Narrative:

We departed elp with 41000 pounds of fuel and blocked in with 15800 pounds making our taxi weight approximately 118000 pounds. Runway 28L and runway 28R were both in use with numerous taxiway closures. On final we requested the braking action and the tower advised us that it was reported as good by a moving vehicle. The landing was normal and the braking action was good. We rolled out to the high speed turnoff F5 and then onto taxiway V. We were cleared to cross runway 28C at taxiway V. We then contacted ground and were cleared to our gate via taxiway D and taxiway west. We proceeded up taxiway V and then left on taxiway D. Taxiway D had a light covering of fresh snow with no visible aircraft tracks on it but was not reported as a closed taxiway. During the initial turn onto taxiway D the nosewheel steering and braking were normal. As I completed my turn, I recentered the nosewheel to proceed down taxiway D, but the aircraft started a sideways slide to the left. I then attempted to steer the nosewheel to the right, away from the slide but the aircraft continued to slide. I considered using reverse thrust but determined that our position was already south of the edge lights and that with the direction of the slide that would not be effective. Braking action during the slide was nil. The aircraft came to a stop in the sloped bay area between taxiway D and taxiway east just west of taxiway V. The tail section and 14 ft of the right wing were north of the taxiway edge lights. We contacted ground to report our position, selected the APU and shut down all 3 engines and lowered the aft airstairs. I advised dispatch of our situation and suggested they contact management and to notify our pit maintenance. The pit airport fire department also responded and remained to provide lighting. Maintenance arrived and coordinated with airline company ground personnel to pull the aircraft back to taxiway D. I was then introduced to the airport director of operations. He advised me that the FAA had been notified and that FAA supervisor on duty stated that due to no injury or damage they would not be sending an inspector. I again called dispatch and spoke with the director of operations for xyz airlines. I advised him of our situation and that my airline would be moving the aircraft and that the FAA had been notified and didn't feel it was necessary to send an inspector. The following is what I observed during the recovery. The equipment that was to be used was in storage and took a while to arrive. While we waited the airport operations sanded the area of taxiway D the tug would be pulling from. The xyz airlines maintenance removed the splash guards from the main gear. When the equipment arrived it was connected to the aircraft and the tug attempted to pull the aircraft back but the equipment failed. The second attempt with new cables initially looked successful but the left main gear was being pulled into soft ground and the cable released again. It was determined that they needed to dig out behind the left main which they did. The third attempt with new nylon style cables was successful. The aircraft was pulled back to taxiway D. A tow bar was then attached and we were towed to gate. After arriving at the gate we entered a write-up in the logbook stating that the aircraft had left a paved surface and released the aircraft to maintenance. I then collected the pit airport operations office's completed report. I called xyz airlines director of operations again to update him on the situation. On the morning of dec/wed/97 I called the FSDO in pit to report the situation to inspector. He informed me that there would be no enforcement action taken against me, however he requested I send him a report. I told him the report would be there on friday. This completes my report. In summary, I feel that taxiway D should have been included in the closed txwys. I also feel that ballast fuel should be considered to increase the landing and taxi weight on ferry flts, especially in reduced traction sits.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A TAXIING LGT SLIDES OFF A SLIPPERY TXWY AND HAS TO GET TOWED OUT. TXWY CONDITION OF BEING SLIPPERY WAS NOT KNOWN BY GND CTLR SO IT WAS NOT RPTED TO THE FLC.

Narrative: WE DEPARTED ELP WITH 41000 LBS OF FUEL AND BLOCKED IN WITH 15800 LBS MAKING OUR TAXI WT APPROX 118000 LBS. RWY 28L AND RWY 28R WERE BOTH IN USE WITH NUMEROUS TXWY CLOSURES. ON FINAL WE REQUESTED THE BRAKING ACTION AND THE TWR ADVISED US THAT IT WAS RPTED AS GOOD BY A MOVING VEHICLE. THE LNDG WAS NORMAL AND THE BRAKING ACTION WAS GOOD. WE ROLLED OUT TO THE HIGH SPD TURNOFF F5 AND THEN ONTO TXWY V. WE WERE CLRED TO CROSS RWY 28C AT TXWY V. WE THEN CONTACTED GND AND WERE CLRED TO OUR GATE VIA TXWY D AND TXWY W. WE PROCEEDED UP TXWY V AND THEN L ON TXWY D. TXWY D HAD A LIGHT COVERING OF FRESH SNOW WITH NO VISIBLE ACFT TRACKS ON IT BUT WAS NOT RPTED AS A CLOSED TXWY. DURING THE INITIAL TURN ONTO TXWY D THE NOSEWHEEL STEERING AND BRAKING WERE NORMAL. AS I COMPLETED MY TURN, I RECENTERED THE NOSEWHEEL TO PROCEED DOWN TXWY D, BUT THE ACFT STARTED A SIDEWAYS SLIDE TO THE L. I THEN ATTEMPTED TO STEER THE NOSEWHEEL TO THE R, AWAY FROM THE SLIDE BUT THE ACFT CONTINUED TO SLIDE. I CONSIDERED USING REVERSE THRUST BUT DETERMINED THAT OUR POS WAS ALREADY S OF THE EDGE LIGHTS AND THAT WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE SLIDE THAT WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE. BRAKING ACTION DURING THE SLIDE WAS NIL. THE ACFT CAME TO A STOP IN THE SLOPED BAY AREA BTWN TXWY D AND TXWY E JUST W OF TXWY V. THE TAIL SECTION AND 14 FT OF THE R WING WERE N OF THE TXWY EDGE LIGHTS. WE CONTACTED GND TO RPT OUR POS, SELECTED THE APU AND SHUT DOWN ALL 3 ENGS AND LOWERED THE AFT AIRSTAIRS. I ADVISED DISPATCH OF OUR SIT AND SUGGESTED THEY CONTACT MGMNT AND TO NOTIFY OUR PIT MAINT. THE PIT ARPT FIRE DEPT ALSO RESPONDED AND REMAINED TO PROVIDE LIGHTING. MAINT ARRIVED AND COORDINATED WITH AIRLINE CGP TO PULL THE ACFT BACK TO TXWY D. I WAS THEN INTRODUCED TO THE ARPT DIRECTOR OF OPS. HE ADVISED ME THAT THE FAA HAD BEEN NOTIFIED AND THAT FAA SUPVR ON DUTY STATED THAT DUE TO NO INJURY OR DAMAGE THEY WOULD NOT BE SENDING AN INSPECTOR. I AGAIN CALLED DISPATCH AND SPOKE WITH THE DIRECTOR OF OPS FOR XYZ AIRLINES. I ADVISED HIM OF OUR SIT AND THAT MY AIRLINE WOULD BE MOVING THE ACFT AND THAT THE FAA HAD BEEN NOTIFIED AND DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO SEND AN INSPECTOR. THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT I OBSERVED DURING THE RECOVERY. THE EQUIP THAT WAS TO BE USED WAS IN STORAGE AND TOOK A WHILE TO ARRIVE. WHILE WE WAITED THE ARPT OPS SANDED THE AREA OF TXWY D THE TUG WOULD BE PULLING FROM. THE XYZ AIRLINES MAINT REMOVED THE SPLASH GUARDS FROM THE MAIN GEAR. WHEN THE EQUIP ARRIVED IT WAS CONNECTED TO THE ACFT AND THE TUG ATTEMPTED TO PULL THE ACFT BACK BUT THE EQUIP FAILED. THE SECOND ATTEMPT WITH NEW CABLES INITIALLY LOOKED SUCCESSFUL BUT THE L MAIN GEAR WAS BEING PULLED INTO SOFT GND AND THE CABLE RELEASED AGAIN. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THEY NEEDED TO DIG OUT BEHIND THE L MAIN WHICH THEY DID. THE THIRD ATTEMPT WITH NEW NYLON STYLE CABLES WAS SUCCESSFUL. THE ACFT WAS PULLED BACK TO TXWY D. A TOW BAR WAS THEN ATTACHED AND WE WERE TOWED TO GATE. AFTER ARRIVING AT THE GATE WE ENTERED A WRITE-UP IN THE LOGBOOK STATING THAT THE ACFT HAD LEFT A PAVED SURFACE AND RELEASED THE ACFT TO MAINT. I THEN COLLECTED THE PIT ARPT OPS OFFICE'S COMPLETED RPT. I CALLED XYZ AIRLINES DIRECTOR OF OPS AGAIN TO UPDATE HIM ON THE SIT. ON THE MORNING OF DEC/WED/97 I CALLED THE FSDO IN PIT TO RPT THE SIT TO INSPECTOR. HE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WOULD BE NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN AGAINST ME, HOWEVER HE REQUESTED I SEND HIM A RPT. I TOLD HIM THE RPT WOULD BE THERE ON FRIDAY. THIS COMPLETES MY RPT. IN SUMMARY, I FEEL THAT TXWY D SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CLOSED TXWYS. I ALSO FEEL THAT BALLAST FUEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO INCREASE THE LNDG AND TAXI WT ON FERRY FLTS, ESPECIALLY IN REDUCED TRACTION SITS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.