The Perils of Invisible Ice

The Silent Menace: Understanding Ice Formation on Aircraft Wings

While the vastness of space and distant planets capture our imagination, the intricacies of the natural world often hold more immediate and profound lessons. The simple phenomenon of ice forming on a car's windscreen during a winter morning is a familiar inconvenience for most. However, for aviators, the accumulation of ice on an aircraft's wings is a far more sinister threat, a danger that can turn a routine flight into a catastrophic event. The tragic accident of Flight Comair 3272 on January 9, 1997, served as a stark and brutal reminder of the devastating power of this seemingly innocuous element, and the lessons learned from its aftermath have profoundly reshaped aviation safety protocols.

The Aircraft in Question: The Embraer RT120

The aircraft involved in the Comair 3272 incident was an Embraer RT120, a twin-turboprop regional airliner. These aircraft are renowned for their efficiency and reliability on short-haul routes, typically carrying a few dozen passengers for flights not exceeding an hour. Statistically, such aircraft, often operating at lower altitudes, are more susceptible to adverse weather conditions, including icing, compared to their larger counterparts that spend more time at higher, colder, but often clearer altitudes. The Embraer RT120, manufactured in Brazil, is a popular choice among pilots globally for its handling characteristics and dependability.

De-icing and Anti-icing Systems: A Crucial Defence

All commercial aircraft are equipped with systems designed to prevent or remove ice accumulation. On jet aircraft, a common method involves bleeding hot air from the engine compressors. This hot air is then ducted to critical areas on the wings and control surfaces, where ice is most likely to form. While effective, this process does reduce engine power, so it is typically engaged only when necessary.

For propeller-driven aircraft like the Embraer 120, the anti-icing strategy differs. The engines, while powerful, do not provide the same volume of hot air for de-icing. Instead, these aircraft often feature inflatable rubber boots, known as 'de-icing boots', along the leading edges of the wings, tail surfaces, and other vulnerable areas. When ice builds up to a certain thickness, the pilot can activate these boots, causing them to inflate rapidly. This inflation cracks the accumulated ice, which is then carried away by the airflow.

A persistent anecdote within the pilot community, though undocumented, suggests a past procedural flaw where pilots might have delayed activating the boots, allowing a significant layer of ice to form before inflation. The rationale, though misguided, was that the ice needed to reach a certain thickness to be effectively broken by the boots. This belief, however, proved to be a dangerous misconception, as the Comair 3272 accident would tragically demonstrate.

Flight Comair 3272: A Flight into Danger

Flight Comair 3272, carrying 29 souls aboard the N265CA, was en route from Cincinnati, Kentucky, to Detroit, Michigan. The flight crew comprised two experienced and respected pilots, with the captain also serving as an instructor on the Embraer 120 and other twin-jet aircraft operated by the airline. The flight was experiencing a significant delay, a factor that can often have cascading negative effects on aviation safety. Delays can shift flight preparations from daylight to night, alter anticipated weather conditions, and fatigue the crew, impacting their performance on subsequent flights. While a statistical correlation would be beneficial, the detrimental influence of delays is a recurring theme in accident investigations.

The flight departed under marginal weather conditions. Although no severe turbulence or thunderstorms were reported, the sky was covered by dense clouds, and weather advisories indicated moderate to severe icing conditions. Before takeoff, the Embraer received a standard de-icing treatment with a fluid mixture of water and ethylene glycol to remove any pre-existing ice and provide a temporary protective barrier.

Following takeoff, the aircraft climbed to Flight Level 210 (approximately 21,000 feet) to avoid lower-altitude turbulence. The initial phase of the flight was uneventful. Approximately forty minutes into the flight, the crew commenced their descent towards Detroit.

Landing in Challenging Conditions

As the aircraft approached Detroit, the weather reports were grim. Low clouds and falling snow had rendered taxiways and runways slippery, with snowploughs working to maintain operational access. The flight crew anticipated an instrument approach, with a heightened awareness of the prevalent icing conditions.

Air traffic control (ATC) provided vectors for Runway 03. An advisory was issued regarding a DC-9 that had just landed, reporting particularly poor braking action on the runway. This necessitated a slower-than-normal approach and careful handling of the aircraft to manage the slick conditions. Adding to the complexity, an Airbus A320 announced its intention to land on the same runway. The A320, being a much faster aircraft, was given priority by ATC to avoid any potential conflict. However, the A320's passage created its own set of challenges for the Embraer, requiring it to maintain a safe distance to avoid wake turbulence.

ATC issued a series of headings to the Embraer, temporarily deviating it from the approach path to ensure adequate separation from the A320. These manoeuvres occurred amidst the icing conditions within the clouds. While pilots have the authority to request modified instructions if they deem them unsafe, on this occasion, neither the pilots nor the controller fully appreciated the escalating danger.

The controller instructed the Embraer to turn to a heading of 090 and reduce speed to 150 knots. This was the final communication received from Flight Comair 3272. The pilots, in their cockpit, expressed concern about the controller's repeated instruction to maintain 150 knots, with one remarking, "This guy has..." and the other, "He told us twice!"

Loss of Control and the Unseen Culprit

The flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) provided a chilling account of the final moments. At 4,000 feet, within the clouds, the aircraft was executing a left turn to align with the assigned heading. Its speed was 156 knots, seemingly within normal parameters. As the pilot completed the turn and moved the control column to level the aircraft, it responded unexpectedly by rolling further to the left. A subsequent attempt by the pilot to correct the roll resulted in an even steeper left bank. Within seconds, the aircraft was nearly inverted. Despite increasing engine power, the situation was irrecoverable. The aircraft rapidly descended and crashed into a field, tragically claiming the lives of all 26 passengers and 3 crew members.

Investigating the Cause: Beyond Wake Turbulence

Initial investigations focused on wake turbulence as a potential cause, given the proximity to the A320. However, radar data analysis quickly dismissed this theory, confirming that ATC had maintained sufficient separation between the two aircraft.

The investigation then turned its attention to the persistent issue of icing. It was established that all aircraft operating in the vicinity had experienced some degree of ice accumulation. The impact of ice on wing aerodynamics had been studied since the 1930s. Research by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) revealed that even a thin layer of ice, as little as three-tenths of a millimetre thick, covering 5-10% of the wing's surface, could reduce the critical angle of attack by up to six degrees. This meant an aircraft coated with seemingly insignificant ice could stall at much higher speeds and lower angles of attack than anticipated. An engineer in 1979 noted that a 'sandy texture' ice formation could lead a pilot to believe they were flying 30% above the stall speed, when in reality, they were only 10% above it. Crucially, this 'rough' ice, likened to sandpaper, could induce a stall before the aircraft's stall warning system activated, as it altered the airflow over the wing in a way that bypassed the sensor's detection threshold.

Some aircraft have stall warning systems that adjust the stall warning angle based on the activation of anti-icing systems. The Embraer 120, however, lacked this particular feature.

Rethinking Certification and Procedures

Regulatory bodies like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), with assistance from NASA and the University of Illinois, undertook a comprehensive re-evaluation of ice accretion standards. Aircraft certification typically involves demonstrating tolerance to ice accumulation through flight tests and wind tunnel experiments. In these tests, simulated ice shapes are often applied to wings. Historically, the most adverse icing scenario considered was the accumulation of thick ice layers, perhaps up to 2 centimetres. It was assumed that lesser amounts of ice would pose a proportionally lesser risk.

The post-accident analysis revealed a critical flaw in this assumption. It was discovered that a fine, granular layer of ice, often invisible to the naked eye, could have a far more detrimental effect on stall speed than a thicker, more visible accumulation on the leading edge. Paradoxically, existing procedures mandated that pilots activate de-icing systems only when a 'respectable' thickness of ice, typically one to two centimetres, had formed. The belief was that inflating the boots would then break this larger ice mass.

The findings were unequivocal: "Aerodynamic performance degradation can reach dangerous levels before the pilot is even able to perceive ice formation."

The widely circulated pilot anecdote about de-icing boots becoming ineffective due to ice accumulation on the inflated boots was officially debunked by the FAA as a "myth." The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) also critiqued this notion, tracing its origins to the 1930s when inflatable boots were less powerful and took longer to break ice. The revised procedure recommended by aviation authorities was clear: pilots should activate the de-icing boots cyclically as soon as the aircraft enters icing conditions, without delay or hesitation.

A review of previous accidents indicated that hundreds of lives could have been saved had this understanding of subtle ice formation and its consequences been recognized and acted upon sooner. Unfortunately, the adoption of new knowledge and the abandonment of ingrained practices can be slow in aviation, as in many fields. As late as July 2000, the UK Department of Transport, following a serious incident involving a G-WEAC registered aircraft, issued a recommendation advising pilots to inflate wing boots only after ice accumulation to avoid the risk of ice building up on the inflated boots and rendering them ineffective – a clear indication that old habits died hard.

The Role of Autopilot in Loss of Control

The NTSB also highlighted another factor that frequently exacerbates loss-of-control incidents: the use of autopilot. When the autopilot is engaged, pilots can lose the direct tactile feedback from the aircraft’s controls. Subtle deviations in pitch or roll, which a pilot might instinctively correct with manual control, can go unnoticed when the autopilot is actively managing the aircraft. The autopilot battles these subtle influences silently. When the autopilot disengages, or is manually disengaged, the problem often escalates to a critical level. Pilots may suddenly find their aircraft in an extreme attitude, such as being nearly inverted, shortly after disengaging the autopilot.

In the case of Comair 3272, it was determined that if the pilots had disengaged the autopilot a minute earlier, they might have felt the subtle tendency of the aircraft to roll left, despite the ailerons being held right. Tragically, by the time the autopilot disengaged, or was disengaged, the aircraft was already in a desperate, irrecoverable situation.

Key Takeaways for Pilots and Aviation Professionals:

• Understand the Nature of Ice: Be aware that not all ice formation is visually obvious. Fine, granular ice can significantly degrade aerodynamic performance without being readily apparent.
• Adhere to Revised Procedures: Activate de-icing boots cyclically upon entering icing conditions. Do not wait for a significant ice accumulation.
• Recognize Autopilot Limitations: Maintain situational awareness and be prepared to take manual control, especially in challenging weather conditions. Disengage autopilot promptly if you suspect an issue.
• Continuous Learning: Stay updated on the latest research and accident investigations. The aviation industry is constantly evolving, and understanding past lessons is crucial for future safety.

The Comair 3272 accident remains a profound case study in aviation safety, underscoring the critical importance of understanding and respecting the subtle yet powerful forces of nature, and the continuous need to refine our knowledge and procedures in the face of them.

If you want to read more articles similar to The Perils of Invisible Ice, you can visit the Automotive category.