Narrative:

We had been doing the ILS to 12L in msp and the runway condition codes (rcc) had been reported at 5/5/5. We had a fairly strong crosswind approximately 20 knots and the aircraft ahead of us reported medium to poor braking. The captain had briefed before that he would touch down a bit more firm than usual and get onto the brakes fairly quickly to ensure we would stop in time. I think the captain touched down a bit softer than he would have liked and when he tried to deploy the thrust reversers only the left side deployed. The effect was almost immediate as I could feel the plane begin to slide to the left side of the runway. By the time the right reverser had deployed the plane was completely unresponsive to the captain's control inputs and we slid nearly sideways down the runway. We were able to regain control probably less than 10 feet from the runway edge and exit the runway and taxi to the gate without further incident. We reported to ATC that braking was poor to nil and they sent the following airplanes around and closed the runway for treatment.so far my experience with rcc values has proven them to not be sufficient in evaluating actual runway conditions. More than a year after the implementation I have yet to see an rcc value below 5 on a runway I've used in varying conditions. The reported values during the time of our landing were not an accurate representation of the actual runway conditions.the crj-200 has a tendency of asymmetric thrust reverser deployment which exacerbated the situation. Additionally; I think the idle thrust reverse landing program (even though its use was never considered in this situation) has led to a lot of confusion about when to apply and has led to slow deployment among other crews I have seen from the flight deck jumpstart. The rcc values need to be updated more frequently and need to error on the side of caution. We had departed earlier in similar conditions without incident and the rcc values were the same despite drastically different runway conditions. Something needs to be done about the asymmetric reverser deployment. In flight; the thrust lever split was so large that two fingers could fit between the thrust levers. It's possible that this split made the aircraft not think the right thrust lever was actually idle and prevented the reverser from deploying. Regardless of the situation crews should utilize thrust reverses in the event runways are not the same they have been reported.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 flight crew reported the Runway Condition Codes reported optimal conditions for MSP Runway 12L. Upon landing; the crew discovered poor braking ability resulting in loss of directional control.

Narrative: We had been doing the ILS to 12L in MSP and the Runway Condition Codes (RCC) had been reported at 5/5/5. We had a fairly strong crosswind approximately 20 knots and the aircraft ahead of us reported medium to poor braking. The Captain had briefed before that he would touch down a bit more firm than usual and get onto the brakes fairly quickly to ensure we would stop in time. I think the Captain touched down a bit softer than he would have liked and when he tried to deploy the thrust reversers only the left side deployed. The effect was almost immediate as I could feel the plane begin to slide to the left side of the runway. By the time the right reverser had deployed the plane was completely unresponsive to the Captain's control inputs and we slid nearly sideways down the runway. We were able to regain control probably less than 10 feet from the runway edge and exit the runway and taxi to the gate without further incident. We reported to ATC that braking was poor to nil and they sent the following airplanes around and closed the runway for treatment.So far my experience with RCC values has proven them to not be sufficient in evaluating actual runway conditions. More than a year after the implementation I have yet to see an RCC value below 5 on a runway I've used in varying conditions. The reported values during the time of our landing were not an accurate representation of the actual runway conditions.The CRJ-200 has a tendency of asymmetric thrust reverser deployment which exacerbated the situation. Additionally; I think the idle thrust reverse landing program (even though its use was never considered in this situation) has led to a lot of confusion about when to apply and has led to slow deployment among other crews I have seen from the flight deck jumpstart. The RCC values need to be updated more frequently and need to error on the side of caution. We had departed earlier in similar conditions without incident and the RCC values were the same despite drastically different runway conditions. Something needs to be done about the asymmetric reverser deployment. In flight; the thrust lever split was so large that two fingers could fit between the thrust levers. It's possible that this split made the aircraft not think the right thrust lever was actually idle and prevented the reverser from deploying. Regardless of the situation crews should utilize thrust reverses in the event runways are not the same they have been reported.

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.