Why isn't de-icing a requirement for clearance?

[michal 44]

> but you>couldn't legally land back down at the airport if you had a>problem.John,Check again the refs. There is no such thing as "illegal landing" due to bad weather when you fly Part 91. This is what distinguishes Part 91 from other operations. For others it may be illegal to even attempt to approach/land but for part 91 it is perfectly legal to try an approach and whether you miss or not it is another story. You can be very lucky and get a sudden break in the fog and all is perfectly legal (for part 91).Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[CF104 0]

>Correct, the only fact is that we know they refused de-icing,>as to whether icing is to blame, we don't know. I do believe>the interest in why a pilot would refuse de-icing is valid>enough for a discussion though. So I hope this discussion>focuses on his question of "Why isn't de-icing a requirement>for clearance?" and doesn't go on to discuss the incident>since it has no bearing on answering his question. It's a good>learning experience for those in aviation and those looking>into aviation in the real world to gain some incite into the>regulatory and non-regulatory forces that affect a pilot's>decision to make or refuse a flight. If it stays in those>realms, I feel this will be a great topic.>>---------------------------------------------------------------->John S. Morgan>Real World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private>130+ hrs.Hello John,Actually we don't know that the Captain 'refused' de-icing. Was the Captain offered de-icing in the first place? Myself, as a ground engineer properly trained in aircraft anti-icing and de-icing, am able to dictate to the aircrew whether they de-ice or not based on conditions and experience. The aircraft Captain cannot overide this decision.De/Anti-icing is not manditory for clearance due to several factors. Lets say you have an aircraft in a hangar that is warm and then moved outside into a snow storm with temperatures well into freezing (cold dry snow). Needless to say, you will have to deice this aircraft before departure as the snow will melt and then freeze on the warm aircraft. In the same storm, you have an aircraft land that has been cruising at high altitudes and is cold soaked. After landing, it is very cold and is refueled with a fuel truck that is similarily cold. The dry snow will not adhere to the cold aircraft and on a short turn the best decision would be to sweep the aircraft of the dry snow as adding warm de-ice fluid in this situation would make things worse. There are several more examples but in the end de/anti-icing training is manditory (at least in Canada) for aircrew as well as maintenance and is taken very seriously.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 and Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanic

[AlaskanFlyboy 7]

Under Part 91, you may not land if flight visibility below the minimums, but you sure may attempt the approach. However, if you takeoff in thick fog below the flight visibility requirements that you'd need to land back at the airport, you're S.O.L. I would not personally take off in bad weather if I felt I could not legally land back at the airport if I had to. There isn't a maximum number of missed approaches either, but the common rule at our flight school and most others is 3 attempts then go to your alternate, or divert if you hadn't filed one. Otherwise some are tempted to continue trying to approach hoping each time maybe they'll break through and possible run themselves too low to make an alternate airport.----------------------------------------------------------------John S. MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private 130+ hrs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

[michal 44]

>Under Part 91, you may not land if flight visibility below>the minimums, but you sure may attempt the approach.John,Don't you realize the above sentence is utterly meaningless? If I may attempt approach and if upon reaching either MDA or DH I can see the runway then I may land. There is no such thing as "allowed to approach" but "not allowed to land".Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

MichaelOver here in Europe it is illegal to even attempt an approach if the RVR is below the published minima.Infact i know of a pilot who took an approach in a N reg aircraft where the RVR was given as 200 metres in the UK.This was a privately owned twin and he decided to have a look as there was a pool of fog over the airfield but all around there was 30k vis.On coming onto final approach he realised the the touchdown area of the runway and numbers was now sticking out of the fog and in clear air so he continued to a visual landing.After touching down the aircraft soon entered the fog part of the runway.The departure RVR minima was quoted as 200 metres so his roll out in the 200 metre vis section had vis acceptable for ground operations.He was fined the equivalent of $ 3000 by the CAA I think the regs say that once on the approach if the RVR drops to below minima you can continue the approach but you cannot commence an approach if the RVR is reported as below minima at the start.Obviously this was an FAA aircraft in a foreign state and as such the rules of that state predominate.Here RVR is limiting cloudbase is not.Peter

[michal 44]

>Over here in Europe it is illegal to even attempt an approach>if the RVR is below the published minima.Yeah, in the US there is similar limitation but it only applies to Part 121 and 135 - in other words air taxi, charters, for hire and airline operations. I don't think it even apllies to fractional jets which at this moment (unless something changed recently) are flying according to Part 91.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

JohnI have made departures in fog but always do so with various conditions in mind.Firstly I would not consider such an action in a single and question the sensibility of singles in any operation where an engine failure would not allow sufficient vis and cloudbase to manouvre for a visual forced landing.Second I would not do such a departure in any twin which could not give 400 fpm climb on one engine or was at an airfield surrounded by high ground.So if it was a lighter twin I would not go unless the twin was below grosse weight and in cold air.Third I would only depart if there was an alternative which was clear within 60 nm of my departure.In such a departure you have to accept that you are not coming back if there is a problem. Going somewhere else is often the better option even if the conditions would allow A minima ILS return.The other point to consider with an engine failure in a light twin is whether the aircraft can meet the required missed approach profiles to safely fly round to an ILS without hitting terrain?Peter

[Guest Staggerwing]

Just some thoughts to add to the mix here..In this case WHAT clearance ?? Radar view and radio out of Denver ?Went to look at info on this facility when I heard the TV news of the crash (as I do most times)I see the shotest RWY is about 7500ft and the longest at 10,000, first thought I had was, seems long enough to stop after aborting a takeoff for whatever reason. (agreed there are many variables to consider)What's the normal takoff roll for the Bombardier Challenger CL-602 at their weight and airport altitude (5,759 ft)? Can't seem to find much info on that aircraft..Also, I see even though they have two major passenger airlines fly in and out of KMTJ (one full time and one added in summer) they operate with only a UNICOM radio freq and have no control tower. My thoughts on de-icing of private aircraft at KMTJ (agreed it's the pilot in command that has the responsibility) wouldn't you have to arrange and pay for such a service BEFORE you even taxied out in the case of just a layover at such an airport?I mean, without a tower or ground freq to call for last minute de-icing and most likely without an account with the airport to charge it to... how would it work ? Sounds like they DO keep de-icing equipment there.. is it a private business you need to call? I'd think that any of these airports up high in CO would require this equipment for full operation.. No answers... just questions.

[Guest tallpilot]

Hello Peter,I don't know what your feelings are, but I can't help but wonder how much the passengers/customers desires (pressure) had on the Pilot In Commands actions that led to an accident. As an example the overloaded plane in the Islands with the female Pop Singer. The Sen. Wellstone crash during a vor appr during icing condition when 15 miles away was another airport with a longer runway and a full ILS. Now the Ebersol crash and the list goes on. I've always tried to teach the new Captains that I was training that the ultimate decisions that need to be made are theirs alone. Cockpit resourse management means you get all the information you can from all sources available to you, but the final decision or course of action is yours and that outside pressures such as scheduling requirements,passenger demands or people on the ground that don't know your situation as well as you do should not be allowed to affect those decisions.Regards,Ed Weber a.k.a. tallpilot

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

EdProbably part of the problem is that people use corporate aircraft because they do go into places where the scheduled airliners do not go.This entails a certain amount of "creative flying" and often involves light twins which operate down in the worst weather unlike the Citation Bravo which I am currently flying.This is different to leasure flying where you look out of the window and go back to sleep if the weather isnt what you want it to be.This type of flying involves getting up in the dark to pouring rain and knowing you have to be somewhere in Scotland by 8 am in the middle of winter.The best way to loose a customer is to scare the hell out of them.Whether its a light twin or a larger aircraft the aim is to make the flight as comfortable, smooth and efficient as possible meeting the schedules on the dot.That is the satisfaction. There is a self induced pressure not to show up the service as "time to spare go by air" as that rather detroys the whole object of corporate travel and the quickest way of loosing customers.On the flip side I feel there is a terrific responsability to the people you carry and they deserve to have as safe a trip as possible.Therefore the captain is always waying up all the odds and uses all his previous experience.There are times when all the pieces dont add up and an alarm bell rings risk.That is the time to say NO.Flying is all about risk management. I could theoretically takeoff in my two year old all bells and whistles Citation Bravo into a 200 foot overcast and take a pair of geese running from the Christmas dinner table into each engine.Unlikey but the risk is there. I am sure you remember the Graham Hill crash years ago where the pilot was open to get home itis and attempted to land at his home airfield in Fog.He mistook a line of traffic lights and crashed killing all on board.Yet only a few miles away was a clear airport.We are aware of our vulnerability and like to feel that any crash was an accident waiting to happen which wouldnt occur to us.I have lost four friends in aviation of those one was an ex Fawklands war navigator and the other early this year a very close friend and examiner with 18000 hours, a lot of Atlantic ferry work. He was a guy who could smell the ice in clouds and had flown to every corner of the globe yet he was killed in a Cessna 310 only a handful of miles from his home airfield.When such an accident happens to someone you so admire and respect it really makes you think.Peter

[Guest jrewing]

This particular aircraft was being operated under Part 135, so it was indeed subject to all the regulations for departure minimums and airframe deicing. It's too early to tell, but from reading the preliminary NTSB report, it doesn't sound like the primary cause of the accident was due to airframe icing. It sounds to me like an engine problem may have developed prior to V1, the plane got sideways on the runway, and the pilot elected to abort the takeoff.The preliminary report can be read at:http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...203X01919&key=1Again, it's too early in the investigation to come to any conclusions ...John

[michal 44]

>and the pilot elected to abort the takeoff.From the older Ebersol's son who survived the crash and claims to remember every single detail the airplane did become airborne for a very short time. But I agree we have to wait for more solid information.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[michal 44]

>>Flying is all about risk management. Very true Peter. Some in the US argue that current pilot's training curriculum is flawed and doesn't teach "risk management". FLYING magazine had some excellent articles on the subject.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

EdI am going to use typical example of the decisions and thought patterns involved in a flight a made a few years ago.I had been asked by the owner company to as an emergency collect a director off a fishing holiday on the other side of Ireland.He was needed to vote on an emergency motion which was being held that day.I was told that I was picking up this director, his wife and son.His wife was a nervous passenger and didnt like the idea of single pilot so as the Seneca five only required one pilot I asked a PPL friend if he wanted to come along for the ride.For practical purposes he was simply baggage and baggage that was carrying excess pounds in overindulgence :-)We arrived in Knock and I asked for the aircraft to be refueled to make the destination in one hop.I had a mental picture of this family. A man of maybe 170 ibs his wife at maybe 120 ibs and his young son at maybe 110 ibs plus the usual luggage.The plane was refuelled and we awaited our passengers. I was met by the site of a trolley loaded to five feet in hight with huge cases and an abundance of Salmon wrapped in polythene bags.From behind the load stepped a huge man maybe 240 ibs in weight. Along the isle trundled an almost equally huge woman of maybe 200 ibs and following her a son who far from being a young lad probably equalled 180 ibs himself :-(I had no time to offload fuel which would have required a refuel stop and would have meant this director would miss the meeting.The woman refused offers of my PPL friend remaining and catching a flight back and I was faced with an angry stare at the thought of leaving ANY of their luggage behind.Then the little devil on my shoulder started talking. "Ferry Pilots often takeoff way over grosse, Runway is huge, weather is good, C of G well in".The saint on my shoulder " but what if you have an engine failure you will have one place to go and thats down".I was up against a brick wall what would you do? in such a situation.I was taught to never do anything in aviation where you do not have an out.Never do anything where you do not at least have another exit to take.If you rely totally on one exit and that closes you are indeed in big trouble.A fog takeoff in a good performance twin with a clear alternative 25 miles away and good VFR above the fog 50- 500 feet agl is an acceptable risk as you have an out or an alternative plan in mind.Takeoff in fog or a very low cloudbase and poor vis in a single puts you in a no out situation should that engine go bang at 300 feet imc with no forward vis to make a visual forced landing.Icing at 10,000 feet is acceptable if you know that you are over low ground and a quick dart down to 5000 feet will have it all melt off.Icing is not acceptable if you know that you are going to carry it all the way down to ground level.So always having an out and preferably a number of them is the guiding force in my risk management.Peter

[Guest tallpilot]

Hi Peter,What I would have done and what I have done when I flew corporate charter is to explane to the customer/passengers that to fly this trip SAFELY and be able to get them where they are going I (the responsable person for this flight) must offload or restricted the load to be caried to the maximum allowed by conditions. (Runway length, pressure altitude, weather, etc) If it means that a customer is going to be mad and maybe complain to the boss, so be it. I'd rather be alive and have to explain my actions to the boss than cause an accident by my error in judgement. In over 38 years of flying I've never had a Company that I flew for or a boss "chew me out" for the decsions that I've had to make as a PIC. Risk management is fine if you always risk on the conservative side. "Pushing the envelope is fine for test pilots, but it has no place in flying when you are responsable for passengers.I hope I don't sound like some OLD pompous pilot. :-)But I think this is one area of flight training for new pilots that is lacking here in the US and if discussing it here gets some of the newer pilots thinking about it, thats good.Take care,Ed Weber a.k.a tallpilot