37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 327743 |
Time | |
Date | 199602 |
Day | Sun |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : ind |
State Reference | IN |
Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | MD-80 Super 80 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : preflight |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
ASRS Report | 327743 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | other |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
This flight required deicing prior to departure. The deicer used nonstandard terminology when advising me that deicing was complete, ie, not including his name, etc. In addition, he did not perform the required post-deicing inspection. When I asked him about this inspection he asked me if I wanted one. It is my understanding that this inspection is not captain's discretion, but rather a required part of the deicing procedure. This less than acceptable performance is especially disturbing in light of the possible flight safety implications of an improperly deiced S80.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: RPTR RECOGNIZES LAX DEICING PROCS. THE DEICER USED NONSTANDARD TERMINOLOGY WHEN ADVISING DEICING COMPLETE BY NOT INCLUDING HIS NAME. IN ADDITION HE DID NOT PERFORM THE REQUIRED POST DEICING INSPECTION. WHEN THE RPTR ASKED ABOUT THE INSPECTION, THE DEICER ASKED IF THE CAPT WANTED ONE. THE CAPT UNDERSTANDS THE DEICE INSPECTION IS MANDATORY.
Narrative: THIS FLT REQUIRED DEICING PRIOR TO DEP. THE DEICER USED NONSTANDARD TERMINOLOGY WHEN ADVISING ME THAT DEICING WAS COMPLETE, IE, NOT INCLUDING HIS NAME, ETC. IN ADDITION, HE DID NOT PERFORM THE REQUIRED POST-DEICING INSPECTION. WHEN I ASKED HIM ABOUT THIS INSPECTION HE ASKED ME IF I WANTED ONE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS INSPECTION IS NOT CAPT'S DISCRETION, BUT RATHER A REQUIRED PART OF THE DEICING PROC. THIS LESS THAN ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE IS ESPECIALLY DISTURBING IN LIGHT OF THE POSSIBLE FLT SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF AN IMPROPERLY DEICED S80.
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.