if captain has decided not to take de-icing even they obviously should. How common is this? Any similar experiences?
Best Regards,
AM
I know that aircrafts which have aft/tail mounted engines are very sensitive with this snow issue as during the take-off run all this snow might get ingested to engine causing a flame-out or in worst case dual flame out of engines just after V1.
At the time all other aircrafts (A320s, B737s, Turboprops) took de-icing and complete fuselage was treated as well so it was quite obvious that this particular MD-80 should have been treated similary.
My question is how common it is trying to save some money and time by deciding not to take de-icing? I know that a couple of times ATC has not issued take-off clearance as they have considered that the aircraft is not in flying condition. Sometimes also dispatchers/loadmasters have refused to send the aircraft if captain has decided not to take de-icing even they obviously should. How common is this? Any similar experiences?
Best Regards,
AM
The Captain will tell the handler which bits they wish to be de-iced, and it is interesting how this can vary from Captain to Captain.
I was always a tad concerned that the pilots of a European based CRJ operator at a well known regional apt in uk with a shortish runway, regularly refused de-icing when all the other night stoppers had deemed it necessary. On a couple of occassions my guys sprayed the a/c anyway because they could see that there was considerable coverage of frost/ice and they were unhappy to let it go. The airline was billed but argued about paying claiming that the handler had 'no right' to spray unless their crews authorised it.
It always struck me as a false economy as the cost of an accident is far higher.
I was always a tad concerned that the pilots of a European based CRJ operator at a well known regional apt in uk with a shortish runway, regularly refused de-icing when all the other night stoppers had deemed it necessary. On a couple of occassions my guys sprayed the a/c anyway because they could see that there was considerable coverage of frost/ice and they were unhappy to let it go. The airline was billed but argued about paying claiming that the handler had 'no right' to spray unless their crews authorised it.
It always struck me as a false economy as the cost of an accident is far higher.
Ice-bore re your comments:- “As an example, you may wish to check the Maintenance Manual of the aircraft you operate, in order to establish whether the fluid mentioned earlier in this thread has been certified by the aircraft manufacturer.”
One of my points is that fluids are not ‘certificated'; the regulatory authorities take no responsibility. Thus the maintenance manuals may only clear the fluid on the basis that it is non corrosive and does not damage seals, structure, etc. This was the case for several ‘British’ aircraft before aerodynamic tests were undertaken.
“With regard to point 2, it would be the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer to establish whether a fluid is ‘aerodynamically’ acceptable, prior to use on a particular aircraft type.”
It would be logical to assume this, but there are no regulations that compel them to act. However, several, if not most manufacturers have acted very responsibly after operational problems were identified. Those who conducted aerodynamic tests encountered a range of problems with varying severity, where warranted, changes or special procedures have been published.
Re the types of fluid; good or poor characteristics.
Beware renaming and type categorisation, as these can be misleading; remember that your service provider or airline management deal with sales representatives. An overview of the fluids can be gained by checking the technical specifications of several types; the fluid manufactures have these from SAE etc, and should (reluctantly) give you a copy. The type spec will give details of the viscosity and dry out characteristics that can be compared and then an optimum fluid chosen to suit specific aircraft.
Re cost.
Many ‘de-icers’ over spray the thicker (T2+ and T4) fluids, some less well trained operatives may believe that “more the better” which clearly is incorrect; see the AEA document. A rough guide is that the anti-icing layer should be approx 1 mm thick (1 ltr fluid per sq meter) thus, the crew by being aware of the area of the surface to be coated can estimate the fluid amount (wing, +tail, +fuselage area in sq m = ltr). Of course, for de-icing the aircraft use as much fluid as is required.
One of my points is that fluids are not ‘certificated'; the regulatory authorities take no responsibility. Thus the maintenance manuals may only clear the fluid on the basis that it is non corrosive and does not damage seals, structure, etc. This was the case for several ‘British’ aircraft before aerodynamic tests were undertaken.
“With regard to point 2, it would be the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer to establish whether a fluid is ‘aerodynamically’ acceptable, prior to use on a particular aircraft type.”
It would be logical to assume this, but there are no regulations that compel them to act. However, several, if not most manufacturers have acted very responsibly after operational problems were identified. Those who conducted aerodynamic tests encountered a range of problems with varying severity, where warranted, changes or special procedures have been published.
Re the types of fluid; good or poor characteristics.
Beware renaming and type categorisation, as these can be misleading; remember that your service provider or airline management deal with sales representatives. An overview of the fluids can be gained by checking the technical specifications of several types; the fluid manufactures have these from SAE etc, and should (reluctantly) give you a copy. The type spec will give details of the viscosity and dry out characteristics that can be compared and then an optimum fluid chosen to suit specific aircraft.
Re cost.
Many ‘de-icers’ over spray the thicker (T2+ and T4) fluids, some less well trained operatives may believe that “more the better” which clearly is incorrect; see the AEA document. A rough guide is that the anti-icing layer should be approx 1 mm thick (1 ltr fluid per sq meter) thus, the crew by being aware of the area of the surface to be coated can estimate the fluid amount (wing, +tail, +fuselage area in sq m = ltr). Of course, for de-icing the aircraft use as much fluid as is required.
The Air Florida tragedy happened around 1982.
Although this was years later, what motivated the FAA (maybe via NTSB...) to begin a very detailed study with very explicit training and totally new procedures was the Fokker 28 crash on takeoff at New York's La Guardia Airport. The plane has no slats, which results in the wing leading edges being hyper-sensitive to contamination. Even lots of dead insects can affect the airflow. And the crew had followed company procedures rather well, from what I remember.
Our procedures and new training which resulted should have been in use decades ago, but I suppose that not enough people died (US c0ckp1t crew and cargo don't count, i.e. a DC9-10 series). An F-28 also crashed in southern Canada (don't remember if de-iced or how long they waited before takeoff) not too many years ago which resulted in our FAA doing nothing about the danger. Other US airliners took off (727 takeoff at O'Hare with compressor stalls/surges on at least two engines) with crews not fully aware of the dangers, and there must have been numerous close-calls, as it was before microbursts were studied.
Although this was years later, what motivated the FAA (maybe via NTSB...) to begin a very detailed study with very explicit training and totally new procedures was the Fokker 28 crash on takeoff at New York's La Guardia Airport. The plane has no slats, which results in the wing leading edges being hyper-sensitive to contamination. Even lots of dead insects can affect the airflow. And the crew had followed company procedures rather well, from what I remember.
Our procedures and new training which resulted should have been in use decades ago, but I suppose that not enough people died (US c0ckp1t crew and cargo don't count, i.e. a DC9-10 series). An F-28 also crashed in southern Canada (don't remember if de-iced or how long they waited before takeoff) not too many years ago which resulted in our FAA doing nothing about the danger. Other US airliners took off (727 takeoff at O'Hare with compressor stalls/surges on at least two engines) with crews not fully aware of the dangers, and there must have been numerous close-calls, as it was before microbursts were studied.
Last edited by Captain Stable; 22nd Jan 2005 at 12:16.
Approaching Minimums...
Can open, worms all over the place!
As an LAE I have had many arguments with station managers trying to keep their station costs down.
Even some Captains refuse to acknowledge the fact that an aircraft wings need de-icing even when upper surfaces are obviously thick with frost or ice.
Some won't even get out of their seat to check for themselves, I have seen some just look out at a clear azure sky and say "why, the sun is shining, what do I need de-icing for".
My question is how common it is trying to save some money and time by deciding not to take de-icing?
As an LAE I have had many arguments with station managers trying to keep their station costs down.
Even some Captains refuse to acknowledge the fact that an aircraft wings need de-icing even when upper surfaces are obviously thick with frost or ice.
Some won't even get out of their seat to check for themselves, I have seen some just look out at a clear azure sky and say "why, the sun is shining, what do I need de-icing for".