Wing De-Icing Question

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:11:06 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:

In article , says...


Explain to me how much more clearly I could state (especially in a
discussion group):

"Following the theory, for the sake of discussion, is this pilot error
and is it avoidable?"

Clear as a bell, but in my opinion misguided and unconstructive.
Sorry to be so harsh about it, but do you really wish to establish "pilot
error" and determine "whether it's avoidable" before a single piece of salient
fact is laid on the table? Have you really no respect whatsoever for the
factual portion of the investigation? Your impatience to conclude will
automatically lead to erroneous conclusions. . .

Grab a reading comprehension manual.

Sheesh............

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:57:50 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Feb 16, 5:23*pm, Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:42:52 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
I belong to a world-wide flight safety work group that uses the base
all the time. It can be useful as you say. Our work is primarily
involved with the low altitude aerobatic display environment but many
in our community are airline people and have a great interest in
anything that enhances the learning curve safety wise.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover that in our work group alone,
the interest in tailplane icing has increased since yesterday to the
point where information has been spreading throughout the low to
medium altitude turbo-prop scheduled and non- scheduled operations
world wide.
-DH

There's something radically wrong here. Of course the horz stabil can
ice, a tail can ice. Of course there should be a sh**load of info on it
but I'll be damned if I know where it is. POH? Cessna 15x or 17x?
Diamonds?

You're right. There should be much more written on the issue. NASA has
been working on it for quite a while now and in fact has done a film
piece on it for distribution throughout the aviation community.
Just in case you haven't seen the NASA piece, I've included a link on
it for you. It's worth watching!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23060735779946

-DH

Like another poster, first time I had ever seen this and it is a great
piece. Should be std fare for PPLs imo, at least for turboprop multis.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:58:38 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:

In article ,
says...


VOR-DME wrote:
This discussion is rapidly running in the wrong direction.
certainly unhelpful ... disrespectful ... reckless ... foster
misunderstanding and misinformation

Yeah I don't really disagree, but egads, this is Usenet and for that
sake r.a.p. The epitome of inconsequential. Who cares what's said here?


Well, a family member may care.
What if someone, desperate for information after losing a loved one, starts
hunting around usenet and finds a bunch of pilots saying that autopilots
are dangerous and their use is negligent?

**** 'em.

Hey, AssClown, which part of "discussion" did you not understand? Why
not start your own Usenet gruppe and talk to yourself.

AssClown to AssClown,, come in.....
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

On Feb 16, 7:23*pm, Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:57:50 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:23*pm, Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:42:52 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
I belong to a world-wide flight safety work group that uses the base
all the time. It can be useful as you say. Our work is primarily
involved with the low altitude aerobatic display environment but many
in our community are airline people and have a great interest in
anything that enhances the learning curve safety wise.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover that in our work group alone,
the interest in tailplane icing has increased since yesterday to the
point where information has been spreading throughout the low to
medium altitude turbo-prop scheduled and non- scheduled operations
world wide.
-DH

There's something radically wrong here. Of course the horz stabil can
ice, a tail can ice. Of course there should be a sh**load of info on it
but I'll be damned if I know where it is. POH? Cessna 15x or 17x?
Diamonds?

You're right. There should be much more written on the issue. NASA has
been working on it for quite a while now and in fact has done a film
piece on it for distribution throughout the aviation community.
Just in case you haven't seen the NASA piece, I've included a link on
it for you. It's worth watching!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23060735779946

-DH

Like another poster, first time I had ever seen this and it is a great
piece. Should be std fare for PPLs imo, at least for turboprop multis.

I sent it out internationally through our pipeline this morning. It's
being distributed as we speak.
-DH

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:03:27 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:

Sorry for the /null/ post!!

Onlyh an AssClown..........

I like to hand fly too.

Hand fly or hand job, AssClown?

Insisted on it in my IR training. NDB approaches IMC as
well. But I won't subject my passengers to increased risk just because I think
it's more challenging for myself. IS THAT CLEAR? I*S T*H*A*T C*L*E*A*R*?? :-)

Crystal.

Are youh an AssClown?

A*S*S*C*L*O*W*N* ?

Do I **** in the woods?
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:51:05 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:

This discussion is rapidly running in the wrong direction.

Try cupping your balls when you stroke your wiener, AssClown.

It may be useful to discuss airframe icing and tailplane icing, and it is
perhaps pertinent to speculate about its role in the current case,

Good then STFU.

AssClown.
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

On Feb 17, 3:23*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...



The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?

In this case I think Gezellig is right.
After the high-profile Roselawn (ATR) accident a few years ago, and the Vickers
Viscount accidents dating back to 1954, we have had ample time to improve our
icing awareness, particularly for the most vulnerable aircraft/mission
profiles, and if the truth be known we don't have much to show for it . .

On Feb 17, 4:53*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Feb 17, 3:23*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article

,



says...

The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?

In this case I think Gezellig is right.
After the high-profile Roselawn (ATR) accident a few years ago, and the
Vickers
Viscount accidents dating back to 1954, we have had ample time to improve
our
icing awareness, particularly for the most vulnerable aircraft/mission
profiles, and if the truth be known we don't have much to show for it .. . .

Umm...I was questioning Bertie....Gezellig's post was down thread.
Attribution, attribution.......

Sorry - I dont receive "Bertie" or "Mxsmanic" or any responses to these
self-styled, self-sufficient spammers. The filters I have developed leave me in
ignorant bliss with regard to these intellectually impoverished ignoramuses.
Don't know how your's got through. *If you are involved in discussion with
same, frequency change is approved - go away.

I don't indulge with Bertie much either but in this thread I was
curious about what his reaction to a previous poster hence my question
to him. I didn't realize I needed your permission to do that . I
haven't seen your 'nym on here much in the past, and that's been
without benefit of filters.....just lucky, I guess.

This discussion is rapidly running in the wrong direction.
While I do not share the admonition of some that it is "taboo" to speculate
about causes of an airplane accident before all of the factual information is
in, it is certainly unhelpful and disrespectful to start crying "pilot error"
and lamenting all of the things they should or should not have done, before any
of the salient facts of the scenario are in place. Similarly, it is reckless to
start decrying insufficiencies in any of the aircraft's systems or their use
without a solid factual basis for these assumptions.

It may be useful to discuss airframe icing and tailplane icing, and it is
perhaps pertinent to speculate about its role in the current case, but to go
much further can only foster misunderstanding and misinformation. Have instead
some respect for the people who lost their lives, and for their families, as
well as for the flight crew who just may have known a thing or two about how to
fly their airplane. . .

In article ,
says...


VOR-DME wrote:
This discussion is rapidly running in the wrong direction.
certainly unhelpful ... disrespectful ... reckless ... foster
misunderstanding and misinformation

Yeah I don't really disagree, but egads, this is Usenet and for that
sake r.a.p. The epitome of inconsequential. Who cares what's said here?




Well, a family member may care.
What if someone, desperate for information after losing a loved one, starts
hunting around usenet and finds a bunch of pilots saying that autopilots
are dangerous and their use is negligent?

There is a huge human cost in tragedy like this, and we shouldn't forget
it. As pilots, we accept the risk involved, but we must be sensitive to the
situation of general public who are not expected to accept this risk.

Besides that, just as a matter of intellectual honesty, we should give the
crew enough benefit of the doubt not to fall to the "it wouldn't have
happened to me. . ." fallacy - at least until all of the ifactual
information is in?

I fly IFR by hand in IMC for practice and recurrent training, but would not
subject trusting passengers to this risk. Instead I use the autopilot,
whose judicious use I consider to be one of the most important safety
devices in the airplane. To say the autopilot should not be used under
certain circumstances is one thing, but here we are coming close to the Fox
News ideal of posthumously condemning the pilot to 50 counts of first
degree for having used the autopilot.