Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to interject and question why the mantra of CRM should cease when a flight has ended, and is it not possible that SLF could become part of the CRM loop?
Two days ago I came from work and then flew as SLF with another carrier. The cabin attendant at the overwing station struck up a conversation with me about icing conditions and the fact that there was a slight build up of ice. Indeed there were a few traces of hoar frost and the cabin attendant asked me if it would be prudent for him to inform the commander (who had reportedly already been keeping a watchfull eye on the wing prior to boarding). As far as I know, all views were communicated and the commander made a good decission to de-ice.
So now I would ask all the nay-sayers here, at what point do we exclude the SLF from our CRM practices?
When they spot an engineers maglite in the spoiler recess do we tell them "you are uninformed, your observation is not welcome"
When they spot a noticable "tear" in the skin while boarding (Aloha 737), do we say "go away, we know what we are doing", or do we check it out?
How about when the SLF is a fellow professional and is brought into the loop, should Cpt Haynes have told Danny Fitch to politely go away back in Soix City?
So what is to say that brining SLF into the loop is detrimental after the event?
IMHO John Marsh brought the non official information he had heard to the attention of a competent authority, in the interests of safety. The competent authority (FAA in this case) has the ability to deduce from the available evidence (METAR, ATC recordings) if there is any substance behind the concern and act on it as fit.
Why are we all so scared of this process? Which is better - SLF bringing a genuine safety concern (even if it is based on "rumour", although thanks to tapes this one isnt) to the attention of an authority equipped to deal with it, or would we prefer them to be sending said stories to the press?
LTD gets my vote for bringing this to IB's attn, and I can see no way that John Marsh has tried to do anything other than facilitate safety for all of us. As long we have followed SOPs and the report is made to a competent authority, why do so many on here seem to be so resentfull (even scared)?
RIX
Two days ago I came from work and then flew as SLF with another carrier. The cabin attendant at the overwing station struck up a conversation with me about icing conditions and the fact that there was a slight build up of ice. Indeed there were a few traces of hoar frost and the cabin attendant asked me if it would be prudent for him to inform the commander (who had reportedly already been keeping a watchfull eye on the wing prior to boarding). As far as I know, all views were communicated and the commander made a good decission to de-ice.
So now I would ask all the nay-sayers here, at what point do we exclude the SLF from our CRM practices?
When they spot an engineers maglite in the spoiler recess do we tell them "you are uninformed, your observation is not welcome"
When they spot a noticable "tear" in the skin while boarding (Aloha 737), do we say "go away, we know what we are doing", or do we check it out?
How about when the SLF is a fellow professional and is brought into the loop, should Cpt Haynes have told Danny Fitch to politely go away back in Soix City?
So what is to say that brining SLF into the loop is detrimental after the event?
IMHO John Marsh brought the non official information he had heard to the attention of a competent authority, in the interests of safety. The competent authority (FAA in this case) has the ability to deduce from the available evidence (METAR, ATC recordings) if there is any substance behind the concern and act on it as fit.
Why are we all so scared of this process? Which is better - SLF bringing a genuine safety concern (even if it is based on "rumour", although thanks to tapes this one isnt) to the attention of an authority equipped to deal with it, or would we prefer them to be sending said stories to the press?
LTD gets my vote for bringing this to IB's attn, and I can see no way that John Marsh has tried to do anything other than facilitate safety for all of us. As long we have followed SOPs and the report is made to a competent authority, why do so many on here seem to be so resentfull (even scared)?
RIX
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope that it is nothing more than trolls that have infected this thread as of recent. I also sincerely hope that the more unattractive aspects of this thread do not create a precedent.
I think LTD got a lot more than he bargained for when he started this thread. Perhaps a lesson for us all.
I think LTD got a lot more than he bargained for when he started this thread. Perhaps a lesson for us all.
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The implications of a non aviation person coming here and then reporting an alleged incident to the FAA has serious implications for any professional posting on PPRuNe.
Preserve your anonymity, and take great care what you write. It just might come back and bite you."
And you only just realised this?
You guys kill me - John Marsh makes his post and everyone throws a hissy fit.
Do you think he is the first person to do this - no, of course he isn't but he may well be the first to report the fact that he has to the forum.
Amos...nice PT mate.
Preserve your anonymity, and take great care what you write. It just might come back and bite you."
And you only just realised this?
You guys kill me - John Marsh makes his post and everyone throws a hissy fit.
Do you think he is the first person to do this - no, of course he isn't but he may well be the first to report the fact that he has to the forum.
Amos...nice PT mate.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost 450 posts so far and do we really think the FAA knew nothing about the incident before this chap wrote to them?
Suppose I'm incorrect in referring to it as an incident rather than a non-event as the Spaniard obviously got away with it.
Suppose I'm incorrect in referring to it as an incident rather than a non-event as the Spaniard obviously got away with it.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The implications of a non aviation person coming here and then reporting an alleged incident to the FAA has serious implications for any professional posting on PPRuNe.
Preserve your anonymity, and take great care what you write. It just might come back and bite you."
Preserve your anonymity, and take great care what you write. It just might come back and bite you."
And you only just realised this?
I don’t see anything wrong with SLF posting to this forum, in many ways it provides good customer feedback; they pay the wages.
What many contributors to this thread appear to lack is the ability to differentiate between criticism and critique.
Our industry attempts to avoid criticism, finding fault or blame. We seek an honest, open, and fair culture to maintain and improve our good safety record by seeking to understand events and learn from them. Pilots are taught to use techniques of critical thinking to evaluate situations, to separate fact from supposition, to consider alternative points of view, and find additional data in order to form a mental picture, which is then open to review and revision over time. And then with a robust picture, consider the best understanding to judge a situation for improvement, where that judgment considers objectives and risks in the outcome, including an incorrect choice. And if the judgement is inappropriate, being prepared to admit it, at least to ourselves.
Those who rush to a judgement are at risk of errors of thought. Perhaps the non aviation contributions lack airmanship or other professional attributes, or they have been influenced by the changes in general social culture promoting instant gratification, political correctness, and the need to rush and hurry resulting in action before thought.
The weaknesses above are not limited to SLF, and there is much in this thread to be learnt by aviators. The originating incident, worthy of discussion in the forum, might have been handled differently with additional thought and critical reasoning, (but this is with hindsight) e.g:-
Consider all of the apparent facts in the situation; have you misinterpreted something, what’s the urgency.
Communicate information as opposed to potentially challenging conclusions. Consider individual or cultural aspects; no one likes being told that they are in error or what to do.
As an alternative, the communication could have been:
“C/S xx, I am on stand zz, it appears to me that your (xx) left wing is covered in snow.” This puts the originator’s view in positional context, covers the possibility that xx cannot see the wings (or that s/he hasn’t looked out), or that the originator might have mistaken a reflection for snow. The communication does not challenge or judge correctness of actions that might have to be taken; it’s an opening gambit, subject to question and clarification.
We might all learn something from this event, especially SLF who might not be familiar with the diverse range of cultures in the regulatory agencies (stick and carrot, tea and biscuits, sangria and nachos), where the result of a not-so-confidential report may or may not aid safety.
What many contributors to this thread appear to lack is the ability to differentiate between criticism and critique.
Our industry attempts to avoid criticism, finding fault or blame. We seek an honest, open, and fair culture to maintain and improve our good safety record by seeking to understand events and learn from them. Pilots are taught to use techniques of critical thinking to evaluate situations, to separate fact from supposition, to consider alternative points of view, and find additional data in order to form a mental picture, which is then open to review and revision over time. And then with a robust picture, consider the best understanding to judge a situation for improvement, where that judgment considers objectives and risks in the outcome, including an incorrect choice. And if the judgement is inappropriate, being prepared to admit it, at least to ourselves.
Those who rush to a judgement are at risk of errors of thought. Perhaps the non aviation contributions lack airmanship or other professional attributes, or they have been influenced by the changes in general social culture promoting instant gratification, political correctness, and the need to rush and hurry resulting in action before thought.
The weaknesses above are not limited to SLF, and there is much in this thread to be learnt by aviators. The originating incident, worthy of discussion in the forum, might have been handled differently with additional thought and critical reasoning, (but this is with hindsight) e.g:-
Consider all of the apparent facts in the situation; have you misinterpreted something, what’s the urgency.
Communicate information as opposed to potentially challenging conclusions. Consider individual or cultural aspects; no one likes being told that they are in error or what to do.
As an alternative, the communication could have been:
“C/S xx, I am on stand zz, it appears to me that your (xx) left wing is covered in snow.” This puts the originator’s view in positional context, covers the possibility that xx cannot see the wings (or that s/he hasn’t looked out), or that the originator might have mistaken a reflection for snow. The communication does not challenge or judge correctness of actions that might have to be taken; it’s an opening gambit, subject to question and clarification.
We might all learn something from this event, especially SLF who might not be familiar with the diverse range of cultures in the regulatory agencies (stick and carrot, tea and biscuits, sangria and nachos), where the result of a not-so-confidential report may or may not aid safety.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No offense guys, but doessssss anyone think a letter to the FAA is going to change anything?
PPrune ain't exactly the comprehensive source for what happens in the aviation world. And, thankfully, none of the posters to these threads are verified aviation professionels. Some are, some aren't and those two groups aren't coextensive with those who claim to be and claim not to be. That way, you can't look at this thread and say definitively that the IB crew were condemned by their peers. Heck, you can't even use the accusations of being/not being a pilot, since even 411A, a much-beloved and universally admired PPruner, has been in the psat accused of "not being a pilot". The unrestricted access means that you have to put up with idiots who don't even hold a driver's license, let alone something with a P in it, but it also means that posters with something real to report or comment on don't need to worry about what they say being immediately identified as authoritative. The "get out of here wannabe" posts and witch-hunts do serve a purpose in this, by chilling the debate enough to send some of the nuttier cases elsewhere. It also reinforces the social structure, by asserting that PPrune is for Professional Pilots first and foremost. Better to reign in Hell, folks.
So the dsicussion here really doesn't provide much fact beyond the ATC tapes and the recorded conditions. Frankly, after the reports that only .e inches fell that day, IU'm surprised nobody's broken out the map of KBOS and shown that while BA45 at E8 would have a reasonable view down the wing of IB at E7, given the prevailing winds, the IB craft would have been shielded from what little snow there was by the terminal, whereas LTD would be blanketed. Now that would be the kind of pointless reconstruction I'd like to see.
But while y'all are getting worked up, here's a question for you: how many passengers a year write the FAA with their "safety concerns"? We can imagine what they look like: a bunch of whinging about go-arounds, RTOs and that plane that seemed awful close out the window. So who has to deal with them at the FAA, and how seriously do they get taken? Mr. Marsh can probably give you the answer to some of those questions in a few weeks.
As for the level of reporting on this incident, anyone care to hazard a guess why LTD has stopped posting to this thread? Did he get his whinge off and move on? Is he too busy answering PMs from Journos to comment? Or has he been advised not to comment further on the affair?
So: this thread gives the FAA nothing factual that couldn't be had elsewhere. If anyhting happens because of this, it's not going to be due to John Marsh's letter.. Feel free to chase out the idiots, but if you formalize the process, you'll lose the what makes this place so useful: anonymity and plausible deniability.
anyway, I'll leave you to your discussion again. Enjoy being indignant against the bad guys of your choosing.
PPrune ain't exactly the comprehensive source for what happens in the aviation world. And, thankfully, none of the posters to these threads are verified aviation professionels. Some are, some aren't and those two groups aren't coextensive with those who claim to be and claim not to be. That way, you can't look at this thread and say definitively that the IB crew were condemned by their peers. Heck, you can't even use the accusations of being/not being a pilot, since even 411A, a much-beloved and universally admired PPruner, has been in the psat accused of "not being a pilot". The unrestricted access means that you have to put up with idiots who don't even hold a driver's license, let alone something with a P in it, but it also means that posters with something real to report or comment on don't need to worry about what they say being immediately identified as authoritative. The "get out of here wannabe" posts and witch-hunts do serve a purpose in this, by chilling the debate enough to send some of the nuttier cases elsewhere. It also reinforces the social structure, by asserting that PPrune is for Professional Pilots first and foremost. Better to reign in Hell, folks.
So the dsicussion here really doesn't provide much fact beyond the ATC tapes and the recorded conditions. Frankly, after the reports that only .e inches fell that day, IU'm surprised nobody's broken out the map of KBOS and shown that while BA45 at E8 would have a reasonable view down the wing of IB at E7, given the prevailing winds, the IB craft would have been shielded from what little snow there was by the terminal, whereas LTD would be blanketed. Now that would be the kind of pointless reconstruction I'd like to see.
But while y'all are getting worked up, here's a question for you: how many passengers a year write the FAA with their "safety concerns"? We can imagine what they look like: a bunch of whinging about go-arounds, RTOs and that plane that seemed awful close out the window. So who has to deal with them at the FAA, and how seriously do they get taken? Mr. Marsh can probably give you the answer to some of those questions in a few weeks.
As for the level of reporting on this incident, anyone care to hazard a guess why LTD has stopped posting to this thread? Did he get his whinge off and move on? Is he too busy answering PMs from Journos to comment? Or has he been advised not to comment further on the affair?
So: this thread gives the FAA nothing factual that couldn't be had elsewhere. If anyhting happens because of this, it's not going to be due to John Marsh's letter.. Feel free to chase out the idiots, but if you formalize the process, you'll lose the what makes this place so useful: anonymity and plausible deniability.
anyway, I'll leave you to your discussion again. Enjoy being indignant against the bad guys of your choosing.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who should report & who has reported?
Reading back through the posts there is quite a debate going on about reporting of the incident. My observations are:-
* Just because LTD hasn't said he has reported the incident officially, doesn't mean to say that he hasn't done so.
*John Marsh said he has reported the incident to the FAA. The FAA seem to have provided a mechanism to do so, and presumably has the resources to assess all reports made, whether they are worthy of attention, not worthy of attention but made in good faith, or just crank reports of no substance at all.
*The CAA in the UK provides for a report to be made be a member of the public. Presumably they too have the resources to deal with said reports as outlined above. It seems to me that had said incident occured within the UK, John Marsh would have been entitled to make a report to the CAA.
*One would assume the FAA would have a similar set-up to the CAA in regards as to who can make a report.
*As it is a safety related issue, what does it matter who reports it and who doesn't?
* Just because LTD hasn't said he has reported the incident officially, doesn't mean to say that he hasn't done so.
*John Marsh said he has reported the incident to the FAA. The FAA seem to have provided a mechanism to do so, and presumably has the resources to assess all reports made, whether they are worthy of attention, not worthy of attention but made in good faith, or just crank reports of no substance at all.
*The CAA in the UK provides for a report to be made be a member of the public. Presumably they too have the resources to deal with said reports as outlined above. It seems to me that had said incident occured within the UK, John Marsh would have been entitled to make a report to the CAA.
*One would assume the FAA would have a similar set-up to the CAA in regards as to who can make a report.
*As it is a safety related issue, what does it matter who reports it and who doesn't?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons I keep coming back to this thread is that the incident poses a practical moral problem. Namely, there are conflicting principles, both moral principles and safety principles, which it brings to light. It is interesting to see how people deal with them (here mostly intemperately, unfortunately).
Let me pose the issues as a parable.
Suppose a taxi driver, TD1, drives in a 30kph zone through the middle of my village at 70 kph. In my village we have our share of older people and very young children who cross the road, which has a long curving blind corner in it, and have little chance to get out of the way. And a driver cannot see them in enough time to stop, at 70 kph.
A fellow driver, TD2, observes the manoeuvre and radios in to the dispatcher to let the driver know, and asks the dispatcher to relay the message.
The dispatcher relays the message about moderating speed, and TD1 says "I know what I am doing". His colleague TD2, unsatisfied with this reply, posts the incident on a WWW site, to which residents of the village, as well as taxi drivers and other interested members of the public have access. TD2 says when and where the incident happened.
Some opine that TD2 should have filed a report to the taxi licensing authority and not posted the incident for discussion on a WWW site. Others opine that TD1 is the driver of his vehicle and a professional, and must have known what he was doing. Others say we don't actually know the incident happened, despite what TD2 says. Others say that since TD1 didn't run anybody over or hit anything, that he obviously made an appropriate decision.
Someone points out that the village has a CCTV traffic camera which recorded the incident and is available for public viewing.
The licence plate of TD1's cab is apparent from the video, as is the time and date of the occurrence, but TD1 himself is not identified.
While TD2 is supported quietly but definitively by some of his colleagues, others opine that his action was morally reprehensible, bringing the actions of his colleague TD1 to the attention of the public.
Someone who identifies himself as a member of the public, let's call him P1, writes to the taxi licensing authority and draws their attention to the incident and existence of the video evidence, asking that they look into it. He posts to the WWW site to say he has done it.
P1 is vilified by many self-identified taxi drivers, some of whom say things like "We are professionals and know what is right and wrong and will report when necessary". Certain members of the public disagree that the incident just concerns taxi drivers alone.
So now the questions.
1. Should TD1 have driven through the village at 70 kph?
2. Is it appropriate for PD2 to bring the incident to anyone's attention?
3. Is it appropriate for PD2 to open a semi-public discussion?
4. Is it appropriate for residents of the village to have an opinion on this incident?
5. Is it appropriate for residents of the village to express what they think of this incident on the WWW site?
6. Is it appropriate for P1 to write to the taxi regulation agency asking them to look into it?
7. What do people think the consequences of this episode will be?
My answers are
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7:
a. TD1 will get the message, informally if not officially, and think twice before driving at 70 kph through a 30 kph zone again.
b. Other taxi drivers who might not have given much thought to it become aware of the issues concerning speeding in residential areas.
c. Residents of the village and surrounding villages become aware of the issue of taxi drivers speeding through their villages.
d. Residents let it be known that they will not travel with taxi companies whose drivers speed through residential areas.
e. There is eventually a reduction in the incidence of taxis speeding through residential areas.
f. All this happens without anybody having to invoke any legal apparatus.
PBL
Let me pose the issues as a parable.
Suppose a taxi driver, TD1, drives in a 30kph zone through the middle of my village at 70 kph. In my village we have our share of older people and very young children who cross the road, which has a long curving blind corner in it, and have little chance to get out of the way. And a driver cannot see them in enough time to stop, at 70 kph.
A fellow driver, TD2, observes the manoeuvre and radios in to the dispatcher to let the driver know, and asks the dispatcher to relay the message.
The dispatcher relays the message about moderating speed, and TD1 says "I know what I am doing". His colleague TD2, unsatisfied with this reply, posts the incident on a WWW site, to which residents of the village, as well as taxi drivers and other interested members of the public have access. TD2 says when and where the incident happened.
Some opine that TD2 should have filed a report to the taxi licensing authority and not posted the incident for discussion on a WWW site. Others opine that TD1 is the driver of his vehicle and a professional, and must have known what he was doing. Others say we don't actually know the incident happened, despite what TD2 says. Others say that since TD1 didn't run anybody over or hit anything, that he obviously made an appropriate decision.
Someone points out that the village has a CCTV traffic camera which recorded the incident and is available for public viewing.
The licence plate of TD1's cab is apparent from the video, as is the time and date of the occurrence, but TD1 himself is not identified.
While TD2 is supported quietly but definitively by some of his colleagues, others opine that his action was morally reprehensible, bringing the actions of his colleague TD1 to the attention of the public.
Someone who identifies himself as a member of the public, let's call him P1, writes to the taxi licensing authority and draws their attention to the incident and existence of the video evidence, asking that they look into it. He posts to the WWW site to say he has done it.
P1 is vilified by many self-identified taxi drivers, some of whom say things like "We are professionals and know what is right and wrong and will report when necessary". Certain members of the public disagree that the incident just concerns taxi drivers alone.
So now the questions.
1. Should TD1 have driven through the village at 70 kph?
2. Is it appropriate for PD2 to bring the incident to anyone's attention?
3. Is it appropriate for PD2 to open a semi-public discussion?
4. Is it appropriate for residents of the village to have an opinion on this incident?
5. Is it appropriate for residents of the village to express what they think of this incident on the WWW site?
6. Is it appropriate for P1 to write to the taxi regulation agency asking them to look into it?
7. What do people think the consequences of this episode will be?
My answers are
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7:
a. TD1 will get the message, informally if not officially, and think twice before driving at 70 kph through a 30 kph zone again.
b. Other taxi drivers who might not have given much thought to it become aware of the issues concerning speeding in residential areas.
c. Residents of the village and surrounding villages become aware of the issue of taxi drivers speeding through their villages.
d. Residents let it be known that they will not travel with taxi companies whose drivers speed through residential areas.
e. There is eventually a reduction in the incidence of taxis speeding through residential areas.
f. All this happens without anybody having to invoke any legal apparatus.
PBL
Last edited by PBL; 23rd Dec 2007 at 09:57.
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After nearly 450 posts the question here should be "how can we prevent a disaster?"
LTD tried, and could not stop it happening.
The fact that no disaster happened, and he was mistaken about the need for IBE6166 to de-ice (due to the fact nothing went wrong)
What pisses me off about this whole affair was after a PROFESSIONAL aviator brought a potential problem to the attention to another professional flight crew and a professional ATC system nothing was done to check or verify anything before the aircraft departed.
Anything anyone files after the event does not matter. It is too late.
From LTD's first post and the RT communications from him and ATC's relay (through delivery and ground) a professional thought there was a safety issue.
However, there was no attempt by anyone to stop the departure while a check on the ice condition of IBE6166 was made.
Next time............
LTD tried, and could not stop it happening.
The fact that no disaster happened, and he was mistaken about the need for IBE6166 to de-ice (due to the fact nothing went wrong)
What pisses me off about this whole affair was after a PROFESSIONAL aviator brought a potential problem to the attention to another professional flight crew and a professional ATC system nothing was done to check or verify anything before the aircraft departed.
Anything anyone files after the event does not matter. It is too late.
From LTD's first post and the RT communications from him and ATC's relay (through delivery and ground) a professional thought there was a safety issue.
However, there was no attempt by anyone to stop the departure while a check on the ice condition of IBE6166 was made.
Next time............
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try using doctors in the analogy
I like PBL's reasoned analogy. But although the answers 1 - 7 are the same, it works better using medical malpractice because of the standards required, the relative exclusiveness, dedication, and skill levels of the professional groups (Physicians, Aviators) and the seriousness with which deviations from either the law or best practice are taken by the professional licensing body. In the medical malpractice example however, it is not at all uncommon for the general public (read patient), as an interested and affected party to initiate a report, and that is perfectly acceptable route. Substitute the word "passenger" for "patient" and a lot of the puffery and defensiveness of previous posts suddenly becomes irrelevant: you're not flying hulls between A & B - they are filled with interested and affected parties, not brain-dead sheep. Well, some of them probably are brain-dead, but you get the point.
P
P
tableover: I wish that I had mentioned my intention before acting. I did not expect such criticism.
'if it has been reported' - the 'if' being the cause for my concern.
I told you (collectively) what I had done in the hope of encouraging suggestions for other means of reporting - which I requested. I also
hoped to encourage others to try to ensure that the subject of this thread is looked into.
soggy cabbage: I agree.
'if it has been reported' - the 'if' being the cause for my concern.
I told you (collectively) what I had done in the hope of encouraging suggestions for other means of reporting - which I requested. I also
hoped to encourage others to try to ensure that the subject of this thread is looked into.
soggy cabbage: I agree.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD,
A parable is exactly that....a parable.
The value in asking the questions surely doesn't depend on whether or not the content of the parable is true, does it?
Whatever that means.
A parable is exactly that....a parable.
The value in asking the questions surely doesn't depend on whether or not the content of the parable is true, does it?
Whatever that means.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why why oh why are we all still missing the point here?
SAFETY is the thing we are taught from our first trial lesson until we are sitting as a management pilot with the Authority, writing our AOCs expositions or changes to our SOPs.
A fellow professional makes a possible safety blunder which is reported to him (SAFETY)
There is the ability for said crew to reassess the situation and decontaminate the surfaces as required (SAFETY)
The professional brings this possible blunder to the attention of fellow professionals (here) - an icing warning that we all could heed (SAFETY)
A member of the public then reports what he has heard to a competent authority (SAFETY)
Some people may take exception at the way any single one of these things were handled, but NO pilot or passenger should question the intentions that underpin them.
Anyone who DOES question these intentions deserves to fly nothing other than a single seater over very sparsely populated areas.
Ditto for anyone who chooses to disregard information passed to them which has a potentially significant safety implication.
RIX
SAFETY is the thing we are taught from our first trial lesson until we are sitting as a management pilot with the Authority, writing our AOCs expositions or changes to our SOPs.
A fellow professional makes a possible safety blunder which is reported to him (SAFETY)
There is the ability for said crew to reassess the situation and decontaminate the surfaces as required (SAFETY)
The professional brings this possible blunder to the attention of fellow professionals (here) - an icing warning that we all could heed (SAFETY)
A member of the public then reports what he has heard to a competent authority (SAFETY)
Some people may take exception at the way any single one of these things were handled, but NO pilot or passenger should question the intentions that underpin them.
Anyone who DOES question these intentions deserves to fly nothing other than a single seater over very sparsely populated areas.
Ditto for anyone who chooses to disregard information passed to them which has a potentially significant safety implication.
RIX
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IB are very lax....
I am a recently retired flight crew.
I have flown in business class several times with Iberia from MAD-JNB-MAD recently. I have been amazed at the appalling safety violations I have witnessed.
I have seen the purser standing in the galley while we landed at MAD. Another purser at door 1L unstrapped for take-off. Passengers with their chair/bed in the fully-reclined position during the take-off and landing. The floor area is always covered in hand baggage, pillows and blankets on landing. The large TV screens at the seats in business class in the 'up' position. They even serve drinks during the emergency briefing! All this in the last year.
If this is the standard of safety awareness in the cabin, one can only imagine that it is as bad on the flight-deck.
I wrote to UK Manager IB. After pushing for a reply I received one from IB MAD apologising ''for my bad experience''!!! They were obviously not interested in my points regarding safety.
(Hope the man from the Daily Mail reads this!!)
I have flown in business class several times with Iberia from MAD-JNB-MAD recently. I have been amazed at the appalling safety violations I have witnessed.
I have seen the purser standing in the galley while we landed at MAD. Another purser at door 1L unstrapped for take-off. Passengers with their chair/bed in the fully-reclined position during the take-off and landing. The floor area is always covered in hand baggage, pillows and blankets on landing. The large TV screens at the seats in business class in the 'up' position. They even serve drinks during the emergency briefing! All this in the last year.
If this is the standard of safety awareness in the cabin, one can only imagine that it is as bad on the flight-deck.
I wrote to UK Manager IB. After pushing for a reply I received one from IB MAD apologising ''for my bad experience''!!! They were obviously not interested in my points regarding safety.
(Hope the man from the Daily Mail reads this!!)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Munich
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing the bigger picture.
Quote I-FORD
"And we still don't know if the IB A340 made any preventive anti-ice treatment at the gate, disregarding the usual procedure in BOS that calls for it to be performed just after pushback."
It doesn't matter. If he did De-ice / Anti-ice at the gate and then is subsequently informed that snow & ice are still present then it requires the procedure to be re-accomplished.
What do you do? Reply with "Thanks for the info but since I already De-iced/Anti-iced I can continue with snow & ice on my wing?"
"And we still don't know if the IB A340 made any preventive anti-ice treatment at the gate, disregarding the usual procedure in BOS that calls for it to be performed just after pushback."
It doesn't matter. If he did De-ice / Anti-ice at the gate and then is subsequently informed that snow & ice are still present then it requires the procedure to be re-accomplished.
What do you do? Reply with "Thanks for the info but since I already De-iced/Anti-iced I can continue with snow & ice on my wing?"
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you do? Reply with "Thanks for the info but since I already De-iced/Anti-iced I can continue with snow & ice on my wing?"
Based on a chronology posted ^^^, the conversation between IB, BA, and Boston Tower occurred between 2320 and 2325 hours. The Metars covering that period are:
METAR KBOS 022254Z 22004KT 5SM -SN OVC025 M03/M11 A3024
SPECI KBOS 022340Z 21003KT 1 3/4SM -SN BKN025 OVC060 M04/M09 A3023 RMK AO2 P0000
The special observation reporting visibility as 1 3/4 with light snow was made 15-20 minutes after the pertinent conversation; 25-30 minutes prior to the conversation, the regular Metars reported visibility as 5 miles in what would be very light snow.
As the temperature at 2340 is -4C and the dewpoint is -9C, the light snow that was falling was almost certainly fluffy and unlikely to be adhering to surfaces.
The total snowfall measured for KBOS for all of December 2 was 0.3 inches.
METAR KBOS 022254Z 22004KT 5SM -SN OVC025 M03/M11 A3024
SPECI KBOS 022340Z 21003KT 1 3/4SM -SN BKN025 OVC060 M04/M09 A3023 RMK AO2 P0000
The special observation reporting visibility as 1 3/4 with light snow was made 15-20 minutes after the pertinent conversation; 25-30 minutes prior to the conversation, the regular Metars reported visibility as 5 miles in what would be very light snow.
As the temperature at 2340 is -4C and the dewpoint is -9C, the light snow that was falling was almost certainly fluffy and unlikely to be adhering to surfaces.
The total snowfall measured for KBOS for all of December 2 was 0.3 inches.
So many so-called icing experts here with nothing especially nice to say about the concerned respective IB crew...yet these folks wern't there to see for themselves.
Whereas, the concerned IB Commander was there, made a proper decision, and departed.
And, if the conditions were as reported by SaturnV, and further dependant on aircraft type...so would I.
The opinions of others notwithstanding.
Speak up?
As a non commercial pilot and as someone who makes a living filming from helicopters I occasionally see something odd that is hard to ignore when travelling as a passenger on a commercial flight.
Should I say something to the crew?
One example on a transatlantic flight into Gatwick, seated next to the wing I noticed that a sound I identified with the flaps being lowered, was continous and did not stop when the flaps (that I could see on my side) had stopped moving.
Should I have drawn, what I thought was an obvious noise, to the attention of the cabin crew? I wondered if the motors could overheat.
Ten minutes later I kicked myself when we did a go around due to what the pilot later described as a faulty "warning light". (I assume they didn't have electronic confirmation that flaps were down) Engines spooled up around 500 meters from threshold. Didn't see any flight crew in the passenger cabin making any visual checks. If I had said something would it have avoided a go-around?
The next time I saw something odd was on a City Airport to Nice flight when manovering at around 5000ft I saw two black blurrs whizz past under the wing around 20 seconds apart, we either had a near miss with two very large birds or something had been ejected from the engine. When we landed I spoke to the pilot who was very grateful and mentioned that large flakes of paint were know to peel off the engines and he would check it out anyway.
When filming, with appropriate permissions, departures at dawn at Gatwick on a frosty morning I noted a vapour trail from a single point at the tail the of a 737. Hadn't seen such an effect before so I called the tower who suspected it was excess de-icing being illuminated by the early morning light, non the less they relayed the message to the pilot which I thought was a sensible action.
When working rigging helicopters there is never been any problem with pointing out the obvoius bits and pieces don't look quite right (lots of them on an average light utility helicopter!) to a pilot or engineer.
After reading this thread, next time I hear the flap motors not stopping I'll speak-up, if nothing but in hope to get home 10 minutes earlier.
Mickjoebill
Should I say something to the crew?
One example on a transatlantic flight into Gatwick, seated next to the wing I noticed that a sound I identified with the flaps being lowered, was continous and did not stop when the flaps (that I could see on my side) had stopped moving.
Should I have drawn, what I thought was an obvious noise, to the attention of the cabin crew? I wondered if the motors could overheat.
Ten minutes later I kicked myself when we did a go around due to what the pilot later described as a faulty "warning light". (I assume they didn't have electronic confirmation that flaps were down) Engines spooled up around 500 meters from threshold. Didn't see any flight crew in the passenger cabin making any visual checks. If I had said something would it have avoided a go-around?
The next time I saw something odd was on a City Airport to Nice flight when manovering at around 5000ft I saw two black blurrs whizz past under the wing around 20 seconds apart, we either had a near miss with two very large birds or something had been ejected from the engine. When we landed I spoke to the pilot who was very grateful and mentioned that large flakes of paint were know to peel off the engines and he would check it out anyway.
When filming, with appropriate permissions, departures at dawn at Gatwick on a frosty morning I noted a vapour trail from a single point at the tail the of a 737. Hadn't seen such an effect before so I called the tower who suspected it was excess de-icing being illuminated by the early morning light, non the less they relayed the message to the pilot which I thought was a sensible action.
When working rigging helicopters there is never been any problem with pointing out the obvoius bits and pieces don't look quite right (lots of them on an average light utility helicopter!) to a pilot or engineer.
After reading this thread, next time I hear the flap motors not stopping I'll speak-up, if nothing but in hope to get home 10 minutes earlier.
Mickjoebill
It doesn't matter. If he did De-ice / Anti-ice at the gate and then is subsequently informed that snow & ice are still present then it requires the procedure to be re-accomplished.
What do you do? Reply with "Thanks for the info but since I already De-iced/Anti-iced I can continue with snow & ice on my wing?"
What do you do? Reply with "Thanks for the info but since I already De-iced/Anti-iced I can continue with snow & ice on my wing?"
I can believe both crews in this case. But just to be sure I would have conducted an investigation of the tasks performed at the gate by the Iberia ground handlers and flight crew before forming a gut opinion.Let alone a public flogging
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Munich
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be safe - take a look yourself
Quote from lomapaseo
"The issue may have really been who has a better subjective judgement of whether snow or ice was seen? The crew durring at the time of dispatch or a another passing crew looking through looking their windows."
The crew may have viewed the wings during the preflight but when sitting in the cockpit you can't see the wings. Who has a better view then?
From 411A
"I hesitate to break it to you, HolidayPilot, but if the weather was truly thus, as reported...'
Regardless of the weather report, when informed of snow / ice on the wings the crew should investigate, as in get off their bottoms and go look. Which, according to the description of events wasn't done.
To clarify - I can't imagine sitting in the cockpit and being informed that I have snow / ice on my wings and then using a weather report to determine if I am OK to go. Better to have a look, even if previously De-iced / Anti-iced.
When the Feds come knocking would you rather say:
- Well according to the weather report…
Or
- I took a look and saw no snow / ice buildup.
One answer lets you keep your ticket, the other is a roll of the dice.
"The issue may have really been who has a better subjective judgement of whether snow or ice was seen? The crew durring at the time of dispatch or a another passing crew looking through looking their windows."
The crew may have viewed the wings during the preflight but when sitting in the cockpit you can't see the wings. Who has a better view then?
From 411A
"I hesitate to break it to you, HolidayPilot, but if the weather was truly thus, as reported...'
Regardless of the weather report, when informed of snow / ice on the wings the crew should investigate, as in get off their bottoms and go look. Which, according to the description of events wasn't done.
To clarify - I can't imagine sitting in the cockpit and being informed that I have snow / ice on my wings and then using a weather report to determine if I am OK to go. Better to have a look, even if previously De-iced / Anti-iced.
When the Feds come knocking would you rather say:
- Well according to the weather report…
Or
- I took a look and saw no snow / ice buildup.
One answer lets you keep your ticket, the other is a roll of the dice.