Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ChrisPBacon
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:14 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:52 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
You provided some good insight into the how and why they could have gotten to the point of running out of type I. Running out of type I isn’t a huge deal. There probably wouldn’t even be a thread about a station simply running out of type I in a huge, uncommon (for that airport) snowstorm. The issue, and the reason for the thread, isn’t that a BNA deice company ran out of type I. It’s the fact that the deice crew ran out of type I, decided to keep on “deicing” with type IV, and then told the flight crew the aircraft was free from contamination knowing that it looked like a snow cone.

The fact that that happened isn’t because some station manager failed to talk to dispatch, or because an airline didn’t buy enough fluid, or whatever else you are talking about. It doesn’t matter how they got to that situation, the fact that a jet with inches of snow on its wings left a deice pad and went to a runway is the problem. And that is solely the fault of the deice crew, and the leadership/management within that company that allowed that type of incident to occur. They either allowed inadequate training, or more likely, fostered an inadequate safety culture. It wasn’t an accidental slip up or something. It wasn’t some guy speeding on the ramp running a truck into a plane. It was negligence, deliberate false reporting of a clean aircraft, and a gross misjudgment to continue deicing when out of fluid (and not telling the flight crew), which is why there is now a criminal investigation ongoing.


Thanks. The thing to remember is that all the factors that led up to the plane being dispatched from deciding need to be looked at. It’s rarely one item that causes an accident. What failures by the deice vendor, the ground handler, and the airline itself resulted in this incident? At this point, we don’t know. Did the deice vendor manager know they were out of type I? Did they tell the ground handler? Did the ground handler advise the carrier? Were the deice employees properly trained? I once was sent to a station to investigate a damage. Backup deice vendor tagged the plane with the bucket. Broke the proximity rule. Okay we could’ve just left it at that. But when I checked the vendor training records a found an anomaly that made it clear they had not actually been properly trained to the carrier standard to begin with. You’ve got to get to the root cause, or the accidents will continue. Simply calling this a vendor failure and jailing the deice employees and firing the vendor feels good, but may not solve the problem that led to this event.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7760
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:59 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Would the accident report say, “PIC failed to verify the wing was clear of contamination” OR, post-fire analysis showed no wing contamination”? Not airline, but I’ve gotten very wet, cold feet and ruined shoes checking the de-icing procedures from KTEB to UHPP and a hundred places in between. Get out and look.

Are you suggesting airline pilots hook up a set of stairs, deplane, go get a ladder to climb up and look on top of the wings after being deiced? All while off the gate, where most 121 deice operations happen?



You don’t have windows in the cabin?
 
slvrblt
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:19 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:13 pm

wjcandee wrote:
But even with that perspective, two aspects of the story here are concerning. First, the idea that Type IV would be good for anything in this circumstance reflects a lack of knowledge and probably training by the iceperson, or truly-malicious behavior. Second, the idea that the vendor would report the aircraft serviced and clear of contamination when it wasn't is Very Bad. That points to a more-systemic problem somewhere in the chain of command. It doesn't (necessarily) reach to the board room, but of course it falls on the folks in the board room..


See, that's what really bothers me. Even if they were basically Neanderthals, SURELY, these workers know WHY they de-ice airplanes. It's not to make sure the wings look pretty for takeoff. So why, in the name of GOD, would they, first of all, willingly use the wrong fluid, second and worst of all, tell the crew the plane was free of ice contaminant and dispatch it? They had to know the likely result of such an action. Or did a criminally negligent supervisor say, here you go guys, I found some Type I fluid (knowing it was Type IV). Sigh. This really needs to be investigated, and thoroughly. Those F9 pax truly had a guardian angel looking out for them........it was pure luck that ice buildup got flagged.

This could have been another Air Florida 90......Continental 1713......USAir 405... de-icing is a critical procedure, not to be taken lightly.
..everything works out in the end.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4581
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:21 pm

slvrblt wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
But even with that perspective, two aspects of the story here are concerning. First, the idea that Type IV would be good for anything in this circumstance reflects a lack of knowledge and probably training by the iceperson, or truly-malicious behavior. Second, the idea that the vendor would report the aircraft serviced and clear of contamination when it wasn't is Very Bad. That points to a more-systemic problem somewhere in the chain of command. It doesn't (necessarily) reach to the board room, but of course it falls on the folks in the board room..


See, that's what really bothers me. Even if they were basically Neanderthals, SURELY, these workers know WHY they de-ice airplanes. It's not to make sure the wings look pretty for takeoff. So why, in the name of GOD, would they, first of all, willingly use the wrong fluid, second and worst of all, tell the crew the plane was free of ice contaminant and dispatch it? They had to know the likely result of such an action. Or did a criminally negligent supervisor say, here you go guys, I found some Type I fluid (knowing it was Type IV). Sigh. This really needs to be investigated, and thoroughly. Those F9 pax truly had a guardian angel looking out for them........it was pure luck that ice buildup got flagged.

This could have been another Air Florida 90......Continental 1713......USAir 405... de-icing is a critical procedure, not to be taken lightly.


One thing I have noticed is the “hammering home” of only using standard phraseology. Standard phraseology is great, but it’s downside is that people don’t know what to do when the cue cards don’t cover a situation. I have seen countless people just read the cue card without relating to the actual situation. For example on towbarless tractors saying “towbar disconnected” just because the cue card says that. When really the procedure on those is to say “nose gear released”. I could totally see a situation where their training person insists that they follow SOP 100% which includes only saying what is on the card. There probably isn’t a section on the card that says “we ran out of fluid”. They just know “when we are done, we say aircraft free and clear of contamination” at all times.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:44 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Would the accident report say, “PIC failed to verify the wing was clear of contamination” OR, post-fire analysis showed no wing contamination”? Not airline, but I’ve gotten very wet, cold feet and ruined shoes checking the de-icing procedures from KTEB to UHPP and a hundred places in between. Get out and look.

Are you suggesting airline pilots hook up a set of stairs, deplane, go get a ladder to climb up and look on top of the wings after being deiced? All while off the gate, where most 121 deice operations happen?



You don’t have windows in the cabin?

Well, you were talking about ruining shoes and getting cold, wet feet, and you said to get out and look. Not sure how you ruin shoes and get cold wet feet from the cabin, so I was trying to clarify what you meant.

As for going back to the cabin to look, I’ve never seen it done (post deice) in the 121 world, at either of my 2 airlines, or on any I’ve ridden on commuting, unless an SOP specifically calls for it (which is very very rare) after a deice crew gives the “free from contamination (with verification of what was sprayed)” spiel. I don’t think any 121 carrier lists going back to the cabin to check as a step in their standard post-deice procedures/checklists, nor is it something that I’ve ever heard of any airline suggesting pilots do, nor have I ever seen any 121 pilots do it on their own. I do wonder if that will change after this, but I’ve never heard of a deice crew lying about the status of what they sprayed and the status of the jet’s contamination/cleanliness.
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:48 pm

777Mech wrote:
You get what you pay for honestly. The lowest bidder isn't always best.


Or more correctly, as a lowest fare-seeking passenger, you get what your cost-cutting ULCC Frontier pays for!
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
saab2000
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:31 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
Are you suggesting airline pilots hook up a set of stairs, deplane, go get a ladder to climb up and look on top of the wings after being deiced? All while off the gate, where most 121 deice operations happen?



You don’t have windows in the cabin?

Well, you were talking about ruining shoes and getting cold, wet feet, and you said to get out and look. Not sure how you ruin shoes and get cold wet feet from the cabin, so I was trying to clarify what you meant.

As for going back to the cabin to look, I’ve never seen it done (post deice) in the 121 world, at either of my 2 airlines, or on any I’ve ridden on commuting, unless an SOP specifically calls for it (which is very very rare) after a deice crew gives the “free from contamination (with verification of what was sprayed)” spiel. I don’t think any 121 carrier lists going back to the cabin to check as a step in their standard post-deice procedures/checklists, nor is it something that I’ve ever heard of any airline suggesting pilots do, nor have I ever seen any 121 pilots do it on their own. I do wonder if that will change after this, but I’ve never heard of a deice crew lying about the status of what they sprayed and the status of the jet’s contamination/cleanliness.


I have flown for three 121 carriers and this exact procedure was in the books of all of them. Not for every de-icing event but for certain circumstances. I’ve done it at at least two of the carriers and I once physically deplaned in a CRJ to do a tactile inspection because the reputation of the vendor was so bad. Wet shoes and all. Better safe than sorry.

My current carrier is a major and it’s mostly done in-house by employees of the airline. It’s the most tight procedure of all the airlines I worked for. I have confidence it is being done right at the current place.
smrtrthnu
 
777Mech
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:47 pm

mjgbtv wrote:
F9Animal wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

Fixed it for you. The decision to outsource to a vendor was 100% the airline's fault. The decision to take the lowest bidder, was also Frontier's. When you pay for crap, you get crap. I remember when my company (not F9) had a town hall meeting in my station to discuss the company's recent decision to outsource our work to a vendor: "I am going to be honest here. You guys do a great job, and put out a great product for our customer. However, this company does an okay product for half the price. We are okay with "okay" for these savings".

I have no sympathy for a company that chooses to go for the lowest bidder, and I have no sympathy for these contract companies going broke for their negligence. You get what you pay for. Blame the vendor, but also look at who decided to go with such a poor company. When Frontier would have had to pay the burial costs and lawsuits for 150 dead people, would saving that $45,000 a year to go with the cheapest company have been worth it?


To this very day, I am still steaming pissed about Frontier outsourcing both ramp and customer service to the cheapest vendor. Unfortunately, Frontier and other airlines will not learn lessons from this. The only time they will wake up is when a tragedy strikes, and people are hurt or killed. This event does not shock me in any way. I am actually surprised we haven't seen a tragedy from going to the cheapest vendors possible. Of course I thought Valujet would have been a wake-up call.

And I find it absolutely ironic that a uniformed crew member employed for the actual airline was the one that was observant enough to know there was a serious problem. This solidifies my belief that actual employees care more about their job than a $7 an hour no benefits subcontractor.


Just wondering - what other options did F9 have? How many de-icing vendors are there are BNA? How many stations could F9 realistically afford to have in-house ground staff at? Sure, they could raise prices but 'our own ground staff' isn't exactly a market differentiator...


Well, FWIW, they have DL doing their (F9's) deicing right now to get them through the winter, but you theoretically have just about anyone's mainline deice team available to you, but we're talking about F9 here, so they won't pay the price for quality deicing.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:33 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
I’ve never heard of a deice crew lying about the status of what they sprayed and the status of the jet’s contamination/cleanliness.


And now you have. But a truly-safe system has redundancy precisely to account for this possibility (or a mistake). And since PEOPLE are involved in the process, there will always, inevitably, be a screwup. Which is why in the cockpit you crosscheck.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:47 pm

saab2000 wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:


You don’t have windows in the cabin?

Well, you were talking about ruining shoes and getting cold, wet feet, and you said to get out and look. Not sure how you ruin shoes and get cold wet feet from the cabin, so I was trying to clarify what you meant.

As for going back to the cabin to look, I’ve never seen it done (post deice) in the 121 world, at either of my 2 airlines, or on any I’ve ridden on commuting, unless an SOP specifically calls for it (which is very very rare) after a deice crew gives the “free from contamination (with verification of what was sprayed)” spiel. I don’t think any 121 carrier lists going back to the cabin to check as a step in their standard post-deice procedures/checklists, nor is it something that I’ve ever heard of any airline suggesting pilots do, nor have I ever seen any 121 pilots do it on their own. I do wonder if that will change after this, but I’ve never heard of a deice crew lying about the status of what they sprayed and the status of the jet’s contamination/cleanliness.


I have flown for three 121 carriers and this exact procedure was in the books of all of them. Not for every de-icing event but for certain circumstances. I’ve done it at at least two of the carriers and I once physically deplaned in a CRJ to do a tactile inspection because the reputation of the vendor was so bad. Wet shoes and all. Better safe than sorry.

My current carrier is a major and it’s mostly done in-house by employees of the airline. It’s the most tight procedure of all the airlines I worked for. I have confidence it is being done right at the current place.


Can you expand on “certain circumstances” please? Exceeding holdover time, heavy snow falling, any others? Can you show the part from your FOM/FCOM that would have had you leave the cockpit in this particular F9 deice incident? I’m sure every carrier is different, but I think most follow a standard FAA/IATA/IOSA deice program, where a pre-takeoff contamination check (ie going back to the cabin) is accomplished with pretty specific criteria. Going back to view the wings after a deice crew says “aircraft is free from all contamination and was sprayed with X/Y fluid at 100% final application began at HH:MM” isn’t one of them (that I’ve ever seen, anyway), unless you could still see contamination from the cockpit on any of what little of the wing you can see, or if you exceeded a holdover time, or if there was heavy snow falling. Also, per manuals at the airlines I’ve worked at, deice crews are “qualified ground agents” authorized to complete any required contamination check, which is why they say their spiel at the end...that satisfies any contamination check requirement at that time. If that wasn’t the case, it would be a requirement for flight crew to go check the wings after every single deice...which it isn’t.

Also, you deplaned from a CRJ to do a tactile feel AFTER deice/anti ice was done, just touching type I/IV fluid with your bare hand? Hmm. What airline was that? Tactile feel on preflight maybe? That was a thing when I flew CRJs. But not as a post deice verification procedure. At my current carrier a “tactile” feel on preflight is a “must” do item if there are conditions that could lead to clear ice formation...again as a preflight check item, not as a post deice item. I’d love to see any manual or written procedure that calls for a tactile feel AFTER deice is complete.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:52 pm

wjcandee wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
I’ve never heard of a deice crew lying about the status of what they sprayed and the status of the jet’s contamination/cleanliness.


And now you have. But a truly-safe system has redundancy precisely to account for this possibility (or a mistake). And since PEOPLE are involved in the process, there will always, inevitably, be a screwup. Which is why in the cockpit you crosscheck.


Better start including time for the captain to go into the holds and verify every net, every restraint, every pallet, and start opening any box labeled DG. And those not, in case there's anything hidden in there
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:03 pm

FGITD wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
I’ve never heard of a deice crew lying about the status of what they sprayed and the status of the jet’s contamination/cleanliness.


And now you have. But a truly-safe system has redundancy precisely to account for this possibility (or a mistake). And since PEOPLE are involved in the process, there will always, inevitably, be a screwup. Which is why in the cockpit you crosscheck.


Better start including time for the captain to go into the holds and verify every net, every restraint, every pallet, and start opening any box labeled DG. And those not, in case there's anything hidden in there


I'm not sure I understand what point your snarky comment is meant to make.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4581
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:13 pm

wjcandee wrote:
FGITD wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

And now you have. But a truly-safe system has redundancy precisely to account for this possibility (or a mistake). And since PEOPLE are involved in the process, there will always, inevitably, be a screwup. Which is why in the cockpit you crosscheck.


Better start including time for the captain to go into the holds and verify every net, every restraint, every pallet, and start opening any box labeled DG. And those not, in case there's anything hidden in there


I'm not sure I understand what point your snarky comment is meant to make.


Those are all items that the captain is responsible for, but takes the word of the person who performed that work.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:18 pm

wjcandee wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
I’ve never heard of a deice crew lying about the status of what they sprayed and the status of the jet’s contamination/cleanliness.


And now you have. But a truly-safe system has redundancy precisely to account for this possibility (or a mistake). And since PEOPLE are involved in the process, there will always, inevitably, be a screwup. Which is why in the cockpit you crosscheck.

When pilots look at a maintenance logbook, do they go back and open panels to see if the maintenance procedure that was signed off was done properly? When a gate agent does the security sweep each day, or after an international flight, or whenever, do the pilots go double check everything the gate agent signed off as being checked? Do pilots routinely (or ever, outside of when the SOPs require it) go back and verify the deice crew wasn’t lying about what they sprayed or the condition of the wings? I’ve commuted 4x a month each way to/from the northeast for many years and on many carriers. I’ve deiced a bunch, both working and as a passenger/commuter (incl in a jumpseat). I’ve never once seen pilots get out of the flight deck to verify what the deice crew said was accomplished, by Delta, United, American, or any of their regional partners. Nor am I aware of any US airline that includes going to check the wings from the cabin as any part of standard post-deice procedures outside of a couple rare, prescribed instances stated in my post above.

A couple years ago, as a revenue delta passenger, I saw our wings covered in frost on a full A321. Not just a little bit. It was a lot. Everyone else was hitting the deice pad. Not us. We taxied right by it. I called the FA. She tried to reassure me and said the pilots check it very well on preflight. I told her she can send the pics I took of the frost on the wings to the pilots if she wants but that if I was up there I’d sure want to know about it. She asked if I was a pilot, then called the CA, and we turned around and got sprayed. Never saw the pilots leave the flight deck before or after the spray. Only reason I bring this story up (as it is not really germane to my points in the paragraph above nor is it directed at you) is that it isn’t always just a ULCC, frontier, or cheap contractor issue as is being thrown around in this thread.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:31 pm

wjcandee wrote:
FGITD wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

And now you have. But a truly-safe system has redundancy precisely to account for this possibility (or a mistake). And since PEOPLE are involved in the process, there will always, inevitably, be a screwup. Which is why in the cockpit you crosscheck.


Better start including time for the captain to go into the holds and verify every net, every restraint, every pallet, and start opening any box labeled DG. And those not, in case there's anything hidden in there


I'm not sure I understand what point your snarky comment is meant to make.


Me neither. There is ZERO wrong with "trust, but verify"
“They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.”
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:10 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
FGITD wrote:

Better start including time for the captain to go into the holds and verify every net, every restraint, every pallet, and start opening any box labeled DG. And those not, in case there's anything hidden in there


I'm not sure I understand what point your snarky comment is meant to make.


Those are all items that the captain is responsible for, but takes the word of the person who performed that work.


Et tu, Brute?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:18 pm

Are you guys all thinking that when I said, "Which is why in the cockpit you crosscheck," I meant that the crew goes back and verifies every deice? Is that the disconnect that is leading to these unbelievable posts?

When I said "In the cockpit you crosscheck," I meant "in the cockpit you crosscheck". I can think of dozens of things that are required to be looked at by the other pilot. Are you suggesting that all of that is stupid? That you've never caught a mistake in someone else's typing? Do you push the yoke forward and back and turn it before departure? Why? If everybody did their job, why would you need to? (The publisher of the Philly Inquirer died in a crash where it turned out his pilots had stopped doing that years earlier. Took several years to kill them.) Why walk around the aircraft? Let's just all assume that everything is always fine and just hop in and fly. It's just beyond-dumb.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:20 pm

wjcandee wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what point your snarky comment is meant to make.


Those are all items that the captain is responsible for, but takes the word of the person who performed that work.


Et tu, Brute?


Exactly what was said. The captain takes ultimate responsibility for the aircraft, and therefore a huge number of things that he has not personally verified. It's the nature of the business.

Edit: seeing your more recent post explains it better. I was under the impression that you were advocating for the pilot to get out and check or go verify through the windows, like others have in this thread.
 
ozark1
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:38 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:37 pm

I am very glad to read that the flight attendant did not hesitate to contact the cockpit during sterile. (Sterile means critical phases of flight and refraining from calling the pilots unless it is an emergency. I believe it’s from pushback to reaching 10,000 ft and the opposite during the landing phase) I flew in the cabin for many years and as I recall, there were several accidents that could have been prevented had the cabin crew notified the cockpit about what they had heard or seen. This was always enforced in our annual recurrent training. This is also a good example of what my former employer called CRM. Crew Resource Management...or in a simpler term, teamwork. Bravo.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7760
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:59 pm

Well, I flown 121 (as an FE, we went out to look), military and corporate, I checked physically or, at least, a “look see”. I’m not a mechanic and not trained in assessing the work of a mechanic, but I am trained in identifying winter surface contamination and what constitutes a “clean” wing. BTW, the C-5 had a handy hatch to look at the top of the wing, the Global wing was just high enough to jump up and do a tactile test, the B727 had windows and forward galley door to use for a view. But, if you want to trust the lowest bidder.

BTW, had a similar instance in LHR on BA flight to JFK. The other pilot had a view out the window and asked the FA for a pilot to take a look. Sure enough, back to de-icing.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4561
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:37 pm

mjgbtv wrote:
F9Animal wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

Fixed it for you. The decision to outsource to a vendor was 100% the airline's fault. The decision to take the lowest bidder, was also Frontier's. When you pay for crap, you get crap. I remember when my company (not F9) had a town hall meeting in my station to discuss the company's recent decision to outsource our work to a vendor: "I am going to be honest here. You guys do a great job, and put out a great product for our customer. However, this company does an okay product for half the price. We are okay with "okay" for these savings".

I have no sympathy for a company that chooses to go for the lowest bidder, and I have no sympathy for these contract companies going broke for their negligence. You get what you pay for. Blame the vendor, but also look at who decided to go with such a poor company. When Frontier would have had to pay the burial costs and lawsuits for 150 dead people, would saving that $45,000 a year to go with the cheapest company have been worth it?


To this very day, I am still steaming pissed about Frontier outsourcing both ramp and customer service to the cheapest vendor. Unfortunately, Frontier and other airlines will not learn lessons from this. The only time they will wake up is when a tragedy strikes, and people are hurt or killed. This event does not shock me in any way. I am actually surprised we haven't seen a tragedy from going to the cheapest vendors possible. Of course I thought Valujet would have been a wake-up call.

And I find it absolutely ironic that a uniformed crew member employed for the actual airline was the one that was observant enough to know there was a serious problem. This solidifies my belief that actual employees care more about their job than a $7 an hour no benefits subcontractor.


Just wondering - what other options did F9 have? How many de-icing vendors are there are BNA? How many stations could F9 realistically afford to have in-house ground staff at? Sure, they could raise prices but 'our own ground staff' isn't exactly a market differentiator...


As far as I am concerned, they had the option to cancel the flight. If an airline can't guarantee the safety of it's passengers, then they need to just cancel the flight. Had the flight attendant not taken action, there is a good chance this plane would have never made it.

We have seen it over and over again. Cheap vendors and airplanes are really really a bad idea. First thing that comes to mind is Valujet.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
mjgbtv
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:40 pm

F9Animal wrote:
mjgbtv wrote:
F9Animal wrote:

To this very day, I am still steaming pissed about Frontier outsourcing both ramp and customer service to the cheapest vendor. Unfortunately, Frontier and other airlines will not learn lessons from this. The only time they will wake up is when a tragedy strikes, and people are hurt or killed. This event does not shock me in any way. I am actually surprised we haven't seen a tragedy from going to the cheapest vendors possible. Of course I thought Valujet would have been a wake-up call.

And I find it absolutely ironic that a uniformed crew member employed for the actual airline was the one that was observant enough to know there was a serious problem. This solidifies my belief that actual employees care more about their job than a $7 an hour no benefits subcontractor.


Just wondering - what other options did F9 have? How many de-icing vendors are there are BNA? How many stations could F9 realistically afford to have in-house ground staff at? Sure, they could raise prices but 'our own ground staff' isn't exactly a market differentiator...


As far as I am concerned, they had the option to cancel the flight. If an airline can't guarantee the safety of it's passengers, then they need to just cancel the flight. Had the flight attendant not taken action, there is a good chance this plane would have never made it.

We have seen it over and over again. Cheap vendors and airplanes are really really a bad idea. First thing that comes to mind is Valujet.


I meant what other options did they have in selecting deicing vendors. My question has been answered up-thread.
 
aviatorcraig
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 6:52 am

Question: Is there any oversight of the de-icing operation by the authorities in the US? As in, would the FAA issue standards and proceedures for the de-icing operation and check competences, or is it just a free-for-all?
I was thinking of setting up in Nashville, I've heard there is a gap in the market! :lol:
707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:16 am

they are lucky its a low-wing plane, unlike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTair_Flight_120
 
saab2000
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:29 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:

Can you expand on “certain circumstances” please? Exceeding holdover time, heavy snow falling, any others? Can you show the part from your FOM/FCOM that would have had you leave the cockpit in this particular F9 deice incident? I’m sure every carrier is different, but I think most follow a standard FAA/IATA/IOSA deice program, where a pre-takeoff contamination check (ie going back to the cabin) is accomplished with pretty specific criteria. Going back to view the wings after a deice crew says “aircraft is free from all contamination and was sprayed with X/Y fluid at 100% final application began at HH:MM” isn’t one of them (that I’ve ever seen, anyway), unless you could still see contamination from the cockpit on any of what little of the wing you can see, or if you exceeded a holdover time, or if there was heavy snow falling. Also, per manuals at the airlines I’ve worked at, deice crews are “qualified ground agents” authorized to complete any required contamination check, which is why they say their spiel at the end...that satisfies any contamination check requirement at that time. If that wasn’t the case, it would be a requirement for flight crew to go check the wings after every single deice...which it isn’t.

Also, you deplaned from a CRJ to do a tactile feel AFTER deice/anti ice was done, just touching type I/IV fluid with your bare hand? Hmm. What airline was that? Tactile feel on preflight maybe? That was a thing when I flew CRJs. But not as a post deice verification procedure. At my current carrier a “tactile” feel on preflight is a “must” do item if there are conditions that could lead to clear ice formation...again as a preflight check item, not as a post deice item. I’d love to see any manual or written procedure that calls for a tactile feel AFTER deice is complete.


Yes, it involved holdover times when the pilots would be required to check. I don't have the specific language handy. But I've done this personally - walking back through the cabin to look at the wing.

The time I deplaned to personally do a tactile check was when a ground crew refused to do this. I was incredulous. The language was put in our manual that a post-deicing tactile check was required. I'm no longer certain but I think this became an FAA mandate because the CRJ was pretty critical WRT deicing and we had an incident at my airline that was similar to the F9 incident, though not nearly as egregious. My memory is vague but that's my recollection. The incident in question was in PHL about a decade ago. I won't reveal the airline I worked for at the time but I was there 12 years and captain almost 10.

As to the language about ground crews being qualified agents, etc., I've seen many whose 'qualifications' appear to be weak, at best. I operated on the east coast and I've seen all kinds of things that don't need to be detailed but were definitely not confidence inspiring. One involved a situation with some frost and I told the guy we would just need Type 1. He replied that yes, he'd get us sprayed off with "The Good Stuff". Again, I said I need Type 1. He again said he's got the "Good Stuff". I said that I don't have a holdover table for "The Good Stuff". It was obvious that it was Type 1 because of the color and the steam rising off it and we were definitely free of contaminants but I'm not sure the guy had any idea what the difference was between Types 1 and 4. This incident happened in PHF.

I don't know why you're questioning others on their experiences or their company's procedures. Every company is a bit different but all have to comply with FAA guidelines regarding deicing, meaning that they're not all that different.

Contract ground handling companies don't pay well and have immense staff turnover, so the agents need to be trained each winter and it usually was poor. The best places I've deiced have been in YYZ and YUL. Super efficient. And before anyone says anything about Canadians getting worse winters than the US, the worst deicing experience I ever had was in SYR, where it took so long to apply Type IV that the holdover time for the exposed Type 1 was exceeded, meaning that they had to start over. This was on a CRJ-200. They didn't understand on the radio why they had to start over. Meanwhile, next to us, large airplanes like Airbuses and 737s were getting in and out of their stalls in 10 minutes. It took over an hour to deice and anti-ice our aircraft. It was some contract outfit and their performance wasn't confidence inspiring at all. This was not uncommon.
smrtrthnu
 
nws2002
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:35 pm

aviatorcraig wrote:
Question: Is there any oversight of the de-icing operation by the authorities in the US? As in, would the FAA issue standards and proceedures for the de-icing operation and check competences, or is it just a free-for-all?
I was thinking of setting up in Nashville, I've heard there is a gap in the market! :lol:


Yes, the FAA. They approve the carrier's deicing/anti-icing program and conduct surveillance throughout the winter at various stations. However, they can't be everywhere all at once. Most carriers complete at least one deice audit per season, but in places like BNA that rarely deice that is often a paperwork exercise.
 
Mikeer50
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:12 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:39 pm

You’re only as safe as your weakest link. The Swiss cheese model worked as intended. Airline pilots were seconds away from learning about this event in every CRM class for the next 50 years. The whole event gives me chills and makes me extremely mad at the same time.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:16 pm

saab2000 wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:

Can you expand on “certain circumstances” please? Exceeding holdover time, heavy snow falling, any others? Can you show the part from your FOM/FCOM that would have had you leave the cockpit in this particular F9 deice incident? I’m sure every carrier is different, but I think most follow a standard FAA/IATA/IOSA deice program, where a pre-takeoff contamination check (ie going back to the cabin) is accomplished with pretty specific criteria. Going back to view the wings after a deice crew says “aircraft is free from all contamination and was sprayed with X/Y fluid at 100% final application began at HH:MM” isn’t one of them (that I’ve ever seen, anyway), unless you could still see contamination from the cockpit on any of what little of the wing you can see, or if you exceeded a holdover time, or if there was heavy snow falling. Also, per manuals at the airlines I’ve worked at, deice crews are “qualified ground agents” authorized to complete any required contamination check, which is why they say their spiel at the end...that satisfies any contamination check requirement at that time. If that wasn’t the case, it would be a requirement for flight crew to go check the wings after every single deice...which it isn’t.

Also, you deplaned from a CRJ to do a tactile feel AFTER deice/anti ice was done, just touching type I/IV fluid with your bare hand? Hmm. What airline was that? Tactile feel on preflight maybe? That was a thing when I flew CRJs. But not as a post deice verification procedure. At my current carrier a “tactile” feel on preflight is a “must” do item if there are conditions that could lead to clear ice formation...again as a preflight check item, not as a post deice item. I’d love to see any manual or written procedure that calls for a tactile feel AFTER deice is complete.


Yes, it involved holdover times when the pilots would be required to check. I don't have the specific language handy. But I've done this personally - walking back through the cabin to look at the wing.

The time I deplaned to personally do a tactile check was when a ground crew refused to do this. I was incredulous. The language was put in our manual that a post-deicing tactile check was required. I'm no longer certain but I think this became an FAA mandate because the CRJ was pretty critical WRT deicing and we had an incident at my airline that was similar to the F9 incident, though not nearly as egregious. My memory is vague but that's my recollection. The incident in question was in PHL about a decade ago. I won't reveal the airline I worked for at the time but I was there 12 years and captain almost 10.

As to the language about ground crews being qualified agents, etc., I've seen many whose 'qualifications' appear to be weak, at best. I operated on the east coast and I've seen all kinds of things that don't need to be detailed but were definitely not confidence inspiring. One involved a situation with some frost and I told the guy we would just need Type 1. He replied that yes, he'd get us sprayed off with "The Good Stuff". Again, I said I need Type 1. He again said he's got the "Good Stuff". I said that I don't have a holdover table for "The Good Stuff". It was obvious that it was Type 1 because of the color and the steam rising off it and we were definitely free of contaminants but I'm not sure the guy had any idea what the difference was between Types 1 and 4. This incident happened in PHF.

I don't know why you're questioning others on their experiences or their company's procedures. Every company is a bit different but all have to comply with FAA guidelines regarding deicing, meaning that they're not all that different.

Contract ground handling companies don't pay well and have immense staff turnover, so the agents need to be trained each winter and it usually was poor. The best places I've deiced have been in YYZ and YUL. Super efficient. And before anyone says anything about Canadians getting worse winters than the US, the worst deicing experience I ever had was in SYR, where it took so long to apply Type IV that the holdover time for the exposed Type 1 was exceeded, meaning that they had to start over. This was on a CRJ-200. They didn't understand on the radio why they had to start over. Meanwhile, next to us, large airplanes like Airbuses and 737s were getting in and out of their stalls in 10 minutes. It took over an hour to deice and anti-ice our aircraft. It was some contract outfit and their performance wasn't confidence inspiring at all. This was not uncommon.


So in summary: your current and past airlines wouldn't have called for you to go inspect the wings after this, or any other, normal deicing, unless you exceeded a holdover time or heavy snow was falling? You don't know why I'm going back and forth here? A respected member of this forum who is a pilot said it is normal to, or that pilots should, go check the wings AFTER being deiced, as if this F9 crew failed to do something that other pilots do. And then you, without real context, piled on with your anecdotes of also getting out of a jet and checking (that do not apply to this F9 incident). And since everyone's procedures are basically the same since they are cookie cutter from the FAA/IATA/IOSA, I am saying that, based on my years of experience flying and commuting in the northeast on many different airlines, with a decent bit of deicing experience, there are no airline pilots that I know or have seen who would have walked to the back to check the status of the wings after a deice crew says it is free from contamination in a normal deice situation (ie not exceeding a holdover time or with heavy snow falling or any other prescribed circumstance). That's just not a thing, despite what some are insinuating here as being a thing.

And furthermore, you confirmed your procedure to go check would be for an exceedance of a holdover time. This frontier incident has nothing to do with exceeding a holdover time or pilots failing to do something. So when you or galaxyflyer or whomever is talking about getting out of a jet getting cold wet shoes to inspect the work of a deice crew, or even going back to the cabin to check, but don't give the details/context about when that is actually done per SOP, readers of this forum who aren't pilots are going to be a bit misinformed about how airline deicing works. When they fly on a delta airbus, get de-iced, but the pilots don't come out, are they going to think their delta pilots are failing to perform a necessary step? Will a simpleflying article be written demonizing the F9 pilots based on these a.net pilots giving incomplete/misleading/wrong info? Because that's the feeling I get reading your and galaxy's posts. There's an insinuation here that the frontier crew was negligent/reckless for not going back and checking the status of their wings, when in reality, no other airline flight crew would have left the flight deck and caught that either.

So, if your manual has a prescribed step for going back there to verify the status of the wings right after a deice crew says you're free of contamination I'd be really interested to see it. Because I'm willing to bet every single "going back to the cabin to check" and tactile feel procedure, in every 121 de-ice program/manual, exist for either preflight to determine whether or not de-ice is needed, or post de-ice with falling precipitation, to check the wing's status after a holdover time exceedance, or in heavy snow type of situation...but NOT as a verification of a de-ice crew's work. That is my point. See where I'm going with this? I'd love to be proven wrong with an excerpt from your FOM/FCOM showing that it is normal to leave the flight deck to go check the de-ice crew's work and verify the free from contamination statement. But anecdotal "I have left the flight deck before, so the frontier crew should have too!" without the context of why you left he flight deck, or what your normal procedure is for the same situation as the F9 incident, or what standard 121 deice flight crew procedure is, does a disservice to the F9 crew as well as every other 121 pilot out there who follows their company de-ice policy, which normally doesn't involve leaving the flight deck.

The one caveat I'll add is, if any of that snow was visible from the flight deck, it should have been caught by the pilots. Hard to tell from the pics what they could have seen. My beef is with the notion that they should have gone back to the cabin to check de-ice crews' work as part of standard procedure.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3850
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:43 pm

What in the world? Thank the Lord for that eagle-eyed flight attendant. That's as close to a serious aviation incident on the ground short of a ground collision. There should be huge fines coming from the FAA, and rightly so. I await to see how many levels of communication breakdowns led to this near-miss.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3657
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:51 pm

what's crazy is a colleague of mine works for TDA and wasn't even aware of this. Makes me wonder how truthful the President is if this "safety stop" really went out to the stations..........regardless if its a deice station or not.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7760
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:03 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
saab2000 wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:

Can you expand on “certain circumstances” please? Exceeding holdover time, heavy snow falling, any others? Can you show the part from your FOM/FCOM that would have had you leave the cockpit in this particular F9 deice incident? I’m sure every carrier is different, but I think most follow a standard FAA/IATA/IOSA deice program, where a pre-takeoff contamination check (ie going back to the cabin) is accomplished with pretty specific criteria. Going back to view the wings after a deice crew says “aircraft is free from all contamination and was sprayed with X/Y fluid at 100% final application began at HH:MM” isn’t one of them (that I’ve ever seen, anyway), unless you could still see contamination from the cockpit on any of what little of the wing you can see, or if you exceeded a holdover time, or if there was heavy snow falling. Also, per manuals at the airlines I’ve worked at, deice crews are “qualified ground agents” authorized to complete any required contamination check, which is why they say their spiel at the end...that satisfies any contamination check requirement at that time. If that wasn’t the case, it would be a requirement for flight crew to go check the wings after every single deice...which it isn’t.

Also, you deplaned from a CRJ to do a tactile feel AFTER deice/anti ice was done, just touching type I/IV fluid with your bare hand? Hmm. What airline was that? Tactile feel on preflight maybe? That was a thing when I flew CRJs. But not as a post deice verification procedure. At my current carrier a “tactile” feel on preflight is a “must” do item if there are conditions that could lead to clear ice formation...again as a preflight check item, not as a post deice item. I’d love to see any manual or written procedure that calls for a tactile feel AFTER deice is complete.


Yes, it involved holdover times when the pilots would be required to check. I don't have the specific language handy. But I've done this personally - walking back through the cabin to look at the wing.

The time I deplaned to personally do a tactile check was when a ground crew refused to do this. I was incredulous. The language was put in our manual that a post-deicing tactile check was required. I'm no longer certain but I think this became an FAA mandate because the CRJ was pretty critical WRT deicing and we had an incident at my airline that was similar to the F9 incident, though not nearly as egregious. My memory is vague but that's my recollection. The incident in question was in PHL about a decade ago. I won't reveal the airline I worked for at the time but I was there 12 years and captain almost 10.

As to the language about ground crews being qualified agents, etc., I've seen many whose 'qualifications' appear to be weak, at best. I operated on the east coast and I've seen all kinds of things that don't need to be detailed but were definitely not confidence inspiring. One involved a situation with some frost and I told the guy we would just need Type 1. He replied that yes, he'd get us sprayed off with "The Good Stuff". Again, I said I need Type 1. He again said he's got the "Good Stuff". I said that I don't have a holdover table for "The Good Stuff". It was obvious that it was Type 1 because of the color and the steam rising off it and we were definitely free of contaminants but I'm not sure the guy had any idea what the difference was between Types 1 and 4. This incident happened in PHF.

I don't know why you're questioning others on their experiences or their company's procedures. Every company is a bit different but all have to comply with FAA guidelines regarding deicing, meaning that they're not all that different.

Contract ground handling companies don't pay well and have immense staff turnover, so the agents need to be trained each winter and it usually was poor. The best places I've deiced have been in YYZ and YUL. Super efficient. And before anyone says anything about Canadians getting worse winters than the US, the worst deicing experience I ever had was in SYR, where it took so long to apply Type IV that the holdover time for the exposed Type 1 was exceeded, meaning that they had to start over. This was on a CRJ-200. They didn't understand on the radio why they had to start over. Meanwhile, next to us, large airplanes like Airbuses and 737s were getting in and out of their stalls in 10 minutes. It took over an hour to deice and anti-ice our aircraft. It was some contract outfit and their performance wasn't confidence inspiring at all. This was not uncommon.


So in summary: your current and past airlines wouldn't have called for you to go inspect the wings after this, or any other, normal deicing, unless you exceeded a holdover time or heavy snow was falling? You don't know why I'm going back and forth here? A respected member of this forum who is a pilot said it is normal to, or that pilots should, go check the wings AFTER being deiced, as if this F9 crew failed to do something that other pilots do. And then you, without real context, piled on with your anecdotes of also getting out of a jet and checking (that do not apply to this F9 incident). And since everyone's procedures are basically the same since they are cookie cutter from the FAA/IATA/IOSA, I am saying that, based on my years of experience flying and commuting in the northeast on many different airlines, with a decent bit of deicing experience, there are no airline pilots that I know or have seen who would have walked to the back to check the status of the wings after a deice crew says it is free from contamination in a normal deice situation (ie not exceeding a holdover time or with heavy snow falling or any other prescribed circumstance). That's just not a thing, despite what some are insinuating here as being a thing.

And furthermore, you confirmed your procedure to go check would be for an exceedance of a holdover time. This frontier incident has nothing to do with exceeding a holdover time or pilots failing to do something. So when you or galaxyflyer or whomever is talking about getting out of a jet getting cold wet shoes to inspect the work of a deice crew, or even going back to the cabin to check, but don't give the details/context about when that is actually done per SOP, readers of this forum who aren't pilots are going to be a bit misinformed about how airline deicing works. When they fly on a delta airbus, get de-iced, but the pilots don't come out, are they going to think their delta pilots are failing to perform a necessary step? Will a simpleflying article be written demonizing the F9 pilots based on these a.net pilots giving incomplete/misleading/wrong info? Because that's the feeling I get reading your and galaxy's posts. There's an insinuation here that the frontier crew was negligent/reckless for not going back and checking the status of their wings, when in reality, no other airline flight crew would have left the flight deck and caught that either.

So, if your manual has a prescribed step for going back there to verify the status of the wings right after a deice crew says you're free of contamination I'd be really interested to see it. Because I'm willing to bet every single "going back to the cabin to check" and tactile feel procedure, in every 121 de-ice program/manual, exist for either preflight to determine whether or not de-ice is needed, or post de-ice with falling precipitation, to check the wing's status after a holdover time exceedance, or in heavy snow type of situation...but NOT as a verification of a de-ice crew's work. That is my point. See where I'm going with this? I'd love to be proven wrong with an excerpt from your FOM/FCOM showing that it is normal to leave the flight deck to go check the de-ice crew's work and verify the free from contamination statement. But anecdotal "I have left the flight deck before, so the frontier crew should have too!" without the context of why you left he flight deck, or what your normal procedure is for the same situation as the F9 incident, or what standard 121 deice flight crew procedure is, does a disservice to the F9 crew as well as every other 121 pilot out there who follows their company de-ice policy, which normally doesn't involve leaving the flight deck.

The one caveat I'll add is, if any of that snow was visible from the flight deck, it should have been caught by the pilots. Hard to tell from the pics what they could have seen. My beef is with the notion that they should have gone back to the cabin to check de-ice crews' work as part of standard procedure.



Simple question, Sir, if they had crashed on departure, the investigation revealed the contamination, who is going to found in violation of the requirement that critical surfaces are free of contamination?
 
theginge
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:53 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:16 pm

saab2000 wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:


The time I deplaned to personally do a tactile check was when a ground crew refused to do this. I was incredulous. The language was put in our manual that a post-deicing tactile check was required. I'm no longer certain but I think this became an FAA mandate because the CRJ was pretty critical WRT deicing and we had an incident at my airline that was similar to the F9 incident, though not nearly as egregious. My memory is vague but that's my recollection. The incident in question was in PHL about a decade ago. I won't reveal the airline I worked for at the time but I was there 12 years and captain almost 10.



On aircraft where you can't reach the wings from the ground a tactile check can't always be carried out, eg if the aircraft is being de iced from a de icing truck with a closed cab, eg a Vestergaard Elephant Beta, this would have to be a visual check. I guess from a CRJ you can do this from the ground in any case?
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:42 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
saab2000 wrote:

Yes, it involved holdover times when the pilots would be required to check. I don't have the specific language handy. But I've done this personally - walking back through the cabin to look at the wing.

The time I deplaned to personally do a tactile check was when a ground crew refused to do this. I was incredulous. The language was put in our manual that a post-deicing tactile check was required. I'm no longer certain but I think this became an FAA mandate because the CRJ was pretty critical WRT deicing and we had an incident at my airline that was similar to the F9 incident, though not nearly as egregious. My memory is vague but that's my recollection. The incident in question was in PHL about a decade ago. I won't reveal the airline I worked for at the time but I was there 12 years and captain almost 10.

As to the language about ground crews being qualified agents, etc., I've seen many whose 'qualifications' appear to be weak, at best. I operated on the east coast and I've seen all kinds of things that don't need to be detailed but were definitely not confidence inspiring. One involved a situation with some frost and I told the guy we would just need Type 1. He replied that yes, he'd get us sprayed off with "The Good Stuff". Again, I said I need Type 1. He again said he's got the "Good Stuff". I said that I don't have a holdover table for "The Good Stuff". It was obvious that it was Type 1 because of the color and the steam rising off it and we were definitely free of contaminants but I'm not sure the guy had any idea what the difference was between Types 1 and 4. This incident happened in PHF.

I don't know why you're questioning others on their experiences or their company's procedures. Every company is a bit different but all have to comply with FAA guidelines regarding deicing, meaning that they're not all that different.

Contract ground handling companies don't pay well and have immense staff turnover, so the agents need to be trained each winter and it usually was poor. The best places I've deiced have been in YYZ and YUL. Super efficient. And before anyone says anything about Canadians getting worse winters than the US, the worst deicing experience I ever had was in SYR, where it took so long to apply Type IV that the holdover time for the exposed Type 1 was exceeded, meaning that they had to start over. This was on a CRJ-200. They didn't understand on the radio why they had to start over. Meanwhile, next to us, large airplanes like Airbuses and 737s were getting in and out of their stalls in 10 minutes. It took over an hour to deice and anti-ice our aircraft. It was some contract outfit and their performance wasn't confidence inspiring at all. This was not uncommon.


So in summary: your current and past airlines wouldn't have called for you to go inspect the wings after this, or any other, normal deicing, unless you exceeded a holdover time or heavy snow was falling? You don't know why I'm going back and forth here? A respected member of this forum who is a pilot said it is normal to, or that pilots should, go check the wings AFTER being deiced, as if this F9 crew failed to do something that other pilots do. And then you, without real context, piled on with your anecdotes of also getting out of a jet and checking (that do not apply to this F9 incident). And since everyone's procedures are basically the same since they are cookie cutter from the FAA/IATA/IOSA, I am saying that, based on my years of experience flying and commuting in the northeast on many different airlines, with a decent bit of deicing experience, there are no airline pilots that I know or have seen who would have walked to the back to check the status of the wings after a deice crew says it is free from contamination in a normal deice situation (ie not exceeding a holdover time or with heavy snow falling or any other prescribed circumstance). That's just not a thing, despite what some are insinuating here as being a thing.

And furthermore, you confirmed your procedure to go check would be for an exceedance of a holdover time. This frontier incident has nothing to do with exceeding a holdover time or pilots failing to do something. So when you or galaxyflyer or whomever is talking about getting out of a jet getting cold wet shoes to inspect the work of a deice crew, or even going back to the cabin to check, but don't give the details/context about when that is actually done per SOP, readers of this forum who aren't pilots are going to be a bit misinformed about how airline deicing works. When they fly on a delta airbus, get de-iced, but the pilots don't come out, are they going to think their delta pilots are failing to perform a necessary step? Will a simpleflying article be written demonizing the F9 pilots based on these a.net pilots giving incomplete/misleading/wrong info? Because that's the feeling I get reading your and galaxy's posts. There's an insinuation here that the frontier crew was negligent/reckless for not going back and checking the status of their wings, when in reality, no other airline flight crew would have left the flight deck and caught that either.

So, if your manual has a prescribed step for going back there to verify the status of the wings right after a deice crew says you're free of contamination I'd be really interested to see it. Because I'm willing to bet every single "going back to the cabin to check" and tactile feel procedure, in every 121 de-ice program/manual, exist for either preflight to determine whether or not de-ice is needed, or post de-ice with falling precipitation, to check the wing's status after a holdover time exceedance, or in heavy snow type of situation...but NOT as a verification of a de-ice crew's work. That is my point. See where I'm going with this? I'd love to be proven wrong with an excerpt from your FOM/FCOM showing that it is normal to leave the flight deck to go check the de-ice crew's work and verify the free from contamination statement. But anecdotal "I have left the flight deck before, so the frontier crew should have too!" without the context of why you left he flight deck, or what your normal procedure is for the same situation as the F9 incident, or what standard 121 deice flight crew procedure is, does a disservice to the F9 crew as well as every other 121 pilot out there who follows their company de-ice policy, which normally doesn't involve leaving the flight deck.

The one caveat I'll add is, if any of that snow was visible from the flight deck, it should have been caught by the pilots. Hard to tell from the pics what they could have seen. My beef is with the notion that they should have gone back to the cabin to check de-ice crews' work as part of standard procedure.



Simple question, Sir, if they had crashed on departure, the investigation revealed the contamination, who is going to found in violation of the requirement that critical surfaces are free of contamination?

The deice crew that failed to deice the jet and knowingly lied and said that they did, since they are qualified agents to perform contamination checks. Unless perhaps the F9 crew could have seen the contamination from the cockpit in a pre-takeoff check, if one was required by their SOP.
 
wr911
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:59 pm

As my home airport is YVR, and we do not receive much snow, this reminds me of an incident quite a few years ago. I was on an AC flight YVR to PEK and it was snowing a wet type of snow here in Vancouver. We went to the deicing station, got sprayed and as I looked at the wings, I thought there is still a lot of snow on them, but what do i know. Thinking that the crew and pilots knew what they were doing, we left to head to our take off runway. As we are on our way there, the pilot comes on the PA and announces that a passenger has informed the crew that there is still a lot of snow etc on the wings and we are now heading back to the deicing station. So if you see snow and ice on the wings, let the crew know as the pilots can barely see that and they are relying on the workers to do a proper job and I think some airports are just not that capable.
 
CanesFan
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:09 pm

The "qualified deicer" reporting to the cockpit crew that the aircraft is "clean and free of contamination" in this instance is as complicit, if not more so than the SabreTech individuals who improperly placed hazmat on the ValuJet flight that crashed in the everglades. Thankfully the chain of events was broken in this case.
 
saab2000
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:42 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
saab2000 wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:

Can you expand on “certain circumstances” please? Exceeding holdover time, heavy snow falling, any others? Can you show the part from your FOM/FCOM that would have had you leave the cockpit in this particular F9 deice incident? I’m sure every carrier is different, but I think most follow a standard FAA/IATA/IOSA deice program, where a pre-takeoff contamination check (ie going back to the cabin) is accomplished with pretty specific criteria. Going back to view the wings after a deice crew says “aircraft is free from all contamination and was sprayed with X/Y fluid at 100% final application began at HH:MM” isn’t one of them (that I’ve ever seen, anyway), unless you could still see contamination from the cockpit on any of what little of the wing you can see, or if you exceeded a holdover time, or if there was heavy snow falling. Also, per manuals at the airlines I’ve worked at, deice crews are “qualified ground agents” authorized to complete any required contamination check, which is why they say their spiel at the end...that satisfies any contamination check requirement at that time. If that wasn’t the case, it would be a requirement for flight crew to go check the wings after every single deice...which it isn’t.

Also, you deplaned from a CRJ to do a tactile feel AFTER deice/anti ice was done, just touching type I/IV fluid with your bare hand? Hmm. What airline was that? Tactile feel on preflight maybe? That was a thing when I flew CRJs. But not as a post deice verification procedure. At my current carrier a “tactile” feel on preflight is a “must” do item if there are conditions that could lead to clear ice formation...again as a preflight check item, not as a post deice item. I’d love to see any manual or written procedure that calls for a tactile feel AFTER deice is complete.


Yes, it involved holdover times when the pilots would be required to check. I don't have the specific language handy. But I've done this personally - walking back through the cabin to look at the wing.

The time I deplaned to personally do a tactile check was when a ground crew refused to do this. I was incredulous. The language was put in our manual that a post-deicing tactile check was required. I'm no longer certain but I think this became an FAA mandate because the CRJ was pretty critical WRT deicing and we had an incident at my airline that was similar to the F9 incident, though not nearly as egregious. My memory is vague but that's my recollection. The incident in question was in PHL about a decade ago. I won't reveal the airline I worked for at the time but I was there 12 years and captain almost 10.

As to the language about ground crews being qualified agents, etc., I've seen many whose 'qualifications' appear to be weak, at best. I operated on the east coast and I've seen all kinds of things that don't need to be detailed but were definitely not confidence inspiring. One involved a situation with some frost and I told the guy we would just need Type 1. He replied that yes, he'd get us sprayed off with "The Good Stuff". Again, I said I need Type 1. He again said he's got the "Good Stuff". I said that I don't have a holdover table for "The Good Stuff". It was obvious that it was Type 1 because of the color and the steam rising off it and we were definitely free of contaminants but I'm not sure the guy had any idea what the difference was between Types 1 and 4. This incident happened in PHF.

I don't know why you're questioning others on their experiences or their company's procedures. Every company is a bit different but all have to comply with FAA guidelines regarding deicing, meaning that they're not all that different.

Contract ground handling companies don't pay well and have immense staff turnover, so the agents need to be trained each winter and it usually was poor. The best places I've deiced have been in YYZ and YUL. Super efficient. And before anyone says anything about Canadians getting worse winters than the US, the worst deicing experience I ever had was in SYR, where it took so long to apply Type IV that the holdover time for the exposed Type 1 was exceeded, meaning that they had to start over. This was on a CRJ-200. They didn't understand on the radio why they had to start over. Meanwhile, next to us, large airplanes like Airbuses and 737s were getting in and out of their stalls in 10 minutes. It took over an hour to deice and anti-ice our aircraft. It was some contract outfit and their performance wasn't confidence inspiring at all. This was not uncommon.


So in summary: your current and past airlines wouldn't have called for you to go inspect the wings after this, or any other, normal deicing, unless you exceeded a holdover time or heavy snow was falling? You don't know why I'm going back and forth here? A respected member of this forum who is a pilot said it is normal to, or that pilots should, go check the wings AFTER being deiced, as if this F9 crew failed to do something that other pilots do. And then you, without real context, piled on with your anecdotes of also getting out of a jet and checking (that do not apply to this F9 incident). And since everyone's procedures are basically the same since they are cookie cutter from the FAA/IATA/IOSA, I am saying that, based on my years of experience flying and commuting in the northeast on many different airlines, with a decent bit of deicing experience, there are no airline pilots that I know or have seen who would have walked to the back to check the status of the wings after a deice crew says it is free from contamination in a normal deice situation (ie not exceeding a holdover time or with heavy snow falling or any other prescribed circumstance). That's just not a thing, despite what some are insinuating here as being a thing.

And furthermore, you confirmed your procedure to go check would be for an exceedance of a holdover time. This frontier incident has nothing to do with exceeding a holdover time or pilots failing to do something. So when you or galaxyflyer or whomever is talking about getting out of a jet getting cold wet shoes to inspect the work of a deice crew, or even going back to the cabin to check, but don't give the details/context about when that is actually done per SOP, readers of this forum who aren't pilots are going to be a bit misinformed about how airline deicing works. When they fly on a delta airbus, get de-iced, but the pilots don't come out, are they going to think their delta pilots are failing to perform a necessary step? Will a simpleflying article be written demonizing the F9 pilots based on these a.net pilots giving incomplete/misleading/wrong info? Because that's the feeling I get reading your and galaxy's posts. There's an insinuation here that the frontier crew was negligent/reckless for not going back and checking the status of their wings, when in reality, no other airline flight crew would have left the flight deck and caught that either.

So, if your manual has a prescribed step for going back there to verify the status of the wings right after a deice crew says you're free of contamination I'd be really interested to see it. Because I'm willing to bet every single "going back to the cabin to check" and tactile feel procedure, in every 121 de-ice program/manual, exist for either preflight to determine whether or not de-ice is needed, or post de-ice with falling precipitation, to check the wing's status after a holdover time exceedance, or in heavy snow type of situation...but NOT as a verification of a de-ice crew's work. That is my point. See where I'm going with this? I'd love to be proven wrong with an excerpt from your FOM/FCOM showing that it is normal to leave the flight deck to go check the de-ice crew's work and verify the free from contamination statement. But anecdotal "I have left the flight deck before, so the frontier crew should have too!" without the context of why you left he flight deck, or what your normal procedure is for the same situation as the F9 incident, or what standard 121 deice flight crew procedure is, does a disservice to the F9 crew as well as every other 121 pilot out there who follows their company de-ice policy, which normally doesn't involve leaving the flight deck.

The one caveat I'll add is, if any of that snow was visible from the flight deck, it should have been caught by the pilots. Hard to tell from the pics what they could have seen. My beef is with the notion that they should have gone back to the cabin to check de-ice crews' work as part of standard procedure.


You’re reading far too much into my post. Additionally, I didn’t say or insinuate anything about the F9 crew. I just shared some anecdotes from my career to demonstrate that what happened to them, while extreme and extremely dangerous, is hardly unique.

I’ve got no more to add to this other than to say I’m glad we’re talking about an incident and not anything worse.
smrtrthnu
 
FF630
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:07 pm

I enjoy this forum but know little about aircraft except that I have flown over two million miles.

Can cameras be installed which allow the cockpit crew to view the wings after deicing is complete ?

I have been on many flights where the plane has been deiced more than once, however it was at airports like Boston, Montreal, Chicago etc. not BNA where it's not usually required.

This incident is beyond scary. The person who commented on the public demanding cheap fares hit the nail on the head. I certainly would be happy to pay a few more $ to have competent people dispatching planes properly not cutting corners like these dimwits did in Nashville.

I lived in DC when the Air Florida plane went in the Potomac. I crossed the 14th St bridge daily going to and from my office. That was one horrible tragedy.
 
kiowa
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:43 pm

I understand that a flight attendant saved the day by noticing a foot of snow on one wing prior to takeoff. Everytime that I have been on a flight in snowy weather, a pilot always does a wing inspection prior to takeoff. I thought that this was a requirement, not an option. Good job by the flight attendant but I doubt that she is trained or that it is her/his job to check for contamination.

https://avherald.com/h?article=4e3e919d&opt=0
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15153
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:31 pm

nws2002 wrote:
aviatorcraig wrote:
Question: Is there any oversight of the de-icing operation by the authorities in the US? As in, would the FAA issue standards and proceedures for the de-icing operation and check competences, or is it just a free-for-all?
I was thinking of setting up in Nashville, I've heard there is a gap in the market! :lol:


Yes, the FAA. They approve the carrier's deicing/anti-icing program and conduct surveillance throughout the winter at various stations. However, they can't be everywhere all at once. Most carriers complete at least one deice audit per season, but in places like BNA that rarely deice that is often a paperwork exercise.


This sort of accumulating winter precip is uncommon in Nashville but deicing RONs and certain other early morning flights is pretty common from late November to mid March. It’s quite a lot different from ORD or DTW but also different from PHX or MIA.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
737MAX7
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:47 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
nws2002 wrote:
aviatorcraig wrote:
Question: Is there any oversight of the de-icing operation by the authorities in the US? As in, would the FAA issue standards and proceedures for the de-icing operation and check competences, or is it just a free-for-all?
I was thinking of setting up in Nashville, I've heard there is a gap in the market! :lol:


Yes, the FAA. They approve the carrier's deicing/anti-icing program and conduct surveillance throughout the winter at various stations. However, they can't be everywhere all at once. Most carriers complete at least one deice audit per season, but in places like BNA that rarely deice that is often a paperwork exercise.


This sort of accumulating winter precip is uncommon in Nashville but deicing RONs and certain other early morning flights is pretty common from late November to mid March. It’s quite a lot different from ORD or DTW but also different from PHX or MIA.

^ this. While the number of accumulating events at BNA are rare, de icing is not. Many mornings in the winter we have to de ice our RONs at SWA.
 
flight152
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:45 pm

kiowa wrote:
I understand that a flight attendant saved the day by noticing a foot of snow on one wing prior to takeoff. Everytime that I have been on a flight in snowy weather, a pilot always does a wing inspection prior to takeoff. I thought that this was a requirement, not an option. Good job by the flight attendant but I doubt that she is trained or that it is her/his job to check for contamination.

https://avherald.com/h?article=4e3e919d&opt=0

Wing inspections are usually only done if you exceed your hold over time.
 
Dreambaby
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:53 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:37 pm

Flight attendants are trained to check for ice on wings ! We are briefed by the flight crew if there is de icing required during the duty.

Pilots do wing Inspections prior to flight - hence why they are de icing I lm the first place !!
 
Airontario
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:04 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:00 pm

kiowa wrote:
Everytime that I have been on a flight in snowy weather, a pilot always does a wing inspection prior to takeoff. I thought that this was a requirement, not an option.


I fly very regularly in Canada (well before Covid at least), and I've only seen a pilot to an inspection on the wing after de-icing once. It was in YQR (or YXE, I cant remember), but the Captain announced that since there was only one truck doing the de-icing, they were required to double check before departing. Every other time I've been deiced (way too many times to count), the pilots never leave the flight deck.
 
DenverBrian
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:32 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:18 pm

Given this, plus the UA engine incident recently, is it not time to install aft-facing cameras left and right to allow the pilots to see both wings/engines at all times?
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:25 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Would the accident report say, “PIC failed to verify the wing was clear of contamination” OR, post-fire analysis showed no wing contamination”? Not airline, but I’ve gotten very wet, cold feet and ruined shoes checking the de-icing procedures from KTEB to UHPP and a hundred places in between. Get out and look.

Are you suggesting airline pilots hook up a set of stairs, deplane, go get a ladder to climb up and look on top of the wings after being deiced? All while off the gate, where most 121 deice operations happen?



You don’t have windows in the cabin?


This is why TWA airplanes had a black stripe on the wing. They apparently had some issues with de-icing and a solution was to help see ice/buildup better on the wing and require a visual inspection.
xx
 
ozark1
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:38 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:06 pm

I'm surprised that this event has seemingly disappeared. Is this worthy of an NTSB investigation? Maybe i missed something but can't believe that the media didn't take this and run with it.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3657
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:09 pm

ozark1 wrote:
I'm surprised that this event has seemingly disappeared. Is this worthy of an NTSB investigation? Maybe i missed something but can't believe that the media didn't take this and run with it.


nothing happened, so its not going to get the media attention, regardless of what the outcome could have been.
 
2eng2efficient
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:30 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:45 pm

I’m late to the party here, but I did witness the captain of a CRJ-200 (PSA, flying CAK-CLT) physically open the door and walk outside to inspect the wings after a deicing once. Engines running and all. It was pretty entertaining to watch the pax reactions.

Point being that it happens but it is rare.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4561
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:03 am

I'm horrified that the deicing crew told the pilots that the job was done and done properly. I do believe criminal charges should be explored here. An example does need to be made, especially for training purposes.

When I was a ramp rat, we had a duty to complete a walk around before departure. I don't know about you, but I took that responsibility very serious. Once in the tractor to push the plane back, I would advise the crew that a walk around inspection was complete. There is just no way I would have ever made that up, or claim I did it when I didn't. I also would frequently look inside the windows from down below and see a young child wave. It was moments like that where I realized how vital it is to work safe, and take care of those machines. And I can't tell you how many times that quick walk around saved my butt from hitting something, or finding damage the pilot may have missed.

As a ground accident investigator, I was blown away at how some tampers struck the side of a plane with a beltloader and assumed since the dent was small, there was no need to report it. For the love of God!! Report it! Don't risk those precious lives in hopes you don't get in trouble or get caught. Slow down!! Take it all in, and do the best job you can around these planes. This industry is not an industry where we can cut corners.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
Trololzilla
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:53 pm

Re: F9 Deicing Incident Nashville (BNA)

Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:43 am

usxguy wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
Are you suggesting airline pilots hook up a set of stairs, deplane, go get a ladder to climb up and look on top of the wings after being deiced? All while off the gate, where most 121 deice operations happen?



You don’t have windows in the cabin?


This is why TWA airplanes had a black stripe on the wing. They apparently had some issues with de-icing and a solution was to help see ice/buildup better on the wing and require a visual inspection.

Could also mandate that newer planes have at least a tail camera mounted to make it easier to see an overview of the planes for the pilots. I know a lot of the larger planes nowadays all have them, but cameras are fairly cheap and pretty much every cockpit nowadays has multipurpose LCD screens that could be programmed to accept camera feeds if they don't already. Airlines wouldn't even have to pay the extra fee to have them hooked up into the IFE if they were solely there for the pilots.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos