About three years ago we taxied our narrowbody jet to the international ramp in ATL to de-ice.

This was a two-step operation, at the busiest airport in the US. Luckily, this was about 2000, but dark, and little traffic.
The point about the location is that this should have been a first-rate de-icing procedure.

Not only was the radio at the de-icing cabin inop, but the de-icing crew walked away with no indication to us that we received a wave-off. But we saw them about 200 feet away.
She gave us the start time for the first step, not the second step, as
required, then unplugged from the intercom.

How is de-icing done for the other US airlines at "spoke" airports? 'Wino'? 'Airb'?
Does this happen with other crews?

As bad as they were at standard communications, one can only imagine how it could be with either a language problem or other problems with training, standardization and/or morale.

Last winter, a de-icing crew in the upper midwest only sprayed one of the wings on a jet. Snow was on both wings and the tail etc.
A Line Check Airman told me about this. Luckily, the passengers noticed and said something.

Outsourcing. Less pay, less results, more job turnover, reduced safety. And this is in the US, with management's blessing$ (indifference).

Reduced Flaps, excellent Idea
 

There is a lot of good sense in say f10 not f20, as you say speed is life.

Not covered in the AFM, or SOPS, issued by Glf.

Just years of learning, and the occasional fright.

Depending on where you are there will never be warning of windsheer, just knowledge of a strong inversion layer, perhaps.



glf

There's no evidence to suggest that the handling pilot of this particular 604 did not in fact use increased V speeds and/or a slower rate of rotation as suggested above. For all any of us know, he did apply both techniques.

People suggesting increased V speeds need to try to give a balanced point of view and not lead less experienced pilots into believing that when a wing is contaminted, increased V speeds are somehow a magic fix. Granted speed is good but only when you know what you are doing with it.

Increased V speeds techniique is available in the AFM and these are there to increase the climb gradient for obstacle clearance NOT contaminated wings.

From memory, the severe icing checklist on a 604 suggests that the MINIMUM speed that should be flown if Severe Icing is encountered is Vref + 27 and if you experience severe icing you would want to definately fly a higher speed than the minimum and this figure is based on Wing Anti Ice ON and working and is actually to give the stabilizer enough bernoullis to do its job as it is not fitted with Anti Icing capability.

So if you EVER have any doubts about contaminated wings and Hold over times, go back and get de-iced again!!!! DON'T USE HIGHER ROTATION SPEEDS AS A DEFINATE SOLUTION as there is NO evidence to suggest that an extra 10 kts, 20 kts or even 30 kts is going to do anything for you with regards to safetly getting airbourne with wing contamination suspected.

All the best

GW

You read some amazing rubbish on these forums but to suggest that adding a few knots means that you can go with contamination beggars belief.

That is NOT... I repeat again... NOOOOOT what is being said here.

As if we would be that stupid to launch with iced up wings by adding 5kts.. jeez.. what do you take us for. Having flown Lears and Challengers in and out of wintery places, do you seriously think I would still be alive now if I had been doing what you are suggesting? I am the bane of the existance of both beancounters and grumpy passengers with a zero-tolerance attitutude towards wing contamination... this I will shove down the throats of anybody I fly with to keep them alive.


GlobalWarrior speaks sense.

GW

Agree with everything you say but I don't think that your pious lecturing tone was particularly justified.

Previous posters were not, if I read correctly, advocating a technique to be used instead of or as a substitute for proper de-icing. They were suggesting a 'belt and braces' technique that may add to flight safety.

Thanks chaps - I don't fly these types but am learning a lot from this thread.

BS

A quote from the section "SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEDURES Cold Weather Operations" of the official Bombardier CL-604 Operating Manual:

A question to all professionals in this topic:
You are landing on a Caribbean island (hot and dump) after a long flight at FL410 with your 604, for a short stop to refuel.
During the refueling/short walkaround you notice frost on the lower part of your wings formed by cold soaked fuel.
Can you disreagard it and takeoff?
Wait for an hour or two watching the frost to dissipate?
balaton

Challenger 604 AFM, as at Rev 66, Feb 01/07 (and subs), Operating Limitations, page 02-04-2:

So, follow those noted instructions, and you can go. Otherwise, either wait or de-ice.

Many thanks Mad (Flt) Scientist,
You are right, I have just checked it in my manual. Even the allowable thickness is determined. I was a bit carried away with this 604 wing ice turmoil.

But unfortunately the FAA
 

has opened a few years ago a door, which should have been never touched:
On the B737 New Generation the take-off is permitted with a certain amount of frost on the UPPER WING surface, in the so called cold fuel soaked zone.
Teaching winter operation & de-icing/anti-icing I often get the question, which other aircraft types are also good for this.
Saying only this one, often gets me head shaking as an answer.

THis shoudl have never happened, as it is also clear against the "Clean Aircraft Concept" as already published in the ICAO document nearly 20 years ago.

How is that even possible? It's in direct contradiction to:

There's no legal basis for the FAA to provide any other alleviation. Unless I'm thoroughly misunderstanding that section.

Wasn't always "Clean Wing"
 

Prior to Dryden, La Guardia, etc. the word "adhering" was subject to rather arbitrary interpretations.

Was SLFing on my then employer's A-310 in '89 on a fine Summer day and noticed frost on the upper surface over the wing tanks.

The area was quite limited, about 20 sq. ft. and towards the rear of the wing; so, choose not to bring it to the attention of the crew. Takeoff was fine.

I sent an inquiry up through channels and got a reply back from the CP that the FOM allowed takeoffs with frost in that location.

After the Dryden report, Transport Canada changed the regs to exclude all upper surface frost.

news update
 

A little update from German news reports: The passenger injured in the Almaty crash, Lars Windhorst, was released from hospital on Jan 3. A day later, investment firm Vatas, for which Windhorst acts as managing director, annouced it had acquired a 15 percent share of Air Berlin.

An interesting side note: News reports said that the first officer killed in the crash was a police officer from Berlin, piloting was his second job. Further reports claim that he was on a prolonged leave from his police job due to health issues. A spokesman for the jet charter company stated that the first officer, who was relatively new to this type of aircraft, had all the necessary paperwork including health checks.

In an earlier post,it was stated that Russian de-icers know their work,well don't count on it.Last Nov de-iced in Novosibirsk,after inspection of deicing,noticed large areas on wing (one in front of engine ingress path) & tail missed,told them to redo ,then they sprayed type 4 all over the windscreen (after being told specifically to not de-ice fwd of main door)
Concerning increasing rotate speed,be carefull if obstacle limited,you might not meet your obstacle clearence heights,however no obtacles no problem,with sufficient runway length,
A retired colleague had an interestig experience flying a BAC 1-11 for Ford Air out of Stansted some years ago,inspected wing,found snow on wing but very dry snow he could blow off,so he thought to himself the snow will just blow off during the t/o roll,I don't need to de-ice..... On T/O at rotate speed pulled back,nothing happened,he then firewalled the throttles(you can get away with that on Speys as they have governors) accelerated another 30 kts & staggered into the air.He lived to fly another day,moral of the tale;ANY contamination on top of the wing DE-ICE!

Policeman / Pilot
 

Dear TXL,

there is nothing wrong with that. Having had another 'life' before flying does not hurt nor does it imply anything about the skills of the applicable airman.
The killed fellow-pilot had enough experience, he used to fly LearJets for many years to destinations all over the world. Most people knew him as being careful and professional. So did I.
Yes, he was new to the CL604 and he was still under supervision, but: aren't we all at one point or during our career? The Commander with him had sufficient experience and this one wasn't the first long-distance trip at night for this particular crew.
All the speculations - particularly from the German yellow press - are missing important things: facts. They're full of speculation and allowing the airport chief of Almaty publish his opinion as 'preliminary report' is totally irresponsible as long as f.ex. the FDR and CVR are still under examination by the Russian Authorities, who took over when the accident occured (Kazachstan is said to not even have an AAIB of their own...). The Germans haven't even received the tapes yet.

So, hold your horses, cowboy. Nothing's determined.

The German daily Bild Zeitung (the most popular newspaper in Germany) published some comments last Wednesday on the Almaty Challenger crash. For those who read German, link is http://www.bild.de/BILD/berlin/aktue...=3628176.html#

For those who don't, a certain Rishat Tustkbaev, who appears to be the airport manager and a member of the "Special Commission" was reported as saying it was pilot error.

Since Kazahkstan is a member of the Interstate Aviation Commission, the Russian MAK is the responsible investigating body, and I don't know what relation the "Special Commission" has to it.

Tustkbaev is reported as saying that the pilots did not have anti-ice on; that they didn't follow all safety requirements; that the captain gave the copilot misleading instructions; and that the copilot was not experienced enough (he had 60 hours on type).

Two seconds after "start" (I guess they mean the unstick point) the aircraft rolled 64° right and the wing touched the ground. Apparently, to recover, SOPs say pull the throttles back and the crew did not do this.

Tustkbaev is reported as putting all the blame on the pilots.

I report this here only for the record. There is a lot of obvious rubbish. If they rolled 64° right two seconds after liftoff and there is no mechanical explanation then it looks very much as though the right wing lost lift or never had any. Icing is the obvious suspect and, regardless of whether the crew had anti-ice on or not, one wants to know when and how the aircraft was de-iced. And of course the airport is responsible for the quality of de-icing and it is the airport chief who is speaking out.

Any suggestion that a 64° roll within two seconds of liftoff is something that experienced pilots can handle is nonsense. If you don't have lift on your right wing, physics dictates what happens next, not number of hours on type.

PBL

Came across this some time ago and made me somewhat sceptical of the design then. Wonder if this had any part to play.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...04__vp_bjm.cfm

The HSTCU is susceptible to contamination. A sad loss.

HSTCU Contamination
 

You're right, but this is known and has just recently been widely published, for example in Flight International.
We still have to wait for the conclusions of the Russian and German AAIB. It appears though, that the aircraft's right wing did not produce the necessary lift after rotation. Assuming that the aircraft commander acted wisely in deciding pro de-icing, one must focus on the ambient temperature and the nature of precipitation during the quick turn-around enroute to Hongkong. We can safely assume that the airframe itself must have been cold soaked after the first leg from Hannover to Almaty. We all know how the task-sharing during such a technical stop works: CM1 does all the paperwork, payments and overlooks the refuelling (and de-icing, when necessary), while CM2 goes through new WX-information and starts punching in the numbers for the 2nd leg into the FMS (which could have taken some time, given that he still was under supervision).
What I'd be interested in finding out: what type of de-icing fluid was used and were there any samples available in the days after the accident?
Something went terribly wrong that night and my guess is, that the occupants of this CL604 were doomed once they applied takeoff thrust...

Jetopa, I didn't imply anything. I just consider it interesting that piloting a plane apparently can be somebody's second job. This was not about having a prior life, but rather a double job. At least that's what the newspaper reports said: That he was still employed as a police officer, though not on active duty due to health issues. And this was before recent speculations by that Kazakh official published in Bild.

Again, I don't want to imply anything, much less putting blame on the deceased pilot before any facts are on the table. So no need to call back my horses.

Well, if he wasn´t policing, he didn´t have a double job, did he?

"This was not about having a prior life, but rather a double job. At least that's what the newspaper reports said: That he was still employed as a police officer, though not on active duty due to health issues."

There are lots of Doctors, Laywers, Policemen, you name it, out there freelancing. As long as they are checked out properly - no prob IMO.

The health issues that would prevent you from policing, but allow you flying - I´d be very interested to learn what that could have been...


For the sake of the surviving captain, I just hope they deiced. The question is, how many people were around the airplane during that stop - and at least the deicer crew and the handler should be able to tell if they deiced or not. And what fluid/type was used.

Does one get a "no takeoff" in the CL604 if trim runs out of range ? I´d think you would. And would it be posted with the contimantion prob?

For those speculating on stab trim issues, be aware that all the Challenger 604 fleet (including I presume this aircraft) were already retrofitted with new HSTCUs to address the contamination issue, as reported in this week's Flight, prior to this accident.

I understand from rumours (very reliable source !) in Germany than the de-icing truck ran out of which ever type fluid they were using and that the right wing may have been de-iced using water only not 50/50 mix or whatever. It will be interesting to see if they did have problems

Oh boy! How you will find out?

It happened in Kasachstan......

There seem to be only two things that will bring down a 604: over-rotation and any ice.

They used Kill Frost ABC 2000 type 2 - I had'nt heard that rumour about running out of fluid thought :uhoh:

Got about 4000 hrs on CRJ & we used to find lots of very thick clear ice on the UNDERwing after having landed in cold temps (melt & Run back ice), even when the overwing was clear. I used to go around scraping it off with a plastic ruler. De-icing trucks can find it very difficult to de-ice under the wing. Warm fuel can help but can cause melt & re-freeze (harder to see)if the ice is not removed physically after it starts to melt.

I once picked up a brand new one at montreal & on the acceptance flight test the Bombardier test pilot said they could already measure the diference in wing efficiency from the first flight of the aircraft due to flies & stuff on the leading edge. That is how unforgiving this wing is. I would never be tempted to go one second over minimum holdover on this A/C.

Authorities in Kasachstan boycot German and Canadian accident investigators
 

Sources close to the only surviving cockpit crewmember indicate, that Kasachstan’s Authorities hastily destroyed the remaining de-icing fluids that were used during the night of the accident. They apparently neither allowed foreign investigators to take samples of the fluid, nor did they allow them to collect a sample of the accident aircraft’s structure for further metallurgical analysis…

Russia’s MAK is still in possession of the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, but do not grant German or Canadian Authorities access to them for detailed data readout.

What could be the reason for this? Why did the airport manager already a few weeks ago in a ‘preliminary report’ publicly announce pilot error to be the probable cause? Why is Kasachstan so eager to point into the direction of the crew?

Something’s awfully wrong here.

If that is so, then that would have constituted violations of Clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of ICAO Annex 13.

That would also be a violation of Clause 3.3 were it to be true, based on the rights of participation laid out in Clause 5.18

PBL

This thread is going nowhere, as many others. The 604 is a good aircraft, with a fabulous wing. As with any other swept wing bird you don't take chances with ice, you watch your speed and you don't overrotate. Anyone with 20-30 hours on the plane will have learned to respect the above three. Any pilot within Europe is well versed with its handling in all above three scenarios especially in icing. Whatever reason the Russians ultimately give for the accident will be backed up by scientific data or else it will have no merit. Lets wait and see what comes out.

Lesson 1 in how to keep a thread active when there have been two posts in the last month and little new info: post a message saying the thread is going nowhere.

Lesson 2 in how to keep a thread active when there have been three posts in the last month: post a message pointing out Lesson 1.

PBL

Perhaps so but it appears to very sensitive to contamination. Much more so than many other swept wing airliners.

the de-icing fluid remains the problem
 

@ cldrvr:

I think that this is misleading. Maybe the Chellenger / Canadair Jet series aircraft are particularly sensitive to any contamination of frozen precip, and this remains to be taken a very close look at. The number of accidents / incidents with this type of airplane is worrying, to say the least.

But: there was a problem with the de-icing service at Almaty. It took the ground crew 3 attempts to bring a truck with a functioning spray nozzle. And looking at the actual weather that fateful night, applying nothing would probably have resulted in an uneventful takeoff.

I was told that a Swiss Global Express crew just recently (after the crash in Dec.) orderered de-icing there. Looking at his airplane in disbelief, the pilot saw ice hanging down from the stabilizer (like in those deep caves) after the de-icing crew was done. The ground crew also had applied the fluid from the trailing edge, because they said they couldn't get to it from the other side...

The fact, that Kasachstan is - sort of - sabotaging an independent accident investigation, could leave the impression that they have something to hide.

And to PBL:

I don't think that this tread is leading nowhere either. As long as the cause for this sad accident hasn't been found, nobody in the flying community can be sure, that a comparable scenario won't happen to them or their friend / colleague again.

This sounds like a serious potential for an accident to happen. We can get used to thorough or more than thorough de-ice/anti-ice here in the west and not think that in lesser developed locations improper de-icing techniques could lead to wing contamination on takeoff due to incompetence or perhaps even intentionally not using enough fluid. In reality many of us, myself included are assuming that the de-icing crew are doing a competent job because we can't see the critical surfaces from the cockpit. Beware.

Er, the climb gradient?:ugh:

Absolutely!!!

Aircraft Vspeeds are designed based on runway performance and are significantly lower then the speed for best climb gradient, the speed for best rate is greater again, in most cases

All larger aircraft, including the 604, have optimum (greater) V speed tables to increase climb gradient.


CL

Not the 604, I'm afraid. I believe it's already been suggested earlier in the thread as something people would like.

The following is the list of sections for the relevant part of Chapter 6, Performance, from the 605 Flight Manual (which, other than formatting, is basically the same as the 604)

None of those are for increased V speeds for improved climb gradient. All of the charts and procedures for determining speeds have a single result for a given set of conditions; there's no option to vary, say, V2. There's also no "overspeed supplement" to the AFM, as some other Bombardier Aircraft have.

Yeah but no but...
 

Punkalouve raises a very good point.

I know of at least one incident in the west, UK actually, last year where de-icing was less than thorough, with significant snow and ice left in place on both wings.

Chances are, if its happened once, it can happen again.

With that in mind I always do my own post de-icing inspection, but, whilst I can see the wings I cannot see the top of the Stab and have to trust that the de-icing crew, and regardless of how competant I think they are, it leaves that slight element of doubt..........

At some point you have to trust the people doing the right stuff, they should be the experts within there job. With Hold over Time running, I can't go out and check the Anti Icing in bad weather. Should I also check, if the JetA1 is contaminated with water?:sad:
If I didn't trust my dentist or lawyer, I change 'em. But changeing an refuelling spot, due to a bad feeling, is a little bit complicated to explain to the company,
I simply hate going east, espacially in wintertime.:eek:

Hope they didn't nail the crew.

Cheers