Narrative:

Flight was planned to adq runway 25. Upon tower handoff winds were reported at 070/19 which is greater than our tailwind limit. I briefed up our backup plan for the RNAV 36. We switched back to center and informed them of our approach request. We were told that there would be a delay to allow state equipment to sand runway 36. Prior to this sanding; we received griptester ratings for runway 36 of I believe 40/41/40. I set autobrakes to maximum and briefed the 40 degree flap approach and landing. We had visual on the runway early and I flew it using the vertical path indicator to assist in glide path control throughout the remainder of the approach. I touched down on speed and just prior to the 1;000 ft markers. I immediately selected maximum reverse thrust and used maximum braking. I noticed that the aircraft was not decelerating at an acceptable rate and communicated this to the captain. He joined me on the brakes and as we approached the intersection with runway 25 the aircraft appeared to hydroplane with the end of runway 36 approaching quickly. The captain used tiller to steer left toward the elephant ear and clear area near the end of runway 36 on the left side. The aircraft passed through a low snow berm with the nose gear and right main gear. The snow berm significantly slowed the aircraft. The captain taxied the aircraft from this area and down runway 25 to the ramp. I would classify the runway braking action as nil. We never felt the maximum autobrakes grab and manual braking had little effect on stopping. We later rode out to examine the area. The intersection of runways 36 and 25 had standing water on top of ice and was very slick. Accurate runway reports are vital. Based on the 40+ rating and that they were sanding after this earlier report; we expected much better braking effectiveness. The state driver that took us out to look at the runway said they have recently learned that their ratings are inaccurate when the runway is wet. We did not receive any reports of standing water. The only thing we heard is that the urea/sand was applied and the ice was 'rotten' and we shouldn't have any problem.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An air carrier crew landed on ADQ Runway 25 and found NIL braking after the runway was sand and urea treated. The airport personnel reported the braking action test equipment is not accurate when standing water is on the runway.

Narrative: Flight was planned to ADQ Runway 25. Upon Tower handoff winds were reported at 070/19 which is greater than our tailwind limit. I briefed up our backup plan for the RNAV 36. We switched back to Center and informed them of our approach request. We were told that there would be a delay to allow state equipment to sand Runway 36. Prior to this sanding; we received griptester ratings for Runway 36 of I believe 40/41/40. I set autobrakes to maximum and briefed the 40 degree flap approach and landing. We had visual on the runway early and I flew it using the vertical path indicator to assist in glide path control throughout the remainder of the approach. I touched down on speed and just prior to the 1;000 FT markers. I immediately selected maximum reverse thrust and used maximum braking. I noticed that the aircraft was not decelerating at an acceptable rate and communicated this to the Captain. He joined me on the brakes and as we approached the intersection with Runway 25 the aircraft appeared to hydroplane with the end of Runway 36 approaching quickly. The Captain used tiller to steer left toward the elephant ear and clear area near the end of Runway 36 on the left side. The aircraft passed through a low snow berm with the nose gear and right main gear. The snow berm significantly slowed the aircraft. The Captain taxied the aircraft from this area and down Runway 25 to the Ramp. I would classify the runway braking action as nil. We never felt the maximum autobrakes grab and manual braking had little effect on stopping. We later rode out to examine the area. The intersection of Runways 36 and 25 had standing water on top of ice and was very slick. Accurate runway reports are vital. Based on the 40+ rating and that they were sanding after this earlier report; we expected much better braking effectiveness. The state driver that took us out to look at the runway said they have recently learned that their ratings are inaccurate when the runway is wet. We did not receive any reports of standing water. The only thing we heard is that the urea/sand was applied and the ice was 'rotten' and we shouldn't have any problem.

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.