To the crew of WJA659 Feb 23/2009

[tonysoprano]

A Post Deice Inspection is not required after each spray. We only do one if the spray was done by one truck only, when overseas or when the hold over time has expired and there is no precip. I'm sure WJ is similar.The issue here is not when to do one, to spray or not, but rather the fact that non qualified people feel they are qualified to give an opinion on the status of the contamination. Someone should politely tell her that's not her job. Unless of course she really is allowed. Yikes.

[The Raven]

Further to double-j's quote of:

"I know as a Captain at said company I or my partner can check from the flight deck if the fluid is starting to fail."

From my company's operation manual:

"Testing has revealed that first failure occurs on the leading or trailing edges and in a few instances, at the wing tip. On aircraft with leading edge devices, first failure occurred on athe leading and trailing edges of the wing".

I don't think you can see the trailing edge of the wing on the 737 from the flight deck. If you can, you have better vision than me.

[double-j]

Further to double-j's quote of:

"I know as a Captain at said company I or my partner can check from the flight deck if the fluid is starting to fail."

From my company's operation manual:

"Testing has revealed that first failure occurs on the leading or trailing edges and in a few instances, at the wing tip. On aircraft with leading edge devices, first failure occurred on athe leading and trailing edges of the wing".

I don't think you can see the trailing edge of the wing on the 737 from the flight deck. If you can, you have better vision than me.

Are you telling me you cannot see the slats when you open the flight deck window? As you mentioned, the leading edges are one of the first areas to fail. I get a real charge out of guys who come out here boasting about their company while belittleing others. It never ceases to amaze me how someone can judge my safety attitude. As I mentioned earlier, If I have ANY doubt, I or my partner will go back and look at the leading edge and flaps..simple really.

FWIW, I always do a pre departure inspection regardless of a holdover time being exceeded.

[double-j]

But it shouldn't suprise me, Ravens past posts are negative to all but AC. I suppose you always check the trailing edge, even if there is no evidence that the fluid is failing?

[The Raven]

double-j,

You said, "I know as a Captain at said company I or my partner can check from the flight deck if the fluid is starting to fail".

I am trying (apparently with little success) to bring to your attention the fact that fluid breakdown may begin in areas that are not readily seen from the flight deck (ie..the trailing edge of the wing). That is why when holdover times are exceeded, or there is doubt as to whether the de-icing fluid is retaining it's effectiveness, most professional airlines mandate that one of the pilots go into the cabin, put his nose up against the passenger window closest to the wing and have a good look. That is the only way to get an accurate view of the entire wing.

You then imply that you stick your head out the flight deck window to check the leading edge slats. What about the rest of the wing? The fluid can break down on the trailing edge just as quickly as the leading edge.

Sorry, if I have offended you double-jj. I just can't believe that Westjet doesn't take a more professional and serious attitude towards de-icing.

[double-j]

Raven,

I think we are singing from the same song sheet, even if you do not realize it.

The icing section states that both the leading edge and trailing edge are the first parts to fail, so, if the wings and leading edges are clearly visible and suitable for takeoff, they can be considered as a representative surface in determining that the other critical surfaces that were deiced/anti-iced are also suitable for takeoff. If they are not clearly visible,or any doubt exists that the fluid may be compromised than a cabin check is done. I have flown on AC many times and never seen a cabin check prior to takeoff. Perhaps the Captain was satisfied that the wings were clean without having to go back?

I am ultra conservative when it comes to deicing, and I know at my company, we are very professional when it comes to deice procedures, and not cavalier in any way. I take offense to you stating otherwise.

[double-j]

In short, If I have any doubt as to the fluids effectiveness, I, or my partner will go to the back. I have said this over and over again.

[The Raven]

Oh, I can assure you that Pre-Takeoff Contamination Inspections (PCI) are done on a regular basis at Air Canada. There are at least 8 conditions that require an inspection (from the cabin). They include, but are not limited to:

1. Snow pellet conditions exist
2. Snow grain conditions exist
3. Hail conditions exist
4. Heavy snowfall conditions exist
5. Holdover guidelines are exceeded during ground icing conditions
6. Critical surface contamination is suspected during ground icing conditions
7. Cabin crews report critical surface contamination
8. The passenger is advised of a passenger concern regarding wing contamination.

The Air Canada manual also includes a big CAUTION. It says, "Pre-Takeoff Contamination Inspections should be concentrated on the leading edge in conjunction with the trailing edge of the wing. The trailing edge control surfaces and/or spoilers usually provide an early indication of imminent fluid failure on the leading edge".

You had stated that it is suitable to open your flight deck window to check that the de-icing fluid has not broken down. I don't agree. I think it is safer for one of the pilots to go into the cabin and look out the overwing passenger windows.

Air Canada does it a lot.

[Ryan Coke2]

Tony, seems you have managed a different interpretation of the original post than I. It sounds like an FA took a look at the wings, so that if there was anything that concerned him or her they would relay those concerns to the flight deck crew. Not that they were specifically asked to do an official inspection or instead of any required inspection.

I am always happy to have any concerns voiced, and if they happen to notice something I encourage that. I don't see the problem? Do you not want FA's or passengers to voice concerns? I doubt it, but it seems that you have a problem with the FA even looking in this case. I think it is great. Just as I don't expect a guest in the back to be trained and do inspections instead of crew, I have no issue if someone sees something that concerns them and relays the information.

Raven, you are an embarrassment to professional pilots, and it is terribly offensive that you attempt to question a groups ability and dedication to safety when you are so obviously and brilliantly wrong, and know so very little of what you speak of. Not that I am surprised, it is the internet, and morons pop up all over.

[tonysoprano]

Tony, seems you have managed a different interpretation of the original post than I. It sounds like an FA took a look at the wings, so that if there was anything that concerned him or her they would relay those concerns to the flight deck crew. Not that they were specifically asked to do an official inspection or instead of any required inspection.

I am always happy to have any concerns voiced, and if they happen to notice something I encourage that. I don't see the problem? Do you not want FA's or passengers to voice concerns? I doubt it, but it seems that you have a problem with the FA even looking in this case. I think it is great. Just as I don't expect a guest in the back to be trained and do inspections instead of crew, I have no issue if someone sees something that concerns them and relays the information.

Raven, you are an embarrassment to professional pilots, and it is terribly offensive that you attempt to question a groups ability and dedication to safety when you are so obviously and brilliantly wrong, and know so very little of what you speak of. Not that I am surprised, it is the internet, and morons pop up all over.

I'm not so sure I misinterpreted the scenario Rye. My understanding is the FA was not concerned at all. She simply felt compelled to tell the pilot the wing looked good enough to go flying. I realize quite well that nobody asked her to do this and I never implied it. See that's where I have a bit of a problem with it. We always encourage anyone, even passengers to voice their concerns when it comes to wing contamination or anything for that matter, absolutely. But this is a different case. The deice had been done, no PCI required and if one was required it would, of course be done by a pilot. This is a case where someone overstepped their boundary perhaps unknowingly and that is the problem. No big deal. I think I just would have thanked the FA very much and continued. However, I highly doubt it's in your or their (FA) SOPs to do it this way. What's next? The FAs will do the walkaround and tell the Capt that we're good to go? Maybe you should go back and read the scenario again. You sound a bit bitter. I think we are just trying to point out that this was not SOP at the other airline. If you guys don't have it in you SOPs and don't have a problem with it then I guess that's the end of the discussion. Just a difference in culture I guess.

[jjj]

If you were to ask a Jazz guy how a pre take off inspection is done he would probably talk about the Spoilers being used as a representative surface.
(chime in Dash drivers if this is incorrect).

The representative surface for the WS guys (without quoting the whole f'n book) is the outboard 2/3 of the leading edge of the wing.

Once again the bulk of this thread is a witch hunt.

Sorry dudes but this whole thread stinks about as much as the one about WS taking off and landing on the short runway in Victoria and once again - in the end - normal day to day ops are being conducted in accordance with TC/Company/Boeing manuals.


BTW Raven - we have a similar paragraph to yours with the eight items in our book as well.



jjj

[tonysoprano]

Once again the bulk of this thread is a witch hunt.

No, once again your teal vision (or something) is obscuring your ability to reason. Don't let it get to you. You've done nothing wrong.

[double-j]

jjj exactly..

I do it word for word from the manual, as approved by my company, TC, and Boeing.

[The Raven]

OK Teal boys, you win. Carry on doing your PCI's by looking out your cockpit windows. I am sure you can get a good look at the wing with your laser vision.

A wise man (much smarter than me) once told me that arguing with someone on the internet was like participating in the Special Olympics. You may win, but you're still a retard. You win.

Time for me to enjoy a nice glass of Chilean wine that I picked up on my last layover.

[Ryan Coke2]

Tony, I re-read the initial post again, just to make sure I didn't miss anything. I don't see the issue still. This FA decided to be more deliberate about the inspection, I don't see the issue even if it is nothing more than an non-required triple check from an unqualified individual. This is not a procedure, unless you consider the SOP that anyone should speak up if they have any concerns. They looked, didn't all is well. If they did see something that somehow got missed, great.

Is the problem that they deliberately took a look? What if you were sitting over the wing and made the point of looking? Is that different that incidentally noticing? Either way, if there is a concern, I would be appreciative of knowing about it.

Seems to me that this person is being diligent--more diligent than is required--but that is about the last thing I would complain about.

Raven, I can say I absolutely agree with you about the internet special olympics. A long time favorite line, and often applicable.

[tonysoprano]

Rye.
There is no big deal. Just a different way of doing things. Still, I think you would have a hard time getting TC to condone this as a regular, daily SOP.

Is the problem that they deliberately took a look? What if you were sitting over the wing and made the point of looking? Is that different that incidentally noticing? Either way, if there is a concern, I would be appreciative of knowing about it.

No, anyone can take a look. And if something is not right they can surely tell me to go have a look. But not everyone is qualified to decide what's safe. I'm a pilot. I have a better understanding of the science and the procedure. What if she had said to you "It looks good, we're good to go" when really it wasn't safe and you take her word for it? Now you got a problem. I will repeat: I don't have a problem with an unqualified person telling me to have a look and see what I think. I do have a problem when an unqualified person tells me I'm good to go without seeing it with my own eyes. Get the difference?? I would be very careful about accepting this as a normal way to do things. This time it went ok. It may not be the case another time.

[double-j]

Rye.
There is no big deal. Just a different way of doing things. Still, I think you would have a hard time getting TC to condone this as a regular, daily SOP.

Is the problem that they deliberately took a look? What if you were sitting over the wing and made the point of looking? Is that different that incidentally noticing? Either way, if there is a concern, I would be appreciative of knowing about it.

No, anyone can take a look. And if something is not right they can surely tell me to go have a look. But not everyone is qualified to decide what's safe. I'm a pilot. I have a better understanding of the science and the procedure. What if she had said to you "It looks good, we're good to go" when really it wasn't safe and you take her word for it? Now you got a problem. I will repeat: I don't have a problem with an unqualified person telling me to have a look and see what I think. I do have a problem when an unqualified person tells me I'm good to go without seeing it with my own eyes. Get the difference?? I would be very careful about accepting this as a normal way to do things. This time it went ok. It may not be the case another time.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that is how it happened. No pilot would take the word of an FA as their pre-takeoff inspection. More likely they (fa's) were concerned about the 'nasty weather' and looked out the window to make themselves feel better. I highly doubt the captain asked the fa's to do the check for them.

[tonysoprano]

Guys, I need to apologize. I have reread (again) Inverted's initial thread and you're right double-j, no where does he mention the FA went to the flt deck to tell the captain anything. I see nothing wrong with that. He/She could have been looking out there for a number of reasons and maybe just for their own peace of mind or curiosity. Ok, let'er ripp!!

[jjj]

Tony - can you please explain why my reasoning is flawed.

The way you phrase things has me wondering if you're being sarcastic, sanctimonious, or just an ass.

[Four1oh]

[tonysoprano]

Tony - can you please explain why my reasoning is flawed.

The way you phrase things has me wondering if you're being sarcastic, sanctimonious, or just an ass.

All of the above and then some,lol.I'm just going to suggest to you what some of your partners have suggested to me in the past. That is, grow some tougher skin. Suck it up little man.

[invertedattitude]

For those crews doing the own inspection post-deicing.

How exactly do you check the horizontal stab/vert stab?

Those are critical surfaces too, if you trust the de-ice team to clean those, why not the wings?

[YYCcrew]

At my airline a pilot will go back and inspect the wings before takeoff everytime we deice or expect contamination, no questions. I know most FAs can tell me if there is anything on my wing and I encourage them to let me know, but I'm not going to put my life and my passengers in the hands of someone who had a 3 week training on how to serve cookies and open doors.

Here we go again, When is the world going to wake up and agree that Flight Attendants have been more than cookie pushers for a LONG TIME.

I suggest most of you guys use your time a little more wisely, spend a few minutes and look at the TC Website, take note of the Flight Attendant Training Standard, take a peak at the Flight Attendant Manual Standard... "three weeks to serve cookies and open doors" what an insult against the people that are part of your chain of command.

I agree, an F/A should not be the one to make the call on an inspection. However F/A recieve surface contamination training to the same level as a GA pilot (sometimes more) they also cover this topic every year in annual/recurrent training.

Is it an SOP at WJ for the F/A to take a look? NO, is it wrong? not sure yet. My point is the F/A's know a lot more than you give them credit for, some have a disgusting level of procedural drift - but drift is contagious - if they see the PIC or F/O drift, they sometimes run with it.

Follow your SOP's for F's Sake! and ensure your F/A's follow theirs! you will be amazed at the increased level of respect between front end and back end.

[Four1oh]

Our FA's have been briefed ad nauseum regarding the Dryden crash and how an FA could have prevented that crash. They know that the plane shouldn't have anything on the wings prior to takeoff, after all this isn't rocket science. My 4 year old could tell you(with a little training) if a wing was clean or not, so we have a group who aren't officially making the call, but are comfortable enough with their pilots to speak up if they have a concern. Isn't that what CRM is supposed to be about?

All this has nothing to do with how we pilots do our jobs, btw. FA's are not doing the pilot's job of being the last word on whether a plane is safe to fly, they are merely empowered to save their own asses if somehow the system fails.

[mikeecho]

Our FA's have been briefed ad nauseum regarding the Dryden crash and how an FA could have prevented that crash. They know that the plane shouldn't have anything on the wings prior to takeoff, after all this isn't rocket science. My 4 year old could tell you(with a little training) if a wing was clean or not, so we have a group who aren't officially making the call, but are comfortable enough with their pilots to speak up if they have a concern. Isn't that what CRM is supposed to be about?

All this has nothing to do with how we pilots do our jobs, btw. FA's are not doing the pilot's job of being the last word on whether a plane is safe to fly, they are merely empowered to save their own asses if somehow the system fails.

How fitting that today marks the 20th anniversary of the horible incident at Dryden.

We have come so far from this incident, yet we still have a long way to go.

As someone who has deiced or managed the deicing of numerous airlines (CP, AC, WS, NW, C3, etc...) over the last 15 years, I can say that it was never uncommon to have to convince some flight crews that an aircraft requires a spray or in some situations tell the crew that they don't need a spray...and for the sake of the AC pilots, this applies to you as well.

This is not meant to be a shot against pilots (I'm sure some will take it that way), but despite popular thought, pilots don't know everything and I still find it shocking how little a lot of flight crews seem to know or understand about aircraft deicing.

That's why there are other well trained and qualified resources available to help make some key decisions before flight departure...ie. deicers

It's been a while since I've been involved, but doesn't AC deice procedures require that if one of either the flight crew or a qualified deicer determine that a spray is required, then a spray must be given? I had to pull that card out a lot in my AC days (No, I wasn't a 3rd party deicer trying to make some extra cash soaking a flight, I was an AC Station Attendant) and took a lot of grief because I was just a ramp rat.

The moral of the story for me is that flight crews need to use the resources provided to identify hazards and make the correct decisions. If that means that an FA (trained on surface contamination at WJ in this case) feels free to provide the crew with additional information regarding the contamination or lack thereof on the critical surfaces, then that is great.

That type of thinking probably would have prevented the Dryden crash...

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-01- ... s-at-risk/

Of note:
One cold March morning, flight attendant Sonia Hartwick saw ice on the wing of the plane she was serving on, Air Ontario Flight 1363. Icy wings, as Hartwick knew, can be disastrous — a major cause of airplane crashes.

They can also be easily remedied: One word from the captain, and the plane can be de-iced and ready to go, usually in less than 10 minutes.
But Hartwick didn't say a thing.

Years later, she'd have plenty of time to think about the reasons why. She felt that "pilots did not welcome operational information from crew members," as one academic study of the Air Ontario flight would later note. She also trusted the pilots. Surely, if the ice were a real problem, she reasoned, they would have noticed it.

So Sonia Hartwick kept her mouth shut. And Air Ontario Flight 1363 crashed just seconds after takeoff, killing 24 people. Hartwick, unbelievably, survived — survived to tell her story and survived to deal with the guilt of knowing that she could have spoken up.

Something to consider before dismissing the observations of a qualified crew member!



ps. There's a good reason why the ramp usually has access to ladders and rubber gloves. A tactile inspection is your best indicator of a clean surface...much better than a quick glance out of the window from the cabin.