Narrative:

Captain's leg flying. The ATIS had a note about braking action advisories in effect; but gave no mu value or any braking action report. We briefed the ILS monitored approach; and sent a message to our dispatcher to get a braking action report. There was a NOTAM for landing runway saying there was patchy thin snow over patchy thin compacted snow over patchy thin ice; quite a description that left us unsure of which penalty to apply for our landing distance assessment. Dispatch returned with a message saying braking action was fair. We ran the landing data with low visibility; compacted snow; and thrust reverser credit. Minimum landing distance; if I can remember; was 5;600 ft and actual around 4;500 ft. The ATIS had updated a few times in a short period of time; and when we checked on with approach the visibility had gone up to 3 SM with all other weather staying near the same and by now it was night time. Approach; on initial check-in; stated braking action was good and began to give us vectors and told us to descend and slow to 190 KTS. On a base vector around 7;000 ft in IMC and in icing we selected flaps 8 and received flaps fail message. We requested to be taken out of sequence and climb to 10;000 ft where it was VMC. We complied with the QRH while being vectored around at 10;000 ft; and determined that we had enough runway. While being vectored ATC offered [alternate runway] which is 12;000 ft so we accepted and briefed ILS [for alternate runway.] the approach was uneventful and when we landed we exited the runway. One alarming thing we noticed as we were rolling down the runway was that the runway was completely covered in a thin layer of snow. I remember seeing touchdown zone markings; but on roll out all I could see was the center line light shining through the snow. I know [runway] had been closed earlier in the day; but the airport had been turned around since we left. [Landing runway] may have been closed prior to our arrival or used only for departures; and I suppose was not cleaned like the other runways in regular use. The braking action on [landing runway] was poor to fair at best from our observation. The emergency trucks followed us off the runway; we told ATC we needed no further assistance and taxied to our gate.my concerns with this situation are: the ATIS; if they are going to report braking action advisories in effect; give some information with it. Add mu value or description; runway specific would be great too. The NOTAM did a great job describing the condition on the runway; but gave us no real usable info. A mu value or description (poor; fair; nil) would be nice. My biggest issue is being given 4R. At first it seems like an obvious choice; but the weather complicates things. We were at fault for not specifically requesting a braking action report; but ATC led us to 4R. If it had been closed prior to our arrival and covered in snow; ATC should have thought not to give us that runway. Again we should have asked; but we were a bit preoccupied with our emergency. All the time we spent assessing runway landing distance and braking action for our landing in mind; we forgot to specifically ask for [alternate runway] conditions once given that runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 flight crew received a flaps fail warning message during landing approach. Reporter questions ATIS provided information regarding runway braking conditions.

Narrative: Captain's leg flying. The ATIS had a note about braking action advisories in effect; but gave no MU value or any braking action report. We briefed the ILS monitored approach; and sent a message to our Dispatcher to get a braking action report. There was a NOTAM for landing runway saying there was patchy thin snow over patchy thin compacted snow over patchy thin ice; quite a description that left us unsure of which penalty to apply for our landing distance assessment. Dispatch returned with a message saying braking action was fair. We ran the landing data with low visibility; compacted snow; and thrust reverser credit. Minimum landing distance; if I can remember; was 5;600 FT and actual around 4;500 FT. The ATIS had updated a few times in a short period of time; and when we checked on with Approach the visibility had gone up to 3 SM with all other weather staying near the same and by now it was night time. Approach; on initial check-in; stated braking action was good and began to give us vectors and told us to descend and slow to 190 KTS. On a base vector around 7;000 FT in IMC and in icing we selected flaps 8 and received flaps fail message. We requested to be taken out of sequence and climb to 10;000 FT where it was VMC. We complied with the QRH while being vectored around at 10;000 FT; and determined that we had enough runway. While being vectored ATC offered [alternate runway] which is 12;000 FT so we accepted and briefed ILS [for alternate runway.] The approach was uneventful and when we landed we exited the runway. One alarming thing we noticed as we were rolling down the runway was that the runway was completely covered in a thin layer of snow. I remember seeing touchdown zone markings; but on roll out all I could see was the center line light shining through the snow. I know [runway] had been closed earlier in the day; but the airport had been turned around since we left. [Landing runway] may have been closed prior to our arrival or used only for departures; and I suppose was not cleaned like the other runways in regular use. The braking action on [landing runway] was poor to fair at best from our observation. The emergency trucks followed us off the runway; we told ATC we needed no further assistance and taxied to our gate.My concerns with this situation are: the ATIS; if they are going to report braking action advisories in effect; give some information with it. Add MU value or description; runway specific would be great too. The NOTAM did a great job describing the condition on the runway; but gave us no real usable info. A MU value or description (poor; fair; nil) would be nice. My biggest issue is being given 4R. At first it seems like an obvious choice; but the weather complicates things. We were at fault for not specifically requesting a braking action report; but ATC led us to 4R. If it had been closed prior to our arrival and covered in snow; ATC should have thought not to give us that runway. Again we should have asked; but we were a bit preoccupied with our emergency. All the time we spent assessing runway landing distance and braking action for our landing in mind; we forgot to specifically ask for [alternate runway] conditions once given that runway.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.