Interim Report - Introduction - EASA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INTERIM REPORT – DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS <strong>EASA</strong>.2009.OP.21 2.1.7 Factors influencing Type I Fluids availability 2.1.7.1 Supporting factors No Influence Slight influence Moderate influence Large Influence Total influence Broader awareness of Safety issues related to Type II/IV Residues Majority airline demand Airline demand (some or the majority) Some airline demand Suitable de/anti-icing Truck capacity and capability Sufficient environmental protection Adequate fluid storage infrastructure and facilities Lack of time pressure for throughput Adequate Space/Area to conduct 2-step de/anti-icing Economic factors airsight GmbH - 11 - 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 9: Supporting Factors which influenced the decision to provide Type I fluid and two step de-icing / anti-icing The principal factor supporting the utilisation of a Type I fluid, not assessed in the questionnaires, is its capability as a de-icer to break the bonding of snow and ice. Consequently, countries with severe winter conditions make an intense use of such fluids within a two step de-icing / anti-icing. According to those aerodromes and service providers who have introduced the two-step procedure with Type I fluid used in the first step, the second contributory factor was the broader awareness of safety issues related to Type II/IV Residues: over 70% of the respondents stated that it had a large or total influence in providing Type I fluids. Some aerodromes, immediately or soon after the publication of the first safety advices related to thickened fluid residues consequently changed their operations – though, according to the opinion of the stakeholders, there was no scientific evidence that two-step procedures would completely eradicate the residue issues. The third influential factor, and related to the second factor, is the active – or anticipated – demand from the airlines to provide Type I fluids and a two-step procedure. Airlines, by reducing the number of thickened fluids applications lowers both the risk of incidents related to residues (safety factor) as well as their maintenance cost for cleaning residues (economic factor). By responding directly to existing airline requests, or projecting new airlines’ requirements, aerodromes potentially increase current client satisfaction and attract more airlines: an interviewed airline mentioned that the non-availability of Type I fluid would decrease by 25% the probability to operate at an aerodrome.
INTERIM REPORT – DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS <strong>EASA</strong>.2009.OP.21 According to the interviewed aerodromes and service providers, the total cost of fluids for providing one-step or two-step de-icing / anti-icing procedures is similar. This is because, while the cost of neat Type I fluid is higher than thickened fluids, it is more efficient as a deicing fluid, and is also frequently used in a more diluted form than thickened fluids; therefore the cost is about the same. Consequently, there is no additional increased cost of fluids for the airline, besides the initial investment for upgrading the infrastructure, facilities and equipment. Numerous arguments have been provided by the stakeholders through interviews regarding the operational benefits of providing a two step de-icing / anti-icing procedure with Type I fluids (applied heated) for de-icing and thickened fluids (applied cold) for anti-icing, namely: − The ease of storage, mixing and testing Type I fluid and its low risk of degradation when compared to thickened fluids. − The ease of using (in a second step) “cold” thickened fluids. First, it avoids unnecessary heating of fluid in vehicle tanks, or repeated heating of fluids which may degrade fluids. Secondly, the use of cold thickened fluids ensures a more accurate HoT; the heating of thickened fluids reduces their viscosity, thereby decreasing the fluid’s ability to absorb the quantity of precipitation as assumed in HoT tables. 2.1.7.2 Limiting factors No Influence Slight influence Moderate influence Large Influence Total influence Airline preference for Type II/IV fluids Economic factors Not enough airline demand No airline demand Inadequate de/anti-icing truck capability/capacity Inadequate environmental protection Insufficient time / Operational throughput demands Insufficient De/Anti-icing personnel Inadequate Fluid storage infrastructure and facilities Environmental Regulatory restriction Restricted Location and/or availability of de/anti-icing areas airsight GmbH - 12 - 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 10: Limiting factors which influence the decision not to provide Type I fluid and two step de-icing / anti-icing According to the service providers, the main limiting factor to providing Type I fluid and twostep de-icing / anti-icing is the “airline preferences for thickened fluids”, directly resulting in too little or no airline demand for changing fluids and methods. For approximately 40% of the
Page 1 and 2: Research Project EASA.2009/4 Regula
Page 3 and 4: EASA.2009.OP 21 Study on the regula
Page 5 and 6: INTERIM REPORT - INTRODUCTION EASA.
Page 13 and 14: INTERIM REPORT - DATA SUMMARY AND A
Page 25: INTERIM REPORT - DATA SUMMARY AND A
Page 71 and 72: INTERIM REPORT - OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
Page 77 and 78:
INTERIM REPORT - OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
EASA.2009.OP 21 Study on the regula
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
EASA.2009.OP 21 Study on the regula
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
show all

Interim Report - Introduction - EASA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?