Narrative:

On the morning on nov/xx/95 the temperature outside roc, ny, was approximately 35 degrees F. It was snowing outside and our plane was covered with wet snow. The deicer from a different company began deicing the right side of the aircraft, wing, propellers and fuselage as they moved around the nose to the captain's side. The captain gestured that he wanted the propellers, tail and wings deiced. There was some confusion between the deice truck and what the captain wanted deiced. This confusion seemed to clear up within a few seconds and the deice truck continued and finished the deicing of the plane. Our ground crew cleared us for start and prior to taxi we asked our operations for the deice numbers and the name of the deicer and his number. Our operations stated they were still waiting for the numbers. We taxied to the runway where the snow had stopped falling. Prior to departure we received the deice numbers from our operations and finally departed without incident. At XA30 the same day we were advised by company for the captain to contact his chief pilot. At that time the captain was told 3 letters were filed to our operations concerning the safety of our aircraft this morning after our deice. 1 letter was from the deicer who performed the deice operation on our aircraft and he gave us his numbers for the completion of the deice job. At no time did he or anyone else convey their thoughts that we might be unsafe for departure. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter first officer had not seen the letters of complaint about inadequate aircraft deicing, but the captain had discussed it with him. Neither pilot could understand why there were complaints. The flight was running late and the captain was in a hurry to depart. In that rush, apparently the captain tried to rush the deice crew or acted critically of them. In that the deice crew was from another company, that also probably had some effect on why the deicer sent a letter of complaint to the captain's operations. Reporter says that, if the deicer was not satisfied with the deicing, he should not have sent the numbers. Had that occurred, the flight crew would not have departed until it was resolved. Both the first officer and captain were satisfied with the deicing and had visually inspected the wings and heard the deicing on the fuselage. Also, the reporter's company operations were in a hurry to get the flight out and may have contributed to cutting off the deicing. The whole incident appears to be caused by lack of communication.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT BEING DEICED BY CONTRACT COMPANY. DURING PROC, CAPT WAS IN A HURRY AND APPARENTLY, EITHER DISCONTINUED THE PROC OR UPSET THE DEICER, BECAUSE HE SUBMITTED A RPT TO CAPT'S COMPANY REGARDING INADEQUATE DEICING FOR THAT FLT.

Narrative: ON THE MORNING ON NOV/XX/95 THE TEMP OUTSIDE ROC, NY, WAS APPROX 35 DEGS F. IT WAS SNOWING OUTSIDE AND OUR PLANE WAS COVERED WITH WET SNOW. THE DEICER FROM A DIFFERENT COMPANY BEGAN DEICING THE R SIDE OF THE ACFT, WING, PROPS AND FUSELAGE AS THEY MOVED AROUND THE NOSE TO THE CAPT'S SIDE. THE CAPT GESTURED THAT HE WANTED THE PROPS, TAIL AND WINGS DEICED. THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION BTWN THE DEICE TRUCK AND WHAT THE CAPT WANTED DEICED. THIS CONFUSION SEEMED TO CLR UP WITHIN A FEW SECONDS AND THE DEICE TRUCK CONTINUED AND FINISHED THE DEICING OF THE PLANE. OUR GND CREW CLRED US FOR START AND PRIOR TO TAXI WE ASKED OUR OPS FOR THE DEICE NUMBERS AND THE NAME OF THE DEICER AND HIS NUMBER. OUR OPS STATED THEY WERE STILL WAITING FOR THE NUMBERS. WE TAXIED TO THE RWY WHERE THE SNOW HAD STOPPED FALLING. PRIOR TO DEP WE RECEIVED THE DEICE NUMBERS FROM OUR OPS AND FINALLY DEPARTED WITHOUT INCIDENT. AT XA30 THE SAME DAY WE WERE ADVISED BY COMPANY FOR THE CAPT TO CONTACT HIS CHIEF PLT. AT THAT TIME THE CAPT WAS TOLD 3 LETTERS WERE FILED TO OUR OPS CONCERNING THE SAFETY OF OUR ACFT THIS MORNING AFTER OUR DEICE. 1 LETTER WAS FROM THE DEICER WHO PERFORMED THE DEICE OP ON OUR ACFT AND HE GAVE US HIS NUMBERS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE DEICE JOB. AT NO TIME DID HE OR ANYONE ELSE CONVEY THEIR THOUGHTS THAT WE MIGHT BE UNSAFE FOR DEP. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR FO HAD NOT SEEN THE LETTERS OF COMPLAINT ABOUT INADEQUATE ACFT DEICING, BUT THE CAPT HAD DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM. NEITHER PLT COULD UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WERE COMPLAINTS. THE FLT WAS RUNNING LATE AND THE CAPT WAS IN A HURRY TO DEPART. IN THAT RUSH, APPARENTLY THE CAPT TRIED TO RUSH THE DEICE CREW OR ACTED CRITICALLY OF THEM. IN THAT THE DEICE CREW WAS FROM ANOTHER COMPANY, THAT ALSO PROBABLY HAD SOME EFFECT ON WHY THE DEICER SENT A LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO THE CAPT'S OPS. RPTR SAYS THAT, IF THE DEICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DEICING, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SENT THE NUMBERS. HAD THAT OCCURRED, THE FLC WOULD NOT HAVE DEPARTED UNTIL IT WAS RESOLVED. BOTH THE FO AND CAPT WERE SATISFIED WITH THE DEICING AND HAD VISUALLY INSPECTED THE WINGS AND HEARD THE DEICING ON THE FUSELAGE. ALSO, THE RPTR'S COMPANY OPS WERE IN A HURRY TO GET THE FLT OUT AND MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO CUTTING OFF THE DEICING. THE WHOLE INCIDENT APPEARS TO BE CAUSED BY LACK OF COM.

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.