Ice - Wimpy or Wise?

This might sound like a dumb question, but I've never dealt with ice or owning an airplane so I'm curious....

Would a DC-powered hair dryer or heat gun or something work for clearing off the wings? Or some kind of broad-spec IR device or something that would apply heat and melt the stuff off on the ground prior to flight?

It would seem that if you didn't have access to water or glycol, using some electricity to create some heat would make sense.

But like I said, I have no experience in these matters. Just thinking out loud....
 
killbilly said:
This might sound like a dumb question, but I've never dealt with ice or owning an airplane so I'm curious....

Would a DC-powered hair dryer or heat gun or something work for clearing off the wings? Or some kind of broad-spec IR device or something that would apply heat and melt the stuff off on the ground prior to flight?

It would seem that if you didn't have access to water or glycol, using some electricity to create some heat would make sense.

But like I said, I have no experience in these matters. Just thinking out loud....
Click to expand...

One thing to keep in mind with using heat to melt ice (for example, putting the plane in a heated hangar), is that the melted ice (water!) can run down inside of things and then refreeze when exposed to the outside environment again. Ice on things like cables and pulleys inside of the airframe can be, um, not good. :)
 
Blackhawk said:
You did the right thing. Taking off with ice on the aircraft- any kind of ice, frost, polished frost- is like taking off over gross. Have pilots gotten away with it? Yes. Can you get away with it? Maybe. Is it really worth it? No. Don't care if you are in AK or in the lower 48, flying 91, 135, or 121. Your airplane will perform the same- you are now a test pilot. Unless you are getting paid as a test pilot and a test pilot's wage, is it really worth it? Also, big difference between trying to take off with ice on the airplane and flying into forecast icing.
A case in point in the above is the history of the CL-65 series aircraft. There have been a few fatal crashes where crews tried to take off with polished frost on the wings. Since the crashes were fatal, their results were less than optimal. I'm sure every crew involved had successfully taken off with frost on the wings at some point. Finally, Bombardier and the FAA came out and so no ice or frost on the aircraft prior to take off. Period. Nada. None. Ever. Resulted in a funny situation for me in the summer. We landed in the southeast during the summer. Came down from cold, high altitude into warm moist air. We were met on the ramp by an FAA inspector who was going to ride with us. While we're chatting in the cockpit, the FO comes in and tells me there is frost under the wings from the humid air coming in contact with the super cooled fuel tanks on the underside of the wing. So here it is, 85 degrees out, and I have to call dispatch for a de-ice truck.
Ice bridging. One of the myths that just won't die, but causes crews and passengers to die. The FAA and NASA did not just come out and say, "You know, today we don't think it exists." They did YEARS of testing trying to get it, and could not. What most pilots see and mistake for ice bridging is actually residual ice and intercycle ice.
Not all ice will be cleanly shed during every inflation cycle – some ice will often remain. It frequently takes two, three or more cycles to get rid of it all. Intercycle ice is ice which forms [FONT=NADGKC+TimesNewRoman,Italic,Times New Roman][FONT=NADGKC+TimesNewRoman,Italic,Times New Roman]between [/FONT][/FONT]activations. Between residual ice and intercycle ice, the wing may never be completely clean while the airplane is in active icing conditions. Many pilots see residual ice and/or intercycle ice and then think that they are seeing ice bridging. This tends to perpetuate the myth.
Some pilots believe they should wait to start inflating the boots until 1/4-1/2 inch of ice. DO NOT DO THIS. Inflate the boots at the first sign of ice. First, ice can drastically effect the aerodynamics of not just the wings, but the tail plane. If you get tail plane icing and a tail plane stall- good luck.
An example of this deadly situation occurred in January 1997 when an EMB-120 rolled over and turned into a lawn dart killing everyone on board. Acting according to the Comair Flight Standards Manual, the flight crew had not yet begun to cycle the pneumatic de-ice boots. The manual warned against activating the boots until ¼ to ½ an inch of ice had formed on the wings – apparently out of concern for "ice bridging." ​

Now, here’s where it gets morbidly interesting. Embraer had revised the aircraft flight manual taking the most recent research into consideration, mandating that the boots be activated at the first sign of icing. But Comair standards pilots were firm believers in the OWT about ice bridging and did not include that provision in its own manual, the one the crew would use for reference. In other words, the crew was just following their company procedure – an incorrect and unsafe procedure, as it turns out, which was contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions.
29 people died in the crash.
Click to expand...


First bolded item:

No its not, have you ever taken off overgross? Its nothing like that at all, it has legal similarities, but all and all, the performance characteristics of an overgross aircraft are in line with what you would expect (e.g. heavier = longer takeoff roll, slower acceleration) adding ice adds both weight and drag. You're in a whole new ballgame. Comparing the two, and saying that one is just like the other is ridiculous, untrue, and bad information. Ice should be handled gingerly, but polished frost on your wings in a wide variety of aircraft will not kill you. In caravans, if you have frost, and you retract flaps at 400' you'll sink into the dirt with frost on the wings. The CL-65 clearly (from your post) doesn't like frost either. Know your ship, broad categorical rejections and statements of fact does not make good airmanship, each airplane is different, and though they may all have similar characteristics, they are all unique.

As for the second bolded item:

I've seen bridging take place with my own eyes, and know that if you start cycling boots right off the bat you'll pick up more ice that will not come off of the aircraft. More ice = bad, less ice = good. Period. The 1900 would fly with a ####load of ice anyway, so we'd load it up then blow it off with a shutter and a bang. I can't trust NASA, or the POH, only what I've seen, and its speculation for me until I see it. Maybe in warm places like florida where they test the ice twinotter is not conducive to briding, but up here it will #### you up.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Wuss. Just kidding. That's too much ice in anything (for me, and I'm a little past 165TT). Realistically, will you some day take off in something with some ice attached to it? Probably. But not a 150, particularly not with that much. Wise.
Click to expand...

So wait - you don't fly professionally?
 
ppragman said:
First bolded item:

No its not, have you ever taken off overgross? Its nothing like that at all, it has legal similarities, but all and all, the performance characteristics of an overgross aircraft are in line with what you would expect (e.g. heavier = longer takeoff roll, slower acceleration) adding ice adds both weight and drag. You're in a whole new ballgame. Comparing the two, and saying that one is just like the other is ridiculous, untrue, and bad information. Ice should be handled gingerly, but polished frost on your wings in a wide variety of aircraft will not kill you. In caravans, if you have frost, and you retract flaps at 400' you'll sink into the dirt with frost on the wings. The CL-65 clearly (from your post) doesn't like frost either. Know your ship, broad categorical rejections and statements of fact does not make good airmanship, each airplane is different, and though they may all have similar characteristics, they are all unique.

As for the second bolded item:

I've seen bridging take place with my own eyes, and know that if you start cycling boots right off the bat you'll pick up more ice that will not come off of the aircraft. More ice = bad, less ice = good. Period. The 1900 would fly with a ####load of ice anyway, so we'd load it up then blow it off with a shutter and a bang. I can't trust NASA, or the POH, only what I've seen, and its speculation for me until I see it. Maybe in warm places like florida where they test the ice twinotter is not conducive to briding, but up here it will #### you up.
Click to expand...

Know your aircraft... yeah, the pilots who crashed the CL-65 knew the airplane. The wisdom was that polished frost was okay. They had taken off with polished frost in the past. On the occasions of the crashes, however, it did not work. This is why the FAA has put out a proposed rule making that prohibits take offs with ANY ice, including polished frost.
Aircraft performance over gross is not linear. Just ask the NASA test pilots who put airplanes through spins. The airplanes handle VERY differently when over gross. In addition, you risk over stressing parts not made to handle stress.
So let me get this straight. The NTSB has NEVER investigated a crash caused by ice bridging, but they have investigated numerous crashes caused by delays in the use of boots. NASA has spent years sending airplanes into icing under conditions where they can see the difference between turning the boots on right away and waiting, and has never gotten ice bridging (what they get is residual ice that eventually comes off if you leave the boots on), and has come out and said to turn your boots on right away. (BTW, they don't just test airplanes in Florida, they send them throughout the US and Canada). Aircraft manufacturers have come out and changed their POHs to reflect this. But hey, you know more than these people. You're going to do it your way.
Good luck.
 
Bridging is real, period. Either cause by "old" boots not inflating fast enough or caused by ice accumulating while the boot is inflated or any other factor. I have sat there and watched it happen again and again in different types of aircraft whos de ice systems are working properly. Ice must be allowed to accumulate on a booted wing, end of story.
 
Blackhawk said:
Know your aircraft... yeah, the pilots who crashed the CL-65 knew the airplane. The wisdom was that polished frost was okay. They had taken off with polished frost in the past. On the occasions of the crashes, however, it did not work. This is why the FAA has put out a proposed rule making that prohibits take offs with ANY ice, including polished frost.
Aircraft performance over gross is not linear. Just ask the NASA test pilots who put airplanes through spins. The airplanes handle VERY differently when over gross. In addition, you risk over stressing parts not made to handle stress.
So let me get this straight. The NTSB has NEVER investigated a crash caused by ice bridging, but they have investigated numerous crashes caused by delays in the use of boots. NASA has spent years sending airplanes into icing under conditions where they can see the difference between turning the boots on right away and waiting, and has never gotten ice bridging (what they get is residual ice that eventually comes off if you leave the boots on), and has come out and said to turn your boots on right away. (BTW, they don't just test airplanes in Florida, they send them throughout the US and Canada). Aircraft manufacturers have come out and changed their POHs to reflect this. But hey, you know more than these people. You're going to do it your way.
Good luck.
Click to expand...

They investigated plenty of icing related accidents, and the evidence has a tendency to melt away.

You are correct, aircraft performance over gross is not linear, however, there are some guidelines, and things that happen as weight is increased. Don't toot your own horn about this stuff, man, I fly in it every day. I know how ground icing effects light aircraft operation, and how it effects the 1900. I know how in flight icing effects aircraft that are not equipped deice or anti ice (other than pitot heat) deal in these scenarios. Take my advice or leave it, but I do this every day and understand what's involved.

You fly in El Paso right? That area where it gets hotter than hell? You're not going to change my mind on this one.
 
Physics don't change.

You lose lift with ice attached to the wings. How much? You don't know. How much more ground roll is it going to take? You don't know. What is the climb rate going to be? You don't know. Is there enough power to keep it in the air? You don't know. You might be able to make an educated guess on the subject, but you really have NO IDEA.

Add to that a less-than-new-but-it-makes-compression engine, a short strip or terrain and you've got a lot of variables in the equation.

I had the opportunity to meet some of the NASA icing research pilots at my last company. They came down to a checkairman meeting. They showed us the twin-otter video, and were able to provide some first hand info about their testing. They put themselves in harm's way finding the ice and taping ice forms onto the aircraft to test handling characteristics. It's amazing and dangerous work they do to keep us safe. If you have the right ear, I think they'll come down to visit your airlines too.

I learned about all the boot testing, reynold's number affecting icing and all the crap I didn't know when I was riding around in Tprops waiting for the speed to drop XX kts before activating the boots.

Cavilier attitudes towards things that you might have goofed up prior, but survived - perhaps even with no ill effects- is very dangerous.

BTW, some of the worst ice I've encountered was navigating around a cell in FL in the summer. And that is covering most of the lower 48, lake effect and all...
 
ppragman said:
They investigated plenty of icing related accidents, and the evidence has a tendency to melt away.

You are correct, aircraft performance over gross is not linear, however, there are some guidelines, and things that happen as weight is increased. Don't toot your own horn about this stuff, man, I fly in it every day. I know how ground icing effects light aircraft operation, and how it effects the 1900. I know how in flight icing effects aircraft that are not equipped deice or anti ice (other than pitot heat) deal in these scenarios. Take my advice or leave it, but I do this every day and understand what's involved.

You fly in El Paso right? That area where it gets hotter than hell? You're not going to change my mind on this one.
Click to expand...
Yes, I fly in El Paso. I've flown in Canada (gets a "little" cold there), Korea (gets a "little" cold there as well), Africa, almost every one of the lower 48 states (maybe all of them, but I have not kept track), Central and South America, and the Middle East. I've dealt with icing "once or twice". I've even gotten severe icing around El Paso where clouds in the winter normally bring icing with them. Obviously you're kind of new to this icing thing. The worst icing I have gotten into has been in the Southwest and the Southeast US.
One thing I've learned over the years. Don't assume you know about the unfamiliar pilot in the lounge. Usually the ones who talk the most (or with the most posts), know the least.
But hey, what do I and test pilots from NASA, the military and the aircraft manufacturers know. You and Boris are the Skygods and know more than those chumps put together.
 
Blackhawk said:
Yes, I fly in El Paso. I've flown in Canada (gets a "little" cold there), Korea (gets a "little" cold there as well), Africa, almost every one of the lower 48 states (maybe all of them, but I have not kept track), Central and South America, and the Middle East. I've dealt with icing "once or twice". I've even gotten severe icing around El Paso where clouds in the winter normally bring icing with them. Obviously you're kind of new to this icing thing. The worst icing I have gotten into has been in the Southwest and the Southeast US.
One thing I've learned over the years. Don't assume you know about the unfamiliar pilot in the lounge. Usually the ones who talk the most (or with the most posts), know the least.
But hey, what do I and test pilots from NASA, the military and the aircraft manufacturers know. You and Boris are the Skygods and know more than those chumps put together.
Click to expand...

First off, statements like "obviously you're kind of new to this icing thing..." are just flame bait, and are uninformed. Don't be argumentative just for argument's sake. Also, I am familiar with the nasa tests, I did the icing information thing on the dryden page, learned a lot. However, what I've seen with my own eyes, as opposed to what I've seen in a totally controlled simulated environment are two different things. We even tested it at ACE. One leg we waited to see if the ice would come off. Blew the boots, it did. The next as soon as we went into the clouds we started cycling them. More ice remained on the airframe. This I saw with my own eyes. Site your studies, but I saw this, and tested it out.

As for the bolded items, wow. Really? Wow. You can be an ass about it if you want, but that sure as hell isn't going to change my view about things, more flies with honey right?
 
I would like to add though that I have flown alot in the southern sates and truely nothing compares to the ice and frost Alaska has. The only other time I have seen any thing like this is when I ferried a small plane into Narsarssuak, Greenland on my way to Holland. Greenland does kick Alaska's butt for severe conditions.

but yeah I would argue that those who fly in the southern latitudes have no idea. you go down here you're ######.
 
I would like to add though that I have spent a lot of my flying hours flying all over the southern states and I can admit nothing compares to the ice and frost you get up here in alaska The only other time I have ever seen anything this bad was when I ferried a small plane across the atlantic and I was stopping in at Narsarssuak, Greenland on my way over to Holland. That place is hard core and it does kick Alaska's butt in being severe conditions.

I would agree here, those who fly in the southern latitude have no idea. They have it pretty good. I look back now and realize how easy flying was in the lower 48 states. If I got any iceing (which was rare) you just go to a lower altitude or change course, or turn on anti ice. but here, #### me! no matter where you go it sucks. you go down and you are ******!
 
ppragman said:
They investigated plenty of icing related accidents, and the evidence has a tendency to melt away.

You are correct, aircraft performance over gross is not linear, however, there are some guidelines, and things that happen as weight is increased. Don't toot your own horn about this stuff, man, I fly in it every day. I know how ground icing effects light aircraft operation, and how it effects the 1900. I know how in flight icing effects aircraft that are not equipped deice or anti ice (other than pitot heat) deal in these scenarios. Take my advice or leave it, but I do this every day and understand what's involved.

You fly in El Paso right? That area where it gets hotter than hell? You're not going to change my mind on this one.
Click to expand...

Responding to your bold items. And they would be...
Yes, I'll go with my years of experience, (military, part 91, 135, 121, cold climates, warm climates, light single engine, light multi-engine, large turbo-prop, jet, helicopter all in icing), plus the data presented by NASA, military and aircraft test pilots over OWT. I too used to believe in ice bridging. But I kept an open mind. Testing the theory in an uncontrolled environment is not a valid test (was the air temperature the same; water volumn the same; aircraft temperature the same; airspeed the same; altitude the same; was the aircraft deiced prior to a leg). These are not things you can know based upon legs. Heck, I've flown through a cloud going in and no ice. Come out the same way and picked up a bunch of ice.
For those who already believe they can take off with ice on the aircraft I probably won't change you mind. For those like the OP who is doubtful about the wisdom of it, all I can give you is my advise. Don't do it. If you get into icing, my advice is to follow what the POH and tests prove, not what someone claims is true.
 
Narsarssuak is pretty cool. I thought it was funny. When I first flew over the country I realized that Greenland looks exactly like it does on the little map. All white. I have never seen so many Glaciers or Icebergs. That whole country is really ice. And the little land they do have didn’t have much on it just some kind of Yaks or artic cows or something. So many Icebergs! The coast guard was there tracking the ice as it fell off Greenland and into the Atlantic.

Did you stop and fuel there too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top