Originally Posted by VelvetJones (Post 29453763)

It seems like most of the ATR crashes, both for the 42 and 72, involve icing. It seems they never fixed the problems, despite changes to the deicing boots. Even the one in Cuba crashed due to icing(flow through a thunder storm). It is the one of only a few planes I will not fly on.

Originally Posted by overdahill (Post 29448975)

(I do not believe that the real cause was just icing).

Originally Posted by overdahill (Post 29448975)

Perhaps more of you should listen to this crazy old man.

Originally Posted by cestmoi123 (Post 29468664)

The NTSB disagrees with you. I'm going to go with them on this one.

No more than I'd listen to someone who cancelled a breakfast reservation at Windows on the World for September 11th, 2001, because he was sure that he would die of food poisoning if he ate there.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 29469021)

Icing may have been the cause of the accident(s) but the pilots have ultimate responsibility to fly the airplane in a safe manner. When encountering excessive icing the aircraft is flown to a warmer or clear altitude. Continuing flying while building up ice is just crazy, all the pilot needs do is look out and monitor the rate of accumulation and if the deicing systems aren't keeping up then find a better altitude to fly at. ATC is generally very cooperative when a pilot requests an altitude change for safety reasons.

Originally Posted by cestmoi123 (Post 29469089)

I don't disagree that the pilots may have erred in how they handled the icing. That has nothing to do with the OP's claim that he's credible because he decided not to fly on the basis of wind conditions outside Indianapolis.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 29469021)

Icing may have been the cause of the accident(s) but the pilots have ultimate responsibility to fly the airplane in a safe manner. When encountering excessive icing the aircraft is flown to a warmer or clear altitude. Continuing flying while building up ice is just crazy, all the pilot needs do is look out and monitor the rate of accumulation and if the deicing systems aren't keeping up then find a better altitude to fly at. ATC is generally very cooperative when a pilot requests an altitude change for safety reasons.

Originally Posted by WorldLux (Post 29469239)

Which is tricky in a turboprop, which has lower cruise altitudes and lower service ceilings. If you have ever flown a turboprop in bad weather, then you'll know that it is sometimes impossible for pilots to climb/descend out of bad weather. Furthermore most of the wing's surfaces (both on the ATR and the Dash 8) are out of sight: Neither passenger nor crew member will be able to see if and how much ice builds up on top of the wings. A poorly designed de-icing system may be fatal in such a scenario.

---

THE US FEDERAL Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved the use of larger de-icing-boots on the ATR 42 and 72 regional turboprops. The modification, developed and tested by the Aerospatiale/Alenia consortium, is aimed at preventing the formation of an ice ridge on the wing by nearly doubling the effective coverage of the boots.

The FAA says that installation of the modified de-icing boots on ATR types operating in the USA must be completed by 1 June. About 174 aircraft are effected.

The modification results from the fatal crash of an ATR 72 near Chicago in October 1994. Accident investigators concluded that an abnormal icing condition not covered by any certification requirement could have occurred.

<snip>

---

Originally Posted by TWA884 (Post 29469484)

The ATR 42 and 72 had ineffective deicing systems.

Originally Posted by cestmoi123 (Post 29477487)

...

The post-crash remedies were a combination of changes to the de-icing systems, moving the planes to areas with less risk of icing, and a change to pilot procedures.