Braking action Poor - Can A/C land?
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: Sofia
That was my point as well. There are some restrictions about landing when BA is poor in ATCOs manuals. Therefore is there any document about this subject whre is defined what is allowed and what is not allowed to do.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,456
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
In the UK, a controller cannot withold a clearance for other than traffic reasons. If a pilot indicates he intends to land on a contaminated runway, then unless the airport authority close that runway, ATC cannot prevent him landing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: EU
I do agree that it is PIC responsibility. Speaking about our aerodrome in addition to braking action ATIS broadcasting breaking coefficient whenever braking action is less than GOOD.
And I believe every airline has their on minimums. RYR for example needs .30 or above to land at our airport.
Regards.
And I believe every airline has their on minimums. RYR for example needs .30 or above to land at our airport.
Regards.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 5
From: Wor Yerm
They can clear you if they want, but do you really want to accept the clearance? On a nice little aircraft like a Fokker 50 with minimal cross wind and a long runway it might be sensible but a given a crosswind, tailwind, a 100 seater jet or a short runway it might not be such a wise idea. But you also have to consider contamination of the taxiways. Will you be able to taxi to you stand? And finally, how will you depart?
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
To put it into perspective braking action poor you would have problems walking on it and stay upright and its not unknown for the OPS car to spin off the runway before its even managed to do a run with the recorder thingy on the back.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Reminds me of a recent event at the least well run airport in England, where I was landing a *****, on a damp runway.
Landing, I applied gentle breaking, and the bally aeroplane started skidding all over the place. Taking the brakes off, I managed to keep it straight and stop. Carefully, and using a fair bit of rudder without nosewheel steering.
I reported it to the tower. Who said something along the lines of "thanks for that, we've had a few similar reports", and then relayed my report to the next aircraft behind me with "did you hear that" but (I listened out) didn't tell the next aircraft out, nor I think change the ATIS.
Tower can clear you to land, but the Captain has to make the ultimate decision. That needs to be a conscious and deliberate decision based upon some understanding of how much the landing distance is likely to be increased by, and being clear in his mind that a safe landing is possible (or in extremis, that any other option is worse). If the braking action is reported to be poor, then the airfield have done their bit, but this is the Captain's responsibility in the end, and it's not necessarily a black and white decision beforehand - it has to be made in knowledge of the conditions.
G
Landing, I applied gentle breaking, and the bally aeroplane started skidding all over the place. Taking the brakes off, I managed to keep it straight and stop. Carefully, and using a fair bit of rudder without nosewheel steering.
I reported it to the tower. Who said something along the lines of "thanks for that, we've had a few similar reports", and then relayed my report to the next aircraft behind me with "did you hear that" but (I listened out) didn't tell the next aircraft out, nor I think change the ATIS.
Tower can clear you to land, but the Captain has to make the ultimate decision. That needs to be a conscious and deliberate decision based upon some understanding of how much the landing distance is likely to be increased by, and being clear in his mind that a safe landing is possible (or in extremis, that any other option is worse). If the braking action is reported to be poor, then the airfield have done their bit, but this is the Captain's responsibility in the end, and it's not necessarily a black and white decision beforehand - it has to be made in knowledge of the conditions.
G
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
From: UK
For our aircraft the landing distance required for braking action 'poor'(coefficient 0.21 - 0.24) increases by about a further 900 metres. That can be factored again depending on head/tailwind component but the max crosswind allowance drops from 35 knots to just 5 knots. Quite a reduction.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: UK
At my airline we are prohibited from landing or departing when the breaking action is described as 'poor'.
We do have company memos that several major UK airports are TRIALLING reporting systems after last-years weather, but we haven't had the snow since- maybe this weekend...?
We do have company memos that several major UK airports are TRIALLING reporting systems after last-years weather, but we haven't had the snow since- maybe this weekend...?
Guest
Posts: n/a
HD, I take it all back. Apologies.
Did a bit of research and found this in MATS Pt 1.
Only applies to UK, and went into the document in March 2011 - don't know if other countries have done the same. I know there has been work going on for many years to try and improve the information available to pilots on runway conditions, particularly in wintery weather. Previously I think the information was made available on request and accompanied by a warning about the reliability of the measurements. I can't help feeling this is a bit of a backward step. There's no question that a braking coefficient needs to be used in an informed and educated manner but to withhold information that could be of value if used correctly (to protect those who might use it incorrectly from themselves???) smacks of nanny State-ism!
Did a bit of research and found this in MATS Pt 1.
It is CAA policy that Continuous Friction Measuring Equipment (CFME) should not be used on runways contaminated with wet snow, slush or water, and controllers must not pass runway co-efficient of friction measurements to pilots take in such conditions. The reason for this is that readings obtained from CFME equipment such as 'Griptester' and 'Mu-meter', unless used only on compacted snow and ice, are considered unreliable and in some cases may indicate a surface condition that is better than the actual condition. UK runways contaminated with compacted snow and ice are not normally made available for use, with Aerodrome Operators applying a 'back to blacktop' policy.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 8
From: UK
I can't help feeling this is a bit of a backward step. There's no question that a braking coefficient needs to be used in an informed and educated manner but to withhold information that could be of value if used correctly (to protect those who might use it incorrectly from themselves???) smacks of nanny State-ism!
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,112
Likes: 1,086
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
They can clear you if they want, but do you really want to accept the clearance? On a nice little aircraft like a Fokker 50 with minimal cross wind and a long runway it might be sensible but a given a crosswind, tailwind, a 100 seater jet or a short runway it might not be such a wise idea. But you also have to consider contamination of the taxiways. Will you be able to taxi to you stand? And finally, how will you depart?
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: Here, there and everywhere
I can't help feeling this is a bit of a backward step. There's no question that a braking coefficient needs to be used in an informed and educated manner but to withhold information that could be of value if used correctly (to protect those who might use it incorrectly from themselves???) smacks of nanny State-ism!
Safety Recommendation 2008-078: The Civil Aviation Authority should
clarify to airport authorities, pilots, aircraft operators and air navigation
service providers, that Continuous Friction Measuring Equipment must not be
used to assess braking action on runways which are wet, although it may be
used in the wet for assessing the relative friction of different runway sections
for maintenance purposes.
clarify to airport authorities, pilots, aircraft operators and air navigation
service providers, that Continuous Friction Measuring Equipment must not be
used to assess braking action on runways which are wet, although it may be
used in the wet for assessing the relative friction of different runway sections
for maintenance purposes.
It's times like this I'm pleased to be flying rotary wing A/C.