Narrative:

We began approach to runway 7 in ottawa after obtaining ATIS and reviewing pertinent information related to the airport. As this airport's runway has a somewhat notorious reputation in light of recent events; my first officer and I discussed this approach and landing in perhaps a bit more depth than is usual. We touched on go around options; ref speed; field conditions and all other information we had at our disposal. Weather reported 4;900 overcast winds at 4 KTS at 180. My first officer queried tower and was told no rain on the field but standing water on the runway. We decided as per the operating manual that we would land flaps 45 with myself as flying pilot and captain. Our approach was uneventful; winds were calm; and we configured as per SOP. At some point tower informed us that a previous 737 had reported braking action fair. We broke out at 5;000 ft; and easily acquired the field. I declared visual landing and proceeded to make my visual aim point inside the first 1;000 to 2;000 ft. I recall my first office calling out '1 knot fast' with my response 'correcting'. We landed in the first 1;000 ft and I allowed the nose to come down firmly. I immediately applied full braking and discovered that I had none. I indicated so to my first office who immediately got on the brakes with me. I believe at this point; that we were hydroplaning. It occurred to me to go around; but I was concerned about the ability of the aircraft to accelerate in the standing water and in any case we still had at that point a good deal of runway left. At first the plane simply didn't appear to be slowing at all; but as we got about 3;000 ft more (estimated ) down the runway it seemed to decelerate albeit very slowly. We finally rolled to a complete stop past the last high speed and an estimated 1;000 ft from the end of the runway. Not until the last 500 ft did we feel the customary 'grabbing' sensation of the anti skid working. There was puddled water all over the runway. We told tower that braking action was poor to nil and very slowly made our way to the ramp. From my perspective; I have never had an aircraft respond this way on landing. We had flown this plane earlier and had no problem with braking. I believe the event occurred because there was standing water on the runway; and the aircraft did not have enough braking action to come to a stop in timely fashion. I called company safety officer. From sheerly a safety perspective; I do not feel that we should land an aircraft on that runway if it is wet and the aircraft is not equipped with thrust reversers. The runway in question has no grooved surfaces; and does not appear well designed for drainage. That combination seems to be a potentially dangerous one for our aircraft. I would like to note that I have landed non thrust reverser aircraft on other non grooved runways in canada and did not notice similar effects as those on that day in ottawa. It may simply be that that runway is particularly susceptible to performance degradation due to its location and/or configuration.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An EMB145 with no thrust reversers landed on CYOW Runway 7 with standing water reported and had poor to nil braking action until the Runway's last 500 FT.

Narrative: We began approach to Runway 7 in Ottawa after obtaining ATIS and reviewing pertinent information related to the airport. As this airport's runway has a somewhat notorious reputation in light of recent events; my First Officer and I discussed this approach and landing in perhaps a bit more depth than is usual. We touched on go around options; ref speed; field conditions and all other information we had at our disposal. Weather reported 4;900 overcast winds at 4 KTS at 180. My First Officer queried Tower and was told no rain on the field but standing water on the runway. We decided as per the Operating Manual that we would land flaps 45 with myself as flying pilot and Captain. Our approach was uneventful; winds were calm; and we configured as per SOP. At some point Tower informed us that a previous 737 had reported braking action fair. We broke out at 5;000 FT; and easily acquired the field. I declared visual landing and proceeded to make my visual aim point inside the first 1;000 to 2;000 FT. I recall my First Office calling out '1 knot fast' with my response 'correcting'. We landed in the first 1;000 FT and I allowed the nose to come down firmly. I immediately applied full braking and discovered that I had none. I indicated so to my First Office who immediately got on the brakes with me. I believe at this point; that we were hydroplaning. It occurred to me to go around; but I was concerned about the ability of the aircraft to accelerate in the standing water and in any case we still had at that point a good deal of runway left. At first the plane simply didn't appear to be slowing at all; but as we got about 3;000 FT more (estimated ) down the runway it seemed to decelerate albeit very slowly. We finally rolled to a complete stop past the last high speed and an estimated 1;000 FT from the end of the runway. Not until the last 500 FT did we feel the customary 'grabbing' sensation of the anti skid working. There was puddled water all over the runway. We told Tower that braking action was poor to nil and very slowly made our way to the ramp. From my perspective; I have never had an aircraft respond this way on landing. We had flown this plane earlier and had no problem with braking. I believe the event occurred because there was standing water on the runway; and the aircraft did not have enough braking action to come to a stop in timely fashion. I called company Safety Officer. From sheerly a safety perspective; I do not feel that we should land an aircraft on that runway if it is wet and the aircraft is not equipped with thrust reversers. The runway in question has no grooved surfaces; and does not appear well designed for drainage. That combination seems to be a potentially dangerous one for our aircraft. I would like to note that I have landed non thrust reverser aircraft on other non grooved runways in Canada and did not notice similar effects as those on that day in Ottawa. It may simply be that that runway is particularly susceptible to performance degradation due to its location and/or configuration.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.