The problem I have with this situation is that aircraft intending to depart 23R were invited to call a telephone number to an unspecified person to discuss what was the braking action on the runway.Aircraft landing did not have this option.Also the contamination was not caused by precipitation but by deliberate spraying of an un-specified de-icing fluid onto the runway surface.The aircraft that had called this number all elected to use 23L for departure.The airport operator should have cleaned 23Rof this contamination as precipitation was not forecast.This is probably the first time in my 25 years of flying that I have ever seen a runway deliberately contaminated!I would be interested to hear what the content of these telephone calls was.I heard a Monarch and a Cathay both being given this number.
The runway is notamed as being slippery when wet with precipitation of H2O in its various forms but its characteristics with it being covered in de-icing fluid is an area that has probably never been evaluated.The logic of spraying this runway must be called into question.It must also be asked if the rubber deposits on this runway are ever going to be cleared.
I was in a heavy jet so 23R is not particularly long if contaminated.I also question why an ILS was not insatlled on 23L when it was built.If we had slid off the end of 23R who should be blamed?Should it be me for landing on a sprayed runway that was slippery or the airport operator for spraying in the first place?
Does anybody know what type of fluid Manchester were using?
Last edited by tubby linton; 13th December 2008 at 21:29.