Westwind

[bobcaygeon]

The ATR has been known to have flame outs if residual ice/snow has built up in the intake and the deicing system is turned on (there's a "boot" in the nacelle). The ice, etc blocks the airflow into the engine hence the flame-out.
A double flame-out has occurred in Canada but they were lucky and were taxiing for departure when it happened.

Air Nova had something similar happen in a Dash 8 and now the bottom of the Dash 8 intake has a piece of metal (almost looks like a small wing fence) to ensure the ice can't build into large enough pieces to block the airflow into the engine. In that case the nacelle had filled with snow and then someone put the intake plugs in. It's a pita to check if there's ice in there (stick your hand/arm into the bypass door).

[valleyboy]

Well speculation will always be here and how a dc3 got into this but I will give you a speculation of my own. The dc3 incident in YPL was not because of ice. The surfaces were clean. I have my own theory after looking at talking to a few people and ice did not cause that accident. How is that for speculation and as far as the ATR passengers are claiming power lose in one engine then the other - so carry on!

[Cat Driver]

Was there too much air in the fuel tanks?

[AWOS]

Hmmm...There seems to be a trend in the comments here that proper deicing equipment and support isn't readily available at Northern stations.

[Ypilot]

Hmmm...There seems to be a trend in the comments here that proper deicing equipment and support isn't readily available at Northern stations.

Except the gallon of "warm" glycol and a ladder, no not much. Maybe TC inspectors can get some budget from the government and fly up there by using the CAE sim and come and check it out.

[Maynard]

Well speculation will always be here and how a dc3 got into this but I will give you a speculation of my own. The dc3 incident in YPL was not because of ice. The surfaces were clean. I have my own theory after looking at talking to a few people and ice did not cause that accident. How is that for speculation and as far as the ATR passengers are claiming power lose in one engine then the other - so carry on!

Ok sorry it was ice on the dc3 it was frost. Dc3s done crash land under GTOW with 2 operating engines.

[Zaibatsu]

Ziabatsu, Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not but it’s attitudes like that why we have planes crash. And there’s no point in having proper de icing facilities for fools who take off in FZRA.

Your unsubstantiated statement is an insult to the intelligence, experience, and complex considerations pilots without anti-icing facilities carefully consider with their experience with the aircraft's performance and characteristics in these conditions. If you are not experienced in living and working in Canada's remote North for a long period of time, there is little point on commenting on things you know nothing about.

Oh.... my bad. I’m soooo sorry that I somehow insulted the sky gods who fly up in the far and remote north.

It’s really magical how things are sooo much more difficult on a remote airstrip with no facilities in the Arctic archipelago than it is on a remote airstrip south of 60 with no facilities. It’s also sure mindblisteringly amazing how a thin layer of hoar frost is so much more difficult to remove than wet heavy snow or thick ice when you have no de ice equipment, so it’s ok to skip out on removing that frost.

I’m not saying the plane won’t fly with a little ice. I’m just saying it’s really really stupid and unprofessional. And every so often, as the normalization of deviance is allowed to increase or a new type is introduced, people pay for that stupidity with their lives.

[Cat Driver]

Ziabatsu, this is the internet and almost every discussion gets off the rails either by accident or by someone with their own ideas.

When you make any comment here someone just may jump all over you and make it look like your opinion is flawed.

A good example here is the discussion on wing contamination.

There are several different ways wings get contaminated and when I was commenting on the subject I was referring to contamination on the top of the airplane from being parked in conditions where contamination can occur.

I see swordfish is all wound up about my comments on wing contamination.

So once again here is my opinion on it.

The most public example of what can happen when a pilot knowingly decides to fly with contaminated wings is the Dryden crash in 1989, George was a good friend of mine and I was really sad when I read about his decision to fly because it was not something he would normally do, however he did and the rest is history.

Now fast forward to today and the comments swordfish made about contamination and my thoughts on the subject.

Here is his comment.

Did they teach you in surface contamination and airborne icing that "there's no such thing as a little ice"? They don't have a clue and are totally fucked up.

I go with " The clean wing concept. "

That way I will not crash because the wings were contaminated.

Now to some pilots I may look like I don't have enough experience to know how much contamination I can fly with and that makes me inferior to them because they have far north experience and are real pilots.

So I guess I am not a real pilot......

......but I am alive and still accident free since I learned to fly in 1953.

Now back to the regular gong show these discussions sometimes become.

[Zaibatsu]

I like your signatures, Cat.

I’ve never had my decision to de ice questioned. I’ve had passengers thank me after delaying the flight to ensure the plane was clean. I’ve never been disciplined for cancelling a trip because there was forecast ground icing, or forecast airborne icing going into a place below freezing with no way to remove it.

And indeed, I’ve been stuck waiting for hours or overnight for weather to pass or outside on top of a cube van or ladder brooming and scraping ice and snow off while the client waits.

It is indeed the hardest part of flying, knowing when to say no... but likewise nobody ever died because of my decision not to.

[Gannet167]

Ziabatsu, this is the internet and almost every discussion gets off the rails either by accident or by someone with their own ideas.

When you make any comment here someone just may jump all over you and make it look like your opinion is flawed.

A good example here is the discussion on wing contamination.

There are several different ways wings get contaminated and when I was commenting on the subject I was referring to contamination on the top of the airplane from being parked in conditions where contamination can occur.

I see swordfish is all wound up about my comments on wing contamination.

So once again here is my opinion on it.

The most public example of what can happen when a pilot knowingly decides to fly with contaminated wings is the Dryden crash in 1989, George was a good friend of mine and I was really sad when I read about his decision to fly because it was not something he would normally do, however he did and the rest is history.

Now fast forward to today and the comments swordfish made about contamination and my thoughts on the subject.

Here is his comment.

Did they teach you in surface contamination and airborne icing that "there's no such thing as a little ice"? They don't have a clue and are totally fucked up.

I go with " The clean wing concept. "

That way I will not crash because the wings were contaminated.

Now to some pilots I may look like I don't have enough experience to know how much contamination I can fly with and that makes me inferior to them because they have far north experience and are real pilots.

So I guess I am not a real pilot......

......but I am alive and still accident free since I learned to fly in 1953.

Now back to the regular gong show these discussions sometimes become.

This.

[AWOS]

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/at-least-8 ... -1.3723411

[plhought]

10398923_517158733797_9999_n.jpg (31.85 KiB) Viewed 4657 times

Unit on right completely mobile with a regular pintle hitch. Works best with a quad. Features heated holding tank for type 1 solution along with a combo Hotsy gasoline/kerosene heater and pressure washer for spray application. Fully OH&S compliant (with some mods to top deck not in this early picture). Worked great back in the day. Not sure if still used today.

1909983_508838083447_2991_n.jpg (65.66 KiB) Viewed 4657 times

Fits in a Dash 8 and can be assembled on site with 4-5 guys. Probably would fit even easier in a ATR. No reason for operators to whine about expense of hauling complete de-ice equipment, and trying to get away with sketchy tall stairs and garden-sprayers on the 705 aircraft.

Companies need to put the effort and brain-power to change the sketchy minimal facilities in these remote communities.

[pelmet]

The ATR has been known to have flame outs if residual ice/snow has built up in the intake and the deicing system is turned on (there's a "boot" in the nacelle). The ice, etc blocks the airflow into the engine hence the flame-out.
A double flame-out has occurred in Canada but they were lucky and were taxiing for departure when it happened.

Air Nova had something similar happen in a Dash 8 and now the bottom of the Dash 8 intake has a piece of metal (almost looks like a small wing fence) to ensure the ice can't build into large enough pieces to block the airflow into the engine. In that case the nacelle had filled with snow and then someone put the intake plugs in. It's a pita to check if there's ice in there (stick your hand/arm into the bypass door).

I remember reading the Air Nova report. One of the engines re-lit because of the ignition setting. I did check the inlets of the PW100 on rare occasion because of this. It isn't particularly easy. Seem to remember seeing some minor pieces of ice attached in the throat of the inlet but no chunks on the bottom of the inlet. Something to consider looking at whenever there has been blowing wet snow/freezing rain, etc and the aircraft has been out for a while. Even if there were plugs installed, it may be a good idea to check as the Air Nova plugs blew out and then were re-installed some time later without the pilots knowing about that. Its called...a bit of paranoia.

[valleyboy]

Ok sorry it was ice on the dc3 it was frost. Dc3s done crash land under GTOW with 2 operating engines.

-- ah but they do -- as the boys on the south pole ice ???

It was not ice or frost in my opinion. The report from TSB ice was concluded because they found nothing else. Their findings were from elimination and not actual evidence. I was actually contacted by the TSB and they had nothing. They were even considering wind shear, which was likely closer than contaminated wings. I have my theories but like the TSB I can't prove them so they remain my own. I do know for a fact though the aircraft was clean.

Sorry for the drift but it seems the icing has become the ugly monster in the room. There are so many factors there is a possibility it wasn't icing at all or it was a minor contributing factor to a greater problem.

Absolutely icing and contaminated wings are bad but you also need to know your aircraft. The last few days we have been carrying visible rim ice, I've had it on the aircraft for 3 days but it has no effect on performance but you can see it and it's too damn cold to get rid of it. Spray it and you are below your fluid temperatures which would likely be a bigger contaminant than a trace of rime ice but ask most pilots and they would either not go flying or spray and go flying with congealed glycol on their aircraft and thinking they were clean wing -- While TC wants to eliminate all thought process from the flight deck that blind thinking might just hurt you some day.

[Victory]

The first thing they would do is get out on that lake and clean the frost off the wings though before the feds showed up.

[Donald]

Interesting hypothesis posted on PPRUNE, I'm also not an ATR pilot so I can't comment on the validity:

Don't fly ATR myself...

Sounds very like the shorts crash out of Edinburgh.

The crew turned on the engine heaters and opened the separator doors both together. Which caused a huge lumps of ice to go through both engines, both at the same time causing flame out together.

Don't know what the penalty is for icing on departure on the ATR but hey could have gone for icing off then turned it on as the gear came up.

Seems there is a rather large group of pilots that think this is acceptable not realising that the icing performance is required if your going to be in it before the end of the third phase.

If there is ice formed in the bottom of the intake and forms a lump and you put the heaters on, that just melts what is attaching it to the bottom and the whole lot lifts up and blocks the compressor.

I was always taught with engine controls to operate anti-ice or de-ice individually and wait to see what the effect was and then do the other engine.

We shall see what the investigation turns out

[GyvAir]

The first thing they would do is get out on that lake and clean the frost off the wings though before the feds showed up.

Of course, as there would be no audience at all for a plane, freshly gear up on the lake, a mile off a busy airport...

[oldncold]

? Balanced field length atr 42.300 -6'c. Gravel / compacted snow.

? Passengers said engines cut out. Would a well qualified crew do an. Emergency engine shut down once they realized the plane was going down to prevent a fire in the post impact .

Was the runway contaimated to the point that it affected the acceleration. And crew yarded it into the sky early because

[oldncold]

They didn't have sufficient room to stop at close to or at V1
? Exp of crew was it a green on green

? The wing of the atr is a laminar flow. So since ppl learned that laminar flow wings are super sensitive to any kind of contamination be it insects or ice that leaves this? How long was the turnaround on the ground. And was crew feeling ops pressure to get the plane out of there otherwise get lambasted if the y had to fly anonther

[oldncold]

Sorry about disjointed posts phone cutting in and out. Fly another plane up to get it deiced Just trying to get the thread back on track and ask intelligent questions so may learn useful info. That's all.

[dogfood]

Ok sorry it was ice on the dc3 it was frost. Dc3s done crash land under GTOW with 2 operating engines.

-- ah but they do -- as the boys on the south pole ice ???

It was not ice or frost in my opinion. The report from TSB ice was concluded because they found nothing else. Their findings were from elimination and not actual evidence. I was actually contacted by the TSB and they had nothing. They were even considering wind shear, which was likely closer than contaminated wings. I have my theories but like the TSB I can't prove them so they remain my own. I do know for a fact though the aircraft was clean.

Sorry for the drift but it seems the icing has become the ugly monster in the room. There are so many factors there is a possibility it wasn't icing at all or it was a minor contributing factor to a greater problem.

Absolutely icing and contaminated wings are bad but you also need to know your aircraft. The last few days we have been carrying visible rim ice, I've had it on the aircraft for 3 days but it has no effect on performance but you can see it and it's too damn cold to get rid of it. Spray it and you are below your fluid temperatures which would likely be a bigger contaminant than a trace of rime ice but ask most pilots and they would either not go flying or spray and go flying with congealed glycol on their aircraft and thinking they were clean wing -- While TC wants to eliminate all thought process from the flight deck that blind thinking might just hurt you some day.

Im curious now you mentioned you have your theory a couple times now.. care to share??

[Victory]

Of course, as there would be no audience at all for a plane, freshly gear up on the lake, a mile off a busy airport...

But the visibility was 1/2 mile

[valleyboy]

And you wonder why I don't elaborate - look at the stupid comments. I'm sure after sliding one in you would be thinking like that. This is one place where rational dialogue does not survive but the entertainment values is priceless.

Back to the thread my support is totally behind the crew. None of us should have to deal with a major accident. I have seen this too many times and while the silver lining here is no loss of life the impact on everyone is there for the rest of their lives.

I think a better study in this is why do pilots react the way they do to the misfortune of a brother in arms. Could it be that we as a group need a fuk up and someone to blame because the fear of a situation where there is no possible way to deal with it scares the hell out of us. We like to be in control and when you are not it's a pilot's worst nightmare.

[rookiepilot]

And you wonder why I don't elaborate - look at the stupid comments. I'm sure after sliding one in you would be thinking like that. This is one place where rational dialogue does not survive but the entertainment values is priceless.

Back to the thread my support is totally behind the crew. None of us should have to deal with a major accident. I have seen this too many times and while the silver lining here is no loss of life the impact on everyone is there for the rest of their lives.

I think a better study in this is why do pilots react the way they do to the misfortune of a brother in arms. Could it be that we as a group need a fuk up and someone to blame because the fear of a situation where there is no possible way to deal with it scares the hell out of us. We like to be in control and when you are not it's a pilot's worst nightmare.

Wisdom.

[Cat Driver]

There are basically two types of accidents.

(1) Preventable:

The accident was caused by poor decision making or poor airplane handling skills by the crew.

(2) Not preventable:

The accident was caused by something beyond the control of the crew such as mechanical or structural failure.

The want to know impulse of pilots is a natural response.

On the other hand we can just play Ostrich and wait for years for the TSB to issue their report.

And the chances are we will be no closer to knowing the true cause than the day it happened.