Originally Posted by Empty Cruise
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!
Best regards fm
Empty
...if I give you the runway as WET, WET, WET, then you can rest assured that the friction that we've measured at least meets that minimum standard, even though I cannot legally give you the actual data (it might well be up to a mu of .7 or so by then). Sounds like a good idea to file for an alternate with no forecast contamination. I suppose that in the departure case you can at least wait until conditions are right.
The early ICAO work has recently been comprehensively repeated using A320 and other aircraft and all the popular makes of trailer and in-vehicle friction measuring devices. Disappointingly and depressingly, there STILL ain't no correlation between braking action and friction measurement and the range of devices are STILL out of whack with each other. How can you possibly stipulate which device to adopt as a standard when they are all different from each other and NONE of them relate to any aircraft?
Cheers,
TheOddOne