Boeing OKed it and our local EU-authority is happy with that.
As they should be, frost from cold fuel is common...it seems the new guys who haven't been around in airline flying very long have a fit about it.
Nothing new, either.
Now, lets look at wing anti-icing on large (heavy) swept wing jet aircraft.
I flew the 707 in command for seven years, and did not once use wing anti-ice
No problems noted.
Now, after flying the L1011 for thirty years, used wing anti-ice perhaps half a dozen times...and only then because the airplane is equipped with an airframe ice detector, and the new First Officer bacame agitated and thought we would fall out of the sky, otherwise...gotta keep the co-pilot happy.
I dont think I could disagree with that comment more.
The aircraft of which you speak are very old and very inefficient. Modern airliners are much more sensitive to icing than before. The reason being is that we operate them much closer to the limits than ever before. By doing this we extract more efficiencies from the airframe, use less fuel, and carry more weight.
Any icing on a modern aerofoil is a big deal, especially icing on the leading edge. The Challenger accident in Birmingham should have left us all in no doubt about that.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...04%20N90AG.pdf
I will draw your attention to points 18 and 19 in the Causes section of the accident report.
18. A small degree of wing surface roughness can cause a major reduction in the wing stall angle of attack.
19. Wing surface roughness associated with frost contamination caused sufficient flow disturbance to result in a wing stall at an abnormally low angle of attack. The stall protection system was ineffective in this situation.
For pilots of modern airliners: don't rely on people who flew breeze blocks 30 years ago. The modern airliner is not an L1011 (thank god)