Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!
we should be able to put aside any personal irritations and look at the message for what it is
Safety first; any personal matters can be resolved afterwards.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Everyone, please remember the most important part. We are talking about a highly experience crew who earns a very nice salary. I don’t question for one minute their decision to depart.
Wasn´t the Dryden Captain the most experienced guy in his airline? And the KLM/Teneriffe Captain THE most experienced 747 driver of KLM?
If I look at the dumb things I do after nearly 20 years of flying I doubt the value of a statement like the one above.
Many years ago, I took off in a KingAir 200 with loose snow on the stabilizer. I cleared off all the snow from the wings and empennage and it was all just loose stuff. Nether the less, some snow melted and refroose and bridged in front of the elevators. To cut a long story short, this was the first,only and last time I ever took off in a contiminated airplane. Thats what I learned from that takeoff, that would have see me crash if any additional problem would had developed.
If the A340 was covered in snow, they were just lucky to get away with it. The conditons were just so that they did. (always presuming that this story is true). Not beeing an Airbus nor a heavy aircraft pilot I just wonder how much you can really see and judge from the flightdeck. I´d think that they have ground crew to assist in this decision. But after the hoarfrost T/O accident of SAS and the Dryden accident I think it is clear that any amount of wing cont should raise concern.
Everyone, please remember the most important part. We are talking about a highly experience crew who earns a very nice salary. I don’t question for one minute their decision to depart.
Wasn´t the Dryden Captain the most experienced guy in his airline? And the KLM/Teneriffe Captain THE most experienced 747 driver of KLM?
If I look at the dumb things I do after nearly 20 years of flying I doubt the value of a statement like the one above.
Many years ago, I took off in a KingAir 200 with loose snow on the stabilizer. I cleared off all the snow from the wings and empennage and it was all just loose stuff. Nether the less, some snow melted and refroose and bridged in front of the elevators. To cut a long story short, this was the first,only and last time I ever took off in a contiminated airplane. Thats what I learned from that takeoff, that would have see me crash if any additional problem would had developed.
If the A340 was covered in snow, they were just lucky to get away with it. The conditons were just so that they did. (always presuming that this story is true). Not beeing an Airbus nor a heavy aircraft pilot I just wonder how much you can really see and judge from the flightdeck. I´d think that they have ground crew to assist in this decision. But after the hoarfrost T/O accident of SAS and the Dryden accident I think it is clear that any amount of wing cont should raise concern.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: everywhere but home :-(
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone, please remember the most important part. We are talking about a highly experience crew who earns a very nice salary
I don’t question for one minute their decision to depart.
At least 3 pilots made the decision to depart with the “SNOW” covered airplane. The odds of having 3 cowboys in the cockpit is highly unlikely.
I wonder what IB SOPs have to say about airframe contamination; and if the Commander had evidence (photo etc) submitted against him, I wonder what his response to the authorities would have been?
Some of the postings on this thread are truly bizzare, and if they are from pilots, I shudder at the thought....
Well done LTD for speaking up. It is our duty to do so.
ATB
id
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: EU & USA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread seems to be full of Monday night quarterbacks. None of you ever make mistakes, obviously.
What does experience have to do with it? Everything. What does salary have to do with it, not much, it was a simple comment. I don’t see many pilots earning what a commander with Iberia earns, and there is a reason for that. Extremely professional crews, thus the reason I give them the benefit of the doubt. Accident statistics prove my point.
Does anyone think generalizing and calling 1,600 pilots cowboys is very professional?
If the author of this post was really interested in safety, he would have filed a report. It shows his lack of professionalism coming on this site and insulting 1,600 pilots with the title, even more so when we know the press reads the forum.
If this forum was not anonymous, we wouldn’t see all these senseless threads appearing.
Someone has to stand up for our fellow Iberians. Enough said.
What does experience have to do with it? Everything. What does salary have to do with it, not much, it was a simple comment. I don’t see many pilots earning what a commander with Iberia earns, and there is a reason for that. Extremely professional crews, thus the reason I give them the benefit of the doubt. Accident statistics prove my point.
Does anyone think generalizing and calling 1,600 pilots cowboys is very professional?
If the author of this post was really interested in safety, he would have filed a report. It shows his lack of professionalism coming on this site and insulting 1,600 pilots with the title, even more so when we know the press reads the forum.
If this forum was not anonymous, we wouldn’t see all these senseless threads appearing.
Someone has to stand up for our fellow Iberians. Enough said.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robeki
I suggest you reread the first post, and the title. It does not say that the actions of this Captain/crew are indicative of ALL Iberian pilots.
As I read it, the thread is about an Iberian A340 crew, that seem to be cowboys.
However, your method of defending the indefensible simply makes it look worse.
It's simple.
1 crew, 1 aircraft, snow on the aircraft. A suggestion that they need deicing. They refused.
Ignore The Iberia bit.
Snow on an aircraft, icing conditions, apparently getting worse. Not deiced.
It doesn't make sense, no matter what level of experience, or salary scale.
Signed
A monday night quarterback, whatever that is.
I suggest you reread the first post, and the title. It does not say that the actions of this Captain/crew are indicative of ALL Iberian pilots.
As I read it, the thread is about an Iberian A340 crew, that seem to be cowboys.
However, your method of defending the indefensible simply makes it look worse.
It's simple.
1 crew, 1 aircraft, snow on the aircraft. A suggestion that they need deicing. They refused.
Ignore The Iberia bit.
Snow on an aircraft, icing conditions, apparently getting worse. Not deiced.
It doesn't make sense, no matter what level of experience, or salary scale.
Signed
A monday night quarterback, whatever that is.
Not sure how relevant this is but I have just been through the North Sea "HUET" training and one of the additional things is Norwegion law pertaining to HSE. Basically it puts the onous on yourself if you see something that has the potential to cause an accident and you fail to either bring it to the attention of the person/people involved or revelant supervisor/authority.
Whether its a good thing or not to encourage the ambulance chasing bottom feeders I don't know but if it saves injuries or lives perhaps its worth it.
I admire LTD for his stance on safety. His diplomacy skills may need some fine tuning.
Whether its a good thing or not to encourage the ambulance chasing bottom feeders I don't know but if it saves injuries or lives perhaps its worth it.
I admire LTD for his stance on safety. His diplomacy skills may need some fine tuning.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: LSZH
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clean Wing Concept
Hi everybody
The logo on the tail of this A340 is not an issue here. Those people were licenced airline pilots (I hope so...). However, according LTD, fact seems to be that this flight crew ( 2 or more, whatever) of an airliner failed in applying a proper risk management and put their passengers lifes at an unnecessary risk.
Wheather this was/is based on bad training, ignorance or lack of knowledge or a combination thereof will most probably never be answered.
Swept wing high speed aerodynamics and subsequently aircraft perfomance of modern airliners with supercritical airfoils requires a clean wing concept, and there is no yes but...
As said by many other posters here, no clean wing, no go, period.
Millions of dollars have been spent by scientists and engineers within NASA, the NRC in Canada and various other high caliber institutions worldwide to form a well documented and proven knowledge base of aerodynamic effects of contamination on supercritical airfoils and its effects on aircraft performance.
People died in the past and most probably will die in the future because of flight crew members who mistakenly think to know much better than all those engineers and scientist, just because they are THE PILOTS.
The logo on the tail of this A340 is not an issue here. Those people were licenced airline pilots (I hope so...). However, according LTD, fact seems to be that this flight crew ( 2 or more, whatever) of an airliner failed in applying a proper risk management and put their passengers lifes at an unnecessary risk.
Wheather this was/is based on bad training, ignorance or lack of knowledge or a combination thereof will most probably never be answered.
Swept wing high speed aerodynamics and subsequently aircraft perfomance of modern airliners with supercritical airfoils requires a clean wing concept, and there is no yes but...
As said by many other posters here, no clean wing, no go, period.
Millions of dollars have been spent by scientists and engineers within NASA, the NRC in Canada and various other high caliber institutions worldwide to form a well documented and proven knowledge base of aerodynamic effects of contamination on supercritical airfoils and its effects on aircraft performance.
People died in the past and most probably will die in the future because of flight crew members who mistakenly think to know much better than all those engineers and scientist, just because they are THE PILOTS.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so I get this straight, we have a single British Airways (alleged) pilot reporting that he (or she) saw an Iberia Airlines aircraft depart without deicing.
I say alleged because as this is a public forum, we have no proof as to the veracity of the posters claims.
If this aircraft was so heavily laden with snow, where are the other witnesses?
I am seeing a feeding frenzy that is unbelievable! You are all ready to hang someone when you were NOT THERE! If, what if, could of, may have.... BULL!!
20 years ago, no self respecting pilot would EVER out another pilot in a public forum.
Now, the accused is guilty before departure. Why show up for work?
PB
I say alleged because as this is a public forum, we have no proof as to the veracity of the posters claims.
If this aircraft was so heavily laden with snow, where are the other witnesses?
I am seeing a feeding frenzy that is unbelievable! You are all ready to hang someone when you were NOT THERE! If, what if, could of, may have.... BULL!!
20 years ago, no self respecting pilot would EVER out another pilot in a public forum.
Now, the accused is guilty before departure. Why show up for work?
PB
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is really an eye-opener.
Nobody has remarked yet that "Reducing Dangers to Aircraft Flying in Icing Conditions" is one of the six "most wanted Transportation Safety improvements" of the U.S. NTSB.
Taking off with a contaminated wing is a no-brainer from an engineering point of view. If your wing is covered with snow, then you cannot assess the smoothness and efficiency of your airfoil. Let me emphasise those words again: "cannot assess". That means you cannot tell if you are going to lift off normally, or belly flop after you get out of ground effect. Let me emphasise those words again: "cannot tell".
LTD observed a crew proceeding to take off with an airfoil that well could have been disastrously contaminated, as far as anybody, including the crew of that airplane, could tell.
So what do you think of that for risk management?
From my point of view, it is pretty poor, since it is a risk that could obviously be controlled. How big is the risk? Apparently, it depends on who you talk to. I guess if you talk to the pilots who did it, they would likely assess it as small. But how "small" a risk can tossing a coin be? If you talk to the NTSB, they will emphasise that anything other than a clean wing for take off is, for them, an unacceptable risk.
It is interesting to me that there seem to be a number of people here who are more interested in hierarchical protocols amongst airline pilots; the correct form of speech; the reputations of their friends (deserved or not). Well, they are welcome to be interested in that. But ice and snow doesn't have any way of respecting human politeness conventions. There is no question of "judgement" here: those pilots did not have the information to be able to judge. If frozen precipitant is sitting on your wing, then you are tossing a coin if you choose not to deice, no matter how many thousands of hours you may have.
I think it should also be pointed out that the argument "well, they managed to take off alright, so the decision not to deice was acceptable" is incorrect. The question here is about risk management, and there are some established principles of risk management that this action violated. To show this, let me first use an analogy. Say I close my eyes every time I come out of my street onto the main road on my bicycle, and try to judge whether there is traffic just by hearing. I could probably do it. Does that make my decision to close my eyes acceptable risk management? How good does the argument look that "he managed to emerge without getting hit, so his decision to close his eyes was acceptable".
My answer is that closing my eyes when exiting the side street is not appropriate risk management, because I have means easily available to me of reducing the risk much further, and I did not use those means.
This principle of risk management is an established principle of English law, known as ALARP. It is a requirement formulated by Lord Asquith in these terms: one has an obligation to reduce risks As Low As Reasonably Practicable. This formulation was emphasised by Lord Cullen in the Piper Alpha inquiry, as I understand it.
If you tried to take off with a contaminated wing in England and something happened (say you rejected TO and someone got injured), you could theoretically be prosecuted for violating ALARP. (I don't know whether it would *actually* happen, of course; that is, amongst other things, subject to the whim of the Crown Prosecution Service).
I propose to you that taking off in a heavy airplane with a full load in snow with a contaminated wing is not appropriate risk management either. The NTSB proposes that to you also, as does the TSB. As does the ALARP principle in English law. Those who agree with this proposal are in solid company.
If those pilots had been taking off from LHR, say, they would literally have been breaking the law, in that they were not fulfilling their obligations under ALARP.
PBL
Nobody has remarked yet that "Reducing Dangers to Aircraft Flying in Icing Conditions" is one of the six "most wanted Transportation Safety improvements" of the U.S. NTSB.
Taking off with a contaminated wing is a no-brainer from an engineering point of view. If your wing is covered with snow, then you cannot assess the smoothness and efficiency of your airfoil. Let me emphasise those words again: "cannot assess". That means you cannot tell if you are going to lift off normally, or belly flop after you get out of ground effect. Let me emphasise those words again: "cannot tell".
LTD observed a crew proceeding to take off with an airfoil that well could have been disastrously contaminated, as far as anybody, including the crew of that airplane, could tell.
So what do you think of that for risk management?
From my point of view, it is pretty poor, since it is a risk that could obviously be controlled. How big is the risk? Apparently, it depends on who you talk to. I guess if you talk to the pilots who did it, they would likely assess it as small. But how "small" a risk can tossing a coin be? If you talk to the NTSB, they will emphasise that anything other than a clean wing for take off is, for them, an unacceptable risk.
It is interesting to me that there seem to be a number of people here who are more interested in hierarchical protocols amongst airline pilots; the correct form of speech; the reputations of their friends (deserved or not). Well, they are welcome to be interested in that. But ice and snow doesn't have any way of respecting human politeness conventions. There is no question of "judgement" here: those pilots did not have the information to be able to judge. If frozen precipitant is sitting on your wing, then you are tossing a coin if you choose not to deice, no matter how many thousands of hours you may have.
I think it should also be pointed out that the argument "well, they managed to take off alright, so the decision not to deice was acceptable" is incorrect. The question here is about risk management, and there are some established principles of risk management that this action violated. To show this, let me first use an analogy. Say I close my eyes every time I come out of my street onto the main road on my bicycle, and try to judge whether there is traffic just by hearing. I could probably do it. Does that make my decision to close my eyes acceptable risk management? How good does the argument look that "he managed to emerge without getting hit, so his decision to close his eyes was acceptable".
My answer is that closing my eyes when exiting the side street is not appropriate risk management, because I have means easily available to me of reducing the risk much further, and I did not use those means.
This principle of risk management is an established principle of English law, known as ALARP. It is a requirement formulated by Lord Asquith in these terms: one has an obligation to reduce risks As Low As Reasonably Practicable. This formulation was emphasised by Lord Cullen in the Piper Alpha inquiry, as I understand it.
If you tried to take off with a contaminated wing in England and something happened (say you rejected TO and someone got injured), you could theoretically be prosecuted for violating ALARP. (I don't know whether it would *actually* happen, of course; that is, amongst other things, subject to the whim of the Crown Prosecution Service).
I propose to you that taking off in a heavy airplane with a full load in snow with a contaminated wing is not appropriate risk management either. The NTSB proposes that to you also, as does the TSB. As does the ALARP principle in English law. Those who agree with this proposal are in solid company.
If those pilots had been taking off from LHR, say, they would literally have been breaking the law, in that they were not fulfilling their obligations under ALARP.
PBL
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Digital Anorak
I love you guys, but there's a couple of a things you need to keep in mind. First, if you divert into Manchester, you're going to be photographed and posted to the internet. You might even get the YouTube treatment.
Second, if you are in Boston, all your radio traffic will be recorded and archived for posterity.
So if you come on here and discuss an event concerning KBOS RT, someone with a half-hour of spare time can dig it up.
The conversation in question can be heard following this method:
A. Go to: http://www.liveatc.net/
B. in the left hand bar, select "Listen to LiveATC Archives"
C. Select December 2, KBOS-Boston Delivery, 2300-2330Z
D. Click on Listen
E. Download the file, and scroll to 19:30, which is IB6166's first call for pushback.
The conversation begins a minute later, complete with LTD's dulcet "you do" at 21:30
At 22:40 IB 6166 switches to ground. Yes, you can listen to that as well. Before you do, LTD and crew express their concern at 24:00. Then swap tapes to ground, and follow the traffic from 23:00, when IB6166 is first cleared for pushback.
25:00 -- "British Airways advise that you may want to recheck your wings for deicing"
27:26 "IB6166 We have checked our wings, we don't need the ice, we are ready for push"
flightstats have IB6166 pushing back at 23:28Z. I didn't follow the tape any further, but those who are interested might.
So, from this:
LTD (and, I presume justinzider) communicated unambiguosly their concern.
What LTD and JI didn't hear:
The concern was communicated to the IB crew.
The IB crew took two and a half minutes, and called back, affirming that, after checking their wings, they did not need deicing.
Now back to you guys for criticism.
Second, if you are in Boston, all your radio traffic will be recorded and archived for posterity.
So if you come on here and discuss an event concerning KBOS RT, someone with a half-hour of spare time can dig it up.
The conversation in question can be heard following this method:
A. Go to: http://www.liveatc.net/
B. in the left hand bar, select "Listen to LiveATC Archives"
C. Select December 2, KBOS-Boston Delivery, 2300-2330Z
D. Click on Listen
E. Download the file, and scroll to 19:30, which is IB6166's first call for pushback.
The conversation begins a minute later, complete with LTD's dulcet "you do" at 21:30
At 22:40 IB 6166 switches to ground. Yes, you can listen to that as well. Before you do, LTD and crew express their concern at 24:00. Then swap tapes to ground, and follow the traffic from 23:00, when IB6166 is first cleared for pushback.
25:00 -- "British Airways advise that you may want to recheck your wings for deicing"
27:26 "IB6166 We have checked our wings, we don't need the ice, we are ready for push"
flightstats have IB6166 pushing back at 23:28Z. I didn't follow the tape any further, but those who are interested might.
So, from this:
LTD (and, I presume justinzider) communicated unambiguosly their concern.
What LTD and JI didn't hear:
The concern was communicated to the IB crew.
The IB crew took two and a half minutes, and called back, affirming that, after checking their wings, they did not need deicing.
Now back to you guys for criticism.
Last edited by DingerX; 5th Dec 2007 at 07:35.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other missunderstanding has to be clarified:
The CMD/PIC is of course responsable for his own airworthiness.
Tower is not allowed to intervene. But with authority I don't mean Tower, but the FAA/JAA/any other CAA. They have the power to call back the aircraft and inspect it, the crew or anything in it (except diplomatic mail).
The problem is that they are slow and only react after accidents. But this would have been the perfect case for them for a spot check.
Maybe next time, after an accident, until the press is tired of the story, then the routine starts again...
Dani
The CMD/PIC is of course responsable for his own airworthiness.
Tower is not allowed to intervene. But with authority I don't mean Tower, but the FAA/JAA/any other CAA. They have the power to call back the aircraft and inspect it, the crew or anything in it (except diplomatic mail).
The problem is that they are slow and only react after accidents. But this would have been the perfect case for them for a spot check.
Maybe next time, after an accident, until the press is tired of the story, then the routine starts again...
Dani
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF the IB A340 took of with contaminated wings, then this is indeed an incident caused by unprofessionality.
HOWEVER: We have here 7 pages of publicly accusing a company and their pilots for reckless behaviour without any proof except for one collegue who is not able to give us any photographic evidence.
I applaud LDT's action for giving potentialy vital information to the crew, however, the reaction afterwards by said collegue and most of the other cotributors does leave something to be desired.
LTD, may I suggest to contact the authorities/airline if you were that concerned and sure of your case. This needs true investigation and not gossip that might, and unfortunately probably will cause non-flightcrew (read public and press) to assume things that might damage all of us. 99% of flightcrew operating in the First World are professional, knowledgeable and very able aviators, the ones who are not need to be taken care of by official means.
It seems that there exist a blaming culture on PPRUNE. Let us all try and contribute on these forums as true officers and remain dignified, positive and react in an appropriate way.
HOWEVER: We have here 7 pages of publicly accusing a company and their pilots for reckless behaviour without any proof except for one collegue who is not able to give us any photographic evidence.
I applaud LDT's action for giving potentialy vital information to the crew, however, the reaction afterwards by said collegue and most of the other cotributors does leave something to be desired.
LTD, may I suggest to contact the authorities/airline if you were that concerned and sure of your case. This needs true investigation and not gossip that might, and unfortunately probably will cause non-flightcrew (read public and press) to assume things that might damage all of us. 99% of flightcrew operating in the First World are professional, knowledgeable and very able aviators, the ones who are not need to be taken care of by official means.
It seems that there exist a blaming culture on PPRUNE. Let us all try and contribute on these forums as true officers and remain dignified, positive and react in an appropriate way.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO LTD did the right thing, both by making the call and by putting the thread on here. I have not listened to the tapes (not enough time), but experience tells me that US frequencies can be busy and a snappy call is the order of the day - it gets the message out loud and clear.
The fact that there was a further warning from a BA crew and ATC beggars belief that the Iberia crew remained so intent on scaling up the Air Florida Potomac accident - So nice that they had such a great wish to keep the accident investigators busy at this time of year.
I dont have to labour the point about snow and ice induced accidents - we (should) all know the stats.
I would therefore like to propose that this crew should have been called
"SUICIDALS" instead of cowboys.
As a footnote I would like to say that i'm sure there are many many good pilots in IB as with almost every company, but the media wont care about that at the crash site, all they will care about is the insignia on the fin.
The fact that there was a further warning from a BA crew and ATC beggars belief that the Iberia crew remained so intent on scaling up the Air Florida Potomac accident - So nice that they had such a great wish to keep the accident investigators busy at this time of year.
I dont have to labour the point about snow and ice induced accidents - we (should) all know the stats.
I would therefore like to propose that this crew should have been called
"SUICIDALS" instead of cowboys.
As a footnote I would like to say that i'm sure there are many many good pilots in IB as with almost every company, but the media wont care about that at the crash site, all they will care about is the insignia on the fin.
LightTwin driver wrote:
***
I don't know of any airline of any size that permits you to take off with snow on upper wing surfaces-tell me if you know different.
***
Actually - but not regarding snow specifically - this is from our OM-A:
8.2.4.5 Necessity for de-icing
An aircraft has to be de-iced if:
• the ice coverage is thicker than 3 mm
• white frost or ice forms on the bottom of the wing in the fuel tank area during precipitation during
ground time
• presence of clear ice is observed
So yes, we ARE indeed ALLOWED to go with up to 3mm of ice (but not snow?).
***
I don't know of any airline of any size that permits you to take off with snow on upper wing surfaces-tell me if you know different.
***
Actually - but not regarding snow specifically - this is from our OM-A:
8.2.4.5 Necessity for de-icing
An aircraft has to be de-iced if:
• the ice coverage is thicker than 3 mm
• white frost or ice forms on the bottom of the wing in the fuel tank area during precipitation during
ground time
• presence of clear ice is observed
So yes, we ARE indeed ALLOWED to go with up to 3mm of ice (but not snow?).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robeki
Firstly, may I say you desire to defend your compatriots is commendable.
However, I doubt if I am alone in my concerns about your general attitude, and that the above quality is the only positive attribute you display.
You have closed mindset to the point of absolute danger to the flying public:
Whether or not they should have de-identified the incident a bit on here is the only issue for me, but that is not what we are talking about.
What we are talking about is a closed mindset, not taking all information into account, the possible inability to admit to a mistake by reviewing the evidence and general good airmanship.
It seems to me that the crew in question, on that flight, on that night demonstrated a lack of airmanship that is worrying.
This thread seems to be full of Monday night quarterbacks. None of you ever make mistakes, obviously.
What does experience have to do with it? Everything. What does salary have to do with it, not much, it was a simple comment. I don’t see many pilots earning what a commander with Iberia earns, and there is a reason for that. Extremely professional crews, thus the reason I give them the benefit of the doubt. Accident statistics prove my point.
Does anyone think generalizing and calling 1,600 pilots cowboys is very professional?
If the author of this post was really interested in safety, he would have filed a report. It shows his lack of professionalism coming on this site and insulting 1,600 pilots with the title, even more so when we know the press reads the forum.
If this forum was not anonymous, we wouldn’t see all these senseless threads appearing.
Someone has to stand up for our fellow Iberians. Enough said.
What does experience have to do with it? Everything. What does salary have to do with it, not much, it was a simple comment. I don’t see many pilots earning what a commander with Iberia earns, and there is a reason for that. Extremely professional crews, thus the reason I give them the benefit of the doubt. Accident statistics prove my point.
Does anyone think generalizing and calling 1,600 pilots cowboys is very professional?
If the author of this post was really interested in safety, he would have filed a report. It shows his lack of professionalism coming on this site and insulting 1,600 pilots with the title, even more so when we know the press reads the forum.
If this forum was not anonymous, we wouldn’t see all these senseless threads appearing.
Someone has to stand up for our fellow Iberians. Enough said.
However, I doubt if I am alone in my concerns about your general attitude, and that the above quality is the only positive attribute you display.
You have closed mindset to the point of absolute danger to the flying public:
- you refuse to be open to possibilities of mistakes
- you defence is to blame others /other cultures (by citing other incidents)
Whether or not they should have de-identified the incident a bit on here is the only issue for me, but that is not what we are talking about.
What we are talking about is a closed mindset, not taking all information into account, the possible inability to admit to a mistake by reviewing the evidence and general good airmanship.
It seems to me that the crew in question, on that flight, on that night demonstrated a lack of airmanship that is worrying.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dufo (good name ...sic)
Now that is really worrying
My ops manual says categorically that the aircraft must be clear of all forms of frost, ice, slush and snow before take off
except
I don't know of any airline of any size that permits you to take off with snow on upper wing surfaces-tell me if you know different.
***
Actually - but not regarding snow specifically - this is from our OM-A:
8.2.4.5 Necessity for de-icing
An aircraft has to be de-iced if:
• the ice coverage is thicker than 3 mm
• white frost or ice forms on the bottom of the wing in the fuel tank area during precipitation during
ground time
• presence of clear ice is observed
So yes, we ARE indeed ALLOWED to go with up to 3mm of ice (but not snow?).
***
Actually - but not regarding snow specifically - this is from our OM-A:
8.2.4.5 Necessity for de-icing
An aircraft has to be de-iced if:
• the ice coverage is thicker than 3 mm
• white frost or ice forms on the bottom of the wing in the fuel tank area during precipitation during
ground time
• presence of clear ice is observed
So yes, we ARE indeed ALLOWED to go with up to 3mm of ice (but not snow?).
My ops manual says categorically that the aircraft must be clear of all forms of frost, ice, slush and snow before take off
except
- thin hoar frost acceptable on fuselage (static vents must be clear)
- frost up to 3mm on underside of wings in area of fuel tanks
- ridging of ice under wing is not acceptable.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would their recheck involve? If you are in an MD83 ready to push (eg doors closed?) is it possible to open the doors, hop out and go run a hand over a wing to see if the snow comes off easily in or would that check just involve a quick look from the door/window?
Edit: I mean an A340 not an MD83 !
Edit: I mean an A340 not an MD83 !
Last edited by cwatters; 5th Dec 2007 at 11:05.
