Narrative:

During preflight I noted a large quantity of ice in the oil-coolers of both egns; as well as ice in both 'bird catchers.' the remainder of the aircraft was free of contamination. After pushback we proceeded to the runway 30R deice pad to have the ice removed prior to takeoff. We advised the personnel in the deice truck that there was ice in the above locations; and that we would be conducting single-engine running deicing to remove this ice; starting with the right engine after shutdown. From my seat (captain's) I observed the deice truck approach the right engine; and after a couple of mins it backed away and we were advised to restart the right engine. We then shut down the left and I observed the truck approach the left side for deicing. The deice employee walked to the intake and I observed him 'inspect' the left intake using his cell phone as the only source of light to look inside of the intake and oil cooler. It was night and we were on the unlit deice ramp. To see the oil cooler; you must look through an opening about 3 inches wide by 2 inches high and see about 18-24 inches inside. He then walked from the aircraft and advised us that the aircraft was free of contamination and we were cleared to start and taxi. I then advised him that there was a large amount of ice in the area; and that is why we were in the pad to begin with. I then asked them if they had sprayed the right engine and he said no that it was also clear. After demanding that they get an actual flashlight and re-inspect they found the ice and we began the entire process over again. They need to understand the importance of deicing and they need to know that they do not make the final decision on deicing. As captain I had told them that they needed to spray the intakes; and they made the decision not to and advised me that we were clean. Had I not noticed that they had not actually cleaned the intakes the potential for 'fodding' both engines on takeoff could have resulted in a catastrophic failure of both engines. The company needs to better supervise this contractor before we have an accident due to their lack of competence. After calling their supervisor over during this process; the supervisor drove his suv through the right engine prohibited area with the engine running. His vehicle was probably 5-8 ft from the propeller; once again showing a lapse of SOP. I can't believe that we have this company 'inspecting' our aircraft using a cell phone display as the only source of light. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of event to happen. Lack of training; supervision; and not following SOP. We need to make it clear that they are compromising the safety of our operation. When their incompetence jeopardizes the safety of my passenger and crew; our company must take immediate and comprehensive action with this contractor. There is absolutely no valid excuse for this event. The company may choose to contract out the duties of deicing; but not the responsibility to make sure that it is done right. The only way to correct the multiple issues with deicing is for a member of management to directly observe the operation and ensure that they are performing the duties to our standards of safety.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR PILOT AFTER OBSERVING ICE IN THE ENG INLETS TAXIED FOR DE-ICE AT NIGHT. A CELL PHONE LIGHT WAS USED BY THE CONTRACT CREW WHO ALLEGEDLY FOUND NO CONTAMINANTS.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT I NOTED A LARGE QUANTITY OF ICE IN THE OIL-COOLERS OF BOTH EGNS; AS WELL AS ICE IN BOTH 'BIRD CATCHERS.' THE REMAINDER OF THE ACFT WAS FREE OF CONTAMINATION. AFTER PUSHBACK WE PROCEEDED TO THE RWY 30R DEICE PAD TO HAVE THE ICE REMOVED PRIOR TO TKOF. WE ADVISED THE PERSONNEL IN THE DEICE TRUCK THAT THERE WAS ICE IN THE ABOVE LOCATIONS; AND THAT WE WOULD BE CONDUCTING SINGLE-ENG RUNNING DEICING TO REMOVE THIS ICE; STARTING WITH THE R ENG AFTER SHUTDOWN. FROM MY SEAT (CAPT'S) I OBSERVED THE DEICE TRUCK APCH THE R ENG; AND AFTER A COUPLE OF MINS IT BACKED AWAY AND WE WERE ADVISED TO RESTART THE R ENG. WE THEN SHUT DOWN THE L AND I OBSERVED THE TRUCK APCH THE L SIDE FOR DEICING. THE DEICE EMPLOYEE WALKED TO THE INTAKE AND I OBSERVED HIM 'INSPECT' THE L INTAKE USING HIS CELL PHONE AS THE ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT TO LOOK INSIDE OF THE INTAKE AND OIL COOLER. IT WAS NIGHT AND WE WERE ON THE UNLIT DEICE RAMP. TO SEE THE OIL COOLER; YOU MUST LOOK THROUGH AN OPENING ABOUT 3 INCHES WIDE BY 2 INCHES HIGH AND SEE ABOUT 18-24 INCHES INSIDE. HE THEN WALKED FROM THE ACFT AND ADVISED US THAT THE ACFT WAS FREE OF CONTAMINATION AND WE WERE CLRED TO START AND TAXI. I THEN ADVISED HIM THAT THERE WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF ICE IN THE AREA; AND THAT IS WHY WE WERE IN THE PAD TO BEGIN WITH. I THEN ASKED THEM IF THEY HAD SPRAYED THE R ENG AND HE SAID NO THAT IT WAS ALSO CLR. AFTER DEMANDING THAT THEY GET AN ACTUAL FLASHLIGHT AND RE-INSPECT THEY FOUND THE ICE AND WE BEGAN THE ENTIRE PROCESS OVER AGAIN. THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF DEICING AND THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT THEY DO NOT MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON DEICING. AS CAPT I HAD TOLD THEM THAT THEY NEEDED TO SPRAY THE INTAKES; AND THEY MADE THE DECISION NOT TO AND ADVISED ME THAT WE WERE CLEAN. HAD I NOT NOTICED THAT THEY HAD NOT ACTUALLY CLEANED THE INTAKES THE POTENTIAL FOR 'FODDING' BOTH ENGS ON TKOF COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF BOTH ENGS. THE COMPANY NEEDS TO BETTER SUPERVISE THIS CONTRACTOR BEFORE WE HAVE AN ACCIDENT DUE TO THEIR LACK OF COMPETENCE. AFTER CALLING THEIR SUPVR OVER DURING THIS PROCESS; THE SUPVR DROVE HIS SUV THROUGH THE R ENG PROHIBITED AREA WITH THE ENG RUNNING. HIS VEHICLE WAS PROBABLY 5-8 FT FROM THE PROP; ONCE AGAIN SHOWING A LAPSE OF SOP. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THIS COMPANY 'INSPECTING' OUR ACFT USING A CELL PHONE DISPLAY AS THE ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR THIS TYPE OF EVENT TO HAPPEN. LACK OF TRAINING; SUPERVISION; AND NOT FOLLOWING SOP. WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLR THAT THEY ARE COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF OUR OP. WHEN THEIR INCOMPETENCE JEOPARDIZES THE SAFETY OF MY PAX AND CREW; OUR COMPANY MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE AND COMPREHENSIVE ACTION WITH THIS CONTRACTOR. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO VALID EXCUSE FOR THIS EVENT. THE COMPANY MAY CHOOSE TO CONTRACT OUT THE DUTIES OF DEICING; BUT NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS DONE RIGHT. THE ONLY WAY TO CORRECT THE MULTIPLE ISSUES WITH DEICING IS FOR A MEMBER OF MGMNT TO DIRECTLY OBSERVE THE OP AND ENSURE THAT THEY ARE PERFORMING THE DUTIES TO OUR STANDARDS OF SAFETY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.