Narrative:

Talpa (takeoff and landing performance assessment) conditions reported in airport ATIS broadcasts often provide conflicting guidance wrt rcc codes and reported runway conditions. According to various FAA talpa advisory circulars; rcc (runway condition) codes should be determined by the airport operator by consulting the rcam (runway condition assessment) matrix for reported runway contaminants and broadcast in ficon (field conditions) NOTAMS with limited ability to upgrade conditions based on PIREPS; yet ATIS broadcasts often report significantly better rcam numbers that are in conflict with reported contaminants. If the rcam numbers reported in ATIS broadcasts are not airport operator derived rccs; it should be made explicit in the ATIS; with aircraft type information. Crews are often confused by reported rcc numbers that conflict with reported runway conditions and may default to the reported rcc reports for aircraft operations as our training and guidance was not adequate to determine specifically when to use the aircraft operator rcam in lieu of reported runway contaminants or under what conditions. I am concerned that crews will default to inaccurate optimistic rcc codes broadcast in ATIS for performance data and we will have a runway overrun with possibly injuries or loss of life. Crews will likely be held liable for not using the most accurate data available because they are not aware of the conflict due to inaccurate and incomplete guidance. If rccs reported in ATIS broadcasts are incorrect; airport operators and ATC should be compelled to provide accurate rcc numbers going forward. If it is our guidance that is incorrect or incomplete; company should provide explicit; simple and straightforward guidance when to apply the rcam matrix in lieu of ATIS reported rccs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A pilot reported some ATIS broadcasts are not reporting accurate field conditions that should be following the RCAM (Runway. Condition. Assessment. Matrix.)

Narrative: TALPA (takeoff and landing performance assessment) conditions reported in airport ATIS broadcasts often provide conflicting guidance WRT RCC codes and reported runway conditions. According to various FAA TALPA Advisory Circulars; RCC (runway condition) codes should be determined by the Airport Operator by consulting the RCAM (runway condition assessment) matrix for reported runway contaminants and broadcast in FICON (field conditions) NOTAMS with limited ability to upgrade conditions based on PIREPS; yet ATIS broadcasts often report significantly better RCAM numbers that are in conflict with reported contaminants. If the RCAM numbers reported in ATIS broadcasts are not Airport Operator derived RCCs; it should be made explicit in the ATIS; with aircraft type information. Crews are often confused by reported RCC numbers that conflict with reported runway conditions and may default to the reported RCC reports for aircraft operations as our training and guidance was not adequate to determine specifically when to use the Aircraft Operator RCAM in lieu of reported runway contaminants or under what conditions. I am concerned that crews will default to inaccurate optimistic RCC codes broadcast in ATIS for performance data and we will have a runway overrun with possibly injuries or loss of life. Crews will likely be held liable for not using the most accurate data available because they are not aware of the conflict due to inaccurate and incomplete guidance. If RCCs reported in ATIS broadcasts are incorrect; airport operators and ATC should be compelled to provide accurate RCC numbers going forward. If it is our guidance that is incorrect or incomplete; Company should provide explicit; simple and straightforward guidance when to apply the RCAM matrix in lieu of ATIS reported RCCs.

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.