Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/326535/

Topic: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: awthompson
Posted 2012-12-13 12:29:44 and read 7810 times.

As a Private Pilot I am aware of the importance of keeping aerodynamic surfaces clear of ice/snow/frost however I would genuinely be interested in comments on the following:

Last night I took BA1426, G-MIDT, from LHR to BHD. Senior First Officer, after doing outside inspection came down cabin and visually sighted wings from passenger windows. He concluded that wings and tailplane had some frost and called for de-icing before departure. I noted that really there was very little frost at all. There is nothing wrong with that, excellent airmanship in fact and what I would expect from BAW. Captain also informed passengers exactly what was going on which was great.

In contrast, however, a couple of weeks ago I was on a diverted flight into RIX, also an Airbus A320 but with a different major airline. During a lengthy late night stop before departing again, the upper wing surface developed a fairly thick layer of frost. I took a photograph of same. No-one looked at upper wing surface, either from the outside or the inside, except me of course! I was a little perturbed when we taxied out without any de-icing and proceeded to take off. I may say that the take off was quite spritely and the frost covering made little noticeable difference to the rate of climb. Albeit we had a relatively light load.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-13 21:00:00 and read 7394 times.

There is definatly a varience with even different crews in the same airline. There have been times that in the middle of May we would have to crank the de-icing trucks to de-ice CX because of frost on the wings from the wings being cold from the long flight to JFK. There have also been times that during heavy snowfall certain SU crews will advise "Negative de-icing ready for taxi."

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: YYZatcboy
Posted 2012-12-13 22:26:21 and read 7360 times.

It also depends where the frost is. There are certain sections of the 737NG wing for example where fuel frost is allowed under certain criteria.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: Tristarsteve
Posted 2012-12-14 00:27:45 and read 7316 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 1):
There have also been times that during heavy snowfall certain SU crews will advise "Negative de-icing ready for taxi."

We had a really bad day at ARN last week., heavy snow, very windy, icy runway low braking action..
From 0800 to about 1400 only about 10 aircraft departed, 6 of them to Russia.

It is the attitude to risk that is important. The rules are the same. Wings must be clean (with a few exceptions, like above the MLG, and smooth under the wing). A major airline will abide by this. Others do not. They are saving money. They will usually get away with it, be happy, and do it again. On a A320 on a long runway with a light load, even frost on the wings will be no problem. But, who decides how much is OK? So we say non at all, just to be on the safe side. Because next time the frost will be uneven, the runway will be short, and the plane will be at MTOW, and it will not be OK.

Read the accident report about the Air Florida B737-200 that went into the Potomac.
It says that the aircraft would have cleared the bridge if the engines had been at take off power, even without deicing.

Always deice. It is worth it.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: B777LRF
Posted 2012-12-14 08:03:24 and read 7192 times.

Airlines should operate to the "clean wing concept", which precludes the presence of any snow, ice or frost (except for a very thin layer of hoar frost) on any aerodynamic surface. Some airlines take it a bit further by not even allowing a thin layer of hoar frost, and as a safety manager that's the approach I advocate.

The airlines that don't follow the clean wing concept, well, they are probably the same ones who'll have you believe that "safety is our no. 1 priority", while failing to add "unless we find it's too expensive".

History is littered with examples of what might happen if you have a relaxed attitude towards anti-icing.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-14 11:21:39 and read 7110 times.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 4):
Airlines should operate to the "clean wing concept", which precludes the presence of any snow, ice or frost (except for a very thin layer of hoar frost) on any aerodynamic surface.

There is usually an exception to that for frost condensed out by cold fuel...without atmospheric precipitation, condensation frost like that is no threat and almost impossible to get rid of for any long period without heating the fuel.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: awthompson
Posted 2012-12-14 12:20:12 and read 7085 times.

Here is my photo. Can someone who is familiar with the position of wing fuel tanks on an A320 confirm if this is fuel tank surface frost, many thanks for comments thus far.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-14 13:10:28 and read 7053 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
There is usually an exception to that for frost condensed out by cold fuel...without atmospheric precipitation, condensation frost like that is no threat and almost impossible to get rid of for any long period without heating the fuel.

That is only allowed on the underside of the wing.

If it does occur on the top of the wing, and under some conditions it can, then it must be removed using de-icing methods. It is not normally an issue in humid climates where often it is also warm enough to melt quickly, but I have seen it where the temp is around 15C and we had to de-ice.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 6):
Here is my photo.

Regardless of the cause ... fuel included ... that would not be allowed in Canada. The only frost allowed on the upper surface of the wing is on the spoiler panels, and even still, under certain conditions.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: YYZatcboy
Posted 2012-12-14 14:45:12 and read 7019 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 7):
If it does occur on the top of the wing, and under some conditions it can, then it must be removed using de-icing methods.

Not so. The 737NG has an exemption for fuel frost on the top of the wing. The area is outlined in black on the top of the wing.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/WestJ...d=c9c4fe9ca3d2da8354f4272682d89e5b

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-14 15:04:40 and read 7009 times.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 8):
Not so.

I was quoting right out of the A320 AOM, the aircraft on which the OP flew.

"A coating of frost up to 1/8" thick is permitted on wing lower surfaces ONLY (their capitalization, not mine   ), in the area cold soaked by fuel, between forward and aft spars".

I understand that other aircraft types allow different levels of wing icing. Looking at the picture posted, it does appear to be caused by cold fuel, as the frost is not on the slats, nor aft of the rear spar. Had this occurred in Canada it would likely have been deiced.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: YYZatcboy
Posted 2012-12-14 16:35:17 and read 6968 times.

Yes my mistake. I read that as saying that fuel frost on the top of the wings on any aircraft was not allowed in Canada, as opposed to specificaly the airbus. Apologies.  

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-14 18:01:17 and read 6932 times.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 10):
Yes my mistake. I read that as saying that fuel frost on the top of the wings on any aircraft was not allowed in Canada, as opposed to specificaly the airbus. Apologies.

You did raise an interesting point though. Under some icing conditions the B737NG is less restricted than narrow-body Airbuses. Not a lot of people are aware of that.

I have had passengers ask me why there are so many more Air Canada aircraft in the de-icing bay than Westjet. One has to be very careful of the response, as to be derogatory brings down the whole industry! But if they ask me, I can imagine the same thing happens with them ... but worse ... passengers are asking them why Air Canada is de-icing but they are not!

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: YYZatcboy
Posted 2012-12-14 18:28:03 and read 6917 times.

Out of my own curiousity, are the widebody Boeing or Airbus Widebodies more or less restrictive than the narrobodies. For example are there upper wing fuel frost restrictions on the Airbus widebodies but not the narrow bodies and conversely is there a restriction on the boeing widebodies as opposed to the 737? My only experience has been with NG's so I'd be interested in finding out about the widebodies.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: roswell41
Posted 2012-12-14 20:14:39 and read 6881 times.

As someone who flies an Airbus, I would definitely get de-iced based on that photo.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: B777LRF
Posted 2012-12-15 01:45:39 and read 6817 times.

Well, if the Boeing books allow frost on the upper surface of B737NG that's their position. It does not necessarily follow that any airline buying the product should not not impose more strict procedures. Keep in mind that manuals are quite often listing minimum requirements; it's up the owner to gauge whether they're fine with that, or if more stringent measures are called for.

Besides, it's my experience with both Boeing and Airbus that they're good, very good, at building aeroplanes. Operating them though is a different kettle of fish, and I'm not always convinced they've got their heads on right when it comes to the operational side of things.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: CosmicCruiser
Posted 2012-12-15 06:05:32 and read 6757 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
"A coating of frost up to 1/8" thick is permitted on wing lower surfaces ONLY (their capitalization, not mine   ), in the area cold soaked by fuel, between forward and aft spars".

That's pretty much our policy regardless of aircraft type. (and we do Airbus)

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2012-12-15 06:24:54 and read 6744 times.

Doesn't matter what Boeing says in the U.S., The F.A.A. trumps Boeing. As far as upper wing frost, big no no,...

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx....3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.6.7.14

"§ 91.527 Operating in icing conditions.
(a) No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system or wing, except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA.

(b) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless—

(1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system;

(2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23; or

(3) The airplane meets transport category airplane type certification provisions, including the requirements for certification for flight in icing conditions.

(c) Except for an airplane that has ice protection provisions that meet the requirements in section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23, or those for transport category airplane type certification, no pilot may fly an airplane into known or forecast severe icing conditions.

(d) If current weather reports and briefing information relied upon by the pilot in command indicate that the forecast icing conditions that would otherwise prohibit the flight will not be encountered during the flight because of changed weather conditions since the forecast, the restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section based on forecast conditions do not apply.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34314, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-310, 74 FR 62696, Dec. 1, 2009]"

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-15 07:12:58 and read 6734 times.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 8):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 7):
If it does occur on the top of the wing, and under some conditions it can, then it must be removed using de-icing methods.

Not so. The 737NG has an exemption for fuel frost on the top of the wing. The area is outlined in black on the top of the wing.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/WestJ...d=c9c4fe9ca3d2da8354f4272682d89e5b

That depends on the relevant aviation authority. E.g. the Irish Aviation Authority does not allow any ice on top of the wing, so their interpretation is stricter than the Boeing one and the respective chapter, which permits frost in certain areas on top of the wing, in the Boeing maintenance manual has to be disregarded for Irish registered B737NG.

Jan

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-15 07:49:09 and read 6715 times.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 8):
Not so. The 737NG has an exemption for fuel frost on the top of the wing.

Back to this again.

I just read through the CARs section on ground icing, and I can find no exemption for any aircraft type. It states the same thing as our Flight Ops Manual, in that the only exception to the requirement for a clean wing is frost on the underside of the wing in the area of fuel storage.

I think what a lot of people on here are posting may be correct in Canada as well. While the manufacturer may deem it safe, it is overruled by the governing country's air regs.

But it does answer a question of mine. In line for take-off in ground icing conditions, all of AC's aircraft have green wings (Type IV) and WS aircraft have orange wings (Type I). That would satisfy the CARs requirement. (When passengers ask why the difference in colour, I just tell them its to match our superior paint scheme ...   )

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2012-12-15 09:59:14 and read 6676 times.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 8):
The area is outlined in black on the top of the wing.

Actually, that seems to be the "No Step" boundary line.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: yeelep
Posted 2012-12-15 10:08:15 and read 6670 times.

No, that is the CSFF (cold soaked fuel frost) boundary outline that was applied by Boeing SB737-11-1125. "Black lines are being added to the wing upper surface that defines the permissible area for CSFF. These lines were incorporated in production on airplane line number 1538 as a standard feature. This airplane was delivered in July 2004."

Heres a better picture of the outline:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mohammadreza Farhadi Aref - Iranian Spotters


edit for pict.

[Edited 2012-12-15 10:17:27]

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2012-12-15 10:14:36 and read 6662 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 16):
"§ 91.527 Operating in icing conditions.
(a) No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface;

Adhering? This means, as long as the snow isn't frozen to the surface, the A/C is good to go?


David

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-15 10:18:03 and read 6660 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 21):
Adhering? This means, as long as the snow isn't frozen to the surface, the A/C is good to go?

Yes. And in very very cold climates, it is far safer to not de-ice! i am talking around -25 and lower.

However, two things must be determined first:

1) The wings are usually brushed off, to confirm that snow is not adhering.

2) The not adhering snow is not covering adhering ice underneath.

[Edited 2012-12-15 10:18:58]

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: yeelep
Posted 2012-12-15 10:37:03 and read 6647 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 21):

First off, 121.629 is the correct CFR the US based airlines are following. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...14y3.0.1.1.7#14:3.0.1.1.7.21.3.22.

To answer your question, it depends on the individual airlines de-ice program. At my airline the answer is yes, within very narrow guidelines/conditions:

Under the following conditions, contamination on critical surfaces can be determined to be
“Non-Adhering”:
• Ambient temperatures generally below -10 to -15°C or colder
• Snowfall/Ice Crystals are dry and light
• Any contamination that will blow about on clean, dry, cold aircraft surfaces under light
wind conditions or while taxiing
• Verify the surface under the snow is cold, clean, and dry
Under these conditions, dry snow will swirl as it blows across the wings, making it evident
the snow is not adhering. But if snow has accumulated on the surface of the wings, it has to
be removed prior to takeoff. It cannot be assumed that accumulation of snow will blow off
during takeoff.
NOTE: Refueling with fuel warmer than the wing skin temperature may create a
condition that previously non-adhering contaminants may adhere to the wing
surfaces

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: B777LRF
Posted 2012-12-15 13:11:18 and read 6598 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 16):
No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system or wing, except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA.

That's the exact wording in our manual, if you delete the words after "fuel tanks", and we're not a FAA regulated carrier. The last time this point was raised at a safety meeting was around 5 years ago, when someone - correctly it must be added - mentioned that the wording we used was derived from the FAA, and questioned why we, as a Belgium CAA regulated airline, were following those rules. I don't recall the exact answer, but it was something along the lines of "it's the best wording we know of and satisfies our requirement for safety first".

There's very good saying in safety circles: If you think safety is expensive, try an accident.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: KBGRbillT
Posted 2012-12-28 21:46:44 and read 5982 times.

Does anyone recall of an airliner crashing and the determination was that frost on the upper wing skin or control surfaces was the sole cause for this crash? Also on the pic of the A320 wing covered in frost can anyone with factual knowledge on the subject give an approx. percentage of lift that is reduced by this amount of frozen contamination?

Thanks

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2012-12-28 22:06:29 and read 5984 times.

Quoting KBGRbillT (Reply 25):
Does anyone recall of an airliner crashing and the determination was that frost on the upper wing skin or control surfaces was the sole cause for this crash?

SK 751. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: Fabo
Posted 2012-12-28 23:52:28 and read 6038 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
SK 751. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandin...t_751

Kind of. Actuall reason would be dual engine flameout would it not? AFAIK the airplane would have flown on if it had thrust.

I would much sooner cite Air Ontario 1363 in Dryden, that one was purely aerodynamic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Ontario_Flight_1363 and maybe the similar USAir LGA crash, both Fokker 28s.

Then there were the turboprop crashes.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2012-12-29 00:09:11 and read 6027 times.

Quoting Fabo (Reply 27):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
SK 751. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandin...t_751

Kind of. Actuall reason would be dual engine flameout would it not? AFAIK the airplane would have flown on if it had thrust.

Agreed. Then again it does illustrate that icing can be insidious in many ways.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: faro
Posted 2012-12-29 01:47:55 and read 6006 times.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 3):
A major airline will abide by this. Others do not. They are saving money. They will usually get away with it, be happy, and do it again.

On the -hopefully very distant- day that an operator does not get away with it, what is the airport authority's responsibility?

If at present airports do not shoulder any responsibility re adequate de-icing, should they be made liable for this?

After all, airports can close down operations if they deem the weather too dangerous; why not make them equally responsible for that ensuring all aircraft using their runways are adequately de-iced?

I can see a clever lawyer formulate the requirement pretty pointedly if and when inadequate de-icing should result in an accident, and especially in the US...


Faro

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2012-12-29 04:51:37 and read 5949 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 29):
On the -hopefully very distant- day that an operator does not get away with it, what is the airport authority's responsibility?

If at present airports do not shoulder any responsibility re adequate de-icing, should they be made liable for this?

After all, airports can close down operations if they deem the weather too dangerous; why not make them equally responsible for that ensuring all aircraft using their runways are adequately de-iced?

My theory is that the airport authority typically will not know enough about aircraft operations to make these kinds of decisions. Knowing what each aircraft type requires is quite different. It is the responsibility of the operator of the aircraft in a very clearly defined legal way. That is quite enough.

In any case, do (public) airports ever really "close" in other cases than natural disasters? The minimums may be LIFR but the tower guys still seem to be "working" in my limited experience. And if the snow is too thick to plow away they're still there trying.

[Edited 2012-12-29 05:10:04]

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: Fabo
Posted 2012-12-29 05:56:46 and read 5933 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 30):
In any case, do (public) airports ever really "close" in other cases than natural disasters? The minimums may be LIFR but the tower guys still seem to be "working" in my limited experience. And if the snow is too thick to plow away they're still there trying.

They defintely do around here. When the snowfall is intensive and it is impossible to maintain clean runway for even couple movements, the airport will cease operations. This can last for days in extreme cases.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-29 10:32:27 and read 5901 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 29):
If at present airports do not shoulder any responsibility re adequate de-icing, should they be made liable for this?

No. The PIC is responsible for safe operation of the aircraft, including de-icing.

Quoting faro (Reply 29):
why not make them equally responsible for that ensuring all aircraft using their runways are adequately de-iced?

Because the airport is completely unqualified (relative to the flight crew) to determine what "adequately de-iced" is.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: airbuster
Posted 2012-12-30 13:23:23 and read 5672 times.

[quote=awthompson,reply=6][/]

So,

You are now in the same situation but know that that frost should be removed. What do you do. You're pushed back taxiing to the rwy and all of a sudden you see the rwy entry markings and think, sh*t this guy isn't getting sprayed!

What do you do? I would make a scene! Definitely. And then it's either kick me off the flight or get sprayed.

Not a great situation to be in.

As I was always told, LOOK TWICE FOR ICE and ICE IS A KILLER. That look twice already saved me once from at first not detecting clear ice.

Keep it clean guys and gals!

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: KBGRbillT
Posted 2012-12-31 21:11:49 and read 5461 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
SK 751. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandin...t_751
Quoting Fabo (Reply 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Ontario_Flight_1363

Both of these crashes were due to ICE on the wings. My post asked if any crash could be attributed to FROST only on the wings. I've never heard of an airliner crashing solely because frost had destroyed enough lift to force it down.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: Tristarsteve
Posted 2013-01-01 12:00:26 and read 5345 times.

Quoting KBGRbillT (Reply 34):
Both of these crashes were due to ICE on the wings

Yes in the SK accident the plane flew OK until the engines stopped producing thrust due to ice ingestion.

I do not think you will find an airliner accident due to frost. You need to look for a busines jet with no slats, or maybe a small airliner without slats like a BAC111 or a F28.
The reason frost is deiced is because you don't know if there is ice there as well.

When Boeing is doing icing trials, they first attach lumps of imitation ice to the wings and then try and fly the aircraft. These lumps are huge, and you could not believe that the aircraft flies. A Capt once told me that he had been present when the B757 was tested, and it flew normally. The B757 wing is very ice resistant.
Most aircraft here in the winter have a couple of square feet of frost above the MLG attach fittings on each wing. On an A320 this is not allowed and must be removed. I have always argues that four square feet of frost will provide less problem than 500 square feet of deicing fluid! Airbus are not interested. Their theory is, if you let a small patch, how long before it becomes a large patch, and has ice in it?

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-01-15 19:12:37 and read 4695 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 20):
No, that is the CSFF (cold soaked fuel frost) boundary outline that was applied by Boeing SB737-11-1125. "Black lines are being added to the wing upper surface that defines the permissible area for CSFF. These lines were incorporated in production on airplane line number 1538 as a standard feature. This airplane was delivered in July 2004."

Heres a better picture of the outline:

Well, was talking about the A-320 photo posted, not a 737. Does the A-320 have a CSFF line painted on it ?

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: intsim
Posted 2013-01-15 20:38:46 and read 4678 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 29):
On the -hopefully very distant- day that an operator does not get away with it, what is the airport authority's responsibility?

I was the Certified Deice Instructor at our remote station when I worked at NWA. I would add that in our case the ramp crew was also responsible and would be looked at if such an event occured.

I only had a few pilots question deicing but never any refuse it. I would tell them the reason why any of the qualified deicers (which was all of the ESE's) had determined that an aircraft needed deicing. We would deice them and get them on their way.

Deicing was one of the best parts of the job to me.  

Jeff

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: yeelep
Posted 2013-01-16 09:06:59 and read 4573 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 36):

I'm sorry for the confusion, but you were replying to post eight which linked and commented on a westjet 737.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-01-17 09:43:22 and read 4434 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 38):
I'm sorry for the confusion, but you were replying to post eight which linked and commented on a westjet 737.

Yes you're right. I meant the A-320 in reply 6. Sorry about that, my fault.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: faro
Posted 2013-01-18 02:22:13 and read 4321 times.

Quoting intsim (Reply 37):
Quoting faro (Reply 29):
On the -hopefully very distant- day that an operator does not get away with it, what is the airport authority's responsibility?

I was the Certified Deice Instructor at our remote station when I worked at NWA. I would add that in our case the ramp crew was also responsible and would be looked at if such an event occured.

As a Certified Deice Instructor do you report to the airline or to the airport authority?


Faro

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-01-18 07:20:38 and read 4265 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 38):
I'm sorry for the confusion, but you were replying to post eight which linked and commented on a westjet 737.

Some further info, at United the 737s do not have a CSFF line. They just have the 'No Step' boundary line, which the CSFF line seems to follow. The two lines are just about the same, the 'No Step' line just extends beyond the CSFF towards the fuselage and wingtip, outlining the wing skin.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: yeelep
Posted 2013-01-18 10:55:47 and read 4215 times.

Some United 737's do, some don't:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Heber Alejandro Doblado Perez
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Midnightair

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-01-18 15:36:52 and read 4131 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 42):
Some United 737's do, some don't:

Is part of the CSFF line that lighter gray line running chordwise in the photo on the right ? Just in front of the outbd flap fairing ? I must have looked at a older drawing today. That also shows that the CSFF runs along the 'No Step' line, just not as far inbd or outbd. I'll have to look up a newer revision to that drawing.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: yeelep
Posted 2013-01-18 16:04:18 and read 4120 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 43):
Is part of the CSFF line that lighter gray line running chordwise in the photo on the right ? Just in front of the outbd flap fairing ?

Yep, although I'm sure its black when viewed in person.

Here's a really good picture of an ex-Continental -800.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Mantoudis

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: intsim
Posted 2013-01-18 19:10:13 and read 4086 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 40):
As a Certified Deice Instructor do you report to the airline or to the airport authority?

The airline. This was all part of the NWA training and record keeping.

We had a log that contained the detailed information, temp, types of fluid used, start times, fluid mix, ac, flight, etc. Start time of the last fluid applied was given to the flight crew before wave off.

Jeff

[Edited 2013-01-18 19:15:50]

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-01-19 05:37:04 and read 3993 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 44):
Yep, although I'm sure its black when viewed in person.

Here's a really good picture of an ex-Continental -800.

That is a good view. Looks to be part of the 'No Step' boundary, just smaller, which is also the outline of most of the wing tank too, just not quite all of it outboard. Still haven't found it in our exterior drawings. Sure when the aircraft come up for their 7 year paint jobs these little additions will be added.

Topic: RE: Differing Attitude To De-icing Between Airlines
Username: yeelep
Posted 2013-01-19 07:57:44 and read 3974 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 46):
Still haven't found it in our exterior drawings. Sure when the aircraft come up for their 7 year paint jobs these little additions will be added.

It may be that when the planes are repainted the CSFF lines are being deleted. They aren't a FAA required marking and since the FAA doesn't allow CSFF on the upper wing, there is no reason for a U.S. carrier to keep them.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/