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

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

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

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

Old 5th Dec 2007, 19:19
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 127
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6105074
The report on this accident should make interesting reading.....
easyprison is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2007, 19:36
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 542
This is getting out of control which is a shame.If the IB crew deliberately took the risk and went with contamination,then they themselves know how lucky they were to get away with it and they will have learnt their lesson..We dont know just how much contamination was adhering to the flight control surfaces of the 340;most have assumed that there must have been significant build-up due to the fact that everyone else was de-icing and what the BA pilot said he saw.
What we do know is that the BA pilot went about it the wrong way."Yes you do" is way out of order for one professional pilot to say to another on an open frequency.Furthermore,to post it on a public forum with flight number and date is reprehensible.You can articulate your anger and/or disbelief without using specific information.The reason we're discussing this is to remind our colleagues just how important it is to de-ice if you dont have a clean wing.We didnt need to know it was IB.Instead we've got a free-for-all witch-hunt(and this is a powerful platform).And thats dangerous when the facts arent established beyond a reasonable doubt but based on hearsay and assumption.
When BA made their 3 engine record-breaking flight from LAX a while back,I dont recall any pilot saying on freq "Land the sucker".
IMHO,the only time you use an open freq to directly contradict another pilot is when you see a clear and present danger that presumably he hasnt seen.In this case,use any language you damn well please.And he'll thank you for it.But I still wouldnt post any identifying details on a public forum.
As an aside,if you saw a 737 pilot start his takeoff roll just after a 747 had lifted off(assume an ATC oversight),would you try and stop him?And would you then write about it on a public forum and give the airline,date and type and call him a cowboy?
Rananim is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2007, 19:37
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2004/041229.htm
.
Are you feeling Lucky ???
Joetom is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2007, 21:24
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 303
What we do know is that the BA pilot went about it the wrong way."Yes you do" is way out of order for one professional pilot to say to another on an open frequency.Furthermore,to post it on a public forum with flight number and date is reprehensible.You can articulate your anger and/or disbelief without using specific information.
Point of information:
1. Not that it matters, but regardless of what LTD said, on the recording only "you do" can be heard. Whether the Iberia crew understood the remark cannot be ascertained. They did, however, clearly understand and acknowledge later, specific queries about ice.
2. LTD did not post the flight number here. He did post enough information so that anyone willing to spend a few minutes could figure out which flight it was. (hint: Iberia only has five flights a week to BOS, and the last month of ATC recordings for BOS are available on the internet) I posted the flight number.
3. Presumably a moderator changed the title of the thread, because people were complaining that it was counterproductive, suggesting that the uniform worn by Iberia flight crew included a stetson, chaps, six-shooters and, barring the A340-300 folks, spurs.

Rananim raises an interesting point, however (already hinted at in the "Professional Courtesy" article). Criticism doesn't always come directly:
CD: 6166 heavy expect runway 15R for departure, have you already deiced?
IB: say again for 6166.
CD: Do you need to deice sir?
IB: negative
BA45: You do
CD: alright, eh, do you plan on deicing at the gate, or do you need to go somewhere?
IB: IB6166 we are ready for push
CD: Iberia 6166 Heavy go ahead
IB: Iberia 6166 Heavy is ready for pushback.
CD: Iberia 6166 Heavy, have you deiced?
IB: Negative, we don't need it.
CD: Okay. Monitor ground .9
IB: .9 thank you and goodbye
DingerX is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2007, 22:57
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 198
Three or so years ago, I was jump-seating on a company flight.
There were delays involved, and then it started snowing.
The captain of the flight was a high time very experienced captain, generally well liked and respected. A very pleasant guy.
The F/O was a couple of thousand hours, slightly abrupt in his assertions, but regarded as a very capable and efficient pilot.

As it was now snowing, the f/o expressed a concern about deicing. The captain said no, there was no time, we were too late already. Most of the passengers were on board, and we would have to wait too long for a deicing truck.
A very heated discussion developed.

The snow fall became rain for a while, then back to snow which began to freeze on the aircraft.
The f/o was adamant that they would need to deice, and would not contemplate leaving until we had.

The captain expressed his opinion like this;
He was the captain. He is in charge. If he says we won't de-ice, we won't.

The f/o held his ground and we were both expecting to leave the aircraft instead, because it was blatantly in need of de-icing by this point, and unsafe.
If we had, the regime in that company was such that we would both have lost our jobs. But better than the alternative.

In frustration, the captain stormed off the aircraft, had a look around, and came back on board. Deicing was ordered, which took a further 30minutes or so to arrive and complete.


The point is, there are people who rely on their 'position' to achieve absolute obedience.
Some very experienced people display such a high level of arrogance, that their decisions can be extremely bad, and they simply cannot accept outside opinion.
Shiny side down is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2007, 22:58
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 774
Posting in such a way that crews can be identified is unwise.

That said if your sitting there watching what you believe to be an accident unfold you need to say something.

In this case if the crew really felt that he needed de-iced they were right to intervene. I'd have gone further and made it very clear to ATC and the authorities what was occuring and that a report would follow.

If your sitting there looking at a situation thinking 300+ peoples lives are in grave danger could you live with yourself if you didn't say something and they subsequently crashed and died.

I'd rather do something and risk looking a plonker if I'm wrong than say nothing and end up complicit in a diasaster.
Ashling is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 00:01
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 1
Un...f...believable

If Iberia does not have procedures in place that account for inclement weather, the entire airline needs to be grounded until that is taken care of. If they do, and the pilots chose to ignore them, they need to be fired. Then an investigation needs to determine if ignoring proper procedures was just a problem with these two pieces of sh.... or common at Iberia, especially as it relates to deicing. If ignoring procedures, basic aviation knowledge, and common sense is is typical for Iberia's pilots the airline should never be allowed into any country that cares for it's people. These types of mistakes kill people and there is not any excuse for it.

Last edited by blayser; 6th Dec 2007 at 00:03. Reason: adding a bit more
blayser is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 00:32
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Blayser,

your post is highly unprofessional.
IB has very detailed winter-operation procedures, as do about all International Airlines, and training is done on winter-ops on regular basis, just like any other airline.
As said before, we are again playing the blame game, typical of PPRuNe and its know-all's.
may I suggest that you return to your Microsoft Flight Simulator?!
despegue is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 05:37
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Out of a Suitcase
Posts: 5
Very interesting thread.

Slightly off-topic but in 2003 in a night-time KIAD blizzard, an Austrian A330 crew pushed back, clipped the tail of a United 777 while taxiing out but didn't stop until ramp tower relayed United's displeasure about their "hit and run" on one of their parked aircraft. The gash in the 777's elevator measured about half a meter.

After a long wait for a contract mechanic to come out and look Austrian's wing while they remained on the taxiway (no one else was departing), they decided to press onward but never came back to the gate for another de-icing spray - even though they sat there for a good 45 to an hour in moderate to heavy snow OR to write up the wing strike in the logbook.

The whole kicker to this was that one of United's ramp employee's was taking pictures of the ramp operation that night and caught the whole thing in pictures (which is handily stored on my hard drive).

United's IAD management sure was ticked off that they hit one of their airplanes and didn't return to the scene. I don't know what became of that incident. Probably diplomatic immunity or some such nonsense.
AluminumStructure is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 05:39
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 53
Posts: 35
your post is highly unprofessional.
IB has very detailed winter-operation procedures, as do about all International Airlines, and training is done on winter-ops on regular basis, just like any other airline.
As said before, we are again playing the blame game, typical of PPRuNe and its know-all's.
may I suggest that you return to your Microsoft Flight Simulator?!
Hi despegue

I agree

@blayser

So far no one here knows what really happened inside that Iberia cockpit. And until we do (Which will probably never happen) STFU with all those sweeping generalizations about the crew and Iberia as a whole.
Unless you can back it up with facts - real facts.

So far the only real fact I have seen here is the ATC tape, and to some extent LT D’s OP, but wat did he really see?. That tells us nothing about what information the crew was giver by other parties (Maintenance staff, deicing coordinators or whoever does the contamination check)
.

Even Captain Morwood at Dryden was not individually at fault. He was put in a very bad position by Air Ontario, and under a great deal of stress and pressures he made a very bad decision, he should never have been put in that position in the first place.
DK_FCI is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 05:47
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas, America !
Age: 64
Posts: 52
It would appear "El Capitan" has made an error in judgment. The FAR's in the US clearly state you may not take off with snow or ice adhering to the wing. To not mention it to him AND not report it is unconscienable. Endangering passengers , crew and innocent people on the ground is the furthest thing from professional. For another crew to stand by and say nothing is nearly criminal. If there had been a bad result and the Captain lived , he would have been charged in most countries with manslaughter or murder. There is no harm in de-icing , there is great potential for harm in not de-icing with snow on the wing.
jacjetlag is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 07:20
  #152 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Good point, jacjetlag. Let's nail this:

Originally Posted by 14 CFR 121, para 629: Operation in Icing Conditions
...........
(b) No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice, or snow is adhering to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section.

................

(2) Initial and annual recurrent ground training and testing for flight crewmembers and qualification for all other affected personnel (e.g., aircraft dispatchers, ground crews, contract personnel) concerning the specific requirements of the approved program and each person's responsibilities and duties under the approved program, specifically covering the following areas:
...............

(ii) Aircraft deicing/anti-icing procedures, including inspection and check procedures and responsibilities.

(iii) Communications procedures.

(iv) Aircraft surface contamination (i.e., adherence of frost, ice, or snow) and critical area identification, and how contamination adversely affects aircraft performance and flight characteristics.
...............
So (while I formally acknowledge those here that still wish to believe that his incident is a fairy story), this crew broke FAR 121.629.

I take it I don't need to cite the FAR that says that the only reason one may have to deviate from an FAR is a concern for the safety of the flight. I presume no one would want to argue that the crew had safety-of-flight reasons for not deicing.

So, despegue and those like-minded, you have won yourselves the unenviable task of trying to explain how someone can reasonably break an FAR under these circumstances.

PBL
PBL is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 07:33
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas, America !
Age: 64
Posts: 52
"So, despegue and those like-minded, you have won yourselves the unenviable task of trying to explain how someone can reasonably break an FAR under these circumstances.

PBL"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PBL....I believe some Supervisory type will get wind of this at Iberia and the explaining will indeed have to be done before long. Word travels around the world surprisingly fast these days.
jacjetlag is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 07:38
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: positioning
Posts: 1,340
Who would you rather have next to you on stand-Fruitbat (so apt) or LTD?
If a fellow professional has seen fit to enlighten me as to something I can't see from the Flight Deck, then my professionalism dictates that I at least investigate further.

If there's any doubt-there is no doubt!
toratoratora is online now  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 07:44
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 70
Posts: 570
Remember that Iberia is a Spanish airline and FARs do not apply.
I work for an European airline and we are allowed to take off with frost on the fuselage and under the wings.
Also when you get that square metre of frost over the landing gear, I usually convince crews that 1 sq m of frost is a lot less hazard than 300 litres of sticky deicing fluid. And if someone tells me that it flows off at 80kts they have never sat behind the wing on take off.
Anyway the reason for posting is last week we had overnight snow here which froze in the morning. It took a deicing truck over 20 mins to remove from the aircraft. Then a deicing release inspector climbed up onto the wing and pronounced the B757 clear for departure. It was a clear morning with no precipitation. 2omins later the B757 reappeared. The cabin crew had inspected the wing and declared that it was not adequately deiced and the crew accepted their professional opinion (over the opinion of the full time deicing release man) and returned to the ramp and were deiced again.
What can we do? Perhaps I should tell the deicing team to climb up on the slippery wing with a mop and clean up the frothy deicing fluid residue!, or should we let the cabin crew release the aircraft?
Swedish Steve is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 07:50
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas, America !
Age: 64
Posts: 52
Steve....when Iberia operates in the US , they are indeed subject to US FARs.
jacjetlag is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 07:53
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4
"...Originally Posted by 14 CFR 121, para 629: Operation in Icing Conditions
...........
(b) No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice, or snow is adhering[/B] to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section..."

I would like just to rise a question about the interpretation of the FAR.
You could read "...when frost, ice, or snow is adhering to the wings...".

Was the snow on the wings adhered?
spiralklad is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 08:00
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas, America !
Age: 64
Posts: 52
Every aircraft departing BOS that night was de-iced. But apparently this IB A-340 is immune to icing according to "El Capitan".
jacjetlag is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 08:04
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 53
Posts: 35
So (while I formally acknowledge those here that still wish to believe that his incident is a fairy story), this crew broke FAR 121.629.

I take it I don't need to cite the FAR that says that the only reason one may have to deviate from an FAR is a concern for the safety of the flight. I presume no one would want to argue that the crew had safety-of-flight reasons for not deicing.

So, despegue and those like-minded, you have won yourselves the unenviable task of trying to explain how someone can reasonably break an FAR under these circumstances.

PBL
Hi again PBL

The reason should most certainly be found in the field of human factors, but as we STILL don’t really know anything about what really happened. So no one here is qualified to say exactly what human factors were at play.

Assuming that there was actually contamination on the aircraft – he ran a red light here – so no need in citing FAR’s and what not. We all know that you don’t take off with snow on the wings – even if there was no FAR/JAR about that.

I don’t know if your fairytale remark was aimed at me, but I guess it was.

All I am saying is don’t condemn the crew before you have all the facts – if you don’t think you need more facts – well then I must say that you have a very ancient approach to safety investigation. Only a minority here seem genuinely interested in finding the real causes. The rest are just an angry mob, ready to hang the pilots.

Remember that the first two people at a crash site are always the pilots, and no one would deliberately do anything to crash unless you are suicidal.

And on a slightly different note – saying “yes you do” is unclear and ineffective, I bet it would have been more effective to say something like “Iberia 6166 this is Speedbird 45 we are parked at your x o’clock position, we have a good view of your aircraft and we can see that your wing is covered by what seems to be snow” or something more precise than “Yes you do”
DK_FCI is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 08:09
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 163
Got the same story in Milan once.
Moderate snow storm, everybody was waiting for de-icing. (1h delay)
Then one El Al aircraft took off in front of us, didn't want to wait for de-ice.

If you remember Regional F-100 crash in Pau (France), you'd know how frost can affect CL and stall AoA...
fly123456 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.