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 61
61
Table 39. Planned OAT for · "We do not allow this procedure on our aircraft since it is
test sets. not covered by FAA guidance documents;" and
· "This procedure would require additional inspections and
Test Set # OAT (°F) OAT (°C) training."
1 -13.0 -25
2 6.8 -14 Following the preliminary phone interviews, a focus group
3 26.6 -3 consisting of key individuals from the deicing industry was put
3a 26.6 -3 together to gather a more thorough and detailed understand-
3b 26.6 -3 ing of the industry's perceptions and current usage of diluted
3c 26.6 -3 fluids.
4 14.0 -10 Feedback was obtained from the focus group through an
5 33.8 +1 online survey.
Survey Objectives
Log of Tests
The objectives of the survey were:
A log of tests is given in Table 40. Each row in the log con-
tains data specific to one test set. Chamber temperatures for · To determine which frost removal methodologies the
Test Sets 1, 2, 3, and 3a were lower than planned due to the industry is familiar with and which frost removal method-
location of the test stands in the cold chamber. For the remain- ologies the industry currently employs;
ing tests, the stands were repositioned to an area of the cham- · To determine the relative cost of frost removal method-
ber where temperatures were more suitable. ologies;
· To determine the perceived effectiveness of frost removal
Focus Group Survey methodologies;
· To determine the perceived advantages and disadvantages
Preliminary phone interviews were conducted with sev- of using spot deicing for frost removal;
eral deicing service providers (Contego Systems, Integrated · To document current practices of companies using spot
Deicing Solutions), several airlines (Alaska, Northwest, US deicing for frost removal;
Airways), a major freight hauler (FedEx) and the FAA to · To determine what is preventing companies who are not
examine current spot deicing for frost removal practices and using spot deicing for frost removal from using this
to ascertain the current extent of its usage. Information methodology;
gathered from these interviews varied. Replies covered a · To determine what changes (regulatory or otherwise) need
wide range: to take place in order for these companies to employ spot
deicing; and
· "We have been using a spot defrosting procedure for sev- · To quantify fluid savings that would be realized by using
eral seasons;" spot deicing for frost removal.
Table 40. Log of tests.
Avg.
Frost Frost
Non- Test Plan Average Plate
Active Accumulated Accumulated
Test Total Active Chamber Chamber Temp.
Date Frost on Plate on Plate
Set Tests Frost Temp. Temp. Before
Tests Before Pour After Pour
Tests (°C) (°C) Pour
(g/1 hour) (g/2.5 hours)
(°C)
1 July 7 12 9 3 -25 -28.6 -28.5 1.1 2.1
2 July 7 12 9 3 -14 -16.6 -20.5 2.1 3.6
3 July 8 12 9 3 -3 -4.2 -6.3 1.4 4
3a July 8 6 4 2 -3 -4.2 -6.7 0.5 0.7
3b July 10 12 9 3 -3 -3 -13 3.8 10.9
3c July 10 6 6 0 -3 -3 -7.2 4.5 4.2
4 July 9 12 9 3 -10 -10.3 -13.7 0.8 0.6
5 July 10 3 3 0 1 1.9 -4.1 3.2 3.2
OCR for page 62
62
Composition of Focus Group · US Airways
· WestJet
The focus group included individuals from a number of
organizations, including deicing service providers, passenger
It should be noted that a concerted effort was made to
airlines of varying sizes, cargo airlines, government agencies, include individuals involved in deicing operations in North
and airport authorities. These individuals were invited to the America, Europe, and elsewhere in the world. The following
focus group because they are key decision makers for aircraft countries were represented in the focus group: United States,
ground operations in winter conditions in their respective Canada, United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Ger-
organizations. many, France, Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Russia, and
In addition, several key consultants in the deicing industry Japan.
were included. These individuals have many years experience in
the deicing industry and are now involved in training programs.
The following organizations were represented in the focus Survey Format
group: The survey consisted of 25 multiple choice and short answer
questions. The final question was an optional open-ended
· Aero Tech Consulting question used to collect additional comments/observations
· Aeroflot on the topics that were not addressed by the survey questions.
· Aeromag 2000, Montreal A copy of the survey is included in Appendix C.
· Aeromag-Contego, Cleveland Not all of the survey questions were applicable to each
· Air Canada person in the focus group. For example, questions related to
· Air France amounts of fluid used in actual operations were not relevant to
· Alaska Airlines individuals from government organizations, as their organiza-
· All Nippon Airways tions do not conduct de/anti-icing operations. The survey soft-
· American Airlines ware described in the next section was used to set up the
· Basic Solutions surveys to ask respondents only those questions that were
· British Airways applicable to their organization type (the first question ascer-
· Contego Systems tained their organization type). A matrix showing the ques-
· Contego Systems, Denver tions that were asked to each organization type is included in
· Continental Airlines Appendix C.
· Delta Airlines The applicability of some of the questions in the survey
· East Line Techniques was determined by respondents' answer to Question 7,
· EFM Munich which asked if their affiliated organization was currently
· FAA using the spot deicing methodology, planned to use it in the
· FedEx future, or did not plan to use it in the future. The survey
· Horizon Air software was used to route respondents to the appropriate
· Hungarian Airlines questions based on their response to this question. The
· Integrated Deicing Systems questions that were asked upon each of the three responses
· KLM are provided in the spot deicing routing diagram given in
· Leading Edge Deicing Specialists Appendix C.
· Malmö Aviation
· MeteoGroup
·
Survey Administration
N*ICE Aircraft Services, Frankfurt
· Northwest Airlines Specialized software was used to administer the survey
· Port of Portland online. The software was used to create the survey, publish it
· Salzburg Airport to a secure website, and collect and collate the responses.
· Servisair Canada
· Servisair, Toronto
Response Rate
· Swissport
· Transport Canada The survey was sent to 41 focus group members. Twenty-
· UK CAA seven individuals (66%) completed the survey. Table 41
· United Airlines shows a breakdown of the survey respondents by organiza-
· United Parcel Service tion type.
