Narrative:

WX consisted of light snow with occasional flurries of light snow pellets. Numerous narrow body departures had already been canceled; but widebody transport and international flts continued on a delayed basis. As we prepared for pushback we were unable to obtain a report on the runway condition for runway 30 the active departure runway at that time. Runway conditions were listed as 'wet' for all runways despite the fact that upon preflight walkaround 45 mins prior; several inches of slush was observed on the ground around the aircraft. Operations; when queried about conditions; advised that iad was sending out a vehicle to check field conditions. Eventually ATIS was updated to reflect slush on runway 30; but the other runways were still listed as wet. Despite the fact that ATIS noted runway slush; the ACARS runway field conditions reported the first third wet; the middle third 1/8-1/4 slush and the last third of the runway had 1/2 inch of slush. Additionally; the snowfall was light; which means it took time to accumulate 1/8 then ? Then ? Of slush. The performance degradation for takeoff is significant with level 1 and 2 clutter on a B767. At 400000 pounds takeoff weight level 1 has a 50000 pound performance penalty and level 2 has a 65000 pound performance penalty. Additionally the presence of clutter varying from just a wet runway to level 2 at the far end is still significant as it presents more than just an acceleration problem for the departing aircraft. It also increases the stopping distance for a rejected takeoff. As the pilot cannot observe this from the cockpit; especially at night; he is dependent upon airfield operations to provide timely and accurate information to this effect! Thus; I pose the following questions: how long were aircraft departing off of a cluttered runway without being informed? How many aircraft departed in the at least 45 mins prior to ATIS being updated to reflect the actual field conditions? How many of those aircraft departed being illegal for takeoff with those field conditions? Why was ATIS updated to provide a rather misleading average instead of the worst case conditions of runway 30? Why did it take another update before ATIS advised inaccurately? Slush on all runways? Why did we have to advise operations that they needed to contact iad operations and inform them the runway needed to be plowed before we could take off? Operations; although short staffed was trying really hard to facilitate a bad situation? Perhaps if this occurred at mia or fll I would be a little sympathetic to airfield operations not having their act together. But this is the northeast and this was clearly an operation being run in a negligent and as a result unsafe fashion! Recommendations: give the airport staff a class on contaminated runways and how they impact mtog and landing weights. Second; add to the checklist at the airport; if it's snowing; walk outside. If there is stuff on your shoes; send someone to check the runways. If there is stuff on the runways; plow them or at least let the pilots know -- please!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 RELIEF PILOT REPORTS THAT IAD ATIS DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE RWY CONDITION DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER WITH SNOW AND RAIN FALLING.

Narrative: WX CONSISTED OF LIGHT SNOW WITH OCCASIONAL FLURRIES OF LIGHT SNOW PELLETS. NUMEROUS NARROW BODY DEPS HAD ALREADY BEEN CANCELED; BUT WDB AND INTL FLTS CONTINUED ON A DELAYED BASIS. AS WE PREPARED FOR PUSHBACK WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN A RPT ON THE RWY CONDITION FOR RWY 30 THE ACTIVE DEP RWY AT THAT TIME. RWY CONDITIONS WERE LISTED AS 'WET' FOR ALL RWYS DESPITE THE FACT THAT UPON PREFLT WALKAROUND 45 MINS PRIOR; SEVERAL INCHES OF SLUSH WAS OBSERVED ON THE GND AROUND THE ACFT. OPS; WHEN QUERIED ABOUT CONDITIONS; ADVISED THAT IAD WAS SENDING OUT A VEHICLE TO CHK FIELD CONDITIONS. EVENTUALLY ATIS WAS UPDATED TO REFLECT SLUSH ON RWY 30; BUT THE OTHER RWYS WERE STILL LISTED AS WET. DESPITE THE FACT THAT ATIS NOTED RWY SLUSH; THE ACARS RWY FIELD CONDITIONS RPTED THE FIRST THIRD WET; THE MIDDLE THIRD 1/8-1/4 SLUSH AND THE LAST THIRD OF THE RWY HAD 1/2 INCH OF SLUSH. ADDITIONALLY; THE SNOWFALL WAS LIGHT; WHICH MEANS IT TOOK TIME TO ACCUMULATE 1/8 THEN ? THEN ? OF SLUSH. THE PERFORMANCE DEGRADATION FOR TKOF IS SIGNIFICANT WITH LEVEL 1 AND 2 CLUTTER ON A B767. AT 400000 LBS TKOF WT LEVEL 1 HAS A 50000 LB PERFORMANCE PENALTY AND LEVEL 2 HAS A 65000 LB PERFORMANCE PENALTY. ADDITIONALLY THE PRESENCE OF CLUTTER VARYING FROM JUST A WET RWY TO LEVEL 2 AT THE FAR END IS STILL SIGNIFICANT AS IT PRESENTS MORE THAN JUST AN ACCELERATION PROB FOR THE DEPARTING ACFT. IT ALSO INCREASES THE STOPPING DISTANCE FOR A REJECTED TKOF. AS THE PLT CANNOT OBSERVE THIS FROM THE COCKPIT; ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT; HE IS DEPENDENT UPON AIRFIELD OPS TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND ACCURATE INFO TO THIS EFFECT! THUS; I POSE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: HOW LONG WERE ACFT DEPARTING OFF OF A CLUTTERED RWY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED? HOW MANY ACFT DEPARTED IN THE AT LEAST 45 MINS PRIOR TO ATIS BEING UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS? HOW MANY OF THOSE ACFT DEPARTED BEING ILLEGAL FOR TKOF WITH THOSE FIELD CONDITIONS? WHY WAS ATIS UPDATED TO PROVIDE A RATHER MISLEADING AVERAGE INSTEAD OF THE WORST CASE CONDITIONS OF RWY 30? WHY DID IT TAKE ANOTHER UPDATE BEFORE ATIS ADVISED INACCURATELY? SLUSH ON ALL RWYS? WHY DID WE HAVE TO ADVISE OPS THAT THEY NEEDED TO CONTACT IAD OPS AND INFORM THEM THE RWY NEEDED TO BE PLOWED BEFORE WE COULD TAKE OFF? OPS; ALTHOUGH SHORT STAFFED WAS TRYING REALLY HARD TO FACILITATE A BAD SITUATION? PERHAPS IF THIS OCCURRED AT MIA OR FLL I WOULD BE A LITTLE SYMPATHETIC TO AIRFIELD OPS NOT HAVING THEIR ACT TOGETHER. BUT THIS IS THE NE AND THIS WAS CLRLY AN OP BEING RUN IN A NEGLIGENT AND AS A RESULT UNSAFE FASHION! RECOMMENDATIONS: GIVE THE ARPT STAFF A CLASS ON CONTAMINATED RWYS AND HOW THEY IMPACT MTOG AND LNDG WTS. SECOND; ADD TO THE CHKLIST AT THE ARPT; IF IT'S SNOWING; WALK OUTSIDE. IF THERE IS STUFF ON YOUR SHOES; SEND SOMEONE TO CHK THE RWYS. IF THERE IS STUFF ON THE RWYS; PLOW THEM OR AT LEAST LET THE PLTS KNOW -- PLEASE!

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.