LHR running out of de-icing fluid?
 

I am a pilot for a major Intnl Airline and left LHR as pax Saturday night(9th). Just about managed to de-ice wings after snow shower and limited amount of fluid in the truck.

I was told by my company that one of our freighter aircraft inbound LHR was diverted to MAN due lack of de-icing fluid ( hot glycol mixed with water) at LHR. All cargo will have to be transported by road to LHR. Also from flight crew that no Anti-icing fluid (cold 100% Glycol to prevent adherence of snow) available at all; thus if it snows after de-icing, aircraft could not take off.(BA prob have own supplies perhaps).

This has potential to cut UK off from the world if more significant snow falls. My company has to obtain supplies in Beijing and ship it to LHR in a freighter to hold as a dedicated source for our aircraft as none available locally. Imagine the cost. Each ton or fluid takes 500kg or fuel to carry it from there.

Another UK logistic disaster caused by the Met Office's dogmatic belief in global warming and typical UK un-preparedness.

Jetsam

Try this: Enough Greenland ice melts to disrupt the Gulfstream. UK and EU freeze.

Jetsam,

Global warming does not mean increased temperatures, it means climate change. For the UK the predictions are colder winters and more rain in the summer.

Sounds like the met office are spot on. Why are you blaming them for your / another companies failure to plan for cold weather?

On another note I see BA have finally managed to persuade HAL to allow remote deicing. It only took twenty years!!! They seem to have a plentiful supply of both de and anti-ice judging by the quantities they're using per a/c!

LD

Yes, you are right inasmuch as it means more extreme and variable weather but I do believe the mat office model is programmed with predictions not entirely accepted by many in the scientific community and they certainly didn't predict this.

Also I guess El Nino has an influence.

I believe that you should be asking your airline or their handling agents why they were not prepared for the cold weather which was predicted well before Christmas. :ugh:

I don't know why they took so long, and I have little time for BAA/HAL, but I suspect that environmental problems with prevention (ie containment) of run-off of quite potent chemicals to ground water may be a contributory factor here, only because they are everywhere else in UK.

This was on the cards since Tuesday , Im surprised it has not been rectified

How much of the "shortage" of de-icing fluid, road salt, etc is caused by a significant proportion of the UK starting a holiday around December 20 and not coming back to work agai until the second Monday in January. Aviation should be well aware of this as they are carrying them all to/from the ski slopes, relatives overseas, etc. Bu it grossly disrupts the supply chain for weeks. You try and spot hire large lorries to carry materials - no driver available. And "management" at many organisations to arrange things, or authorise expenditure, are depleted as well, down to a skeleton.

Do they ship a de icing rig and trained operators too? :hmm:

Other UK stations have also had de-icing fluid shortages. Mainly because supplies previously ordered were diverted to LHR without so much as a by-your-leave!!! :*

BYOB
 

It is not only LHR that has been running low on De-icing fluid. AMS, FRA, CGN, DUS, NUE, etc. have all recently had moments when they wish they had greater stocks. This winter has been particularly bad and maybe handling companies may wish to wish to hold greater stocks in the future. But there are other airports (LGAV?) where some well known operators have also had to take own their fluid to rescue their aircraft. And have you ever tried to de-ice in LFMN?

PM

It is not an overt conspiracy, rather it is the expected result of allocating a large amount of research funding for the specific purpose of documenting a problem and finding solutions to said problem before and/or in the absence of any empirical evidence that the alleged problem actually existed. At least in the US, this increase in directed funding started in the mid-1970s, when many other sources of non-military funding of scientific research were drying up after the end of the Apollo program. By the end of the 1980s there was a growing population of researchers whose livelihood depended on continuation or expansion of spending on this problem, so the most probable research topics, as well as results, were those that supported such an outcome. Then the UN gets involved and creates yet another bureaucracy (the IPCC) whose funding and existence depends on finding evidence of a near-term problem and the focus shifts even further from science to "marketing" of climate change hysteria. The overall situation is aided by peer review and editorial policy at nearly all of the relevant journals, which makes it very difficult to publish contrary findings.


Because the conference had nothing to do with science, the conference had to do with politics and (especially) money. A majority of those 150 countries are poor, and stand to benefit (or, more precisely, their governments and/or government officials stand to benefit) from the handouts expected from the more-wealthy countries under a "climate change" agreement. Many other of the countries are developing or aspiring countries that stand to benefit from less-restrictive rules than the industrialized countries, which will improve the competitiveness of their industries versus those in Europe and North America. Most of the remaining countries are the ones who paid for the problem-focused "research" in the first place (and many politicians in those countries are in positions of power due at least in part from support by "green" voters or NGOs).


Because the oil companies have been politically well-connected throughout their existence, and have realized that they are better off being involved in creating the rules for a petroleum-restricted future than being the victims of such rules.


Yes! In fact, the U.S. government has a long history of such behavior. A recent example, although of much smaller scale, was their organizing a multi-nation coalition and starting a war due to the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. An example of similar scale was the demobilization to nearly pre-war levels in 1946 under the belief that the elimination of the Axis powers meant the end of major world conflict.

Have to concur with ab33t. They've known about a serious depletion of de-icing fluid since Tuesday evening. Airlines and handlers asking each other for a dig out cos they were running out of or had run out de-icer themselves.

The topic here is that LHR has been running low for the last five days and it's now I believe in a critical stage. Supplies need to be delivered soon.

What also is not helping the situation is some Commanders insistence on 2 stage de icing and anti icing even though the weather conditions/hold over times don't require it.

I do agree though that it is about time that LHR looked at having remote de-icing on a more permanent basis - although this would then possibly lead to a monopoly on the de-icing as only 1 company would be able to do it, rather than several as is the case at the moment.

:hmm:

Oh Oh, that kind of thought ought not to mess with the decison part of a commanders thoughts.

There should be no lessening of safety critical processes based on delays etc. I would hate for a rumor to start floating arround at the commanders dispatch level about how to save deicing fluid. Those kind of thoughts need to be formalized in procedures.

I don't want to drag this away from the topic of de-icing, but this line caught my eye:

US funding for climate change research is on the order of $8Bn. Seems like a lot, but the US has so far contributed about $2Bn to the CERN project, which they're not even members of. The total US science budget is around 40 times larger than the amount they spend on climate change research (although part of this is in the military).

MFgeo, if you're convinced the whole thing is a sham then there's not much i can say to persuade or debate otherwise. You still haven't answered the basic scientific fact that adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. Saying the conference had nothing to do with science is nonsense. Of course politics, money etc is involved, but go to the IPCC site and read through their reports, it's all science.If you want to say that the whole (or a great part of) the scientific community is wrong then so be it, the debate is then pointless if objective evidence is ignored.



Even accepting it is a global scam/con/whatever - to what end?

"To what end?"

1) Increased taxation

2) Increased control

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing?

Tilos

i don't think our government needs any excuse for increased taxation and control, they have succesfully achieved both of those things without concocting an international climate conspiracy!

Besides, it's the scientific community that have been shouting at governments for the last 20 years to take the problem seriously.
Anyway, we could just keep going round in circles with this. Read the IPCC reports from the last 20 years, research respected journals and university studies, check the provenance of those debating the argument and then make an objective decision but don't just spout 'it's a con' or 'a plot to tax us' (not aimed at you personally Tilos) because the facts don't back these statements up.

It's just the same as when an airline goes to a marketing agency, 'the experts' and asks "Do you think that we need a new image and a new livery ?".

I can't remember the last time such a study (which the airline pays for) ever said no. Of course they always say yes. Say No and there's no more business. Say Yes and there's millions of pounds of expenditure coming their way. The answer is in no way connected with when the last rebranding was done.

Of course, there's a huge amount of pseudo-science by 'industry renowned experts' (who also have to be paid for) associated with all this, to demonstrate that in the logo the circle is perceived as better than the square, that wavy lines denote stability, and all that stuff. And they have the figures to prove it, of course.

Multiply this now by 1 million times worldwide. Well Mr. University Principal, keenly looking for funds to advance their organisation. Do you think there is Global Warming ? You think there could well be, but it really needs more research. Do you do such research ? You do. My, what a coincidence.

WHBM
undoubtedly there are studies influenced by money etc. But for goodness sake do not think that every scientist, university, institution etc runs that way - that is a ridiculous notion. As i say, research it yourself, check provenance etc

Where did you get that info from - I thought milder winters are predicted.

English Heritage | Climate change & your home - Projections for the UK

As I posted earlier, (but seems to have been deleted), "climate change" is simply a catch-all phrase to hide the fact that the global warming predicted is not taking place. The climate has been changing for over 100 million years, and the comparitive data available for modern studies is barely a blink of an eye in that time scale. We are basing claims of "fastest temperature rise ever" on a fraction of the worlds climate history, and it appears that much of the evidence to support those tenuous claims is of dubious provenance anyway.

I don't know how they can say fastest global changes EVER?
They've only been keeping records for the last couple of
hundred years.
World record conclusion jumping?

I blame the Ffrench for the shortage of De-icing fluid.
They used to have a MASSIVE taxi-through de-icing rig
at CDG.
Is it still there I wonder?

There's an article on the BBC website about the effect of climate change on the Gulf Stream which concludes;

I don't know if that contradicts other predictions, but even if not it softens them.