Westwind

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Westwind

Post by digits_ »

Diadem wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:06 am No, it's very much a similar discussion to the one we're having: an airplane won't bend as soon as the MTOW is exceeded by one pound, the maximum weight limit is set at some point that the manufacturer thinks the performance of the aircraft will be adequate, usually factoring in engine-out performance. The performance is highly unlikely to be degraded significantly one pound over, it probably won't happen a hundred pounds over, it might not even happen a thousand pounds over; the point is that you don't know because the manufacturer didn't test it. By your logic, we should have every aircraft tested to find out at exactly what weight and atmospheric conditions the performance will no longer be acceptable, just to show those pilots who are inclined to fly overweight how bad it would be.
Similar, yes, but the data already exists.
With the exception of the 12500 lbs limit, that is already calculated in to detail. Once you exceed MTOW your safety margins in other areas -damage from turbulence, hard landings, structural fatigue, take off distance, single engine performance, ...- will decrease. I don't think we can know how many pilots take off overweight, but we do know that the amount crashes where being overweight is a major factor are -luckily- very rare. More research in this area is, for me, therefore not necessary. Every question that you have about that, could already be answered by the manufactureres, if their lawyers would let them.

Diadem wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:06 am For modern airplanes, you might be able to approach the manufacturer and have them provide complex computer models, but do you not realize that those models don't exist for things like Navajos and Otters that have been out of production for thirty or forty years? The Q400s and 737s aren't the ones taking off contaminated, so it doesn't even matter if you can get models for them. You're going to have to get 206s, Conquests, Beech 99s, and all the other outdated pieces of crap from up north that are the ones being flown contaminated, collect every single tiny little piece of data on every version of those aircraft with every engine, every propellor, every STC, in every configuration, for every phase of flight, and then figure out how icing affects them.
Who the hell is going to pay for that?
That is why I specifically mentioned planes of the Caravan / PC12 generation and newer, which, I assume, exist digitally. Maybe even the recent model king airs. If you start with that today, a big part of the fleet will be covered, and the percentage of airplanes that have the numbers will only increase. It would probably be cost prohibiting to develop a full 3 D model for something like a DC3. Although, maybe the basler conversion already has a model like that, I do not know.

Diadem wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:06 am I don't think you've read a single thing that's been written here. You can't boil down icing to "frost", "clear ice", "mixed ice", and "whatever". You're oversimplifying things to the point that any models you make will be utterly pointless. You have to have data for every single combination of types of icing, that accumulates both on the ground and in the air, and you have to be able to accurately measure the thickness. Otherwise it's no better than eyeballing the conditions, and that's what people are doing already.
You can accurately calculate/simulate the effects for certain predefined cases. And you know it is just frost or clear ice, because that is what the predefined case is. Where the uncertainty will arise, is when you show up to a plane and you don't know exactly what standard configuration matches with the plane. If any. Ok. Let's say you look in the provided data, and you find 3 possible options that you think match the situation. That gives the pilot 4 options: don't go, or go with possibly a 4000 lbs penalty over MTOW, or a possible 2000 lbs penalty or a 3000 lbs penalty, based on the estimated condition of the airplane, I hope at least a significant amount of pilots will choose for the no go option.

Regarding your remark about the multiple layers: that probably indicates there is a huge amount of ice on the plane. So much, that even today, I doubt any pilots would dare to take off. But even if they are using the data and contemplating a take off, any possible contamination they will try in the chart, will show that you are taking off with severe weight penalties.

Another reason why research would be interesting, would be to determine how 2 layers of different ice would interact. Intuitively, I would say the friction index on the top layer is important, and the weight of both layers would be a factor, but yes, there could be unexpected effects. One more reason to learn and investigate.



Diadem wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:06 am There isn't much data on the effects of ice on top of a wing on take off, because even NASA test pilots don't want to go blasting off with a sheet of ice on the wings. That should tell you something. Anyway, most of the studies I've found discuss in-flight icing, which apparently isn't relevant to you, or are behind a paywall, so here's a publication from TC that has some very detailed information, including wind-tunnel data: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/c ... -2008E.pdf
I'm not asking anyone to go blasting off with ice on the wings. Use the models, simulate the ice build up, and publish the results. The document you linked to mentions the wind tunnel experiments, but only for the effect on the fluid as far as I can tell.

Diadem wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:06 am there's no point in presenting data to someone who is convinced the data is stupid and the experts are just living in ivory towers. It doesn't matter if you show them data that is slightly more forgiving than what they're expecting, because they don't care about the numbers; they "know" the aircraft will fly, and they'll keep pushing limits until they don't get away with it anymore.
The pilots don't claim they know better than the experts, because the experts don't say what the problem will be. How can you trust the experts if they claim a 1 inch wide strip of thin frost just behind the leading edge is as deadly as a plane covered in 1 inch thick sheet of solid ice? There is no distinction at the moment to show the difference between those situations. Is the 30/40 rule applicable to 1 inch line of frost, or to the 1 inch of solid ice?

While I do not condone it, I can understand that a fatigued pressured pilot without any deicing equipment flying with an empty turboprop could be tempted in the middle of the night to illegally take off with a bit of frost behind the leading edge. On the other hand, if you told him this would put him 2000 lbs over the MTOW, then I hope that pilot would not even think about attempting a take off like that.

That is what I would like to achieve.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Westwind

Post by digits_ »

pelmet wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:18 pm There are enough accidents to prove that sometimes, flying with frozen contamination on the critical surfaces can cause a serious incident that the regulator has decided that the only way to cover all the risks is to have a blanket ban unless an outside entity can prove that it is safe.
And if, after 30 years, it turns out that a big part of the pilots are not following that rule, wouldn't it be wise that the regulator took action? Even if that rule is perfectly safe if you do follow it, you have to look at the big picture. A rule that is safe when followed, will be unsafe if the majority of people do not follow it. At that point it just becomes window dressing.

There are few options in that case:
- change the rule, which in this case would mean certified data of allowing flight with contamination. I think that is unrealistic for aguments mentioned by other people before. Lots of uncontrollable factors. Risky
- enforce the rule more aggressively. Could work, but I find it highly unlikely TC inspectors are going to set up camp in reserves, let alone at night or in crappy weather
- make sure the rule can be followed. That is the TSB suggestion: make sure there is plenty of deice fluid where needed. A noble cause but I don't think it is realistic to expect deicing stations at every northern airport.
- educate people: explain the rule objectively. This seems the way to go to me. Trustworthy, operation specific data that tells you why taking off contaminated is a bad idea.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by pelmet »

digits_ wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:33 am
pelmet wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:18 pm There are enough accidents to prove that sometimes, flying with frozen contamination on the critical surfaces can cause a serious incident that the regulator has decided that the only way to cover all the risks is to have a blanket ban unless an outside entity can prove that it is safe.
And if, after 30 years, it turns out that a big part of the pilots are not following that rule, wouldn't it be wise that the regulator took action? Even if that rule is perfectly safe if you do follow it, you have to look at the big picture. A rule that is safe when followed, will be unsafe if the majority of people do not follow it. At that point it just becomes window dressing.

There are few options in that case:
- change the rule, which in this case would mean certified data of allowing flight with contamination. I think that is unrealistic for aguments mentioned by other people before. Lots of uncontrollable factors. Risky
- enforce the rule more aggressively. Could work, but I find it highly unlikely TC inspectors are going to set up camp in reserves, let alone at night or in crappy weather
- make sure the rule can be followed. That is the TSB suggestion: make sure there is plenty of deice fluid where needed. A noble cause but I don't think it is realistic to expect deicing stations at every northern airport.
- educate people: explain the rule objectively. This seems the way to go to me. Trustworthy, operation specific data that tells you why taking off contaminated is a bad idea.
The 737 is the example for certified data...can already be done. Too expensive for inspectors at each station....They are not even out there checking flights out of YYZ so don't expect them is remote sites. The rule can be followed, if de-ice fliud is insufficient as can happen even in YYZ under certain weather conditions, don't go. People are educated. They just don't follow the rules.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Guilden
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:12 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by Guilden »

This accident was not caused by contaminated wings. TC will also use contamination as a cause but it was not the primary issue...
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by pelmet »

Guilden wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:59 pm This accident was not caused by contaminated wings. TC will also use contamination as a cause but it was not the primary issue...
I have to admit thAt I have been under the impression that contamination was a primary cause or central to it. Perhaps that is not the case.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FlyGy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by FlyGy »

At the risk if putting words into his mouth, I think that what Guilden is getting at is the corporate safety culture of Westwind Aviation was the root cause.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
HO Driver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:58 am
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Lane

Re: Westwind

Post by HO Driver »

FlyGy wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:52 pm At the risk if putting words into his mouth, I think that what Guilden is getting at is the corporate safety culture of Westwind Aviation was the root cause.
When senior managers who have absolutely no aviation experience are tasked with running an airline you will undoubtedly see a corporate culture change, and definitely not for the better. You simply can’t run an airline like a tour bus or trucking company. I’m actually surprised this didn’t happen sooner TBH.
---------- ADS -----------
 
smashmonkey
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:41 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by smashmonkey »

When senior managers who have absolutely no aviation experience are tasked with running an airline you will undoubtedly see a corporate culture change, and definitely not for the better. You simply can’t run an airline like a tour bus or trucking company. I’m actually surprised this didn’t happen sooner TBH.
You can't blame it all on them. Some pretty toxic pilots were also there and in charge of things.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by C.W.E. »

Unless the law has changed the pilots are the ones who make the final decision to fly regardless of what management says.

But those of you who do not understand that I wish you luck if you have an accident and it is determined you were not in compliance of the law when you made the decision to fly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FlyGy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by FlyGy »

I wonder if this includes De-ice equipment.

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/mobile/fed ... -1.4298100
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1948
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Westwind

Post by goingnowherefast »

What about every other airport in the north? I don't think Fond-du-lac is exactly a booming northern community, or main hub.
---------- ADS -----------
 
leftoftrack
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by leftoftrack »

Canadian North has De-icing available at every airport they fly into. It's in the earlier posts
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Westwind

Post by Diadem »

leftoftrack wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:52 pm Canadian North has De-icing available at every airport they fly into. It's in the earlier posts
Okay... And what about the airports to which West Wind operates, seeing as they're the ones this thread is actually about?
---------- ADS -----------
 
leftoftrack
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by leftoftrack »

If westwind can't operate legally how they are setup then its the Captains job to set the parking brake till they do. You think those bars on his/her shoulders are for decoration?
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1948
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Westwind

Post by goingnowherefast »

Or divert somewhere that has the resources (deicing equipment, runway plow, maintenance) to operate safely.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
HO Driver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:58 am
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Lane

Re: Westwind

Post by HO Driver »

leftoftrack wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:50 pm If westwind can't operate legally how they are setup then its the Captains job to set the parking brake till they do. You think those bars on his/her shoulders are for decoration?
That's the kicker, they were legal to operate! The deicing box was "ticked" so TC must have been happy that the spray can was sufficient to deice an ATR. If TC says it's good then it's good, right? A lot of companies will do only the very minimum required to comply with TC...that's it! No more.
That being said, your post would suggest captains should've marched into the CP's office and say they refuse to fly to ZFD until they upgrade the deicing equipment. Care to take a guess at how that would've played out? :lol:
I don't disagree with you but we all know that's not how it goes down. You have to make an effort to find a way to safely conduct a flight with the limited resources given to you. If you just can't find a way to make it work safely, then you set the park brake and go home.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by C.W.E. »

That being said, your post would suggest captains should've marched into the CP's office and say they refuse to fly to ZFD until they upgrade the deicing equipment. Care to take a guess at how that would've played out? :lol:
The answer to that is simple.

The flight would not go until the safety issues were resolved.

And if the company refused to solve it then any pilot who is a professional would quit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by rookiepilot »

From reading so many of these posts, I can't believe people would risk their lives rather than tell the boss --- perhaps politely -- to F--- off --- when clearly called for.

I have in the past in (non flying) jobs, for much, much lower stakes than my own life.

You're the captain. You decide. Not them. Life is far too precious.

Just my outsiders point of view.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FlyGy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by FlyGy »

I've flown as a passenger many times and it wasn't unheard of for us to be spending the night at ZFD because of weather. Since Dec 13 I've noticed a lot more erring on the side of caution with the aircraft not even departing YXE.
---------- ADS -----------
 
jakeandelwood
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by jakeandelwood »

rookiepilot wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:00 am From reading so many of these posts, I can't believe people would risk their lives rather than tell the boss --- perhaps politely -- to F--- off --- when clearly called for.

I have in the past in (non flying) jobs, for much, much lower stakes than my own life.

You're the captain. You decide. Not them. Life is far too precious.

Just my outsiders point of view.
Problem is there is always that "hero" Captain who will always pull it off, that then makes that other Captain who refuses look like a wuss. That hero Captain always seems to be the Chief pilots little buddy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”