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?
Last edited by safewing; 4th Jan 2011 at 21:22.
Reason: typo error