De-icing gear Hobart

[Grogan]

Traveling out of Hobart today, got delayed on takeoff due to icing on the wings... No big deal, but the odd thing was he announcement that they were taking on warm fuel to melt the ice as the de-icing gear in Hobart was out of service.
I get the delay and had no issue with the flight, but thought it was weird that an international airport in such a cold area would not have de-icing gear a available.

 

[Austman]

Seemed to happen to me on QF yesterday in HBA. A short delay - interesting but no big deal. It was announced as a "fuel issue due to ice"? And that is was a slightly unusual process that was being done.

 

[RooFlyer]

Traveling out of Hobart today, got delayed on takeoff due to icing on the wings... No big deal, but the odd thing was he announcement that they were taking on warm fuel to melt the ice as the de-icing gear in Hobart was out of service.
I get the delay and had no issue with the flight, but thought it was weird that an international airport in such a cold area would not have de-icing gear a available.

International or not - gear should be available.

I wonder how they warm the fuel? Put a little burner under the fuel truck?

 

[Kangol]

I thought HBA wasn't an international terminal any more? ie. no non-stop international flights depart from there now...most connect via MEL or SYD

 

[RooFlyer]

I thought HBA wasn't an international terminal any more? ie. no non-stop international flights depart from there now...most connect via MEL or SYD

Correct. But its still termed / named as 'International.' Possibly because of some Antarctic flights??

 

[ajw373]

International or not - gear should be available.

He did say it was out of service. Quite clearly they have other options available which were used so don't see the problem.

 

[RooFlyer]

He did say it was out of service. Quite clearly they have other options available which were used so don't see the problem.

Que? If something's out of service, is it available? Was there a problem?

 

[ajw373]

Que? If something's out of service, is it available?

No

Was there a problem?

No

So that begs the question why you reckon gear should be available.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
So that begs the question why you reckon gear should be available.

Because the OP said that there was an icing problem on an aircraft in Hobart! HBA obviously recognise that the risk is there (pretty obvious) so they have de-icing equipment.

Ergo, it would have been handy if HBA's de-icing gear was available for use for the aircraft departure in question. What's the issue with that sentiment?

 

[samh004]

Ergo, it would have been handy if HBA's de-icing gear was available for use for the aircraft departure in question. What's the issue with that sentiment?

I believe it was being pointed out that the other method worked, while not being the standard, so they did have a method for de-icing when the other method wasn't working. Sorted!

 

[geordieladinoz]

I believe it was being pointed out that the other method worked, while not being the standard, so they did have a method for de-icing when the other method wasn't working. Sorted!

I guess that whilst it was 'sorted', the extent of the delay is also relevant. Was it at the cost of passengers missing some onward connections? I'm sure those passengers wouldn't think it was 'sorted' even if the OP who has raised the query was ok with it?

 

[samh004]

I guess that whilst it was 'sorted', the extent of the delay is also relevant. Was it at the cost of passengers missing some onward connections? I'm sure those passengers wouldn't think it was 'sorted' even if the OP who has raised the query was ok with it?

Maybe, but things do break down from time to time. They could have enough spares that there'd be no delay, but you could also pay for all the spares in your ticket price/taxes

Sh¡t happens!

Doesn't sound like the delay was too long at least.

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm just bemused by the fact that the sentiment that de-icing gear should be available and in working order at an airport should be the subject for contention.

I guess another alternative would have been just to sit and wait for the environment to warm up and melt the ice.

Or ....

"Dear passengers; we are going to be delayed, sorry. cough happens, as they say. The airport has decided not to carry spares, to save you that cost, so that's a plus. We also think that's such a great idea, we are going to apply it to our airplane maintenance routine. Our new slogan is "No spares! Cheaper fares!" "

 

[Austman]

Was it at the cost of passengers missing some onward connections?

The delay in my case was only some minutes. On qantas.com it showed a 10 minutes late departure.

 

[ajw373]

I believe it was being pointed out that the other method worked, while not being the standard, so they did have a method for de-icing when the other method wasn't working. Sorted!

Thanks, yes exactly my thoughts. Gear was broken they had an alternative, plane left safely. Don't see the issue.

 

[ajw373]

I guess that whilst it was 'sorted', the extent of the delay is also relevant. Was it at the cost of passengers missing some onward connections? I'm sure those passengers wouldn't think it was 'sorted' even if the OP who has raised the query was ok with it?

As the OP said the delay was minor. That said how much equipment do people expect airports to have, and are you willing to pay extra in landing charges to have that sitting around? End of the day equipment is finite and there are procedures if it breaks. It may well cause minor or even major disruption depending upon what it is that is broken that is the cost of doing business.

 

[RooFlyer]

As the OP said the delay was minor. That said how much equipment do people expect airports to have, and are you willing to pay extra in landing charges to have that sitting around? End of the day equipment is finite and there are procedures if it breaks. It may well cause minor or even major disruption depending upon what it is that is broken that is the cost of doing business.

Oh, for crying out loud. First: agree that the OP incident is pretty inconsequential, given the outcome.

But de-icing equipment is an important bit of safety kit. Its not decorative, its not a status symbol - its safety infrastructure. Go to 'Ask the Pilot' and see what JB747 says about the subject.

If you have an airport subject to icing on aircraft, you need de-icing equipment. And it should be in working order!! Would you be happy using an aircraft where the fire fighting gear wasn't operative? "Oh, sorry, it was costing too much to keep it all going. Most of it works, OK?"

 

[gethsemene]

As someone from Hobart the reason Hobart counts as 'International' is not really due to the couple of Antarctic flights a year, more that most Tasmanians treat the mainland as a different country anyway! (with the exception of GST...) I once got caught in Geraldton because the flight from Perth was having de-icing issues!!

 

[ajw373]

Oh, for crying out loud. First: agree that the OP incident is pretty inconsequential, given the outcome.

But de-icing equipment is an important bit of safety kit. Its not decorative, its not a status symbol - its safety infrastructure. Go to 'Ask the Pilot' and see what JB747 says about the subject.

If you have an airport subject to icing on aircraft, you need de-icing equipment. And it should be in working order!! Would you be happy using an aircraft where the fire fighting gear wasn't operative? "Oh, sorry, it was costing too much to keep it all going. Most of it works, OK?"

Oh for crying out loud. The equipment was broken and they had an alternative. Simple as that. No one is questioning that a/c shouldn't be de-iced or aircraft should be flown in a dangerous condition. In this case it wasn't so why are you getting so worked up?

But how many units do you want? 2 so that if the first breaks there is another? What about 3 then, just in case two break, or how about 4 just in case the 3rd breaks, or 5, 6, 7 or even 1000000. In fact where do you stop? Simple answer is you have what is justifiable from both an operational and economic perspective and yes all that equipment and spares cost money to buy and shock horror have sitting around. The fact there was a viable alternative says that maybe what they have in Hobart is sufficient.

Talk about building a mountain out of nothing.

 

[RooFlyer]

Warm fuel.