Thanks for the replies. I suppose I left out the 'soaked' bit as I assumed that to be more towards the wetter end of the 'wet' spectrum (if that makes sense) and in no way close to the 'damp' definition. I can't imagine why a soaked runway would not appear shiny or reflective, but moving on swiftly...
Thanks for the deicing fluid point. We don't have performance data for when the RW is wet with this. That would be an airmanship issue. It is worth bearing in mind that 'wet' can mean up to 3mm water, which is the worst case scenario which is what are performance charts should be calculated for (how the 3mm is measured is another story ...?) and hence the extra 15% LDR etc.
Criss wrote: 'at my airport we have 2 runways, 1 being grooved, and quite often we have 1 damp, 1 wet.'
It is probable at other airports (worldwide) that the grooved runway (if they owned it!) in this example would be declared 'wet' incorrectly. This would halt movemets for some operators under the latest CAA ruling. (FODCOM 3/09)
That is my main point/concern.
