Date: 201707
Location: SCEL.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Weather; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: As part of my preflight planning I always check the weather a few days prior to my trip to get a general idea of what type of weather conditions we may encounter; in addition to knowing what to pack. Two days prior to departing for Santiago I checked the local weather forecast and was surprised at the unusually low temperatures that were expected; with lows in the 20's; and highs in the low 30's; with snow forecasted on the day of our departure. Deicing immediately came to mind. The forecast of snow is significant; because it had not snowed in years.During our flight planning the first topic of discussion was the snow!! The very next question from both myself and the First Officers (FO); was whether or not they even had deicing capability in Santiago. The snow and freezing precipitation was not forecast until the following day; so we proceeded to Santiago. When we arrived in Santiago; we discussed the forecasted snow with the station operations representative; and whether they had any deicing capability in Santiago. He indicated that there was no deicing capability available. He also said that he sent a memo to advising them of the situation; and the response was that [the company] has alternative means of dealing with this situation. I do not know what that entails.It did snow during the night and when I awoke the precipitation had ended; but there was about 1' of snow on the ground; with the sun beginning to peek out. It has to be remembered that this was a significant snow event in a city that hasn't seen snow in years. That small amount of snow wreaked havoc with the power grid; internet; phone lines; and was the major news story throughout the day.The aircraft for our departure was scheduled to arrive that morning. I was able to meet the inbound crew at the hotel; and asked if they encountered any precipitation during their arrival. The crew indicated that there was no precipitation falling during the approach and that the aircraft was dry when they parked at the gate. This information was important to me; because of the deicing problem in SCL. At this point it looked at least plausible that we would be able to depart; assuming there wasn't any further precipitation and the aircraft remained dry. However; temperatures were forecast to fall into the low 20's and the element of frost was still a possibility; but we would not be able to assess that until we arrived at the aircraft.Weather conditions when we got to the airplane were clear skies; no precipitation and outside air temperature of 33 degrees. All three of us (Captain; FO; and Relief FO) immediately went to the midsection of the cabin to inspect the wings. The spoiler panels; inboard and outboard ailerons; exposed areas of the trailing edge flaps and the upper areas of the leading edge flaps were contaminated with frost. I advised the station ops representative; who was present at the time that we cannot operate with frost on the wings and until it was removed; we could not operate.


Second narrative: Upon reaching operations for preflight planning (in SCL); the crew was advised by Station Operations personnel that Frost had formed on other airlines' aircraft and had resulted in cancellations; due to the no deicing services available at SCL. We were also informed that snow had not fallen at the SCL airport for over 50 years. During preflight inspection; I made my routine exterior checks; and noticed a significant amount of Frost accumulation on critical aircraft surfaces; namely the trailing edge surfaces of the wing. I reported these findings to the Captain; and he also made an inspection from inside the aircraft cabin. Initial response from SCL ground staff was that deicing services were not available. After a period of time; SCL ops personnel informed the crew that deicing services were available for purchase from another entity at the airport; and that they would come soon.We were advised by ground staff that deicing could only occur when the aircraft cabin doors were closed; so after the door was closed the deicing process began. I noticed that the amount of time it took for deicing to occur was relatively short; based on previous experience in winter ops. Since no precipitation was falling; the conclusion of deicing did not require a crewmember to check the aircraft surfaces for contaminants. HOWEVER; the decision was made for me to perform a wing (Pre-takeoff contamination check) for several reasons:-The time taken to deice was much shorter than normal-The deicing device was not a standard; full-sized deicing vehicle. It was a small cart attached to a lawn mower; and wand. The short duration to perform deicing functions did not pass the reasonableness test-We were previously told that 50 years had elapsed since the previous icing event; so training could have been in question-The station agents (appeared) to be caught off guard when asked if the tail being deiced includes the horizontal stabilizer; doesnt it? My inspection revealed that most; if not all; frost remained adhered to the critical aircraft surfaces. I reported this back to the captain; who relayed to station ops and dispatch. The ops decision was to make another attempt at deicing.Since the doors needed to be closed for deicing; I requested to stand outside and observe the deicing process - for quality assurance and also curiosity as to why the frost remained. During observation; the contract employee pointed the hand held de-icing wand parallel to the horizontal stabilizer; sprayed for less than 8 seconds; and waved me over to inspect the horizontal stab for satisfactory deicing. I went up the stairs and found that the fluid was sprayed into the air above the aircraft surface. I had concluded that he was not adequately trained in these procedures. I asked him to point the nozzle at the aircraft surfaces; and the frost. He complied; but the frost remained. I placed my hand in front of the nozzle and found the deicing fluid being ejected was not warm. I reported all of the above events to the captain; who relayed the information to dispatch and station ops. Eventually the flight crew timed out; and a runway closure sealed this eventuality.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported being unable to operate because of inadequate deice equipment and training at the Santiago airport.