Narrative:

Note first that I reported this and other similar instances to both dispatch and to the flight safety department last winter as they occurred; and often in real time. I also showed my pictures to several people. My intent with this late report is to make sure that there was follow-up. Also; it is very possible that I have misremembered some detail of this particular flight at a distance of several months. A large nationwide contract deicing service is our deicing contractor at several locations. The problem I am describing happens at all of their locations any time they spray type iv fluid; and not just with this particular flight or airport. On to the narrative... I noticed that the large nationwide contract deicing service personnel do not follow the task card procedures when applying type iv fluid. Specifically; they apply type I to the wings; then type iv to the wings. With that completed; they then apply type I to the tail; followed by type iv to the tail. I think they do this to save time. It can't save much; and it creates a dangerous situation. The problem is that over-spray from the type I at the tail can get on my fresh coat of type iv on the wings; diluting it and greatly decreasing my effective holdover(H.O.T.) time. This will be made worse if the airplane is deiced in a tailwind. On the flight pictured; that's what happened. Plus; we got over-spray from a snow blower line on runway 4R as we waited in line on taxiway Y. I asked for a tactile inspection at the end of the runway; and was informed that none was available. I was still within published holdover time limits at that point; but decided to go back to the gate. Several other crj's from our airline and others; did the same. (There was no point in deicing again; as we would not be off the ground within the H.O.T. On round 2; and nobody was going to fix the tactile inspection problem in the meantime). Once at the gate; I was very glad that I did not attempt a takeoff. Remember; I could have taken off within H.O.T. Limits with a minute or two to spare. The pictures make the probable outcome of a takeoff clear. There is a another problem shown in the pictures; and this one related to our airline procedures being deficient. Another airline configures flaps to takeoff position between the application of type I and type iv fluids. This is to prevent contamination of the exposed surface of the flap that comes out from under the wing. This is a good idea; as my pictures show that the entire upper leading edge of the flap was contaminated by freezing rain; even where the adjacent portions of the wing and flap which had a coat of type iv fluid were still ok. I have several suggestions: 1. Make the large nationwide contract deicing service follow the task card. If they won't; then find another contractor; or stay at the gate in active precipitation conditions. On all subsequent flights using the large nationwide contract deicing service; I briefed the deice crew on how I wanted this to be done. 2. Change our procedures to require flaps at takeoff position for application of type iv; or to delay selection of flaps from zero until just before takeoff if type iv is used. (Note that the second option would require a checklist change). 3. Follow-up with fleet management indicated that we wanted a provision for an end-of-runway tactile check at this airport last winter; and that the air carrier we contract with had refused to provide one. So mainline is making safety decisions for us; and then holding themselves harmless from the result via contractual arrangements. We need the tactile check at any hub airport to keep the operation running at all; never mind running safely. It's hard to see the downside here; but really easy to see our mainline contract carrier cutting corners to our air carrier's detriment. (We used to have end of runway tactile checks we did our own deicing; how about now?) 4. NASA ASRS and FAA inform other airlines ofthis issue with the large nationwide contract deicing service; for their possible corrective action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A regional carrier Captain reported that a large nationwide contract deice service applied Type I fluid on the wings followed by Type IV; then proceeded to the tail and applied Type I; which caused over-spray to contaminate the wings. The reporter returned to his gate with holdover time remaining and found ice on the wings.

Narrative: Note first that I reported this and other similar instances to both Dispatch and to the Flight Safety Department last winter as they occurred; and often in real time. I also showed my pictures to several people. My intent with this late report is to make sure that there was follow-up. Also; it is very possible that I have misremembered some detail of this particular flight at a distance of several months. A large nationwide contract deicing service is our deicing contractor at several locations. The problem I am describing happens at all of their locations any time they spray Type IV fluid; and not just with this particular flight or airport. On to the narrative... I noticed that the large nationwide contract deicing service personnel do not follow the task card procedures when applying Type IV fluid. Specifically; they apply Type I to the wings; then Type IV to the wings. With that completed; they then apply Type I to the tail; followed by Type IV to the tail. I think they do this to save time. It can't save much; and it creates a dangerous situation. The problem is that over-spray from the Type I at the tail can get on my fresh coat of Type IV on the wings; diluting it and greatly decreasing my effective holdover(H.O.T.) time. This will be made worse if the airplane is deiced in a tailwind. On the flight pictured; that's what happened. Plus; we got over-spray from a snow blower line on Runway 4R as we waited in line on Taxiway Y. I asked for a tactile inspection at the end of the runway; and was informed that none was available. I was still within published holdover time limits at that point; but decided to go back to the gate. Several other CRJ's from our airline and others; did the same. (There was no point in deicing again; as we would not be off the ground within the H.O.T. on round 2; and nobody was going to fix the tactile inspection problem in the meantime). Once at the gate; I was very glad that I did not attempt a takeoff. Remember; I could have taken off within H.O.T. limits with a minute or two to spare. The pictures make the probable outcome of a takeoff clear. There is a another problem shown in the pictures; and this one related to our airline procedures being deficient. Another airline configures flaps to takeoff position between the application of Type I and Type IV fluids. This is to prevent contamination of the exposed surface of the flap that comes out from under the wing. This is a good idea; as my pictures show that the entire upper leading edge of the flap was contaminated by freezing rain; even where the adjacent portions of the wing and flap which had a coat of type IV fluid were still OK. I have several suggestions: 1. Make the large nationwide contract deicing service follow the task card. If they won't; then find another contractor; or stay at the gate in active precipitation conditions. On all subsequent flights using the large nationwide contract deicing service; I briefed the deice crew on how I wanted this to be done. 2. Change our procedures to require flaps at takeoff position for application of Type IV; or to delay selection of flaps from zero until just before takeoff if Type IV is used. (Note that the second option would require a checklist change). 3. Follow-up with Fleet Management indicated that we wanted a provision for an end-of-runway tactile check at this airport last winter; and that the air carrier we contract with had refused to provide one. So mainline is making safety decisions for us; and then holding themselves harmless from the result via contractual arrangements. We need the tactile check at any hub airport to keep the operation running at all; never mind running safely. It's hard to see the downside here; but really easy to see our mainline contract carrier cutting corners to our air carrier's detriment. (We used to have end of runway tactile checks we did our own deicing; how about now?) 4. NASA ASRS and FAA inform other airlines ofthis issue with the large nationwide contract deicing service; for their possible corrective action.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.