Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!
I understand that you were raised with the comfortable blanket of having the decision made for you with the SOP and that making the decision I've made example of is beyond the cover of your blanket with which you feel so safe.
I have observed the transition to this attitude you have across the younger ranks which has been artificially created by the SOP. Just as automation dilutes pilot skill, the SOP here has diluted your ability to see and think outside the little box you feel comfortable in. It doesn't much matter in that the SOP rules, right?
It only matters when the inability to see outside the little SOP box has you crucifying a colleague with a label of "unsafe" - when in fact he may have been safer and just more experienced.
The whole point is that you do not and I would go as far as to say can not know what the effects of even a small amount of contamination will be on the airframe, especially if it is asymmetric in its deposition. If you take off under these conditions you are playing with the lives of those you are charged with protecting, for no good reason. I believe the word "cowboy" is appropriate in these circumstances.
Reply to post #491;
Jaxon;
JO is spot on and I support the views expressed without hesitation. I've never seen fuel out of the ground (and into either the wings or the bowser then the wings) below about 5C or so and that's in Toronto in mid-winter.
Yes, the skin of an aircraft which has just arrived will be very cold indeed and the fuel will be cold-soaked to well below zero. JO points out correctly, that, depending upon the load, adding fuel will of course warm the fuel somewhat. As FullWings states correctly, one cannot be certain what is going on underneath any layer of snow on the wings when at the gate or taxiing out, the crew cannot be certain what any warming of the wings due to uploaded fuel may do, if indeed anything. There are few experts in the cockpit and I venture to say none in training departments who would today pronounce a wing clean "underneath" a light dusting of snow. I recognize that you acknowledge this.
One item which perhaps has not been touched upon is the recirculation of fuel through the IDG Cooling System (heat exchanger) on (at least) the CFM56 installations on the A320, (not sure of others, including Boeing). After engine start, fuel is circulated from the engine high pressure line through the IDG heat exchanger to keep the IDG cool especially at low engine rpm, and is then returned to the outer tanks, (inner tanks on the A330/340), of course warmer than before. The notion has been expressed elsewhere, that even with dry snow and a piercing cold wing, fuel so warmed will in time and where direct contact is had, (which is almost always the case as the outer tanks are always filled and used last), warm the metal and melt the snow until subsequent cold temperatures just above the surface of the wing re-freeze the liquid leaving ice on the wing underneath the "light" snow. I have had discussions on this matter with other Airbus pilots and the concern is especially the outer portion of the wing being susceptible to stall before the inner portion. I add that I know of no cases where this has occurred but we are not experts and must work in a rule-based system.
I understand what you are driving at in various posts and have both heard it said by Captains I used to fly with and have made such a decision myself dozens of years ago on cold wings, very cold day, light, dry snow conditions, (-30 to -40C). It is a decision which at the time, seemed reasonable. Today it is not. I know of no research, no incidents and no concerns backed up with data (and not just opinions, professional or otherwise), that an aircraft wing can be considered contaminated when sprayed with any type of fluid or gel.
After aircraft were caught and the crews (Captain) charged by the Transport Canada "Ice Police" in Toronto for departing with contaminated wings, that was the end of any such "specialist" cockpit decision that the snow will blow off, and today departing with anything on the wings at all is inviting swift and opprobrious remark at best and an accident with enormous liabilities at worst. It simply is not done anymore and anyone who does not speak up is contributing to the outcome. If IB (or any other airline or crew) is embarrassed or unfairly charged in absentia by an anonymous forum it is still far better than killing an airplane load of people over respect for professional courtesy. Virgil Moshansky among many, would concur.
Now I hear your protests regarding adherence to SOPs and respect the fact that you agree with them. So be it. Why continue to defend the indefensible?
Jaxon;
JO is spot on and I support the views expressed without hesitation. I've never seen fuel out of the ground (and into either the wings or the bowser then the wings) below about 5C or so and that's in Toronto in mid-winter.
Yes, the skin of an aircraft which has just arrived will be very cold indeed and the fuel will be cold-soaked to well below zero. JO points out correctly, that, depending upon the load, adding fuel will of course warm the fuel somewhat. As FullWings states correctly, one cannot be certain what is going on underneath any layer of snow on the wings when at the gate or taxiing out, the crew cannot be certain what any warming of the wings due to uploaded fuel may do, if indeed anything. There are few experts in the cockpit and I venture to say none in training departments who would today pronounce a wing clean "underneath" a light dusting of snow. I recognize that you acknowledge this.
One item which perhaps has not been touched upon is the recirculation of fuel through the IDG Cooling System (heat exchanger) on (at least) the CFM56 installations on the A320, (not sure of others, including Boeing). After engine start, fuel is circulated from the engine high pressure line through the IDG heat exchanger to keep the IDG cool especially at low engine rpm, and is then returned to the outer tanks, (inner tanks on the A330/340), of course warmer than before. The notion has been expressed elsewhere, that even with dry snow and a piercing cold wing, fuel so warmed will in time and where direct contact is had, (which is almost always the case as the outer tanks are always filled and used last), warm the metal and melt the snow until subsequent cold temperatures just above the surface of the wing re-freeze the liquid leaving ice on the wing underneath the "light" snow. I have had discussions on this matter with other Airbus pilots and the concern is especially the outer portion of the wing being susceptible to stall before the inner portion. I add that I know of no cases where this has occurred but we are not experts and must work in a rule-based system.
I understand what you are driving at in various posts and have both heard it said by Captains I used to fly with and have made such a decision myself dozens of years ago on cold wings, very cold day, light, dry snow conditions, (-30 to -40C). It is a decision which at the time, seemed reasonable. Today it is not. I know of no research, no incidents and no concerns backed up with data (and not just opinions, professional or otherwise), that an aircraft wing can be considered contaminated when sprayed with any type of fluid or gel.
After aircraft were caught and the crews (Captain) charged by the Transport Canada "Ice Police" in Toronto for departing with contaminated wings, that was the end of any such "specialist" cockpit decision that the snow will blow off, and today departing with anything on the wings at all is inviting swift and opprobrious remark at best and an accident with enormous liabilities at worst. It simply is not done anymore and anyone who does not speak up is contributing to the outcome. If IB (or any other airline or crew) is embarrassed or unfairly charged in absentia by an anonymous forum it is still far better than killing an airplane load of people over respect for professional courtesy. Virgil Moshansky among many, would concur.
Now I hear your protests regarding adherence to SOPs and respect the fact that you agree with them. So be it. Why continue to defend the indefensible?
Last edited by PJ2; 3rd Jan 2008 at 08:43.
Understand the notion. Impractical and non-standard Airbus fueling and tank configuration, (Center-wing fuel would have to be transferred out to go somewhere and typical turn-around times are far too tight for such fiddling. Center-tank fuel on the 320 is rarely used except on long-haul, (typically five hours +)).
PJ2
PJ2
Some years before the '89 Dryden accident and the ensuing clean wing concept, a friend of mine related that when he was SLFing BOS-YYZ on Air Canada, the DC-9 stopped before the runway, the rear exit stairs came down and a pilot went out and ran his hand over the wing.
He expressed the feeling that there should be instruments to detect surface contamination. I told him that there aren't any and that the AC crew was doing exactly the right thing, especially the part about checking just before takeoff
Since then SOPs and regs have changed to now exclude conditions experienced crews formerly accepted and successfully flew in.
Yes, de/anti-icing may be used more often than strictly necessary. If every ten years or so, it prevents another Dryden, it's worth it.
Sadly last year another Fokker was unsuccessful in taking off Collision between Air France Fokker and truck in PAU
He expressed the feeling that there should be instruments to detect surface contamination. I told him that there aren't any and that the AC crew was doing exactly the right thing, especially the part about checking just before takeoff
Since then SOPs and regs have changed to now exclude conditions experienced crews formerly accepted and successfully flew in.
Yes, de/anti-icing may be used more often than strictly necessary. If every ten years or so, it prevents another Dryden, it's worth it.
Sadly last year another Fokker was unsuccessful in taking off Collision between Air France Fokker and truck in PAU
Many aspects of flight safety relating to decisions taken on the ground before flight are revisited here:- The Decision To Fly
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day... how much money is coming out of our pockets to deice the jet. Is it really worth the distraction of safety of operation if you even have the least doubt as to whether or not to deice? Do you think the bean counters upstairs really take notice on who deices and who does not?
One could say, although I don't care for the description, is that SOPs are designed to protect us, our crews, passengers, and aircraft from ourselves from going into business for ourselves.
SOPs instill disciplines required to maintain a safe operation from report of duty to end of duty... which such details are covered in the non-normal section of the FCOM.
To one and all... be safe out there during this winter flying season.
One could say, although I don't care for the description, is that SOPs are designed to protect us, our crews, passengers, and aircraft from ourselves from going into business for ourselves.
SOPs instill disciplines required to maintain a safe operation from report of duty to end of duty... which such details are covered in the non-normal section of the FCOM.
To one and all... be safe out there during this winter flying season.
At the end of the day... how much money is coming out of our pockets to deice the jet. Is it really worth the distraction of safety of operation if you even have the least doubt as to whether or not to deice? Do you think the bean counters upstairs really take notice on who deices and who does not?
That's where the pinch point really is.
(I'm not arguing for or against a decision, but just pointing out a measuring tool)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...pages=32&page=
Just check this link to airliners.net. They don`t manage rainy conditions, so one day they won`t manage snow either!
Just check this link to airliners.net. They don`t manage rainy conditions, so one day they won`t manage snow either!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I *seriously* beg to differ
Attitudes like yours are why hundreds of people sometimes die in airliner crashes. Suppose it were the FO who questioned. If company policy (like that of Korean Air) told him or her to simply sit there and shut up and take orders from the captain, would it have been wrong of him or her to pipe up? I'd have unbuckled and walked out the door.
Safety is EVERYBODY's business (ever heard that phrase before?). Just because you have the right as captain to do something stupid doesn't absolve me of the right and duty to point it out.
Honestly, ground should have not allowed him to push back unless he'd de-iced under those conditions.
JH
Safety is EVERYBODY's business (ever heard that phrase before?). Just because you have the right as captain to do something stupid doesn't absolve me of the right and duty to point it out.
Honestly, ground should have not allowed him to push back unless he'd de-iced under those conditions.
JH
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
Slightly off topic here but cant resist.
".........to deice the jet"
Now are we talking about the engine (jet), the aircraft or have you been watching that top gun film too often?
Slightly off topic here but cant resist.
".........to deice the jet"
Now are we talking about the engine (jet), the aircraft or have you been watching that top gun film too often?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SF,CA,USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jr heileg
I suggest checking the FARs. IIRC Atc don't get to say the plane cannot go. Obviously Atc poked as hard as they could including relaying Ltd's concerns.
The final decision rests with the captn.
I suggest checking the FARs. IIRC Atc don't get to say the plane cannot go. Obviously Atc poked as hard as they could including relaying Ltd's concerns.
The final decision rests with the captn.
There is only one Captain.
That's how it works.
You don't like it?
Don't travel.
This thread tires me.
Somebody please kill it.
PB
That's how it works.
You don't like it?
Don't travel.
This thread tires me.
Somebody please kill it.
PB
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we are approaching the crunch issue!
Just because one member of the crew makes an error of judgement does the other HAVE to follow? That is why he is there I thought but then I am not Solomon!!
In a way glad to hear captains can make mistakes...........
Just because one member of the crew makes an error of judgement does the other HAVE to follow? That is why he is there I thought but then I am not Solomon!!
In a way glad to hear captains can make mistakes...........
And it happened again today.....
Going out of CPH ( Copenhagen Denmark ) today january 5'th a rain shower passed. Unfortunately it was with freezing rain, leaving a thin layer of about 1 to 2 millimeters of clear ice on everything.
Transavia called for push, (at that time, it was pure mayham on the frequency, because everyone wanted to get to deicing) CPH ground asked if HV5788 needed deicing, to everyones surprice they said no!
The only aircraft to leave without deicing, so maybe it somehow avoided the freezing rainshower...
Transavia called for push, (at that time, it was pure mayham on the frequency, because everyone wanted to get to deicing) CPH ground asked if HV5788 needed deicing, to everyones surprice they said no!
The only aircraft to leave without deicing, so maybe it somehow avoided the freezing rainshower...
