Narrative:

I am experiencing concern for the deicing procedures done by my company at the sonoma county airport, santa rosa. My airline company procedures state that 'hot water, in most instances, can effectively be used to remove ice and snow from the aircraft surfaces. If applied water starts to freeze on the aircraft surface, discontinue use and deice with appropriate glycol/water mixture.' in 1/90 I discovered ice on our medium large transport on preflight preparations. I notified the ground personnel and they attempted to deice the aircraft with hot water. The applied water froze and the ground crew insisted they would continue to reapply the hot water even though the water repeatedly froze. This is against written company policy and I informed them I would not consider takeoff under those conditions. The ground crew informed me that sonoma county would not allow us to use glycol/water mixture for deicing in their county due to environmental issues. I wrote up an irregularity report and turned it in to company. I received no corrective action report back from them as of yet. In 2/90 I encountered the same icing problem with the same deicing procedure being used. Because of water freezing on the aircraft I refused to takeoff. Dispatch was insistent that the hot water alone was sufficient for the deicing. I refused takeoff once again. The V.P. Of operations/director of operations came on the phone applying undue pressure upon me to accept the procedure as adequate and proceed with the takeoff. I refused. As of this date, 3/90, nothing has been done to change this procedure. There is a high probability that pilots are taking off unsafely with ice on the wings after they have sprayed with hot water only. The company manual procedures, of which I have enclosed a copy, stated that hot water deicing must be followed immediately with glycol/water mixture if the water freezes. As a previous east coast pilot, I believe calif pilots are being deceived into believing that hot water deicing application is more than adequate for takeoff. This is resulting in long rolls down the runway for liftoff, as witnessed and admitted to by personnel at santa rosa. There apparently is a lawsuit pending between company and sonoma county concerning other issues and I'm concerned it might be causing company to drag its feet concerning the deicing issue. Can you intercede in this madness? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: outside temperature was 25 degrees F on the first occasion and approximately 30 degrees on the second occasion. The company does not have a hangar at sonoma county airport. Deicing must be done in the open. Believe the county has gone overkill on glycol. What do other communities do that have thousands of gals of glycol used for aircraft deicing, like chicago? Second callback for additional information and alert to reporter that ASRS interceding may reveal reporter as source of information. Reporter is agreeable and is not concerned inasmuch as he has had conferences with his chief pilot and chief pilot is agreeing with him that the deicing procedure west/O use of glycol is poor procedure. Numerous other pilots have added their negative reaction to the procedure. Company reaction to pilot's comments is not negative--problem lies with the sonoma county environmental ruling that the airline may not use glycol for deicing.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF MLG REFUSED TO FLY ACFT ACCOUNT ICING ON ACFT.

Narrative: I AM EXPERIENCING CONCERN FOR THE DEICING PROCS DONE BY MY COMPANY AT THE SONOMA COUNTY ARPT, SANTA ROSA. MY AIRLINE COMPANY PROCS STATE THAT 'HOT WATER, IN MOST INSTANCES, CAN EFFECTIVELY BE USED TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE ACFT SURFACES. IF APPLIED WATER STARTS TO FREEZE ON THE ACFT SURFACE, DISCONTINUE USE AND DEICE WITH APPROPRIATE GLYCOL/WATER MIXTURE.' IN 1/90 I DISCOVERED ICE ON OUR MLG ON PREFLT PREPARATIONS. I NOTIFIED THE GND PERSONNEL AND THEY ATTEMPTED TO DEICE THE ACFT WITH HOT WATER. THE APPLIED WATER FROZE AND THE GND CREW INSISTED THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO REAPPLY THE HOT WATER EVEN THOUGH THE WATER REPEATEDLY FROZE. THIS IS AGAINST WRITTEN COMPANY POLICY AND I INFORMED THEM I WOULD NOT CONSIDER TKOF UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. THE GND CREW INFORMED ME THAT SONOMA COUNTY WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO USE GLYCOL/WATER MIXTURE FOR DEICING IN THEIR COUNTY DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. I WROTE UP AN IRREGULARITY RPT AND TURNED IT IN TO COMPANY. I RECEIVED NO CORRECTIVE ACTION RPT BACK FROM THEM AS OF YET. IN 2/90 I ENCOUNTERED THE SAME ICING PROB WITH THE SAME DEICING PROC BEING USED. BECAUSE OF WATER FREEZING ON THE ACFT I REFUSED TO TKOF. DISPATCH WAS INSISTENT THAT THE HOT WATER ALONE WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE DEICING. I REFUSED TKOF ONCE AGAIN. THE V.P. OF OPS/DIRECTOR OF OPS CAME ON THE PHONE APPLYING UNDUE PRESSURE UPON ME TO ACCEPT THE PROC AS ADEQUATE AND PROCEED WITH THE TKOF. I REFUSED. AS OF THIS DATE, 3/90, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO CHANGE THIS PROC. THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT PLTS ARE TAKING OFF UNSAFELY WITH ICE ON THE WINGS AFTER THEY HAVE SPRAYED WITH HOT WATER ONLY. THE COMPANY MANUAL PROCS, OF WHICH I HAVE ENCLOSED A COPY, STATED THAT HOT WATER DEICING MUST BE FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY WITH GLYCOL/WATER MIXTURE IF THE WATER FREEZES. AS A PREVIOUS E COAST PLT, I BELIEVE CALIF PLTS ARE BEING DECEIVED INTO BELIEVING THAT HOT WATER DEICING APPLICATION IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR TKOF. THIS IS RESULTING IN LONG ROLLS DOWN THE RWY FOR LIFTOFF, AS WITNESSED AND ADMITTED TO BY PERSONNEL AT SANTA ROSA. THERE APPARENTLY IS A LAWSUIT PENDING BTWN COMPANY AND SONOMA COUNTY CONCERNING OTHER ISSUES AND I'M CONCERNED IT MIGHT BE CAUSING COMPANY TO DRAG ITS FEET CONCERNING THE DEICING ISSUE. CAN YOU INTERCEDE IN THIS MADNESS? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: OUTSIDE TEMP WAS 25 DEGS F ON THE FIRST OCCASION AND APPROX 30 DEGS ON THE SECOND OCCASION. THE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE A HANGAR AT SONOMA COUNTY ARPT. DEICING MUST BE DONE IN THE OPEN. BELIEVE THE COUNTY HAS GONE OVERKILL ON GLYCOL. WHAT DO OTHER COMMUNITIES DO THAT HAVE THOUSANDS OF GALS OF GLYCOL USED FOR ACFT DEICING, LIKE CHICAGO? SECOND CALLBACK FOR ADDITIONAL INFO AND ALERT TO RPTR THAT ASRS INTERCEDING MAY REVEAL RPTR AS SOURCE OF INFO. RPTR IS AGREEABLE AND IS NOT CONCERNED INASMUCH AS HE HAS HAD CONFERENCES WITH HIS CHIEF PLT AND CHIEF PLT IS AGREEING WITH HIM THAT THE DEICING PROC W/O USE OF GLYCOL IS POOR PROC. NUMEROUS OTHER PLTS HAVE ADDED THEIR NEGATIVE REACTION TO THE PROC. COMPANY REACTION TO PLT'S COMMENTS IS NOT NEGATIVE--PROB LIES WITH THE SONOMA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL RULING THAT THE AIRLINE MAY NOT USE GLYCOL FOR DEICING.

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.