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 75
75
· Identify if changes to any industry standards and/or rec- · "We use the older conventional deicing equipment with
ommended practices are required and supporting the two tanks at our regional sites."
changes and/or development of guidance material as nec- · "We don't use pre-mixed Type I fluid. The average mixture
essary; and rate of Type I fluid loaded on the equipment which has no
· Develop a cost-benefit model and presentation aids to proportional mixing system is 30%. We always use Type IV
influence and aid decision makers. undiluted fluid for the second step."
Following the preliminary phone interviews, a focus group
Research Approach
consisting of key individuals from the deicing industry was put
and Methodologies
together to gather a more thorough and detailed understand-
This section presents the research approach and method- ing of the industry's perceptions and current usage of diluted
ologies employed to examine the current practices and reg- fluids.
ulations, opportunities, limitations, obstacles, and potential Feedback was obtained from the focus group through an
benefits associated with the usage of diluted aircraft de/ online survey.
anti-icing fluids.
Survey Objectives
Examination of Current Government
The objectives of the survey were:
and Industry Regulations, Guidance
Materials, and Standards Related
· To quantify the amount of de/anti-icing fluid used during
to the Use of Fluid Dilutions
the de/anti-icing of an aircraft in different precipitation con-
A literature review was conducted of current government ditions on select aircraft types;
and industry regulations, guidance material, and standards · To determine if current regulations are perceived to be ade-
related to the use of fluid dilutions to identify if there is a need quate to allow use of fluid dilutions;
for changes or further approvals to accommodate the use of · To determine the extent that heated water is being used for
fluid dilutions. The documents that were reviewed included: deicing by the industry;
· To determine the extent that diluted fluids (Type I/II/III/IV)
· SAE guidelines in SAE ARP 4737 that address procedures for are being used by the industry;
the application of Type I, II, III, and IV fluids in both one- · To determine which factors influence decisions to use ready-
step and two-step de/anti-icing procedures; to-use mix Type I fluids rather than Type I fluids mixed to
· Various regulatory, government and industry documenta- appropriate buffers;
tion, guidance material, and standards; and · To determine which factors influence decisions to use
· Holdover time guidance material and documentation pub- concentrated Type IV fluids rather than dilute Type IV
lished annually by TC, AEA, and the FAA. fluids;
· To determine what levels of fluid freeze point buffers are
All documents reviewed are referenced in Appendix A. being used;
· To evaluate the use of proportional blending systems;
and
Focus Group Survey
· To determine whether use of fluid dilutions is different at
Preliminary phone interviews were conducted with several regional airports compared to major/hub airports.
DSPs (Integrated Deicing Systems and Contego Systems), sev-
eral airlines (Alaska, US Airways, and North West), a major
Composition of Focus Group
freight hauler (FedEx), and the FAA to examine current trends
and practices associated with the use of dilutions and to ascer- The focus group included individuals from a number of
tain the current extent of its usage. The replies were quite var- organizations, including DSPs, passenger airlines of vary-
ied. The replies covered a realm of knowledge and activities. ing sizes, cargo airlines, government agencies, and airport
Some of the answers are quoted below. authorities. These individuals were invited to the focus
group because they are key decision makers for aircraft
· "We don't have equipment with proportional blending ground operations in winter conditions in their respective
capabilities." organizations.
· "We have equipment with proportional blending capability, In addition, several key consultants in the deicing industry
however we use a ready mix Type I most of the time." were included. These individuals have many years experience
OCR for page 76
76
in the deicing industry and are now involved in training Survey Format
programs.
The survey consisted of 24 multiple choice and short answer
The following organizations were represented in the focus
questions. The final question was an optional open-ended ques-
group:
tion used to collect additional comments/observations on the
·
topics that were not addressed by the survey questions. A copy
Aero Tech Consulting
·
of the survey is included in Appendix B.
Aeroflot
·
Not all of the survey questions were applicable to each
Aeromag 2000, Montreal
·
person in the focus group. For example, questions related to
Aeromag-Contego, Cleveland
·
amounts of fluid used in actual operations were not relevant to
Air Canada
·
individuals from government organizations, as their organiza-
Air France
·
tions do not conduct de/anti-icing operations. The survey soft-
Alaska Airlines
·
ware was used to set up the surveys to ask respondents only
All Nippon Airways
·
those questions that were applicable to their organization
American Airlines
·
type (the first question ascertained their organization type). A
Basic Solutions
·
matrix showing the questions that were asked to each organi-
British Airways
·
zation type is included in Appendix B.
Contego Systems
· Contego Systems, Denver
· Continental Airlines Survey Administration
· Delta Airlines
·
Specialized software was used to administer the survey
East Line Techniques
·
online. The software was used to create the survey, publish it to
EFM Munich
·
a secure website, and collect and collate the responses.
FAA
· FedEx
· Horizon Air Response Rate
· Hungarian Airlines
·
The fluid dilution survey was sent to 38 focus group mem-
Integrated Deicing Systems
·
bers. Twenty-four individuals (63%) completed the survey.
KLM
·
Table 45 shows a breakdown of respondents by the type of affil-
Leading Edge Deicing Specialists
·
iated organization.
Malmö Aviation
· MeteoGroup
· N*ICE Aircraft Services, Frankfurt Results
· Northwest Airlines
·
The survey results are discussed under Findings and
Port of Portland
·
Applications. The detailed survey results are provided in
Salzburg Airport
·
Appendix C.
Servisair Canada
· Servisair, Toronto
·
Table 45. Survey respondents by affiliated
Swissport
organization type.
· Transport Canada
· UK CAA Airlines 45% (11)
· United Airlines Major Airline 33% (8)
· United Parcel Service National Airline 4% (1)
· US Airways Regional Airline 4% (1)
Major Air Carrier (non passenger) 4% (1)
· WestJet
Small (on demand) Air Carrier 0% (0)
DSPs 25% (6)
It should be noted that a concerted effort was made to Deicing Service Provider (non 25% (6)
include individuals involved in deicing operations in North Airport Authority 0% (0)
America, Europe, and elsewhere in the world. The following Others 29% (7)
countries were represented in the focus group: United States, Deicing Trainer 8% (2)
Canada, United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Ger- Regulator/Government 13% (3)
many, France, Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Russia, and Other 8% (2)
Japan. All Respondents 100% (24)
