Aircraft De.icing
Easy Tiger!
GRIZZLER.
Sounds like you've been out in the cold too long this winter. Calm down, no-one is trying to score points here, just offering advice and info based on their own experiences.
Dr 'I' knows his stuff as I'm sure you do too. He may not be 30ft up there doing a clear ice check at 5 in the morning but if he signs the tech log or the transit check on the a/c then it is he that is taking the responsibilty for the de-icing. So, when he says 'supervising' what he really means is that he hopes to hell people like you know what you're doing as he has to go on trust that you do.
Likewise, SpannersatCX has been doing the job long enough to know what he is talking about.
For what it's worth.
Kilfrost ABC II K-Plus.
At -3C and above in snow.
100% Holdover 1:00hr to 1:40hr.
75% Holdover 35 min to 1:10hr.
Sounds like you've been out in the cold too long this winter. Calm down, no-one is trying to score points here, just offering advice and info based on their own experiences.
Dr 'I' knows his stuff as I'm sure you do too. He may not be 30ft up there doing a clear ice check at 5 in the morning but if he signs the tech log or the transit check on the a/c then it is he that is taking the responsibilty for the de-icing. So, when he says 'supervising' what he really means is that he hopes to hell people like you know what you're doing as he has to go on trust that you do.
Likewise, SpannersatCX has been doing the job long enough to know what he is talking about.
For what it's worth.
Kilfrost ABC II K-Plus.
At -3C and above in snow.
100% Holdover 1:00hr to 1:40hr.
75% Holdover 35 min to 1:10hr.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 1:25 was off the top of my head as I was at home, just trying to give an opinion based on experience.
Grizzler I think you need get out of East Anglia from time to time
Not really interested in what the FAA says as I am not governed by their rules and regs.
As Turin quite rightly says it's 35mins to 1:10hr depending on conditions, I was getting it mixed up with freezing fog at -10 which is what I encountered the other day. Even ecowings will give you upto 45mins at -3 in snow. But it's all subjective anyway as it depends on the conditions at the time and they vary somewhat.
It's quite easy to get around a 747 in 15 mins with modern equipment and 1 rig either side.
Grizzler I think you need get out of East Anglia from time to time
Not really interested in what the FAA says as I am not governed by their rules and regs.
As Turin quite rightly says it's 35mins to 1:10hr depending on conditions, I was getting it mixed up with freezing fog at -10 which is what I encountered the other day. Even ecowings will give you upto 45mins at -3 in snow. But it's all subjective anyway as it depends on the conditions at the time and they vary somewhat.
It's quite easy to get around a 747 in 15 mins with modern equipment and 1 rig either side.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at Mr. G’s original question and the various answers comments provided to date, I’d like to offer some clarification on a number of the points made.
Firstly, under the conditions referred to, i.e. falling snow at -1 deg C, the aircraft would invariably need to be de-iced, to remove the frozen deposits, then anti-iced, in order to protect the aircraft surfaces until take-off. The majority of the H/A’s in the UK tend to adopt a one-step DE-ICING/ANTI-ICING procedure, using a 75/25 mix of Type II fluid for this operation.
From a purely de-icing perspective it’s not possible to suggest how much fluid is likely to be required for removing the contamination as there are just too many variables. For example, type and amount of snow, OAT, temperature of the structure, fluid type/concentration/temperature, gun/nozzle flow/pressure and the expertise of the de-icing operative, to name but a few... The amount of fluid to be used for this part of the operation will/should therefore be the minimum fluid required (by that de-icing operative) to remove all frozen deposits, under the prevailing conditions.
Now, as hh points out in post #4,the AEA does publish recommended minimum amounts of fluid to be used for protecting the surfaces (anti-icing) of the various aircraft types. Based on this information it would be difficult to understand how an aircraft could be de-iced and anti-iced (in a one-step operation) using significantly less fluid than that recommended by the AEA for just anti-icing.
Mr. G, in post #5 you state that you perform a tactile check before and after de-icing, presumably this is only on those aircraft where the manufacture mandates such a check, i.e. those aircraft types that have experienced significant problems with clear ice, e.g. the MD-80?
Regarding your question on hot water de-icing (post #9), it is permitted down to -3 deg. C but only as the first step in a two-step operation. You can find information on it in Table 2 (page 28) in Edition 25 of the AEA Recommendations at AEA - Publications
The main problem is that the second step must be carried out within 3 minutes of the first step, so you would need to clear an area of say the wing then protect that area, i.e. anti-ice it, within 3 minutes. This then needs to be repeated over all appropriate surfaces. The other issue is that although an approved procedure, most people associated with aircraft tend to feel uncomfortable with spraying hot water on an aircraft, when the structure or OAT is at or below 0 deg. C.
TTB (post #21), not sure you have a controlled copy but by clicking on the above link you will always be taken to the latest edition...
Mr. T (post #23), it may be worth clarifying that the lower limit of the published time span is used to indicate the estimated time of protection during moderate precipitation and the upper limit indicates the estimated time of protection during light precipitation.
Mr. s (post #24), actually the FAA and TC fund the ongoing work to produce both the generic and brand name holdover time tables and publish the updated information prior to each winter. We in Europe then use this information to base our procedures on.
Firstly, under the conditions referred to, i.e. falling snow at -1 deg C, the aircraft would invariably need to be de-iced, to remove the frozen deposits, then anti-iced, in order to protect the aircraft surfaces until take-off. The majority of the H/A’s in the UK tend to adopt a one-step DE-ICING/ANTI-ICING procedure, using a 75/25 mix of Type II fluid for this operation.
From a purely de-icing perspective it’s not possible to suggest how much fluid is likely to be required for removing the contamination as there are just too many variables. For example, type and amount of snow, OAT, temperature of the structure, fluid type/concentration/temperature, gun/nozzle flow/pressure and the expertise of the de-icing operative, to name but a few... The amount of fluid to be used for this part of the operation will/should therefore be the minimum fluid required (by that de-icing operative) to remove all frozen deposits, under the prevailing conditions.
Now, as hh points out in post #4,the AEA does publish recommended minimum amounts of fluid to be used for protecting the surfaces (anti-icing) of the various aircraft types. Based on this information it would be difficult to understand how an aircraft could be de-iced and anti-iced (in a one-step operation) using significantly less fluid than that recommended by the AEA for just anti-icing.
Mr. G, in post #5 you state that you perform a tactile check before and after de-icing, presumably this is only on those aircraft where the manufacture mandates such a check, i.e. those aircraft types that have experienced significant problems with clear ice, e.g. the MD-80?
Regarding your question on hot water de-icing (post #9), it is permitted down to -3 deg. C but only as the first step in a two-step operation. You can find information on it in Table 2 (page 28) in Edition 25 of the AEA Recommendations at AEA - Publications
The main problem is that the second step must be carried out within 3 minutes of the first step, so you would need to clear an area of say the wing then protect that area, i.e. anti-ice it, within 3 minutes. This then needs to be repeated over all appropriate surfaces. The other issue is that although an approved procedure, most people associated with aircraft tend to feel uncomfortable with spraying hot water on an aircraft, when the structure or OAT is at or below 0 deg. C.
TTB (post #21), not sure you have a controlled copy but by clicking on the above link you will always be taken to the latest edition...
Mr. T (post #23), it may be worth clarifying that the lower limit of the published time span is used to indicate the estimated time of protection during moderate precipitation and the upper limit indicates the estimated time of protection during light precipitation.
Mr. s (post #24), actually the FAA and TC fund the ongoing work to produce both the generic and brand name holdover time tables and publish the updated information prior to each winter. We in Europe then use this information to base our procedures on.
Last edited by Ice-bore; 9th Dec 2010 at 05:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: EAST ANGLIA
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spannersatcx
At the moment thanks i seem to be in the best part of East Anglia...the least snow and only -4....i will wait for the weather to pick up before i go further afield....
I dont want to go on and on about my first post about de.icing....but going back to basics....its not the de.ice fluid that melts the ice....it is the HEAT of the fluid that melts the ice.....the amount and fine quantity of the spray that was used could not have made a AB330 warm enough to go through ice and standing snow....with just 320 odd ltrs.....no matter what sort of de ice fluid was being used.....that only comes into its own when the ice has gone....
just becuase you have sprayed the whole plane it does not mean the ice has gone.......it could still be ice covered in fluid.
and thanks Ice-bore you seem to have covered most things there....
From reading these posts it seems that we all get our information from the same source but do the job in a different way....very strange.
and off the top of my head.....as i am also at home......ecowings type 2 will not give you 45 mins hold over in snow ....not with the chart we use.....i am pretty certain it is 15mins up to 35 mins....but we have to put the lower time down on paper......thats with a 75-25 mix.
I'm getting a bit ice bored myself now.......t.t.f.n
I dont want to go on and on about my first post about de.icing....but going back to basics....its not the de.ice fluid that melts the ice....it is the HEAT of the fluid that melts the ice.....the amount and fine quantity of the spray that was used could not have made a AB330 warm enough to go through ice and standing snow....with just 320 odd ltrs.....no matter what sort of de ice fluid was being used.....that only comes into its own when the ice has gone....
just becuase you have sprayed the whole plane it does not mean the ice has gone.......it could still be ice covered in fluid.
and thanks Ice-bore you seem to have covered most things there....
From reading these posts it seems that we all get our information from the same source but do the job in a different way....very strange.
and off the top of my head.....as i am also at home......ecowings type 2 will not give you 45 mins hold over in snow ....not with the chart we use.....i am pretty certain it is 15mins up to 35 mins....but we have to put the lower time down on paper......thats with a 75-25 mix.
I'm getting a bit ice bored myself now.......t.t.f.n
I dont want to go on and on about my first post about de.icing....but going back to basics....its not the de.ice fluid that melts the ice....it is the HEAT of the fluid that melts the ice.....the amount and fine quantity of the spray that was used could not have made a AB330 warm enough to go through ice and standing snow....with just 320 odd ltrs.....no matter what sort of de ice fluid was being used.....that only comes into its own when the ice has gone....
I may be misreading the above quote but the de-ice process is not designed to heat the airframe.
As I'm sure you are aware, the type of de-ice fluid used will give holdover times based on it's ability to withstand re-freezing. Not heat transfer.
I'm glad you understand the process as there are too many that still think the ice is removed by hydraulic action or chemical reaction.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: EAST ANGLIA
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heat and ice.
I thought i put it clear enough...its the heat from the fluid that melts the ice....the de.ice fluid stops it reforming on body parts,wings ect so aircraft has correct airflow over and under wings during take off.....fluid shears off when aircraft takes off............ (basic version) for none de.ice person.
i have watched people de.ice doing a spot here and a spot there on the wings...so not all of the wing has been done...they only spray the ice they see.....so ice must form on the bits they did not spray .....so there is no point in doing five spots on one wing and three on the other.....its got to be symmetrical.
i have watched people de.ice doing a spot here and a spot there on the wings...so not all of the wing has been done...they only spray the ice they see.....so ice must form on the bits they did not spray .....so there is no point in doing five spots on one wing and three on the other.....its got to be symmetrical.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Larne, UK
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and off the top of my head.....as i am also at home......ecowings type 2 will not give you 45 mins hold over in snow ....not with the chart we use.....i am pretty certain it is 15mins up to 35 mins....but we have to put the lower time down on paper......thats with a 75-25 mix.
-3 and above = 15-30 minutes
-3 to -14 = 10-20 minutes
although there are many different hold over charts out there, as we have found that the various airlines we have de-iced over the years some kick up a fuss when the chart we use is different to theirs, as far as i can remember the EZY hold over chart, cant remember what one they use i think its Transport Canada.. will give 1:05-1:55 in freezing fog (-3 and above) where as the AEA will give you 0:25-1:00 in the same conditions... theres a significant difference
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
The FAA and Transport Canada sponsor the holdover time testing of Type II and IV de-/anti-icing fluids and publish holdover time tables for each individual fluid, on an annual basis. These are known as brand name tables.
They also publish generic Type II and IV holdover time tables, where they publish the lowest (worst case) cells from each of the individual Type II or IV holdover time tables. This makes life simple in that only one table is required for each fluid Type. The AEA only publishes the generic tables and leaves it to the user to obtain brand name tables from the FAA or TC websites if required.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat...ver_Tables.doc
Operators have to make a decision as whether to provide their flight crews with just the generic tables, the generic tables plus the brand name tables for the fluids used at their main bases, or less likely all the brand name tables.
The figures you quote are indeed from the generic Type II holdover time table as published by the FAA and TC and subsequently adopted by the AEA. However, if you look at the Ecowing 26 times under the same conditions (snow) you get:
-3 and above = 25-45 minutes
below -3 to -14 = 25-40 minutes
Operators who only publish the generic tables to their flightcrews would not therefore benefit from the additional time provided by this fluid.
The times you quote under fog conditions, i.e. 1:05-1:55 (hours:minutes) at -3 deg C and above, is from the Ecowing 26 brand name table (75/25), whereas the 0:25-1:00 cell is as you say from the generic Type II table adopted by the AEA.
The FAA and Transport Canada sponsor the holdover time testing of Type II and IV de-/anti-icing fluids and publish holdover time tables for each individual fluid, on an annual basis. These are known as brand name tables.
They also publish generic Type II and IV holdover time tables, where they publish the lowest (worst case) cells from each of the individual Type II or IV holdover time tables. This makes life simple in that only one table is required for each fluid Type. The AEA only publishes the generic tables and leaves it to the user to obtain brand name tables from the FAA or TC websites if required.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat...ver_Tables.doc
Operators have to make a decision as whether to provide their flight crews with just the generic tables, the generic tables plus the brand name tables for the fluids used at their main bases, or less likely all the brand name tables.
The figures you quote are indeed from the generic Type II holdover time table as published by the FAA and TC and subsequently adopted by the AEA. However, if you look at the Ecowing 26 times under the same conditions (snow) you get:
-3 and above = 25-45 minutes
below -3 to -14 = 25-40 minutes
Operators who only publish the generic tables to their flightcrews would not therefore benefit from the additional time provided by this fluid.
The times you quote under fog conditions, i.e. 1:05-1:55 (hours:minutes) at -3 deg C and above, is from the Ecowing 26 brand name table (75/25), whereas the 0:25-1:00 cell is as you say from the generic Type II table adopted by the AEA.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: On an aeroplane
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icebore is right
While the generic charts offer the "safest" option by placing the greatest restriction on holdover times, one would have to question why airlines, knowing what they know about winter weather delays would ever want to use them.
While I'm not rubbishing them (as not all brands of fluids have their own brand specific holdover times) if the fluid application time or airfield delays are greater than the holdover in the generic charts it just becomes an exercise in wasting money and time.
Moreover I believe it can and does put aviation personnel in difficult positions.
If your airline does not recognise the value of brand specific holdover perhaps now is the time to enlighten them.
While the generic charts offer the "safest" option by placing the greatest restriction on holdover times, one would have to question why airlines, knowing what they know about winter weather delays would ever want to use them.
While I'm not rubbishing them (as not all brands of fluids have their own brand specific holdover times) if the fluid application time or airfield delays are greater than the holdover in the generic charts it just becomes an exercise in wasting money and time.
Moreover I believe it can and does put aviation personnel in difficult positions.
If your airline does not recognise the value of brand specific holdover perhaps now is the time to enlighten them.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GRIZZLER.
Did they 2-step it? DE-ICE the aircraft to obtain a clean wing then ANTI-ICE to prevent reform and give sufficient holdover time to get airborne? In falling snow, it is normal to 2-step the aircraft as DE-ICE only doesn't provide much holdover.
Maybe they only need 320 ltrs of DE-ICE fluid to clean the surfaces (not that contaminated), then ANTI-ICED afterwards. Just a thought
Did they 2-step it? DE-ICE the aircraft to obtain a clean wing then ANTI-ICE to prevent reform and give sufficient holdover time to get airborne? In falling snow, it is normal to 2-step the aircraft as DE-ICE only doesn't provide much holdover.
Maybe they only need 320 ltrs of DE-ICE fluid to clean the surfaces (not that contaminated), then ANTI-ICED afterwards. Just a thought
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: EAST ANGLIA
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightmech
My self on the headset and the tugdriver were waiting for aircraft to be de iced.....No there was no step 2 de,ice....just turn up in the snow and spray a mizerley amount....it had been snowing for over an hour and a half and the aircraft was on the ground during that time...... what they put on the total aircraft was nowhere near the minimum requirements for just wings and tail laid out by A.E.A......which off the top of my head is around 580ltrs...but dont hold me to that.
as for step 2 de ice......as some posts say spray with hot water first,then de ice.....the airport authority dont even like the waters to be drained from tanks when aircraft stop over night as it freezes leaving sheet ice...so cant see them wanting loads of water on the ground from de icing.
as for step 2 de ice......as some posts say spray with hot water first,then de ice.....the airport authority dont even like the waters to be drained from tanks when aircraft stop over night as it freezes leaving sheet ice...so cant see them wanting loads of water on the ground from de icing.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK fair point, but remember minimal requirements are guidelines only. As long as enough fluid is sprayed to remove ALL contamination from surfaces then that should be sufficient.
At my employer, maintenance also perform de-icing. You'll be amazed how little fluid you can get away with, especially if only spraying to remove frost on the upper surface of an outboard fuel tank etc.
Like people have said, every situation will be different depending on aircraft type, contamination type & level and weather.
At my employer, maintenance also perform de-icing. You'll be amazed how little fluid you can get away with, especially if only spraying to remove frost on the upper surface of an outboard fuel tank etc.
Like people have said, every situation will be different depending on aircraft type, contamination type & level and weather.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: VIENNA
Age: 58
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason, why a lot of airlines, taking the subject very serious, do not use brand name tables are various:
1. Very often, onyl a few data points are used to create the tables (normally done by APS Aviatin for TCA and FAA), being not really fully representative.
2. Too often the fluid has lost a lot of viscosity, and especially the UK are a place, where you find a lot of degraded fluid. Caused by the heating of the excessive heating of 75:25 mix often used (mainly as one-step).
3. The hold-over-time tests are done by pooring fluid on a tets plate and counting the fluid failure during differnet conditions related to temperature and active precipitation. The fluid placed on the plates is normally between 3 to 4 mm, getting thiner with time. If you spray too less fluid (film thickness less than 1 mm), you simply cannot get the hold-over-time as published in tables.
Using the brand name tables require that you really know the fluid conditon as well as taht enough fluid is used for anti-icing.
1. Very often, onyl a few data points are used to create the tables (normally done by APS Aviatin for TCA and FAA), being not really fully representative.
2. Too often the fluid has lost a lot of viscosity, and especially the UK are a place, where you find a lot of degraded fluid. Caused by the heating of the excessive heating of 75:25 mix often used (mainly as one-step).
3. The hold-over-time tests are done by pooring fluid on a tets plate and counting the fluid failure during differnet conditions related to temperature and active precipitation. The fluid placed on the plates is normally between 3 to 4 mm, getting thiner with time. If you spray too less fluid (film thickness less than 1 mm), you simply cannot get the hold-over-time as published in tables.
Using the brand name tables require that you really know the fluid conditon as well as taht enough fluid is used for anti-icing.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: On an aeroplane
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feherto
Perhaps if EASA's Safety Information Bulletins are translated into legislation the use of Type II as a 1 step de-anti-icer will be a thing of the past. There will be a lot of resistance to it.
My comments in the previous post pertain to the operational realities that exist in Western European airports. They don't have enough equipment and the location of the de-icing bays relative to the operating runway poses real problems of operating under the generic guidelines. I'd have no problem accepting a generic holdover time if I was confident that the operational systems in place to account for them was realised. But that is a different topic.
Would there be many examples to draw from that show insufficient data points during testing means that brand specific times are inaccurate? Has there been enough grandfather rights on the brand specific holdover times at this stage to confirm their validity?
While this topic started on the basis that someone perceives an aircraft received insufficient fluid, I think of equal concern is the opposite, getting lots because of a multitude of factors e.g. no bulk clearing of snow before spraying (not that I'd wish that job on any man) so that aircraft are receiving excessive quantities, temperature loss of the fluid and as you've said the reduction of viscosity.
Moreover the fact that the one step de-anti-ice with type II 75/25 is the only options in these countries is a concern especially with the temperatures experienced in the last number of weeks. I wonder how many airports and providers continued to spray with the OAT below minus 14 degrees Celsius? And of those that did how many did so by establishing an accurate LOUT for the conditions?
Did you enjoy Berlin in May?
Perhaps if EASA's Safety Information Bulletins are translated into legislation the use of Type II as a 1 step de-anti-icer will be a thing of the past. There will be a lot of resistance to it.
My comments in the previous post pertain to the operational realities that exist in Western European airports. They don't have enough equipment and the location of the de-icing bays relative to the operating runway poses real problems of operating under the generic guidelines. I'd have no problem accepting a generic holdover time if I was confident that the operational systems in place to account for them was realised. But that is a different topic.
Would there be many examples to draw from that show insufficient data points during testing means that brand specific times are inaccurate? Has there been enough grandfather rights on the brand specific holdover times at this stage to confirm their validity?
While this topic started on the basis that someone perceives an aircraft received insufficient fluid, I think of equal concern is the opposite, getting lots because of a multitude of factors e.g. no bulk clearing of snow before spraying (not that I'd wish that job on any man) so that aircraft are receiving excessive quantities, temperature loss of the fluid and as you've said the reduction of viscosity.
Moreover the fact that the one step de-anti-ice with type II 75/25 is the only options in these countries is a concern especially with the temperatures experienced in the last number of weeks. I wonder how many airports and providers continued to spray with the OAT below minus 14 degrees Celsius? And of those that did how many did so by establishing an accurate LOUT for the conditions?
Did you enjoy Berlin in May?
Last edited by safewing; 4th Jan 2011 at 21:22. Reason: typo error
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: VIENNA
Age: 58
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legislation will take at leats two more years. If it gets into mandatory status, at leats 75% of the UK airports will be in troubles.
The bigger airports, with aircraft category E to G have enough equipment, the locations, I agree, are sometimes problematic.
For brand names, no grandfather rights, but sometimes the amount of data points is less than 5 for a certain cell. This needs improvement by moving the tests from free nature to lab.
To manually remove snow: As only heads are counted by accountants and controllers, it is practically impossible to organise, unfortunately.
Berlin is a nice city, but the meeting had been not really bringing something forward.
The bigger airports, with aircraft category E to G have enough equipment, the locations, I agree, are sometimes problematic.
For brand names, no grandfather rights, but sometimes the amount of data points is less than 5 for a certain cell. This needs improvement by moving the tests from free nature to lab.
To manually remove snow: As only heads are counted by accountants and controllers, it is practically impossible to organise, unfortunately.
Berlin is a nice city, but the meeting had been not really bringing something forward.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: everywhere i like to stay
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
De-Icing not necessary if not whole wing is covered?
Hi,
yesterday I flew with an A330-200/300 Aircraft, sitting next to the wings. As I saw during taxiing to the runway, the whole wing was covered with ice and snow (it was snowing quite strong). So I expected that the crew will go for de-icing before we fly. But the aircraft took off without having done any treatment. As we flew I saw that the major part of the wing was getting slowly clean, but still a huge amount of frozen ice was spread over the wing.
So my question: Is it not necessary to deice the plane before flying when you expect that the wing gets cleaner in flight?
Thanks for the reply
yesterday I flew with an A330-200/300 Aircraft, sitting next to the wings. As I saw during taxiing to the runway, the whole wing was covered with ice and snow (it was snowing quite strong). So I expected that the crew will go for de-icing before we fly. But the aircraft took off without having done any treatment. As we flew I saw that the major part of the wing was getting slowly clean, but still a huge amount of frozen ice was spread over the wing.
So my question: Is it not necessary to deice the plane before flying when you expect that the wing gets cleaner in flight?
Thanks for the reply
