grimrod, #17 & #19, I agree.
The problems of reporting are to be addressed by the regulators via TALPA. An Airbus view of this is in
Safety First (page 8 -), which indicates the use of standardised conditions and code to describe the runway, and thus provides a baseline for advisory landing distances.
Note that these require a damp runway to be considered wet (page 11)
TheRobe Re “It's critical for a pilot to understand the difference …” #18
Agreed, but what are these differences, and what understanding is required?
Dry, wet, and contaminated simplify the problem somewhat as there are specific definitions for these, and form the basis of certificated performance.
Dusty, damp, moist, etc, are sub-descriptions which probably should not be used, particularly as any effect on landing performance is not easily determined – other than generally adverse. They are not used in the TALPA matrix.
Boeing has used ‘slippery’ in a range of documents, some with differing definitions of a non-dry runway or an extremely wet / contaminated runway; yet their advisory performance categorisation only uses ‘good’, ‘medium’, and ‘poor’ braking action, but the ill-defined relationship between achievable aircraft performance and the runway condition creates opportunity for error.
TALPA refers to slippery (in parenthesis – code 3), but this is limited to describing a runway with less than the required standard of maintenance (slippery when wet).
So what do pilots really have to know and understand?