alf5071h
Agree with you, adds to confusion.
I am trying to find the "most offical" definitions. According to responses so far we have the following scale:
Normal
Good
Medium/Fair
Poor
Unreliable
With definitions:
Normal - Maximum energy stops possible with little deterioration in certified (dry) stopping distance.
Good - More braking is available than will be used in an average airline type deceleration. If a maximum energy stop were attempted (wet), some distance in excess of certified stopping
distance would be expected.
Medium/Fair - Sufficient braking and cornering force is available for a well-flown approach and landing using light braking. However, excess speed or long touchdown would result in an extremely low safety factor depending on runway length and crosswind component. Careful planning and good judgment are required.
Poor - Very careful planning, judgment, and execution are absolutely essential. Crosswind becomes a "priority one" consideration. While a safe and successful approach, landing, and stop can be accomplished if all factors are favorable, there is little room for error. Care must be exercised in every aspect of the operation and a very careful evaluation of all conditions is necessary.
Unreliable - "Unreliable" will be reported when surface conditions do not permit a meaningful action value to be determined (i.e., standing water, slush, wet snow [potential hydroplaning]).
Are these definitions sufficient?
Do they give the pilot the info needed for "situational awareness"?
Any experience telling otherwise?