In addition to the above, and hopefully without further confusion, perhaps the clue is in the EU-OPS wording / definitions.
EU-OPS 1.148
3. “Damp runway”. A runway is considered damp when the surface is not dry, but when the moisture on it does not give it a shiny appearance.
4. “Dry runway”. A dry runway is one which is neither wet nor contaminated, and includes those paved runways which have been specially prepared with grooves or porous pavement and maintained to retain “effectively dry” braking action even when moisture is present.
10. “Wet runway”. A runway is considered wet when the runway surface is covered with water, or equivalent, less than … … or when there is sufficient moisture on the runway surface to cause it to appear reflective, but without significant areas of standing water.
The definition of ‘Damp’ is not dry, but refers to moisture inferring two conditions – shiny / not shiny - damp / wet.
The ‘Dry’ grooved caveat also refers to moisture, but fails to delineate between damp (not shiny) and wet (shiny reflective surface). This leaves an ambiguous interpretation such that the dry grooved caveat can be either wet or damp. ???
Or has my understanding of plain English and logic failed me?
