Incorrect de-icing of Brussels Airlines airplane in Rome

[Inquirer]

If you want to know, I have flown RYANAIR in the past [their out of way destinations are occasionally near where I have to be] until one day they decided not to show up for an important field trip and my company thus put a permanent embargo on them, yet when we were still allowed to make use of them, I've never seen a captain of theirs do a 'post ice removal treatment inspection' either....
Given that seems to be industry standard indeed, I wouldn't dare to suggest RYANAIR to be less safe than any other airline? Do you? Otherwise, I fail to see the relevance of the question, I am afraid...

[andorra-airport]

@ Inquirer

I know what airazurxtror means. In this case, or even worse: an accident, the public opinion would be much lower if it was Ryanair instead of SN. "cheap airline, not well trained pilots, safety not a first priority" etc.

Its not my favourite airline, but it's a safe one. Tell that to the people , when there is 1 incident / accident.

[cnc]

I know what airazurxtror means. In this case, or even worse: an accident, the public opinion would be much lower if it was Ryanair instead of SN. "cheap airline, not well trained pilots, safety not a first priority" etc.

doesn't the general public love FR?

[Flanker]

FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR

Subject: GROUND DEICING AND
ANTI-ICING PROGRAM
Date: 12/20/04
Initiated By: AFS-220
AC No: 120-60B

(1) Pretakeoff Check (within the HOT). This check is required under section
121.629(c)(3) anytime procedures for the use of HOT are required. The FAA recommends that
only the flightcrew accomplish the pretakeoff check. The flightcrew must accomplish the check
within the HOT. The flightcrew should check the aircraft’s wings or representative aircraft
surfaces for frozen contamination. The surfaces to be checked are determined by manufacturer’s
data or guidance contained in this AC. The pretakeoff check is integral to the use of HOTs.
Because of the limitations and cautions associated with the use of HOTs, the flightcrew must
assess the current weather and other situational conditions that affect the aircraft’s condition and
not rely on the use of HOTs as the sole determinant that the aircraft is free of contaminants.
Several pretakeoff checks may be required during the HOT period based on factors that include
the length of the HOT range, weather, or other conditions. The flightcrew should maintain a
continued awareness of the condition of the aircraft and accomplish a pretakeoff check just
before taking the active runway for departure. When conducting the pretakeoff check, the
flightcrew must factor in the application sequence (i.e., where on the aircraft the deicing process
began).

I'm not blaming individual SN pilots, as I don't know what the company procedures are.
But it's wrong that an F/A who's not supposed to know much or anything about it is the one to report it.

I also wouldn't mind too much if the aircraft leaves the gate clean, no precipitation, low humidity and the anti-icing stop is just a formality.
But if you leave the gate with a contaminated wing, the least of things to do is to check that the wings have been decontaminated properly. Be it from the cockpit window or through cabin windows.

@flanker get real... there is only so much one can do. If tomorrow I ask you to stick your head out of an A330 cockpit and look at the far end of the leading edge of the wing and tell me if there is ice accumulated on it (usually thin layers are imperceptible) you wouldn't be able to tell me at all. So your theory is useless. Your idea wouldn't be 'idiot proof' either.
Also Type II fluid is quite commonly used as it's less expensive and considering all circumstances often powerful enough to keep the wings clean. (Type IV is used primarily if it's the only thing available, or when you really need that increased hold over time)
Also concerning that good look at the load sheet... seriously? We always cross check documents but nevertheless this is assuming this document has all the correct information on it and I dare you to come and verify wether the actually Traffic Load is correctly depicted each flight... (meaning you would have to personally weigh every piece of cargo, count the n° of bags and pax and calculate).... thought not... If you don't trust anyone, stay home.
(talking about quality controlled and audited airlines/service partners here btw! nothing else)

You make me laugh. Theory theory theory. This is PPL license material.
It's not because you have a FMS, some EFIS screens and a low wage servant to clean the wings for you that you no longer have to check his work!
Many pilots think that icing is theory and that it would never cause them trouble until some day... I heard many stories of icing causing fluid leakage on pilot seats, on SN Avro's. If you see what I mean.

I rather stay home than fly certain "quality controlled" airlines, but thanks for the advice.

These days indeed responsibilities are being transferred to other competent personnel. As a pilot we are considered to be trustworthy of all those other 'competent' co-workers. If we didn't, we should simply stop flying. The business has become too much a money business to remain efficient not doing this.

I love this quote. I love it.
Efficiency can be achieved only once you cover all your bases.
Otherwise, it's not efficiency but corner-cutting.

According to you, pilot complacency is justified in the name of being more efficient, making money?
Going through the loadsheet for a small pax aircraft is a max 30 second job for one person and the captain has to check it before signing it!! It's the f-ck-n least you have to do, it's the law.

Checking means checking the fuels, the paxes and when you do this 4 times a day, after a while you easily detect when something isn't right.

Ryanair has achieved efficiency in this area by ultra-simplifying the loadsheet, in a way that a mistake would be so apparent and that it gives immediate overview. That's efficiency.
Not checking a balance sheet is plain corner-cutting, complacency and has nothing to do with efficiency.

There's even an unofficial app for Ryanair pilots to have an immediate read-out and compare.
http://www.hotiphoneapp.com/apps/427069294-loadsheet

So at SN you don't check your loadsheets?
You don't bother to check the de-icing?
You don't check your flight plan?

You

cross check documents

?

I dare you to come and verify wether the actually Traffic Load is correctly depicted each flight... (meaning you would have to personally weigh every piece of cargo, count the n° of bags and pax and calculate

The least you have to do is to do a vague mental calculation and check that numbers are in the right dimension. 60 males +/- 80kg, 4800kg, etc takes 15 seconds.
Then you check the fuels and the weight additions. Simple math, 10 seconds.
You check that the chart lines are good, 10 seconds.


What do you do then in the cockpit?
If making money (cough cough -80Mill) is how you justify being complacent, it's indeed better to

simply stop flying

[andorra-airport]

Well Flanker, every pilot is different (and takes that consequence). I have seen pilots signing the load sheet blind, with 0% checking. 98% checks all the usual stuff, and in rare cases you have a pilot who wants to know ALL.

[Flanker]

Well Flanker, every pilot is different (and takes that consequence). I have seen pilots signing the load sheet blind, with 0% checking. 98% checks all the usual stuff, and in rare cases you have a pilot who wants to know ALL.

We know in which category Tolipanebas belongs then.
Glad to know that he's more an exception than the norm, of course pilots check their loadsheets, they have to!

Same thing for contaminated wings.

[Inquirer]

All nice to read, but as I have said before, I have never seen a pilot do an external check after what is called remote de icing for instance... Not at B.air, RYAINAIR, SAS, or in fact any other airline, so clearly that brings me back to my initial Question: how to explain this clear difference between theory and reality, and just what is all that theory of some here really worth, seeing the industry clearly does it differently?

[JAFflyer]

And how to check the horizontal stabilizer, open the aft doors and stick your head out as well? Do this in freezing rain and you can return back to the de-icing platform by the time you complete checklists and are ready for take-off... And on Avro's or on most of the turboprops, you would need stairs to check the upper wing surface. In this example, the de-icing company has a serious problem. Pilots request for de-icing and we put our trust in people who are trained to perform this action.
I can assure you Flanker, opening your cockpit window to check for ice or snow is useless in large aircraft (767, 330, 747, etc...). If you would have tried it, you would know this.

[tolipanebas]

I see that the resident nutcase has been very active on google again, clearly showing he has no understanding of the industry whatsoever nor does he have the slightest idea how airlines convert general rules and recommendations into airline specific operating procedures which need to get formal approval from the state issuing their AOC and may then substitute anything he may have found online?!

That's right flanker: the general rules you are so good in quoting are basically 'one size, fits all' rules, from the occasional sleepy Cessna Citation operator right up to behemoths like United, but whereas the first has to stick to them to the letter because it's all he has to base his operations on, a commercial airline actually operates under its very own AOC, which means the company can be allowed to replace general rules and recommendations it doesn't feel appropriate to follow by a formally approved specific company operating method of its own which can and often does deviate from the general aviation rules so as to get higher efficiency in operations all while similar safety standards are maintained.

I have never seen a pilot do an external check after what is called remote de icing for instance... Not at B.air, RYAINAIR, SAS, or in fact any other airline, so clearly that brings me back to my initial Question: how to explain this clear difference between theory and reality, and just what is all that theory of some here really worth, seeing the industry clearly does it differently?

No you haven't, for the simple reason that this is obviously not required indeed, as all of those airlines you've quoted (and in fact all airlines in the world) have other procedures in place which are far more efficient and offer at least as good a level of safety and happily they have indeed, or they'd need turn around times of several hours, thus making it impossible to have commercial aviation the way we know it: only well organised teamwork can achieve that, but then our superman here clearly thinks he can do everything much better on his very own.

Here a few examples of remote de-icings (which BTW are very rare event according to flanker(nope)), and as you can clearly see, after the plane enters the de-icing platform and gets sprayed, the engines are shut down, stairs are brought in, the door is opened and the captain climbs on top of a scaffolding built around the entire plane in order to check if all of the surfaces are indeed entirely clear of any deposits...
Euh... nope, not exactly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWf4yG27J4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC4DYxwgpoA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SljYTXkM2_4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnsJz9IW0Y0

I rather stay home than fly certain "quality controlled" airlines

In which case you won't be doing much flying at all then -hence maybe your complete lack of operational knowledge- as having quality control is a fundamental and mandatory part of the process of obtaining and maintaining an AOC, precisely because of the fact that the supervising state authorities will only let AOC holders operate flights under the principle of delegated responsabilities on condition they have an internal quality department chasing and correcting any occasional exceedances that may occur: all airlines operate under an AOC and make use of the delegated principle, so they are all quality controlled and FWIW that department in turn gets audited at regular intervals by the CAA in order to see it it doesn't screw up itself.
But then obviously for a wannabe Buck Danny like you, there's no need for all that, right? Sure, boy...

I though I'd seen it all from you with your utterly ridiculous proposal to chase an A319 fleet operating to completely remote locations in AFI with little commuter planes bringing in catering uplifts for their return flights, but now you've really outdone yourself once more by dismissing mandatory Quality Control and replacing it by: 'Popping your head out from time to time and having a damn good look at it all'!

ROTFL

[Homo Aeroportus]

FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR

Subject: GROUND DEICING AND
ANTI-ICING PROGRAM
Date: 12/20/04
Initiated By: AFS-220
AC No: 120-60B

(1) Pretakeoff Check (within the HOT). This check is required under section
121.629(c)(3) anytime procedures for the use of HOT are required. The FAA recommends that
only the flightcrew accomplish the pretakeoff check. ...

Correct, this is on page 7 of that Advisory Circular.

On page 8, I read :
(3) Post Deicing/Anti-Icing Check. This multi-part check is an integral part of the deicing/anti-icing process. The check ensures that:
(a) All critical surfaces are free of adhering frozen contaminants after deicing.
(b) All critical surfaces are free of frozen contaminants before the application of any anti-icing fluid.
(c) All critical surfaces are free of frozen contaminants before pushback or taxi.
NOTE: Certificate holders should have procedures that require that qualified ground personnel conduct this check. Communication procedures should be established to relay pertinent deicing/anti icing information and the results of this check to the PIC.

There is also an AC120-58 : "Pilot Guide. Large Aircraft Ground Deicing".
In the introduction, I read :
.... The clean aircraft concept is essential to safe flight operations. The
PIC has the ultimate responsibility to determine if the aircraft is clean
and that the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. This
requirement may be met if the PIC obtains verification from properly
trained and qualified ground personnel that the aircraft is ready for
flight.

Becoming selective in your readings Flanker?

H.A.

[shockcooling]

...
So at SN you don't check your loadsheets?
You don't bother to check the de-icing?
You don't check your flight plan?...

It is always better to ask then to make an assumption, Flanker
-At SN we always check our loadsheets before every flight, because we want to know if there are PAD onboard with some chocolate for the crew.
-We do check the de-icing, we have SOPs for this, which we follow.
-We sign in 70min before EDT, we print the weather/notams, check the flightplan for correct fuel figures, flight levels routing, etc., we have to, because otherwise we don't know how to get there...

any more assumptions?

[Flanker]

And how to check the horizontal stabilizer, open the aft doors and stick your head out as well? Do this in freezing rain and you can return back to the de-icing platform by the time you complete checklists and are ready for take-off... And on Avro's or on most of the turboprops, you would need stairs to check the upper wing surface. In this example, the de-icing company has a serious problem. Pilots request for de-icing and we put our trust in people who are trained to perform this action.

However they are part of the human factor apparatus.
It's only good CRM to check it. Hot's are becoming longer and longer thanks to increasing usage of type IV.

For, the tail, as pilots one should know that as long as the leading edges are decontaminated, and elevators, rudder and trims are free, there isn't much of a risk for take-off. Most aircraft are equipped with leading edge anti-ice.

I can assure you Flanker, opening your cockpit window to check for ice or snow is useless in large aircraft (767, 330, 747, etc...). If you would have tried it, you would know this.

I can assure you the same, as I recall stating it's a challenge to do from the cockpit on A330.
But you have a good view from both n° 03 doors, so no excuse there.
I know this because I tried it. Why would you assume the opposite? Contrary to several of you, I back up my claims with documentation.

Obviously, the best practice is to go into the cabin AS MANY AIRLINES DO. You can't see a thin layer of ice from the cockpit.
But if you're so lazy, the next best thing is AT LEAST a peek from the cockpit window.

If HOT is too much of concern due to taxi distance to the runway or traffic (not a big problem at BRU), you can still delegate it to one or more cabin crew members, after briefing them properly on what to look for and where.

Stop your excuses.

[Desert Rat]

Personally, I would not open the rear door of an A330 without the stair positionned too risky to slip + risk of an inadvertent slide deployement....

[JAFflyer]

I fly a 767 and I must say, you have no idea how ridiculous you sound...
That's the last thing I say about this because it makes no sense arguing with you, definately not when it's about real cockpit operations. You made that perfectly clear here.

[tolipanebas]

Contrary to several of you, I back up my claims with documentation.

Let's see: so you're backing up your claims with this information, which is all written further down in that very same documentation you've linked to:

... Certificate holders should have procedures that require that qualified ground personnel conduct this check. Communication procedures should be established to relay pertinent deicing/anti icing information and the results of this check to the PIC.

as well as

There is also an AC120-58 : "Pilot Guide. Large Aircraft Ground Deicing":
... The PIC has the ultimate responsibility to determine if the aircraft is clean:
and that the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. This
requirement may be met if the PIC obtains verification from properly
trained and qualified ground personnel that the aircraft is ready for
flight.

So in other words, Aircraft Operating Certification Holders can perfectly delegate the task from the PIC to qualified ground personnel, just as I've told you at the beginning of this discussion!
But no: Flanker thinks he knows it all so much better and claims we're all just a bunch of lazy idiots... So basically, it's business as usual with you, right?

Here's once more what I have written already yesterday, in my very first reply to this topic:

It's called 'delegated responsability', meaning that in case of de-icing for instance, the responsability is transferred to the certified de-icing company upon the order to de-ice the aircraft and the person supervising the whole procedure for that company has to state at the end of it that the plane has been correctly de-iced according to specifications, either in writing (hand over a signed de-icing slip) or verbatim (through 2 way radio contact with the cockpit and thus being recorded on the CVR ).

and what I've added today:

the general rules you are so good in quoting are basically 'one size, fits all' rules, from the occasional sleepy Cessna Citation operator right up to behemoths like United, but whereas the first has to stick to them to the letter because it's all he has to base his operations on, a commercial airline actually operates under its very own AOC, which means the company can be allowed to replace general rules and recommendations it doesn't feel appropriate to follow by a formally approved specific company operating method of its own which can and often does deviate from the general aviation rules so as to get higher efficiency in operations all while similar safety standards are maintained

Seems to be pretty much SPOT ON with the above 2 provisions HomoAeroportus linked too, I'd say...

Becoming selective in your readings, Flanker?

What do you mean, "becoming"'?
Selective use of publically available information is basically his trademark in every single discussion!
I've found his posts to be always amuzing, mostly well written, occasionally theorectically correct, but always always completely wrong in the end and it must be said he's been really very consistent on this pattern, so he surely isn't "becoming" anything really and this latest discussion perfectly fits the pattern too, as we have jointly established beyond any possible doubt now.

you can still delegate it to one or more cabin crew members, after briefing them properly on what to look for and where.

Now that's just brilliant!
For all you know, maybe that is exactly what has happened, so just what are you debating then?
Spinning the facts till your own heads risks falling off, Flanker?
Besides, you're not seriously proposing delegating the tast to verify the de-icing process of wings and tail to untrained cabin crew inside the plane, whereas there's specially trained and fully qualified de-icing staff just outside of the plane, are you? That really makes no sense at all, you know... but then maybe that's to point, not to make any sense at all?

you have no idea how ridiculous you sound...It makes no sense arguing with you, definately not when it's about real cockpit operations. You've made that perfectly clear here.

Talking about pointing out a pattern and being SPOT ON... well said!

[cnc]

If HOT is too much of concern due to taxi distance to the runway or traffic (not a big problem at BRU), you can still delegate it to one or more cabin crew members, after briefing them properly on what to look for and where.

so why should it ok to delegate it to cabin crew with a briefing and not to ground crew who had special training and actually perform the deicing?

[Flanker]

Personally, I would not open the rear door of an A330 without the stair positionned too risky to slip + risk of an inadvertent slide deployement....

Personally, you don't have to open the door completely.
I would weigh the risk of inadvertent slide deployment (by forgetting to disarm) over that of taking off with a layer of ice on the wing.
On most doors, a quick look at the girt bar can tell you that it's disengaged from the hooks.

But what do I know, according to some pseudo-professionals who seem to know everything about aviation and my life, Google and Wikipedia is who taught me all this.

Might I add, I've received deanti-icing briefings from the best of the best. It's not some copilot of an Avro who thinks that checking a loadsheet is too much work that's going to tell me how things should be.

It is always better to ask then to make an assumption, Flanker
-At SN we always check our loadsheets before every flight, because we want to know if there are PAD onboard with some chocolate for the crew.

I don't make assumptions, you should know that by now. Aren't you the one who's making the assumption, without checking the content of the discussion?

An SN copilot said it himself:

In fact it is all fairly similar to how fuel uplifts, loadsheets, NOTOCs, cabin searches or in fact maintenance actions on planes are legally dealt with as there too, responsability is delegated from the captain to others and can only be assumed back by him upon formal confirmation that everything has been done as specified. If you read the small print on those documents, you'll often see some legal text telling exactly this.

After that the positions are divided between me who says that delegated tasks shall be checked by the FD crew for correct execution;
and all the rest who pretends that modern aviation forces FD crews to drop those checks and assume correct execution.

It doesn't take more than a 10 year old's sense of common sense to say who's selling the cheap shots.

[tolipanebas]

Now please, cnc, don't make so much sense....

I'd really love to see Flanker apply for an AOC for his very own airline using 35 turboprops on European routes as well as 25 A320s on AFI (with a bunch of commuter planes based overthere to service them all for their return flight to Europe of course! ROTFL) with a set of company procedures as creative like that!

I've received deanti-icing briefings from the best of the best. It's not some copilot of an Avro who thinks that checking a loadsheet is too much work that's going to tell me how things should be.

Have you been working for Hewa Bora maybe, Flanker? Your procedures sure fit the outlet!
After all, who needs Quality Control, right?

[Flanker]

If HOT is too much of concern due to taxi distance to the runway or traffic (not a big problem at BRU), you can still delegate it to one or more cabin crew members, after briefing them properly on what to look for and where.

so why should it ok to delegate it to cabin crew with a briefing and not to ground crew who had special training and actually perform the deicing?

Conflict of interest, auto-criticism, commercial pressure would be a good start.
The handler who does the deanti icing wants his deicers to do as many airplanes as possible with as little resources (fluid, people, time) as possible. The deicer himself may not give a damn, apart from the fact that he's cold and wants to go home.

A cabin crew member wants to take-off safely.

If I have to explain everything...
Might I add, if this is common practice at an airline, said airline should obviously train the cabin crew.

Now please, cnc, don't make so much sense....

You're bad publicity for SN.

[tolipanebas]

I'm not some copilot of an Avro who thinks that checking a loadsheet is too much work that's going to tell me how things should be.

It is always better to ask then to make an assumption, Flanker
-At SN we always check our loadsheets before every flight, because we want to know if there are PAD onboard with some chocolate for the crew.

I don't make assumptions, you should know that by now. Aren't you the one who's making the assumption, without checking the content of the discussion?

An SN copilot said it himself:

In fact it is all fairly similar to how fuel uplifts, loadsheets, NOTOCs, cabin searches or in fact maintenance actions on planes are legally dealt with as there too, responsability is delegated from the captain to others and can only be assumed back by him upon formal confirmation that everything has been done as specified. If you read the small print on those documents, you'll often see some legal text telling exactly this.

Talking about assumptions:
Me a copilot on Avro?
The very fact I am posting on this site for already so long as an SN pilot makes that in itself very unlikely indeed, if you'd now the career flow.

and talking about selective reading:

"responsability is delegated from the captain to others and can only be assumed back by him upon formal confirmation that everything has been done as specified"

If I have to explain everything...

No better read everything and shut up, because you clearly have much to learn still, boy.

You're bad publicity for SN.

You're bad publicity for yourself.
If I may give the armchair consultant in you one behavioral advice: try to look smart in a different discussion or something as in this one at least, you've clearly lost it completely. Better luck next time, although you seem to be having a lot of problems breaking out of the established pattern others have pointed out already