Have you flown a DC3?And ice on the wings IS a big danger, but a small amount is not.
I can assure you even a trace of ice/frost contamination on the top of the wings is super dangerous on a DC3.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Have you flown a DC3?And ice on the wings IS a big danger, but a small amount is not.
Yep.
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?Ok, great, and that is exactly why research is necessary.
There are many, many dead pilots that died because they attempted flight with contaminated wings one dead pilot is to many.If trace ice on a wing was deadly on all planes, 95% of the pilots in Canada would be dead. Ergo, it isn't.
Seeing as you have difficulty reading and comprehending what you are reading I am unable to explain it any more clearly.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.
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.
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.
That would be an interesting defence in a lawsuit for sure.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.
Because experience gives more credibility to ones opinion on a given subject.Why does it matter how much experience I have in these scenario's
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.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 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.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?
The question does not have much merit as there are no such info given.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?
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.
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.trey kule wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:08 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.
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.
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.
digits_ wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:37 pm 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.
Now I really feel foolish, I thought I was discussing this with someone who is a pilot and understands the subject.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.
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?
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.
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.
Respectfully, I disagree. If 74% gets caught breaking a rule, maybe there is something wrong with the rule or how it is enforced.