Ege airport issues runway braking action reports in a cfm format but because the flight crew and dis...

Narrative:

Two hour delayed departure to ege for weather below minimums due to snow storm. [We] checked weather with dispatch via ACARS just prior to launch; weather above minimums. Arriving at top of descent (TOD) for ege; denver center advised the last aircraft (business jet) to land an hour earlier reported braking action poor. That's less than our landing data would allow. Entered holding at TOD and asked center to get an update from ege. Advised dispatch and asked for current field conditions. Ege tower advised the mu readings were 49; 57; 72. Dispatch relayed same. Mu equivalents were recently removed from our manuals. Asked dispatch if they had a correlation but they didn't. [We] eventually landed uneventfully based on field reports from ege concerning runway condition and treatment. However; the only landing report prior to my arrival was poor and the only runway friction report was based on mu values that we no longer have available. This created an airborne situation and question concerning the viability of landing at ege. Given that we operate into the difficult environment of ege and the airfield uses mu readings; it would seem that safe operations would require mu based evaluation data for our aircraft at ege to reliably evaluate a safe condition for landing.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EGE Airport issues Runway Braking Action Reports in a CFM format but because the flight crew and Dispatch had only MU numbers they could not accurately determine the braking action until the aircraft landed.

Narrative: Two hour delayed departure to EGE for weather below minimums due to snow storm. [We] checked weather with Dispatch via ACARS just prior to launch; weather above minimums. Arriving at Top of Descent (TOD) for EGE; Denver Center advised the last aircraft (business jet) to land an hour earlier reported braking action poor. That's less than our landing data would allow. Entered holding at TOD and asked Center to get an update from EGE. Advised Dispatch and asked for current field conditions. EGE Tower advised the MU readings were 49; 57; 72. Dispatch relayed same. MU equivalents were recently removed from our manuals. Asked Dispatch if they had a correlation but they didn't. [We] eventually landed uneventfully based on field reports from EGE concerning runway condition and treatment. However; the only landing report prior to my arrival was poor and the only runway friction report was based on MU values that we no longer have available. This created an airborne situation and question concerning the viability of landing at EGE. Given that we operate into the difficult environment of EGE and the airfield uses MU readings; it would seem that safe operations would require MU based evaluation data for our aircraft at EGE to reliably evaluate a safe condition for landing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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	990086
Time
Date	201201
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZDV.ARTCC
State Reference	CO
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 90 Flight Crew Total 6000 Flight Crew Type 1900
Person 2
Function	Dispatcher
Qualification	Dispatch Dispatcher
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Other / Unknown Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown

Ege airport issues runway braking action reports in a cfm format but because the flight crew and dispatch had only mu numbers they could not accurately determine the braking action until the aircraft landed.