Originally Posted by
73qanda
The thread on the F100 over run in Newman got me thinking about the Notams in Sydney that have been there for
a long time now. If I had to guess I’d say over 18 months.
Firstly, can anyone here accurately decode them for the benefit of us all?
I understand where the areas of low friction are located on the runway, and that the minimum
value is 0.43 but the way the other numbers are presented could be better.
Secondly, can anyone here shed light on why the situation isn’t remedied? It appears the low friction
areas are in the touchdown zones and that suggests rubber to me but if so, surely the notam wouldn’t
have stuck with us for so long?
Thirdly, with 2207m of landing distance on 16L and 400m of that below minimum friction level, are we
asking for another over-run?
The friction values quoted are notoriously unreliable and not recommended as a reliable measure of braking capability. The thinking has evolved over the last 15 odd years. Mu is no longer considered accurate.
Most airlines use these policies in order to determine braking capability.
Runway Condition Assessment Matrix is the go to table for both takeoff and landing. It’s been proven to be far more reliable in determining braking effectiveness being used by both Boeing and Airbus. Well worth a read and used by Qf but I’m not sure about Virgin.
https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2...ackground).pdf
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/grf201...019_S3_FAA.PDF
