runway de-icers

[juancarlos]

I am an MBA student and I am looking for information regarding runway de-icers. would really appreciate your kind input.:ugh:
What are the main deicing companies?
What type of de-icers do you know and use?
How decides on the purchase of the deicer. Based on what does he decide who is the supplier?
Do airports have de icer storage facilities and what would their capacity be?
Any information would greatly help me out.
Regards

[Deicerman]

Lots of questions here!

Most UK and US runway deicers are based on potassium acetate. Glycols are also used but they are not as enviromentally friendly. Potassium formate deicers are used mainly in Europe. All must meet stringent requirements of AMS 1435A test methods - and from 1 December REACH regulations in Europe.

Sodium formate based solid deicers meeting AMS1431B are available from some larger suppliers. Useful for use on aprons, walkways, steps etc. Some operators use a mix of solid granules and liquid on the runways - particularly when conditions are very icy.

Main UK suppliers are Brotherton Esseco and Omex. Esseco, Kemira, Addcon and Clariant are main suppliers on the continent.

Most airports have substantial stock tanks - Manchester has over 500 tonnes, for example. However, some have very small stocks and order only when desparate. They rely on the suppliers to work miracles when half the roads are closed.

[FEHERTO]

Hi, Potassium formate is also widly used. Major problem of all Potassium derivates is the high corrosion caused on aircraft, especially carbon brakes.

Urea is used widly in former USSR countries.

[pozzydrive]

Hi De-icer man

I read your reply to the MBA students question and I see you mention Glycol as a de-icer, I also understand there is an environmental issue surrounding Glycol, I happen to have a drum of Blue Glycol (used for car radiators) which I've had for almost 20 years sitting in my garage from a previous business, with these severe weather conditions I was tempted to use it on my paths and driveway, but was not sure as to how effective it would be and if it was dangerous in anyway, if it is ok to use, would I use it neat or watered down and if neat, will it leave blue stains on the paths and driveway, thought it might be suitable on this occasion.

Regards

Pozzy

[GRIZZLER]

I dont think it would be a good idea to put Glycol down out side of your house or on foot paths,as it is very toxic to animals who lick there paws,and humans if unlucky enough to ingest it.....dont think the council would be to happy either......not sure if it has a use by date ,but i'm sure there would be people only to pleased to buy it from you...it's not cheap stuff.

[Lizzie]

Journo Alert....:ok:

[TurningFinals]

This is what we used where I used to work - Konsin (http://www.univareurope.com/uploads/documents/uk/Konsin_Product_Guide.pdf)


It's a "glycol-based, water-soluble, de-icing fluid"

[Deicerman]

Car de-icers are very different to those used on runways. They probably contain methanol, as well as other glycols. They also probably contain anticorrosion additives designed to protect car engines - a very different scenario to runways. These could be toxic to plants and animals.

However, they may be effective in small doses in a domestic situation, but very carefully controlled. Remember, de-icers are not designed to remove snow - thats what ploughs and brushes are for. Journalists giving LHR staff a hard time don't seem to understand this. De-icers melt surface ice and stop it refreezing.

[Hi Lok]

Well apart from the technical aspect it all boils down to cost and POOR management at all levels.
Firstly airport runway & taxiway de-icing/snow clearing is managed by the airport and again lack of management,manpower, planning and budget. All affected by cost and incompetant management.
The aircraft side is usually subcontracted in most cases but the same applies.
Low cost air travel has slowly driven the aviation business to reduce everything including ground services and legacy carriers having to compete in the current environment. Sad but true.
:rolleyes:

[NutLoose]

Remember 99% of the time the UK is a lot different to the likes of Scandinavia, They know for sure when it is due to arrive and once there the stuff stays, here we have the freeze then melt and refreeze scenario, they don't, it's freezes and stays frozen, so is easier to deal with as they will not have the ice aspect as such once cleared.

[FEHERTO]

Propylene Glycol is absolutely not toxic, please review your comments.

Majorproblem with glycols is the large amount of oxygen needed for biologial degradation.

[FEHERTO]

De-icers are designed to remove snow. T1 Fluids are mixed with water and heated to the maximum the trucks can do.

[VP8]

Bring back the BEAST!!!:eek:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/KMCLEAN/RAFMRD2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/KMCLEAN/RAFMRD4.jpg

[rcg11x]

FEHERTO,

Ethylene Glycol is toxic, ingest 30ml and it would probably kill you....

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

De-icers are designed to remove snow. T1 Fluids are mixed with water and heated to the maximum the trucks can do.

No they are not designed to "remove snow". They are intended to prevent the liquid which IS used to remove the snow from refreezing.

You can do the process without T1 fluids, just using hot water, if the OAT is high enough that the risk of refreezing is controlled.

The contaminant is removed through the heat and high pressure of the applied fluid, not it's freezing point depressant properties. The HOT in heavy snowfall is virtually nonexistent, because the fluid rapidly dilutes to the point of uselessness. The same would apply if you apply the snow first then the Type I, unless you used huge amounts of the stuff.

[Deicerman]

Glycol based runway deicers are generally made from monoethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Both are moderately toxic.

Aircraft de-icers - typically type II - are based on monopropylene glycol, which is not classed as toxic and is used in phamaceutical preparations.

However, all de-icers contain additives, some of which may be toxic. Methanol is a component of automotive de-icers and is certainly toxic.

[FEHERTO]

RCG11X: Please read my post: I am talking about Propylene Glycol. Ethylene Glycol is disapproved in Europe for open usage. The lethal dosis is approx. 1.5g per 1kg of body weight for an adult.

[FEHERTO]

QUOTE START:
No they are not designed to "remove snow". They are intended to prevent the liquid which IS used to remove the snow from refreezing.

You can do the process without T1 fluids, just using hot water, if the OAT is high enough that the risk of refreezing is controlled.

The contaminant is removed through the heat and high pressure of the applied fluid, not it's freezing point depressant properties. The HOT in heavy snowfall is virtually nonexistent, because the fluid rapidly dilutes to the point of uselessness. The same would apply if you apply the snow first then the Type I, unless you used huge amounts of the stuff.
QUOTE END:

Please read my comemnt clearly: What you mean is that the glycol protects the used fluid against refreezing. The main purpose of T1 Fluids is to remove contamination, including snow. as they are not thickened fluids they provide onyl marginal hold-over-time and therefore deicing is main task.

Heat and pressure are the important factors, I am not writing that glycol deices the aircraft.

And by the way: Read the hold-over-time tables. For heavy snowfall no hold-over-time at all and not onyl virtually none.

I suggest to attend the next SAE G12 Meeting in Frisco and make a statement that "T1 fluid are not designed for snow removal". You will have a lot of smiles at least on your side.

[FEHERTO]

NO, repeat NO,product used for winter operation purposes in Europe (either runway and/or aircraft) is made out of ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol. Strictly forbidden for environmental reasons. You can find them only in North America, the former USSR and China.

As I have worked in the aircraft de-icing/anti-icing fluid deisgn you can thrust me that all fludis developed in the 5 to 10 years in Europe have no toxic components at all inside. The situation in North America, former USSR and China is different.

The usage of glycol for runway products came to zero in Europe, as the oxygen demand during the biological degradation process is too big. This is also a problem for some airports in the USA, especially I know USAF Bases, which are close to National Parks.

[chevvron]

Course any aerodrome authority worth their salt (pun) will look at the weather forecast and put down anti - ice fluids before the freeze starts. Anti ice fluids are totally different from de - ice fluids and not interchangeable; for instance an anti ice fluid will not remove existing ice.

[Deicerman]

Sorry, Feherto, but MEG and DEG based de-icers are used in the UK on runways.

[FEHERTO]

Deicerman, well, if you say so. But the open application of any MEG and DEG is strictly forbidden in the complete European Community. Also, the biggest manufacturers of such products (Kemira, Kilfrost, Clariant, etc.) do not have MEG and DEWG based products in their portfolio.

Who is the manufacturer and which airport?

The only exemption form all the environmental rules I know is with some airpots operated by the military. But alos this is more than restricted.