A new first

[bstratt]

Don't often get to do something I've never done before, but went flying today and landed at an airport that reported NIL braking on the runway - it was sheet ice for about 75% of the length. Xwind was 10-20 degrees off and running 12-16kts. Came in with particular concentration on airspeed and was right on the numbers. Touched down lightly - no brakes - pulled the power and let the plane slow down using steering/rudder only for control. Then taxiied VERY slowly to the ramp (taxiway and ramp also ice covered). After refueling I couldn't do a runup - even with the brakes on full as soon as the rpm hit 1,500 the plane started sliding - I did my mag check at 1,200. Take off was a little touchy until I got enough airspeed for the rudder to be effective.

Neat to challenge your self again.

 

[ScottM]

Don't often get to do something I've never done before, but went flying today and landed at an airport that reported NIL braking on the runway - it was sheet ice for about 75% of the length. Xwind was 10-20 degrees off and running 12-16kts. Came in with particular concentration on airspeed and was right on the numbers. Touched down lightly - no brakes - pulled the power and let the plane slow down using steering/rudder only for control. Then taxiied VERY slowly to the ramp (taxiway and ramp also ice covered). After refueling I couldn't do a runup - even with the brakes on full as soon as the rpm hit 1,500 the plane started sliding - I did my mag check at 1,200. Take off was a little touchy until I got enough airspeed for the rudder to be effective.

Neat to challenge your self again.

A couple of years ago over at Dekalb airport I had a similiar expirience. A little scary, I kept thinking about bending the airplane and also looking foolish.

 

[poadeleted20]

Neat to challenge your self again.

I'm a big one for challenging yourself so as to maintain and sharpen your skills, but this is one challenge I'd pass up. If nothing else, can you imagine how it would have looked to see "Braking action reported 'nil' but pilot elected to land anyway" in the accident report after ending up in a snowbank? There would just be no good answers to the questions the investigator would ask.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I'm a big one for challenging yourself so as to maintain and sharpen your skills, but this is one challenge I'd pass up. If nothing else, can you imagine how it would have looked to see "Braking action reported 'nil' but pilot elected to land anyway" in the accident report after ending up in a snowbank? There would just be no good answers to the questions the investigator would ask.

I don't totally disagree, but for some of us no flying would take place in the winter otherwise. I believe risks can be managed properly in this instance, taking into account various factors.

 

[Richard]

You chose to land at an aprt which you had prior knowledge of NIL braking? This raises an interesting question:

If a civil aircraft was originally certified with wheel brakes installed does landing at an aprt reporting NIL braking action violate operating in compliance of the type certificate?

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't totally disagree, but for some of us no flying would take place in the winter otherwise. I believe risks can be managed properly in this instance, taking into account various factors.

That's like saying you have to fly in icing conditions or you couldn't go flying. In any event, how can you "manage" the risks of nil braking action, especially in a crosswind? You simply have no directional control at all once you slow down, and you have no way to stop.

 

[poadeleted20]

If a civil aircraft was originally certified with wheel brakes installed does landing at an aprt reporting NIL braking action violate operating in compliance of the type certificate?

I don't believe so, but I have no doubt the FAA would file careless/reckless charges if they caught you doing it, especially if you ended up in a snow drift.

 

[alaskaflyer]

That's like saying you have to fly in icing conditions or you couldn't go flying. In any event, how can you "manage" the risks of nil braking action, especially in a crosswind? You simply have no directional control at all once you slow down, and you have no way to stop.

No it isn't, the two are quite different.

But your comment about the crosswind conditions is well taken. In that crosswind I might not have attempted the landing. It depends on pilot skill, the width of the runway, the length of the runway, the plane I am flying and how heavy it is loaded, wind conditions....

And braking action is never "nil", despite the term the FAA uses. Barry managed to find some.

In a small airplane like a 172 or a Citabria, I never use the brakes on landing anyway for the typical long airport runway, unless requested to exit short. Wow, you can even taxi without brakes in a light plane at a low traffic airport.

I will be the first to admit I am not the world's best pilot, or even close. But I do these landings all the time, and it is nothing even remotely comparable to flying into known icing

Stick the landing (if you can't then go around and set up again) and fly the plane to the tiedown. Taxi at about 1 1/2 MPH. Don't fall on your butt when you step out of the door.

Or don't, if you as the PIC feel you can't do it safely. All I'm saying. If you have an accident, yes, you will be held responsible. Just like if you had an accident on a CAVU 80F and sunny day.

 

[Richard]

/SNIP/
All I'm saying. If you have an accident, yes, you will be held responsible. Just like if you had an accident on a CAVU 80F and sunny day.

In the former instance you flew into a known condition not favorable to flight safety. In the latter, there was no known condition. Not same.

 

[alaskaflyer]

In the former instance you flew into a known condition not favorable to flight safety....

Like flying into a known crosswind condition?

Or attempting an off-airport landing at an unimproved airstrip which might have moose or potholes lurking?

Or flying into class G visibility 1 mile and rain?

Departing an airport under special VFR?

Making a 0/0 instrument departure?

Like single person instrument approach into actual down to minimums?

Or, how about landing when runway braking is reported (instead of Nil) as poor? Or fair? Or reduced?

Which is more "unfavorable" for flight safety, making a ski landing on the tundra, or making a wheel landing on a wide 4800' asphalt runway reporting "Nil" braking action in an aircraft with a gross weight of only 2450 lbs?

It is all relative. You as the PIC decide what is safe. I personally would be safer landing a 172 in the described conditions at the top of this thread than doing many of the things that others (in other parts of the country) might be doing on a regular basis but seem intimidating to me.

Hey, if the next runway over is better, I'll land there instead

 

[bstratt]

I'm a big one for challenging yourself so as to maintain and sharpen your skills, but this is one challenge I'd pass up. If nothing else, can you imagine how it would have looked to see "Braking action reported 'nil' but pilot elected to land anyway" in the accident report after ending up in a snowbank? There would just be no good answers to the questions the investigator would ask.

Interesting. I never thought of it as "dangerous", merely challenging. I knew I had to be as slow as possible on touch down with no bounce and be ready for a quick application of power to go around if there was any hint of directional loss, not use brakes, etc.

Actually, Notams and ATC reported braking action "poor". It was the FBO I was talking to in the pattern that reported it as NIL. I watched a Mooney take off and a Cessna 172 land prior to my landing.

I must admit, in the back of my mind was a voice saying "You're going to look pretty stupid if you ground loop a tricycle gear".

 

[Dan Smith]

Interesting. I never thought of it as "dangerous", merely challenging. I knew I had to be as slow as possible on touch down with no bounce and be ready for a quick application of power to go around if there was any hint of directional loss, not use brakes, etc.

Just out of curiosity, what was the reason for landing there in the first place? Was this a work or pleasure flight, needing fuel, accepting a challenge, ...?

While I wouldn't call myself risk-averse, I've gotten increasingly selective on when I'll take it on. Without more details on your flight I'm not sure how I would have handled a nil-braking choice.

Dan

 

[ScottM]

I'm a big one for challenging yourself so as to maintain and sharpen your skills, but this is one challenge I'd pass up. If nothing else, can you imagine how it would have looked to see "Braking action reported 'nil' but pilot elected to land anyway" in the accident report after ending up in a snowbank? There would just be no good answers to the questions the investigator would ask.

Ice on the runway is a fact of life in the midwest and something you have to deal with all the time. I do try and avoid it but occasionally there are large aptches of ice. Just last week it rained all day and then the temp dropped to well below freezing, the runways all around were skating rinks.

 

[Missa]

Ice on the runway is a fact of life in the midwest and something you have to deal with all the time.

No kidding, last year I did my checkride on a 1/2 iced over runway with what I would have described as poor breaking. Infact 18 was a little better on the ice then 36 so we used it instead even though we ended up with a slight tailwind (1-2 knt)

Missa

 

[poadeleted20]

And braking action is never "nil", despite the term the FAA uses. Barry managed to find some.

I don't like trusting myself to that sort of thinking. "Nil" means the Mu value is anywhere from 0.25 down to 0.00. If Barry found "some," he was lucky, because there was no guarantee there'd be any, especially with "nil" being a more recent report direct from the airport manager.

In a small airplane like a 172 or a Citabria, I never use the brakes on landing anyway for the typical long airport runway, unless requested to exit short. Wow, you can even taxi without brakes in a light plane at a low traffic airport.

While drag will slow you on a dry runway, there's a lot less of it on an icy one, and you need some grip to turn the plane.

Or don't, if you as the PIC feel you can't do it safely. All I'm saying. If you have an accident, yes, you will be held responsible. Just like if you had an accident on a CAVU 80F and sunny day.

That's flatly absurd. The FAA will have no trouble at all convincing an ALJ that the decision to land on a runway with braking action reported nil was careless reckless if it resulted in an off-runway excursion with absolutely no evidence against the pilot other than his receipt of that report. OTOH, they wouldn't have a chance in the world of making the same case in the same instance if the runway was clear and dry. Yes, you may be held responsible for the accident in the latter case, but you will have a fighting chance to show that you were not, and you will not have your certificate suspended and a violation on your record without other evidence against you. In the former case, you will be held responsible, and you almost certainly will have a violation and suspension on the basis of the braking action report alone.

 

[poadeleted20]

Like flying into a known crosswind condition?

A crosswind of a known value is a risk which may be objectively evaluated against the pilot's skill and the aircraft's capabilities. Since a braking action report of "nil" may mean a mu value of zero, you have no objective way to evaluate whether you can control your aircraft and stop.

Or attempting an off-airport landing at an unimproved airstrip which might have moose or potholes lurking?

There are a number of things you can do to evaluate the strip before landing.

Or flying into class G visibility 1 mile and rain?

Not something I recommend. I almost got killed by some moron doing that one time.

Departing an airport under special VFR?

Again, measurable conditions which are amenable to objective review.

Making a 0/0 instrument departure?

A true zero-zero departure is an obscene risk -- you can't even tell if someone landed, stopped, and couldn't taxi off the runway.

Like single person instrument approach into actual down to minimums?

Something which every instrument pilot is trained, tested, and certified to do.

Or, how about landing when runway braking is reported (instead of Nil) as poor? Or fair? Or reduced?

In all those other cases, there is an assurance of some braking effectiveness -- with "nil," there is not.

Which is more "unfavorable" for flight safety, making a ski landing on the tundra, or making a wheel landing on a wide 4800' asphalt runway reporting "Nil" braking action in an aircraft with a gross weight of only 2450 lbs?

I don't know enough about ski landings to make that judgement, but I suspect it's the latter.

It is all relative. You as the PIC decide what is safe. I personally would be safer landing a 172 in the described conditions at the top of this thread than doing many of the things that others (in other parts of the country) might be doing on a regular basis but seem intimidating to me.

Then I have to question whether your judgement is up to the standards the FAA wants.

Hey, if the next runway over is better, I'll land there instead

Well, that's a much better idea, but if the next runway over isn't better, would keep going until you find another one that is? That's the true test of a pilot's ability to let reason defeat desire.

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually, Notams and ATC reported braking action "poor". It was the FBO I was talking to in the pattern that reported it as NIL. I watched a Mooney take off and a Cessna 172 land prior to my landing.

That's a bit different -- clearly there was some traction available. I'm not sure I like that 172 pilot's decision to land unless he watched someone else do it, but being able to observe a test of the conditions by another plane certainly changes the situation. No doubt you would have diverted if he'd ended up off the runway.

I must admit, in the back of my mind was a voice saying "You're going to look pretty stupid if you ground loop a tricycle gear".

Have you ever thought that the back of your mind may be smarter than the front?

 

[alaskaflyer]

Well, Ron, as always I am humbled by others' experience on here and on the red board, and I always hesitate debating those of you that are better pilots than I am. And no, I am not being sarcastic, I mean it

Your advice is well taken. My point below is all those examples require a judgement call by the pilot, have the potential to hurt you, and are perfectly legal and accomplished all the time by pilots of varying abilities. Just like landing a small plane on a runway covered by ice and reported by the person sitting next to the radio in the FBO as "nil."

My home strip is snow covered gravel in the winter. After a few days of melt freeze with no snow it turns to ice glaze. It is 3000' by about 70' wide. Wind is usually right down the (theoretical) numbers, one direction or the other. My neighbor and I operate his Citabria out of it in all conditions (except for deeper snow) with no problem. I've noticed the landings are no more challenging than the typical tailwheel landing except for the requirement to keep off the brakes. My alternate about 15 nautical miles away is a 3000' by 60' paved uncontrolled airport runway which is plowed, but never sanded or salted, and is usually slick as snot. I would characterize braking action there as poor much of the time. Twin Navajos operate out of there. My next alternate (50 nm) is similar, slick as snot but a bit longer. The governor's jet landed there on Saturday. My next alternate is Fairbanks International, which was likely where I launched from to come home in the first place!

Whether you are in my circumstance or in the Midwest, you cannot simply say bad ice=no flying. If you can do it, do it. If you can't - stay home. (If you can't shoot an ILS to minimums, stay home. If you can't tackle a 12 knot crosswind component, stay home. If you can't do a instrument departure, stay home. And so on...)

 

[jesse]

Blahbedey Blah.. Blah.

Seriously. I'm going to take a rep hit for this one, But I don't really care. Keep in mind everything that I'm writing is strictly my opinion. I'm not PREACHING to anyone, I'm simply saying how I feel, as you all did. When I say "you" I'm not referring to anyone here in general, infact my writing here can apply to so many things. Simply replace "ice" with "high wind" or anything really.

I've had this same debate before, and unless you are operating in an area to where you have two choices:
1.) Don't fly.
2.) Land on ice

You really have no business questioning another pilot's judgement on landing on ice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with landing on glare ice, I have done it myself more times then I can count. Guess what? I'm still alive. I've never even came CLOSE to busting an airplane up, I've never had an issue. An airplane will do what I want, for I give it no choice.

There is a very fine line in aviation, and learning how to dance this line, will make you a superior pilot. This line is pretty simple.

On one side you have the conservative fly-by-the-book pilot. They'll never do anything other then what was asked of them on the PTS. They'll never be a better pilot either, the day they passed their checkride. That will be the BEST they'll ever be.
On the other side of this line, you have the challenge. The thing that has incresased risk. If you operate in this area, your skill factor increases. Guess what happend with this line now? Now that line has moved over to where what was once a challenge is no longer a challenge and you can do it safely all day long.

Think back to the days to where you were a student pilot. Your first takeoff, your first landing, your first crosswind, your first solo. Were those things challenges to you? Damn right. Was the chance of an accident as a student pilot greater than a licensed pilot? Damn right.

Eventually you got to the point to where those things are no longer a challenge, the increased chance of an accident has dwindled and you can safely perform these tasks.

Landing on ice, Flying low on the deck, aerobatics, etc. All of these are the same way. If you never accept that increased risk and do these, you'll never be able to do them.

Throughout my entire primary training. I accepted from day one that I was going to teach myself to fly. I'm paying the CFI to make sure I don't bust up the airplane in the process. Eventually my skill factor was to the point to where there was no point in paying this CFI anymore, as I would not bust up the airplane.
When I received my PPL, I still did not consider myself a good pilot. Hell, I still don't. I knew I still had a ton of things to learn, I wasn't able to make an airplane do exactly what I wanted. I continuted to constantly push myself, and I am a superior pilot now. Many of these things that I do to make myself a better pilot some people would say is "reckless", simply because they do not do it. Whereas the people that do it, say there is absolutely no increased risk and you are an idiot for not practicing in such a manner.


So. You have those pilots out there who will takeoff and land on glare ice all day long, and you have those pilots who will not. (This ice situation can apply to everything....major winds..etc). These pilots that will fly on it, have absolutely no issue with it. So, You can just sit inside the FBO and watch them fly. It's your call. Don't question their judgement and they will not laugh at you for missing a perfectly good day.

Fly safe.

 

[CowboyPilot]

Blahbedey Blah.. Blah.

I've never had an issue. An airplane will do what I want, for I give it no choice.

Should the court records ever become unsealed, per the settlement agreement, you, Jesse, should read the NTSB's account of a near-fatal crash I had when I had logged just a tad bit over a thousand hours. When you see some of the failures, you might rethink your "I give it no choice" statement.

This is precisely the kind of bravado that creates smoking holes in the ground and keeps the aviation theory of Darwinism alive and well.

There is a very fine line in aviation, and learning how to dance this line, will make you a superior pilot. This line is pretty simple.

On one side you have the conservative fly-by-the-book pilot. They'll never do anything other then what was asked of them on the PTS. They'll never be a better pilot either, the day they passed their checkride. That will be the BEST they'll ever be.

You have old pilots, and you have bold pilots. But you have damned few old, bold pilots.

On the other side of this line, you have the challenge. The thing that has incresased risk. If you operate in this area, your skill factor increases. Guess what happend with this line now? Now that line has moved over to where what was once a challenge is no longer a challenge and you can do it safely all day long.

Too much "Top Gun" and "Iron Eagles" television.

Question: Do you openly share your opinions and methods with your insurance agent and underwriter?

-JD
5000+ hours old, but certainly not bold.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That's flatly absurd. The FAA will have no trouble at all convincing an ALJ that the decision to land on a runway with braking action reported nil was careless reckless if it resulted in an off-runway excursion with absolutely no evidence against the pilot other than his receipt of that report.

Ron,

Since you know where to find these things... Did you ever see an action against the RJ pilot that ran off the runway at MSN last year in exactly the above situation?

According to the line guys who were working at the time, a Northwest flight (they fly A319's and DC-9's into MSN) landed on 36, deployed the thrust reversers as usual, retracted, and then redeployed them again, highly unusual. They reported "braking action nil" to the tower. 10 or 15 minutes later, RJ checks in, tower advises them "braking action nil," RJ lands anyway, slides down all 9000 feet of runway and ends up in the runway 18 approach lights. No injuries, but surely a bunch of unhappy passengers. (Hopefully the above is enough to find that particular incident.)

 

[kath]

I would like to learn to land on ice. It's a skill I can imagine would be very useful where I fly. I'd like to learn this under the care of a good instructor who knows a lot about the subject. No way I'm going to go out and try this on my own. So I guess I'd put this activity in the same category as "spins."

--Kath

 

[poadeleted20]

Since you know where to find these things... Did you ever see an action against the RJ pilot that ran off the runway at MSN last year in exactly the above situation?

No. I can't find any NTSB Orders with the key words "Madison," "braking action," or "nil" that fit the description, but it would only be listed on-line if the pilot appealed the action to the NTSB. Also, there's no record in the NTSB database of any Part 121 or jet accidents or incidents at Madison WI in the last five years.