Narrative:

Crew asked the ramp tower at cvg what type of deicing fluid was in use. Hold over tables indicated that type 1 was inadequate because of holdover time of 1-3 mins. Ramp said maintenance had calculated the holdover at 5 mins -- still inadequate. The crew requested that type ii be made available and several other aircraft on the ramp frequency also asked for type ii. When no immediate response was given the crew contacted the dispatcher. Shortly after that we were advised that type ii was available. This did not solve all the icing problems. While waiting in line for deicing on the pad at the hangar the crew observed that a tactile check was not made on the md-88 ahead of us in line. We requested that service directly from the ground crew. Also it was not possible to do the runup on the engines as specified in the supplemental section because of the close proximity of the aircraft in the line. We did a static power check on the runway prior to takeoff but we were in line nearly 1 hour with no opportunity to clear the engines. Aircraft should be left at the gate until it is nearly time for deicing. It is a waste of fuel to have aircraft taxiing on all engines as required to maneuver on icy txwys and to situation in line for over an hour waiting to be deiced. The ramp tower had requested that the interval be as close as possible between aircraft in line. Next day in-flight, mr. Ab sent an ACARS message to the crew thanking us for bringing the fluid situation to his attention. Additional item the ground crew referred to us by flight number versus ship number as specified in the supplemental section.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DEICE PROCS NOT ADEQUATE. FLC REQUESTS TYPE II FROM DISPATCHER.

Narrative: CREW ASKED THE RAMP TWR AT CVG WHAT TYPE OF DEICING FLUID WAS IN USE. HOLD OVER TABLES INDICATED THAT TYPE 1 WAS INADEQUATE BECAUSE OF HOLDOVER TIME OF 1-3 MINS. RAMP SAID MAINT HAD CALCULATED THE HOLDOVER AT 5 MINS -- STILL INADEQUATE. THE CREW REQUESTED THAT TYPE II BE MADE AVAILABLE AND SEVERAL OTHER ACFT ON THE RAMP FREQ ALSO ASKED FOR TYPE II. WHEN NO IMMEDIATE RESPONSE WAS GIVEN THE CREW CONTACTED THE DISPATCHER. SHORTLY AFTER THAT WE WERE ADVISED THAT TYPE II WAS AVAILABLE. THIS DID NOT SOLVE ALL THE ICING PROBS. WHILE WAITING IN LINE FOR DEICING ON THE PAD AT THE HANGAR THE CREW OBSERVED THAT A TACTILE CHK WAS NOT MADE ON THE MD-88 AHEAD OF US IN LINE. WE REQUESTED THAT SVC DIRECTLY FROM THE GND CREW. ALSO IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO THE RUNUP ON THE ENGS AS SPECIFIED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROX OF THE ACFT IN THE LINE. WE DID A STATIC PWR CHK ON THE RWY PRIOR TO TKOF BUT WE WERE IN LINE NEARLY 1 HR WITH NO OPPORTUNITY TO CLR THE ENGS. ACFT SHOULD BE LEFT AT THE GATE UNTIL IT IS NEARLY TIME FOR DEICING. IT IS A WASTE OF FUEL TO HAVE ACFT TAXIING ON ALL ENGS AS REQUIRED TO MANEUVER ON ICY TXWYS AND TO SIT IN LINE FOR OVER AN HR WAITING TO BE DEICED. THE RAMP TWR HAD REQUESTED THAT THE INTERVAL BE AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE BTWN ACFT IN LINE. NEXT DAY INFLT, MR. AB SENT AN ACARS MESSAGE TO THE CREW THANKING US FOR BRINGING THE FLUID SIT TO HIS ATTN. ADDITIONAL ITEM THE GND CREW REFERRED TO US BY FLT NUMBER VERSUS SHIP NUMBER AS SPECIFIED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.