Why does Heathrow/Gatwick shut down at first sight of a snow flake every time?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call100 read my post, properly 
I was talking about the braking action descriptives, not the actual Mu-meter readings.
I'll admit I was ambiguous here - I meant the braking action, not the actual friction reading. Braking action, as reported good poor etc, can be factored in by crews.
Why any airport authority thinks it is a good idea not to use the descriptive words is beyond me, I certainly would want to know if I was a pilot if the action was 'poor'.
You are probably correct that it is an a**e covering exercise so that if something happens and the braking had been reported as good, there will be no comeback
I know that aircrew can use braking action figures in calculations, so I am at a loss as to why they are not passed
Why any airport authority thinks it is a good idea not to use the descriptive words is beyond me, I certainly would want to know if I was a pilot if the action was 'poor'.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why any airport authority thinks it is a good idea not to use the descriptive words is beyond me, I certainly would want to know if I was a pilot if the action was 'poor'.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that the controller you quoted earlier who said the authority don't even give good, medium etc was mistaken.
I have never had the occasion to give 'Unreliable' We do not tests in snow, slush or ice These were the conditions quoted earlier that lead to the 'unreliable' report. This is taken from the snow and ice table contained in CAP168. We would be closed for snow clearing/de-icing in those conditions and re-opened when runway back to black top and basically wet.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason that Airports (and therefore ATC) cannot pass friction readings or assessments derived from CFMEs is that they are simply not allowed to by legislation. The CAA have issued legislation that prevents the passing of this information. The MM and GT in use in the UK have never been proven to provide accurate information under any circumstances other than during conditions of compacted snow or ice, hence your snow and ice tables for conversion. For an airport to pass these figures is deemed to be misleading to pilots. There is information out there, albeit spread out across a wide range of sources. The best info is contained in NOTAL 11/2008 or FODCOM 06/2009. Believe me, as an airport operator, it is very frustrating for us not to be able to pass any more info to pilots and can be commercially damaging in some cases. If we are not in a position to pass an assessment made by a previous pilot (eg, to first flight lndg) then we are extremely limited in what we can pass. Can any pilots out there let me know their thoughts? How wide spread is this info? We seem to have pilots asking for numerical readings every day and I think they see us as taking the slopey shouldered approac by not giving these out but the truth is, legislation prevents it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I confess I may have attributed blame to NATS that rightly should be directed at the BAA, who have let millions of passengers down in recent years with their substandard facililties, maintenace, permanent way, and abysmal customer service.
They have rightly earned LHR the title of worst airport in the world, as voted by the users of Airport Lounge Access Worldwide | Priority Pass, industry journal for frequent fliers.
As far as braking action is concerned, every runway affected by snow and ice that I have operated from in the last two weeks have passed regularly updated mu numbers and contamination extent by ATIS or ATC.
Except the UK. Where I have to try to guess from other operators whether it's safe to shepherd the lives of my hundreds of passengers.
I imagine the pilot of Ryan's 737 would have appreciated some guidance at PIK the other week?
They have rightly earned LHR the title of worst airport in the world, as voted by the users of Airport Lounge Access Worldwide | Priority Pass, industry journal for frequent fliers.
As far as braking action is concerned, every runway affected by snow and ice that I have operated from in the last two weeks have passed regularly updated mu numbers and contamination extent by ATIS or ATC.
Except the UK. Where I have to try to guess from other operators whether it's safe to shepherd the lives of my hundreds of passengers.
I imagine the pilot of Ryan's 737 would have appreciated some guidance at PIK the other week?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt H,
One of the worse cases of an airport getting really hit by snow was Amsterdam a few years back.I remember it well as our flight,and many others for days were cancelled,and we ended up going through Heathrow.
In this part of Northern UK we haven't seen the ground for 4 weeks now,and in several areas there has been 2-3 feet of lying snow.We have had temperatures down to minus 12c at the coast and minus 22c in remote inland areas.
Yet the BAA have done a really good job keeping things open.OK there has been disruption,but when you get 4 inches of snow falling in a very short time this is to be expected.
However once again with wet snow and slush,mu meters don't work properly:Anywhere.
One of the worse cases of an airport getting really hit by snow was Amsterdam a few years back.I remember it well as our flight,and many others for days were cancelled,and we ended up going through Heathrow.
In this part of Northern UK we haven't seen the ground for 4 weeks now,and in several areas there has been 2-3 feet of lying snow.We have had temperatures down to minus 12c at the coast and minus 22c in remote inland areas.
Yet the BAA have done a really good job keeping things open.OK there has been disruption,but when you get 4 inches of snow falling in a very short time this is to be expected.
However once again with wet snow and slush,mu meters don't work properly:Anywhere.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine the pilot of Ryan's 737 would have appreciated some guidance at PIK the other week?
What needs to be emphasised here is that in conditions of wet snow or slush it is not the braking action which is being reported as being unreliable, it is the numerical value that the mu-meter is giving that is unreliable. Therefore it would be wholly inappropriate for ops or ATC to pass this to aircraft. Far better to get a recent Pirep.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In conditions of wet snow or slush, no CFME (GT or MU) readings would be taken. 'Unreliable' Would be used if the figures taken on compacted snow or ice were deemed unreliable for whatever reason....and reported as such in the snotam as code 99.
As already said giving figures to pilots is forbidden by the CAA ,as cited in CAP683. Any airport passing actual CFME figures to pilots are in breach of this....
If Pilots want those figures then they should petition the CAA to have the rules changed....
As already said giving figures to pilots is forbidden by the CAA ,as cited in CAP683. Any airport passing actual CFME figures to pilots are in breach of this....
If Pilots want those figures then they should petition the CAA to have the rules changed....
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call100,
not entirely true, the wash up from the Bristol experience a couple of years back allows for CFME readings to be taken under these circumstances in order to provide comparative results to airfield operators for maintenance purposes and assesment of the friction course. AAIB 1/2009 and various FODCOM's
not entirely true, the wash up from the Bristol experience a couple of years back allows for CFME readings to be taken under these circumstances in order to provide comparative results to airfield operators for maintenance purposes and assesment of the friction course. AAIB 1/2009 and various FODCOM's
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the discussion was in reference to the recent weather and passing on the figures to Pilots. The tests for maintenance figures would not be passed on either. However, the point was that in the recent conditions CFME readings would not have been taken in Wet Snow or Slush for Pilot guidance. Subsequent figures from a wet runway would then not be allowed to be passed on for the reasons given.
That said, I take your point.
That said, I take your point.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was interesting to see what aircraft could take certain conditions.BMI E145 were a bit twitchy,probably because I don't think they have reverse thrust.The worst was a KLM B739 that needed black top,Braking action good,and it's snowing like hell.So much for the Continental Europeans.
Yet others happily landed on 1-2mm wet snow,5 mm at most and one even accepted 20mm.
We regularly accept North Sea helis when Snoclo.They are accepted on an adhoc basis,and the procedures are even written into our Part2.Saves a lot of diversions.
Our BAA snow teams started an early shift at 4am and worked all the hours to keep the place running.I would like to see Capt H suggestions that could improve on this.
It annoys me to see comments like Capt H Peacocks.Ignorant and arrogant.
Yet others happily landed on 1-2mm wet snow,5 mm at most and one even accepted 20mm.
We regularly accept North Sea helis when Snoclo.They are accepted on an adhoc basis,and the procedures are even written into our Part2.Saves a lot of diversions.
Our BAA snow teams started an early shift at 4am and worked all the hours to keep the place running.I would like to see Capt H suggestions that could improve on this.
It annoys me to see comments like Capt H Peacocks.Ignorant and arrogant.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was interesting to see what aircraft could take certain conditions.BMI E145 were a bit twitchy,probably because I don't think they have reverse thrust.The worst was a KLM B739 that needed black top,Braking action good,and it's snowing like hell.So much for the Continental Europeans.
It annoys me to see comments like Capt H Peacocks.Ignorant and arrogant.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line in all this is that the CAA have decided, presumably after sponsoringresearch into the subject, that there is no correlation between the readings producedby CFME and an aircraft breaking on a runway covered with snow or slush.
Interestingly I recently came across an ATC controller, fresh out of ATC collage, thathad been told that the breaking action figures would be passed to him so he could then pass them on to pilots on approach, something we have not been doing for some time now.
I am also a little surprised that there are still UK pilots who seem to be unaware of the CAA views / requirements concerning the use of CFME on snow covered runways.
I am also a little surprised that there are still UK pilots who seem to be unaware of the CAA views / requirements concerning the use of CFME on snow covered runways.
Having used such equipment for many years and watched aircraft land in up to 16mm of dry snow, I also find it a little frustrating but that’s, unfortunately, where we are until someone changes their mind.
I also believe some other Aviation Authorities out in the big wide world are looking closely at the CAA’s views and may follow the same path.
