12 Safety First #19 | January 2015

OPERATIONS
Landing on contaminated runways

THE QUESTION OF PERFORMANCE

Landing on
contaminated
runways
Landing performance is a function of the exact landing
runway conditions at the time of landing. A simple statement
for a more complex reality. Indeed, knowing what exact
contamination is or remains on the runway at a given point
in time is often challenging.

ROBERT LIGNEE LARS KORNSTAEDT

Experimental Flight Performance expert –
Test Engineer Flight Operations Support

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 1/15

 Landing on a contaminated runway may be an almost daily
experience for some pilots or a more exceptional one for
others. In any case, doing it safely requires some background
understanding and thinking on a variety of questions, especially:
What does the term “contaminated runway” actually mean?
How are contaminated runway conditions reported to pilots?
How to translate the reported runway condition terminology into
a safe assessment of the aircraft landing performance? How
to prepare for a safe landing and then perform it?

CONTAMINATED RUNWAY: WHAT

DOES IT MEAN IN REALITY?

If weather can to some extent be anticipated,

the runway surface conditions with natural
contamination may be more difficult to forecast.
Indeed, runway surface conditions depend on a
variety of factors including state changes due to
surface temperature effects, chemical treatment,
or run-off and removal.
A variety of contaminants
The most common and natural con- • ice (solid contaminant, its depth is
taminants are limited in number: irrelevant).

•c ompacted snow (solid contami- They are the ones for which sufficient
nant, its depth is irrelevant), historical data has been gathered
• dry or wet snow, depth at or more and safe performance levels defined
than 3 mm - 1/8 inch (*) by EASA, assuming a homogeneous
• water, slush, depth at or more than condition of the contaminant along
3 mm - 1/8 inch (*) runway length.

(*) DRY and WET normal runway conditions, without abnormal contamination by rubber or other pollution, are
by aeronautical language convention classed as “non-contaminated”.

Dry or wet snow, water and slush of a depth less than 3 mm - 1/8 inch or frost are considered equivalent to a
wet runway (non-contaminated).

A wet runway excessively contaminated by rubber, reported by NOTAM as “Slippery when Wet” as defined by
ICAO, is a contaminated runway. It is considered to have the same performance as snow (MEDIUM).

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 2/15

OPERATIONS
Landing on contaminated runways

In some situations though, the contam- of the contaminant be no longer true

The inant reported to be present on the run- compacted snow. A downgrade of
way may not make it possible to identify performance should then be con-
most common the corresponding performance level sidered as risk mitigation to support
contaminants just by considering the contaminant safe operations.
for which aircraft type and depth. It is the case particu-
larly when the contaminant is: •a
 piling up of layers of differ-
performance ent contaminants: the few cases
level can be • too variable as to its impact on documented water on top of com-
aircraft performance: e.g. volcanic pacted snow, water on top of ice (or
defined have been ash, hydraulic fluid spillage. Opera- wet ice), or dry/wet snow over ice,
synthetized into the tions cannot, in general, be sup- have shown unacceptable impact
Runway Condition ported with specific performance
information;
on aircraft performance and oper-
ations cannot be supported, even
Assessment adoption of the most conservative
Matrix that permits •a
 common natural one, but out- contaminant, i.e. ice, for snow over
side of the temperature condi- ice condition might be unsafe.
deterministic tions where its characteristics are
classification of the well known: e.g. compacted snow Eventually, the most common con-
if the outside air temperature subse- taminants for which aircraft perfor-
expected landing quently raises above -15°C. Indeed, mance level can be defined have
performance. compacted snow is a specially pre- been synthetized into the Runway
pared winter runway when temper- Condition Assessment Matrix that
ature is very low, at or below -15°C. permits deterministic classification of
Above that, there is a risk that some the expected Landing Performance.

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 3/15

A dynamic weather
Weather conditions evolve quickly the temperature leads to a change
and elude a forecast accurate of state of the contaminant: landing
enough to be compatible with performance is poor on dry ice, but
the sensitivity of landing perfor- can become non-existent if ice sur-
mance. As an example, Landing face is melting (here again, the -3°C
performance is defined as GOOD temperature criterion is a necessary
when the runway is normally wet simplification).
(runways quickly drain water during Determining precisely when the pre-
showers with normal precipitation cipitation accumulation will become
rates). It might drop to MEDIUM TO critical or when the ice will start melt-
POOR with standing water accumu- ing in significant proportion is already
lation (the 3 mm water depth crite- a challenge when nothing interferes
rion is a necessary simplification to with it. Yet in reality, a number of other
represent this phenomenon). factors do interfere with this weather
Likewise, the estimated runway dimension and make it even more dif-
condition and resulting landing per- ficult to determine the actual runway
formance may be sensitive to temper- condition, not to mention an anticipa-
ature. It is the case especially when tion of it.

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 4/15

OPERATIONS
Landing on contaminated runways

A large runway surface area

Although runways vary in size, 3 km than 25% of runway coverage.
long and 45 m wide give a represent- Whatever the actual state of the runway
ative indication of the surface area and its variability, it needs to be simpli-
of a runway. On such a surface, the fied to make a landing performance
exact contamination may vary from computation. Indeed, landing perfor-
one place to another. As an illustration, mance models can only consider a
“patchy snow and ice” may be reported single contaminant evenly distributed
in some airports as representing less on the runway.

Airport operations
Beyond these intrinsic difficulties of laterally from the landing gear.
having an accurate representation An aircraft taking off might also induce
of the runway condition, operations changes in the runway contamination
taking place on the runway modify along its take-off roll, thereby increas-
the runway condition at least in ing as well the heterogeneity of the
some places of the runway. An air- contamination throughout the runway
craft landing on a runway may change surface.
the depth of a contaminant if not its A more obvious case of impact of air-
nature. Indeed, it can for example port operations on runway contami-
induce a change of state at the touch- nation is any runway management
down point or along its deceleration action such as cleaning or de-icing.
path. The contamination will remain In many cases, de-icing fluids are
unchanged though on the un-trafficked applied only to a limited width along
last part of the runway or further away the runway axis.

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 5/15

HOW ARE RUNWAY CONDITIONS
REPORTED TO PILOTS?

For pilots, the main reason why runway

contamination needs to be considered is
because of its impact on the performance
of the landing.

Although this sounds obvious, it means This translation is done by means of the
that what pilots need to know is not the Runway Condition Assessment Matrix
very physical details of the runway con- (RCAM) introduced earlier. The RCAM
ditions but rather how the performance includes, beyond DRY, WET and thin
of the aircraft might be affected, thus contaminants that are equivalent to
what they will need to do to still per- WET, 4 discrete levels of contamina-
form a safe landing. In other words, tion, each of which is associated with a
what pilots really need is a translation landing performance level.
of the runway condition into its practical
effects on the aircraft. The information provided to pilots of
runway condition may vary from one
Yet today, the information provided to country to another and from one air-
pilots on runway condition is not directly port to another. Let’s review the three
What
a level of performance. One of the main categories of possible information pilots pilots need is a
challenges for pilots is to translate from
their vantage point in the cockpit of an
may get on runway condition before
discussing how they can be integrated
translation of the
approaching aircraft the sometimes to come up with a single, representa- runway condition
complex information provided to them tive, performance level. into its practical
on runway surface condition into a sin-
gle classification of the runway condi- effects onto the
tion landing performance level. aircraft.

Contaminant type & depth

In accordance with ICAO standards, all agreed by the Takeoff and Landing Per-
airports around the world should provide formance Assessment Aviation Rule-
this information to pilots prior to landing. making Committee (TALPA ARC, see
It is the primary information about run- article Safety First 10).
way contamination (this reporting is even
more essential for take-off). Providing the contaminant type & depth
to pilots relies on measurements, espe-
Currently, the description of contami- cially that of contaminant depth. Per-
nants in SNOWTAMs is done through forming these measures in a way that
a combination of codes and free text/ provides a representative view of the real
plain-language remarks. There is no depth is a challenge to airports. More
clear distinction between performance generally, measuring runway contamina-
relevant contaminants and other runway tion, whether it is to determine contam-
surface conditions provided for situa- inant depth or to estimate the surface
tional awareness. The ICAO SNOWTAM friction coefficient (see next section), can
codes correspond to a set of generic become challenging for a variety of rea-
contaminants, thus are different from sons (see insert The challenge of provid-
the RCAM landing performance codes ing measures on runway contamination).

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 6/15

OPERATIONS
Landing on contaminated runways

Estimated surface friction (ESF)

ICAO and national authorities have ESF can be reported in different for-
progressively shied away from report- mats. Either under the terminology:
ing measured friction to pilots. In fact, GOOD / GOOD TO MEDIUM / MEDIUM
there is no established meaningful / MEDIUM TO POOR / POOR by third
correlation on most contaminants of runway length, or through a figure
between estimated surface friction e.g. 26μ. When the surface friction
established by ground measurement is expressed through a figure, it may
There is devices and aircraft performance. give the illusion that it is an accurate
Therefore, reporting ESF is strongly measurement although it still remains
no established discouraged by ICAO on contaminants of limited practical use in characteriz-
meaningful for which it is now known that it may ing winter runway conditions for aircraft
correlation on be dangerously biased (fluid winter operations. Indeed, no related landing
contaminants as snow or slush, i.e. performance level can reasonably be
most contaminants dry or wet snow or slush). (see insert derived from the sole figure.
between estimated The challenge of providing measures
on runway contamination). Yet, it is a
surface friction secondary information pilots may get in
established some areas of the world.
by ground Pilot Reports of Braking Action (PiRep of BA)
measurement
devices and aircraft The last secondary information pilots conditions. PiReps should always be
may get on runway conditions, communicated to the approaching
performance. although its use largely varies region- pilots with a time and emitter of the
ally, is through the air traffic controller report including the airline and the air-
in the form of a Pilot Report or PiRep craft type.
of Braking Action. PiRep of BA are
encouraged in some countries. These PiReps of Braking Actions are
reports are individual perceptions that also reported using the terminol-
may be influenced by a number of fac- ogy: GOOD / GOOD TO MEDIUM
tors: whether the pilot is familiar with / MEDIUM / MEDIUM TO POOR /
contaminated runways and this par- POOR, and can also be reported by
ticular type of conditions or with the third of runway length.
type of aircraft or the use of decelera-
tion devices. It is also easy for a pilot In countries where PiReps of Brak-
to mistake aerodynamic and reverse ing Action are transmitted to follow-
thrust deceleration forces for braking ing traffic, it is the sole responsibility
forces. However, the usefulness of of the pilot performing the In-Flight
such subjective reports should not landing performance assessment to
be underestimated, as they often (but determine whether the transmitted
not always) provide the most recent information can be considered relia-
information available under dynamic ble or not.
weather, and resulting runway surface

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 7/15

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 8/15
OPERATIONS
Landing on contaminated runways

Integrating the various types of information on

runway surface condition
Eventually, pilots need to integrate all the pieces of information they receive
in relation to runway contamination to come up with a single level of landing
performance. They can receive up to three different information types, coming
from different sources:

• R
unway contaminant type and used to determine the Related Landing
depth: mandatory as primary infor- Performance Level for in-flight land-
mation; ing performance assessment (down-
• 
Estimated Surface Friction (ESF): grade). When ESF is higher than the
not systematic as secondary infor- performance associated to contami-
mation; nated type and depth in the RCAM, its
• 
Pilot Report of Braking Action use to determine the Related Landing
(PiRep of BA): not systematic as Performance Level is not supported
secondary information. (no upgrade).

Some rules do exist for pilots to inte- When PiRep of BA is lower than the
grate these various types of information. performance associated to contam-
inant type and depth in the RCAM,
As a general rule, the Related Landing it should be used to determine the
Performance level derived from the Related Landing Performance Level for
primary information (contaminant type in-flight landing performance assess-
& depth) prevails if considering other ment (downgrade). When PiRep of BA
sources of information would lead to is higher than the performance associ-
being less conservative than EASA ated to contaminated type and depth
regulation. in the RCAM, its use to determine the
Related Landing Performance Level is
When ESF is lower than the perfor- not supported (no upgrade) by EASA,
mance associated to contaminant type but under pilot responsibility in USA.
and depth in the RCAM, it should be

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 9/15

THE CHALLENGE OF PROVIDING MEASURES ON RUNWAY CONTAMINATION

Providing quantitative information on runway contamination combines two major

challenges. The first one is to perform accurate and representative measures.
As for the second one, it relates to the validity of the measurement with time.

Interfering with operations on except for the few airports in the world
an active runway equipped with above mentioned
automatic measurement devices for
Performing measures on a runway real-time water depth.
requires sending a measurement
vehicle on the runway (except for few Runway friction
airports equipped with contaminant Airport runway friction assessment can
depth automatic measurement be performed using a variety of devices
devices). For any airport, this could and vehicles that are based on an equally
induce a risk for active runways. wide palette of measurement principles
and ways of implementing these.
The time needed to perform the They are all subject to limitations that
measures affect the accuracy and reproducibility
of measurements. The correlation of
Even if the number of measurements data produced with them with aircraft
performed to assess the runway performance is challenged by factors
condition must remain limited despite such as test wheel size and inflation
the runway surface area, it takes some pressure, load on the test wheel, and last
time to perform them. On an airport but not least testing speed, which are all
that has infrequent winter weather at least an order of magnitude different
events and thus has limited equipment from those of the aircraft. Airport runway
and personnel available, the time for friction assessment should thus at best
a runway condition assessment and be considered as a way to monitor
runway cleaning may be very similar. trends rather than determine absolute
Yet, when weather “piles up”, both values. It can in no way be used as
are needed. The measurements then primary information to directly derive
allow for validating the success of the landing performance from.
cleaning operations.
The sustainability of the values
The limitation of measurement measured
tools
Measures are performed on a discrete
Contaminant depth basis not only space wise but also
Measuring the contaminant depth time wise. In other words, a measure
is done by means of tripods put is representative of whatever it
on the ground, or lasers, or FOD measures at the time of the measure.
cameras or in very few airports so far, Yet, actual conditions may quickly
sensors built into the runway surface. drift from a measurement performed
Whatever the tool, very dynamic at a given point in time.
weather conditions make it difficult to
perform an accurate measure. Heavy
rainfalls are among these conditions,

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 10/15

OPERATIONS
Landing on contaminated runways

PERFORMING A SAFE LANDING

ON A CONTAMINATED RUNWAY
Performing a safe landing on a contaminated
runway involves a number of dimensions,
including lateral control, max X-wind… However,
for simplification purposes, this section will
put the emphasis on aircraft performance.
Beyond the dispatch calculation of the
landing performance, preparing to land on a
contaminated runway also relies on a number of
activities in-flight.
Reevaluating landing performance calculation
in-flight

Even if under EASA regulation, land- characteristics described in EASA

ing performance is calculated based CS25.1591 (see SAFETY FIRST n° 10
on the probable contamination before August 2010 P8-11). Airbus concurs
dispatch, it is necessary to re-evalu- with the FAA in recommending a min-
ate the landing performance prior to imum margin of 15% on these dis-
landing. Dispatch considerations will tances, achievable in line operations
most probably no longer apply to the when no unexpected variations occur
actual conditions at the time of land- from reported outside conditions and
ing. In addition, should the conditions assumed pilot technique.
be exactly the ones anticipated, the
most recent in-flight landing perfor- The improvements brought by the
mance models can lead to longer RCAM are so widely recognized that
distances. Indeed, the in-flight land- they allowed EASA, in combination
ing performance models used today with a minimum margin of 15%, to
rely on more realistic assumptions accept a new still safe but more real-
thus allow for deriving more realis- istic (better) performance level for
tic, though often more conservative, POOR. This level is consistent with
landing distances. ICE (COLD & DRY) rather than with
WET ICE (as previously), for which
The model used for all Airbus aircraft the RCAM prohibits operations.
for In-Flight Landing Distance assess- These new computation options have
ment is based on the comprehensive started to appear at the end of 2014
work of the TALPA-ARC group. This on the Airbus fleet and will continue
work relies itself on the contaminants progressively.

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 11/15

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 12/15
OPERATIONS
Landing on contaminated runways

Assessing realistic worst conditions

Anticipate in which landing is still safe
all the realistic
degradation or While performing the in-flight check
on landing performance, anticipating
mm (1/8 inch) of snow, asking your-
self: “is it going to exceed the critical
aggravating factors all the realistic degradation or aggra- depth of 3 mm (1/8 inch)? If it does,
and determining vating factors and determining the am I still safe?” is a way to proactively
thresholds below which a safe land- get prepared to a safe landing. Like-
the thresholds ing can still be performed is a way to wise if it is raining, “what is the max-
below which a safe cope with the uncertainty of the infor- imum cross-wind under which I can
landing can still be mation available in approach, hence
remove a potential element of sur-
still perform a safe landing” is the kind
of question that contributes to a good
performed prise should one or more parameters preparation to a safe landing.
evolve by the time you actually land.
For example, if it is snowing and the
latest airport report states less than 3

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 13/15

Understanding the margins

As mentioned earlier and illustrated •P  ilot timely activation of decelera-

in SAFETY FIRST n°10 fig.5, a 15% tion devices assumed (brakes if no
margin is to be integrated in the cal- Auto-Brake, reversers)
culations of In-Flight Landing perfor- • Lower performance than expected
mance, on DRY, WET and on con- (even if friction models of CS25.1591
taminated runways (Factored In-Flight are generally conservative)
Landing performance), except in case If the 15% margin is fully “eaten” by
of failure. This margin is meant to the sole effect of runway conditions
cover some uncertainty related to a worse than expected, there is no
variety of aspects: margin left for any other deviation as
a slightly long flare or slight pilot lag in
•P
 ilot achievement of the assumed applying deceleration means.
touch-down location and touch-
down ground speed

BEST PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT OF FINAL APPROACH,
TOUCH-DOWN AND DECELERATION
With the rationale for the recommended 15% safety margin in mind, the man-
agement of final approach, touch-down and deceleration appear as key fac-
tors that deserve special attention upon landing on a contaminated runway.
The following tips are worth keeping in mind:

• Consider diversion to an uncontaminated runway when a failure affecting

landing performance is present
• Land in CONF FULL without speed additives except if required by the condi-
tions and accounted for by appropriate in-flight landing performance assess-
ment, with the auto-brake mode recommended per SOPs
• Monitor late wind changes and GA if unexpected tailwind (planning to land on
contaminated runway with tailwind should be avoided)
• Perform early and firm touchdown (early as runway behind you is no use, firm
to ensure no delay in ground spoiler extension, brake physical onset, and
reverse extension by sluggish wheel spin-up and/or delayed flight to ground
transition of the gear squat switches)
• Decelerate as much as you can as soon as you can: aerodynamic drag and
reverse thrust are most effective at high speed, then moderate braking only
at low taxi speed after a safe stop on the runway is assured
• Do not delay lowering the nose wheel onto the runway (it increases weight
on braked wheels and may activate aircraft systems, such as auto-brake)
• Throttles should be changed smoothly from Reverse max to Reverse idle at
the usual procedure speed: be ready to maintain Reverse max longer than
normal in case of perceived overrun risk
• Do not try to expedite runway vacating at a speed that might lead to lateral
control difficulty (Airport taxiway condition assessment might be less accu-
rate than for the runway)

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 14/15

002 Safety First #19 | January 2015

Safety first, #19 January, 2015. Safety first

Safety first
The Airbus magazine contributing to the enhancement
is published by Airbus S.A.S. - 1, rond point
Maurice Bellonte - 31707 Blagnac Cedex/France. of the safety of aircraft operations by increasing knowledge
Publisher: Yannick Malinge, Chief Product Safety and communication on safety related topics.
Officer, Editor: Corinne Bieder, Director Product
Safety Strategy & Communication.
Concept Design by Airbus Multi Media Support
20142795. Reference: GS 420.0045 Issue 19.
Photos by Airbus, DGA/V. Ricco, H. Goussé, Safety first is published by the Product Safety depart-
Lindner Fotografie, A. Doumenjou, B. Lange,
P. Pigeyre.
ment. It is a source of specialist safety information for the
Computer rendering by Fixion. restricted use of flight and ground crew members who fly
Printed in France by Art & Caractère. and maintain Airbus aircraft. It is also distributed to other
This brochure is printed on Triple Star Satin. selected organisations.
This paper is produced in factories that are
accredited EMAS and certified ISO 9001-14001,
PEFC and FSC CoC. It is produced using pulp Material for publication is obtained from multiple sources
that has been whitened without either chlorine and includes selected information from the Airbus Flight
or acid. The paper is entirely recyclable and is
produced from trees grown in sustainable forest Safety Confidential Reporting System, incident and acci-
resources. dent investigation reports, system tests and flight tests.
The printing inks use organic pigments or
minerals. There is no use of basic dyes or Material is also obtained from sources within the airline
dangerous metals from the cadmium, lead, industry, studies and reports from government agencies
mercury or hexavalent chromium group.
and other aviation sources.
The printer, Art & Caractère (France 81500), is
engaged in a waste management and recycling
programme for all resulting by-products. All articles in Safety first are presented for i­nformation only
and are not intended to replace ICAO guidelines, stand-
ards or recommended practices, operator-mandated
requirements or technical orders. The contents do not
supersede any requirements m ­ and­­ated by the State of
Registry of the Operator’s aircraft or supersede or amend
any Airbus type-specific AFM, AMM, FCOM, MMEL docu-
© Airbus S.A.S. 2015 – All rights reserved.
Proprietary documents.
mentation or any other approved documentation.
By taking delivery of this Brochure
(hereafter “Brochure”), you accept on behalf Articles may be reprinted without permission, except
of your ­company to comply with the following where copyright source is indicated, but with acknowl-
guidelines:
edgement to Airbus. Where Airbus is not the author, the
No other intellectual property rights are granted
by the delivery of this Brochure than the right to contents of the article do not necessarily reflect the views
read it, for the sole purpose of information. of Airbus, neither do they indicate Company policy.
This Brochure and its content shall
not be modified and its illustrations Contributions, comment and feedback are welcome. For
and photos shall not be reproduced without
prior written consent of Airbus. technical reasons the editors may be required to make
This Brochure and the materials it contains editorial changes to manuscripts, however every effort will
shall not, in whole or in part, be sold, rented, or be made to preserve the intended meaning of the original.
licensed to any third party subject to payment.
Enquiries related to this publication should be addressed to:
This Brochure contains sensitive information
that is correct at the time of going to press.
This information involves a number of factors that
could change over time, effecting the true public
representation. Airbus assumes no obligation
to update any information ­contained in this
document or with respect to the information Airbus
described herein.
Product Safety department (GS)
Airbus S.A.S. shall assume no liability for any
damage in connection with the use of this 1, rond point Maurice Bellonte
Brochure and of the materials it contains, even if 31707 Blagnac Cedex - France
Airbus S.A.S. has been advised of the ­likelihood
of such damages. [email protected]
Fax: +33(0)5 61 93 44 29

Safety first #19 January 2015 - 15/15