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

[Just an Engineer]

411A, and your point being?

I thought we had already established in the first half of this long thread that current FAA regs do not allow any snow or ice deposits on the wings. Your re-print of the current weather conditions at the time simply offers more ‘evidence for the prosecution’ (Light snow and -4 temperatures).

Secondly some people here (And maybe the Iberia crew ?) are still advocating it maybe have been ‘light and fluffy and not adhering’ as a signal to go. Does that mean it will still be after you have taxied and queued to the hold with subsequent possible heating and freezing by jet blast ?

The current minimum standards have surely been built up due to numerous de-ice related fatalities. They have been designed to take the guess work out of the decision making process. If you have snow/ice on wings then you have no choice but to de-ice. Period.

[Jaxon]

Engineer,
Its the difference between suggesting "It was against the SOP" vs "It was unsafe". Its a big difference and one lost on the youngsters unable to comprehend the difference and getting hysterical.

[411A]

Its a big difference and one lost on the youngsters unable to comprehend the difference and getting hysterical.

So very true...

[Clandestino]

If you can break your SOP, in a safe manner, during normal operation, then your SOP is not worth the paper on which it's written. Good SOP is a practical guide on staying alive while getting the job done. Bad SOP is just a MGT @r$€-covering exercise.

It's irellevant what we'll call Iberia colleauges; cowboys, caballeros or highly experienced professionals. Also it's not of a much importance whether they broke FARs, JARs or SOPs. What matters is that if they really relied on airflow during takeoff to blow away all the loose snow on their wings, they have very unnecessarily increased chances of prematurely reuniting themselves, their CC and their PAX with their maker. By how much - well that's anyone's guess. There are not many test pilots willing to check out behaviour of airplane with ice-contaminated upper wing surface in actual flight conditions, therefore we have to rely on data from accident reports and they show that danger is very real, even if it's not easily quantifyable.

Granted, there will be some old-hands who will point out that small amount of loose snow that falls in sub-zero OAT, on sub-zero airframe will completely fall off the airplane during take-off roll. If that's really the method they've been using during their careeers, it just shows how lucky they were during their heyday.

[Jaxon]

If you can break your SOP, in a safe manner, during normal operation, then your SOP is not worth the paper on which it's written. Good SOP is a practical guide on staying alive while getting the job done. Bad SOP is just a MGT @r$€-covering exercise.

I think in terms of flight and flightdeck management you are mainly correct in that if an airline's specific SOPs are well made then crews will reliably stick to them, if they are not, then many crews will disregard the poorly conceived ones and make up their own. As a fleet manager in an airline you cannot throw your ego into dictating how you want YOUR airplane to be flown. You must make good procedures which stand up to the crews' scrutiny.

Regarding the modern clean aircraft concept, before its institution the only way to discover bad judgement was to crash a plane. This SOP is absolutely unnecessary for many or most of us, but its still a plenty smart SOP as it clearly saves the lives of those being flown by the few that cannot be relied upon to make the call.

But here is a little more food for thought: If you deice the cold airplane with a little bit of fresh dry snow on it, as I understand the flight in question to EXACTLY be, are you really safer - or perhaps have you just created a situation where each additional minute that passes before take-off is actually more dangerous? Where once you had cold dry snow left harmless and unadhering, now you have created a situation guaranteed to result in a badly iced up aircraft in a matter of minutes!!! What is the holdover time in best case at that temperature and in moderate snow??? It is an inexperienced pilot that gets a warm and fuzzy relaxed feeling that everything is now okay because they squirted fluid on your airplane.

Here's even more for you to chew on... you ARE a test pilot and you just don't know it. Complying with deicing procedures and using certain approved fluids has a known adverse affect that is presently unquantified and unaccounted for in any of your performance data but which degrades your performance in a measurable way (read: significant) yet still has no procedure to calculate and quantify the performance loss which is known to directly decrease the safety of your take-off... yet you feel safe just because you followed the SOP and left the gate with pretty colors dripping off your plane. Further more, trusting your highly trained deicing crew to use the proper fluid at the proper mix at the proper temperature in the proper application technique possibly has its risks - do you think?

[Jaxon]

Granted, there will be some old-hands who will point out that small amount of loose snow that falls in sub-zero OAT, on sub-zero airframe will completely fall off the airplane during take-off roll. If that's really the method they've been using during their careeers, it just shows how lucky they were during their heyday.

Show me a cold aircraft with cold dry snow that's not sticking and I'll show you a cold aircraft with cold dry snow that's not sticking!!!

You are silly or just plain oblivious to the fact to suggest that multitudes of pilots for many, many years and absolutely countless take-offs - and who enjoyed careers longer than your current age - were just lucky.

The SOP is a good one, but it doesn't have to necessarily be followed to be safe. The youngsters here should clue in that safe is not always legal and legal is not always safe.

[slip and turn]

Very interesting posts Jaxon. I can see your tongue buried deep in your cheek

So when and where do you get that piece of paper that says you are old and wise enough only to regard the rules as an elementary guide ? I imagine it must be an Inuit thing. Tell you what, if any A340 captain can name and describe all 547 different types of snow, then maybe some of us can accept that they might be half qualified on the 'wised-up enough to decline to deice when all about me are deicing' spectrum. The other half of the qualification is earned when said captain can correctly describe how their supercritical wing reacts with each type of snow in a complete range of pressures, temperatures and dewpoints and further precipitations, preferably without having conducted a career full of undocumented experiments with passengers down the back

[Jaxon]

So when and where do you get that piece of paper that says you are old and wise enough only to regard the rules as an elementary guide ?

When you are old enough, someone will come to your door and ask you three questions. Only then may you find yourself worthy of the certificate of Aged Wisdom.

Common sense has been outlawed and is no longer taught or supported, I got mine a long time ago and you can't have any!

I have only been so vocal about this because "unsafe" and "contrary to SOP" have been confused and common understanding from years past has been abandoned and taped over with an SOP. My point has not been about approving the violating of SOP. But since you mention it... I hope you realize that SOPs come in different sizes, some you can't get out of under any circumstances with the authorities, some can be violated as an acceptable deviation for "non-standard" situations. You only need the "Aged Wisdom" certificate along with your explanation.

[Clandestino]

So there we have it - two old, not bold, captains, well adjusted, respected among their peers and admired by their first officers telling us that what Iberia's crew allegedly did is just what they would do under the circumstances. Well, I'm not surprised since I've witnessed this practice too many times and it wasn't in some third world country unless such a contry has miraculously translated itself into the central Europe. And crews who refused to deice were not all hot-blooded southerners, there were cool-headed teutonic and nordic types too. Sadly, whenever I've seen it happening there was noone like LTD to warn the offending crews on frequency. Thank you for speaking up LightTwinDriver, I didn't have the courage to speak up when I should.

As for 'dry snow will blow off', the best advice about it is from the anectode I've heard: fairly young ATR captain comes to the plane that has been left on apron for hours. Snow has stopped but now there's light coating of powdery snow on the airplane. Up comes the mechanic and comments that they don't need to deice as the snow will blow off as soon as they start taxiing. To which the capt. responded:"So it will really come down easily? Great. Now get the broom and sweep all snow from the airplane so I can check what's beneath it and then I'll decide whether we need to deice or not." Mech replied:"You've got to be kidding, it would take me an hour to do that!". "Now would it be faster to just give me 50/50, single step?". It's probably apocryphal but it's a good story nevertheless.

So next time, when on CRM refresher you discuss about some unfortunate colleague of ours, whose last flight produced a massive accident report, bear in the mind the following:

1. There is a possibilty that a question "Why did he do that?" might have an answer: "Because he did it once, twice, five times or a hundred times before and got away with that. Every time except the last one."

2. Also: (qouted from http://www.skygod.com)

Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes with every pilot we lose.

3. But also: (from 10-odd year old editorial in Flight International bemoaning the loss of lives in a spate of CFITs)

It seems that you can lead the pilots to the best practice, but you can not always make them follow it.

As for being test pilot with thickened de-icing fluids on the airframe, it's simply not true. Test flights do include checking influence of de-icing on airplane take-off performance. Problems that some aircraft experienced (e.g. Jumbolino and ATR) after they've been certified, were related to pooling of fluid in aerodinamically quiet areas of flight controls and not with fluids falling off non-uniformly or affecting the lift or drag of the wings. Years before ATR made it official, we were aware of heavier stick forces during rotation, caused by Type II/IV entering the slot between the elevator and the stabilizer. We increased Vr, applied performance penalties, briefed for PNF to assist with rotation and practiced assisted rotations on sim, but in my five winters on ATR, I have never had to call out "PULL,PULL,PULL!!!" or have been called to pull.

When you are old enough, someone will come to your door and ask you three questions

Or, alternatively: when you are not quite old enough, you find yourself knocking on the heaven's gate. St. Peter comes out and asks about your age, occupation and how did you get here. As you start talking about that uncounterable roll just after take off, he stops you and says:"Sorry, son, you've missed the gate. Delivery boys enter through the back door."

[amos2]

So, let me get this straight...

"safe is not always legal" and...

"legal is not always safe"...

err!...yeah!...I got that!...hmm!...well, I think I got that.

...no, I don't think I did!

But, maybe that's because I'm just a youngster!

As Pauline Hanson would say, "please explain?"

[Hand Solo]

Originally Posted by Jaxon

But here is a little more food for thought: If you deice the cold airplane with a little bit of fresh dry snow on it, as I understand the flight in question to EXACTLY be, are you really safer - or perhaps have you just created a situation where each additional minute that passes before take-off is actually more dangerous? Where once you had cold dry snow left harmless and unadhering, now you have created a situation guaranteed to result in a badly iced up aircraft in a matter of minutes!!! What is the holdover time in best case at that temperature and in moderate snow???

Goodness do you really believe that? Apart from making the huge assumption that this was initially all light snow that wouldn't adhere to the wing you go on to build in another assumption that anything falling afterwards will not adhere either. Thats a huge gamble when nobody can go out and check whether the new stuff is the right kind of snow. I'd rather de-ice then anti ice and have a reasonble idea of my holdover time than cross my fingers and hope that everything thats fallen since the last external check will be good to me.

[Jaxon]

So there we have it - two old, not bold, captains, well adjusted, respected among their peers and admired by their first officers telling us that what Iberia's crew allegedly did is just what they would do under the circumstances. Well, I'm not surprised since I've witnessed this practice too many times and it wasn't in some third world country unless such a contry has miraculously translated itself into the central Europe.

Well, actually, that's EXACTLY what an entire industry did not that long ago. Look, check, decide. You are obviously too young to know any better and happy to not have to think, just squirt. I'd put words into your mouth like you've tried to do to me but then I realize that everybody would see the deceit since they're all right here, why don't you?

[Jaxon]

Goodness do you really believe that? Apart from making the huge assumption that this was initially all light snow that wouldn't adhere to the wing you go on to build in another assumption that anything falling afterwards will not adhere either. Thats a huge gamble when nobody can go out and check whether the new stuff is the right kind of snow. I'd rather de-ice then anti ice and have a reasonble idea of my holdover time than cross my fingers and hope that everything thats fallen since the last external check will be good to me.

Gosh, I don't know what to tell you , I just know that if I pull into the gate for a quick turn and it starts a little snowing 20 minutes before departure, and the temperature is real cold... on the plane, around the plane, and above the plane for a long long way into the sky... and no warm airmass happens to be just moving in... and no other condition is melting anything... then YES! I feel pretty darn good about knowing EXACTLY the condition of my wing on taxi and take-off. Amazing! Aren't I?! It isn't even a question once you get rolling away from the wind break of the terminal as its all wafted away before reaching the runway. If it hasn't, its either dead calm and you taxi real slow, or your judgement just failed you and fresh dry loose snow it isn't.

For the record, far be it from me to disregard the SOP in question its too sensitive an issue, common sense on this issue has been abandoned and I have no need to fight the system on it.

[Hand Solo]

Gosh you are amazing aren't you. If you don't know what to tell me you could start by explaining what relevance your 20 minute turnaround has to a thread on turning around an A340 thats been cold soaking for the last 7 hours. Perhaps you can explain how your aircraft is immune to icing in the vicinity of the sub zero fuel pooling in the tanks at the bottom of the wing. Simple physics tells me that you don't need a warm air mass or precipitation to get condensation on the wings, you just need the wing to be colder than the surrounding air, which is pretty easy if you have a thick wing and a long time to cool it. You'll get condensation above the wing as well as below and if you have snow falling onto that then it isn't dry fluffy snow any more, it's wet snow at the interface, and unless somebody has gone up there and scraped it all off you don't know whats adhering beneath. Recently, mindful of this thread, I sat in my flight deck and looked hard at the upper wing surfaces of an adjacent Iberia A346 just to check what could be seen. Not only is the visibility good but I concluded that if you could actually see deposits on the top there would have to be a lot of them there, and not the kind that'll blow away with a bit of a breeze.

[Jaxon]

Wow! You have hoar frost removed from the underside of your wings?
I've never really seen that done.

If your convoluted and confused "physics" were true, we'd have one hell of a lot of freezing condensation all winter long to wash off even without the precipitation. Start thinking about why that doesn't tend to happen the way you envision.

[rogerg]

jaxon
You might well be right, but I am glad I dont have to fly with a dangerous expert like you.

[Hand Solo]

No Jaxon you don't remove hoar frost from under your wings. You do remove the clear ice ridges which form when the hoar frost melts at the outer edges, runs down the wings and refreezes on the colder inner wing. Or perhaps you think you don't need to remove that either?

Nothing convoluted or confused about my physics, it's high school physics 101stuff. If you introduce an object into an air mass and that object is colder than the dew point of the air mass water will condense on it. Thats why your specs steam up when you walk into a warm building on a cold day and they don't clear until your specs warm to above the dew point of the air mass. There are plenty of big wings out there that have liquid condensation on them on the turnaround. If it doesn't freeze you don't have a problem, but if it was there to start with you can't realistically claim that light 'dry' snow that falls on it remains dry any more than I can stand in a puddle and tell you that my shoes are dry even though the soles are wet.

[fendant]

Folks,

have a look at the challenger crash in Almaty thread. Things CAN go wrong in bad weather at take off, Olé!

Frank

[Just an Engineer]

Jaxon

Well, actually, that's EXACTLY what an entire industry did not that long ago. Look, check, decide. You are obviously too young to know any better and happy to not have to think, just squirt.

And that is EXACTLY why we have had so many fatalities in the past.

Let’s be clear, a crash due to icing conditions is a completely avoidable accident and as such should be one of the easiest to prevent….On the ground, no flying pressures….ice/snow on wings ? - De-ice

We are supposed to be trying to improve safety here not having an ego competition based on previous old and bold de-cing procedures. The game is risk management.

Gosh, I don't know what to tell you, I just know that if I pull into the gate for a quick turn and it starts a little snowing 20 minutes before departure, and the temperature is real cold... on the plane, around the plane, and above the plane for a long long way into the sky... and no warm airmass happens to be just moving in... and no other condition is melting anything... then YES! I feel pretty darn good about knowing EXACTLY the condition of my wing on taxi and take-off.

And after you queue to the hold and unexpectedly get wafted by the nice gentle warm blast of the aircraft in front of you….. Now EXACTLY what is the condition of your wing ??

[wiccan]

Sorry, but I am just an 'umble ATCer/SLF...touching forelock....:-)
According to the AIB reports wot I have read. IF a "light a/c flies through a "Heavy Rainstorm", the pilot/engineer should re-lubricate the Flight Surface hinges/linkages, ASAP.
As an "assumption", one would think that this is SOP "accross the board"....so that any "DRY" snow which lodges in the hinge area could freeze as being in contact with the lubricant, and of course any "Fluid" contaminated surfaces. Or am I Totally and Utterly wrong?
bb