Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 23

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 22
22 Table 16. APS criteria weights. Decision Criteria Score+1 Weight % Scores Capital Cost 3 4 14.3 Operating Cost 2 3 10.7 Environmental Impact 1 2 7.1 Operational Efficiency 4 5 17.9 Maturity 5 6 21.4 Training 0 1 3.6 Safety 6 7 25.0 TOTAL 21 28 100.0% evaluation analytical process provided the ranking shown in A focus group of industry experts was surveyed for inputs on Table 17. the usefulness of the 18 proposed technologies, as well as on the Table 17 demonstrates that the overall ranking of the opti- weighting of the analytical criteria employed for analyzing and mization technologies or procedures does not change signif- ranking of the technologies and procedures for future study. icantly with the different sets (research agency and focus This exercise produced a final ranking of the de/anti-icing opti- group) of criterion weights. mization technologies and procedures for future study. The final list was comprised of numerous "quick hit" approaches (ones that are currently in use but could be readily improved Conclusions and Recommendations upon), as well as many approaches requiring greater levels of Conclusions research. Aircraft ground deicing technical reports; manufacturer Recommendations for Further Study product reports; regulatory, government, and industry doc- umentation; guidance material and standards; and deicing- The research performed in Phase I identified and ranked related patents and applications were reviewed to identify 18 potential de/anti-icing optimization technologies and pro- technologies and procedures that could potentially optimize cedures for further study. The top 10 ranked de/anti-icing the use of current de/anti-icing methodologies, most pre- optimization technologies and procedures were selected from dominantly glycol-based fluids. this list. This eliminated the bottom eight ranked technolo- The review produced a list of 34 potential technologies and gies and procedures: procedures. Many of the potential technologies and procedures were deemed to possess technical or operational deficien- Item 2, Deicing-only fluid buffer reduction; cies, or were deemed to not offer an adequate environmental Item 3, First-step deicing fluid buffer reduction; or operational enhancement over the current status quo, and Item 4, Fluids applied before the start of precipitation to were eliminated from further evaluation. Additional technolo- prevent bonding; gies and procedures of similar nature were merged under Item 7, Non-glycol freeze point depressant fluids; generic titles to eliminate commercial or competitive issues. Item 8, Point detection sensors to indicate fluid condition and This process of elimination and merger produced a final list of contamination on aircraft surfaces; 18 proposed technologies and procedures for further review. A Item 9, Remote ice detection sensors to scan aircraft critical series of seven analytical criteria (capital cost, operating cost, surfaces before departure runway; environmental impact, training, maturity, operational effi- Item 17, Use of infrared deicing technology; and ciency, safety) was developed and defined to assist in the evalu- Item 18, Use of weather forecasting products for deicing ation of the 18 technologies and procedures for future study. A process. ranking (1 to 18) of each of the technologies and procedures was then performed for each analytical criterion, to identify the The remaining technologies and procedures were then comparative strengths and weaknesses of each proposed item. grouped into two categories: