Interim Report - Introduction - EASA

INTERIM REPORT – OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
EASA.2009.OP.21
third-party. The visual message can be delivered by a “thumbs-up”, or via a message board;
and, potentially via data-link; also sometimes via a third-party.
Also for a captain to determine a HOT following anti-icing, the same system can apply.
Usually the two elements are combined into the “anti-icing code”. Unlike loading, de-icing /
anti-icing protection degrades gradually and variably, and the information contained in the
anti-icing code is essential for the captain to determine whether the aircraft remains in an
airworthy condition. In this sense the anti-icing code, or any information, passed to the
captain should have the same status as the mass and balance documentation. However,
whereas mass and balance documentation is “designed”, fit for purpose, contains all the
required information, and is able to be interpreted uniformly by personnel from different
organisations and states, the anti-icing Code is not.
Like the other elements of an operator’s de-icing / anti-icing programme, the Code is
recommended best-practice, and is described in ICAO Doc 9640, JAA ACJ OPS, AEA and
SAE Recommendations. However, like those other elements of an operator’s de-icing / antiicing
programme the Code is open to interpretation, and this Study has discovered that the
understanding attributed to the Code varies considerably. For example, in the fourth and
final element of the Code, as recommended in ICAO Doc 9640 5.4(d), confirmation is given
that the aeroplane complies with the clean wing concept. Whereas, in the sixth and final
element of the Code, as recommended by AEA 3.14.3(f), confirmation is given only that the
post treatment check has been completed. Some service providers issue the Code only to
confirm that the service requested have been provided and not necessarily that a post
treatment check has been conducted and no contamination found. Some operators believe
that the issue of the Code implies that the aircraft is now clean of contamination. Another
aspect for confusion is the connection (or not) of the issuing of the Code and the
communication to the flight crew that all de-icing / anti-icing personnel and vehicles are
“clear” of the aircraft; and furthermore, confusing this with a communication that the aircraft is
clear to taxi.
For a safe de-icing / anti-icing operation and subsequent flight, the flight crew need to know
certain information, it can be argued that this information is equally as important as an ATC
clearance; therefore, it needs to be unambiguous, standardised, and delivered by someone
who has the required understanding and capability. Furthermore, best-practice protocol
should be utilised, such as message “read-back”. The elements of communication between
the flight crew and ground crew (and other bodies) include:
− results of contamination check (even if conducted by one or both pilots, the results
need to be communicated to the rest of the crew, to airline operations, and the
“iceman”)
airsight GmbH 45