Runway Performance Sydney
 

The thread on the F100 over run in Newman got me thinking about the Notams in Sydney that have been there for
a long time now. If I had to guess I’d say over 18 months.
Firstly, can anyone here accurately decode them for the benefit of us all?
I understand where the areas of low friction are located on the runway, and that the minimum
value is 0.43 but the way the other numbers are presented could be better.
Secondly, can anyone here shed light on why the situation isn’t remedied? It appears the low friction
areas are in the touchdown zones and that suggests rubber to me but if so, surely the notam wouldn’t
have stuck with us for so long?
Thirdly, with 2207m of landing distance on 16L and 400m of that below minimum friction level, are we
asking for another over-run?

If you can tell the difference between 0.43 and 0.39 Coefficient on landing then NASA is interested to hear from you. This has to be the dumbest NOTAM i've seen issued in Sydney in 20 years. Whoever wrote it should be loaded into a canon and fired into the sun.

I'm yet to meet someone who can show me where in Flysmart or the Boeing equivalent one can even input these variables and ranges for the purposes of performance calculations.

Keep in mind this NOTAM is issued by the same genius department that kept the "don't land on the grass" Notam active for 11 months!!

According to the NOTAMS, it is estimated to be remedied by the 15th of Jan.

The friction values quoted are notoriously unreliable and not recommended as a reliable measure of braking capability. The thinking has evolved over the last 15 odd years. Mu is no longer considered accurate.
Most airlines use these policies in order to determine braking capability.
Runway Condition Assessment Matrix is the go to table for both takeoff and landing. It’s been proven to be far more reliable in determining braking effectiveness being used by both Boeing and Airbus. Well worth a read and used by Qf but I’m not sure about Virgin.
https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2...ackground).pdf
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/grf201...019_S3_FAA.PDF


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a64f8f7bc.jpeg

Thank you.
I understand the RCAM but have made an assumption ( rightly or wrongly) that the RCAM itself is predicated on a minimum runway surface standard. I have also assumed that the minimum runway surface friction value is 0.43 under current regulations and that it isn’t being achieved as per the Notam.
Thoughts?

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....84ef11f7c.jpeg

Massive Yawn here

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5fdd4acbe.jpeg

Get the grooving machine onto the runway to clean the accumulated rubber deposits out! Don’t SACL do regular maintenance on the runways? They are legally obligated to by virtue of CASR 139.

Quite a long time to have a NOTAM of this nature in force, particularly at Australia’s busiest aerodrome.

There is a far quicker return on investment from a sweated privatised asset in building carparks and shopping experiences than actually running an airport.
With respect to the CASR, you would be assuming the regulator is actually there to regulate.

Couldn’t agree more!

An extremely long time. So long that I assumed it was something other than rubber build up. Either way it would get a fair bit of attention from investigators and insurance companies if someone did poke their nose off the end of 16L.