Wing De-Icing Question

In article ,
says...


On Feb 16, 3:38*pm, VOR-DME wrote:
In article
,
says...



On Feb 15, 5:41*pm, Tman wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
There's a very good chance the Boston crash might have been tailplane
icing.

Did you mean BUF or did I miss something in Boston?
T

Yes. I've been dealing with a Boston issue most of the day and my
senior moment quota kicked in. It was Buffalo.
DH

Oh thanks! Spent two hours on the NTSB database trying to figure what
Boston crash we were talking about! :-)

Sorry. Those "senior moments" can be annoying for sure. It's a shame
youth is wasted on such young people.
:-)))
-D


No harm done. We always learn something by going back through the NTSB
records! I was surprised to find how few accident records included both the
location "Boston" and the keyword "icing". Aside the FEDEX takeoff incident,
where ice caused physical damage to one of the engines, I learned that a
Skymaster crashed in 1975 departing Boston, probably because of airframe
icing. His intended destination? Buffalo :-)

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:53:42 -0800, 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.

Yessir and that means you fukk up and post AssClown reponses to the
wrong peoples.

AssClown.
--
Austin Whitten, President; Geeks-In-Route, Inc;
3808 Gunn Hwy Ste C Tampa, FL 33618 866-661-GEEK Ext 701
813-480-0103 Mobile 813-388-4902 Fax
www.geeks-in-route.com

In article ,
says...


Interesting, in that we tend to handfly the Mooney in IMC, using
autopilot only when we need a break if there's only one pilot on
board. It's a subjective thing I suppose, but hand flying does not
take a lot of effort en route (or most of the time, if truth be told)
and I'd not want to have to suddenly transition to hand flying in IMC
in the unlikely event the autopilot had a subtle failure.




Interesting. I do not share your point of view, but I respect it.
I not only hand-fly, in training, but I (like others) fly partial panel, to
simulate vacuum failure (conventional systems) or electrical failure (glass
systems). In "real" flight, I use everything available, freeing up the xx% of
my brain that was used just maintaining heading and altitude to maintain a
higher-level vision of the progress of the flight. I believe this overall
vision is more important that the difficulty of transitioning to a degraded
control mode in the case of a system failure, partly because of the
unlikelihood of the latter.

In article ,
says...


On Feb 17, 1:43*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article
,
says...



Interesting, in that we tend to handfly the Mooney in IMC, using
autopilot only when we need a break if there's only one pilot on
board. It's a subjective thing I suppose, but hand flying does not
take a lot of effort en route (or most of the time, if truth be told)
and I'd not want to have to suddenly transition to hand flying in IMC
in the unlikely event the autopilot had a subtle failure.

Interesting. I do not share your point of view, but I respect it.
I not only hand-fly, in training, but I (like others) fly partial panel, to
simulate vacuum failure (conventional systems) or electrical failure (glass
systems). In "real" flight, I use everything available, freeing up the xx%
of
my brain that was used just maintaining heading and altitude to maintain a
higher-level vision of the progress of the flight. I believe this overall
vision is more important that the difficulty of transitioning to a degraded
control mode in the case of a system failure, partly because of the
unlikelihood of the latter.

There's more to our side of the story -- we like to hand fly! Our self
adminstered safety flights are a bit more challenging than those
administered by our cfi, esp w/r/t partial panel, instrument
failures, and unusual attitudes. I suspect the difference in safety
between our two methods would be hard to quantify. One of us could
type more loudly than the other, I suppose -- this is the usernet
after all. .

In article ,
says...


On Feb 17, 1:43*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article
,
says...



Interesting, in that we tend to handfly the Mooney in IMC, using
autopilot only when we need a break if there's only one pilot on
board. It's a subjective thing I suppose, but hand flying does not
take a lot of effort en route (or most of the time, if truth be told)
and I'd not want to have to suddenly transition to hand flying in IMC
in the unlikely event the autopilot had a subtle failure.

Interesting. I do not share your point of view, but I respect it.
I not only hand-fly, in training, but I (like others) fly partial panel, to
simulate vacuum failure (conventional systems) or electrical failure (glass
systems). In "real" flight, I use everything available, freeing up the xx%
of
my brain that was used just maintaining heading and altitude to maintain a
higher-level vision of the progress of the flight. I believe this overall
vision is more important that the difficulty of transitioning to a degraded
control mode in the case of a system failure, partly because of the
unlikelihood of the latter.

There's more to our side of the story -- we like to hand fly! Our self
adminstered safety flights are a bit more challenging than those
administered by our cfi, esp w/r/t partial panel, instrument
failures, and unusual attitudes. I suspect the difference in safety
between our two methods would be hard to quantify. One of us could
type more loudly than the other, I suppose -- this is the usernet
after all. .

Sorry for the /null/ post!!
I like to hand fly too. 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*?? :-)

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. . .

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 . . .

In article , lid says...


Hello,

Not a Physicist, so please bear with me.

The posts here seem to imply that wing icing occurs (mainly), if not
exclusively, on the leading edges, and not on the upper or lower wing
surfaces.

Why ?

If it does occur on the upper surfaces in modern jet commercial aircraft, is
there also
hot bleed air available for this large surface, as there is for the leading
edges ?

If it does occur on modern turboprops, on the upper surface, there is
nothing they can do to remove it.
Right ?

Not quite.
Good points though. The "hot wing" solution used on high-flyers is to heat the
leading edges so hot that freezing particles will not only remain above
freezing, but simply vaporize to avoid run-back re-freezing. Yes, that means
very hot, and lots of energy to burn.

The turboprop and high-performance piston solution is to use de-icing boots
that inflate to break off ice after it has formed. There is ongoing debate
about "ice bridging" the theory that the boots may inflate too soon, and that
ice will form around or over the inflated profile so as to render the boot
cycling ineffective. "Official" and "user" opinions vary as often as the
seasons change on this one. Not to be neglected is the "TKS" system, more
popular on high-performance pistons than on turboprops, which weeps de-icing
fluid across the wings through millions (yes, millions) of micro-pores drilled
in the leading edges. Popular in Mooneys for years, it is gradually gaining
ground and may actually find application in passenger tirboprops in years to
come. . . There's a significant weight penalty for that de-icing fluid, and
when it's gone, it's gone. . .

In article , says...


It seems only truthful to say that the pilots did something that was wrong,
and in this case, they bought the farm because of it.
--
Jim in NC



You may end up being right, but today we simply do not have the factual base to
substantiate that claim. The autopilot today is so integrated into normal
flight operations that simply "turning it off" would require out of the
ordinary conditions, which have yet to be demonstrated for the flight in
question. What you claim to be "only truthful" to me is as yet
unsubstantiated.

In article 5ce52bc4-6f80-4f81-802a-dee4be16d346
@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...
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

A very good video, I have emailed it to some Air New Zealand folk, and
hope they distribute it around.

--
Duncan