Incorrect de-icing of Brussels Airlines airplane in Rome

[shockcooling]

Again an assumption!

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.

This one pilot might crash, the tail doesn't have leading edge anti-ice, and it's extremely important that the horizontal surface is completely free of ice, otherwise negatively affecting aerodynamic characteristics. Yes the tail creates -lift

Anyway, I don't think it's hard work to check the loadsheet (1 of 1000 items which we check constantly), it's just a part of our pre-flight checks, even when I do that on an Airbus

I personally agree that checking the wing yourself for being ice/contamination free is a good thing to do, even when it means squeezing your head outside the rear doors (btw, why explaining how to open a door to a FCM?)
But as said many times before, we trust these qualified ground staff, same thing for our engineers for keeping the planes airworthy, same for the ATCOs guiding us safely through the busy skies.
I would call it teamwork, CRM and common sense, which is a good thing in aviation

[tolipanebas]

Again an assumption!

He basically lives of it.
He needs assumptions as proof of his conclusions, that's all.

I personally agree that checking the wing yourself for being ice/contamination free is a good thing to do, even when it means squeezing your head outside the rear doors

And if you read the entire discussion nobody has so far disagreed with that principle, yet all of us -except Flanker of course- understand that this is nothing but a small step in the entire process and that it is not always possible to have it as ultimate and final fail proof check, especially not in case of remote de-icing.

Btw, why explaining how to open a door to a FCM?

Now, please, I've said it before to cnc, don't make so much sense!
I'd love to see the look on the face of the poor girl to whom Captain Flanker gives his briefing as if it's the very first time she'll be operating a door! After all, Captain Flanker got training from the best of the best, on this, so better pay attention girl, as you might just learn something here!

As said many times before, we trust these qualified ground staff, same thing for our engineers for keeping the planes airworthy, same for the ATCOs guiding us safely through the busy skies.
I would call it teamwork, CRM and common sense, which is a good thing in aviation

Buck Danny can do it all by himself... Flanker thinks he can too.. 'nuf said!

[cnc]

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.

Oke now lets make something clear, the ramp operators (pushback & deicing people) known damn well just like loadsheeters that if something happens related to their work they will be held responsible. even if they don't give a damn about the aircraft and the people on it they do give a damn about their own life.
i've always enjoyed your idea's on this forum but you are trying to lecture people who actually fly the airliners or work in operations... really you can dislike it and find it unsafe or irrisponsible all you want but it doesn't change how operations are done in the real world.

[Flanker]

Oke now lets make something clear, the ramp operators (pushback & deicing people) known damn well just like loadsheeters that if something happens related to their work they will be held responsible. even if they don't give a damn about the aircraft and the people on it they do give a damn about their own life.
i've always enjoyed your idea's on this forum but you are trying to lecture people who actually fly the airliners or work in operations... really you can dislike it and find it unsafe or irrisponsible all you want but it doesn't change how operations are done in the real world

I've conducted operations in many continents and am a pilot myself. That's how I know where to find the necessary documentation, because experience and training is not proof of cçmpetence.
Just because it happens like that at SN in BRU doesn't mean that the other airlines work like that too.

Many people receive responsibilities that they can't carry.
Try telling a guy that he can go to jail for not doing his job right, most of the time they will laugh at you.
Been there, done that. Reality is that most people don't care unless the threat is imminent.

Are you accusing the deanti icer in Rome to have done it on purpose?
If you don't agree with the explanations I gave (commercial pressure, complacency), that's the only remaining explanation.

[cnc]

Just because it happens like that at SN in BRU doesn't mean that the other airlines work like that too.

well i worked for the old SN (both OCC and GOC) and currently for a US legacy carrier so i think i can say i know how operations on the tarmac work.

Are you accusing the deanti icer in Rome to have done it on purpose?

i have no clue. i wasn't there and i haven't seen the audit.
If only you would know half of the stupidities happening on the tarmac on airports all over the world
sometimes you wonder how its possible there aren't more accidents but none the less, it doesn't make ground crew less responsible

[Flanker]

Again an assumption!

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.

This one pilot might crash, the tail doesn't have leading edge anti-ice, and it's extremely important that the horizontal surface is completely free of ice, otherwise negatively affecting aerodynamic characteristics. Yes the tail creates -lift

Anyway, I don't think it's hard work to check the loadsheet (1 of 1000 items which we check constantly), it's just a part of our pre-flight checks, even when I do that on an Airbus

I personally agree that checking the wing yourself for being ice/contamination free is a good thing to do, even when it means squeezing your head outside the rear doors (btw, why explaining how to open a door to a FCM?)
But as said many times before, we trust these qualified ground staff, same thing for our engineers for keeping the planes airworthy, same for the ATCOs guiding us safely through the busy skies.
I would call it teamwork, CRM and common sense, which is a good thing in aviation

Many aircraft including the Avro, MD80, etc... have tail anti-ice.
The A320, the B737 and A330 don't and it has a lot to do with the fact that tail l.e. icing is not a problem for those aircraft, as proven during certification. On aircraft with trimmable horizontal stabilizer, tail icing is not a big issue because you can compensate your way out with the trim.
However, most larger aircraft have wing anti-ice, because unlike the tail, there it's always critical.

If I were you, I wouldn't brag about my credentials if I were afraid of activating the chute everytime I open the door or didn't know what I'm talking about.

However I congratulate you for reminding that checking the wings yourself is obviously good practice and should be done. This proves that aside from your personnality, you think like a good pilot. I wish all FCM's would back me up instead of trying to prove that it's safer to not check.

[Flanker]

Just because it happens like that at SN in BRU doesn't mean that the other airlines work like that too.

well i worked for the old SN (both OCC and GOC) and currently for a US legacy carrier so i think i can say i know how operations on the tarmac work.

Are you accusing the deanti icer in Rome to have done it on purpose?

i have no clue. i wasn't there and i haven't seen the audit.
If only you would know half of the stupidities happening on the tarmac on airports all over the world
sometimes you wonder how its possible there aren't more accidents but none the less, it doesn't make ground crew less responsible

I know and seen the stupidities, hence state that pilots shouldn't rely too much on "delegated responsibilities".
I guess that we're on the same page now.

[Desert Rat]

Well, if you want to check the girt bar while opening the door, then one cabin crew has to lye on the floor while the other one operates the lever....I like this....

[B.Inventive]

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

You sir, are ignorant. You don't comprehend what other people write.
Furthermore hereafter I will no longer comment. What is the point when you only read what you want to read.

I wish you the best in your endeavors. But please stop pretending you know anything about actual operational procedures in aviation because everything you have said so far, is a load of BS. (Even though I agreed the 'idea' of checking yourself as a pilot, is not bad)
Checking contamination levels from the cabin of an aircraft is simply stupid. You can not reach a respectable level of certainty doing this. I'd rather have a trained professional driving around my aircraft with a decent inspection system than rely on estimated data judged from 30m away (yes big birds have big wings!) in very obscured lighting conditions. (not every airport has bright apron lighting) The check you propose is like playing Poker, it's a game of LUCK, one time you will notice the buildup, another time you wont. You can't guarantee anything!




Doing the simple math is 1 thing, making sure the cargo loaded is the cargo described on the papers... another. This was my point! Not as if I think it's too much an effort to make basic traffic load calculations. That we do every time and more than once! Don't think you know how we do things as your statements indicate otherwise.


best regards

[Flanker]

Well, if you want to check the girt bar while opening the door, then one cabin crew has to lye on the floor while the other one operates the lever....I like this....

On most aircraft you don't need to get down at all. You can see it easily by looking at the hooks from the top, or by taking a few steps back or otherwise by checking the indicator, if fitted (which is usually the case on Airbus). It's easy to see by design, since you're normally supposed to check it everytime you arm/disarm the door.

The lever being in the correct position doesn't guarrantee that the rest of the mechanism down there is following, that's why!

Another good practice, explained

[Bracebrace]

Flanker, pilots do use the philosophy behind the FAA ruling. The initial lines you quote are rules that pilot do put into effect. They reasoning behind it is that pilots should be aware of worsening conditions after de-icing has been done which can always lead to the fact that pilots, even after de-icing has been done, can still elect to redo the de-icing because it starts snowing again (and it was ie only type I). However, post de-icing inspection is done by ground crew, and the responsability is theres. Clearly the inspection was not done. Who's fault is that?

Opening doors and windows with running engines is really not something you want to do. Many cargo planes do not even allow wing checks anymore. Oh yes we have to run around airplanes with yellow jackets and earplugs to protect ourselves, but you want pilots to open doors (cockpit windows won't do any good for wing ROOT checks believe me) to check, facing running engines? You want them to lean outside as well maybe because the avro has a high wing?

What most people are trying to say here is that in aviation responsabilities are given to more people than only the pilot. Cargo drivers cannot check if all DG's are in all the correct places. Believe me, pilots do "spot checks", checking small values indicating that all preparations done by other people is correctly done. A load sheet ie is a nice example. We are not responsible for the loading, we are responsible for the verification of certain numbers and calculatfions. But yes, you could ie check the number of the last container in to see if it's logic with the loadsheet. You cannot supervise the full loading process though. You cannot supervise the construction of pallets. You cannot supervise all the security checks so yeah, we have to rely on other people that nobody carried a bomb or some kind of dangerous device. We have to rely on other people to make sure no cargo contains illegal stuff like bombs, or even unreported dangerous goods.

When you fly a cessna you do fuel contamination checks. Who does it on Brussels airport? Right, not the pilots. It works on a daily basis. Perfect? Don't know. Welcome to the real world. It's waiting for the first accident if for some reason it wouldn't work. So I hope the systems works. That's all I can do.

People are payed big money for this, trained, and the whole system used should be audited on a regular basis. It's easy sitting behind your computer screen blaming the pilots for not checking everything. Our responsability stops somewhere. You cannot do everything. You think pilots of a cargo 747 would open a door to check the wings after de-icing? FAA will not want you to do it, believe me. No. If the weather would worsen, yes, they will "think" and "evaluate" to see of takeoff is still a safe option without further actions. But opening doors 10m above the ground with running engines in snowing conditions?

Honestly Flanker, you know how I feel reading your post?

****** (I kinda sensored myself afterwards )

In aviation, pilots rely on a lot of "systems" because their company pays BIG bucks for a so-called super safe triple checked service (maintenance, de-icing, fuel supply, security,...) and at the end of the day the system doesn't work, you as a passenger will have been "threatened" as a passengers once every... month...year...?

Pilots are threatened daily.

We fly every day checking everything, but also knowing we rely on other people. We have to. We know people with responsibilites make mistakes, so do we, there are systems we use to be able to remove these "faults". Be happy the CA spotted it with a "spot check" (as I would call it).

[Bracebrace]

Guess many of the things I wrote have been written down already, missed a page...

But reading you are a pilot really scares me, honestly. With all respect. We check and crosscheck to spot errors, we do our best to put safety first, we cooperate with many people and we try to do it in a "just safety" culture. But you prefer to blame your own collegues immediatly then, whatever.

If you are a commercial pilot... you should be a manager. Honestly.

[Inquirer]

I've conducted operations in many continents and am a pilot myself. That's how I know where to find the necessary documentation, because experience and training is not proof of cçmpetence.

Not that I want to question you, but after reading through this entire topic, I do notice that you seem to be completely out of tune with the rest of pilots on this matter, pilots who work for several airlines: JAF, SN or TC and who have all explained me similar procedures which match what I've seen being done each time I fly as a passenger on a commercial flight and which -at second glance- also happen to be forseen in the official documents you've linked to...

Since you are a pilot too, could you please be so kind as to say which airline does follow the alternative procedures as you have extensively pushed them here, because I have never ever seen any of what you say put into practice by any airline I know of? Maybe you'v already said in the past where you work, but I am new around here and I'd like to be brought up to speed.

Incidentally, the company I work for occasionally also charters private jets (at Abelag, Flying Group or if sometimes also Netjets, ...) when we need to go on a combined fieldtrip in Eastern Europe and it strikes me that all things you've said perfectly fit the type of operations at those outlets!

Pilots there are indeed taking up a lot more responsabilities themselves like loading luggage, supervising fueling, making their own loadsheet or removing snow from the wings (with a brush!!!), but then these business flights normally don't make use of any handling agents as far as I know of and thus have nobody to delegate part of these tasks too!

If so, then obviously, your way of operating is very different from that of "real airlines" (no disrespect intended) and it should come as no surprise that the above discussion on who's having the safest practices has erupted!

Or am I talking complete nonsense now?

[Airbus330lover]

Hey Flanker,

Please investigate the de-icing procedure of the turboprops in FIH !
Very important for your FIH-LGG ops
Try to sale it to Be-on top !

Regards


BTW of topic

[Flanker]

I won't run in circles. You have proven to have limited knowledge about ground icing.
It's your safety and I don't care if your 'knowing it better' attitude gets you killed, obviously.


The UK CAA video:








NZ CAA reminds you of your responsibilities.

4.10.3 Taxiing
During taxiing, the flight crew should observe the precipitation intensity and monitor the
aircraft surfaces visible from the cockpit. The ice warning systems of engines and wings or
other additional ice warning systems must be considered.
Sufficient distance from the preceding aircraft must be maintained as blowing snow or
jetblasts can degrade the anti- icing protection of the aircraft.
The extension of slats and flaps should be delayed, especially when operating on slushy
areas. Slat/flap extension should be verified prior to take-off.
Refer to individual manufacturer recommendations.
4.10.4 Take-Off
All manufacturers’ recommendations regarding procedures and performance corrections
when operating in icing conditions must be considered.
4.10.5 General Remarks

Flight crews should not allow commercial pressures to influence operational decisions.
General precautions and minimum requirements have been presented here: these
considerations must be observed.

If there is any doubt as to whether the wing is contaminated – DO NOT PROCEED.
As in any other business, the key factors to keep procedures efficient and safe are
awareness, understanding and communication.

[Flanker]

Not that I want to question you, but after reading through this entire topic, I do notice that you seem to be completely out of tune with the rest of pilots on this matter, pilots who work for several airlines: JAF, SN or TC and who have all explained me similar procedures which match what I've seen being done each time I fly as a passenger on a commercial flight and which -at second glance- also happen to be forseen in the official documents you've linked to...

Please review the entire discussion. Also, review your second glance thoroughly as the official documents are clear. I refer you to the actual document and not to the misleading quotes, taken from different sections where they have different purposes.
Please also make the difference between terms such as:
-acceptable (minimum) and recommended (good, very good)
-minimum requirement and best practice.

Pilots there are indeed taking up a lot more responsabilities themselves like loading luggage, supervising fueling, making their own loadsheet or removing snow from the wings (with a brush!!!), but then these business flights normally don't make use of any handling agents as far as I know of and thus have nobody to delegate part of these tasks too!

If so, then obviously, your way of operating is very different from that of "real airlines" (no disrespect intended) and it should come as no surprise that the above discussion on who's having the safest practices has erupted!

Commercial pressure is what comes to mind.
Obviously there is a big dimensional difference between deanti icing a King Air and an Airbus.
However, the basics are the same, it's just that many (not all) new generation airline pilots are supported so much so they can focus on operating tight commercial schedules, that they start thinking that their only job is to passively carry-out a walk around, align the IRS'es, select the route on the FMS, punch-in the numbers they're given and operate the aircraft between the ground and 2000ft agl, after which it's time to engage the autopilot, pull out the laptop and enjoy a movie.

[Inquirer]

Obviously there is a big dimensional difference between deanti icing a King Air and an Airbus. However, the basics are the same, it's just that many (not all) new generation airline pilots are supported so much so they can focus on operating tight commercial schedules, that they start thinking that their only job is to passively carry-out a walk around, align the IRS'es, select the route on the FMS, punch-in the numbers they're given and operate the aircraft between the ground and 2000ft agl, after which it's time to engage the autopilot, pull out the laptop and enjoy a movie.

So I take it I am right in assuming you're not an airline pilot then, but rather a corporate flight pilot, hence you're increased focus on doing everything yourself?

Being a passenger onboard all sort of flights myself, I am happy to say I feel equally safe in the hands of all pilots, yet it seems you somehow think a lot of airline pilots are far lesser pilots than the guys flying a King Air or a Citation????

Allow me to say I have difficulties believing you on that, or in fact accepting that a whole industry has been lowering the safetly standards because of commercial pressure: just because airlines have delegated and outsourced certain tasks to third parties doesn't mean they are done any worse, you know?

Provided the contractors have solid training processes for their staff in place and both internal as well as external quality control is done correctly and at regular intervals, the opposite may even be true as it allows for a trained specialist to do each of the individual tasks (rather than have just a single generalist taking care of everything), followed by different layers of in-depth quality monitoring (rather than just a superficial check).

As said, I happen to be in external QC -albeit in a completely different sector- and I can assure you its pretty much the norm these days as we're literally overloaded with requests for audits: those ranting about our presence are really just old school dynosaurs.

Not implying you are, but just saying you sound a bit like one, if I may.

[Av24.be]

This discussion is bringing us nowhere, except for strong disagreements between different members!