On: CRJ-200 Winter Ops

SpiceWeasel

SpiceWeasel

Tre Kronor
Some questions to think about while you read below:

What is the purpose of the Wing A/I Test on the after start?

What does the presence of the green Wing A/Ice On advisory exactly tell us?

Operations under 5C, with or without visible moisture or surface contamination: what are we doing to the wing?

What is the upper temperature at which Type IV fails?

Are you comfortable taking off with a caution message posted? ( It may or may not go away during takeoff roll )

Limitation (somewhat abbreviated):

Wing Anti-Ice, ground ops - The wing anti-ice system must be selected ON during final taxi prior to takeoff if the OAT is 5C or below, unless Type II, III, or IV anti-icing fluids have been applied. Final taxi is defined as initiation of the before takeoff checklist.

Note: The wing anti-ice system may be turned ON after both engines are running but no later than the commencement of the Before Takeoff Check, to insure [sic] wing contamination from frost is prevented.

Note: L or R WING A/ICE caution messages may be posted during taxi but must be verified out and WING A/ICE ON advisory message posted, prior to takeoff. If wing anti-ice is not required for takeoff, it should be selected off for takeoff.

Note: When Type II, III, or IV anti-icing fluids have been applied, the wing anti-ice system must only be selected ON, if required, just prior to thrust increase for takeoff.

We just took a winter ops test, and it seems as if the test re-defined the non-precip / non-contam takeoff under 5C.... Despite final taxi being defined, we are actually supposed to wait until just prior to thrust increase for takeoff to do the wing warmer.

@BobDDuck @higney85 ... Anyone else know about this stuff.

There seems to be a disconnect between north campus and south campus (now closed anyway). So what's the deal?

And what does "spot de-icing" mean?
 
I think the purpose of the test is to ensure the valves are functioning and that 14th stage bleed air actually goes to the ducts when you turn the switch on.

Tried to find in the systems manual what the green WING A/I ON message indicates and it simply says that the "wing anti-ice is operating normally". IIRC it has to do with temperature of the wing duct.

The logic on the wings warmed up below 5C I've always been told is to ensure no frost has accumulated on the leading edge. I'm not sure how sound that logic is since I've never seen frost form on the leading edge first. It tends to go from the mid-aft section of the wing and move forward in my experience. This limitation is associated with an AD. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...5536BF202477B494862574E400527FA4?OpenDocument

No idea when Type IV isn't effective but I know it burns off if the wings are on. I've seen it before.

What exactly was redefined in the test? I thought the manual always read that you were to turn it on during final taxi and turn them off just prior to application of takeoff thrust? I guess I didn't pay very close attention when I took the quiz.
 
Keep in mind, I've dumped a lot of stuff from my memory of the CRJ and, on top of that, we don't have a deicing program for the airplane I currently fly.

The purpose of the Wing A/I test, once the engines are running is to ensure that the 14th stage isolation valve can open. That way, in the event of an engine failure you'd be able to keep the engine out side wing anti iced. As part of that test you are also checking that there is a rise in the ITTs, due to the higher engine demand of more air being pulled out mid stream to provide anti ice protection of the wings and cowls. Even if all your duct pressure and valve movement sensors failed, you know the system is in theory working due to the rise in temps.

The green Wing A/Ice on Advisory message is related to a temperature sensor readout. When the wings get to a certain temp (that is warm enough to prevent ice from forming) the message comes in. This is NOT like the green arcs on the N2 gauge, which turn amber when you don't have a high enough N2 speed. The arc turns green at a predetermined number (79% maybe? I'm drawing a blank) and all that means is that according to some French-Canadian dude's calculation you SHOULD have enough engine output at that (or higher) N2 setting to provide enough bleed air for the anti ice system. It may work at lower power settings too, but there is no guarantee.

Because cabin checks are not authorized on the 200 (although they ARE authorized on the 700/900), there is no way to know if frost has formed after you do your last check at the gate before you got in the plane and taxied away. So, after a few CRJs and Challengers stalled on takeoff and crashed (mostly for reasons related to NOT deicing at all during snow or rotating at WAY over the recommended 3 degrees per second) the FAA mandated that you'd better be safe than sorry and if there is any possibility of ice forming (5 and below) you have to heat up the wing just in case because you can't actually see it from the cockpit. One of the more knee jerk things that happened to the plane.

I have no idea at what upper temp Type IV is no longer good at. I'd guess it's above freezing though so I'm not sure exactly what the point of that question is.

Taking off with caution messages is kind of vague... what sort are they talking about? Related to anti ice? In general?

I don't see anything new or different with the limitations there. It was always that if you had any type of anti ice fluid on the wing you waited to turn on the wing anti ice system until just before takeoff so as to not burn off the protection. If there's nothing on the wing, you turn it on for "final taxi".

My understanding of spot deicing is where there is ice on just one spot of the wing and instead of spraying down the entire plane (or wings and tail) they just blast the place where there is ice.
 
Looks like all the questions have been answered except type IV fluid temp failure (high range) and why to only turn on the wing A/I before T/O thrust increase.

This answer is a pure guess.... I have done some googling and AD searching and can't find the official answer. I always do it, cause that's what the book says. PFM I guess... Only number I could find was complete fluid failure at +35C, and each fluid seems to be slightly different at the top end temp. That would mean that the fluid can no longer serve its purpose as a fluid and no longer has the shear properties (I read it as it just burns off or dribbles off like water). Being that the wing was something like 96C in norm and 47C in standby (I would have to double check the -200 systems book on temps, it's been a year or so since I did a "build the plane" refresher for the -200), I guess you would be in a fluid failure state and now have essentially water and failed fluid running back onto the cold wing and essentially contaminating the rest of the fluid over the wing.


Just a guess.... Don't quote me on any of that. The book says it, we do it. The -900 is the same way for application of wing A/I just prior to T/O thrust when type II/III/IV is applied. Maybe email the fleet manager and get the bombardier answer.
 
Fwiw the challenger 604 has the same limitation. I can't find the limitation on boeings (Googled limitations), so this may be a CL-600 thing... There were notable crashes in the -200 and 604 that have the additional ground limitations, it may just be part of the whole "fix".
 
Every time this stuff is discussed I'm just baffled that it was Canadians that designed a plane that has so many ridiculous winter ops procedure and with an APU (essential for cabin temp in the winter) that was added as an after thought.

Oh and did anybody know that Bombardier used to actually make these things called snow mobiles?! They're machines purpose built for winter!
 
Pilotdude3407 said:
The book has all these answers in them. Do you not have any reference materials?
Click to expand...
rageface-really.jpg

That doesn't mean the answers are trivial to locate.

bronco21016 said:
Every time this stuff is discussed I'm just baffled that it was Canadians that designed a plane that has so many ridiculous winter ops procedure and with an APU (essential for cabin temp in the winter) that was added as an after thought.

Oh and did anybody know that Bombardier used to actually make these things called snow mobiles?! They're machines purpose built for winter!
Click to expand...
I've not had the pleasure of the Canuckjet, but everything about the -200 seems like "Crap, we need to beat Embraer to market."
 
cencal83406 said:
We just took a winter ops test, and it seems as if the test re-defined the non-precip / non-contam takeoff under 5C.... Despite final taxi being defined, we are actually supposed to wait until just prior to thrust increase for takeoff to do the wing warmer.
Click to expand...
This is a huge line issue for me personally. New to airplane so I was taught the "north way" from the beginning. On the -900 we never did the warm up crap at all... -slats is the answer to your question. Anyway, the book has said to switch off the wing heat since before 2013 when I started this adventure. I've had a few line captains fight with me on it so I bring out the book and they stammer in utter disbelief. I have no idea what was done prior, and it's clear that this procedure used to be completely different. As far as I'm concerned I put the stupid thing right back on after the "after start check" unless it's going to be 20 or something minutes before we takeoff (or de-ice obviously) unless the captain wants me to do it at the befores because "if you use the stupid wing heat you'll break it" (reason given to me). God forbid we write things up now that maintenance actually has the tools and training to fix things like a professional airline.

cencal83406 said:
What is the purpose of the Wing A/I Test on the after start?

What does the presence of the green Wing A/Ice On advisory exactly tell us?

Operations under 5C, with or without visible moisture or surface contamination: what are we doing to the wing?

What is the upper temperature at which Type IV fails?
Click to expand...

To see if the valve will move before we leave the gate (guessing)?
Tells you the wing is sensed to be heated to the correct temp?
Heating up the wing so you don't have a repeat of the guy south of the equator who rotated at 2.9 degree per second and stalled the wing thanks to frost on the -200 at +1C or whatever it was with gusts..
Don't know, don't care (nothing personal, I don't care how many flipping fuse plugs there are on the tires either). Sounds like a south question to me.
 
Pilotdude3407 said:
The book has all these answers in them. Do you not have any reference materials?
Click to expand...
It does?

You must not work at Endeavor.

Just as an example, both the Endeavor Systems Manual and the Mesaba Systems Manual claim in one section that the crew escape hatch reports to the PSEU.
 
cencal83406 said:
Just as an example, both the Endeavor Systems Manual and the Mesaba Systems Manual claim in one section that the crew escape hatch reports to the PSEU.
Click to expand...

There actually is an option for that. We had one slide from Bombardier about something completely unrelated to the escape hatch but it showed a picture of the doors page synoptic and the escape hatch was shown as monitored. We had a tech rep that happened to be around that day and asked him about it and he checked and said that you could purchase a sensor for that door as an option, but nobody ever did.
 
BobDDuck said:
There actually is an option for that. We had one slide from Bombardier about something completely unrelated to the escape hatch but it showed a picture of the doors page synoptic and the escape hatch was shown as monitored. We had a tech rep that happened to be around that day and asked him about it and he checked and said that you could purchase a sensor for that door as an option, but nobody ever did.
Click to expand...
The more you know... I have wondered why the diagram shows the crew escape hatch as an input but no-where else does it say whether it does or not.

Going back to the topic, I don't know if we do things wonky or not, but we do a test, every flight, of the Wing A/Ice. Only on FFOD do we check whether the 14th stage isolation valve opens.

The caution message question has to do with this:

When we check the Wing A/Ice, there is no requirement to verify that the wing heats to the internal temp that gives a green advisory (107 +- 8 C). So, if you anti-ice, you are supposed to wait until prior to thrust increase to turn the wings on. Often, a rolling takeoff will make it such that you get a caution as you turn the wings on, and not always L and R, sometimes only one. Sometimes you also get a Cowl caution as well, but generally these messages extinguish in the high speed regime.

So, what I am gathering is, under 5C, no precip, we are ensuring a clean wing with heat.

Under 5 C with precip, having a hot wing as we takeoff into icing conditions is secondary to having type IV that protects until shear speed.

The reason for the thread is that I find it counterintuitive to purposefully takeoff with a caution.
 
It's been about a year since I've taken off with Type IV, but from what I remember the messages usually extinguish as soon as you advance the thrust, therefore you're not taking off with a caution message.

As far as the 5C no precip question, there were several Challenger winter ops accidents where the crews were not operating in precipitation, but conditions were conducive to the formation of frost. In one of the accidents the crew even performed a tactile check about 40 minutes prior to takeoff. People at Bombardier were scratching their heads and figured some frost could have formed, and the 2 minutes prior could have melted the frost and prevented the accident.

We take off with window heat caution messages all the time when the temp is above 25 degrees C.

After working with people in various training departments we all operate similarly, but may have different variants of the aircraft and different interpretations of the Bombardier AFM and FCOM. I always recommend checking with your training department for clarification on your manuals.
 
EDUC8-or said:
It's been about a year since I've taken off with Type IV, but from what I remember the messages usually extinguish as soon as you advance the thrust, therefore you're not taking off with a caution message.

As far as the 5C no precip question, there were several Challenger winter ops accidents where the crews were not operating in precipitation, but conditions were conducive to the formation of frost. In one of the accidents the crew even performed a tactile check about 40 minutes prior to takeoff. People at Bombardier were scratching their heads and figured some frost could have formed, and the 2 minutes prior could have melted the frost and prevented the accident.

We take off with window heat caution messages all the time when the temp is above 25 degrees C.

After working with people in various training departments we all operate similarly, but may have different variants of the aircraft and different interpretations of the Bombardier AFM and FCOM. I always recommend checking with your training department for clarification on your manuals.
Click to expand...

The messages don't extinguish immediately after advancing thrust. Since the wing advisory is dependent upon temperature, it takes a bit for it to go green. Usually, I see it above 100 knots.

Wing/Cowl A/Ice On appears above APR Armed in this case.

Window Heat - we don't have a procedure that "allows" takeoff with the caution message on. We have a procedure for hot windows but it requires the window and windshield heat cautions to be gone with the switches on prior to takeoff (otherwise we contact DX/MX).

Anyway, the consensus here seems to be that having the caution / not having the advisory prior to actually beginning the roll is alright. Since we aren't entirely sure of the failure temp of the fluid...

Anyway, the limitation is clear, but at the same time it isn't. It is clear that you need the advisory when no fluids are on. Why it can't just say "the message will not appear until the aircraft is rolling / you may see caution msgs" it becomes a different story.
 
Again, it's been a while but you're saying you're getting the green advisory messages when the APR is armed at 79% N1, but the caution messages don't disappear until beyond 100 knots?
 
Sorry, my answer came off as smug. Wasn't how it was meant.

I don't worry too much about all that stuff on the RJ. Bottom line is, our plane is not different than any of the others out there and we just have loads of dumb stuff we do because people are idiots and instead of Bombardier brushing it off to poor piloting or decision making skills, we make an AD about it and now have to start doing all of this stuff.

Example: Crew oversees (I believe) taxied out under questionable conditions and didn't get deiced when they probably should have. On top of that they completely over rotated at far more than the standard 3 degrees per second( i think that's the value), stalled the plane and damn near balled it up on the runway.

Solution: We all have to turn our wings on below 5C even during clear and a million days, plus we got tons of training material and limitations put in our book on how not to be a terrible pilot and yank the airplane off the ground and how to pitch in to the flight director and not a degree above it, and blah blah blah. Really?

The longer I stay on this plane, the more ridiculous Bombardier and the operators of it become. I bet Boeing doesn't come out with dumb stuff like this for any of their planes that were created 25+ yrs ago.
 
EDUC8-or said:
Again, it's been a while but you're saying you're getting the green advisory messages when the APR is armed at 79% N1, but the caution messages don't disappear until beyond 100 knots?
Click to expand...
I will have to do some mental logging on this front but I know that we do on occasion have airplanes that don't have cautions for it disappear "just because the power is up".

The system seems to be operating normally during times where you have no caution but no advisory (well cowls yes, wings no) during the roll.
 
Pilotdude3407 said:
The longer I stay on this plane, the more ridiculous Bombardier and the operators of it become. I bet Boeing doesn't come out with dumb stuff like this for any of their planes that were created 25+ yrs ago.
Click to expand...
The Saab was changing stuff all the time. 2 years we found 3 ways to fly the thing and that was a combination of Saab, FAA, and NTSB guidance.

The -900 was refreshing to me because it was somewhat consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top