Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning
Reload this Page >

Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!

Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!

Old 12th Dec 2007, 11:49
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,201
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 10 Posts
Reminds me of an incident in Lagos (at least I think it was Lagos) last year. Friend of mine was landing a Virgin Nigeria 737-400 when he struck severe wind-shear shortly before touch down. Having coped successfully he then touched down on a very wet runway with standing water from the local CB that just went through. During the taxiing to the stand he saw a 737-300 appear out of the murk and blinding rain on final and he suggested to ATC that all aircraft should be warned of turbulence and severe windshear at the threshold. ATC then made a radio call to the close-in 737 asking him if he had received the transmission from the landed Virgin Nigeria 737. The pilot replied words to the effect of "Shut up - we are not interested and too busy right now".

Shortly after touch down which was a long way down the flooded runway, the 737 skidded sideways off the the runway - the nose wheel broke off and the aircraft came to a grinding halt thoroughly bogged san bits and pieces of engines. A thoroughly deserved result.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 12:05
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, what was the fuel temp?

With regard to dry snow...yes, it's true that dry snow will not adhere to the aircraft wings ASSUMING the temperature of the surface of the wings is quite cold, too. But, we don't know that, and, in fact, we can probably accurately assume it is not. If the aircraft took on fuel for that flight (as it almost certainly did), the fuel temperature (fuel which probably came from underground tanks) is probably well above freezing, thereby heating the wings (and wing surface) above freezing.

Taking off, with the assumption that the snow will 'blow off', is probably not a good idea, as there will be some degree of frozen moisture adhering to the wing surfaces in the vicinity of the fuel cells. This is why most operators' SOP says, 'Make it Clean; Keep it Clean'. This eliminates any doubt.

PantLoad
PantLoad is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 13:12
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: heathrow
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yetanotherdawn, dunno mate! Thats been my point throughout this thread. Without being there and having seen the actual conditions, viewing the techlog or being party to the reasoning behind the decision I dont feel I'm (or anyone else here) in a position to apportion blame or to label crews as cowboys. And to do so in the public domain is unprofessional and wrong, all IMHO of course.
tablelover is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 18:12
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tablelover - I think you may have missed some serious irony in yetanotherdawn's response to your post. The point is if there are frozen deposits on the upper surface of the wings then it does not matter what prep you have done, it's history. Gone. Over. Expired. If you have frozen deposits on the upper surfaces your theoretical holdover time is an irrelevance. The correct course of action is to get deiced again, not to risk it and hope it will blow off.

I don't know if you fly but if you do you really should revisit your cold weather notes because you seem to be confused about how de/anti-icing works.
Hand Solo is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 09:42
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: heathrow
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Handsolo, thanks for the advice i'll return to the books asap! However with due respect I think you are missing my point, which in fairness may well be due to a lack of ability on my part to convey it. The theme I have been trying to stick to is that we dont know what actually happenned and apart from sensationalist views/opinions are no closer to knowing. Therefore to try the accused in a kangaroo court of their peers with no independent and unbiased information is wrong and unprofessional. It is no different to reading an article (pretty much any article) in the Daily Mail and not only believeing it 100% but using that to back up ones arguements.

This thread seems to have split into those that see this as a question of airmanship on the part of the IB crew and those like myself that think this is a highly inappropiate place and method of raising views on flight safety.
tablelover is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 10:06
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, look!...I thought Bigles had pretty well summed it up a few posts back!

After all, after 53 yrs in the sharp end, he'd know it all, wouldn't he?
amos2 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 10:24
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tablelover - Fair enough, but I think where we disagree is on the gravity of this alleged cock-up. Under normal circumstances I'd be in agreement with you that we don't know the full circumstances of an event and as such are unable to comment. A fine example is the BA 3 eng flight back from LAX in which too many people jumped to the conclusion that because an engine had failed the flight must be dangerous. This case, however, is a different kettle of fish. If the aircraft pushed back and took off with frozen deposits on the wings, there is no extra information we don't know that would justify it. There's no knowledge of previous de-icing or preparation required, they shouldn't be doing it, and if you believe LTD is genuine in his reports of snow on the wings then the Iberia crew dropped the ball big time. No airline, manufacturer or regulator is going to spring to the crews defence if they came a cropper because they would have clearly been in the wrong. Sigmund Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", and to paraphrase sometimes a wrong is just a wrong. Trying to doggedly defend that wrong on principle is not a progressive approach to flight safety.
Hand Solo is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 10:59
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sussex UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tableover, I am inclined to agree with you about many of the postings on this thread (and many of the others) and, in general, about the rush to judgement without the benefit of all the facts. However, of the aircraft that I have flown I do not recall any of them that permitted departure with any form of deposit on the upper wing surface. 'Could be mistaken but I don't think so.
Regarding whether this is a suitable forum in which to raise flight safety issues; I would say that it is a very good forum - look at the responses to the various threads. Not all of the posts have any real relevance but there is a wealth of experience being brought to bear as well. If nothing else it has put this topic in the spotlight and if it is a factor, however small, in avoiding another Potomac incident in the future then well and good. Pick out the good bits on this site and we can all learn something along the way IMO. The AAIB reports are good but lack the immediacy of PPrune and there has to have been a very serious incident or accident before they become available, this site gets the minor incidents, or even non-incidents, out in the open for discussion from time to time, hopefully to our general benefit.
yetanotherdawn is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 17:37
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mexico
Age: 60
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have seen this thread for much time now with interest as my freind who works for Iberia has told me to look.

My origin is from Spain. I must say we are not all like the Iberia crew. I have listened to tapes from BOS, and it is clear tey need to deice. Itis simple, clean wings, no deposit even if you think it blows away on take off.

My freind says the management at Iberia now hear the story and suspend the crew until they are cleared or guilty.

I hope they loose their jobs. You can not risk pax lives.

Ciao

AM
AeroMex is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 17:46
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AeroMex, very interesting thanks for sharing that information.
rewfly is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 18:59
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
My freind says the management at Iberia now hear the story and suspend the crew until they are cleared or guilty.

I hope they loose their jobs. You can not risk pax lives.
I sure hope they don't lose their jobs.

First of all the responsibility for the crew typically traces farther back in the chain, like their operations depratment and published procedures available in the cockpit. I've seen similar and the problem was that the procedures avaliable in the cockpit to the crew wre deemed inadequate (bad translations or simply they never substituted revised updates to reflect better understanding)

Second, is it just me or do others have the same feeling that some crews wise up after incidents like this and are no longer nonchalant like a lot some of our posters seem to be
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 21:45
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not just you lomapaseo, but the point is that this kind of thing is not as spurious as losing sleep after waking in the night with an uncomfortable fold under your butt because you were too tired to straighten your bed before you slept.

As soon as duty period begins, flight crews MUST command and control every possible aspect of safety (and snow), not let it drift through the subconscious with the status of an inconvenient chore, or worse still, purely on automatic ...

In addition, with ancillary costs now cut to the bone worldwide, flight crew cannot rely on ground staff capability at many airports, especially at this time of year when in the northern latitudes, many of the deicing crews are new to the task, often mentored by others with short histories/dubious habits or both.

I guess the enemy in all cases is old-fashioned complacency, ably abetted in 2007 in the case of ice and airframes by a generally incomplete comprehension of the possible consequences by those closest to it.
slip and turn is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 10:53
  #313 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No one needs to lose their job over this no matter how it shakes out, a bit of training possibly.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 11:07
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I doubt that any of us here can say categorically that anyone should lose their job over the incident although if what is written here of the circumstances is factual then certainly it has to be a possibility...

As for the crew learning from the experience... No way should a developed nations's flag carrier be employing pilots on this class of aircraft who are still learning about icing ... by now, like most of us.. they should have had the sh*t scared out of them enough times to know about icing.
poorwanderingwun is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 11:29
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,576
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
I doubt somehow that there would be enough proof to sack the crew over this matter anyway. I can sympathise with those that say that we should not name & shame. Unfortunately dealing with incidents such as these through the official channels rarely bring results. If this thread educates people and make them think twice about risking it then it has done a good job!
As an aside last night I observed a similar "I know better" attitude at a Capital airport from the state airline. (not Spain) Bizjet rejects takeoff and is unsure of vacating at night. The tower controller orders landing aircraft to go-around, to which the pilot starts trying to negotiate a couple of more miles to have a look. With no repeat of the go-around order, I reluctantly told the aircraft that they had been told to go-around, so go-around. They fortunately complied.
Right Way Up is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 12:40
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While hoping ( faint hope) to avoid thread-creep... this incident and the one related above by Right Way Up are exactly the sort of events that require an experienced FO with an assertive personality to influence the decisions made by the Capt... and why I'm always uncomfortable at the thought of people with so few hrs that their ATPL is still in the freezer sitting unmonitored (other than by P1 who may be making bad decisions) in the RHS of public transport a/c...
poorwanderingwun is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 12:52
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hope they loose their jobs. You can not risk pax lives
That is even more stupid than what this crew did.

Blame culture? isn't it supposed to be a Safety culture?! You , you learn, you move on wiser...

GD&L
GearDown&Locked is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 14:04
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think the cockpit crew should loose their jobs. That would be sad. However action should and must be taken, if the said airline is to come out of this with any credibility what so ever. I think at least one demotion should do, even if to set an example. Do nothing and we are in "tombstone regulation" territory. Dam it, we are already!

To the critics who say this incident (oh alleged, as we are in a litigious society now) should not be discussed on a public forum I say this. If this thread does nothing else but draw the attention of just one crew to have a rethink on the very serious subject of deicing/anti icing then it has to be worth while, don't you think? As was mentioned in a previous post.
joehunt is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 14:12
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by joehunt
To the critics who say this incident (oh alleged, as we are in a litigious society now) should not be discussed on a public forum I say this. If this thread does nothing else but draws only one crew's attention to have a rethink on the very serious subject of deicing/anti icing then it has to be worth while, don't you think?
That could have been achieved without identifying the airline and crew. That was an unnecessary finger-pointing exercise.

Pointing fingers and calling somebody a cowboy implies that the finger-pointer is not. That is perhaps often the real reason for the pointing.
Clarence Oveur is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 14:18
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Take your point but I do think the name of the airline would have come out at some stage. Certainly if their luck had run out that night. Their meaning all persons on board.
joehunt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.