A de-icing crew forgot to spray one wing.
A de-icing crew forgot to spray one wing.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of course would the airline care. after all, they PAID for both wings. with only one sprayed they will want half the money back!
and then they would ask me, why i didn't look out the window to see what those poorly trained season workers are doing out there. i don't know, but i assume that for the most airplanes the wings are visible from the flight deck.
and then they would ask me, why i didn't look out the window to see what those poorly trained season workers are doing out there. i don't know, but i assume that for the most airplanes the wings are visible from the flight deck.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would my airline do?
Probably sack the First Officer whose job it is to examine the wing surface from the cabin immediately after de-icing and prior to takeoff. And that would be a justifiable reason for employment termination.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Probably sack the First Officer whose job it is to examine the wing surface from the cabin immediately after de-icing and prior to takeoff. And that would be a justifiable reason for employment termination.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: hearth EU
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course this is the CDR responsability, however it doesn't mean that the Copi is not part of the crew and thus he have also his word to say!
It is stipulated in every winter ops course and procedure from manufacturer that you need to be de-anti iced symetrically to ensure de ice and same aerodynamical behaviour between both sides...
For me it is a basic and thus should be facing consequences
It is stipulated in every winter ops course and procedure from manufacturer that you need to be de-anti iced symetrically to ensure de ice and same aerodynamical behaviour between both sides...
For me it is a basic and thus should be facing consequences
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Provided you have it done in Anchorage or Copenhagen then you have no problem, they are the fastest and most thorough I have come across.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A de-icing crew forgot to spray one wing
As this would have directly affected the safety of the aircraft; carry out a full investigation in order to identify the cause of the occurrence and take appropriate action to prevent/reduce the likelihood of a similar incident occurring in the future.
Following a number of high profile aircraft ground icing related accidents in North America the 1980’s/early 90’s, a programme was introduced within the industry to define the basic de-icing/anti-icing requirements and to standardise such procedures on a global basis. This work has continued and today airworthiness authorities, such as EASA, the FAA and TC, currently require that Operators establish procedures to ensure that appropriate aircraft surfaces are free of frost, ice, slush and snow at take-off. Organisations such as the AEA in Europe and SAE in North America publish up to date information to assist Operators in compiling their cold weather procedures and this includes subjects such as responsibilities, checks and training.
However, for this system to be fully effective the industry is reliant on the Operator raising, maintaining and complying with the required procedures and the airworthiness authorities subsequently auditing to ensuring compliance.
Looking at the case in question, the Operator’s procedures will (should) define the responsibilities of the de-icing operative. For example, de-/anti-ice the aircraft surfaces specified by the Operator I.A.W. either the Operator’s or Handling Agent’s procedures (as previously agreed) and on completion ensure that these surfaces are free of contamination. Pass the appropriate information to the person responsible for the ‘Post De-icing Check’. It would appear that on this occasion the de-icing operative may have failed to treat the aircraft I.A.W. the agreed procedures. Additional training may therefore be appropriate in order to ensure he/she is fully aware of both the implications of inadequate de-/anti-icing and the requirement for symmetrical de-/anti-icing.
Following each de-icing operation there is a mandatory requirement for a ‘Post De-icing Check’ to be carried out by a trained/qualified person, nominated by the Operator. To quote from the AEA De-icing Recommendations, “…This check………….shall visually cover all critical parts of the aircraft and be performed from points offering sufficient visibility of these parts (e.g. from the de-icer itself or another elevated piece of equipment).” It’s important that the Operator clearly defines in his procedures who is responsible for carrying out this check and establishes that the nominated official is aware of his/her responsibilities. In the context of this incident it appears that either a second failure occurred, in that the ‘nominated official’ did not adequately check the appropriate surfaces, or that the Operator had not adequately define the check and/or who was responsible for performing it. Appropriate action would be required to rectify this situation.
It should be noted that the ‘Post De-icing Check’ covers all critical parts of the aircraft and cannot therefore be carried out from inside either the flight deck or cabin as suggested in some of the responses. Those Operators who delegate this responsibility to their flight crew should be made aware of this requirement as during active precipitation, e.g. snow, freezing drizzle, light freezing rain, it’s unlikely that sufficient holdover time will be available to allow a flight crew member to perform this check from outside the aircraft.
On completion of the ‘Post De-icing Check’ the nominated official is required to pass details of the ‘Anti-icing Code’ to the aircraft commander. This provides the commander with the information needed to determine the likely holdover time from the published tables and acts as his/her confirmation that appropriate surfaces are free of frost, ice, slush and snow at that time.
No information is provided on the conditions experienced at the time of this incident, however, under certain conditions the flight crew would be required to perform a ‘Pre-takeoff Check’ (this may be carried out from inside the aircraft) or even a ‘Pre-takeoff Contamination Check’ (this is normally performed from outside the aircraft). Provided the basic rules and requirements are followed the chances of this type of incident occurring are small, I would be interested to hear the outcome of the inquiry into this incident…….
Following a number of high profile aircraft ground icing related accidents in North America the 1980’s/early 90’s, a programme was introduced within the industry to define the basic de-icing/anti-icing requirements and to standardise such procedures on a global basis. This work has continued and today airworthiness authorities, such as EASA, the FAA and TC, currently require that Operators establish procedures to ensure that appropriate aircraft surfaces are free of frost, ice, slush and snow at take-off. Organisations such as the AEA in Europe and SAE in North America publish up to date information to assist Operators in compiling their cold weather procedures and this includes subjects such as responsibilities, checks and training.
However, for this system to be fully effective the industry is reliant on the Operator raising, maintaining and complying with the required procedures and the airworthiness authorities subsequently auditing to ensuring compliance.
Looking at the case in question, the Operator’s procedures will (should) define the responsibilities of the de-icing operative. For example, de-/anti-ice the aircraft surfaces specified by the Operator I.A.W. either the Operator’s or Handling Agent’s procedures (as previously agreed) and on completion ensure that these surfaces are free of contamination. Pass the appropriate information to the person responsible for the ‘Post De-icing Check’. It would appear that on this occasion the de-icing operative may have failed to treat the aircraft I.A.W. the agreed procedures. Additional training may therefore be appropriate in order to ensure he/she is fully aware of both the implications of inadequate de-/anti-icing and the requirement for symmetrical de-/anti-icing.
Following each de-icing operation there is a mandatory requirement for a ‘Post De-icing Check’ to be carried out by a trained/qualified person, nominated by the Operator. To quote from the AEA De-icing Recommendations, “…This check………….shall visually cover all critical parts of the aircraft and be performed from points offering sufficient visibility of these parts (e.g. from the de-icer itself or another elevated piece of equipment).” It’s important that the Operator clearly defines in his procedures who is responsible for carrying out this check and establishes that the nominated official is aware of his/her responsibilities. In the context of this incident it appears that either a second failure occurred, in that the ‘nominated official’ did not adequately check the appropriate surfaces, or that the Operator had not adequately define the check and/or who was responsible for performing it. Appropriate action would be required to rectify this situation.
It should be noted that the ‘Post De-icing Check’ covers all critical parts of the aircraft and cannot therefore be carried out from inside either the flight deck or cabin as suggested in some of the responses. Those Operators who delegate this responsibility to their flight crew should be made aware of this requirement as during active precipitation, e.g. snow, freezing drizzle, light freezing rain, it’s unlikely that sufficient holdover time will be available to allow a flight crew member to perform this check from outside the aircraft.
On completion of the ‘Post De-icing Check’ the nominated official is required to pass details of the ‘Anti-icing Code’ to the aircraft commander. This provides the commander with the information needed to determine the likely holdover time from the published tables and acts as his/her confirmation that appropriate surfaces are free of frost, ice, slush and snow at that time.
No information is provided on the conditions experienced at the time of this incident, however, under certain conditions the flight crew would be required to perform a ‘Pre-takeoff Check’ (this may be carried out from inside the aircraft) or even a ‘Pre-takeoff Contamination Check’ (this is normally performed from outside the aircraft). Provided the basic rules and requirements are followed the chances of this type of incident occurring are small, I would be interested to hear the outcome of the inquiry into this incident…….
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would agree with all the above however...
Many moons ago whilst operating from Japan, where the services are at least as fastidious as other 'cold' environment places as parabellum mentioned, we asked for a de-ice and the crew only de-iced one wing as the other was sitting in the sunlight as the early morning sun rose and it's ice had clearly melted off.
We questioned this and were told that this was 'standard practice' for a well know Japanese operator for whom they worked.
We asked for a symmetrical de-ice which was carried out without any problem to their normal high standard.
Clearly therefore there are differences between operator's standards in such circumstances and thinking about the cost and environmental damage of deicing agents, perhaps there is room for more discussion on this.
Comments?
Many moons ago whilst operating from Japan, where the services are at least as fastidious as other 'cold' environment places as parabellum mentioned, we asked for a de-ice and the crew only de-iced one wing as the other was sitting in the sunlight as the early morning sun rose and it's ice had clearly melted off.
We questioned this and were told that this was 'standard practice' for a well know Japanese operator for whom they worked.
We asked for a symmetrical de-ice which was carried out without any problem to their normal high standard.
Clearly therefore there are differences between operator's standards in such circumstances and thinking about the cost and environmental damage of deicing agents, perhaps there is room for more discussion on this.
Comments?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
idg,
It is assumed the Operator in question did not appreciate that de-/anti-icing fluid applied to the aerodynamic surfaces of the aircraft is in itself a contaminant that will degrade aerodynamic performance. In this case the level of performance degradation is known and allowed for in the performance calculations, however, the calculations are based on both wings receiving the same treatment and the standard adopted within the industry currently reflects this requirement.
Over the past few years Japan has been well represented at industry standardisation meetings, such as the SAE G-12 Aircraft Ground De-icing Committee, so it’s quite possible that Operator concerned has since brought his standard in line with that of the industry.
It is assumed the Operator in question did not appreciate that de-/anti-icing fluid applied to the aerodynamic surfaces of the aircraft is in itself a contaminant that will degrade aerodynamic performance. In this case the level of performance degradation is known and allowed for in the performance calculations, however, the calculations are based on both wings receiving the same treatment and the standard adopted within the industry currently reflects this requirement.
Over the past few years Japan has been well represented at industry standardisation meetings, such as the SAE G-12 Aircraft Ground De-icing Committee, so it’s quite possible that Operator concerned has since brought his standard in line with that of the industry.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My usual airline? Probably nothing if they 'forgot' to get the other one de-iced too
I just don't know. That's what I was wondering the other night when I watched an aircraft that had been standing a couple of hours being thoroughly de-iced in Scandinavia prior to it's departure to somewhere else in Scandinavia. Then my chosen aircraft arrived after a good cold-soaking up high somewhere, put on 5 mins of fuel and then departed with a nice even coat of frost on both wings. It rotated a second or too later than I might have liked but hey, I just pay to sit in the back...
Or would they care?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, This is ridiculous.
How, exactly, does one "forget" to deice a wing?
There's a guy in the cockpit, there's a guy on the ground, both are supposed to agree that the aircraft is free of contamination.
What does company policy have to do with the stay or go decision?
If a wing has not been deiced, what the heck is the question?
Kids today....
PB
How, exactly, does one "forget" to deice a wing?
There's a guy in the cockpit, there's a guy on the ground, both are supposed to agree that the aircraft is free of contamination.
What does company policy have to do with the stay or go decision?
If a wing has not been deiced, what the heck is the question?
Kids today....
PB
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not THAT ridiculous; I understand it's happened on at least one occasion. (Thought it was in a thread here, but can't find it right now).
If I recall, there was either refuelling or baggage equipment near one wing, so they sprayed the accessible wing, then forgot to come back after the other GSE had been shifted. Yes, there's a bunch of checks and balances failed, but sadly those have never been infallible.
If I recall, there was either refuelling or baggage equipment near one wing, so they sprayed the accessible wing, then forgot to come back after the other GSE had been shifted. Yes, there's a bunch of checks and balances failed, but sadly those have never been infallible.
