Boeing question with regard to icing conditions

[loopa]

Roger standing by for new ATIS message.

[True North]

If you are planning to use wing ant ice prior to 1500' AGL you must apply the penalty for takeoff.

Where did you find that TN?

It's in the Boeing performance software.

The AFM also states:

"Icing conditions exist when the OAT on the ground and for takeoff...

"Takeoff" ends at 1500' AGL so that means if you will be using engine or wing anti ice prior to 1500' AGL you must take the takeoff performance penalty.

[FICU]

The take-off profile is as follows:

First segment is from lift off to wheels up...
Second segment is gear retraction to level off...
Third is from level off to flaps up...
Fourth is from flaps up to take-off thrust reduction to max continuous thrust...
Fifth is from MCT to a climb to 1500' AFE.

These segments are of course based on single engine performance.

[loopa]

If you are planning to use wing ant ice prior to 1500' AGL you must apply the penalty for takeoff.

Where did you find that TN?

It's in the Boeing performance software.

The AFM also states:

"Icing conditions exist when the OAT on the ground and for takeoff...

"Takeoff" ends at 1500' AGL so that means if you will be using engine or wing anti ice prior to 1500' AGL you must take the takeoff performance penalty.

That's a new one.

The one I'm reading doesn't say takeoff. Says OAT for Ground, and TAT for in flight is 10 degrees and below, with vis moisture.

This post would of never formulated if the AFM I'm reading said OAT for Ground and Takeoff, cause in that case your implication is 100% correct.

The take-off profile is as follows:

First segment is from lift off to wheels up...
Second segment is gear retraction to level off...
Third is from level off to flaps up...
Fourth is from flaps up to take-off thrust reduction to max continuous thrust...
Fifth is from MCT to a climb to 1500' AFE.

These segments are of course based on single engine performance.

The first segment is from 35 feet to wheels up... no?

[FICU]

The first segment is from 35 feet to wheels up... no?

Lift off is assumed as 35' but the FARS description is "lift off". Any diagram will show it starting at 35'.

I outlined 5 segments which is what we use but the FARS state only 4.

[FICU]

Just looked in our limitations and EAI must be on for take-off when icing conditions will be encountered shortly after take-off, ie: 100-500 feet AFE... use common sense because you don't want to increase your workload just after lift off.

[tbaylx]

If there is cloud below 1500' aae and its 10 or below then its EAI on with associated penalties as your t/o climb and obstacle performance is predicated on having rated or whatever reduced thrust numbers you ran your performance calculation at. If you ran your numbers with EAI off and took off with an engine failure above v1 and subsequently entered cloud at 1000' and required engine anti ice on the remaining engine you would no longer have the required thrust necessary to meet your climb requirements.

So visible moisture (such as rain, fog/mist with less than 1 mile vis) and any cloud 1500' aae or below = anti ice on and associated performance penalties.

[ahramin]

Generic Airbus SOP

Icing conditions may be expected when the OAT (on ground and for takeoff), or the TAT (in flight), is 10 °C or below, and there is visible moisture in the air (such as clouds, fog with low visibility, rain, snow, sleet, ice crystals), or when standing water, slush, ice or snow is present on the taxiways or runway.

[whoop_whoop]

The way I see it, you simply need to tow the aircraft outside the environment and then takeoff

[complexintentions]

God people make things unnecessarily complicated.

Here's the definition of icing conditions straight from our FCOM:



Clearly states visible moisture must be PRESENT. How the hell could even the village's biggest idiot interpret a 5,000 ft ceiling as "present" on the ground?

Next, for ground ops:



So, if the aforementioned conditions exist or are anticipated, turn it on. Whew! That was hard!

Lastly, in flight:



So, actually either AUTO or ON is fine inflight. Except, that in the scenario with ground icing, requiring the engine anti-ice on for taxi, you would leave it on for takeoff, since selecting it to AUTO at Vr just isn't practical. Hence, you toggle "EAI ON" on the OPT (Onboard Performance Tool) and it calculates your speeds taking into account the slight performance penalty. If you're taking off with the EAI on, it is selected to AUTO by SOP "After flap retraction is complete". That covers all performance issues.

I dunno what Boeing is being discussed, perhaps it's written differently on the NG or 67? Since no mention was made of specific variant. But the whole discussion about 100 feet, 200 feet, up to 1,500 feet, in cruise...seriously?

I feel like Cat sometimes. Airmanship has completely left the building.

[Jean-Luc Monette]

...

[rxl]

It's called using common sense.

[ahramin]

So, actually either AUTO or ON is fine inflight.

While I agree with your sentiment Complexintentions but to be fair we are discussing the 737. Auto switches are very few and far between .

[loopa]

God people make things unnecessarily complicated.

Here's the definition of icing conditions straight from our FCOM:



Clearly states visible moisture must be PRESENT. How the hell could even the village's biggest idiot interpret a 5,000 ft ceiling as "present" on the ground?

Next, for ground ops:



So, if the aforementioned conditions exist or are anticipated, turn it on. Whew! That was hard!

Lastly, in flight:



So, actually either AUTO or ON is fine inflight. Except, that in the scenario with ground icing, requiring the engine anti-ice on for taxi, you would leave it on for takeoff, since selecting it to AUTO at Vr just isn't practical. Hence, you toggle "EAI ON" on the OPT (Onboard Performance Tool) and it calculates your speeds taking into account the slight performance penalty. If you're taking off with the EAI on, it is selected to AUTO by SOP "After flap retraction is complete". That covers all performance issues.

I dunno what Boeing is being discussed, perhaps it's written differently on the NG or 67? Since no mention was made of specific variant. But the whole discussion about 100 feet, 200 feet, up to 1,500 feet, in cruise...seriously?

I feel like Cat sometimes. Airmanship has completely left the building.

To be clear, I fully agree with all your sentiments. This isn't about my opinion, this is about how one argues that statement in the AFM when somebody beside you believes you must have it on, wants the penalty taken, and 10 pax dumped.

You have proven some good points here. Although one thing I'm going to continue the discussion on is this... While 5000 feet does not mean "ON GROUND" it does mean "IN FLIGHT"

You are so right about the village's biggest idiot and etc, but in order to prove your point in front of a tribunal or a group of insurance people (should that ever happen to you), you have to apply the rule that they are the village's biggest idiot. If it's one thing I've learned about that left seat, it's to cover your ass. So how does one do that with this statement in the AFM that is so cut and dry regarding an environment that isn't so cut and dry?

The way it's written in the AFM doesn't support making up additional definitions like ground to 1500 feet, or IN icing, or PRESENT in icing, or what ever one wants to apply to make sense of the AFM statement. The AFM statement is as is, and if you go by what it says, there's a definition for GROUND, and in FLIGHT. No where does it define when you should be taking penalty for takeoff or not. Ground to 1500 feet is simply an educated guess by someone with common sense, not written anywhere to support the opinion however.

But then you become the devils advocate, and you toss in scenarios like there being cloud at 15, 000 feet... you'd take penalty and dump your pax? Stupid... But is supported by the AFM as the right thing to do because it's below 10 degrees, and you have visible moisture. Common sense prevails that you won't pick up icing during take off with clouds at 15,000 feet, so why take the take off penalty.

Same argument applies to +10, Overcast 1000 feet. There's no way you'll pick up icing in +8 (2/1000 feet) flying through a film of overcast, but by the definition of some of you, if you have clouds between ground and 1500 feet and +10 or less, turn on EAI and take the penalty.

So let's put all the opinions aside about village idiots and etc aside. For the sake of explaining this to an idiot, answer this question please.

When do you take the penalty for T/O complexintentions? Try to be specific since you're dealing with the village's biggest idiot

Ahramin were you able to find anything about 0 to 1500 feet?

[tbaylx]

Same argument applies to +10, Overcast 1000 feet. There's no way you'll pick up icing in +8 (2/1000 feet) flying through a film of overcast, but by the definition of some of you, if you have clouds between ground and 1500 feet and +10 or less, turn on EAI and take the penalty.

So let's put all the opinions aside about village idiots and etc aside. For the sake of explaining this to an idiot, answer this question please.

When do you take the penalty for T/O complexintentions? Try to be specific since you're dealing with the village's biggest idiot

Ahramin were you able to find anything about 0 to 1500 feet?

Yes you could pick up icing at +8 flying through a overcast layer, hence why you need engine anti ice on at +10 and below. So again below 1500 feet if there is cloud you need to take the penalty for t/o, above that you don't since you've accelerated and reduced thrust from t/o setting after meeting the climb requirements. It's not that hard.

[True North]

To be clear, I fully agree with all your sentiments. This isn't about my opinion, this is about how one argues that statement in the AFM when somebody beside you believes you must have it on, wants the penalty taken, and 10 pax dumped.

You have proven some good points here. Although one thing I'm going to continue the discussion on is this... While 5000 feet does not mean "ON GROUND" it does mean "IN FLIGHT"

You are so right about the village's biggest idiot and etc, but in order to prove your point in front of a tribunal or a group of insurance people (should that ever happen to you), you have to apply the rule that they are the village's biggest idiot. If it's one thing I've learned about that left seat, it's to cover your ass. So how does one do that with this statement in the AFM that is so cut and dry regarding an environment that isn't so cut and dry?

The way it's written in the AFM doesn't support making up additional definitions like ground to 1500 feet, or IN icing, or PRESENT in icing, or what ever one wants to apply to make sense of the AFM statement. The AFM statement is as is, and if you go by what it says, there's a definition for GROUND, and in FLIGHT. No where does it define when you should be taking penalty for takeoff or not. Ground to 1500 feet is simply an educated guess by someone with common sense, not written anywhere to support the opinion however.

But then you become the devils advocate, and you toss in scenarios like there being cloud at 15, 000 feet... you'd take penalty and dump your pax? Stupid... But is supported by the AFM as the right thing to do because it's below 10 degrees, and you have visible moisture. Common sense prevails that you won't pick up icing during take off with clouds at 15,000 feet, so why take the take off penalty.

Same argument applies to +10, Overcast 1000 feet. There's no way you'll pick up icing in +8 (2/1000 feet) flying through a film of overcast, but by the definition of some of you, if you have clouds between ground and 1500 feet and +10 or less, turn on EAI and take the penalty.

So let's put all the opinions aside about village idiots and etc aside. For the sake of explaining this to an idiot, answer this question please.

When do you take the penalty for T/O complexintentions? Try to be specific since you're dealing with the village's biggest idiot

Ahramin were you able to find anything about 0 to 1500 feet?

I sincerely hope all this is not in preparation for your initial class on an NG. If it is I strongly suggest you leave this line/attitude outside the classroom otherwise your instructor is going to stomp you pretty hard.

[Airbrake]

In 10 years on the 737 out of YYC, I have never seen anyone bumped for having to have de-ice selected on for take off.

And I would guess there are many more for many year more who have never had it either. So it is a moot point.

Use your judgement for workload.

[pelmet]

I wonder if anyone who thinks that 50 OVC requires anti-ice for takeoff used to not fly VFR in their training days because the ceiling wasn't 15,000' or so therefore didn't have 3 miles visibility.

And who is going to bump a thousand pounds of baggage on a runway limited takeoff because it is 1,400 overcast and therefore engine anti-ice is required. And perhaps it is 12 degrees at the airport but the standard laps rate means the 1,400 OVC cloud is 10 degrees so bump the bags or do we get ram rise charts out to try and calculate all this stuff.

[loopa]

Just to add, I was able to find a caveat in my FCOM after hours of research.

For purposes of takeoff, appropriate icing penalty shall be applied if ICING CONDITIONS are expected between ground and acceleration altitude(single engine). Should ICING CONDITIONS be encountered above acceleration altitude(single engine), icing penalty will not be applied.

So essentially if you are to encounter +10 and visible moisture between the ground and your single engine acceleration altitude, you have to take the penalty, otherwise you don't. Smart way to word it.

Example: If you departed an airport with mountains and had an acceleration altitude (single engine) of 3500 AGL, and +10 or less with visible moisture at 3000 AGL, you'd have to take the penalty for takeoff.

Thanks to everyone who had insightful responses to this thread.

[ahramin]

FCOM reference? Page #?

[complexintentions]

When do you take the penalty for T/O complexintentions? Try to be specific since you're dealing with the village's biggest idiot

The penalty is applied automatically in the OPT. There's a drop-down menu with options for "OFF", "AUTO", "EAI ON", and "WING and EAI ON". I think. Don't have it in front of me. 99% of the time it's on "AUTO". If we take off with it "ON", then selecting that setting spits out the appropriate numbers. Simple.

Incidentally I wasn't calling you an idiot, I was referring to the person you say was convinced that a 5,000 ceiling meant icing conditions on the ground. It's actually mildly concerning that a skipper at (I'm assuming WestJet?) believes that to be correct.

You are so right about the village's biggest idiot and etc, but in order to prove your point in front of a tribunal or a group of insurance people (should that ever happen to you), you have to apply the rule that they are the village's biggest idiot. If it's one thing I've learned about that left seat, it's to cover your ass.

If this is the one thing you've learned about the left seat, I would gently suggest you aren't ready for it or shouldn't be in it. Not picking on you, but this is the mentality that makes me a little crazy and they're slowly trying to root out of our company. It's actually causing safety concerns as guys are overthinking things to the point of doing dumb (or commercially costly) things.

If you make decisions that you can reasonably defend, applying procedures with good principles of airmanship and experience, you will never have to worry about covering your ass - it already is. I can't speak to every operator's specs but there is inevitably a legal statement somewhere that exonerates a captain as long as he can demonstrate that he exercised good judgment in the moment. That is not to say you will never be called upon to justify a decision. But worrying about what a lawyer will say is not the right way to operate an aircraft. IMO.

[petey]

Use common sense.

[loopa]

When do you take the penalty for T/O complexintentions? Try to be specific since you're dealing with the village's biggest idiot

The penalty is applied automatically in the OPT. There's a drop-down menu with options for "OFF", "AUTO", "EAI ON", and "WING and EAI ON". I think. Don't have it in front of me. 99% of the time it's on "AUTO". If we take off with it "ON", then selecting that setting spits out the appropriate numbers. Simple.

Incidentally I wasn't calling you an idiot, I was referring to the person you say was convinced that a 5,000 ceiling meant icing conditions on the ground. It's actually mildly concerning that a skipper at (I'm assuming WestJet?) believes that to be correct.

You are so right about the village's biggest idiot and etc, but in order to prove your point in front of a tribunal or a group of insurance people (should that ever happen to you), you have to apply the rule that they are the village's biggest idiot. If it's one thing I've learned about that left seat, it's to cover your ass.

If this is the one thing you've learned about the left seat, I would gently suggest you aren't ready for it or shouldn't be in it. Not picking on you, but this is the mentality that makes me a little crazy and they're slowly trying to root out of our company. It's actually causing safety concerns as guys are overthinking things to the point of doing dumb (or commercially costly) things.

If you make decisions that you can reasonably defend, applying procedures with good principles of airmanship and experience, you will never have to worry about covering your ass - it already is. I can't speak to every operator's specs but there is inevitably a legal statement somewhere that exonerates a captain as long as he can demonstrate that he exercised good judgment in the moment. That is not to say you will never be called upon to justify a decision. But worrying about what a lawyer will say is not the right way to operate an aircraft. IMO.

Very good advice indeed. I think you hit the nail on the head saying you shouldn't be over thinking things because that will actually lead to mistakes being made.

So to be clear, no I don't operate that way. As evident in my agreement with you when you were commenting on your original reply.

But there's something to be said about needing to cya especially if theres an ambiguity in how something is written.

Yes apply common sense and good judgment, but this argument was in my opinion valid because of how it was written. The supplementary info that I found in the FCOM settles the answer to the question being debated on the fleet of question. And no not WJ.

I appreciate your input complex. I realize you have a ton of exp and am glad to see EK weed out the mentality to over think things because once again, I too believe it leads to mistakes. There are fcoms, sops, qrhs, ecls, Mel's, etc, etc for a reason.

In retrospect, that person was wrong about their opinion that 5000 feet meant taking the penalty. Since our accel height single engine was 1500 feet aae. Not 5000 feet. Should we have been in a scenario where our accel height was some how 5000+ then she would have been in the right based on the reference in the fcom.


Ahramin I'm away at the moment, but I'll get you the reference.

[complexintentions]

hey loopa,

I do agree that cya is a factor, just that it's better to do so by trying to ensure a successful outcome to your flight in practical ways, rather than just ticking boxes mindlessly. And it's obvious that it was your colleague, not yourself, who was doing that. My apologies if it seemed like a personal attack, it wasn't meant as one. Damn internet.

And I referred to captains in the masculine pronoun out of simplicity not sexism. You mention "she", so apparently men have no monopoly on cover-your-ass-itis!

Safe flying, keep being suspicious and thinking critically!

CI

[loopa]

hey loopa,

I do agree that cya is a factor, just that it's better to do so by trying to ensure a successful outcome to your flight in practical ways, rather than just ticking boxes mindlessly. And it's obvious that it was your colleague, not yourself, who was doing that. My apologies if it seemed like a personal attack, it wasn't meant as one. Damn internet.

And I referred to captains in the masculine pronoun out of simplicity not sexism. You mention "she", so apparently men have no monopoly on cover-your-ass-itis!

Safe flying, keep being suspicious and thinking critically!

CI

Haha all is well CI. I actually thought the quote about villages biggest idiot was epic.

Somehow I have a feeling you and I think quite similarly on how to handle practical situations, great point about just ticking boxes, etc.

Thanks for your input man.