Runway condition

[alf5071h]

Aviation Safety Investigation Report - Boeing Co 737-800, VH-VOE (www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/AAIR/aair200202710.aspx) reports on an overrun incident. I note that the runway was under repair, resulting in a displaced threshold, but I am interested if the remaining usable length was a newly laid surface. If so was this grooved, and the obvious - was the runway wet; all details that I could not locate in the report.
Any one able to assist with these details?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

VH-VOE appears to be no longer on the Australian register.

Who was the "relatively new operator".

Dr :cool:

[Howard Hughes]

From memory the runway at Darwin is grooved!

As the incident took place in the month of June, I would say the probability of the runway being wet is almost zero...:ok:

[OhForSure]

-VOE & -VOF went to SunExpress. Holiday charter outfit in Turkey I believe.

[yowie]

No "grooved" advantage anyhoo, not recognised by CAO, and no approved upkeep (ie no getting the rubber out) method recognised. :=

[alf5071h]

From the points that I wish to confirm there might be similarities with other incidents and accidents where newly laid tarmac may produce a greasy film that markedly reduces braking conditions. Add water to this and you can have a skid pan. Then there are issues about grooving vs non grooved runways; it’s not the certification that is an issue, it fact that one is better than the other – similarly with tarmac vs concrete, particularly wet concrete which can be very slick.
Ref Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing. (www.flightsafety.org/ppt/managing_threat.ppt).