Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NeverLand
Age: 24
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open reply to joehunt
quote:
I understand you mean controlled time of arrival. Please excuse me if I'm wrong. If I'm not I would have to think you believe there is a big scheme of things in which "we" have a plan in which i am a player. Nothing more far away from the reality. I have no links with iberia. i'm not even living in Spain -even though i am a national-.
The only reason why I am reading this post is because the title is quite gripping and it called my attention. I insist, as I said before in the post, IDo NOT WISH TO ENTER THE DEBATE ABOUT TAKING OFF WITH ICE as I have no saying there but in Spain there are a lot of lawsuits filled for what we call "difamacion" which is what happens when people say something about somebody else which is not true.
Now I don't know what is fact and what isn't and I'M BY NO MEANS SAYING THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DEBATE ABOUT IT just expressing my opinion and my concern about what could be counterproductive for all as seen by my own experience -and in this case especially for the original poster-.
Hopefully I'm wrong and I have also misunderstood some of the posts written after mine and not directly referred to me. Otherwise I will definitely understand why some people who may be aware of this forum do not post -after all in CRM we should be treated with respect and our opinions, for silly they may be should be given a fair chance, don't you think?
Yours,
A.
I understand you mean controlled time of arrival. Please excuse me if I'm wrong. If I'm not I would have to think you believe there is a big scheme of things in which "we" have a plan in which i am a player. Nothing more far away from the reality. I have no links with iberia. i'm not even living in Spain -even though i am a national-.
The only reason why I am reading this post is because the title is quite gripping and it called my attention. I insist, as I said before in the post, IDo NOT WISH TO ENTER THE DEBATE ABOUT TAKING OFF WITH ICE as I have no saying there but in Spain there are a lot of lawsuits filled for what we call "difamacion" which is what happens when people say something about somebody else which is not true.
Now I don't know what is fact and what isn't and I'M BY NO MEANS SAYING THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DEBATE ABOUT IT just expressing my opinion and my concern about what could be counterproductive for all as seen by my own experience -and in this case especially for the original poster-.
Hopefully I'm wrong and I have also misunderstood some of the posts written after mine and not directly referred to me. Otherwise I will definitely understand why some people who may be aware of this forum do not post -after all in CRM we should be treated with respect and our opinions, for silly they may be should be given a fair chance, don't you think?
Yours,
A.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has now split into three separate arguments:
1.- Aircraft must not fly with ice/snow/contamination. I think the overwhelming consensus is that for well know aerodinamic reasons this is a no brainer - deice. I would doubt that many pilots will dispute that, but see point 3 below. Even the Iberia crew in question might not argue against it too much in the cold light of day whatever the particular circunstances that led to that bad decision on the day.
2.- Is it a good idea to name and shame crews in Pprune with specific airline, flight number and date? I don't think it is because we do not have all the facts, the crews involved cannot defend themselves and provide their side of the argument. This is unfair plus a lynch mob can, and in this case has, develop. All the benefits of discussion and learning from the mistakes of others can be had without naming specific crews. There are other more appropiate channels for investigating incidents with inbuilt checks and balances that can be used. An old CRM tool "discuss what is right not who is right".
3.- National pride and culture diferences. While I blush reading some of the stuff that some of my compatriots write in order to defend the indefensible it is also true that the brits love climbing into their high horse. In some threads in PPrune you would think that in the UK they pee Channel no 5 while the rest of us make do with the smelly yellow stuff. The attitude of "do it our way and you will be civilized like we are" creates its equal response of " we are right regardless and will not accept any form of criticism". Two ugly sides of the same coin and a definite obstacle to learning from each other.
On a slightly different tack I am bemused by the post by a passenger that says that he supervises the deicing. Does he have the current ATIS, does he know the current temperature, does he know what type of fluid are they using, does he have the holdover tables, has he done a winter ops corse, etc, etc, etc. I wonder if he also goes with the engineers to check the oil, does he check the tyre pressures, does he come into the flight deck to see how I fly the ILS, where does it stop. I think that passengers and indeed anybody should be encoraged to speak up if they see contamination on the wing (or indeed on any other safety issue). If a pax told me about contamination on my A/c i would be very grateful, I will tell him so and I would investigate. It does however smacks of delusions of grandeur to think that he supervises the deicing and it also implies that there are lots of aicraft flying around unsafely, this is clearly not true.
1.- Aircraft must not fly with ice/snow/contamination. I think the overwhelming consensus is that for well know aerodinamic reasons this is a no brainer - deice. I would doubt that many pilots will dispute that, but see point 3 below. Even the Iberia crew in question might not argue against it too much in the cold light of day whatever the particular circunstances that led to that bad decision on the day.
2.- Is it a good idea to name and shame crews in Pprune with specific airline, flight number and date? I don't think it is because we do not have all the facts, the crews involved cannot defend themselves and provide their side of the argument. This is unfair plus a lynch mob can, and in this case has, develop. All the benefits of discussion and learning from the mistakes of others can be had without naming specific crews. There are other more appropiate channels for investigating incidents with inbuilt checks and balances that can be used. An old CRM tool "discuss what is right not who is right".
3.- National pride and culture diferences. While I blush reading some of the stuff that some of my compatriots write in order to defend the indefensible it is also true that the brits love climbing into their high horse. In some threads in PPrune you would think that in the UK they pee Channel no 5 while the rest of us make do with the smelly yellow stuff. The attitude of "do it our way and you will be civilized like we are" creates its equal response of " we are right regardless and will not accept any form of criticism". Two ugly sides of the same coin and a definite obstacle to learning from each other.
On a slightly different tack I am bemused by the post by a passenger that says that he supervises the deicing. Does he have the current ATIS, does he know the current temperature, does he know what type of fluid are they using, does he have the holdover tables, has he done a winter ops corse, etc, etc, etc. I wonder if he also goes with the engineers to check the oil, does he check the tyre pressures, does he come into the flight deck to see how I fly the ILS, where does it stop. I think that passengers and indeed anybody should be encoraged to speak up if they see contamination on the wing (or indeed on any other safety issue). If a pax told me about contamination on my A/c i would be very grateful, I will tell him so and I would investigate. It does however smacks of delusions of grandeur to think that he supervises the deicing and it also implies that there are lots of aicraft flying around unsafely, this is clearly not true.
Last edited by calypso; 7th Dec 2007 at 17:57.
Bullshot,
We have an 'infratek' heated 'drive through' hangar for deicing in one of our hubs and it is not as good as portrayed.
Takes a loooong time to do an incomplete job and, after you taxi out you have to be sprayed off anyway.
Waste of money methinks, but, good to park aircraft in for maintenance to work on, sort of out of the weather...
We have an 'infratek' heated 'drive through' hangar for deicing in one of our hubs and it is not as good as portrayed.
Takes a loooong time to do an incomplete job and, after you taxi out you have to be sprayed off anyway.
Waste of money methinks, but, good to park aircraft in for maintenance to work on, sort of out of the weather...
I do not dispute LTD's observations and would welcome him or anybody else pointing out an apparently unsafe condition on any a/c I'm about to fly in.
But for argument's sake, lets consider that since the takeoff was successful, some factors had to have worked in their favor.
I would venture to guess that dry snow falling on a flying surface below freezing temperature in air below freezing temperature at low humidity (M03/M11 as reported in the METAR) does not adhere. Note also that adhere is the word used in the FAR previously cited.
In considering declining deicing in such conditions, I would very much want to know that the flying surfaces, especially the tailplane, were clean and cold before the snow began falling.
Without venturing into glaciology and avalanche science, a fluffy uncompressed accumulation will generally blow off whereas a settled accumulation may not.
It has been mentioned that some pilots are willing to decline deicing when in their judgement the snow will blow off. When the physics are in their favor, the takeoff will work. The majority will elect deicing and I'd rather be flying behind them.
But for argument's sake, lets consider that since the takeoff was successful, some factors had to have worked in their favor.
I would venture to guess that dry snow falling on a flying surface below freezing temperature in air below freezing temperature at low humidity (M03/M11 as reported in the METAR) does not adhere. Note also that adhere is the word used in the FAR previously cited.
In considering declining deicing in such conditions, I would very much want to know that the flying surfaces, especially the tailplane, were clean and cold before the snow began falling.
Without venturing into glaciology and avalanche science, a fluffy uncompressed accumulation will generally blow off whereas a settled accumulation may not.
It has been mentioned that some pilots are willing to decline deicing when in their judgement the snow will blow off. When the physics are in their favor, the takeoff will work. The majority will elect deicing and I'd rather be flying behind them.
Last edited by RatherBeFlying; 8th Dec 2007 at 03:51.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all do respect, RatherbeFlying,
it seems you are not on the professional side (neither in the air nor on the ground). So far regulations are strict and there is no room for estimating if it s "puffy" snow that will blow away or it is 1mm of ice that will get you down faster then you expect.
It is not allowed to take off with anything on your lifting surfaces. Period.
Please check the appropriate FARs, JARs etc, if you know what I mean. No derogatory remarks, just my point of view.
Regards
it seems you are not on the professional side (neither in the air nor on the ground). So far regulations are strict and there is no room for estimating if it s "puffy" snow that will blow away or it is 1mm of ice that will get you down faster then you expect.
It is not allowed to take off with anything on your lifting surfaces. Period.
Please check the appropriate FARs, JARs etc, if you know what I mean. No derogatory remarks, just my point of view.
Regards
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NeverLand
Age: 24
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well written calypso.
Commitedtostay: I agree 100% but that flies both ways -How come I am boxed as a conspiror when I raise it but it doesn't happen the other way; that was the intention behind my original post. I hope you mean the same.
Out,
A.
Btw: I am an air traffic controller working in a center with well over 30 different nationalities (we even have a japanese exchange for 3 months now) and agree with you in the fact that the passport doesn't make you any better or worse...it's a piece of paper.
Commitedtostay: I agree 100% but that flies both ways -How come I am boxed as a conspiror when I raise it but it doesn't happen the other way; that was the intention behind my original post. I hope you mean the same.
Out,
A.
Btw: I am an air traffic controller working in a center with well over 30 different nationalities (we even have a japanese exchange for 3 months now) and agree with you in the fact that the passport doesn't make you any better or worse...it's a piece of paper.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying
I would venture to guess that dry snow falling on a flying surface below freezing temperature in air below freezing temperature at low humidity (M03/M11 as reported in the METAR) does not adhere. Note also that adhere is the word used in the FAR previously cited.
Originally Posted by Quote from my FCOM
Take-off must not be attempted if snow, ice or frost are present in any amount on the wings, upper fuselage and tail surfaces of the airplane. As a consequence of this requirement, the following general precautions must be observed in cold weather operations:
(1) Contrary to the misconception that only the forward section aerodynamic surfaces are critical areas, all areas of the wings and tail surfaces and their attached control surfaces, and the upper fuselage, are critical areas as regards the effect of frozen contamination.
(2) It must never be assumed that an apparently dry and loose form of frozen moisture, for example, dry snow, will be removed by the slipstream during the initial take-off roll. For instance, a dry snowfall that remains free and uncompacted on the ground may melt and later refreeze to form an adhesive layer on the surfaces of an airplane just removed from a hangar.
(3)........
(3)........
Last edited by DK_FCI; 8th Dec 2007 at 07:41.
I am not sure you can just throw away the nationality issue. Southern med cultures are in no way similar to Northern european cultures. Whereas us Brits will sweat over rules & try to cover every eventuality (whilst bursting blood vessels) the Spanish would probably throw up their arms & say why sweat it when it will probably work out anyway. Maybe somewhere in the middle an ideal culture exists.
It's fascinating to read this discussion and compare it with other incidents that have been commented on in this forum, like the 747 with an engine shutdown out of LAX that continued on towards its destination. In that case the crew performed actions that were approved by the aircraft manufacturer, the operator and its regulatory authority and yet came under some intense criticism.
In this one, we have a crew in direct contravention of the airline's SOPs, the regulator's instructions and the manufacturer's manuals but they are still getting quite a bit of support from various quarters on here.
The rules surrounding wing contamination are very strict because it is a literal matter of life-and-death. This crew were very lucky to get away with what has been described... the accident records show this to be true.
In this one, we have a crew in direct contravention of the airline's SOPs, the regulator's instructions and the manufacturer's manuals but they are still getting quite a bit of support from various quarters on here.
The rules surrounding wing contamination are very strict because it is a literal matter of life-and-death. This crew were very lucky to get away with what has been described... the accident records show this to be true.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quote Calipso,
I totally agree, and would appreciate (and give attention to) any misgivings, whether from outside agencies,the CC or pax regarding the aircraft.
Every winter BEA came out with a publication called "Winter-Wise" that reminded us all of all aspects of winter operation. It pulled together the various locations of the procedures, take-off data, limitations, hold over times etc.
Must see if I've got a copy and send it to Iberia Boston.
If a pax told me about contamination on my A/c i would be very grateful
Every winter BEA came out with a publication called "Winter-Wise" that reminded us all of all aspects of winter operation. It pulled together the various locations of the procedures, take-off data, limitations, hold over times etc.
Must see if I've got a copy and send it to Iberia Boston.
Last edited by woodpecker; 8th Dec 2007 at 10:03.
From Danny's post..
Danny was writing in the context of the thread. At the risk of thread drift I would suggest that this may a more serious safety issue than we know.
I have seen and spent many days rewriting some appallingly dangerous languistic errors in FOMs and the like, with in the last 10 years. Mostly these are when non-English speakers are writing English, or when they are translating from English into another language (usually when plagiarising another operator's lengthy technical manuals such as FOM's.) The problem is that they are excellent English speakers, but they do not pick up the full meaning from formal written English and do not realise that they have not done so. They lose the context and the real meaning, exactly as Danny wrote, because they translate word by word, sentence by sentence. The grammar is good, but the interpretation is poor.
It seems as though the manual was translated and the context was lost during translation!
I have seen and spent many days rewriting some appallingly dangerous languistic errors in FOMs and the like, with in the last 10 years. Mostly these are when non-English speakers are writing English, or when they are translating from English into another language (usually when plagiarising another operator's lengthy technical manuals such as FOM's.) The problem is that they are excellent English speakers, but they do not pick up the full meaning from formal written English and do not realise that they have not done so. They lose the context and the real meaning, exactly as Danny wrote, because they translate word by word, sentence by sentence. The grammar is good, but the interpretation is poor.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right Way Up
Agree with your post.
There is no room in a aviation, for the "Loss of Face" and macho-ism attitude, prevalent in some cultures. Still a big problem in my view.
Agree with your post.
There is no room in a aviation, for the "Loss of Face" and macho-ism attitude, prevalent in some cultures. Still a big problem in my view.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. there is a silence. Iberia has a good reputation regarding safety and good airmanship. No body wants to blame a 340 crew with a high level of experience just because a pilot who nobody knows put a post in PPRuNe. I think every body could speak about things we do not like in day to day operation from other airliners and we do not post every thing we see.
This does not seem to be trying to improve safety but just a kind of blame that this pilot should do "face to face" with that captain and not hiding his face in this forum.
Regards.
This does not seem to be trying to improve safety but just a kind of blame that this pilot should do "face to face" with that captain and not hiding his face in this forum.
Regards.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, let me offer to find out definitively what the regulator means by "adhere" if this should turn out to be an issue.
Second, there is clearly a cultural difference being discussed, but I am not sure people have put the finger on the difference. Let me attempt to do so by commenting on the post from BRACKET04, who has identified himherself as living in Spain.
The first point heshe makes (Point 1) concerns the reputation and history of the pilots whose actions are being discussed, and comparing with the (relatively weak, informal) actions of the commentator (posting a comment on an anonymous pilots forum). And the former comes out the winner; BRACKET infers that is also so for others in Spain ("nobody wants").
Point 2: heshe says this is not an issue about improving safety.
Point 3: heshe suggests that the dispute should be differently handled by a different set of actions.
Now, I think it would be mistaken to say that so-called "northern" cultures are less concerned about social status and behavior (Points 1 and 3) than Mediterrean cultures. But they may be more inclined to think that they are universal ("everybody does like we do; or should").
I think the real difference, the one that may be unbridgeable, comes with Point 2.
Let me show how by taking sides. I find it incomprehensible (and I mean that word in a literal sense) that someone could think that this discussion is not about safety.
One could imagine (I speculate; it is for BRACKET to correct me if I am wrong) that heshe means rather to say that the discussion is *less* about safety and *more* about social status. But this is a fact that can be tested: count up the number of serious posts about deicing and flying with ice, and the number of serious posts about status (I don't mean the ones saying "I can't believe you people are saying ....."+25 perjoratives, but those expressing views on the priority: "it's captain's judgement; he judged it; end of story", or "the captain should be relieved of his command"). We will see that the serious "safety" posts vastly outweigh the serious "status" posts. So a view that the discussion is less about safety than about status would be simply wrong.
PBL
Second, there is clearly a cultural difference being discussed, but I am not sure people have put the finger on the difference. Let me attempt to do so by commenting on the post from BRACKET04, who has identified himherself as living in Spain.
Originally Posted by BRACKET04
Yes. there is a silence. Iberia has a good reputation regarding safety and good airmanship. No body wants to blame a 340 crew with a high level of experience just because a pilot who nobody knows put a post in PPRuNe.
Originally Posted by BRACKET04
This does not seem to be trying to improve safety but just a kind of blame that this pilot should do "face to face" with that captain and not hiding his face in this forum.
Point 3: heshe suggests that the dispute should be differently handled by a different set of actions.
Now, I think it would be mistaken to say that so-called "northern" cultures are less concerned about social status and behavior (Points 1 and 3) than Mediterrean cultures. But they may be more inclined to think that they are universal ("everybody does like we do; or should").
I think the real difference, the one that may be unbridgeable, comes with Point 2.
Let me show how by taking sides. I find it incomprehensible (and I mean that word in a literal sense) that someone could think that this discussion is not about safety.
One could imagine (I speculate; it is for BRACKET to correct me if I am wrong) that heshe means rather to say that the discussion is *less* about safety and *more* about social status. But this is a fact that can be tested: count up the number of serious posts about deicing and flying with ice, and the number of serious posts about status (I don't mean the ones saying "I can't believe you people are saying ....."+25 perjoratives, but those expressing views on the priority: "it's captain's judgement; he judged it; end of story", or "the captain should be relieved of his command"). We will see that the serious "safety" posts vastly outweigh the serious "status" posts. So a view that the discussion is less about safety than about status would be simply wrong.
PBL
Last edited by PBL; 8th Dec 2007 at 11:01.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NeverLand
Age: 24
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right way up,
it is the generalising I am complaining about: not all brits are as hard workers and not all spaniards run around like headless chickens waiting for fate to choose for them.
This forum was about a chain of events in a complex situation and, of course, the persons' attitude may kick in. Now saying that a whole nation is like this or like that out of one issue is out of place. I do not see myself nor many other of my countrymen like that -even though there are plenty who may well be-. But please stick your head out of wonderland and look around. Saying that in england we do and in spain you don't....are we already in the 21st century?
A.
BTW danny: please understand it is statements like the one above that make me get on the defensive, not what other people from my country may do. Being labelled as something I'm not is what set me in motion.
it is the generalising I am complaining about: not all brits are as hard workers and not all spaniards run around like headless chickens waiting for fate to choose for them.
This forum was about a chain of events in a complex situation and, of course, the persons' attitude may kick in. Now saying that a whole nation is like this or like that out of one issue is out of place. I do not see myself nor many other of my countrymen like that -even though there are plenty who may well be-. But please stick your head out of wonderland and look around. Saying that in england we do and in spain you don't....are we already in the 21st century?
A.
BTW danny: please understand it is statements like the one above that make me get on the defensive, not what other people from my country may do. Being labelled as something I'm not is what set me in motion.
Last edited by andrijander; 8th Dec 2007 at 12:34.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is somewhat disingenious to suggest LTD's remarks are unreliable when the comments are clearly on the linked audio, and presumably was not the only flight crew member in his aircraft who witnessed this.
Many argumentative defensive postings seem to be trying to force this thread away from the main purpose of why LTD posted - his concern.
I cannot see any reason for trying to influence the direction of the thread, unless such postings are from the ignorant who are not involved in or knowledgeable about professional aviation.
Many argumentative defensive postings seem to be trying to force this thread away from the main purpose of why LTD posted - his concern.
I cannot see any reason for trying to influence the direction of the thread, unless such postings are from the ignorant who are not involved in or knowledgeable about professional aviation.
Last edited by Re-Heat; 8th Dec 2007 at 13:27.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it is worth underlining the Iberia pilots were not flying their own private aircraft. At the risk of upsetting a few nigels on this forum a flight crew on public transport take on board the same legal responsibility as a train or bus driver. They are paid to transport public passengers who have paid them to undertake that task. Public transport pilots,train drivers, ferry captains and bus drivers fall in to the same group. You are paid to transport the public safely.
If you want to take risks and fly your own aircraft then go and do a private flight. Public transport is public transport. The Iberia crew and Iberia should be ashamed of taking risks with passenegers who place their lives and their trust in them.
If you want to take risks and fly your own aircraft then go and do a private flight. Public transport is public transport. The Iberia crew and Iberia should be ashamed of taking risks with passenegers who place their lives and their trust in them.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I read here, every comment on this forum and from ATC was generated from the initial comment from LTD on the day and within this forum.
ATC never says YOU (IB) need to be de-iced, they say BA is concerned.
So, it all goes back to one persons stated observation and opinion. From what I can see here, 13 pages later, LTD is the sole actual eyeball operating witness.
While this is an excellent hypothetical discussion, you may as well delete every reference to any specific operator as there is no actual proof of the alleged incident.
It was the opinion of LTD that IB required deicing. It was the opinion of the IB crew that they did not. You can argue the pros and cons of the resulting decision until the cows come home, but unless you were actually there on the day and saw for yourself, it's all just an exercise in philosophy.
What remains is that what we have here is a difference of opinion between crews of different aircraft. It appears to me that somebody is upset because his opinion, while noted, was disregarded.
PB
ATC never says YOU (IB) need to be de-iced, they say BA is concerned.
So, it all goes back to one persons stated observation and opinion. From what I can see here, 13 pages later, LTD is the sole actual eyeball operating witness.
While this is an excellent hypothetical discussion, you may as well delete every reference to any specific operator as there is no actual proof of the alleged incident.
It was the opinion of LTD that IB required deicing. It was the opinion of the IB crew that they did not. You can argue the pros and cons of the resulting decision until the cows come home, but unless you were actually there on the day and saw for yourself, it's all just an exercise in philosophy.
What remains is that what we have here is a difference of opinion between crews of different aircraft. It appears to me that somebody is upset because his opinion, while noted, was disregarded.
PB