Narrative:

Preflight setup, before taxi, before takeoff checks, all normal. Only out of ordinary (or not so out of ordinary for this aircraft) heater did not ignite while holding short of runway and it had while taxiing and doing morning runup/repos. Cleared into position and hold runway 34R. Transmission reception caused me to ask how they heard me -- it was not very clear. However their readback was loud and clear and they also read me loud and clear. So I assumed all normal -- perhaps just position or this particular radio. Cleared for takeoff. After being airborne all seemed normal except heater blower (hard to describe) blew much more than it usually does. Noticed because it was much more cold air than normal (and noisier). At the time, it didn't appear to be a safety of flight concern so I concentrated on flying the airplane (I could have only been 100-200 ft AGL). Did not receive any further xmissions. First indication of serious problem, because contact departure was expected. Tested radios (both) -- nothing. Initially thought it was a lost communications problem. Began turn back towards airport, had lost sight of it. Began lost communication procedure for salt lake 5 departure. Then noticed no navigation equipment. Went to squawk 7700, noticed no transponder. Then looked and saw I had no electrical, amp/altitude indicated zero. Big problem because I had lost sight of the airport and because of lack of familiarity to such close proximity to the slc airport, I knew approximately where I was but not exactly. Circled over field with road until I felt more sure of position, located airport and landed on runway 34L. Regained some communication ability -- couldn't understand tower but evidently they understood me. Told them about the nature of my emergency and requested assistance to taxi back to base. Followed airport manager to hangar, spoke with tower and my company. Postflt inspection found excessive amounts of deicing fluid everywhere -- alternators, in aft compartment (where battery located) engine nacelles, etc. Tower and company mechanic both said there had been repeated problems with this particular aircraft. Mechanic indicated electrical problems. Combination of aircraft history and improper application of deicing fluid by FBO. 76.6 gallons were used to deice 1 commander. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states the FAA was at the airport within 1/2 hour after the incident. Reporter was extremely shaken by the experience and did not choose to talk to the FAA at company recommendation. The company has done follow-up with the FBO who applied the de-ice fluid. It was type 1 and heated. Reporter states that the procedure was not good. The fluid was applied by dumping it on at various spots and then moving on to another place. Not a continuous application which would have been better. In retrospect reporter feels there was probably too much fluid used as it was still dripping from the aircraft the next day. As indicated this aircraft has had electrical problems, but not necessarily related to the de-ice situation. These were mostly gremlin type problems and the alternator was changed the previous summer. The heater problem was still another aspect, these heaters are known to be temperamental. Without the heater reporter states 'it was pretty cold up there' along with all the other problems.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AC680 PLT HAS TOTAL ELECTRICAL FAILURE AFTER TKOF IN IMC. HAD BEEN DEICED PRIOR TO DEP AND EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF FLUID WERE FOUND EVERYWHERE, ON ALTERNATORS, IN AFT COMPARTMENT WHERE BATTERY IS LOCATED, IN ENG NACELLES, ETC.

Narrative: PREFLT SETUP, BEFORE TAXI, BEFORE TKOF CHKS, ALL NORMAL. ONLY OUT OF ORDINARY (OR NOT SO OUT OF ORDINARY FOR THIS ACFT) HEATER DID NOT IGNITE WHILE HOLDING SHORT OF RWY AND IT HAD WHILE TAXIING AND DOING MORNING RUNUP/REPOS. CLRED INTO POS AND HOLD RWY 34R. XMISSION RECEPTION CAUSED ME TO ASK HOW THEY HEARD ME -- IT WAS NOT VERY CLR. HOWEVER THEIR READBACK WAS LOUD AND CLR AND THEY ALSO READ ME LOUD AND CLR. SO I ASSUMED ALL NORMAL -- PERHAPS JUST POS OR THIS PARTICULAR RADIO. CLRED FOR TKOF. AFTER BEING AIRBORNE ALL SEEMED NORMAL EXCEPT HEATER BLOWER (HARD TO DESCRIBE) BLEW MUCH MORE THAN IT USUALLY DOES. NOTICED BECAUSE IT WAS MUCH MORE COLD AIR THAN NORMAL (AND NOISIER). AT THE TIME, IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE A SAFETY OF FLT CONCERN SO I CONCENTRATED ON FLYING THE AIRPLANE (I COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN 100-200 FT AGL). DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FURTHER XMISSIONS. FIRST INDICATION OF SERIOUS PROB, BECAUSE CONTACT DEP WAS EXPECTED. TESTED RADIOS (BOTH) -- NOTHING. INITIALLY THOUGHT IT WAS A LOST COMS PROB. BEGAN TURN BACK TOWARDS ARPT, HAD LOST SIGHT OF IT. BEGAN LOST COM PROC FOR SALT LAKE 5 DEP. THEN NOTICED NO NAV EQUIP. WENT TO SQUAWK 7700, NOTICED NO XPONDER. THEN LOOKED AND SAW I HAD NO ELECTRICAL, AMP/ALT INDICATED ZERO. BIG PROB BECAUSE I HAD LOST SIGHT OF THE ARPT AND BECAUSE OF LACK OF FAMILIARITY TO SUCH CLOSE PROX TO THE SLC ARPT, I KNEW APPROX WHERE I WAS BUT NOT EXACTLY. CIRCLED OVER FIELD WITH ROAD UNTIL I FELT MORE SURE OF POS, LOCATED ARPT AND LANDED ON RWY 34L. REGAINED SOME COM ABILITY -- COULDN'T UNDERSTAND TWR BUT EVIDENTLY THEY UNDERSTOOD ME. TOLD THEM ABOUT THE NATURE OF MY EMER AND REQUESTED ASSISTANCE TO TAXI BACK TO BASE. FOLLOWED ARPT MGR TO HANGAR, SPOKE WITH TWR AND MY COMPANY. POSTFLT INSPECTION FOUND EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEICING FLUID EVERYWHERE -- ALTERNATORS, IN AFT COMPARTMENT (WHERE BATTERY LOCATED) ENG NACELLES, ETC. TWR AND COMPANY MECH BOTH SAID THERE HAD BEEN REPEATED PROBS WITH THIS PARTICULAR ACFT. MECH INDICATED ELECTRICAL PROBS. COMBINATION OF ACFT HISTORY AND IMPROPER APPLICATION OF DEICING FLUID BY FBO. 76.6 GALLONS WERE USED TO DEICE 1 COMMANDER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THE FAA WAS AT THE ARPT WITHIN 1/2 HR AFTER THE INCIDENT. RPTR WAS EXTREMELY SHAKEN BY THE EXPERIENCE AND DID NOT CHOOSE TO TALK TO THE FAA AT COMPANY RECOMMENDATION. THE COMPANY HAS DONE FOLLOW-UP WITH THE FBO WHO APPLIED THE DE-ICE FLUID. IT WAS TYPE 1 AND HEATED. RPTR STATES THAT THE PROC WAS NOT GOOD. THE FLUID WAS APPLIED BY DUMPING IT ON AT VARIOUS SPOTS AND THEN MOVING ON TO ANOTHER PLACE. NOT A CONTINUOUS APPLICATION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. IN RETROSPECT RPTR FEELS THERE WAS PROBABLY TOO MUCH FLUID USED AS IT WAS STILL DRIPPING FROM THE ACFT THE NEXT DAY. AS INDICATED THIS ACFT HAS HAD ELECTRICAL PROBS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE DE-ICE SIT. THESE WERE MOSTLY GREMLIN TYPE PROBS AND THE ALTERNATOR WAS CHANGED THE PREVIOUS SUMMER. THE HEATER PROB WAS STILL ANOTHER ASPECT, THESE HEATERS ARE KNOWN TO BE TEMPERAMENTAL. WITHOUT THE HEATER RPTR STATES 'IT WAS PRETTY COLD UP THERE' ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER PROBS.

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.