Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy

I watched the NTSB's briefing and here are my thoughts. Flame away if you think I am off base.

I think the problem the NTSB has is that they must find out what category of icing 3407 flew through, were the de/anti-icing systems working properly, and whether there is a phenomenon that makes this aircraft more susceptible to icing (perhaps flying in moderate icing is a big problem).

While thinking about what category of icing 3407 perhaps flew into, I stopped and asked myself, do I know what constitutes the different categories of icing??? Remarkably, I became honest with myself and said, "no I don't."

To me, icing was ...

Trace - you barely notice it, but its disippates right away from melting or sublimation (no systems required)
Light - you notice the build up, turn on the ice systems, and the aircraft sheds the ice almst immediately
Moderate - the ice definitely gets your attention, the ice systems work, but it takes much longer
Severe - the ice rate of buildup scares you, the ice systems seem to have no effect, and you must take immediate action (getting yourself out of icing)

Well, I checked my companies OpSpecs, and this is what I learned ...

Trace - Ice is perceptible, rate of accumulation is slightly greater than rate of sublimation
Light - rate of accumulation may create a problem if the flight is flown more than one hour in this condition
Modertate - rate of accumulation is such that even short encounters become potentially hazardous
Severe - rate of accumulation is such that de/anti-ice equipment fails to reduce or control the hazard. Immediate diversion or level change is required.

So where am I going with this? I don't know if my company's definitions are out of whack with those generally accepted by the FAA and the manufacturer's, but, everything greater than trace *can* cause problems (something I didn't know about until now). I never would have thought twice about flying into an area of moderate icing, but after reading the definition, the words potentially hazardous are alarming as I thought my aircraft would be fine to fly into moderate.

What I fail to realize is, the category of icing doesn't just depend on the amount you are seeing or accumulating, it also depends on how well your aircraft is getting rid of the ice. In other words, an aircraft having difficulties shedding light icing over a period of time (1 hour according to my OpSpec) is potentially going to experience a problem.

The takeaway. The more I read, the more I learn that flying in any icing condition is hazardous. Perhaps the Colgan 3407 pilots didn't realize how bad the ice buildup had become. Other aircraft (jets) may have had no difficulty shedding the ice; therefore, they only reported light or occasional moderate. Therefore, leading the Colgan pilots down the path of an unrecoverable situation?

Thoughts? Flames?

-Fatty

Originally Posted by greekpilot

I am wondering if the pilots were at their normal approach speed or not. You always want to bump it up when in icing conditions.

Originally Posted by plasticpi

The thing that doesn't sit right with me is that from what I understand about tail stalls, the aircraft's initial response would be a nose down event, not nose up as in our Q, unless the CG was significantly aft of limits (I'm assuming that the CG envelope for the Q still puts the CG foreward of the center of lift, and it would shock me if this were not the case. It would shock me even more if this airplane were out of limits, at least knowingly.)

Of course, there may be more than one thing going on in thise case, we'll just have to wait and see.

Originally Posted by eaglefly

Many pilots are surprised to learn their aircraft (ALL aircraft) are only certified for CONTINUOUS operation in "light" ice and for a short period of time in moderate ice that the pilot or crew needs to exit those conditions.

Originally Posted by fboehm

I disagree here. Moderate icing is a hazard if the anti-ice is not operating. Severe ice and SLD icing are always hazardous and we are prohibited from operating in these conditions as defined by side window icing.

Originally Posted by SAABaroowski

one thing you guys have to remember that it doesn't matter what the NTSB tells the FAA, the FAA receives an insane amount of pressure from outside bodies, its politics as usual and you can bet your behind that Continental/Colgan/Pinnacle/Bombardier will do whatever they can do to blame those who are not here to defend themselves...

Lets say for example there is a problem with the Q400, and lets face it fellas this airplane hasn't been around very long and its safety record to date is faaaar from stellar, anyway the forces that be have spent tooooo much time and money to get the Q400 operation up and running and the only scapegoat here will be the pilots, so I expect this to get very nasty in the next few months.

rant over...........

Originally Posted by DornierPilot

As I observe another tragic accident, potentially caused by icing, I can't help but wonder why we as an industry haven't applied some more technology to help identify hazardous icing.

What I'm getting at is the use of modern, small format cameras and lighting technology to continuously monitor the condition of our aircraft critical surfaces.

Now I know all the howls of "That would be too expensive to certify, blah, blah, blah" but some improvements in that area would be better than nothing. Wouldn't it make sense to move in this direction instead of constantly guessing about the actual level of ice accretion.

In most 121 ops, we have finally all but abandoned the guessing of where we are on an actual NDB approach for the much more certain position info of INS/GPS data and mapping displays.

Why not stop guessing about the actual condition of our aircraft?? It really can't be that difficult to bring us out of the dark ages, could it?

Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by eaglefly

There's a reason for those icing definitions in your OpSpecs. Many pilots are surprised to learn their aircraft (ALL aircraft) are only certified for CONTINUOUS operation in "light" ice and for a short period of time in moderate ice that the pilot or crew needs to exit those conditions. This applies to C-210's (with known icing cert.) up to 777's.

I disagree here. Moderate icing is a hazard if the anti-ice is not operating. Severe ice and SLD icing are always hazardous and we are prohibited from operating in these conditions as defined by side window icing.