Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 64


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 63
63 Table 41. Survey respondents by affiliated organization type. Airlines 44% (12) Major Airline 30% (8) National Airline 7% (2) Regional Airline 4% (1) Major Air Carrier (non passenger) 4% (1) Small (on demand) Air Carrier 0% (0) DSPs 33% (9) Deicing Service Provider (non airlines) 26% (7) Airport Authority 7% (2) Others 22% (6) Deicing Trainer 4% (1) Regulator/Government 11% (3) Other 7% (2) All Respondents 100% (27) Cost-Benefit Model study using the model, before going to the effort of developing costs specific to their own situation. A cost-benefit model was developed to assist operators in The potential parameters considered for the cost-benefit determining the financial feasibility of implementing spot model are: deicing for frost. Development of the model was completed using a two-step Additional equipment; approach. The first step identified potential parameters for Addition training of deicing personnel; use in the model, assessed their typical values and estimated Additional inspection requirements; their influence from a cost-benefit perspective. The second Additional training documentation; step used the selected parameters to develop and test a model. Additional training of flight crews; Deicing fluid amount savings; Step 1: Examination of Potential Deicing fluid cost savings; Cost-Benefit Model Parameters Additional guidance provided by north american regulators; Savings in deicing time through-put; and A detailed examination of potential parameters was under- Savings to the environment. taken to determine their impact on model outcome. In the course of this examination, typical values for each parameter In the examination of potential parameters, it was con- were established. These values were then combined in a pre- cluded that any additional guidance provided by North Amer- liminary cost-benefit assessment. The preliminary assessment ican regulators would not be a direct cost to the operator so showed substantial benefits per aircraft deiced, with savings that parameter was excluded. ranging from eight gallons of fluid and $35 in operational cost The direct saving in deicing time throughput was estimated savings for a small turbo-prop aircraft to 60 gallons and $280 to be a small value, mainly because the staff must be available in operational cost savings for a heavy wide body transport. and equipment must be kept at the ready in any case, and was A detailed examination of potential cost-benefit model not included in the model. However there may be an impact on parameters is provided in Appendix D. aircraft block times, which is included as a model parameter. In addition to its use for selecting parameters to be included And while there may be a quantitative value associated with in the model, the examination provided parameter values that reduced environmental impact of lower fluid usage, this is not may be useful to operators in their application of the model. a factor lying within the potential users financial budget, and Typical amounts of deicing fluids utilized in conventional frost thus that factor was eliminated from the model development. deicing operations and the anticipated amounts for spot deic- The remaining parameters were incorporated into the cost- ing are documented for different aircraft types. Average cost benefit model. savings per aircraft spray are calculated based on a stated value The preliminary examination addressed the effect of spot for fluid costs. Estimates of operational costs for additional deicing individual aircraft, but did not extend to the overall training and inspection are stated. Use of these parameter val- deicing process because of the complexity involved. The intro- ues may enable the user to conduct a preliminary feasibility duction of spot deicing may substantially change the local