Narrative:

On mar/thu/07; we were on a part 91 reposition flight ZZZ1 to ZZZ. With a normal descent and approach we were being vectored by ZZZ approach for the ILS runway 17L at ZZZ. ATIS was; wind calm 6 SM -RA 200 ft scattered 4600 ft broken 9000 ft overcast 19/17 29.99; B closed between A5 and A6 and birds in the vicinity of the airport. Approach was busy and did not switch us to the tower till I called inside the FAF. Switched to the tower about 4.5 mi final. Tower was calling us when we switched over to tower frequency he told us wind was 070 degrees/6 KTS and visibility had dropped to 1 1/2 SM. We picked up the runway at a 3.0 mi final and reported that to the tower. The sic was the PF and he flew the approach at reference +10 and slowed to reference as we neared the runway. Runway looked normal and he touched down just past the runway 17L number. He lowered the nose and applied the brakes. Right away it did not feel right. I called; 'I have the aircraft' and applied full brakes; but it felt like the brakes were ineffective. Released the brakes and pushed with full force and brakes still felt ineffective. At that point we were hydroplaning. The thrust reversers were MEL'ed and strapped; so they were not used. As we neared the end of the runway the tower told us that there had been reports of standing water on the runway. We were never given that report prior to landing nor on approach nor on the ATIS that there was standing water on the runway. We hit a large area of standing water as we were at the end of the runway and the nose went left and I used full right tiller and the nose did not come back to center. There was a concrete slab just past the end of the runway and we went off into the grass just left of the concrete no more than 40 ft from the end of the runway. Landing data for the G200 does not use thrust reversers for credit for determining landing data. We used landing data based on manufacture data and used our company flight operations manual for guidance for thrust reversers inoperative for landing on wet runways and used that information using all other known data and information that a safe landing was safe to do under the known conditions. We were not injured nor the aircraft damaged. We feel that because we did not have the information that there was standing water on the runway that led to the cause of the problem. We feel had we been given that information prior to the approach and landing that would had led to us not to land due the fact that would made the runway a contaminated runway not just a wet runway. The problem arose because the flight crew was not given important information about airport runway condition until on the runway and that the thrust reversers were MEL'ed. Contributing factors were ATC being busy on approach and not being switched to tower frequency till inside the FAF. Tower not reporting or not given the information about the runway condition. The thrust reversers being MEL'ed even though not required would still have helped. Supplemental information from acn 733578: the tower ATC told us about 2/3 of distance down the runway that there was reported standing water on the runway and it was about that moment we hit a big puddle of standing water; causing us to hydroplane even more. No damage was done to the runway.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A G200 LANDED ON A RWY WITH STANDING WATER AND HYDROPLANED OFF THE END. THE THRUST REVERSERS WERE INOP AND NO ACFT DAMAGE WAS REPORTED

Narrative: ON MAR/THU/07; WE WERE ON A PART 91 REPOSITION FLT ZZZ1 TO ZZZ. WITH A NORMAL DSCNT AND APCH WE WERE BEING VECTORED BY ZZZ APCH FOR THE ILS RWY 17L AT ZZZ. ATIS WAS; WIND CALM 6 SM -RA 200 FT SCATTERED 4600 FT BROKEN 9000 FT OVCST 19/17 29.99; B CLOSED BTWN A5 AND A6 AND BIRDS IN THE VICINITY OF THE ARPT. APCH WAS BUSY AND DID NOT SWITCH US TO THE TWR TILL I CALLED INSIDE THE FAF. SWITCHED TO THE TWR ABOUT 4.5 MI FINAL. TWR WAS CALLING US WHEN WE SWITCHED OVER TO TWR FREQ HE TOLD US WIND WAS 070 DEGS/6 KTS AND VISIBILITY HAD DROPPED TO 1 1/2 SM. WE PICKED UP THE RWY AT A 3.0 MI FINAL AND RPTED THAT TO THE TWR. THE SIC WAS THE PF AND HE FLEW THE APCH AT REF +10 AND SLOWED TO REF AS WE NEARED THE RWY. RWY LOOKED NORMAL AND HE TOUCHED DOWN JUST PAST THE RWY 17L NUMBER. HE LOWERED THE NOSE AND APPLIED THE BRAKES. RIGHT AWAY IT DID NOT FEEL RIGHT. I CALLED; 'I HAVE THE ACFT' AND APPLIED FULL BRAKES; BUT IT FELT LIKE THE BRAKES WERE INEFFECTIVE. RELEASED THE BRAKES AND PUSHED WITH FULL FORCE AND BRAKES STILL FELT INEFFECTIVE. AT THAT POINT WE WERE HYDROPLANING. THE THRUST REVERSERS WERE MEL'ED AND STRAPPED; SO THEY WERE NOT USED. AS WE NEARED THE END OF THE RWY THE TWR TOLD US THAT THERE HAD BEEN RPTS OF STANDING WATER ON THE RWY. WE WERE NEVER GIVEN THAT RPT PRIOR TO LNDG NOR ON APCH NOR ON THE ATIS THAT THERE WAS STANDING WATER ON THE RWY. WE HIT A LARGE AREA OF STANDING WATER AS WE WERE AT THE END OF THE RWY AND THE NOSE WENT L AND I USED FULL R TILLER AND THE NOSE DID NOT COME BACK TO CTR. THERE WAS A CONCRETE SLAB JUST PAST THE END OF THE RWY AND WE WENT OFF INTO THE GRASS JUST L OF THE CONCRETE NO MORE THAN 40 FT FROM THE END OF THE RWY. LNDG DATA FOR THE G200 DOES NOT USE THRUST REVERSERS FOR CREDIT FOR DETERMINING LNDG DATA. WE USED LNDG DATA BASED ON MANUFACTURE DATA AND USED OUR COMPANY FLT OPS MANUAL FOR GUIDANCE FOR THRUST REVERSERS INOP FOR LNDG ON WET RWYS AND USED THAT INFO USING ALL OTHER KNOWN DATA AND INFO THAT A SAFE LNDG WAS SAFE TO DO UNDER THE KNOWN CONDITIONS. WE WERE NOT INJURED NOR THE ACFT DAMAGED. WE FEEL THAT BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THE INFO THAT THERE WAS STANDING WATER ON THE RWY THAT LED TO THE CAUSE OF THE PROB. WE FEEL HAD WE BEEN GIVEN THAT INFO PRIOR TO THE APCH AND LNDG THAT WOULD HAD LED TO US NOT TO LAND DUE THE FACT THAT WOULD MADE THE RWY A CONTAMINATED RWY NOT JUST A WET RWY. THE PROB AROSE BECAUSE THE FLT CREW WAS NOT GIVEN IMPORTANT INFO ABOUT ARPT RWY CONDITION UNTIL ON THE RWY AND THAT THE THRUST REVERSERS WERE MEL'ED. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE ATC BEING BUSY ON APCH AND NOT BEING SWITCHED TO TWR FREQ TILL INSIDE THE FAF. TWR NOT RPTING OR NOT GIVEN THE INFO ABOUT THE RWY CONDITION. THE THRUST REVERSERS BEING MEL'ED EVEN THOUGH NOT REQUIRED WOULD STILL HAVE HELPED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 733578: THE TWR ATC TOLD US ABOUT 2/3 OF DISTANCE DOWN THE RWY THAT THERE WAS RPTED STANDING WATER ON THE RWY AND IT WAS ABOUT THAT MOMENT WE HIT A BIG PUDDLE OF STANDING WATER; CAUSING US TO HYDROPLANE EVEN MORE. NO DAMAGE WAS DONE TO THE RWY.

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.