Corporate first officer reports runway excursion after landing due to hydroplaning and loss of contr...

Narrative:

On arrival at sua; shot the GPS instrument approach to runway 12. Poor visibility at approach end of runway 12; not adequate for safe landing. With hazy rain coming down and executed missed approach. Tower advised that the visibility was better on approach end of runway 30 (opposite runway) proceeded to initial approach fix for GPS approach runway 30 and commenced approach; aircraft was configured early and stable on approach at approximately 800 to 1000 ft AGL. Acquired visual on runway 30 lowered final approach flaps and proceeded to land. Braking was normal until approximately 60 KTS when aircraft nosewheel became in-effective and hydroplaning occurred. Aircraft exited runway across hard pack of sand and approximately 40 KTS across a parallel taxiway. No airport lights; signs nor any part of runway or taxiway aids were touched or damaged. Also aircraft was not damaged. Upon inspection of point of runway excursion aircraft tracks were barely visible. Upon arrival at ramp inspected the aircraft thoroughly and no damage was visible. Fixed based operator said that draining of water was a big problem at this airport. Estimated at the time of landing; there was 2 to 3 inches of water standing on runway also runway has a dip approximately 2/3 of way down runway 30 and may have been as much as 3 to 4 inches of water standing. Runway does not appear to be crowned nor it is grooved. Unreported large amounts of standing water on runway was biggest contributor to this incident. Had we known excessive amount of standing water was on landing runway we probably would have at least considered an alternate plan. As I was co-pilot and not the pilot in command I did not have the final decision on whether we were going to land or not. Basically when the nose wheel turned loose due to the hydraulics; we were just along for the ride as it was totally ineffective. This aircraft does not have chine tires on the nose wheel nor do I believe they are even available for the aircraft. Also to my knowledge there were no other aircraft moving nor any aircraft movement on the airport at the time of this excursion.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Corporate First Officer reports runway excursion after landing due to hydroplaning and loss of control. There were large amounts of unreported standing water on the runway.

Narrative: On arrival at SUA; shot the GPS instrument approach to Runway 12. Poor visibility at approach end of Runway 12; not adequate for safe landing. With hazy rain coming down and executed missed approach. Tower advised that the visibility was better on approach end of Runway 30 (opposite runway) proceeded to initial approach fix for GPS approach Runway 30 and commenced approach; aircraft was configured early and stable on approach at approximately 800 to 1000 FT AGL. Acquired visual on Runway 30 lowered final approach flaps and proceeded to land. Braking was normal until approximately 60 KTS when aircraft nosewheel became in-effective and hydroplaning occurred. Aircraft exited runway across hard pack of sand and approximately 40 KTS across a parallel taxiway. No airport lights; signs nor any part of runway or taxiway aids were touched or damaged. Also aircraft was not damaged. Upon inspection of point of runway excursion aircraft tracks were barely visible. Upon arrival at ramp inspected the aircraft thoroughly and no damage was visible. Fixed based operator said that draining of water was a big problem at this airport. Estimated at the time of landing; there was 2 to 3 inches of water standing on runway also runway has a dip approximately 2/3 of way down Runway 30 and may have been as much as 3 to 4 inches of water standing. Runway does not appear to be crowned nor it is grooved. Unreported large amounts of standing water on runway was biggest contributor to this incident. Had we known excessive amount of standing water was on landing runway we probably would have at least considered an alternate plan. As I was co-pilot and not the pilot in command I did not have the final decision on whether we were going to land or not. Basically when the nose wheel turned loose due to the hydraulics; we were just along for the ride as it was totally ineffective. This aircraft does not have chine tires on the nose wheel nor do I believe they are even available for the aircraft. Also to my knowledge there were no other aircraft moving nor any aircraft movement on the airport at the time of this excursion.

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.

Attributes
ACN	866327
Time
Date	200912
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	SUA.Airport
State Reference	FL
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Light Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Landing
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 26 Flight Crew Total 15825 Flight Crew Type 76
Events
Anomaly	Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown Ground Excursion Runway Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

Corporate first officer reports runway excursion after landing due to hydroplaning and loss of control. There were large amounts of unreported standing water on the runway.