Westwind

[C.W.E.]

And ice on the wings IS a big danger, but a small amount is not.

Have you flown a DC3?

I can assure you even a trace of ice/frost contamination on the top of the wings is super dangerous on a DC3.

[iflyforpie]

And ice on the wings IS a big danger, but a small amount is not.

Have you flown a DC3?

I can assure you even a trace of ice/frost contamination on the top of the wings is super dangerous on a DC3.

Yep.

This is precisely the thinking that got the Dryden crew in trouble... being used to the forgiving wing and high power to weight ratio of the Convair 580 and not the high performance wing of an F-28. The Caravan, the ATR, and many other planes are not forgiving of anything on the wings.

[C.W.E.]

I made the mistake of deciding that a barely visible trace of frost would not be a problem one day because I was doing a short flight with nothing but the two of us and a light fuel load.

As soon as it got out of ground effect all hell broke loose and it was only because there was water at the end of the runway allowing me to get back in ground effect did I survive......thank God the air temp was above freezing and it burnt off fairly quickly.

ANYONE WHO KNOWINGLY DECIDES TO FLY WITH CONTAMINATED WINGS IS RISKING DEATH.

[digits_]

And ice on the wings IS a big danger, but a small amount is not.

Have you flown a DC3?

I can assure you even a trace of ice/frost contamination on the top of the wings is super dangerous on a DC3.

Ok, great, and that is exactly why research is necessary.

If trace ice on a wing was deadly on all planes, 95% of the pilots in Canada would be dead. Ergo, it isn't.

A pilot who used to fly C172, navajos and king airs, could end up in a DC3 and decide to take off with a bit of ice that was acceptable (but illegal) on a king air and find him in trouble. After all, from your story, it looks like you attempted a take off with ice on the wings as well? Because all the ice (2 inches of clear ice vs a thin layer of frost) is treated the same way, you end up with pilots being test pilots. Even though they shouldn't. I'm not advocating pilots should take off with ice on the wings, I'm merely indicating that it happens. And if it happens, why not provide reliable data to decide how much is too much.

Operations in northern Canada without thorough research on icing and what kind of icing is acceptable, is criminal. It is unrealistic to expect a pilot in Northern Canada to never encounter icing in places where there is no deicing available. And sure, the response to that is "don't take off if there is ice on the wings". How many pilots will choose to overnight in a reserve because there are a few patches of frost on the wing? Would you? Where would you sleep?

Or make sure every northern airport has free deicing available 24/7 or don't fly up north during winter.

[C.W.E.]

Ok, great, and that is exactly why research is necessary.

The effect of contamination on wings has been known ever since airplanes have been flown why research a known factor?

If trace ice on a wing was deadly on all planes, 95% of the pilots in Canada would be dead. Ergo, it isn't.

There are many, many dead pilots that died because they attempted flight with contaminated wings one dead pilot is to many.

A pilot who used to fly C172, navajos and king airs, could end up in a DC3 and decide to take off with a bit of ice that was acceptable (but illegal) on a king air and find him in trouble. After all, from your story, it looks like you attempted a take off with ice on the wings as well?

Seeing as you have difficulty reading and comprehending what you are reading I am unable to explain it any more clearly.

Because all the ice (2 inches of clear ice vs a thin layer of frost) is treated the same way, you end up with pilots being test pilots. Even though they shouldn't. I'm not advocating pilots should take off with ice on the wings, I'm merely indicating that it happens. And if it happens, why not provide reliable data to decide how much is too much.

We already have the data, any amount is too much.

Operations in northern Canada without thorough research on icing and what kind of icing is acceptable, is criminal. It is unrealistic to expect a pilot in Northern Canada to never encounter icing in places where there is no deicing available. And sure, the response to that is "don't take off if there is ice on the wings". How many pilots will choose to overnight in a reserve because there are a few patches of frost on the wing? Would you? Where would you sleep?

once again I will attempt to lessen your ignorance of the subject you are posting about.

There are many ways to ensure a clean wing, one of which is using wing covers when there is a chance of frost, snow, ice accumulation while parked, we always used wing covers when needed, if no covers were available we cleaned the wings and tail of contamination before flight

Or make sure every northern airport has free deicing available 24/7 or don't fly up north during winter.

You need to learn and understand the subject before making such remarks because you are demonstrating complete ignorance of northern flying.
---------- ADS -----------

[Diadem]

And if it happens, why not provide reliable data to decide how much is too much.

Because it's not as simple as defining a cut-off point of thickness. Is the ice smooth or rough? Is it on the top of the wing or the leading edge? What if snow pellets fell on a wet wing and it all froze? What if it froze thicker in one area than another? Is this data going to be calculated for every aircraft in the country? Do we need to make adjustments based on the aircraft weight, since the angle of attack will be different? What tool are we going to use to measure ice or frost with a thickness of millimetres? Is the tool going to be mandatory for every pilot? Simply setting an arbitrary maximum thickness doesn't take into account all the tiny factors that affect whether the ice would be considered "safe". The safest option is to simply say that any amount must be removed, and eliminate the ambiguity.

[digits_]

The safest option is to simply say that any amount must be removed, and eliminate the ambiguity.

Absolutely, but that doesn't seem to work. Look at the results linked above, 74% of the surveyed pilots have witnessed planes take off with contamination. And none of those crashed. From that we can conclude 2 things: 1) some (undefined) amount of ice on the wings/plane is NOT deadly. At some point it will be, as proven, unfortunately, by multiple accidents. 2) Pilots, for whatever reason, do not consistently follow the rule to not take off with any ice.

The rule "any contamination is too much" is noble, but doesn't work and is factual incorrect. If you have a rule, and you know the majority of pilots/operators does not follow it because it is unrealistic for the area you operate in, should you then just blame the people who break the rule, or should you look for ways to improve the rule so it matches reality and it defines a safe way to operate the airplane.

Compare it to saying that you can't fly a broken plane. Sounds great and super safe. Untill you have a plane that is stuck in fort river mc reserve and the company asks you to fly it back. It's just a broken landing light, it's just one generator, it's a generator and a vacuum pump but on opposite engines, it's a fuel drip, it's ..... You can ground every plane for a broken reading light, or you can come up with a nuanced system that tells the pilot how much is too much. And that's exactly what happened: the MEL was born. Look up what the failure is, and operate the plane with restrictions, if any.

Now do the same with icing. Make a table, with a weight or performance penalty.

Ok, frost on the leading 10% of the wing: 500 LBS penalty. Frost on the whole wing: 2000 LBS penalty. Frost above the fuel tanks: XXXX etc. I'm sure the airplane designers can come up with some more additional rules. Hell, paint the wing in different colors: ice in the green zone = take off allowed with performance numbers of additional 2000 ft pressure altitudes, red = no go, orange = .... .
That would show the pilot just how bad the performance is degraded. But none of that research will ever happen or be funded if you stick to the "there is no such thing as a little ice" while you see planes take off with ice daily, but you feel safe, because you have a safe rule.

Did these ATR pilots try to crash the plane? I doubt it. Did they notice the ice before take-off? Probably. Did they think it wasn't an issue? Probably. Would they have still gone if ice in the orange zone would have been the equivalent of being 8000 lbs overweight? I doubt it.

[C.W.E.]

Didgits why don't you get into a position in government where you can present all your innovative ideas on aircraft contamination and push for changes to the rules and regulations?

Did these ATR pilots try to crash the plane? I doubt it. Did they notice the ice before take-off? Probably. Did they think it wasn't an issue? Probably. Would they have still gone if ice in the orange zone would have been the equivalent of being 8000 lbs overweight? I doubt it.

That would be an interesting defence in a lawsuit for sure.

If you get into government and think you have better ideas don't stop at airframe contamination move on into weather limitations and all up take off weight because everyone knows you can break the rules and fly outside the legal limits.

By the way how much experience do you have flying in all these scenarios?

[digits_]

Why does it matter how much experience I have in these scenario's and if I have flown a DC3 or not? It doesn't matter. I'm using the results of the TSB survey that said that 74% of pilots have seen airplanes take off with contamination. What would you conclude from that? That the current "any ice is too much" rule is working properly?

You yourself admitted to intentionally taking off with a little bit of ice on the wing. Did you think that was a bad idea? Why did you decide to do it anyway?

Would you still have done it if the manufacturer had info that showed a DC3 covered in XXX mm / inches / ... of ice has the performance of a plane that is twice the MTOW?

[C.W.E.]

Digits I will try and explain my opinion on flight safety as best I can.

Why does it matter how much experience I have in these scenario's

Because experience gives more credibility to ones opinion on a given subject.

the TSB survey that said that 74% of pilots have seen airplanes take off with contamination. What would you conclude from that? That the current "any ice is too much" rule is working properly?

I conclude from that that not much changes as time passes and pilots still break the rules and far to often have accidents because they did.

You yourself admitted to intentionally taking off with a little bit of ice on the wing. Did you think that was a bad idea? Why did you decide to do it anyway?

I made a poor decision at the time thinking that the frost was so thin that it would not have any significant effect on the flight, I was wrong and it reinforced my dedication to staying within the known rules of safety.

By the way it was very thin frost not ice.

Would you still have done it if the manufacturer had info that showed a DC3 covered in XXX mm / inches / ... of ice has the performance of a plane that is twice the MTOW?

The question does not have much merit as there are no such info given.

I can with certainly state that my adherence to safety is very evident from the fact I flew over thirty thousand accident and regulatory violation free hours during the over half a century I flew for a living.

Or do you think it was just good luck that I never had an accident?

[trey kule]

Digits...the danger is with pilots that think like you.

Yes, planes can take off with contaminated wings. But every time a pilot does it they are relying on luck. And there are just to many variables to produce “charts”

TC has a lot of regulations, that, in my opinion vary between siily, ludicrous, and common sensely challanged, but wing surface contamination is not one of them.

Just too many pilots, try it, get away with it, and then think they can do it again. Occasionally one of them gets unlucky and people die. Do you feel lucky? I am pretty sure your trusting pax would prefer you did not rely on luck.

I find it quite amusing when pilots with virtually zero experience carefully explain to me how it is ok to fly with ( SOME) wing contamination.

[C.W.E.]

trey kule » Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:08 pm

Digits...the danger is with pilots that think like you.

Yes, planes can take off with contaminated wings. But every time a pilot does it they are relying on luck. And there are just to many variables to produce “charts”

TC has a lot of regulations, that, in my opinion vary between siily, ludicrous, and common sensely challanged, but wing surface contamination is not one of them.

Just too many pilots, try it, get away with it, and then think they can do it again. Occasionally one of them gets unlucky and people die. Do you feel lucky? I am pretty sure your trusting pax would prefer you did not rely on luck.

I find it quite amusing when pilots with virtually zero experience carefully explain to me how it is ok to fly with ( SOME) wing contamination.

Back to you now digits.

[digits_]

Digits...the danger is with pilots that think like you.

Yes, planes can take off with contaminated wings. But every time a pilot does it they are relying on luck. And there are just to many variables to produce “charts”

TC has a lot of regulations, that, in my opinion vary between siily, ludicrous, and common sensely challanged, but wing surface contamination is not one of them.

Just too many pilots, try it, get away with it, and then think they can do it again. Occasionally one of them gets unlucky and people die. Do you feel lucky? I am pretty sure your trusting pax would prefer you did not rely on luck.

I find it quite amusing when pilots with virtually zero experience carefully explain to me how it is ok to fly with ( SOME) wing contamination.

I'm not advocating flying with contaminated wings. I want pilots to know what the consequences are of flying with contaminated wings. The current rule and annual training heavily implies you'll die if you take off with even a whiff of ice. That is simply not true. And then you look at the stats: 74% of pilots sees airplanes take off with contamination on the wing. Is that an indication that the current policies are working? No, not at all.

And then you start thinking: why is it not working?
Company pressure, not wanting to be stuck in a crappy reserve, costs considerations etc etc. And that's all true. But the main reason is that pilots do not believe anything bad will happen if they take off with contaminated wings. If taking off with contaminated wings truly meant certain death, nobody would do it. Pilots, incorrectly, feel safe with a bit of ice, because the plane has lots of power, people have done it before etc etc.

The solution is to convince pilots that taking off with even a little bit of contamination is a significant problem. How can you achieve that? By showing them charts and data that tells you exactly how bad of an idea it is. How much performance you are losing by taking off with even 10% of the wing covered in frost.

You could summarize the current policy as scaring pilots into not flying with contaminated wings. That is a bad motivator. Properly educate people so they understand how ice screws up the plane. It's nice to know a plane covered in ice can lose up to 40% of lift and get an additional 60% of drag, or whatever the number of the month is. But that's now what kills pilots. It's the "hmm my wing is covered with frost over the fuel tanks, and there are some chuncks of ice on the leading edge" and then the next day it's something else, a bit more ice. And you always get more and more comfortable in taking on more ice. Because nobody knows how much is too much. And if you look in the books, it's "any ice is too much", which you, and 74% of the pilot population have already disproved.

If you can't guarantee pilots the oppportunity for a proper deice, then give them correct information. Have manufacturers do the tests. Figure out how much is too much, and show that you really shouldn't be taking off with contamination.

[C.W.E.]

This has to be one of the most weird discussions ever to be on avcanada.

And to make it even worse I have been willing to help keep it going with the hope it will get better.

Anyhow digits I tried to get you to realise the subject of aircraft contamination has been well understood long before any of us became pilots.

Just one more question digits before I quit.

If one of your family were killed by a crew who knowingly took off with contaminated wings would you sue them for negligence ?

[digits_]

Anyhow digits I tried to get you to realise the subject of aircraft contamination has been well understood long before any of us became pilots.

And yet you willingly took off with a contaminated aircraft. That means somewhere the information of the danger of contamination does not get transferred properly.

If one of your family were killed by a crew who knowingly took off with contaminated wings would you sue them for negligence ?

It would depend on the lawyers and circumstances of course. But for the sake of argument, hypothetically, I'd probably go after the operator, and if the crew gets sucked into that, so be it.

[C-GGGQ]

By showing them charts and data that tells you exactly how bad of an idea it is. How much performance you are losing by taking off with even 10% of the wing covered in frost.

It's nice to know a plane covered in ice can lose up to 40% of lift and get an additional 60% of drag, or whatever the number of the month is. But that's now what kills pilots. It's the "hmm my wing is covered with frost over the fuel tanks, and there are some chuncks of ice on the leading edge" and then the next day it's something else, a bit more ice. And you always get more and more comfortable in taking on more ice. Because nobody knows how much is too much. And if you look in the books, it's "any ice is too much", which you, and 74% of the pilot population have already disproved.

If you can't guarantee pilots the oppportunity for a proper deice, then give them correct information. Have manufacturers do the tests. Figure out how much is too much, and show that you really shouldn't be taking off with contamination.

You ask for charts and research. The research was done. You even mention the numbers learned. 40% reduction in lift 30% increase in drag etc. So what else do you want? Figure out how much is too much? According to the knumbers above, any frost more than an 1/8th of an inch. So basically any at all. Hense the rule "no contamination is safe" safe doesn't mean "able to take off" you can as mentioned before take off a bit overweight.. in the right conditions. But it's still not safe.
You don't need to guarantee pilots the opportunity for a proper de-ice or even tell them "what tiny amount is acceptable" the whole point is none is acceptable (not possible but acceptable) don't fly. The fact that people break rules means nothing. Bring down the fricken hammer on anyone caught. Permanent loss of license.

[C.W.E.]

t would depend on the lawyers and circumstances of course. But for the sake of argument, hypothetically, I'd probably go after the operator, and if the crew gets sucked into that, so be it.

Now I really feel foolish, I thought I was discussing this with someone who is a pilot and understands the subject.

Oh well I tried.

[shimmydampner]

Digits, I get what you're saying but you're not really thinking it out to it's logical conclusion. If, as you are pointing out, flight crews are already crossing the line in terms of what is legal, the answer is not to simply move the line. The best course of option in terms of safety and liability is zero tolerance. But the flight crews need to be given the tools to ensure that that is achievable. Unfortunately that would be very expensive, whereas operators can send the crews out into less than ideal situations and saddled with all the liability. It's a win win for operators if they're never held to account AND don't have to fork out to provide the necessary infrastructure.

[Diadem]

The current rule and annual training heavily implies you'll die if you take off with even a whiff of ice. That is simply not true.

I don't think that's the case at all, and if that's your interpretation then I think you're misunderstanding it. Everything I've seen from the regulator and my training departments is that the effects of icing can't accurately be known. That might mean the plane flies, or it might mean the plane crashes, but you won't find that out until you're in the air. The point of removing all contamination is that you're returning the aircraft to a known configuration with known performance. If people are flying with contamination, they're test pilots, just the same as if they exceed the limitations of the aircraft; the aircraft might fly just fine, but when lives are at stake is it worth chancing?

[digits_]

You ask for charts and research. The research was done. You even mention the numbers learned. 40% reduction in lift 30% increase in drag etc. So what else do you want? Figure out how much is too much?

That is for a generic airplane with a certain amount of ice on it. I hope you'll agree that a plane with some light frost on top of the fuel tanks will behave differently than a plane that spent a night in freezing rain and has an inch of ice everywhere.

And yes, exactly, I want to show pilots how ice affects the plane in their specific situation. I truly believe that if you could show pilots in an easy to understand figure (for example by comparing it to weight penalties) what the expected performance hit is, that the amount of pilots taking off contaminated would be reduced drastically.

Even the 40%/30% is a bit abstract. How does that affect the airplane, what known performance penalty can I compare that to? It sounds bad, but no idea if it actually is that critical.

According to the knumbers above, any frost more than an 1/8th of an inch.

Does that mean that less than 1/8th of an inch is ok then? That's not a rhetorical question to annoy you, it is really a question I would like to get answered.

The fact that people break rules means nothing. Bring down the fricken hammer on anyone caught. Permanent loss of license.

Respectfully, I disagree. If 74% gets caught breaking a rule, maybe there is something wrong with the rule or how it is enforced.

The dryden crash happend in 1989. That's 30 years ago, and people are still flying with contaminated wings. You can preach that they have to follow the rules, and you'd be right. Or you could try to alter the way you approach the subject and try to raise more awareness (what I'm suggesting), or you could make deicing more accessible (what TSB is suggestion), or maybe something else. But other than the "any ice is too much and don't even dare to talk about researching it" reply from some posters here, haven't heard any other suggestions. I don't think that "keep doing what you're doing" is a good attitude in this case.