Ryanair pilot assesses snowy braking action!

[kick the tires]

Still cant believe it!

Sunday saw LPL SNOCLO due to heavy snow showers and the airport not being able to clear the runway.

To everyones amazement a Ryanair Captain managed to persuade ATC to let him have a ride in their car in order to 'test' the braking action himself!!!

Even now I still cant believe that:

A. He actually did it; how on earth can a professional pilot make a judgement on the braking efficency of a 737 on a snowy runway that hes trundled along in a car!!!

B. That ATC let him do it in the first place

C. none of his colleagues stopped him!

PS he was the ONLY movement in LPL that day!!

[rotornut]

Did the car have a JBI meter?

[GBALU53]

After the television documentry on Ryanair does this not sum them up.

Or is this commercial pressure??

Would have been very interesting if the aircaraft had a problem on departure and had to abbort.

The CAA would have had a field day but in the end where are Ryanair registered.

Or is it just the lusk of the Irish.

[captjns]

Do you have the facts or are your statements suppositions? Were you there to personally witness his colleagues reactions... or again is this supposition? Can you substantiate the local conrollers position, or again... is that a supposition too?

[NigelOnDraft]

KTT
I cannot see the problem at all... from your post. All he did was hitch a ride in ATC's wagon... that way he got to see the depth / type of snow first hand. He was thus more informed than anybody else about the conditions.
You have not said what he did with the information he gained - just a very loose implication that because he was the only movement that day, he based that on his ride with ATC :oh:
If we follow your logic, if I am the only person to divert because of adverse weather, I am "useless" if everybody else carried on / got in. The "sheep" instinct is very dangerous - my hat goes off to him for actually using his initiative in asking for, and getting the ride.... what happened thereafter I do not know from your post :hmm:

[Aloue]

KTT, if the captain ascertained that the B.A. and snow depth (maybe why he went out) were satisfactory he was indeed using his initiative to maximum advantage.

Again, as is so often the case with FR, we just don't have the facts. While I have NO love for FR, sometimes they - or more specifically their pilots - are "not guilty". In fact, the competence of FR pilots is far from being the issue of interest (and concern).

[Voeni]

Although I admit that bashing on FR seems pretty common here, this happening raises my eyebrow...

Imagine what have happened, if the aircraft had a problem during T/O! A T/O at a closed airport from a legal standpoint is veery questionable! The fact he "tested" the braking action with a car is no excuse, it is a ridiculous way and would have never been legally accepted.

My question: Would anyone of YOU commence a T/O under these situation? Sounds like a lot of commercial (or private) pressure...

[NigelOnDraft]

Would anyone of YOU commence a T/O under these situation?No idea what the situation was, so cannot comment.
However, if I knew the snow depth and type, calculated the relevant performance figures, it permitted me to go, and I was happy, I would go. It would be almost negligent not to.
Seems another thread based on the fact because something to do with FR is "different" it must be "dangerous" "outrageous" etc.
NoD

[JustaFew]

A few facts about last Sunday:-

ATC did not allow the pilot to use ATC's car to view the runway.

The airport opened at about 1pm Sunday.

That particular movement was NOT the 'only' aircraft movement that day.

ATC does not have any powers to deny the pilot's request to view the
runway. They are not police officers.

No side-taking, kick the tyres, plain FACTS.

[Loose rivets]

In days of yore, (groan) the braking action at a lot of airfields was assessed by driving a Land Rover onto the runway, and standing on the brakes with a mu meter?..or whatever. One thing is for sure, I would prefer to see for myself what conditions were like on the runway in some remote airfields.

Where the tires actually tracked was important to me, if I was to get a meaningful reading.

I recall being at ( a lonely regional) with a load of pax that had nowhere to go in thick snow. Breaking action did not respond to the urea treatment, until the last bag! We just got the reading we wanted to be legal. Nice as the folk were, I was glad that it was I, that actually took the reading. And no, I didn't cheat.

(The only really hairy thing that night was the F/Officer walking along the top of the wing with a broom. An heroic effort, but one that I would not have let him do had I known.)


Things have changed hugely now, and most of you will cry ‘thank heavens', but as implied earlier, in the early days, there was probably more learned ‘in the field' than would be allowed now. And hey, a lot of what you are taught as theory now, was learned the hard way by the post war bunch.

[TheOddOne]

What absolute tosh!

We've had requests at LGW from aircraft commanders in the past to inspect the runway in adverse weather conditions, one I recall from a highly respected charter operator. We would never refuse this reasonable request, indeed I would regard it as good airmanship to do so if it adds to the data on which to make an informed decision.

I'm not an FR fan as such but it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I believe this sort of FR-bashing takes away the credance of legitimate concerns about the carrier's performance. In other words, keep your powder dry for when it really matters.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[hobie]

We are rapidly approaching the point where only qualified Aviation professionals will be allowed to post on PPRuNe and Boy am I looking forward to that day .....

[oceancrosser]

In days of yore, (groan) the braking action at a lot of airfields was assessed by driving a Land Rover onto the runway, and standing on the brakes with a mu meter?..or whatever

I remember such use of a Land Rover in a distant place on a snow covered
gravel runway. The airfield radio guy, a farmer who worked part-time at the airport reported the "braking action as pretty good". During landing, while skidding all over the place, we saw some deep tire tracks in the snow. An inspection of said Land Rover, revealed snow chains on every tire! The guy had ripped through the snow into the gravel with the chains! No such luck on our old battered Fokker 27

o/c

[Rainboe]

Some of the posts here by amateurs are absolutely outrageous. It is a perfectly valid action for a Captain to go out and inspect the runway himself and assess according to the guidelines in his manuals whether an operation is viable. I have done it myself more than once and done several inspections to get the overall assessment of contamination, and found it acceptable, and had absolutely no problem. Aircraft performance tables include special contaminated runway data within strict guidelines.

I'm appalled at some of the uneducated and incorrect criticism of a pilot doing his job. The fact that most of the 'facts' in the original post are apparently incorrect is an indication of the validity of the criticism of the Captain! If there'd have been any hope of those posters being honorable and apologising for their criticism, I'd have demanded a retraction for the nonsense they've spouted! If you don't understand what you're talking about, why step in with dreadful criticism like that?

[NigelOnDraft]

Just in case some editing goes on, and the thread gets "confusing" ;) I'll preserve the original post from 'kick the tires: Still cant believe it!

Sunday saw LPL SNOCLO due to heavy snow showers and the airport not being able to clear the runway.

To everyones amazement a Ryanair Captain managed to persuade ATC to let him have a ride in their car in order to 'test' the braking action himself!!!

Even now I still cant believe that:

A. He actually did it; how on earth can a professional pilot make a judgement on the braking efficency of a 737 on a snowy runway that hes trundled along in a car!!!

B. That ATC let him do it in the first place

C. none of his colleagues stopped him!

PS he was the ONLY movement in LPL that day!!

[Loose rivets]

I have just had the image come to mind, of two 748s parked across a road at Portsmouth. The second crew was not informed of the poor braking action, "...because it might have upset the Captain."

[Pilot Pete]

I was in Doncaster a few weeks back , with snow falling and settling on the runway. The 'Ranger' (Airfield Ops) came up to my flight-deck and informed me that the braking action was 'pretty good' as he had just driven along the runway applying his brakes in line with where the main gear would be. I asked what the friction co-efficient was, to which he replied that he hadn't got a reading and it would take 15 minutes for him to get one. I politely asked if he would like to start the process, to which he replied 'well the easyJet has just gone and he was alright'.:rolleyes:

[jondc9]

fellow flyers:

I have not flown in europe, so my view is from the new side of the pond.

If this guy really went out on the runway in a car, more power to him.

I went to the control tower once to make sure the visibility was taken in a proper fashion...one airport in the USA requires 5 miles visibility to do the approach...as I was taking off I needed to know if I could get back in. I couldn't see ONE mile, but the company guy was happy to " call it 5".

we waited .


AS to closing an airport/aerodrome. Airports are seldom really closed because of weather. Usually, in the USA,it is up to airport managers to decide to close an airport, NOT ATC. ATC on some occasions may act on airport manager's behalf and " close " an airport when an accident has happened and the crash fire rescue teams could not respond to another accident. Certainly the airport can be closed to groom the runway...however this is usually done only after a US "nil" braking action report.

While people will throw around the term " closed" instead of saying, ''the airport is below operational minimums and we have elected to divert'' is closer to the truth.

on snowy days I have walked out to a good vantage point to look over the runway and like they say, " one picture is worth a thousand words".


Had an aborted takeoff happened, and the plane went off the end of the runway, this action of "checking" the runway would have been on more arrow in the quiver of this pilot's defense .

regards
jon

[maxalt]

''the airport is below operational minimums and we have elected to divert'' is OK if talking to those in the know. But for PAX "Closed" is as close to the truth as they need.

Had an aborted takeoff happened, and the plane went off the end of the runway, this action of "checking" the runway would have been on more arrow in the quiver of this pilot's defense .Or a rope to hang him - depending on the circumstances.

[Ignition Override]

About 18 or 19 years ago, the Captain I worked with rode in an airport car on the departure runway at White Plains, NY. It is still a short runway.

Why do people assume that the Ryanair Captain planned to make his decision to operate, based only upon a ride in a car? He must have had other information. He might have had the option to taxi on the runway as he checked the brakes on the way to the first exit and return for takeoff, in order to make his final decision.

On the other hand, for many years, airline crews at a busy midwestern airport de-iced by the beginning of a departure runway. A few years ago I asked Tower whether anybody knew what the braking action was. The Tower Controller said "we don't know". It was quite normal for B-737s, DC-9s, F-100, MD-80s, B-727s, A-320s, B-757s etc to depart without having a current braking action report from a jet. This runway is mostly used only for departures.
From what I remember, nobody else ever requested a braking action report OR another runway: was this the "sheep mentality"? For the newer pilots or laymen/amateurs, keep in mind that a turboprop or recip aircraft can usually slow down very well using only ground fine or prop reverse-with little wheel braking needed.

[sky9]

Pilot Pete
You summed up the situation exactly. It really is about time that pilots started viewing their action with the thought in the front of their minds "What would I tell the accident investigator".

[MONCTON FIR]

SORRY GUYS BUT IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE CAPT OF THIS A/C HAD NO BUSINESS BEING DRIVEN OUT ONTO THE SNOWY/ICY RUNWAY. AFTER LIVING AND WORKING IN SNOW ALL MY LIFE YOU CANNOT MAKE A CREDIBLE JUDGEMENT OF RUNWAY CONDITIONS FROM THE FRONT SEAT OF A LAND ROVER. THERE IS ONE HELL OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLAMMING ON THE BRAKES ON A LAND ROVER IN SNOW THAN TRYING TO ATTEMPT A T/0FF IN THESE CONDITIONS IN A HEAVILY LADEN B737-800.
ESPECIALLLY WHEN YOU HAVE TO ABORT--NOT SMART.:cool:

[LYKA]

Monton

Isn't that what everyone is saying? At some airports that is exactly how the B/A is measured! A braking car is not really representative of a 150 ton jet. Additonally the MU meter readings often produce variable and misleading results in wet snow and slush.....Going out to view the runway - good airmanship IMHO.:ok:

[Basil]

No reason why a captain should not go out, have a look and use what is seen as part of the decision making process.
Do recollect similar situation when Land Rover skidded into blade of snowplough, captain broke thumb, flight cancelled. Decisions made easy:D

[Rainboe]

I really think if people are going to sound off about this, they should say from what viewpoint they are speaking! I am a retired medium/widebody pilot with getting on to 20,000 hours. It is an accepted part of BA procedure for the pilot to go out and inspect the actual runway conditions. It is not done from the back seat of a Landrover. It entails several different sampling areas and assessing what lies under the snow and how deep snow and slush is. Unless frequent operations are already taking place, it is a valid and reliable procedure for someone who knows what they are doing and what they are looking for, and is well catered for and fully described in the contaminated take-off performance books on the aeroplane. It is a procedure that has shown no sign of unreliability. Those very people who know nothing about this and see fit to make comment will be the loudest people to complain when all ops are halted at the first sign of a snowflake! The aim of the game is to keep public transport flowing.

Please would people who know nothing about it or aircraft performance stop interjecting! We have quite enough flight simmers/self appointed aviation experts sounding off with opinions here as it is. That idiotic first post takes the biscuit. Who are you KtT? Do you know it is not for ATC to forbid a runway inspection or close airfields?- ATC passes on the weather for the pilot to make his own judgement. I'm glad Ryanair did operate, and safely- he took the care to assess for himself and come to a safe decision. He also followed company procedures presumably, just as they are BA procedures too! Kinda makes your thundering look a bit daft doesn't it?

[Pilot Pete]

I was always taught that good decision making comes from gathering all the information available, assessing the options open to you and then deciding on the most appropriate option based around the situation you face. If you can't comply with the rules then your decision is made for you.

Unfortunately, your decisions may subsequently be disected by people with greater knoewledge and experience, under no time pressure and with many more resources available to them, so you had better bear this in mind when assessing the risks and coming to your conclusions.

Braking action measurement may well be flawed, but it is the best info I can get regarding the runway state and the associated risks should I need to reject. A ride in a car may well allow me to have a closer look, get a feel for what the car behaves like under braking etc, but it is not an exact science, so I will stick to my company procedures, which comply with JAR-OPS and request a braking action report. If that throws any doubt upon the suitability of the surface then I won't be going anywhere until such time as something has changed for the better.

I always think how I can justify my decisions in a court of law (should I be lucky enough to survive) and that sometimes helps with the go/no-go decision. I am lucky to work for an employer that genuinely says "if you are in any doubt, DON'T DO IT".

Another point is that in the UK we are not as experienced at true Winter Ops. Luckily we have a sister airline in the group based in Scandinavia, where obviously Winter Ops is their forte and we have been briefed and amended some of our SOPs based on their greater experience. This captain may well be Scandinavian for all we know (there are a lot of them about in UK/ Irish aviation these days!) and may well have much more experience than the likes of cautious old me.

The main thing is KEEP IT SAFE, within the rules and your own limitations, your crew limitations and any other factors which influence your ability to do so. There has been no evidence thus far that has convinced me that this fellow professional hadn't done just that.

PP

[discountinvestigator]

Pilot Pete
You summed up the situation exactly. It really is about time that pilots started viewing their action with the thought in the front of their minds "What would I tell the accident investigator".

Well, if there is a fatality, it is a scene of crime, so start with what are you going to tell the police. Then the accident investigators might be able to interview you. Then you will be interviewed by the court in the manslaughter proceedings, public enquiry, coroner's inquest etc. Oh, and your employer's insurance company and their lawyers are going to be pretty interested too, as they have to pay for it.

I have observed, as a passenger in a Ryanair aircraft, being loaded in a thunderstorm across an open ramp, and then taking off when the runway was flooded. What was wrong with that? Well the airport had no method of being able to tell the pilot of the depth of water and of the braking action. I know, I had just finished asking such questions of ATC/airport operator. Was it a good decision? Well, if the crew had factored in the loss of lift from the high rate of rainfall, and had taken into account the rejected take-off stopping distances for decision speeds as well as the additional tyre drag for acceleration, then OK. Was I comfortable, NO.

There are huge problems in relation to the application of Annex 3,11 and 14 to modern aircraft operations. ATC might not have the power to stop an aircraft from going, but the airport operator does, in such weather conditions. The airport operator may decide to close the airport.

Is taking a look in a vehicle a good idea, yep, why not? Should it be the only basis of decision making, no. The aircraft operator is required to audit the airport. Therefore, the company should have decided under what conditions of slush depth (where no Mu meter reliable readings can be taken from certain types of apparatus) and so on, were acceptable. All that the aircraft commander has to do is to look up the airport specific table, compare the facts and the criteria and make a decision.

Do the airlines provide you with the criteria? Do they provide you with practical slush assessment training on your ATPL theory courses? Does your safety management system state where you have individual responsibility and where the company has responsibility in this area? If you are unsure in this area, then you might have difficulty in the event of an accident.

[easyprison]

MONCTON FIR,
I respect your post. However since you have had a lot of experience in adverse weather I would say you have been surrounded by people who have good knowledge of adverse weather also; ATC, Airfield OPS etc.
Here in the UK, Airports tend to shut at the first sign of snowfall. Runways are given as WET WET WET when really they are only damp or even dry sometimes.
I flew into a airfield this week that was giving medium/poor on the taxiways. Only until we landed and saw the taxiway, it was infact dry and the information was old depsite being on the latest ATIS.
We are NOT used to serious adverse weather in the UK. I believe the Capt has every right to go and inspect a taxiway or runway if he or she so wishes.

[Alycidon]

Another point is that in the UK we are not as experienced at true Winter Ops.

Pete me old mate,

While it may be true that you and your company don't do much winter stuff, remember that some UK and Irish companies operate scheduled services to all sorts of cold and snowy places and have a great deal of experience with contaminated runways and winter ops.

I think it may be fair to say that UK airports are not as adept at handling snow and slush as the northern europeans and this may lead to a certain amount of frustration by crews, hence the runway inspection, but the prevailing weather in the UK hardly merits the investment in snow monitoring and clearing equipment and training that our northern colleagues rely on continuously for 3 months every year!!

Roll on global warming.

No. 9

[kick the tires]

on the day in question, as soon as the snow clearing team had finished clearing the runway they had to start all over again because of the intensity of the snow showers.

How is anyone able to determine that the braking action is 'MED/POOR' (allowed) as oppose to POOR (not allowed)?? They arent and therefore safety is erroded/non-existent.

Such an assesment is one persons variable that HAS to be left to instruments.

Its totally different to a crew taxiing out to a runway and making an assessment of visibility, when for instance no RVR reporting is available; count the lights and you have an exact figure. Riding in a car on a runway and saying, yeh thats ok, is not an exact science!

[Pilot Pete]

While it may be true that you and your company don't do much winter stuff, remember that some UK and Irish companies operate scheduled services to all sorts of cold and snowy places and have a great deal of experience with contaminated runways and winter ops.

Yeah, completely agree. I think my comment was a bit too 'UK General'.

Riding in a car on a runway and saying, yeh thats ok, is not an exact science!

Couldn't agree more, hence my asking for a BA reading when given info from this source and perhaps the captain in question was using this info to compliment other info he had?

I must admit I cannot quite see the value in it though, because if the airport are saying BA is POOR, hence nobody going anywhere and you go out in the car and make your own judgement that it's not that bad, I can't see how you could justify going anyhow. The lawyers would have a field day in the event of an incident. I personally think I would only use a personal observation to get Airfield Ops to carry out a further test if I felt it had improved since their last report (presumably of conditions which meant T/Os were not occuring), or more likely to downgrade an airfield report where I felt the conditions appeared to be worse than ATC were passing.

Anyhow, does anyone have the SA Wx at the time in question, especially ATC passed BA reports?

PP

[123 O'Leary]

Thats the whole point - the BA vehicle was u/s and no (offical) runway conditions were available!:ugh:

[chipsncheese]

[quote=kick the tires]

To everyones amazement a Ryanair Captain managed to persuade ATC to let him have a ride in their car in order to 'test' the braking action himself!!!

I'm still trying to work out exactly which ATCO it was that went out in our car on the runway. 2 reasons why this post is crap:

1: We (ATC) don't do the runway inspections. Anyone who has been at Liverpool will realise why, given the position of 'airside' to the new tower.

2: The only car that we (ATC) have at our disposal is an 'S' reg Ford Fiesta, with no markings, or orange lights. Not likely to be much use on an active runway full stop. Never mind one covered in a blanket of snow.....:rolleyes:

[kick the tires]

[QUOTE=chipsncheese 2: The only car that we (ATC) have at our disposal is an 'S' reg Ford Fiesta, with no markings, or orange lights. Not likely to be much use on an active runway full stop. Never mind one covered in a blanket of snow.....:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I am being remiss in lumping everyone under the banner of ATC. Sorry. But you, as do all, obviously know that LJLI has more than an S reg Fiesta at its disposal.

But you have answered the whole issue really ..."never mind one covered in a blanket of snow"
Why do you think the other dozen or so aircraft waiting to depart called it a day?

[Lou Scannon]

The Ryanair captain sounds like the sort of man who gets out of the flight deck to check his own wings for snow and ice rather than accept someone elses report.

Why not carry out a visual inspection of the runway if you can!

[AeroMANC]

Seems a reasonable request to me. UK Airports are restricted in the information they can supply as regards braking action on contaminated runways. In most cases you will find the reports are based on an assessment by an Ops/Ranger Vehicle. CAA Regs prohibit the use of Friction Measuring devices in Slush, uncompacted wet snow and standing water greater than 3mm depth. Furthermore they cannot be used when the air temp is less that PS02C.

FODCOM30/2005 and AIC61/1999 are useful docs.

Airports should be capable of providing sufficient data regarding the surface state and its suitability for aircraft operations - but if in doubt why not take a look for yourself! All credit to the FR pilot!.

[Rainboe]

But you have answered the whole issue really ..."never mind one covered in a blanket of snow"
Why do you think the other dozen or so aircraft waiting to depart called it a day?

You have obviously never operated in North America. Landing on snow covered runways is not unusual. One has to be aware of what contamination is actually there. This is not done with glibly sitting in a skidding car. It is getting out and kicking the snow to see what is underneath and assessing depths. Something I have done more than once. I also inspected my own wings or had another pilot do it if I had any doubts as to upper wing ice. It's how you act like a professional!

Of the other dozen aircraft calling it a day, I would be inclined to wonder whether they made any attempt to personally assess the situation if their Ops manual so permits or whether they may have followed a herd instinct and ducked the decision! But to slate the Captain like you did was wrong.

[fly.net]

seems many of you have a lot of experience on contaminated runways -

could you please have a look to the question I have posted under the other thread "Wet Runway performance" for 737-pilots - thanks for your help

[EK Shadow]

Some time ago we were taxing on the Runway for Take Off that was reported to be slippery with medium to good and some slush.

We did not believe them and insisted on a runway check.

Then the braking action was reported to be poor and contaminated with double the value that was reported first.

As far as I can see and understand Ryanair I think it's fair to say that, Ryanair is probably not the easiest airline to work for, but it surely is a character-building environment.

In other words it’s a no bull**** company and the positive side of it is that you do not accept any bull**** from others including ATC.

[Rainboe]

Just because a runway is covered with contamination, it doesn't mean necessarily that braking and steerage is non existent. In a Classic 747 we were on final approach to a JFK completely covered in snow with heavy deposits on the runway. A preceeding landing DC-9 was asked for BA and his reply was 'nil'. The Captain and I looked at each other in horror and switched the autobrakes to Max. When we touched down, there was a pause while the wheels spun up, and then the brakes came on. It felt like we were going to go through the windscreen it was so strong- thrown forward like those astronauts in Apollo 13 when the main engine cut out. That is why peoples' assessments are not reliable and the only reliable way in the absence of a Mu reading is to get out there and see what there is and measure it.

[OverRun]

As a professional inspector of runways myself, my opinion is that the Ryanair Captain did well.

A runway surface is not homogeneous. Along a single runway, the roughness and ruts (think standing water), gradient (drainage), and even the surfacing type (age, texture) varies.

The measurement of runway contamination/friction is not consistent. It can visual, or by machine. The machine can be accurate or not, it can be in-calibration or not, it can be valid for the conditions or invalid (think contamination depth vs machine calibration depth).

The reporting of runway surfacing condition is not consistent. It can be the average condition, or some statistical treatment such as the worst third, or some commercial practice such as the most optimistic.

The deposition of contamination is not homogeneous. Parts of the runway can be affected by microclimate activity (bursts of rain).

The reporting of contamination is not uniform, nor always to be trusted (loss of face, ignorance, indolence, avarice). The first world is as guilty as the third.

In practice, the system works reasonably. The addition of pilot BA reports is a worthwhile and significant input, where available from a flightdeck with a crew culture that doesn’t worry about loss of face.

For an operation in marginal conditions, where runway contamination is going to be an important factor, and the runway condition is not clearly evident, a visual inspection of the runway is commendable. IMHO the flight crew can make useful and pertinent observation from such an inspection. And IMHO as much or more so than ATC can.

The inspection of the runway is done by vehicle in the interests of safety (visibility, weather protection), communication (radio), and speed (minimum runway occupancy). I would recommend driving the full length of the runway at the carefully chosen speeds of 60 kph, returning at 100 kph. Stop in the first and again in the last third of the runway, and at each stop get out of the vehicle and “kick the dirt”, as the colloquial expression is.

[alibaba]

:8 You do not get a brakeing action on this type of contaminated rwy.

Quote is from CAA FODCOM Winter OPS 30/2005.

1.3 Braking Action on Dry and Wet Runways and Runways that may be Slippery When Wet

1.3.1 At civil aerodromes licensed for public use with paved runways more than 1200 metres long, periodic surveys of the friction level should be carried out. Provided that these surveys indicate greater than the Minimum Friction Level, good braking action may be assumed when the runway condition is reported as dry, damp or wet (CAP 683 ‘‘The Assessment of Runway Surface
Friction’’). If during routine friction measurements the coefficient falls below the minimum friction level for a continuous portion of the runway for 100 metres or more, the runway will be declared as one that may be slippery when wet. These friction measurements are not correlated directly to any specific aircraft type but are intended as guidelines for aerodrome operators on areas of the runway that require maintenance.

1.3.2 The report of the surface friction coefficients measured during the runway friction survey can be requested from the aerodrome operator. These coefficients will indicate the area of deterioration on the runway which can be as little as 100 metres of degraded surface or, after a prolonged dry
spell, initial rainfall may result in a very slippery condition that affects the whole runway temporarily. However, any performance calculations or adjustments resulting from the dissemination of this information are the responsibility of the aircraft operator and the commander, and not the aerodrome operator.

1.4 Reporting Contaminated Runway Braking Action

1.4.1 Measurement of braking action on contaminated runways is limited to ice (gritted or ungritted) and dry or compacted snow. Braking action will not be measured in slush, uncompacted wet snow or water (more than 3 mm deep) due to the limitations of existing friction measuring equipment.

I say again,You don't have brakeing actions on this type of RWY. ;)

[sky9]

How about a "poll" as to whether the captain would have been suported by his manager if things hadn't worked out or would they have covered their a*** and given him the sack before he got home?
How would you vote?

[Jambo Buana]

When Ryanair originally started flying into Skavsta with the 800, I remember a pilot who landed on RW08 BA MED/POOR. During the landing roll he temp lost control of the a/c in an area that had BA zero. He regained control using the recommended technique, changed underpants, then went out with the Saab friction test guys who took the time to explain the following:

To have an average there must be areas below the final reported value. In this case a 100 metres at 0 BA just to the left of the CL. This info was in the Saab drivers report and could have been passed to the pilot on approach if asked for. Just ask for "the comments".

A white/black runway can be deceptive in terms of BA. Snow is grippier than ice.

Bring the a/c to taxy speed as early as possible in the landing rollout.

Unfortunately this captain thought he knew better than the SAS trained guys and ordered them to keep sweeping the runway for his departure. They told him this would be detrimental to BA as it would help shine the surface. He wouldnt listen. They night stopped. No action was ever taken against him, but two engineering pilots were sent out to NYO to learn from the experience. They wrote a great precis from a Saab/runway clearing perpsective which was handed out to RYR pilots at the time.

This LPL pilot may have been equally ignorant or perhaps quite perceptive and versed on slippery/contam runway ops. Maybe he was just passing time and has probably learnt more about contam runways than the majority of posters here will ever know!

The question I ask is why do pilots with the same licence attained through the same system have such varying opinions on such a fundamentally important area? I think the answer lies in licensing/examinations etc that in my day were still concentrating on areas such as Omega nav even though it had been withdrawn!

[jondc9]

The question I ask is why do pilots with the same licence attained through the same system have such varying opinions on such a fundamentally important area? I think the answer lies in licensing/examinations etc that in my day were still concentrating on areas such as Omega nav even though it had been withdrawn!


I think your question is excellent. On the instrument exam in the USA I was asked a question about the odd sort of lead in lights at KJFK for the Carnasie approach.

It was more than 15 years before I actually flew to KJFK.

The licensing of all pilots is an odd sort of guess. We call it a license to learn out here.

Some pilots are at their peak of capability the day they get their ATP and go down hill from there. Others are constantly learning and honing their skills.


It takes a rare sort of pilot on their retirment flight to actually be trying to be even better!

j

[Jambo Buana]

It certainly is rare to find a pilot like that. I guess if we were all perfect there would be no training depts. That would be nice! I havent had a SBY day now for 7 years and have had only 23 non training days in that period!

[Rainboe]

I picked up my Contaminated Runway stuff through practical experience with others and careful reading of the company orders and regulations and Performance Manuals. I suppose it depends if the company you are in has that much detail in its publications and much experience operating in adverse weather. However to take apart this poor Captain like this out of obvious ignorance of procedures deserves criticism.

[Bomber Harris]

Originally Posted by Jambo Buana
The question I ask is why do pilots with the same licence attained through the same system have such varying opinions on such a fundamentally important area? I think the answer lies in licensing/examinations etc that in my day were still concentrating on areas such as Omega nav even though it had been withdrawn!

Yes, I agree. This is the question which summarises the 'reason d'etre' for this post. We as pilots need to question the whole system of contaminated rwy perf calcs. I for one (a trainer) have spent a lot of time on this area and have found more "grey" statements in the bibles than I care to think about. It is time to change this from a guessing game into a science. The industry created GPWS against all the odds to reduce CFIT to a minimum, is it not time a drive towards contaminated rwy operations was changed from a guessing game into a science?

[alibaba]

B.H. I agree in some respects to what you are saying about contaminated calc's being grey in some aspects. The policy and procedures is in the books though for all to read.

The whole purpose of this post though was not to ask technical questions about how you work out contaminated figures.

It was undoubtedly to try and show the Ryanair crew to be acting negligently in some respect unsafe. This is disgusting in my view and I hope this thread has shown the original poster to be lacking in a large amount of cont. experience and knowledge.:O :O

The RWY was checked, evidently from what we learn in this thread by airfield ops and then again by the Captain. Cont. figures must have been used in terms of weight and x-wind limits and a V1 reduction made. I would assume that cold weather supplementary procedures was used and that an engine run-up of 70% N1 for 30 sec every 30 min. At this point if the a/c was on the rwy a degree of judgment can again be used to assess the rwy condition.

A JBI meter is useless in these conditions as stated many times over. Hence why you have cont. figures in your manuals!!!;)

I think this is RYR bashing at its highest and an ideological problem some people have.

I have also noticed KTT has now gone very quite in this post. I think that the Ryanair crew deserve an unreserved apology from you. :cool: :cool:

[Right Way Up]

As KTT will fly the Airbus soon (I assume), he'll find that t/o performance on the bus is based on contaminant and depth, and apart from crosswind recommendations and disallowing poor BA on icy runways the BA does not affect the performance calcs. If manufacturers cannot standardise perf calcs for contaminated runways all power to a capt who shows this iniative. BTW for those who ask what an investigation will say if you go off a contaminated runway having inspected the runway yourself. Remember the Boeing contaminated performance tables are "ADVISORY ONLY". Just blindly following advisory tables and having an incident will more likely get you into hot water.

[kick the tires]

Alibaba,

I still think my post was valid as do a number of others in their response. Do I think it could of been worded better? yes I do. I was wrong in being so accusational.

However, there has been some very educated postings on here subsequent to mine and we all learn from such debates.

My opinion now hasnt changed tho. I accept the reasoning behind the captains actions, but i dont agree with them.

It was a good choice for him because there were no incidents on take-off. Had there been, you can bet your bottom dollar that a similar post would of started on here and not been so gratious towards his decision.

[Rainboe]

Yes- and your wing could fall off on take off and no doubt you would be slated here. He took established procedure and went out and saw for himself and assessed what contamination was there, and took a legal decision that it was acceptable according to the criteria of the company. Even had there been an incident, it is not automatic that he would have been to blame and what it was about. Take-off incidents happen even in good weather- the real underlying cause is always established. You should not assume that because a dozen other planes stayed sitting with their crews drinking coffee in bad weather they were all automatically right and this Captain was wrong. Sounds to me like he knew and had experience of ops in this weather and carried out a safe, legal operation. Perhaps when you have more bad weather experience and faith in your aeroplane and manuals, you too will have the confidence to do what you are paid to do, even in bad weather- run a safe, legal and efficient operation and do so keeping public transport moving as you are paid to. It's not good enough to just say because there is a bit of snow on the runway 'I'm going to stop everything just in casethere should be a take-off incident and I might get blamed!" Mr. Boeing has done a lot of performance research and testing involving contaminated runway performance, and for a reason. There are so many severe safety factors applied it is as safe an operation as you could ask for. What you have to do is look at your books, and ....er.....possibly go out and assess for yourself! It's what being a professional pilot is about, and taking personal responsibility for your decisions. If it is a fair and reasonable decision, then I think you will find everyone will back you up.

[spekesoftly]

My opinion now hasnt changed tho. I accept the reasoning behind the captains actions, but i dont agree with them.

Does the fact that you disagree justify the fatuous and totally unprofessional comments that were heard on the R/T that morning? :hmm:

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Well the knives were out for the captain in question when I got to work on Monday, having missed all the excitement(?). General feedback was that he took off with no BA reported and 40 metres cleared width. Adding petrol to the flames was the rumour that he was a contract pilot. That's as far as my second hand knowledge goes.

Out of interest, and I suppose I'm asking this having considered Rainboe's input, if the Commander in question showed initiative and professionalism in his decision making, what is to be said of the many captains who elected to stay put? Too conservative? Pessimistic?

[Captain Airclues]

I agree with Rainboe 100%. This guy made a decision based on all of the information available. He was probably the only person who knew the actual cleared width and snow depth, and used this, together with his performance manuals, to do the job for which he is paid. The others made their own decisions not to go, and I would never critisize them for that. I am disappointed that 'professional' pilots should slate a fellow pilot without knowing all of the facts.

Airclues

[LatviaCalling]

I really enjoyed reading this thread which brings back old memories. Having received my PPL, I was determined to go for a commercial. I lived in a small town in eastern Pennsylvania which had an aiport and a grass runway.
I rented the C172 on a clear blue day, but the night before had seen violent thunderstorms and about three inches of rain. This was an uncontrolled airport, but there was a guy in the building that took your flight plan. Actual ATC contact was PHL or ABE. I asked the fellow in the building if the runway was clear of contamination and he said yes.
Sometimes you get that itchy feeling that you should check it out yourself. I started from the takeoff point and walked the line. Right about V1 there were small puddles of water in the grass and 20 yards later there was a very large puddle -- 10 yards wide and 20 yards long. I decided there and then that despite the great weather, I would not be flying that day.
If I had followed the fellow's advice (he was not ATC by any means) I would have not been able to take off, stuck my nose gear in the mud/water, or had an accident -- probably not fatal.
Therefore, whether you're flying a B747 or a Piper Cub, it always pays off to check out the situation personally when any doubts arise.
LatviaCalling

[alibaba]

BITMORERIGHTRUDDER, I say again you do not get a brakeing action on this type of contaminated rwy!!!!!!

:confused:

[BitMoreRightRudder]

alibaba

I understand that old chap, the no BA and 40m width was just what people were excitedly telling me the next day. I wasn't around on the day in question and have 1/10th of sod all experience on contaminated runways so am making no judgement of the decision. The consensus from guys in a position to comment on his actions appear to support it - fair enough.

[Rainboe]

There's a complicated-ish formula for the B747 of variable acceptable cleared width to allow for the wing mounted engines. There are different weight limitations depending on type and depth of contamination as well. I remember for the 747, certain conditions give a weight penalty of 75 tonnes as well as using special tables! It may well be that other types don't have such data which would lead other types pilots to conclude an illegal operation was taking place. I'm interested in the remarks here about comments being made over the radio, and Bitmorerightrudder advised that
<<Well the knives were out for the captain in question when I got to work on Monday, >>
....so where was 'work' and who had the knives out? If Captain Ryanair acted appropriately, is he ever owed some apologies by quite a few people!

[MrHorgy]

To be somewhat blunt, what would you rather do - sit on your aircraft with the passengers moaning at you because your delayed and nothing seems to be done about it, or take the bull by the horns and examine it yourself, and getting out of the passengers hair at the same time? I know what I would do. :}

Horgy

[old,not bold]

I've read most of this thread...

I applaud the Ryanair Captain for asking to see for himself a runway friction test run using the highly expensive equipment that LPL, as a licensed aerodrome with high standards, would have been using to measure friction.

Whether or not he then departed would not depend primarily on what he saw, but on the reading obtained and his ops manual.

He would be much better informed firstly about the general state of the pavement and conditions than a simple reading would tell him, and secondly on how carefully the airport staff did the testing.

I ran an airport for a while and would have welcomed any pilot doing that as a fellow professional. We used a good Mu meter, but I suspect things have got better now.

And anyway, he was probably getting bored waiting to go and wanted something to do.