View Full Version : Runway State

6th Aug 2001, 21:59
Can anybody come up with a reason for Gatwick not wishing to give their Rwy State over the air. I had to ask four times landing in heavy rain the other day. Two calls were totaly ignored by the Twr; finaly I got we don't have that!.
Funny the water was about an inch deep!
Is this a liability issue.
Just asking? :confused:

Christopher James
7th Aug 2001, 00:53
Hi Icepack.

The problem is that to get on official runway state including breaking action GAL need access to the runway for a mumeter run. It takes 10 minutes in each direction, uninterupted, which therefore has an impact on movement rates. They are very reluctant to do that unless they have to which usually means only in snow or known runway icing conditions.

This came up on another forum. I believe for some of you that means you have to assume the b/a is poor which impacts your landing criteria? Doesn't seem quite right somehow. :)

7th Aug 2001, 02:18
I appreciate the problems faced by controllers in the towers at these busy airports, but why don't they give an unoffical observation?

I know they are, in some cases, some distance from the actual runway, but using the good old "Unofficial Observation, Pilot of preceding 737 reports runway surface as flooded" (etc) might help.

Otherwise, yes. It is the airfield operators responsibility to report on its satte, and a controller is right worried in these litigious times.

Personally, I think it is piss poor that HAL/GAL seem more worried about the declared landing rate.

7th Aug 2001, 03:23
And if an A/C slides off the R/W, it will do wonders for the landing rate! Appreciate the difficulties in busy periods, but agree an "Unofficial Ob." is fine for starters.

Official Ob. could then be done on an on/off basis, between movements. GripTester, or mumeter not required just to give damp/wet/flooded etc. Stick it on the ATIS, job done.

7th Aug 2001, 03:59
A "totally" unofficial observation/response
At "Most" MAJOR airfields, the runway 'state' is determined by a "Runway Inspection". If it p*sses down, and the "Declared" r/w state is "Dry, dry, dry",
We [as ATC] can do nowt about it. [As you look out of the "Tower" and do not [neccessarily] agree with the "Official" obs, then it is "TSB" Tuff S*it Baby".
At EGCC/MAN we do pass a[totally (unofficial) observasion] wx state
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

7th Aug 2001, 16:10
relevant link


web page (http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5320-12C.pdf)

Christopher James
7th Aug 2001, 17:36
Afternoon Bright-ling.

That's fair comment. Last year a jumbo did slide off 27R in a strong crosswind and got stuck in the mud. I can't remember how long it was closed for. He had asked for 23 but was given a 20 min. delay for it.

I think the essential issue here is the lack of redundant runway capacity which is leading us to cut corners on safety. KK and LL are certainly under too much pressure now. I'm not sure what can be done about that and even if they were minded to do something the public enquiry system means we are already 10 years too late!

I was wondering whether all you flying chaps could get something going with BALPA. I believe they represent you on safety matters? It seems to me that a representation from them on the various safety Vs capacity issues might help matters? :)