Narrative:

During approach and landing at sdf in light rain, neither approach control nor control tower provided braking action reports. Approach was made at 138 keas with 40 degree flaps, which was 12 KTS faster than vref as determined from weight manifest, but only 5 KTS faster than the speed command. Due to the fact that the weight manifest (automated weight and balance) is hypothetical at best, it was my judgement to rely on the speed command reference. Upon T/D, ground spoilers were slow to deploy due to wet runway. Reverse thrust was applied and aircraft slowed to 70-80 KTS. Then, as reverse thrust was decreased and brake pressure application increased, the aircraft began to dynamically hydroplane with no effective wheel braking. Reverse thrust was reapplied and aircraft sufficiently slowed for normal runway egress. Conversations with both control tower and assistant airport manager revealed both had knowledge of poor to nil braking action, but each claimed the other was responsible for disseminating information to arriving and departing aircraft. Recommendation: 1) company automated weight and balance procedures would provide accurate information. 2) FAA control tower and airport management need to review procedure for monitoring runway surface conditions and provide same condition reports to arriving and departing aircraft. Ps: an FAA flight check aircraft had earlier complained to both sdf tower and airport authorities about poor braking action on runway 29. Both tower and airport personnel told this to me during my conversation with them when I spoke to them from operations. Why couldn't same tell me prior to our landing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG HYDROPLANED ON RWY, WAS NOT GIVEN BRAKING ACTION REPORT BY TWR.

Narrative: DURING APCH AND LNDG AT SDF IN LIGHT RAIN, NEITHER APCH CTL NOR CTL TWR PROVIDED BRAKING ACTION RPTS. APCH WAS MADE AT 138 KEAS WITH 40 DEG FLAPS, WHICH WAS 12 KTS FASTER THAN VREF AS DETERMINED FROM WT MANIFEST, BUT ONLY 5 KTS FASTER THAN THE SPD COMMAND. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE WT MANIFEST (AUTOMATED WT AND BAL) IS HYPOTHETICAL AT BEST, IT WAS MY JUDGEMENT TO RELY ON THE SPD COMMAND REF. UPON T/D, GND SPOILERS WERE SLOW TO DEPLOY DUE TO WET RWY. REVERSE THRUST WAS APPLIED AND ACFT SLOWED TO 70-80 KTS. THEN, AS REVERSE THRUST WAS DECREASED AND BRAKE PRESSURE APPLICATION INCREASED, THE ACFT BEGAN TO DYNAMICALLY HYDROPLANE WITH NO EFFECTIVE WHEEL BRAKING. REVERSE THRUST WAS REAPPLIED AND ACFT SUFFICIENTLY SLOWED FOR NORMAL RWY EGRESS. CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH CTL TWR AND ASSISTANT ARPT MGR REVEALED BOTH HAD KNOWLEDGE OF POOR TO NIL BRAKING ACTION, BUT EACH CLAIMED THE OTHER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISSEMINATING INFO TO ARRIVING AND DEPARTING ACFT. RECOMMENDATION: 1) COMPANY AUTOMATED WT AND BALANCE PROCS WOULD PROVIDE ACCURATE INFO. 2) FAA CTL TWR AND ARPT MGMNT NEED TO REVIEW PROC FOR MONITORING RWY SURFACE CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE SAME CONDITION RPTS TO ARRIVING AND DEPARTING ACFT. PS: AN FAA FLT CHK ACFT HAD EARLIER COMPLAINED TO BOTH SDF TWR AND ARPT AUTHORITIES ABOUT POOR BRAKING ACTION ON RWY 29. BOTH TWR AND ARPT PERSONNEL TOLD THIS TO ME DURING MY CONVERSATION WITH THEM WHEN I SPOKE TO THEM FROM OPS. WHY COULDN'T SAME TELL ME PRIOR TO OUR LNDG.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.