The report at (#23) only deals with friction aspects on runways contaminated with snow and ice and specifically excludes wet runways in the definition of ‘slippery’.
The document which the FSF refers too (#7) is TP14842E “Risk and Benefit-Cost Analyses of Procedures for Accounting for Wet Runway on Landing” dated July 2008. This is not yet available on line.
This document focuses on wet runways and the importance of runway grooving. Most of the significant points are identified in the FSF article.
Although CRFI is not measured on wet / flooded runways, the background principles in (
AC 164 and
AIM AIR Para 1.6 and table 1-4) provide excellent guidance for the performance degradation on wet runways, but even this requires judgement in considering additional factors such as non grooved runway, tyre condition.
An advantage of CRFI is that it attempts to provide a similar safety margin to that required for dry operations, i.e. attempts to accommodate the variability in everyday operations.
Some of the landing distances required for low friction operations shown in the CRFI tables approximate to safety factors of 2.0 to 2.4 which are well in excess of the wet 1.92.
Unfortunately, all of the above suffer the weakness of the crew not knowing what the actual condition of the runway surface is, either through difficulties of measurement, communications, and interpretation; and even with good data, it has to be applied sensibly.
The above does little to progress an understanding of the Moncton event. However, from CRFI principles / tables, assuming that the runway was ‘very wet’, the landing distance (with reverse) on this 6000ft runway would equate to an ‘AFM’ unfactored dry landing distance of 2800-3200ft. Could any 727 pilots comment on the practicality or likelihood of this data applying to this situation.