Yes - but remember, they have been so for several years! That means that we have safely operated with these figures for decades - but suddenly, we cannot have them any more
- so finally, the lawyers have managed to get around to airport ops as well...
Now, that leaves us as pilots in a tight spot. If the runway is contaminated, but no B/A of F/C figures are forthcoming - I cannot legally land the aircraft. Ergo - if snow or other contaminant is forecast @ a UK airport, I should therefore treat that airport as below planning minima, and carry fuel to the farthest of 2 destination alternates. So if all the UK is affected by e.g. snow - I'm better off filing SVG or BGO as alternate - since they will give me the info I legally need to land the aircraft!
This is utter BALOX (yep, I miss CPH!) to me - and believe me, the Norwegians, Swedes, Finns & Danes have a lot of experience keeping their airports operating, even in snowy conditions. And somehow, despite risking similar lawsuits as UK airports, they manage to know when to give the figures (i.e. the airport carries the can) and when to report them unreliable (i.e. the PIC carries the can).
Honestly - if you cannot give us the info we need - why bother? Perhaps the airlines should start filing compensation lawsuits when unnecessary diversions occur due to this practise. If an SFH comes up with unambigous figures - yet they are still reported by ATC as "unreliable" - my feeling is that the airline stands a good chance of winning such a lawsuit. Perhaps FlyingLawyer has an answer for this one?
Best regards fm
Empty