Interim Report - Introduction - EASA

INTERIM REPORT – OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
EASA.2009.OP.21
− Many airlines require de-icing / anti-icing services at multiple locations from a
multitude of organisations (sometimes they have no choice). Whilst one can argue
that it’s the same for ticketing, or catering, these are commercial activities and present
a much lower Risk to flight operations, therefore, variations in these services can be
absorbed and dealt with in slower time.
− Many service providers provide de-icing / anti-icing for a multitude of airline customers,
whose requirements may all differ. Again, whilst one can argue that it’s the same for
ticketing, or catering, these are commercial activities and present a much lower Risk to
flight operations, therefore, variations in these services can be absorbed and dealt
with in slower time. Whereas relying on de-icing / anti-icing operatives to recall and
apply numerous variations can lead to confusion.
− At some locations the need (due to climate and weather) for de-icing / anti-icing
services can vary dramatically year-to-year, and may also be very small and in short
bursts. The pressure to invest heavily may be small, and this can lead to inadequate
provision of services during those bursts when demand is temporarily high. At such
locations the experience levels of service provider de-icing / anti-icing operatives may
also be low.
Why are some organisations motivated to invest heavily in facilities, equipment and training?
In some cases this is probably due to the perspective from which they view de-icing / antiicing
activities and the need for a clean aircraft at take-off. This attitude may be labelled
“safety perspective”, where de-icing / anti-icing services are viewed as necessary safety
activities and the associated costs seen as the “price for safety”. If de-icing / anti-icing
services are viewed from the perspective of a commercial service (such as baggage
handling) then the associated fees may be seen as the “cost of doing business”. In an
environment where this latter case prevails, then there will always be calls to justify these
fees and room for discussions on driving down costs. Between these two perspectives lie
many variations and this can lead to confusion of priorities.
There need not be any confusion between what’s good for business and what’s good for
safety. For example, an aerodrome may make a considerable investment in acquiring,
installing and making operational an ILS, even though the climate and local weather patterns
may only impose low visibility operations on few occasions during any single year.
Maintaining a full flight programme in all weather conditions is good for business and the
investment is easily justified. An ILS is not mandatory and when the visibility and/or cloudbase
are below limits the aerodrome cannot be used for landing. However, once installed,
and if it is used, there are clear, strict rules and guidelines for airlines, aerodromes, ATC,
airsight GmbH 34