Narrative:

Prior to taking runway at cle runway 24L(west); a company aircraft requested braking action for runway 24L. Tower provided very old mu readings and that the runway had been chemically treated earlier in the day. Few aircraft had landed on runway 24L and a recent braking action report from an aircraft was unavailable. Tower mentioned the mu readings 'probably translated to a good to fair braking action.' based on this information; our company aircraft taxied clear while we decided to continue. Runway was not wet; but definitely was thin clutter due to blowing snow from the infield and patchy snow. Operations computer contained current ATIS; thin clutter; engine anti-ice on; and windshear for the LLWS advisory. Ancillary information...all aircraft landing on runway 24R were reporting good braking action. Ensuing takeoff was short (LLWS) and uneventful; but required significant control input at V1 (109 KTS). After thinking and talking through the dynamics involved; we thought it best to report this one for the record. This scenario pushes the limits of VMC ground; VMC air; and how to really determine braking action. Also; the 17 KTS of crosswind component was out of limits; per our fom; if indeed the runway braking action had been properly determined as fair. I would like the ability to select thin clutter (and) wet-good on the operations computer to better reflect the runway condition. Also; in retrospect; I would have recommended to the captain to follow our company off the runway and compare performance notes with each other and dispatch before we launched. It would have given us a final check and cost little. My concern was we were cleared into position very quickly with aircraft behind us to launch.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 FLT CREW IS CONCERNED WITH ABILITY TO ACCURATELY PREDICT ACFT PERFORMANCE.

Narrative: PRIOR TO TAKING RWY AT CLE RWY 24L(W); A COMPANY ACFT REQUESTED BRAKING ACTION FOR RWY 24L. TWR PROVIDED VERY OLD MU READINGS AND THAT THE RWY HAD BEEN CHEMICALLY TREATED EARLIER IN THE DAY. FEW ACFT HAD LANDED ON RWY 24L AND A RECENT BRAKING ACTION RPT FROM AN ACFT WAS UNAVAILABLE. TWR MENTIONED THE MU READINGS 'PROBABLY TRANSLATED TO A GOOD TO FAIR BRAKING ACTION.' BASED ON THIS INFO; OUR COMPANY ACFT TAXIED CLR WHILE WE DECIDED TO CONTINUE. RWY WAS NOT WET; BUT DEFINITELY WAS THIN CLUTTER DUE TO BLOWING SNOW FROM THE INFIELD AND PATCHY SNOW. OPS COMPUTER CONTAINED CURRENT ATIS; THIN CLUTTER; ENG ANTI-ICE ON; AND WINDSHEAR FOR THE LLWS ADVISORY. ANCILLARY INFO...ALL ACFT LNDG ON RWY 24R WERE RPTING GOOD BRAKING ACTION. ENSUING TKOF WAS SHORT (LLWS) AND UNEVENTFUL; BUT REQUIRED SIGNIFICANT CTL INPUT AT V1 (109 KTS). AFTER THINKING AND TALKING THROUGH THE DYNAMICS INVOLVED; WE THOUGHT IT BEST TO RPT THIS ONE FOR THE RECORD. THIS SCENARIO PUSHES THE LIMITS OF VMC GND; VMC AIR; AND HOW TO REALLY DETERMINE BRAKING ACTION. ALSO; THE 17 KTS OF XWIND COMPONENT WAS OUT OF LIMITS; PER OUR FOM; IF INDEED THE RWY BRAKING ACTION HAD BEEN PROPERLY DETERMINED AS FAIR. I WOULD LIKE THE ABILITY TO SELECT THIN CLUTTER (AND) WET-GOOD ON THE OPS COMPUTER TO BETTER REFLECT THE RWY CONDITION. ALSO; IN RETROSPECT; I WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE CAPT TO FOLLOW OUR COMPANY OFF THE RWY AND COMPARE PERFORMANCE NOTES WITH EACH OTHER AND DISPATCH BEFORE WE LAUNCHED. IT WOULD HAVE GIVEN US A FINAL CHK AND COST LITTLE. MY CONCERN WAS WE WERE CLRED INTO POS VERY QUICKLY WITH ACFT BEHIND US TO LAUNCH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.