Some basic questions still come to the fore.
How do we minimise the
human error?
How do we regulate compliance?
How do we monitor in
real time the weather so that we can provide holdover confidence.
Fit Skin temperature sensors.
More expensive for the operators and manufacturers than pushing it to the regulator for a cheap licensing/approval fix. Current practise remains fundamentally a PROCESS driven safety activity and is inherently prone to error.
There is data in abundance regarding loss of control where aircraft departed with an unsafe level of contamination.
There is little, if any, data regarding normal departures with an unsafe level of contamination.
Therefore I am not surprised by the "it never happened to me" inputs on this thread.
Personally,
- It's always clean wing concept for me(especially as I am not actually connected to my modern, computer controlled one).
- I don't trust the fluids(fluid standards are controlled largely by the fluid manufacturers. Nice.)
- Surface roughness and location is the key, not (just) the AMOUNT.
The flight crews decision not to de/anti-ice would likely negate any investment in regulating EU ground ops.
If it is safety returns we are after, better to start with regulating the unlicensed, un-approved 'design' companies that fill our black boxes with software such as is needed to detect an icing induced stall(bombardier challenger SPS system, in the accident at BHX referred to above)!!