Narrative:

I emailed the vice president of safety and security inquiring about our FAA approved de-icing/anti-icing procedure. At the time I was going through ground school and while reviewing such procedure in class; I found a conceptual conflict with previous training received about the same subject. I received a [reply] dismissing my safety concern. The letter explained two reasons for dismissal: first; current procedure is in compliance with fars. And secondly; current procedure is in compliance with any FAA recommendations. I have to say I was disappointed with the response because I never said the current de-icing/anti-icing procedure wasn't FAA/fars compliant. Otherwise; I would have contacted my chief pilot. Also I never said the current de-icing procedure was going against any FAA recommendations even if still in compliance and legal. The response was missing the point completely. Constructivism wasn't there either since there wasn't an explanation of why a change for the better was being ignored other than because 'we are in compliance already'.the change I proposed not only would increase safety (number one company value); but it would do it at no cost for the company. Here we start the procedure on the left wing going counter clockwise. [I believe that] they should start at the left wing but going clockwise. Difference; the importance of giving hold over time (hot) priority to the aircraft's tail. The tail should be granted maximum priority since two of the primary flight controls are on it and because testing at NASA lewis found that the sharper edges of the horizontal stabilizer collects more ice than the rounded edges of the wings (transitioning to takeoff roll situation). Since by definition: 'hold over time (hot) starts when the final application of fluid commences and expires when the fluid loses its effectiveness;' it should be clear that the maximum protection for the tail (time wise) would be provided by the second method. Spraying the tail last (while other surfaces hot is already counting) considering the time it takes to anti-ice an MD80 size aircraft; and considering hot under several conditions may be only a few minutes; it will provide an extra assurance that tail hot is being maximized. That was the philosophy and reasons why we were trained that way. This company doesn't share the same reasoning and I; at this point; am not sure why. Unless I'm wrong; we have a chance to make something good a little better a no cost.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD83 First Officer takes exception to his company's de-icing plan; believing that de-icing should start at the left wing and go clockwise to the tail; so as to minimize time from completion to takeoff for these important flight controls.

Narrative: I emailed the Vice President of Safety and Security inquiring about our FAA Approved De-icing/Anti-Icing Procedure. At the time I was going through ground school and while reviewing such procedure in class; I found a conceptual conflict with previous training received about the same subject. I received a [reply] dismissing my Safety Concern. The letter explained two reasons for dismissal: First; current procedure is in compliance with FARs. And secondly; current procedure is in compliance with any FAA recommendations. I have to say I was disappointed with the response because I never said the current de-icing/anti-icing procedure wasn't FAA/FARs compliant. Otherwise; I would have contacted my Chief Pilot. Also I never said the current de-icing procedure was going against any FAA recommendations even if still in compliance and legal. The response was missing the point completely. Constructivism wasn't there either since there wasn't an explanation of why a change for the better was being ignored other than because 'we are in compliance already'.The change I proposed not only would increase Safety (Number One Company Value); but it would do it at no cost for the company. Here we start the procedure on the left wing going counter clockwise. [I believe that] they should start at the left wing but going clockwise. Difference; the importance of giving Hold Over Time (HOT) priority to the aircraft's tail. The tail should be granted maximum priority since two of the primary flight controls are on it and because testing at NASA Lewis found that the sharper edges of the horizontal stabilizer collects more ice than the rounded edges of the wings (transitioning to takeoff roll situation). Since by definition: 'Hold Over Time (HOT) starts when the final application of fluid commences and expires when the fluid loses its effectiveness;' it should be clear that the maximum protection for the tail (time wise) would be provided by the second method. Spraying the tail last (while other surfaces HOT is already counting) considering the time it takes to anti-ice an MD80 size aircraft; and considering HOT under several conditions may be only a few minutes; it will provide an extra assurance that tail HOT is being maximized. That was the philosophy and reasons why we were trained that way. This company doesn't share the same reasoning and I; at this point; am not sure why. Unless I'm wrong; we have a chance to make something good a little better a no cost.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.