Narrative:

While planning for our arrival; I viewed the ACARS field condition report (fcr) which indicated the rcc (runway condition code) value for [the runway] was 6-DRY and was about two hours old. The WX packet NOTAMS showed [the runway] as 5-GOOD but was over 6 hours old. I elected to use the ACARS fcr data for landing because it was the most recent information. We briefed a flaps 40 landing with data for a dry runway. The PF elected to use autobrakes three for the landing.the landing was uneventful but as we rolled out on the runway I realized the surface was wet. The runway was coated with deice fluid from departing aircraft and what appears to be a chemical applied to the runway by snow removal crews. I noticed several small puddles of liquid on the runway and taxiways. While taxiing to the gate the sheen from the wet surface reflecting the sun caused glare in the cockpit. When we reached the gate; I sent an ACARS fcr update to dispatch. Our departure was uneventful.the next day we returned and again the ACARS fcr indicated the runway was 6-DRY. The NOTAMS were again reporting 5-GOOD; so we elected to base our landing data on a wet runway. The landing was uneventful but again the runway was wet. The ACARS fcr information was wrong. I sent an fcr update to dispatch when we reached the gate. I flew seven legs on this trip and on three of those legs the fcr data was wrong. The other occurrence with light rain on the ATIS and the fcr for the runway was 6-DRY.our ACARS fcr system is broken. It is leading crews to land on wet runways using performance data for dry runways and possibly not using autobrakes when required.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-800 Captain reported receiving incorrect Field Condition Reports from his company on multiple occasions.

Narrative: While planning for our arrival; I viewed the ACARS Field Condition Report (FCR) which indicated the RCC (Runway Condition Code) value for [the runway] was 6-DRY and was about two hours old. The WX packet NOTAMS showed [the runway] as 5-GOOD but was over 6 hours old. I elected to use the ACARS FCR data for landing because it was the most recent information. We briefed a flaps 40 landing with data for a dry runway. The PF elected to use autobrakes three for the landing.The landing was uneventful but as we rolled out on the runway I realized the surface was wet. The runway was coated with deice fluid from departing aircraft and what appears to be a chemical applied to the runway by Snow Removal Crews. I noticed several small puddles of liquid on the runway and taxiways. While taxiing to the gate the sheen from the wet surface reflecting the sun caused glare in the cockpit. When we reached the gate; I sent an ACARS FCR update to Dispatch. Our departure was uneventful.The next day we returned and again the ACARS FCR indicated the runway was 6-DRY. The NOTAMS were again reporting 5-GOOD; so we elected to base our landing data on a wet runway. The landing was uneventful but again the runway was wet. The ACARS FCR information was wrong. I sent an FCR update to Dispatch when we reached the gate. I flew seven legs on this trip and on three of those legs the FCR data was wrong. The other occurrence with light rain on the ATIS and the FCR for the runway was 6-DRY.Our ACARS FCR system is broken. It is leading crews to land on wet runways using performance data for dry runways and possibly not using autobrakes when required.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.