Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Grooved Runway determination

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Grooved Runway determination

Old 27th Sep 2022, 02:23
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Grooved Runway determination

Hi All,
I am wondering based on the Jeppesen 10-9/10-9A charts how to ultimately determine if a runway surface is grooved or not.
I am aware that in some countries IE: USA that there is certainty on the runway surface.
However, in certain areas of Western Europe at major aerodromes, it remains unclear if these runways are grooved or not?
I understand some state aeronautical information providers have varying qualities of information they supply Jeppesen, but ultimately what is a technique/way to determine the surface status of a runway when unsure.
Thanks.
downwind is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2022, 18:30
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Check the national AIP for the airfield in question, aerodromes section. The individual aerodrome entry will give you the information, if it does not state anything then it is not grooved. This is where all the chart providers source their information from. But it will not make a difference to your performance calculations so it does not really matter.

MM
Miles Magister is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2022, 00:06
  #3 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,944
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
But it will not make a difference to your performance calculations so it does not really matter.

I think I would take issue with this thought. The idea behind grooving is to drain water from what otherwise would be a flooded runway surface. Wet and flooded runways probably need to be viewed quite differently from the point of performance calculations ?

There are several useful threads in PPRuNe, eg wet vs contaminated runway - PPRuNe Forums Take particular note of OverRun's comments. He is an airports design engineer specialist. Unfortunately, you won't be able to quiz him at all as he died several years ago, much to PPRuNe's dismay as we lost an extremely competent and knowledgeable engineer.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2022, 16:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think I would take issue with this thought. The idea behind grooving is to drain water from what otherwise would be a flooded runway surface. Wet and flooded runways probably need to be viewed quite differently from the point of performance calculations ?
Surely without drainage the runway would have standing water which will affect landing distance. But pilot calculates landing distance by reported Runway Condition Code. That's provided by ATC. Pilot has no means to use the information about grooved or ungrooved for altering the LDR. May be ATC uses that information to designate the code. Pilot only uses the code. That's why MM said it won't matter.

Last edited by vilas; 6th Oct 2022 at 02:44.
vilas is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2022, 19:11
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thinking that additional knowledge doesn't matter - grooved or not - has no effect on published landing distance, seriously misjudges the pilots responsibilities in operations.

Heed the advice of the master of the dark art of performance, JT #3.

Landing distance is a conservative calculation of expected performance, which involves many assumptions that pilots should be aware of, but not always referenced as such (AMC CS 25.1592).

Wet performance is based on a single calculation; this has to accommodate a wide range of runway states defined as RCC 5; frost, snow, slush, and wet ranging from damp to 3mm of standing water. All of which involve varying degrees of uncertainty in measuring, interpreting and reporting. Thus the assumed accuracy of landing distance is highly variable.
Furthermore, there is a wide range of runway surfaces - material and texture, which can have a significant effect on braking performance. Grooved or not, porous texture or smooth concrete, can significantly challenge the assumptions and margins in the published performance. Then there is tyre tread condition.
Add to this the reality of operations; blocked grooves, rubber, dirt, wind ‘dammed’ water drainage.

A further (oft hidden) assumption is that the pilot will adjust operations according the conditions (i.e.what is meant by the assured ‘safe’ landing required by the pre-landing check, EU OPS).

https://www.icao.int/EURNAT/Other%20...hp%20PPT06.pdf

25.1591-1592 relevant amendment
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/134260/en
N.B. Check for FAA differences; requirements vs advisory.


safetypee is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2022, 12:20
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by safetypee View Post
Thinking that additional knowledge doesn't matter - grooved or not - has no effect on published landing distance, seriously misjudges the pilots responsibilities in operations.

Heed the advice of the master of the dark art of performance, JT #3.

Landing distance is a conservative calculation of expected performance, which involves many assumptions that pilots should be aware of, but not always referenced as such (AMC CS 25.1592).

Wet performance is based on a single calculation; this has to accommodate a wide range of runway states defined as RCC 5; frost, snow, slush, and wet ranging from damp to 3mm of standing water. All of which involve varying degrees of uncertainty in measuring, interpreting and reporting. Thus the assumed accuracy of landing distance is highly variable.
Furthermore, there is a wide range of runway surfaces - material and texture, which can have a significant effect on braking performance. Grooved or not, porous texture or smooth concrete, can significantly challenge the assumptions and margins in the published performance. Then there is tyre tread condition.
Add to this the reality of operations; blocked grooves, rubber, dirt, wind ‘dammed’ water drainage.

A further (oft hidden) assumption is that the pilot will adjust operations according the conditions (i.e.what is meant by the assured ‘safe’ landing required by the pre-landing check, EU OPS).

https://www.icao.int/EURNAT/Other%20...hp%20PPT06.pdf

25.1591-1592 relevant amendment
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/134260/en
N.B. Check for FAA differences; requirements vs advisory.
Good write up but unfortunately it still doesn't show how does it make any difference to landing distance calculation however flawed or correct it may be. How much credence to give to the calculation and what precautions to take using it is another subject.
vilas is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2022, 21:07
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vila’s understands the issue and just what I was writing about.
Miles Magister is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2022, 05:37
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 54
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

You can find it on the airport diagram
Kennytheking is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.