Advisory Circular (AC) No. 700-057

Subject: Global Reporting Format (GRF) for Runway Surface Conditions: Guidance for Flight Operations

Issuing Office:	Civil Aviation, Standards
Document No.:	AC 700-057
File Classification No.:	Z 5000-34
Issue No.:	01
RDIMS No.:	16678342 - V58
Effective Date:	2021-06-01

1.0 Introduction
2.0 References and requirements
3.0 Background
- 3.1 General
- 3.2 Structure of this Advisory Circular
4.0 Components of the Global Reporting Format (GRF) in Canada
5.0 Runway surface condition (RSC) NOTAM
6.0 Conclusion
7.0 Information management
8.0 Document history
9.0 Contact us
Appendix A – Reporting by runway thirds
Appendix B – Runway condition codes
Appendix C – Risks associated with wet conditions and standing water
Appendix D – Low friction “slippery when wet” runways
Appendix E – Landing performance assessments at time of arrival
Appendix F –Take-offs on wet and contaminated runways

1.0 Introduction

(1) This Advisory Circular (AC) is provided for information and guidance purposes. It describes an example of an acceptable means, but not the only means, of demonstrating compliance with regulations and standards. This AC on its own does not change, create, amend or permit deviations from regulatory requirements, nor does it establish minimum standards.

1.1 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this document is to introduce and explain the forthcoming Canadian implementation of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Global Reporting Format (GRF) for runway surface condition reporting.

(2) This document is also intended to highlight the risks associated with operations on wet and contaminated runways and how these risks are mitigated to prevent runway overruns.

(3) This document is intended for the use of flight operations personnel including pilots, flight dispatchers, and other personnel employed by air operators, private operators, foreign air operators and flight training units. The provision of corresponding guidance material for airport and aerodrome operators is provided in AC 300-019 – Global Reporting Format (GRF) for Runway Surface Condition Reporting.

(4) This document is also being made available to the aviation industry for the purpose of conveying flight safety information.

1.2 Applicability

(1) This document is applicable to:

(a) Canadian air operators holding an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) issued under Part VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs);
(b) Canadian private operators holding a Private Operator Registration Document (PORD) issued under subpart 604 of the CARs;
(c) foreign air operators, holding a Canadian Foreign Air Operator Certificate (FOAC), issued under subpart 701 of the CARs;
(d) flight training units;
(e) pilots, flight dispatchers and other operations personnel including, but not limited to those employed by the air operators, private operators, foreign air operators and flight training units listed above;
(f) Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) inspectors with certification and safety oversight responsibilities;
(g) individuals and organizations that exercise privileges granted to them under an External Ministerial Delegation of Authority; and
(h) This document is also applicable to the aviation industry at large for information purposes. Its content is of particular interest to Canadian airport and aerodrome operators.

1.3 Description of changes

(1) Not applicable.

2.0 References and requirements

2.1 Reference documents

(1) It is intended that the following reference materials be used in conjunction with this document:

(a) Aeronautics Act (R.S., 1985, c. A-2);
(b) Part III, Subpart 01 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) — Aerodromes;
(c) Part III, Subpart 02 of the CARs — Airports;
(d) Part VI, Subpart 02 of the CARs — General Operating and Flight Rules;
(e) Part VII of the CARs — Commercial Air Services;
(f) Transport Canada Publication, TP 312, 5th Edition — Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices;
(g) Transport Canada Publication, TP 14371 (2021-1) – Aeronautical Information Manual;
(h) Advisory Circular (AC) 300-005 — Changes to Runway Surface Condition Reporting;
(i) AC 302-013 — Airport Winter Maintenance and Planning;
(j) AC 302-017 — Runway Friction Measurement;
(k) AC 300-019 — Global Reporting Format (GRF) for Runway Surface Condition Reporting;
(l) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) AC 150/5200-28F, 2016-12-30 — Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) for Airport Operators;
(m) FAA AC 150/5200-30D, 2018-03-08 — Airport Field Condition Assessments and Winter Operations Safety;
(n) FAA AC 150/5320-12C Measurement, Construction and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces;
(o) FAA AC 25-7D — Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes;
(p) FAA AC 25-31 — Takeoff Performance Data for Operations on Contaminated Runways;
(q) FAA AC 25-32 — Landing Performance Data for Time-of-Arrival Landing Performance Assessments;
(r) FAA AC 91-79a — Mitigating the Risks of a Runway Overrun Upon landing;
(s) FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 19001 — Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival;
(t) FAA SAFO 19003 — Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways;
(u) FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 4 Chapter 3 Section 1 Safety Assurance System: Airplane Performance Computation Rules, paragraph 4-494 Takeoff From a Runway which is Wet or Contaminated, and paragraph 4-503 Landing Distances at the Time of Arrival;
(v) FAA Order 7930.2R — Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs);
(w) FAA Takeoff Safety Training Aid (Updated 2004);
(x) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation — International Standards and Recommend Practices: Aerodromes – Volume I Aerodrome Design and Operations (Eighth Edition, July 2018);
(y) ICAO Circular 355 AN/211 — Assessment, Measurement and Reporting of Runway Surface Conditions (Advance edition (unedited);
(z) ICAO Doc 9981 Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aerodromes (Second Edition, 2016);
(aa) ICAO Amendment 2 to Doc 9981 Procedures for Air Navigation Services, 2018-11-08 — Aerodromes;
(bb) ICAO Doc 10064 – Aeroplane Performance Manual;
(cc) NAV CANADA — Canadian NOTAM Operating Procedures (CNOP);
(dd) Transportation Safety Board (TSB), Aviation Investigation Report Numbers: A10H0004, A04O0188, A08O0035, A08Q0171,A10A0032, A98Q0192;
(ee) ASTM 3188 — Standard Terminology for Aircraft Braking Performance.

2.2 Cancelled documents

(1) Not applicable.

(2) By default, it is understood that the publication of a new issue of a document automatically renders any earlier issues of the same document null and void.

2.3 Definitions and abbreviations

(1) The following definitions are used in this document:

(a) Aerodrome: means any area of land, water (including the frozen surface thereof) or other supporting surface used, designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment situated thereon or associated therewith.
(b) Aeroplane ground deceleration devices: means any devices used to aid in the onset or rate of aeroplane deceleration on the ground during the landing roll out. These would include, but are not limited to: brakes (either manual braking or autobrakes), spoilers, and thrust reversers.
(c) Aircraft Movement Surface Condition Report (AMSCR): means a report that details the surface conditions of all movement areas at an airport, including runways and taxiways.
(d) Air distance: means the distance from a height of 50 feet above the landing surface to the point of main gear touchdown.
(e) Airport: means an aerodrome in respect of which a Canadian aviation document is in force.
(f) Airworthiness standards: means, for the purpose this AC, the regulatory basis upon which an aircraft type certificate is issued.
(g) Canadian Runway Friction Index (CRFI): means the average of the friction measurements taken on runway surfaces on which freezing or frozen contaminants are present.
(h) Cleared width: means the narrowest portion of the runway width that has been cleared of loose contaminants. (See remaining width.)
(i) Compacted snow: means snow that has been compacted into a solid mass such that aeroplane tires, at operating pressures and loadings, will run on the surface without significant further compaction or rutting of the surface.
(j) Contaminant: means material that collects on a surface, including standing water, snow, slush, compacted snow, ice, frost, sand, and ice control chemicals.
(k) Contaminated runway: A runway is contaminated when a significant portion of the runway surface area (whether in isolated areas or not) within the length and width being used is covered by one or more of the following substances: compacted snow, dry snow, frost, ice, slush, standing water, wet ice or wet snow.
Notes:
- 1. For purposes of aeroplane performance, a runway is considered contaminated when more than 25 percent of the runway surface area (within the reported length and the width being used) is covered.
- 2. Sand and ice control chemicals are also contaminants but are not included in the definition of contaminated runway because their effect on runway surface friction characteristics and the runway condition code cannot be evaluated in a standardized manner.
(l) Dry: means a surface condition that is free of visible moisture, and has no observed contaminants.
(m) Dry snow: means snow that does not contain sufficient water to allow the crystals to stick together or bond to a surface. (Dry snow, when compressed, falls apart, and a snowball cannot readily be made from it.)
(n) Factored landing distance: means, for the purpose of this AC, the Unfactored Certificated Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Landing Distance adjusted by the applicable preflight (dispatch limitation) factors specified in Sections 704.49 and 705.60 of the CARs. (e.g. For a turbojet, the factored landing distance for a dry runway is determined by multiplying the Unfactored Certificated Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Landing Distance by 1.67.)
(o) Frost: means ice crystals formed from airborne moisture on a surface whose temperature is below freezing. Frost differs from ice in that the frost crystals grow independently and therefore have a more granular texture.
Notes:
- 1. Below freezing refers to air temperature equal to or less than the freezing point of water (0°C).
- 2. Heavy frost that has noticeable depth may have friction qualities similar to ice and downgrading the runway condition code accordingly should be considered. If driving a vehicle over the frost does not result in tire tracks down to bare pavement, the frost may be of sufficient depth to consider a downgrade of the runway condition code.
(p) Grooved runway: means a runway with closely space transverse grooves on the runway surface, which allow rain water to escape from beneath tires of an aircraft.
(q) Ice: means water that has frozen on a surface and includes the condition commonly known as black ice and the condition in which compacted snow has turned into a polished ice surface.
(r) Ice control chemicals: means chemicals used to prevent ice formation, to prevent ice from bonding to a surface, or to break up or melt ice on a surface.
(s) Landing distance at time of arrival: means landing distances that are intended to provide a more accurate assessment of actual landing distance at time of arrival, considering factors that cannot be accurately predicted at time of preflight, such as runway contaminants, winds, speed additives, and touchdown points. These distances are advisory performance data (i.e., not required by regulation) and may be based upon the use of reverse thrust, ground spoilers, autobrakes, etc. The determination of this distance is initially performed when landing weather and field conditions are obtained, usually just prior to the top of descent (TOD).
(t) Landing distance available: means the length of the runway declared available and suitable for landing an aircraft.
(u) Localized conditions: means runway contaminants that reduce friction locally. i.e. in a small area(s) as opposed to a specific runway third(s) or an entire runway.
(v) Loose contaminants: means those contaminants that an aeroplane’s tire will not remain on the surface of without breaking through. Water, slush, wet snow, and dry snow are loose contaminants. For loose contaminants, the depth of the contaminant can affect both the aeroplane’s acceleration and deceleration capability.
(w) Operational landing distance: means, for the purpose of this AC, the landing distance at time of arrival (defined above).
(x) Operators: means, for the purpose of this AC, any air operator, foreign air operator or private operator.
(y) Patches: means, for the purpose of this AC, a localized condition (defined above) such as ice patches, compacted snow patches, or standing water patches. (z) Paved surface: means a surface of asphaltic concrete (flexible) or Portland cement concrete (rigid).
(aa) Percent coverage of contaminant: means the estimated amount of contaminant present on the surface of the runway and reported as percentage of the assessed surface.
(bb) Pilot Braking Action (Report): means the pilots' assessment of the aircraft’s maximum wheel braking capability on a wet or contaminated runway, and should reference the terminology and criteria in the Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM), Table 4. See also Reliable Pilot Braking Action Report, below.
(cc) Porous friction course runway: means a runway with an open graded, thin hot-mix asphalt surface. This permits rain water to permeate through the course and drain off transversely to the side of the runway, preventing water buildup on the surface and creating a relatively dry pavement condition during rainfall.
(dd) Rejected take-off: means a take-off that is discontinued after take-off thrust or power is set and initiation of the take-off roll has begun.
(ee) Reliable Pilot Braking Action Report: Items to be considered to determine if the braking action report is reliable:
- (i) Similar weight and class of aeroplane; for example, the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320, where the weight and gear track are similar, and
- (ii) Time since braking action report was given. For example, stable conditions with cold temperature and no active precipitation will likely be reliable for a longer time than reports provided during an active precipitation event with temperatures near 0°C.
- Notes:
  - 1. Pilot education and training may be required to ensure consistent and accurate reporting.
  - 2. Stopping results do not necessarily correlate to braking action. For propeller driven aeroplanes, the effects of reverse pitch and/or discing – while certainly beneficial to stopping performance – should not be part of a braking action report (which should only describe the effectiveness of the wheel brakes).
(ff) Remaining width: means the un-cleared portion of the runway. (See cleared width.)
(gg) Runway condition assessment matrix: means a matrix allowing for the assessment of runway condition code from a set of observed runway surface condition(s).
(hh) Runway condition code: means a number describing the runway surface condition.
(ii) Runway excursion: means a veer off (sideways off the runway edge) or overrun (see below) from the runway surface during a take-off or landing.
(jj) Runway overrun: means a type of runway excursion during a landing or rejected take-off where an aircraft is unable to execute a complete stop before the end of the runway.
(kk) Runway surface condition: means, for the purpose of this AC, the state of the runway surface: dry, wet, contaminated or slippery when wet.
(ll) Sand: means small particles of crushed angular mineral aggregates or natural sand material used to improve runway surface friction levels.
(mm) Significant change: means, with respect to runway surface condition includes, but is not limited to: changes in type of contaminant, such as from dry snow to wet snow, measurable changes in depth of contaminant, following the application or removal of sand or chemicals, following snow removal or sweeping; changes in conditions caused by rapid increases or decreases in temperature.
(nn) Slippery when wet runway: means a wet runway where the surface friction characteristics of the runway have been determined to be degraded.
Note: A runway or any portion of a runway is deemed as having low friction (e.g. due to rubber accumulation, surface texture degradation, etc.) when the friction measurements (as measured by a continuous friction measuring device in accordance with AC 302-017) are below the minimum coefficient of friction specified in TP 312.
(oo) Slush: means partially melted snow or ice, with a high water content, from which water readily flows. (Slush will spatter if stepped on forcefully, and water will drain from slush when a handful is picked up.)
(pp) Smooth runway: means a runway which does not have a grooved or PFC surface.
(qq) Snow bank: means a heap or mound of snow created mechanically that is higher than the surrounding snow cover, and is located:
- (i) next to or on the edge of a runway or taxiway; and/or
- (ii) next to or on the edge of the cleared area of a runway or taxiway
- Note: ‘Snow bank’ is used to describe accumulations which will remain over longer time periods; see ‘Windrow’ for shorter-term accumulations, such as those resulting from clearing operations in progress.
(rr) Snow drift: A heap or mound of snow created by action of the wind.
(ss) Solid contaminants: means those contaminants that an aeroplane’s tire will remain on top of and not break through. Compacted snow and ice are solid contaminants. For solid contaminants, the depth of the contaminant does not affect the aeroplane’s acceleration and deceleration capability.
(tt) Standing water: means water of depth greater than 1/8 inch (3 mm).
(uu) Takeoff and landing performance assessment (TALPA): means, for the purpose of this AC, the recommendations of the TALPA ARC, including a format for reporting runway surface conditions and methods for developing and presenting aeroplane performance information for use by flight crews.
(vv) Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee (TALPA ARC): means a committee, formed by the US FAA to address issues associated with landing operations at the time of arrival and with take-off on non-dry, non-wet runways.
(ww) TALPA-based performance information: means, for the purpose of this AC, aeroplane performance information developed in accordance with the methods recommended by the TALPA ARC, as specified in FAA AC 25-31 – Takeoff Performance Data for Operations on Contaminated Runways or FAA AC 25-32— Landing Performance Data for Time-of-Arrival Landing Performance Assessments.
Note: In this AC, the terms “performance information” and “performance data” are used interchangeably, depending on the reference being cited.
(xx) Time of arrival: means, for the purpose of this AC, a point in time close enough to the destination (airport or aerodrome) to allow the flight crew to obtain the most current meteorological and runway surface conditions considering pilot workload and traffic surveillance, but no later than the commencement of the approach procedures or visual approach pattern.
(yy) Top of descent: means the point at which descent is fist initiated from cruise altitude.
(zz) Transport category aeroplane: means an aeroplane certified under:
- (i) Canadian Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 525 – Transport Category Aeroplanes;
- (ii) United States, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 25 – Airworthiness Standards Transport Category Airplanes; or
- (iii) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes (CS) – 25
(aaa) Unfactored certificated Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) landing distance: means the landing distance required by the airworthiness standards without any factors applied. These landing distances are determined in a way that represents the maximum performance capability of the aeroplane, which may not be representative of normal operations.
(bbb) Wet: means a surface condition where there is any visible dampness or water up to and including 1/8 inch (3 mm) deep.
(ccc) Watchlist: means a list of safety issues identified by the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) identifies the key safety issues that need to be addressed to make Canada’s transportation system even safer.
(ddd) Wet ice: means ice with water on top of it or ice that is melting.
(eee) Wet snow: means snow that will stick together when compressed but will not readily allow water to flow from it if squeezed. (Wet snow contains enough water to be able to make a well-compacted, solid snowball, but water will not squeeze out.)
(fff) Windrow: means a ridge of material, such as snow or gravel, created by airside maintenance equipment.
Note: A windrow is typically temporary in nature, having been formed during clearing operations with the intent of subsequent removal in the near-term (either ploughed/swept to the runway edge or graded for gravel runways.

(2) The following abbreviations are used in this document:

(a) AC: Advisory Circular;
(b) AFM: Aircraft Flight Manual;
(c) AMSCR: Aircraft Movement Surface Condition Report;
(d) ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials;
(e) AWMS: Airport Winter Maintenance Standard;
(f) CARs: Canadian Aviation Regulations;
(g) CFPS: Collaborative Flight Planning Services (NAV CANADA);
(h) CL: Centreline;
(i) CRFI: Canadian Runway Friction Index;
(j) FAA: Federal Aviation Administration (United States);
(k) FICON: Field Condition NOTAM (United States);
(l) GRF: Global Reporting Format;
(m) ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization;
(n) LDF: Landing Distance Factor;
(o) NOTAM: Notice to Airmen;
(p) NR: Not Reported (applies to CRFI reports);
(q) NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board (United States);
(r) OLD: Operational Landing Distance ;
(s) PFC: Porous Friction Course (Runway)
(t) PIREP: For the purpose of this AC, PIREP means a pilot report of braking action which reflects the pilots' assessment of the available wheel braking;
(u) RCAM: Runway Condition Assessment Matrix;
(v) RTO: Rejected Take-Off;
(w) RSC: Runway Surface Condition;
(x) RWY: Runway;
(y) RWYCC: Runway Condition Code;
(z) SAFO: Safety Alert for Operators (Issued by FAA);
(aa) TALPA: Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment;
(bb) TALPA ARC: Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee;
(cc) TCCA: Transport Canada Civil Aviation;
(dd) TOD: Top of Descent;
(ee) TP: Transport Canada Publication;
(ff) TSB: Transportation Safety Board (Canada);
(gg) TWY: Taxiway.

3.0 Background

3.1 General

(1) The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has developed a new globally harmonized methodology for runway condition assessment and reporting. This internationally accepted methodology is called the Global Reporting Format (GRF). The implementation date for GRF in Canada is August 12th, 2021.

(2) The Global Reporting Format (GRF) and associated developments are important safety initiatives intended to mitigate:

(a) the hazards associated with operations on wet or contaminated runways; and
(b) the associated risks of runway excursions (i.e. runway overruns and lateral excursions).

(3) The hazards and risks associated with aircraft operations on runways that are wet or contaminated with water, slush, snow, compacted snow, frost or ice – and the numerous accidents that have occurred during these conditions – are well-known and have been thoroughly documented.

(4) In Canada, these accidents have included several Transport Category aircraft types including the Airbus A340, Embraer 145, Boeing 727, and Boeing 737 as well as a variety of other aircraft. The potential risks associated with landings on wet or contaminated runways are illustrated by the following condensed excerpts from several TSB’s Aviation Investigation Reports:

(a) Following touchdown, the flight crew were unable to stop the aircraft prior to the end of the runway. The aircraft came to rest in deep mud, the nose wheel approximately 340 feet beyond the runway end and 140 feet beyond the edge of the paved runway... The presence of standing water on the runway caused the aircraft to hydroplane, which led to a loss of directional control and braking ability, significantly increasing the required stopping distance.
(b) The aircraft came to rest 550 feet off the end... and 220 feet to the left of the runway centerline. Light rain started to fall again approximately 12 minutes before the accident...The smooth landing on a wet runway led to viscous hydroplaning, which resulted in poor braking action and reduced aircraft deceleration, contributing to the runway overrun.
(c) The aircraft was not able to stop on the 9000-foot runway and departed the far end at a groundspeed of about 80 knots... The crew was not aware of the landing distance required to land safely on a contaminated runway.

(5) Runway overruns have been on the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) Watchlist since 2010. The TSB has stated “Snow, rain, and ice affect runway surface conditions. Pilots need timely and accurate information about runway surface conditions in all seasons to calculate the distance their aircraft needs to land safely.”

(6) There have also been a number of take-off accidents that occurred on wet and contaminated runways. The FAA Takeoff Safety Training Aid provides an analysis of 97 rejected take-off (RTO) overrun accidents and incidents for the western built jet transport fleet, which resulted in more than 400 fatalities. It states: Studies of the… 97 accidents/incidents have revealed some interesting statistics… Approximately one third were reported as having occurred on runways that were wet or contaminated with snow or ice.

(7) After a Boeing 737-700 runway overrun accident at Chicago Midway Airport, which occurred on December 8, 2005, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) convened the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The goal of this committee was to consider safety issues associated with take-off and landing on wet and contaminated runways. Participants included aircraft manufacturers, air operators, airport operators, industry associations (pilot associations, airport associations, etc.), the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board as well as the US FAA, Transport Canada and other civil aviation authorities.

(8) The TALPA ARC discovered significant gaps in the methods used for reporting runway surface conditions and the performance information used by flight crews. The TALPA ARC developed recommendations to address these shortcomings, which were delivered to the FAA in July 2009. These recommendations included the development of consistent terminology and runway assessment criteria, presented in a standardized format which would be used by:

(a) airport operators for the reporting of runway surface conditions;
(b) aircraft manufacturers for the development of performance information that is based on improved methods (i.e. TALPA-based performance information); and
(c) flight crews who utilize the reported runway surface conditions and TALPA-based performance information when determining take-off and landing performance assessments.

(9) At the core of these recommendations was the concept of using a matrix to map the equivalency between standard runway conditions, airport reporting codes, braking action reports, and aircraft performance engineering guidance. Known as the Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM,) this guide is used to harmonize airport observations with time of landing performance assessments made by the flight crew, providing a significant advancement over the previous performance methods and practices.

(10) The FAA made numerous changes on the basis of these recommendations of the committee; these have collectively come to be known as “TALPA.”

Note: The FAA orders and guidance material which resulted from the TALPA ARC’s recommendations are listed in Section 2.1 – Reference Documents.

(11) The major manufacturers of Transport Category aeroplanes have produced performance information that is based on the TALPA methods. This TALPA-based performance information addresses operations on wet and contaminated runways and provides a significant advancement over the previous performance methods and practices.

(12) The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has mandated a Global Reporting Format (GRF) which incorporates many of the significant safety enhancements that resulted from the TALPA ARC. ICAO Annex 14, Attachment A, Guidance Material Supplementary to Annex 14, Volume 1, Section 6.2 specifies runway condition reporting which includes:

(a) an agreed set of criteria used in a consistent manner for runway surface condition assessment, aeroplane (performance) certification and operational performance calculation;
(b) a unique runway condition code (RWYCC) linking the agreed set of criteria… and related to the braking action experienced and eventually reported by flight crews;
(c) reporting of contaminant type and depth that is relevant to take-off performance;
(d) a standardized common terminology and phraseology for the description of runway surface conditions that can be used by aerodrome operator inspection personnel, air traffic controllers, aircraft operators and flight crew; and
(e) globally-harmonized procedures for the establishment of the RWYCC with a built-in flexibility to allow for local variations to match the specific weather, infrastructure and other particular conditions.

(13) Canadian implementation will meet the intent and important safety elements of the GRF and will also provide some enhancements. One of the main differences from the ICAO format is the ability to report two contaminants (per runway third; or for the entire runway, when reporting by full runway length). Reporting two contaminants:

(a) Allows pilots and flight dispatchers to accurately determine the maximum allowable take-off weight – since the limiting contaminant is not the same for all aeroplanes; and
(b) Harmonizes the reporting in North America, since the United States Field Condition NOTAM (FICON) also lists two contaminants.

(14) In preparation for the implementation of GRF in Canada, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) has developed the new runway condition reporting methods which are described in this AC.

(15) NAV CANADA is updating its technology and software to meet these new TCCA requirements.

(16) An initial round of trials was conducted at select airports during the winter of 2019/2020 to obtain stakeholder feedback on the guidance for airport and aerodrome operators, the new AMSCR form and a preliminary version of the new Canadian GRF software which had been developed. An additional operational readiness evaluation was conducted at select airports during the winter of 2020/2021 to demonstrate the new Canadian reporting software.

This photograph shows a snow covered Boeing 737 which has overrun a runway and is now blocking a roadway.

Figure 1 – The December 8, 2005 B737-700 accident at Chicago Midway airport resulted in the TALPA ARC, an important safety initiative to address operations on wet and contaminated runways that ultimately led to the Global Reporting Format.

3.2 Structure of this Advisory Circular

(1) In order to meet the objectives outlined in Section 1.1, and to help the reader to locate and focus on specific areas of interest, this AC makes extensive use of appendices.

(2) The main body of the AC provides background information as well as the essential information needed to read and understand the new Global Reporting Format (GRF) for runway surface conditions.

(3) The appendices provide more detailed explanations of various aspects of GRF as well as important safety information related to operations on wet and contaminated runways:

(a) Appendix A – Reporting by Thirds;
(b) Appendix B – Runway Condition Codes;
(c) Appendix C – Risks Associated with Wet Runways and Standing Water;
(d) Appendix D – Low Friction “Slippery When Wet” Runways;
(e) Appendix E – Landing Performance Assessment at Time of Arrival;
(f) Appendix F – Take-offs on Wet and Contaminated Runways.

(4) Pilots and operators are advised to review the Overview which appears at the beginning of each appendix to determine the applicability of the information and guidance presented for their individual requirements.

4.0 Components of the Global Reporting Format (GRF) in Canada

4.1 General

(1) The Global Reporting Format (GRF) is an internationally accepted concept which utilizes a consistent method to report runway surface conditions. The GRF consists of five fundamental elements:

(a) Aircraft movement surface condition report (AMSCR) and Runway Surface Condition (RSC) NOTAM;
(b) Runway condition assessment matrix (RCAM);
(c) Runway condition code (RWYCC);
(d) Runway surface conditions; and
(e) Runway surface descriptions.

4.2 Aircraft Movement Surface Condition Report (AMSCR) and runway surface condition (RSC) NOTAM.

(1) Consistent with the principles of the GRF, the AMSCR and RSC NOTAM have been specially designed to align with the aeroplane performance information (based on TALPA methods) which is used by pilots.

4.3 Runway condition assessment matrix (RCAM)

(1) The RCAM is used to determine a runway condition code, from a set of observed runway surface condition(s).

4.4 Runway condition code (RWYCC)

(1) The runway condition code (RWYCC) is a number which represents the slipperiness of the runway and provides a standardized "shorthand" for providing this information to pilots.

(2) Information on RWYCCs is provided in Section 5.5 and Appendix B.

4.5 Runway surface conditions

(1) There are four defined runway surface conditions:

(a) Dry runway;
(b) Wet runway;
(c) Slippery when wet runway; and
(d) Contaminated runway.

(2) The runway surface conditions are further sub-divided into runway surface descriptions, which describe the specific details of a runway surface.

(3) Information on runway surface descriptions is provided in Section 5.6 of the AC.

5.0 Runway surface condition (RSC) NOTAM

5.1 General

(1) Caution: The information contained in Section 5 is effective after the implementation date of GRF which is planned for August 12, 2021.

(2) A complete RSC NOTAM includes the following information:

(a) NOTAM information;
(b) RSC information including:
- (i) Runway in use designator, when reporting by thirds (e.g. RSC 33), or
- (ii) Full runway designator, when reporting by full runway length (e.g. RSC 07/25);
(c) Surface conditions for each runway, as applicable:
- (i) Runway condition code for each runway third (if applicable);
- (ii) Condition or contaminant(s) within the cleared width: percent coverage, depth (if applicable), and condition or type of contaminant for each third of the runway (if applicable);
- (iii) Condition of unpaved and partially paved runways: graded, packed and/or scarified (if applicable);
- (iv) Cleared width (if applicable);
- (v) Snow drifts, windrows and/or snow banks on the runway (where applicable);
- (vi) Localized conditions (when applicable);
- (vii) Treatments (when applicable);
- (viii) Conditions for remaining width (when applicable);
- (ix) Snow banks adjacent to runway (when applicable);
- (x) Runway remarks (when applicable);
- (xi) RSC validity time.
(d) CRFI Header: ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO;
(e) CRFI readings for each runway as applicable;
(f) Taxiway conditions;
(g) Apron conditions;
(h) General remarks, including next scheduled time of observation (where applicable).

(3) The above listed components of an RSC NOTAM are detailed in Sections 5.2 through 5.22, below. Each of these sections include:

(a) an explanation of the information provided;
(b) a description of the format used to present this information; and
(c) an example(s) of how this information is presented in an RSC NOTAM.

(4) Examples of complete RSC NOTAMs, which illustrate both a reporting by thirds and reporting by full runway length, are provided in Section 5.23 of the AC.

5.2 NOTAM information

(1) RSC NOTAMs are transmitted under:

(a) Series S for those aerodromes disseminated internationally (i.e. disseminated throughout the entire world, including Canada and the United States).
(b) Series A for those aerodromes disseminated International-USA (i.e. disseminated in Canada and the United States); and
(c) Series B for those aerodromes disseminated nationally (i.e. only within Canada).
Note: Knowing the NOTAM series allows an individual or organization to access the NOTAMs that pertain to their needs.

(2) Up to five items appear at the top of each RSC NOTAM, as explained below.

(3) The first line indicates the:

(a) NOTAM series (i.e. S, A or B);
(b) individual NOTAM number;
(c) year in which the NOTAM was issued; and
(d) type of NOTAM: “NOTAMN” which indicates a new NOTAM; or “NOTAMR” which indicates a replacement NOTAM.

Example: (B1667/20 NOTAMN

(4) Q): indicates information which is used for computer filtering purposes. This line is not always presented; whether or not this line is presented depends on how the NOTAM is accessed.

Example: Q) CZEG/QFAXX/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5156N11147W005

(5) A) indicates the subject aerodrome of the RSC NOTAM, for those aerodromes with alphabetical identifiers Format: A) CAAA.

Note: For aerodromes with alphanumeric identifier identifiers, “CXXX” will appear in Item A and additional information (described below) will be provided in Item E).

(6) B): indicates the time that the RSC NOTAM was issued. Format: B) YYMMDDHHMM.

(7) C): indicates the end time of the NOTAM. Format: C) YYMMDDHHMM.

Note: The RSC NOTAM includes individual reports of the runway surface conditions (i.e. individual AMSCRs) for each of the runways at that aerodrome. Each of these AMSCRs has a validity period which is valid for that specific runway. Therefore, the validity period of the RSC NOTAM does not indicate the validity period of each runway within the RSC NOTAM.

(8) E): contains the runway surface condition (RSC) information for the runways (AMSCRs) at the subject aerodrome. Example: RSC 04…

(9) For aerodromes with an alphanumeric identifier, the subject aerodrome’s identifier and name will also appear as the start of Item E). Example:

E) CAA7 SUMSPOT/SUNNY SUMSPOT MUNI
RSC 07/25…

(10) Example of the information described above, as it will appear in an RSC NOTAM received from NAV CANADA’s Collaborative Flight Planning Services (CFPS) after GRF implementation:

(B1667/20 NOTAMN
A) CAAA B) YY11141505 C) YY11142305
E) RSC 04…

Note: NOTAMs retrieved from CFPS do not present Item Q.

5.3 Runway surface condition (RSC) information

(1) The RSC information will be provided in one of two possible formats:

(a) Runway in use designator, when reporting by thirds (e.g. RSC 33), or
(b) Full runway designator, when reporting by full runway length (e.g. RSC 07/25).
Note: Information on reporting by thirds is provided in Appendix A.

(2) When reporting by thirds:

(a) The RSC NOTAM will include two reports; one for each runway direction (i.e. RSC RWY 07 and RSC RWY 25);
(b) When two or more runways are included in an RSC NOTAM, the RSC is listed in ascending order starting with the lowest runway designator, with the corresponding reciprocal runway direction immediately following. (e.g. RSC 07; RSC 25; RSC 14 and RSC 32).
(c) When parallel runways are reported, the ascending order begins with the left runway having the lowest runway designator (RSC 05; RSC 23; RSC 06L; RSC 24R, RSC 06R; RSC 24L; RSC 15L; RSC 33R; RSC 15R and RSC 33L).
(d) The report for each runway will be separated by a line (break) to ensure that the information is presented clearly.

(3) When reporting by full runway length:

(a) A single report will be issued for a runway as per the previous practice (i.e. RSC RWY 07/25).
(b) When two or more runways are included in an RSC NOTAM, the RSC information is listed in ascending order starting with the lower runway designator. (e.g. RSC 04/22 and RSC 12/30).
(c) When parallel runways are reported, the ascending order begins with the left runway having the lower runway designator. (e.g. (RSC 05/23; RSC 06L/24R; RSC 06R/24L; RSC 15L/33R and RSC 15R/33L)
(d) The report for each runway will be separated by a line (break) to ensure the information is presented clearly. All RSC information is presented prior to displaying CRFI information.

(4) RSC information is detailed in Section 5.4 through 5.19, below.

5.4 Runway surface conditions

(1) The reported runway surface conditions include:

(a) Runway condition code for each runway third (if applicable);
(b) Condition or contaminant(s) within the cleared width including:
- (i) percent coverage
- (ii) depth (if applicable); and
- (iii) runway surface description (condition or type of contaminant);
(c) Cleared width (if applicable);
(d) Snow drifts, windrows and/or snow banks on the runway (where applicable);
(e) Localized conditions (when applicable);
(f) Treatments applied to the runway surface (when applicable);
(g) Conditions on remaining width of runway (when applicable);
(h) Snow banks adjacent to runway (when applicable);
(i) Runway remarks (when applicable);
(j) RSC validity time.

(2) Information on each of the above elements is provided in sections 5.5 to 5.15, below.

5.5 Runway condition code (RWYCC)

(1) The runway condition code (RWYCC) is a number, from 0 to 6, which represents the slipperiness of a specific third of a runway, and provides a standardized “shorthand” for reporting this information. A RWYCC of 0 corresponds to an extremely slippery runway and 6 corresponds to a dry runway. RWYCCs can be used by pilots to make a time of arrival landing performance assessment:

(a) for those aeroplanes with TALPA-based performance information; and
(b) for those aeroplanes that do not have TALPA-based performance information, through the use of Table 6, Landing Distance Factors (Multipliers to Unfactored Certificated AFM Landing Distance.

(2) RWYCCs are only reported if:

(a) the runway condition information is reported by runway thirds; and
(b) the runway surface is paved.

(3) A RWYCC is reported for each runway third, with each third separated by a forward slash (e.g. 5/5/5).

(4) In the event the full width of the runway is not cleared, the runway condition code will be determined based on the contaminants present in the cleared portion of the runway (typically the centre 100 feet).

(5) The runway condition assessment matrix (RCAM) is used to determine a RWYCC from a set of observed runway surface condition(s).

(6) Additional information on RWYCCs and how they are determined is provided in Appendix B.

5.6 Condition or contaminant(s) within the cleared width

(1) Flight crews utilize the reported runway surface description (condition or type and depth of contaminant) when determining their aeroplane’s expected take-off performance.

(2) Runway surface descriptions (condition or type and depth of contamination) are also used to determine landing performance:

(a) When RWYCCs are not issued; and/or
(b) For aeroplanes which do not have TALPA-based performance information.

(3) The condition or contaminant(s) within the cleared width of the runway is presented in the following order:

(a) Percentage coverage;
(b) Depth (when applicable); and
(c) Runway surface description.

(4) Information on percent coverage, depth, runway surfaces descriptions and number of runway surface descriptions that may be reported are provided in Sections 5.7 to 5.10 of this AC.

5.7 Percent coverage

(1) The percentage of coverage is reported in increments of ten and twenty-five percent as shown in Table 1. If the assessed percent coverage is between increments, it is rounded up as indicated.

**Table 1 – Percent coverage increments**
Assessed percent coverage	Reported percent coverage
1 - 10	10 PCT
11 – 20	20 PCT
21 – 25	25 PCT
26 – 30	30 PCT
31 – 40	40 PCT
41 – 50	50 PCT
51 – 60	60 PCT
61 – 70	70 PCT
71 – 75	75 PCT
76 – 80	80 PCT
81 – 90	90 PCT
91- 100	100 PCT

(2) Where some sections of the runway or sections of a runway third are not wet or contaminated (i.e. are DRY), the reported runway contaminants are no longer required to add up to 100%. (i.e. “Dry” is not reported). For example:

(a) If 50% of the runway third is covered with ½ inch DRY SNOW and the other 50% is DRY, this will be reported as “50 PCT 1/2IN DRY SNOW”.
(b) If 50% of the runway third is covered with ½ inch DRY SNOW, 25% is covered with ICE and the remaining 25% is DRY, this will be reported as “50 PCT 1/2IN DRY SNOW AND 25 PCT ICE.”
Notes:
- 1. In both of the above examples DRY is not reported; this is a change from the previous practice.
- 2. The reasons for reporting DRY conditions are provided in 5.9(2)

5.8 Contaminant depth

(1) Contaminant depth will continue to be reported in inches and fractions of inches, as illustrated in Error! Reference source not found., below.

**Table 2 – Contaminant depth increments**
Assessed depth	Reported depth
1/8 inch or less	1/8IN
1/8 inch to and including 1/4 inch	1/4IN
> 1/4 inch to and including 1/2 inch	1/2IN
> 1/2 inch to and including 3/4 inch	3/4IN
> 3/4 inch to and including 1 inch	1IN
> 1 inch to and including 1 ½ inches	1 1/2IN
> 1 ½ inches to and including 2 inches	2IN

Notes:

1. When 2 inches is reached, values are reported in multiples of 1 inch; and
2. Any depth 2 inches or greater that includes a fraction (e.g. 2 ½ inches) is rounded up to the next highest reportable depth (e.g. 3 inches).
3. Contaminant depths will be reported for:
- (a) STANDING WATER;
- (b) SLUSH;
- (c) DRY SNOW;
- (d) WET SNOW; and
- (e) Combinations of contaminants where a loose contaminant (DRY SNOW, WET SNOW, SLUSH or WATER) overlies a hard contaminant (COMPACTED SNOW or ICE). In these cases, the depth of the loose contaminant is to be reported.

5.9 Runway surface descriptions

(1) The following runway surface descriptions are used:

(a) COMPACTED SNOW;
(b) DRY;
(c) DRY SNOW;
(d) DRY SNOW ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW;
(e) DRY SNOW ON TOP OF ICE;
(f) FROST;
(g) ICE;
(h) SLIPPERY WHEN WET;
(i) SLUSH;
(j) SLUSH ON TOP OF ICE;
(k) STANDING WATER;
(l) WATER ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW;
(m) WET;
(n) WET ICE;
(o) WET SNOW;
(p) WET SNOW ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW;
(q) WET SNOW ON TOP OF ICE.

(2) A “DRY” runway surface condition is reported:

(a) when there is need to report wet or contaminated conditions on the remainder of the surface. This would be the case when a runway third(s) is 100% DRY and:
- (i) there are contaminants in other runway third(s); or
- (ii) the other runway third(s) is wet; or
(b) the cleared width is less than the published width and the cleared portion of the runway is 100% DRY;
(c) when a significant change has occurred. For example when a runway third(s) reported as RWYCC 5 is now RWYCC 6; and
(d) when a runway(s) at an aerodrome is DRY and another runway(s) at the same aerodrome is reported to be wet or contaminated.

(3) The runway surfaces descriptions listed in paragraph (1):

(a) are required by Section 322.417 of Airport Winter Maintenance Standards; and
(b) conform to the Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM).

(4) Information respecting the risks associated with WET and STANDING WATER is provided in Appendix C.

(5) Information respecting the reporting of SLIPPERY WHEN WET conditions is provided in Appendix D.

5.10 Number of runway surface descriptions that may be reported

(1) The number of runway surface descriptions that may be reported for each runway third is limited to two. Similarly, when the runway is reported by full runway length, the number of contaminant types runway surface descriptions reported for the entire runway is also limited to two.

Note: If more than two runway surface descriptions are present in a runway third, only the two most prevalent in that third are reported. Other factors that may be taken into consideration in determining which two contaminants runway surface descriptions to report, include:

(a) the location of the condition or contaminant on the runway; and
(b) the slipperiness of the condition or contaminant, which is reflected in the corresponding RWYCC.

(2) Commas separate each runway third and a period denotes the end of this portion.

(3) Examples:

(a) Reporting by thirds with a single condition in all three thirds: 90 PCT WET, 90 PCT WET, 90 PCT WET.
(b) Reporting by thirds with a single contaminant in all three thirds: 60 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 50 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW, 40 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW.
(c) Reporting by thirds with two contaminants in all three thirds; 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW AND 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW, 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW AND 30 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW, 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW AND 25 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW.
(d) Reporting by full runway length with a single condition: 50 PCT WET
(e) Reporting by full runway length with a single contaminant: 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW
(f) Reporting by full runway length with two contaminants: 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW AND 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW

5.11 Condition of unpaved and partially paved runways

(1) The following additional information can be reported for unpaved and partially paved runways:

(a) Graded (levelling of the runway surface);
(b) Packed (compaction of the runway surface); and/or
(c) Scarified (cutting of longitudinal grooves in the ice or compacted snow surface to improve directional control).
Note: A paved runway which is covered by ice may also be scarified.

Example: RSC 32 … PACKED AND SCARIFIED.

(2) Where applicable, an airport and aerodrome with an unpaved or partially paved runway should have the following information in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS):

(a) “Compacted snow and gravel mix during winter conditions” as a runway surface description; and/or
(b) “Surface may be soft during freeze and thaw periods”

5.12 Cleared width

(1) If the cleared width is less than the published width, the width for which the runway conditions and RWYCCs apply is reported in feet.

Example: RSC 32 … 160FT WIDTH.

(2) Figure 2 illustrates various possibilities for cleared width.

Various cleared width and remaining width runway contamination scenarios are depicted.

Figure 2 – Cleared width and remaining width

(3) If the cleared width is not symmetrical about the runway centreline, the cardinal (or inter-cardinal) direction of the offset from the runway's centreline is to be included in the RSC report.

Example: RSC 32 … 160FT WIDTH OFFSET NORTH.

Intentionally left blank

(4) Figure 3 depicts runways with an asymmetric cleared width.

Note: Example a) is provided for comparison purposes.

Various cleared width offset scenarios are depicted.

Figure 3 – Cleared width offset

(5) Examples of reports corresponding to the illustrations in Figure 3 appear below:

(a) RSC 09… 100FT WIDTH.
(b) RSC 09… 120FT WIDTH OFFSET NORTH.
(c) RSC 09… 130FT WIDTH OFFSET SOUTH.
(d) RSC 09… 100FT WIDTH OFFSET NORTH.

5.13 Snow drifts, windrows and snow banks on the runway

(1) This information is reported using the term “SNOW DRIFTS,” “WINDROWS” or “SNOWBANKS” as applicable.

(2) The maximum snow drift, windrow or snow bank height is to be reported in feet and/or inches, as applicable.

(3) The location of a windrow or snow bank is reported:

(a) as a distance from the nearest threshold in 100 foot increments (e.g. RSC 07 … 3IN WINDROWS 200FT FM THR RWY 25);
(b) by indicating the distance, to the nearest foot, from: the runway edges, the edge of the cleared width or the runway centerline (e.g. RSC 12/30 … 1FT SNOW BANKS 20FT SOUTHEAST FM RWY EDGE); or
(c) with reference to an intersecting runway (e.g. RSC 07 … 3IN WINDROWS ACROSS INT RWY 14/32).

(4) Reporting the location of a snow drift is optional (since there may be numerous snow drifts) and may be reported:

(a) as a distance from the nearest threshold in 100 foot increments (e.g. RSC 07 … 6IN SNOW DRIFTS 200FT FM THR 25.);
(b) by indicating the distance, to the nearest foot, from: the runway edges, the edge of the cleared width or the runway centerline (e.g. RSC 04 … 3IN SNOW DRIFTS 50FT SOUTHEAST FM CL.); or
(c) with reference to an intersecting runway (e.g. RSC 14 … 4IN SNOW DRIFTS ACROSS INT RWY 05/23.).

(5) When describing a snow drift, windrow or snow bank that is to one side of the centreline or the runway edge, the four cardinal points (North, South, East or West) or four intercardinal (ordinal) points (Northeast, Southeast, Southwest or Northwest) is used instead of “left” or “right”. This is illustrated in Error! Reference source not found., below.

**Table 3 – Directional reference with respect to RWY designators**
RWY designators	Cardinal or intercardinal direction right of the runway centerline	Cardinal or intercardinal direction left of the runway centerline
01 02	EAST	WEST
03 04 05 06	SOUTHEAST	NORTHWEST
07 08 09 10 11	SOUTH	NORTH
12 13 14 15	SOUTHWEST	NORHTEAST
16 17 18 19 20	WEST	EAST
21 22 23 24	NORTHWEST	SOUTHEAST
25 26 27 28 29	NORTH	SOUTH
30 31 32 33	NORTHEAST	SOUTHWEST
34 35 36	EAST	WEST

(6) Examples:

(a) RSC 06 … 3IN SNOW DRIFTS 5FT ALONG INSIDE SOUTHEAST RWY EDGE
(b) RSC 02 … 10IN WINDROWS 50FT EAST AND WEST FM CL
(c) RSC 14 … 2FT SNOWBANKS ALONG INSIDE NORTHEAST RWY EDGE

5.14 Localized conditions

(1) Localized conditions that reduce the friction locally are reported by indicating the distance in feet from the nearest threshold (in 100 foot increments).

(2) These localized conditions are reported in addition to the runway surface descriptions (that serve as assessment criteria in the RCAM) and provide additional situational awareness. These localized conditions include:

(a) ice patches;
(b) compacted snow patches; and
(c) standing water patches.

(3) Example: RSC 04 … ICE PATCHES 1600FT FROM THR 22

(4) Any other localized conditions not itemized in paragraph (2) are to be described in the Runway Remarks section as described in Section 5.18 of this AC.

5.15 Treatments applied to the runway surface

(1) Treatments applied to the runway surface are reported using up to two of the following terms as applicable:

a) CHEMICALLY TREATED;
b) LOOSE SAND.
Note: Runway treatments can temporarily result in more slippery conditions.

(2) The time that the treatment was applied may also be listed, but is not mandatory.

(3) Examples:

a) RSC 02 … CHEMICALLY TREATED AT 1200
b) RSC 02 … LOOSE SAND APPLIED AT 1200

5.16 Conditions on remaining width of the runway

(1) The conditions on the un-cleared portion of the runway (i.e. remaining width) will continue to be reported by full runway length (i.e. not by runway thirds).

(2) Only one type of surface condition and corresponding depth if applicable, will be reported for the un-cleared width of the runway.

Example: RSC 07… REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW

(3) While contaminant depths may vary from the centre cleared portion to the remaining portions or edges of the runway, the condition of the outlying portions should not present an operational hazard.

5.17 Snow banks adjacent to the runway

(1) The presence of a runway snow bank, its height (in feet, inches, or feet and inches) and its distance (in feet) from outside the runway edge should be reported if snow banks are penetrating the height profile specified in AC 302-013 – Airport Winter Maintenance and Planning.

(2) When the height of snow banks vary, the highest value should be reported.

(3) When the distances from the outer edges vary, the least distance from the runway edge should be reported.

(4) Examples:

(a) RSC 06 … 3FT SNOWBANKS 5FT OUTSIDE SOUTHEAST RWY EDGE
(b) RSC 22 … 4FT 6IN SNOWBANKS 10FT OUTSIDE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST RWY EDGE
(c) RSC 14 … 5FT SNOWBANKS ON SOUTHWEST RWY EDGE

Figure illustrating snowbank location on and near runway edges.

Figure 4 – References for reporting snow banks adjacent to the runway

5.18 Runway remarks

(1) Runway remarks serve to capture any other operationally significant information related to a given runway, which is not otherwise described. These remarks serve an important function by enhancing situational awareness.

(2) When a RWYCC has been downgraded or upgraded this information needs to be included in the runway remarks as follows:

(a) RWYCC DOWNGRADED; or
(b) RWYCC UPGRADED.

(3) When RWYCCs are reported for a runway which is deemed as having low friction (e.g. due to rubber accumulation, surface texture degradation, etc.) the phrase: “RWYCC DUE RWY SLIPPERY WHEN WET” is to be included in the runway remarks.

(4) When applicable, the following predetermined phrases are used:

(a) RWY MARKINGS OBSCURED (See Note)
(b) RWY CL LGTS AND MARKINGS OBSCURED (See Note)
(c) HIGH SPEED TAXIWAYS SLIPPERY
Note: The regulations require runway markings and/or centre line lights “that are plainly visible to the pilot throughout the take-off run” are required for the conduct of take-offs with reported visibility of RVR 1200 (1/4 sm) and 600 RVR.

5.19 RSC validity period

(1) The RSC NOTAM contains the information from multiple AMSCRs (one for each runway).

(2) The validity period stated in the RSC NOTAM:

(a) reflects the validity period for each AMSCR; and
(b) should not exceed the published operating hours for an airport or aerodrome, unless the surface conditions are being monitored.

(3) For airports, the maximum validity period for an AMSCR is 8 hours.

(4) For aerodromes reporting RWYCCs, the maximum validity period for an AMSCR is 8 hours.

(5) For aerodromes not reporting RWYCCs, the maximum validity period for an AMSCR is 24 hours.

(6) The validity period is reported as: month, day and time, as shown in the example below:

VALID NOV 14 1457 – NOV 14 2257.

5.20 Canadian Runway Friction Index (CRFI) information

(1) CRFI information includes:

(a) CRFI Header, which states: ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO;
(b) CRFI readings for each runway, as applicable.

(2) Two different formats are used for reporting CRFI; one for reporting in thirds and one for reporting by full runway length, as show in the following examples:

(a) Reporting CRFI in thirds:

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 09 -3C .40/.32/.28 OBS AT 1909131504
CRFI 27 -3C .28/.32/.40 OBS AT 1909131504

Note: When reporting CRFI in thirds, each runway end is reported (i.e. 09 and 27)

(b) Reporting CRFI by full runway length:

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 07/25 -3C .25 OBS AT 1902141408

(3) When reporting CRFI in thirds, a situation may occur where a CRFI report is required for one third(s), but should not be reported for another third(s). This can happen when an individual runway third(s) are either dry or covered with a condition or contaminant(s) are not conducive to CRFI reporting. (Examples include runways which are wet or covered by slush or standing water). In this case, the applicable runway third is listed as “NR” (not reported) as shown in the example below.

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 09 -3C .32/NR/.28 OBS AT 1909131504

(4) If a CRFI is not provided or obtained, it is reported as “NR” (Not Reported) and the temperature and observation information is omitted.

(5) CRFI information has been included in the RSC NOTAM:

(a) as additional information to enhance pilots’ situational awareness; and
(b) for the conduct of time of arrival landing performance assessments by pilots and operators that do not utilize either:
- (i) aeroplane performance information (manufacturer produced or developed by a third party) that accounts for contaminated runway conditions, or
- (ii) Table 6, Landing Distance Factors (Multipliers to Unfactored Certificated (AFM) Landing Distance
- Note: Information on time of arrival landing distance performance assessments (including the use of LDFs is provided in Appendix E,

5.21 Taxiway and apron conditions

(1) Where contaminants are present on taxiways and aprons that may be of “operational significance” to aircrews, the airport operator is required to include these conditions in the report. Aerodrome operators should also report these conditions.

(2) Only one type of surface condition and corresponding depth, if applicable, is reported for taxiways and aprons. The percentage of contaminants is not to be reported.

(3) If the same conditions apply to several taxiways or aprons, the information may be grouped together. The term ALL TWY or ALL APN can be used to describe the conditions that apply to all taxiways and/or aprons.

(4) Taxiway and apron information can include but is not limited to:

(a) type of contaminant and depth;
(b) qualitative friction (e.g. “BRAKING ACTION POOR”);
(c) presence of snow drifts, windrows and snow banks; and
(d) presence of treatments.

(5) Examples:

(a) RMK: TWY E AND F: 8IN WET SNOW
(b) RMK: TWY B BRAKING ACTION POOR
(c) RMK: TWY A 1FT 6IN SNOWBANKS
(d) RMK: APN II AND III ICE COVERED. CHEMICALLY TREATED
(e) RMK: ALL TWY 2IN DRY SNOW

5.22 General remarks

(1) This section is used to record:

(a) maintenance activities (plowing, sweeping, etc.); or
(b) any unusual contamination conditions such as a contaminant location that is not otherwise be recorded.

(2) Examples include, but are not necessarily limited to:

(a) CLEARING/SWEEPING IN PROGRESS; and
(b) CONDITIONS CHANGING RAPIDLY.

(3) The next scheduled time of observation is included in general remarks (where applicable).

5.23 Examples of completed RSC NOTAMs

(1) Examples of RSC NOTAMS, together with explanatory notes, are provided below to illustrate the following situations:

(a) Reporting by runway thirds for an individual runway;
(b) Reporting by full runway length for an individual runway;
(c) Reporting by runway thirds for more than one runway;
(d) Reporting by full runway length for more than one runway;
(e) Reporting one runway(s) by thirds and another runway(s) by full runway length; and
(f) Reporting by thirds with additional information such as localized conditions, snowbanks, as well as taxiway and apron remarks.

(2) Example of RSC NOTAM when reporting by runway thirds for an individual runway:

Example of a contaminated runway with a partially cleared width, where the operator reports by thirds. The first third has 25 percent compacted snow, and 50 percent one eighth inch dry snow. The middle third has 50 percent compacted snow, 50 percent one quarter inch dry snow. The final third has 25 percent compacted snow, 25 percent one quarter inch dry snow. The runway has a 160 foot cleared width, with compacted snow remaining width. RWYCC assigned is 5/3/3.

Figure 5 – Example of a contaminated runway where operator reports by thirds

(B1667/20 NOTAMN
A) CAAA B) YY11141505 C) YY11142305
E) RSC 07 5/3/3 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW AND 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW, 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW AND 50 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW, 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW AND 25 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW. 160FT WIDTH. 6IN SNOW DRIFTS 200FT FM THR 25. REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW. VALID NOV 14 1457 – NOV 14 2257.
RSC 25 3/3/5 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW AND 25 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW, 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW AND 50 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW, 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW AND 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW. 160FT WIDTH. 6IN SNOW DRIFTS 200FT FM THR 25. REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW. VALID NOV 14 1457 – NOV 14 2257.

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 07 -3C .40/.32/.30 OBS AT 2111141457.
CRFI 25 -3C .30/.32/.40 OBS AT 2111141457.

Note: When runway condition information is reported for each third of the runway, the RSC NOTAM will include two reports; one for each runway direction (i.e. RSC RWY 07 and RSC RWY 25).

(3) Example of RSC NOTAM when reporting by full runway length for one runway:

Example of a contaminated runway with a partially cleared width, where the operator does not report by thirds. The runway is 25 percent compacted snow, 50 percent one eighth inch dry snow. The runway has a 160 foot cleared width, with compacted snow remaining width.

Figure 6 – Example of a contaminated runway where operator does not report by thirds

C1667/20 NOTAMN
A) CAAA B) YY01120025 C) YY01120825
E) RSC 07/25 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW AND 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW. 160FT WIDTH. REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW. VALID JAN 12 0016 – JAN 12 0816.

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 07/25 -3C .40 OBS AT 2201120008.

Note: When runway condition information is reported by full runway length (i.e. not in thirds), the NOTAM will provide a single report for the runway pair, as per the previous practice (e.g. RSC RWY 07/25).

(4) Example of RSC NOTAM when reporting by thirds for more than one runway:

(A1667/20 NOTAMN
A) CAAA B) YY01122330 C) YY01130730
E) RSC 07 3/3/3 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW, 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW, 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW. 160FT WIDTH. LOOSE SAND APPLIED AT 2245. REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW. VALID JAN 12 2316 – JAN 13 0716.

RSC 25 3/3/3 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW, 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW, 50 PCT COMPACTED SNOW. 160FT WIDTH. LOOSE SAND APPLIED AT 2245. REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW. VALID JAN 12 2316 – JAN 13 0716.

RSC 14 1/1/1 30 PCT ICE, 30 PCT ICE, 30 PCT ICE. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT 2300. VALID JAN 12 2326 – JAN 13 0726.

RSC 32 1/1/1 30 PCT ICE, 30 PCT ICE, 30 PCT ICE. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT 2300. VALID JAN 12 2326 – JAN 13 0726.

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 07 -3C .40/.32/.30 OBS AT 2101122304.
CRFI 25 -3C .30/.32/.40 OBS AT 2101122304.
CRFI 14 -3C .20/.18/.22 OBS AT 2101122308.
CRFI 32 -3C .22/.18/.20 OBS AT 2101122308.

Notes:

1. When reporting by thirds and two or more runways are included in a RSC NOTAM, the RSC is listed in ascending order starting with the lowest runway designator, with the corresponding reciprocal runway direction immediately following. (e.g. RSC 07; RSC 25; RSC 14 and RSC 32).
2. When parallel runways are reported, the ascending order begins with the left runway having the lowest runway designator (RSC 05; RSC 23; RSC 06L; RSC 24R, RSC 06R; RSC 24L; RSC 15L; RSC 33R; RSC 15R and RSC 33L).
3. The report for each runway will be separated by a line (break) to ensure that the information is presented clearly.
4. When CRFI for two or more runways are included in a RSC NOTAM, the same format as described above applies except there is no line (break) separation between runway CRFI information.

(5) Example of RSC NOTAM reporting by full length for more than one runway:

(A1667/20 NOTAMN
A) CAAA B) YY02141500 C) YY02142300
E) RSC 04/22 50 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW AND 25 PCT 1IN DRY SNOW OVER COMPACTED SNOW. 150FT WIDTH. 3IN SNOW DRIFTS 50FT SOUTHEAST FM CL. ICE PATCHES 1200FT FROM THR 22. LOOSE SAND APPLIED AT 1400. REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW. 3FT SNOWBANKS 5FT OUTSIDE SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST RWY EDGE. VALID FEB 14 1436 – FEB 14 2236.

RSC 12/30 50 PCT 1/2IN SLUSH AND 40 PCT 1/2IN WET SNOW. 150FT WIDTH OFFSET SOUTHWEST. 8IN WINDROWS ON RWY EDGE. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT 1425. REMAINING WIDTH 3IN WET SNOW. 2FT SNOWBANKS 8FT OUTSIDE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST RWY EDGE. VALID FEB 14 1443 – FEB 14 2243.

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 04/22 -3C .32 OBS AT 2202141437.
CRFI 12/30 -3C .24 OBS AT 2202141456.

Notes:

1. When reporting by full runway length and two or more runways are included in a RSC NOTAM, the RSC information is listed in ascending order starting with the lower runway designator. (e.g. RSC 04/22 and RSC 12/30)
2. When parallel runways are reported, the ascending order begins with the left runway having the lower runway designator. (e.g. (RSC 05/23; RSC 06L/24R; RSC 06R/24L; RSC 15L/33R and RSC 15R/33L)
3. The report for each runway will be separated by a line (break) to ensure the information is presented clearly. All RSC information is presented prior to displaying CRFI information.
4. When the CRFI for two or more runways are included in a RSC NOTAM, the same format as described above applies except there is no line (break) separation between runway CRFI information.
5. At aerodromes with multiple runways if a runway is listed in the Canada Flight Supplement as having no winter maintenance that runway is not to be included in the RSC report.

(6) Example of RSC NOTAM reporting one runway(s) by thirds and one runway(s) by full length:

(S1017/20 NOTAMN
A) CAAA B) YY01051000 C) YY01051800
E) RSC 02/20 60 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW. 70FT WIDTH. REMAINING WIDTH 1/4IN DRY SNOW ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW. VALID JAN 05 0945 – JAN 05 1745.

RSC 06 3/3/3 30 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 40 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW. 175FT WIDTH. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT HHMM. REMAINING WIDTH 1/4IN DRY SNOW ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW. RWYCC DOWNGRADED, RWY MARKINGS OBSCURED. VALID JAN 05 0900 – JAN 05 1700.

RSC 24 3/3/3 40 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 30 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW. 175FT WIDTH. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT HHMM. REMAINING WIDTH 1/4IN DRY SNOW ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW. RWYCC DOWNGRADED, RWY MARKINGS OBSCURED. VALID JAN 05 0900 – JAN 05 1700.

RSC 16 5/5/5 30 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 30 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 30 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW. 190FT WIDTH. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT HHMM. REMAINING WIDTH 1/4IN DRY SNOW ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW. VALID JAN 05 0830 – JAN 05 1630.

RSC 34 5/5/5 30 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 30 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW, 30 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW. 190FT WIDTH. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT HHMM. REMAINING WIDTH 1/4IN DRY SNOW ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW. VALID JAN 05 0830 – JAN 05 1630.

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 02/20 -8C .30 OBS AT 2201050945.
CRFI 06 -8C .32/.33/.30 OBS AT 2201050900.
CRFI 24 -8C .30/.33/.32 OBS AT 2201050900.
CRFI 16 -8C .39/.40/.40 OBS AT 2201050830.
CRFI 34 -8C .40/.40/.39 OBS AT 2201050830.

Note: When reporting one runway(s) by thirds and another runway(s) by full runway length, and two or more runways are included in a RSC NOTAM, the RSC is listed in ascending order starting with the lowest runway designator; with the corresponding reciprocal runway direction immediately following, for those runways reported in thirds. (e.g. RSC 02/20; RSC 06; RSC 24; RSC 16 and RSC 34).

(7) Example of RSC NOTAM reporting by thirds with additional information including snow drifts, localized conditions, snowbanks, as well as taxiway and apron remarks:

(A1667/20 NOTAMN
A) CAAA B) YY02141500 C) YY02142300
E) RSC 04 5/3/3 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW AND 20 PCT COMPACTED SNOW, 40 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW, 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW AND 25 PCT 1IN DRY SNOW OVER COMPACTED SNOW. 150FT WIDTH. 3IN SNOW DRIFTS 50FT SOUTHEAST FM CL. ICE PATCHES 1200FT FROM THR 22. LOOSE SAND APPLIED AT 1400. REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW. 3FT SNOWBANKS 5FT OUTSIDE SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST RWY EDGE. VALID FEB 14 1436 – FEB 14 2236.

RSC 22 3/3/5 25 PCT COMPACTED SNOW AND 25 PCT 1IN DRY SNOW OVER COMPACTED SNOW, 40 PCT 1/4IN DRY SNOW, 50 PCT 1/8IN DRY SNOW AND 20 PCT COMPACTED SNOW. 150FT WIDTH. 3IN SNOW DRIFTS 50FT SOUTHEAST FM CL. ICE PATCHES 1200FT FROM THR 22. LOOSE SAND APPLIED AT 1400. REMAINING WIDTH COMPACTED SNOW. 3FT SNOWBANKS 5FT OUTSIDE SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST RWY EDGE. VALID FEB 14 1436 – FEB 14 2236.

RSC 12 3/2/2 50 PCT 1/2IN WET SNOW, 40 PCT 1/2IN SLUSH AND 30 PCT 1/2IN WET SNOW, 50 PCT 1/2IN SLUSH. 150FT WIDTH OFFSET SOUTHWEST. 8IN WINDROWS ON RWY EDGE. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT 1425. REMAINING WIDTH 3IN WET SNOW. 2FT SNOWBANKS 8FT OUTSIDE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST RWY EDGE. VALID FEB 14 1443 – FEB 14 2243.

RSC 30 2/2/3 50 PCT 1/2IN SLUSH, 40 PCT 1/2IN SLUSH AND 30 PCT 1/2IN WET SNOW, 50 PCT 1/2IN WET SNOW. 150FT WIDTH OFFSET SOUTHWEST. 8IN WINDROWS ON RWY EDGE. CHEMICALLY TREATED AT 1425. REMAINING WIDTH 3IN WET SNOW. 2FT SNOWBANKS 8FT OUTSIDE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST RWY EDGE. VALID FEB 14 1443 – FEB 14 2243.

ADDN NON-GRF/TALPA INFO:
CRFI 04 -3C .40/.32/.30 OBS AT 2202141437.
CRFI 22 -3C .30/.32/.40 OBS AT 2202141437.
CRFI 12 -3C .32/.22/.24 OBS AT 2202141456.
CRFI 30 -3C .24/.22/.24 OBS AT 2202141456.

RMK: TWY A ICE PATCHES, CHEMICALLY TREATED. TWY B, C, D, E 100 PCT COMPACTED SNOW, 2FT SNOWBANKS. TWY F, G 2IN WET SNOW, LOOSE SAND APPLIED. TWY H BRAKING ACTION POOR.
RMK: ALL APN ICE PATCHES, CHEMICALLY TREATED. APN I 1IN WET SNOW.
RMK: CLEARING/SWEEPING IN PROGRESS.

6.0 Conclusion

(1) The implementation of GRF in Canada is an important safety initiative that is intended to improve the safety of operations on wet and contaminated runways and contribute to the mitigation of the associated risks of runway overruns.

(2) In preparation for the August 12th, 2021 implementation date of GRF in Canada:

(a) all pilots, flight dispatchers, and associated flight operations personnel need to understand how to use the new GRF for runway surface conditions (RSC NOTAM); and
(b) operators should review the information in this AC, and consider its inclusion (as appropriate) in their:
- (i) Company Operations Manual (COM);
- (ii) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs);
- (iii) training programs for pilots and flight dispatchers; and/or
- (iv) any other established means of conveying safety and operational information within their organization (bulletins, notices, etc.).

(3) Operators should review the information and guidance provided in this AC – including the appendices – using the principles of safety management systems (SMS), as applicable, to:

(a) assess the risks associated with:
- (i) operations on wet and contaminated runways; and
- (ii) other factors which may also contribute the possibility of runway overruns; and
(b) review their procedures and modify as appropriate to mitigate these risks.

7.0 Information management

(1) Not applicable.

8.0 Document history

(1) Not applicable.

9.0 Contact us

For more information, please contact:
Chief, Commercial Flight Standards Division AARTF
E-mail: AARTFinfo-InfoAARTF@tc.gc.ca

We invite suggestions for amendment to this document. Submit your comments to:
Civil Aviation Communications Centre
Civil Aviation Communications Centre contact form

Original signed by

Félix Meunier
Director, Standards
Civil Aviation

Appendix A – Reporting by runway thirds

A.1 Overview

(1) This appendix provides information and guidance for pilots and operators respecting the reporting of runway surface conditions in thirds.

A.2 Discussion

(1) Reporting the runway surface condition information in thirds – with associated Runway Condition Codes (RWYCCs) – provides useful information for pilots. This format helps to improve pilot situational awareness by identifying where the contaminants that affect aeroplane performance and directional control are located on a runway.

(2) When runway surface condition information is provided in thirds a RWYCC is to be reported.

Note: Information on RWYCCs is provided in Appendix B of this AC.

(3) The photo of runway surface conditions in Figure 7 and the corresponding caption illustrate the rationale for reporting by thirds – with associated Runway Condition Codes (RWYCCs).

This photo of a contaminated runway was taken by an aeroplane during its landing approach. There are two dashed blue lines overlaid on the photo which show that the contaminants which affect aeroplane braking performance and directional control are located in the first two thirds of this runway.

Figure 7 – The two dashed blue lines overlaid on the photo help to show that the contaminants which affect aeroplane braking performance and directional control are located in the first two thirds of this runway. When reporting by thirds, this information is conveyed to flight crews through both RWYCCs (in this case 3/3/5) as well as the runway surface descriptions for each third of the runway.

(4) In consideration of the types of aircraft operating at airports or aerodromes, the airport or aerodrome operator may choose to report full runway length (i.e. not to report by runway thirds). Typically:

(a) longer runways serving larger aircraft would be reported in thirds; and
(b) shorter runways serving smaller aircraft would be reported by full runway length.

(5) An airport or aerodrome operator may choose to report a runway(s) in thirds and choose to report another runway(s) by full runway length.

(6) The decision whether or not to report by runway thirds or by full runway length is made by the airport or aerodrome operators in consultation with the air operators that utilize the facility. To minimize confusion, the reporting methodology needs to remain consistent within the season.

Note: Subsections 302.406(1) and 302.410(1) of the CARs require airport operators to consult with a representative sample of the air operators that use the airport and keep a record of the consultations.

(7) There is no specific regulatory link between the requirements for reporting CRFI in thirds and the criteria for reporting runway surface conditions in thirds.

(a) The decision as to whether or not a runway is reported in thirds is the decision of the airport or aerodrome operator, which should be made in consultation with the air operators that utilize that facility.
(b) CRFI readings are measured and reported in accordance with the requirements specified in:
- (i) Subpart 302– Airports, Division IV of the CARs – Airport Winter Maintenance; and
- (ii) Subpart 322 – Airport Winter Maintenance Standards (AWMS).

(8) Reporting runway surface condition by runway thirds is not applicable for unpaved runways (gravel, turf, etc.).

A.3 Recommended actions

(1) In consideration of their aeroplane types, operators should assess whether reporting by thirds would improve the safety of their operations. This information should be shared with their respective airport operators, through the consultation process described in paragraph A.2 (7), above.

Note: Reporting in thirds is typically considered to be beneficial for larger and high performance aeroplanes.

Appendix B – Runway condition codes

B.1 Overview

(1) This appendix provides information and guidance respecting the Runway Condition Codes (RYWCCs) that are provided when runway surface conditions in an RSC NOTAM are reported by thirds (as described in Appendix A).

(2) The information provided in this appendix includes explanations of:

(a) RWYCCs;
(b) the Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM); and
(c) how the RWYCCs which appear in an RSC NOTAM are determined.

(3) This appendix also provides guidance to pilots and operators on the use of RWYCCs as a “decision support tool” as opposed to a “decision-making tool.”

B.2 Runway condition codes

(1) The RWYCC is a number, from 0 to 6, which represents the slipperiness of a specific third of a runway, and provides a standardized “shorthand” for reporting this information. A RWYCC of 0 corresponds to an extremely slippery runway and 6 corresponds to a dry runway.

(2) RWYCCs also serve to enhance all pilots’ situational awareness of where the slipperiest runway conditions and contaminants are located on a runway.

(3) RWYCCs can be used by pilots to make a time of arrival landing performance assessment (for those aeroplanes with suitable performance information).

Note: Information on making time of arrival landing performance assessments is provided in Appendix E.

B.3 Runway condition assessment matrix

(1) The RCAM (Table 4) is used to determine a RWYCC.

Note: The RCAM depicted in Table 4 is for the use of flight operations personnel. Airport and aerodrome operators utilize an RCAM which includes additional information for their requirements.

(2) The RCAM only applies to paved (asphalt and concrete) runway surfaces, and does not apply to unpaved or partially paved surfaces.

(3) The RCAM consists of two major portions:

(a) Assessment Criteria, which appear on the left half of the RCAM; and
(b) Downgrade Assessment Criteria, which appear on the right, shaded half of the RCAM.

(4) Explanations of the Assessment Criteria and Downgrade Assessment Criteria, as well as the associated elements are provided in Sections B.4 through B.7

**Table 4 – Runway condition assessment matrix (RCAM)**
Assessment Criteria		Control/Braking Assessment Criteria
Runway surface description	RWYCC	Vehicle deceleration or directional control observation	Pilot braking action
DRY	6	-	-
FROST WET (The runway surface is covered by any visible dampness or water up to and including 1/8 inch (3 mm) depth) Up to and including 1/8 inch (3 mm) depth: SLUSH DRY SNOW WET SNOW	5	Braking deceleration is normal for the wheel braking applied AND directional control is normal	GOOD
-15°C and colder outside air temperature: COMPACTED SNOW	4	Braking deceleration OR directional control is between Good and Medium	GOOD TO MEDIUM
SLIPPERY WHEN WET (wet runway) DRY SNOW or WET SNOW (Any depth) ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW Greater than 1/8 inch (3 mm) depth: DRY SNOW WET SNOW Warmer than -15°C outside air temperature: COMPACTED SNOW	3	Braking deceleration is noticeably reduced for the wheel braking effort applied OR directional control is noticeably reduced	MEDIUM
Greater than 1/8 inch (3 mm) depth: STANDING WATER SLUSH	2	Braking deceleration OR directional control is between Medium and Poor	MEDIUM TO POOR
ICE	1	Braking deceleration is significantly reduced for the wheel braking effort applied OR directional control is significantly reduced	POOR
WET ICE SLUSH ON TOP OF ICE WATER ON TOP OF COMPACTED SNOW DRY SNOW or WET SNOW ON TOP OF ICE	0	Braking deceleration is minimal to non-existent for the wheel braking effort applied OR directional control is uncertain	LESS THAN POOR / NIL

B.4 Assessment criteria

(1) The Assessment Criteria section of the RCAM (left, unshaded portion of the matrix) consists of a Runway Surface Description and a RYWCC. The Runway Surface Descriptions in each category are linked to the corresponding RWYCC based on their effect on aeroplane braking performance (i.e. slipperiness).

B.5 Runway surface description

(1) The Runway Surface Description column of the RCAM lists:

(a) the contaminants on the runway (e.g. slush, dry snow, wet snow, etc.) as well as temperature and depth, where applicable; and
(b) runway surface conditions, if a runway is dry, wet or slippery when wet.

(2) These runway surface descriptions are directly correlated to aeroplane landing performance and are listed in order of slipperiness. (i.e. from least slippery to most slippery)

B.6 Runway condition code (RWYCC)

(1) Runway Condition Codes (e.g.: 3/3/3) represent the runway condition description based on defined terms and increments.

(2) In the event the full width of the runway is not cleared, the runway condition code will be determined based on the contaminants present in the cleared portion of the runway (typically centre 100 feet).

B.7 Control/braking assessment criteria

(1) The Control/Braking Assessment Criteria section of the RCAM (right, shaded portion of the matrix) provides criteria which are used by the airport or aerodrome operator to determine if the RWYCC accurately reflects the slipperiness of the runway.

(2) Control/Braking Assessment Criteria include:

(a) Vehicle control or deceleration observations; and
(b) Pilot braking action reports.
Note: The version of the RCAM used by airport and aerodrome operators also includes additional information which is used for downgrade assessment purposes.

B.8 Determination of the RWYCC for the RSC NOTAM

(1) Flight operations personnel should understand how the airport or aerodrome operator determines the RWYCC which appears in an RSC NOTAM. Familiarity with this process is needed to understand how and why the published RWYCC may be downgraded or upgraded.

(2) The airport or aerodrome operator determines a preliminary RWYCC using the RCAM based on runway surface description (i.e. type and depth of contaminant and outside air temperature (where applicable); or the runway condition, when the runway is dry, wet, or slippery when wet.)

(3) After the preliminary RWYCCs have been assigned, the airport or aerodrome operator should determine that the preliminary RWYCCs accurately reflect the runway conditions. Through this determination, which should consider CRFI (if available), vehicle deceleration or directional control observations, pilot report(s), local knowledge and/or other information, the preliminary RWYCCs will then be:

(a) Confirmed;
(b) Downgraded; or
(c) Upgraded.

(4) If the preliminary RWYCCs accurately represent the runway condition, the preliminary RWYCCs will be confirmed and the final RWYCCs may be disseminated.

(5) The airport or aerodrome operator can downgrade a RWYCC on the basis of:

(a) CRFI measurements;
(b) vehicle deceleration or directional control observations;
(c) pilot report(s);
(d) local knowledge; and/or;
(e) other information reveal that the runway surface is more slippery than the RWYCC that was initially determined.

(6) Under very cold conditions, typically below -15⁰C, frozen contaminants may exhibit a higher degree of friction than indicated in the RCAM. In these circumstances, upgrading the RWYCC is possible, as follows:

(a) The airport or aerodrome operator may upgrade a RWYCC of 0 or 1 up to but no higher than a RWYCC of 3, providing that a number of specific requirements have been met; and
(b) An assigned RWYCC of 5, 4, 3, or 2 cannot be upgraded.

(7) To enhance pilot situational awareness, when a RWYCC has been downgraded or upgraded this information is included in the runway remarks as follows:

(a) RWYCC DOWNGRADED; or
(b) RWYCC UPGRADED.

B.9 RWYCCs: a decision support tool not a decision-making tool

(1) Caution: Pilots and operators need to understand that RWYCCs are a decision support tool rather than a decision-making tool.

(2) Pilots and operators should use RWYCCs as one piece of information, along with the current weather (precipitation, winds, visibility, possibility of windshear, etc.), PIREPS and other factors such as operational limitations, etc., to make the decision as to whether or not it is safe to conduct a landing.

Appendix C – Risks associated with wet conditions and standing water

C.1 Overview

(1) This appendix provides important safety information and associated guidance for pilots and operators respecting:

(a) the increased risks of runway overruns and lateral runway excursions associated with runways which are wet, and especially those which are contaminated by standing water;
(b) The challenges and limitations respecting the reporting of:
- (i) wet conditions; and
- (ii) standing water.
(c) how the characteristics of a runway which is wet or contaminated by standing water affect aeroplane braking performance;
(d) the significance of rainfall intensity, which may be the only available indication that the water depth present on the runway may be excessive; and
(e) recommended actions for pilots and operators to mitigate risk.

C.2 Risk of runway overruns associated with wet and standing water conditions

(1) Runways which are wet, and especially those which are contaminated by standing water, have a significant impact on landing safety.

(2) When standing water is present, aircraft braking can rapidly degrade as the contact area of the tire is lifted away from the pavement by the effects of hydroplaning. Pilots have reported that the aircraft feels like it accelerates when this occurs. This change in sensation is due to the fact that braking performance can degrade in a matter of seconds, resulting in up to a 77 percent decrease in braking force. This rapid decrease in friction also affects cornering ability, making lateral drift more difficult if not impossible to control. The extreme decrease in braking performance produces an increase in landing distances that exceed the standard 15 percent margin employed for operational safety. Additionally, the unexpected handling characteristics of the aircraft have been shown to lead to flight crew confusion and a possible delay in the use of thrust reversers or ground spoilers. The result can often be a runway overrun or lateral excursion.

(3) Landing overruns that occur on wet runways typically involve multiple contributing factors such as long touchdown, improper use of deceleration devices, tailwind and less available friction than expected.

(4) While a rejected take-off (RTO) is not a very common event, analysis of runway overruns associated with RTOs has shown that a large portion of these events occur on runways which are wet or contaminated.

(5) There is an increased risk of a runway excursions during crosswind conditions when conducting a landing or take-off on a runway which is contaminated by standing water.

(6) To address the risks associated with landings and take-offs on a wet or contaminated runway, an accurate assessment of the conditions on the runway is necessary.

C.3 Reporting wet runway conditions

(1) A surface condition where there is any visible dampness or water up to and including 1/8 inch (3 mm) is reported as “WET”.

Note: A damp runway that meets this definition is considered wet, regardless of whether or not the surface appears reflective. This is a change from past practices, where a distinction was made for runways which were not dry, but were not reflective.

(2) Caution: Due to the dynamic nature of rainfall conditions, the timely and accurate reporting of conditions when water or moisture is present on the runway, is recognized to be challenging. For example, during an active thunderstorm a runway may rapidly transition from dry, to wet (water 1/8 inch or less) to contaminated with standing water (water greater than 1/8 of an inch), in a very short period of time. In addition, variations in the drainage capabilities of a runway and/or portions of a runway further complicate accurate reporting. Therefore, airport or aerodrome operators may not be able to report these conditions.

(3) As per the previous practice, airport and aerodrome operators are to report “WET” conditions associated with winter contaminants and from treatments applied to frozen contamination.

(4) Where practicable, TCCA encourages airport and aerodrome operators to report wet runway conditions which are not associated with winter contaminants and/or chemical treatments (i.e. wet runway conditions due to rainfall). However, due to the associated challenges this may not always be possible.

C.4 Reporting standing water conditions

(1) Water on a runway at a depth greater than 1/8 of an inch (3 mm) is reported as “STANDING WATER.”

(2) Caution: As discussed in Section C.2, due to the dynamic nature of rainfall conditions, the timely and accurate reporting of conditions when water or moisture is present on the runway, is recognized to be challenging. Therefore, airport or aerodrome operators may not be able to report these conditions.

(3) Where practicable, TCCA also encourages airport and aerodrome operators to report standing water. However, here again, due to the associated challenges, the reporting of standing water may not always be possible.

Note: The term “standing water” refers to a runway surface description (i.e. an area of extensive coverage); while the term “standing water patches” is a localized condition (i.e. a puddle or pooled water). Information on localized conditions is provided in Section 5.9.

Figure 8 is a photo taken at an airport that displays an active, passing thunderstorm. The photo illustrates that during an active thunderstorm, a runway may rapidly transition from dry, to wet, to contaminated with standing water in a very short period of time. The photo displays the accumulation of standing water on an airport’s paved surface, a portion of clearing blue sky and the presence of passing cumulonimbus clouds.

Figure 8 – In a rainfall event such as an active thunderstorm, the amount of water or moisture on a runway can change rapidly. The dynamic nature of rainfall can present challenges for the timely and accurate reporting of water or moisture on a runway.

C.5 Runway characteristics

(1) The characteristics of the runway can affect aeroplane braking performance when it is wet or contaminated by standing water.

(2) Runways are typically constructed with a transverse slope(s) to facilitate the drainage of water (runoff). Additionally, two runway surface features can help to improve aircraft braking performance, under most conditions:

(a) Grooved runways feature closely spaced transverse grooves on the runway surface, which allow rain water to escape from beneath an aircraft’s tires; and
(b) Porous friction course (PFC) runways have a surface that permits rain water to permeate and drain off transversely to the side of the runway, preventing water buildup on the surface and creating a relatively dry pavement condition during rainfall.

(3) Some runways, may have localized areas where braking may be less effective due to the pooling of water during rainfall.

C.6 Rainfall intensity

(1) Rainfall intensity may be the only available indication that the water depth present on the runway may be excessive. The 1/8-inch threshold that separates a wet runway with a RWYCC of 5 (corresponding to GOOD braking) from runway contaminated with water depth greater than 1/8-inch a RWYCC of 2 (corresponding to MEDIUM TO POOR braking) is based on possibility of dynamic hydroplaning. This can be especially true in moderate rain if the runway is not properly crowned, grooved, constructed with a porous friction course (PFC) overlay, or when water run-off becomes overwhelmed. During heavy rain events, this may be true even on a properly maintained grooved or PFC runway.

C.7 Recommended actions

(1) Operators should review the recommended actions for pilots, outlined below, and should consider inclusion of this information and guidance in their:

(a) Company Operations Manual (COM);
(b) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs);
(c) training programs for pilots and flight dispatchers; and/or
(d) any other established means of conveying safety and operational information within their organization (bulletins, notices, etc.).
Note: Additional recommended actions for operators appear at the end of this section.

(2) Prior to initiating an approach, pilots should verify, that the aircraft can stop within the Landing Distance Available using a RWYCC of “2” (corresponding to MEDIUM TO POOR braking), whenever there is the likelihood of:

(a) moderate or greater rainfall on a smooth runway; or
(b) heavy rain on a grooved/PFC runway.
Note: Information and guidance on landing assessments at time of arrival is provided in Appendix E.

(3) Pilots need to be vigilant and should use all available resources to determine the conditions that may be expected on the runway. In particular, pilots should consider rainfall intensity when assessing the possibility that the water depth present on the runway may be excessive.

(4) Possible resources for making this assessment include:

(a) RSC NOTAMs;
(b) weather forecasts and reports;
(c) Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS);
(d) Air Traffic Control (ATC);
(e) onboard weather radar;
(f) pilot visual observations of weather conditions including flight visibility and likely indications of precipitation; and/or
(g) pilot reports from other aircraft.

(5) Due to potential limitations with some of these resources, utilizing multiple sources of information is recommended. These potential limitations include, but are not limited to:

(a) WET and STANDING WATER conditions are not always reported. In addition, reports of these conditions may not be current during dynamic rain events such as a rapidly developing or fast moving thunderstorm (i.e. a RSC NOTAM may not be available for sudden rain showers that result in the runway being contaminated with water more than 1/8 of an inch in depth);
(b) When manoeuvering at low altitude close to the airport, onboard weather radar may not be able to detect significant rainfall that is above the aircraft’s altitude because of tilt limitations;
(c) ATC radar is not optimized for the detection of rainfall; and
(d) during an actiIve or fast moving weather event, pilot reports can rapidly become obsolete.

(6) Operators should consider mitigation at airports where they have reason to suspect the runway’s capability of creating good friction due to poor drainage. Note: Possible mitigation for these runways includes delaying the approach (hold) for a short period of time to allow water to drain after a high rain intensity event.

(7) For landings or take-offs on runways which are wet or contaminated by standing water, operators should respect any guidance from the aircraft manufacturer regarding the maximum crosswinds for these conditions. This guidance is typically provided in a flight crew operating manual (FCOM), flight crew training manual (FCTM) and/or quick reference handbook (QRH).

(8) Operators should also review and consider the related information and guidance in:

(a) Appendix D – Low Friction Slippery When Wet Runways;
(b) Appendix E – Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival; and
(c) Appendix F – Take-offs on Wet and Contaminated Runways.

Appendix D – Low friction “slippery when wet” runways

D.1 Overview

(1) This appendix provides information respecting:

(a) runway minimum coefficient of friction requirements;
(b) the reporting of runway surface descriptions for a low friction (Slippery When Wet) runway; and
(c) the reporting of runway condition codes (RWYCCs) for a low friction (Slippery When Wet) runway.

D.2 Runway minimum coefficient of friction requirements

(1) A runway or any portion of a runway is deemed as having low friction (e.g. due to rubber accumulation, surface texture degradation, etc.) when the friction measurements (as measured by a continuous friction measuring device in accordance with AC 302-017) are below the minimum coefficient of friction specified in TP 312 — Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices.

This photo depicts a runway with large amounts of rubber accumulation.

Figure 9 – A runway or any portion of a runway is deemed as having low friction due to rubber accumulation, surface texture degradation, etc.

(2) A normal NOTAM (as opposed to a RSC report) which states that a runway may be “slippery when wet” is issued whenever the surface friction characteristics of a runway fall below the minimum standard, as described above in paragraph (1).

Note: The designation “slippery when wet” – when applied to a normal NOTAM – is a function of the friction characteristics of the pavement.

(3) The airport or aerodrome operator may cancel this normal “slippery when wet” NOTAM only when the runway friction level meets or exceeds the minimum standard.

(4) Special procedures (outlined below) have been developed to address the reporting of runway surface descriptions and RWYCCs for runways which do not meet the minimum coefficient of friction required by TP 312.

D.3 Reporting runway surface descriptions for a low friction (slippery when wet) runway

(1) When reporting in thirds and there is a “slippery when wet” normal NOTAM in effect, the runway surface conditions for each third will be reported as shown in the following examples:

(a) If the first third of a runway had twenty percent coverage of an 1/8 of an inch or less water and the remaining runway thirds were dry, this would be reported as:
SLIPPERY WHEN WET, DRY, DRY
(b) If the first third of a runway had thirty percent coverage of 1/2 inch of water (more than 1/8 inch of water) and the last two thirds were wet, this would be reported as:
30 PCT 1/2IN STANDING WATER, SLIPPERY WHEN WET, SLIPPERY WHEN WET
(c) If the first third of a runway had thirty percent coverage of a contaminant other than standing water such as 1/2 inch dry snow and the remaining thirds were dry, this would be reported as:

30 PCT 1/2IN DRY SNOW, DRY, DRY

(2) When reporting by full runway length (i.e. not by thirds) and there is a “slippery when wet” normal NOTAM in effect, the runway surface conditions for the runway will be reported as shown in the following examples:

(a) If there is 1/8 of an inch or less water on any portion of the runway, this would be reported as:
SLIPPERY WHEN WET
(b) If there is thirty percent coverage of 1/2 inch of water (more than 1/8 inch of water) this would be reported as:
30 PCT 1/2IN STANDING WATER
(c) If there is thirty percent coverage of a contaminant other than standing water such as 1/2 inch dry snow and the remainder of the runway is dry, this would be reported as:
30 PCT 1/2IN DRY SNOW

Note: When there is a “slippery when wet” normal NOTAM in effect, there is no need to issue an AMSCR for dry runway conditions, outside of the circumstances outlined in paragraph 5.9(2) of this AC.

D.4 Reporting RWYCCs for a low friction (slippery when wet) runway

(1) When a “Slippery When Wet” normal NOTAM is in effect, in order to account for the state of the runway surface, a conservative method is used for the reporting of RWYCCs:

(a) when any runway third has moisture or frozen contamination, a RWYCC no greater than 3, or possibly lower, will be assigned to all three runway thirds (i.e. 3/3/3, 2/2/2, etc.). Reported RWYCCs are illustrated in Table 5, below;
Note: Frozen contaminants such as slush and wet snow are basically wet. In addition, any process that transfers heat to the surface may cause frozen contaminants to melt and become more slippery. Heat sources can come from the aircraft tires, engine exhaust/ reverse thrust, atmospheric conditions and precipitation. Runway treatments can also temporarily result in more slippery conditions.
(b) the percentage of coverage does not factor into the determination of the RWYCC; and
(c) when more than one condition or contaminant is present in a runway third or in different runway thirds, the lowest corresponding RWYCC is used, regardless of the amount of coverage.

**Table 5 – Reported RWYCCs when a “slippery when wet” normal (non-RSC) NOTAM is in effect**
RWYCC corresponding to runway surface description (in RCAM)	REPORTED RWYCCNote with slippery when wet normal NOTAM in effect
5	3
4
3
2	2
1	1
0	0
Note: These RWYCCs may also be downgraded, if appropriate. These RWYCCs may also be downgraded, if appropriate.

(2) When RWYCCs are reported for a runway that has a “Slippery When Wet” normal NOTAM in effect, the following information is to be included in the runway remarks:

(a) RWYCC DUE RWY SLIPPERY WHEN WET; and
(b) If the preliminary RWYCCs have also been downgraded, RWYCC DOWNGRADED.

(3) Additional information on the reporting of RWYCCs for low friction “Slippery When Wet” runways can be found in AC 300-019.

Appendix E – Landing performance assessments at time of arrival

E.1 Overview

(1) This appendix provides guidance to assist operators in developing methods to ensure sufficient landing distance exists to safely make a full stop landing on the available runway. It also provides information and guidelines on utilizing the safety benefits provided by the Global Reporting Format (GRF) and aeroplane performance information which accounts for wet and contaminated runway conditions.

Note: This guidance is independent of the requirements for pre-flight landing distance planning (dispatch limitations) which are specified in Sections 705.60, 705.61 and 704.49 of the CARs.

(2) While there is no specific regulation requiring operators to assess landing distance requirements at the time of arrival, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) strongly encourages operators to make these assessments to ensure that a safe landing can be made.

(3) Additionally, TCCA also encourages operators to conduct a time of arrival landing distance assessment that:

(a) uses approved landing performance data and any supplemental/advisory data that accounts for wet and contaminated runway surface conditions (Section E.4);
(b) considers the runway surface conditions (Section E.5); and
(c) includes the relevant aircraft performance considerations (Section E.6).

(4) Background information and recommended best practices for conducting a landing distance assessment at time of arrival are detailed below.

E.2 Reasons for making a time of arrival landing performance assessment

(1) Sections 705.60, 705.61 and 704.49 of the CARs prescribe dispatch landing performance requirements that must be met at the time of take-off. However, compliance with these requirements does not account for the all of conditions of the landing runway at the time of arrival.

(2) This is particularly important for wet or contaminated runways, where the dispatch (pre-take-off) landing performance assessment may not provide adequate runway length for conditions encountered during the landing at destination.

(3) The actual distance needed to safely complete a landing at the time of arrival may be different if the runway in use, runway surface condition, meteorological conditions, approach guidance, aeroplane configuration, aeroplane weight, approach speed, or use of aeroplane ground deceleration devices differs from the conditions used to determine the dispatch landing distance requirements. Runway overruns have occurred when pilots did not make a time of arrival landing performance assessment that addressed these operational factors.

(4) Therefore, to enhance safety, operators should develop procedures to assess landing performance at the time of arrival. These procedures should consider all of the factors that affect landing distance and should include a safety margin.

Notes:

1. Information respecting the factors that affect landing distance are provided in Sections E.5 and E.6.
2. Information respecting the recommended safety margin, including considerations for abnormal or emergency situations, are provided in Section E.7.

E.3 Conducting the assessment: timeliness and considerations

(1) An assessment of time of arrival landing performance should be conducted prior to commencing the descent from cruise altitude. This assessment is initially performed when landing weather and field conditions are obtained, usually just prior to the top of descent (TOD).

(2) It is important to note the time of the latest RSC NOTAM and any associated reliable braking action reports. A number of overruns have occurred when pilots were provided with a runway condition that was no longer reliable given changes in meteorological conditions.

Note: A definition of “reliable braking action reports” appears in Section 2.3(1).

(3) Pilots are strongly advised to review the weather conditions and compare that to the time of the latest braking action report.

(4) Pilots should also determine how much the runway surface conditions can deteriorate while still allowing a landing to be conducted safely. This assessment should include:

(a) the minimum RWYCCs;
(b) reported surface conditions; and
(c) braking action reports.

(5) Throughout the descent and approach pilots should remain vigilant for any deterioration in the above conditions as well as other operational factors such as precipitation, wind changes (especially tailwinds), worsening visibility, etc., to assess whether a landing can be made safely.

E.4 Sources of aeroplane performance information

(1) Appropriate landing performance data will enable operators to perform time of arrival landing performance assessments. Because of differences in the variables taken into account and how the data are to be used, the landing performance data for conducting time-of-arrival landing performance assessments may be different than the landing performance data used for pre-flight dispatch purposes (i.e. developed in accordance with the Airworthiness Standards and provided in the AFM).

(2) For the conduct of time of arrival landing distance performance assessments, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) encourages the use of manufacturer-produced performance information developed in accordance with AC 25-32 – Landing Performance Data for Time-of-Arrival Landing Performance Assessments, when available. AC 25-32 is applicable to Transport Category Aeroplanes, and the performance information developed in this guidance provides operationally representative landing distances which are a significant advancement over the previous performance methods and practices.

(3) Manufacturer-provided guidance on the use of existing data with RWYCCs is to be used when available.

(4) When the aforementioned manufacturer-produced performance information is not available, performance information developed by a third party, in accordance with the methods described in AC 25-32, may be used.

(5) Subject to paragraph (3), when manufacturer-produced performance information or performance information from a third party provider are not available, the landing distance factors (LDF) from Table 6, Landing Distance Factors, may be used for the time of arrival landing performance assessment.

(6) The LDFs given in Table 6 include a 15 percent safety margin, an air distance representative of normal operational practices, a reasonable accounting for temperature, the effect of increased approach speed, reduced wheel braking, reverse thrust usage (or not), the additional effect of reduced wheel braking capability on altitude and wind distance adjustment.

(7) When the time of arrival landing performance assessment is made with the Landing Distance Factors in Table 6:

(a) To find the Landing Distance Required (LDR), multiply the Unfactored Certificated Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Landing Distance by the applicable LDF in Table 6 for the runway conditions existing at the time of arrival.
(b) If the AFM landing distances are presented as factored landing distances, then those data must be adjusted to remove the applicable preflight factors applied to that data.
Note: Definitions for “Unfactored Certificated Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Landing Distance” and “factored landing distance” are provided in paragraph 2.3(1) of this AC.

**Table 6 – Landing distance factors (multipliers to unfactored certificated AFM landing distances)**
	Runway condition code (RWYCC)
Braking action	6 Dry	5 Good grooved/ PFC runway	5 Good smooth runway	4 Good to medium	3 Medium	2 Medium to poor	1 Poor
Turbojet, no reverse	1.67	2.3	2.6	2.8	3.2	4.0	5.1
Turbojet, with reverse	1.67	1.92	2.2	2.3	2.5	2.9	3.4
Turboprop1	1.67	1.92	2.0	2.2	2.4	2.7	2.9
Reciprocating	1.67	2.3	2.6	2.8	3.2	4.0	5.1
Note 1: The LDFs listed for turboprops only apply to turboprop aeroplanes where the AFM provides for a landing distance credit for the use of ground idle power lever position. Turboprop aeroplanes without this credit should use the Turbojet, No Reverse LDFs.

(8) The Landing Distance Factors in Table 6 are also included in the guidance provided in:

(a) FAA SAFO 19001 – Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival; and
(b) FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 4 Chapter 3 Section 1 Safety Assurance System: Airplane Performance Computation Rules, 4-503 Landing Distances at the Time of Arrival

(9) Currently, there are no plans by the TCCA or other Civil Aviation Authorities to provide the manufacturers of Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter Category aeroplanes with advisory information similar to AC 25-32 (which is applicable to Transport Category aeroplanes). In the absence of guidance to manufacturers of these other aeroplanes, Operational Landing Distance data may be based on the recommendations of AC 25-32. This data may be provided by the manufacturer or developed by a performance data provider if manufacturer data is not available. In the absence of guidance to these other aircraft manufacturers, the manufacturer or data provider may consider the recommendations in AC 25-32 when creating data for a time-of-arrival assessment.

E.5 Runway condition considerations

(1) When available for the portion of the runway that will be used for landing, the following need to be considered:

(a) Runway condition codes (RWYCC);
(b) Expected runway conditions (contaminate type and depth); and
(c) pilot braking action reports.
Note: A definition of “reliable braking action reports” appears in paragraph 2.3(1) of this AC.

E.6 Aircraft performance considerations

(1) In addition to runway surface conditions, the following considerations may also impact operational landing distance calculations:

(a) Runway slope;
(b) Airport elevation;
(c) Wind;
(d) Temperature;
(e) Aeroplane weight and configuration;
(f) Approach speed at threshold;
(g) Adjustment to landing distance (such as autoland); and
(h) Planned use of aeroplane ground deceleration devices.

E.7 Safety margin

(1) The operational landing distance (OLD) used for a time of arrival landing assessment should include a safety margin of at least 15 percent.

(2) This minimum 15 percent safety margin should normally correspond to the method of braking to be used (i.e. manual wheel braking or selected level of autobrake) and should never be less than the margin required for manual wheel braking.

Note: Additional information respecting this safety margin and autobrake usage appears in Section E.8.

(3) TCCA acknowledges that there are situations where pilots need to consider the absolute performance capability of the aeroplane. These situations include abnormal configurations of the aeroplane or during emergencies such as an engine failure or flight control malfunctions. In such circumstances, the pilot must consider whether it is safer to remain in the air or to land immediately and should know the actual landing performance capability (without an added safety margin) when making these evaluations. This guidance is not intended to curtail such evaluations from being made for these situations.

E.8 Autobrake usage

(1) While autobrakes are part of the aircraft’s landing configuration, the landing distance assessment is not intended to force a higher than necessary autobrake selection.

(2) Autobrakes normally target a deceleration rate and may not require the employment of the full braking capabilities of the aircraft. Conversely, landing calculations using manual brakes assume that the full capability of the aircraft’s wheel brake system is employed during the rollout phase. v(3) Subject to paragraph (4), for operations when the runway is dry or wet, if the manual braking distance provides a 15 percent safety margin, operators may consider a braking technique that includes a combination of autobrakes and manual braking, even when the selected autobrake landing data does not provide a 15 percent safety margin.

(4) The operator will need to ensure that operational risk is effectively managed, and that proper procedures and crew training are in place when the selected autobrake landing data does not provide a 15 percent safety margin.

(5) For contaminated runways, the minimum 15 percent safety margin should always be based on the method of braking to be used (i.e. should correspond to the selected level of autobrake, if used).

E.9 Touchdown point

(1) The touchdown point used in the performance data assessment reflects the assumed air distance. Operational landing data usually includes an allowance for 1,500 feet or 7 seconds of air distance from the threshold to touchdown.

Note: If no other information is available, the autoland or other similar (aircraft) low visibility guidance system may be assumed to be consistent with the 7 second air distance.

(2) An air distance as short as 1,000 feet may be used providing an operator’s landing assessment procedures include enhancements to minimize the risk of overruns or undershoots, including:

(a) training in touchdown control and short field landing techniques.
(b) identification of required touchdown point and training to assure go-around procedures are initiated if unable to achieve a suitable touchdown point.
(c) approach guidance and runway visual aids (PAPI, runway markings, etc.) on the specific runway are consistent with a shorter air distance.
(d) operational data (without the need for interpolation) are provided to the crew for the specific runway, conditions, and aircraft landing configuration.
(e) the flight techniques assumed in the creation of the performance data used for a shorter air distances are based on flight techniques to be used in the shorter air distance operation. For example, the assumed speed bleed off used in the performance data needs to be consistent with the trained flight techniques for flaring the aircraft.

E.10 Assessment based on preflight (dispatch) criteria.

(1) When the runway is dry, or when the runway is wet and grooved or PFC, the assessment for turbojet aeroplanes with thrust reversers and turboprop aeroplanes with a landing distance credit for the use of ground idle may be as simple as confirming that the runway meets the criteria used for pre-flight landing distance planning (dispatch limitations) as specified in Sections 705.60, 705.61 and 704.49 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).

Note: Information on the runway surface can be obtained from published references and/or the airport or aerodrome operator, as applicable.

(2) In order to make an assessment based on preflight (dispatch) criteria, pilots need to:

(a) ensure that the runway used for landing is the same runway that was assessed for dispatch;
(b) confirm that the wind velocity and other factors that could affect landing distance are the same as those considered during the dispatch assessment; and
(c) when applicable, consider the possibility of a late runway change such as a side-step to a parallel runway.

E.11 Canadian Runway Friction Index

(1) CRFI is a useful tool to enhance pilots’ situational awareness, particularly when it is reported by runway thirds.

(2) CRFI can be used for making time of arrival landing performance assessments by pilots and operators that do not utilize either:

(a) aeroplane performance information (manufacturer produced or developed by a third party) that accounts for contaminated runway conditions; or
(b) the Landing Distance Factors in Table 6.

(3) CRFI describes braking action quantitatively using a numerical format and is described in the TC Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). It should be noted that runway friction readings will not be taken and a CRFI will not be provided to air traffic services (ATS) or to pilots when any of the following runway surface conditions occurs:

(a) wet or slush covered, with no other type of contamination present;
(b) wet snow; or
(c) dry snow exceeding 2.5 cm (1 in.) in depth.

(4) The performance information from the manufacturer always has priority over a landing distance estimate derived from CRFI. TC AIM, Chapter AIR, Section 1.6.7, CRFI Application to Aircraft Performance states, in part:

The onus for the production of information, guidance or advice on the operation of aircraft on a wet and/or contaminated runway rests with the aircraft manufacturer.

E.12 Recommended actions

(1) Operators should take appropriate action to address the safety concerns, information and guidance discussed in this appendix. It should be reviewed and considered for inclusion in the operator’s:

(a) Company Operations Manual (COM);
(b) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs);
(c) training programs for pilots and flight dispatchers; and/or
(d) any other established means of conveying safety and operational information within their organization (bulletins, notices, etc.).
Note: Further to this general recommendation, specific recommendations are detailed below.

(2) Operators should develop procedures for pilots to assess landing performance based on conditions existing at time of arrival, distinct from conditions forecast prior to departure. Those conditions that should be considered include:

(a) runway surface conditions (Section E.5);
(b) aircraft performance considerations (Section E.6); and
(c) any other conditions that the operator deems necessary to conduct a safe landing.

(3) Once the actual landing distance is determined at the time of arrival, an additional safety margin of at least 15 percent should be added to the actual landing distance. Except under emergency conditions, pilots should not attempt to land on runways that do not meet the time of arrival assessment criteria and safety margins specified in this appendix.

(4) Operator’s pilot and dispatcher (where applicable) training programs should include elements that provide knowledge in all aspects and assumptions used in landing distance performance determinations:

(a) This training should emphasize the aeroplane ground deceleration devices (use of reverse thrust and autobrake settings) and piloting methods (e.g., air distance) used in determining landing distances for each make, model, and series of aeroplane. Elements such as braking action reports, aeroplane configuration, optimal stopping performance techniques, stopping margin, the effects of excess speed, delays in activating deceleration devices, and other pilot performance techniques should be addressed.
(b) All pilots and dispatchers should be trained on these elements prior to conducting operations on contaminated runway surfaces.
(c) This training should be accomplished in a manner consistent with the operator’s methods for conveying similar knowledge to flight operations personnel.

(5) Procedures for obtaining optimal stopping performance on contaminated runways should be included in operator’s flight training programs:

(a) All pilots should be made aware of these procedures for the make/model/series of aeroplane they operate.
(b) If not already included, these procedures should be incorporated into each aeroplane or simulator training curriculum for initial qualification on the make/model/series aeroplane, or differences training as appropriate.
(c) All pilots should have hands-on training and validated proficiency in these procedures.

(6) To facilitate a time of arrival performance assessment based on preflight (dispatch) criteria (discussed in Section E.10), operators should establish procedures to make pilots aware of the runway and associated conditions that were assessed for dispatch purposes.

(7) Through performance analysis, operators should identify those runway which are adequate in terms of the preflight regulatory requirements specified in Sections 705.60, 705.61 and 704.49 of the CARs, may not provide adequate runway length for landing during a wet or contaminated conditions. For those affected runways, operators should develop procedures to ensure the pilots will have sufficient runway for the conditions expected at the estimated time of arrival. (i.e. The operator should consider the likely runway surface conditions at the time of arrival based on the weather reports and forecasts.)

(8) For landings on runways which are wet or contaminated, operators should respect any guidance from the aircraft manufacturer regarding the maximum crosswinds for these conditions. This guidance is typically provided in a flight crew operating manual (FCOM), flight crew training manual (FCTM) and/or quick reference handbook (QRH).

Appendix F –Take-offs on wet and contaminated runways

F.1 Overview

(1) This appendix provides information and guidance to operators of Transport Category aeroplanes to assist them in accounting for wet and contaminated runway conditions during take-off.

(2) This discussion includes explanations of:

(a) risks associated with take-off on wet and contaminated runways;
(b) maximum allowable take-off weight;
(c) effects of wet and contaminated runway surface conditions on take-off performance;
(d) sources of performance data;
(e) regulations; and
(f) recommended actions.

F.2 Risks associated with take-offs on wet and contaminated runways

(1) Runways which are wet or contaminated have a significant impact on take-off safety.

(2) Analysis of accidents has shown that approximately one-third of all runway overruns during rejected take-offs were reported as having occurred on runways that were wet, or contaminated with snow or ice (source: FAA Takeoff Safety Training Aid).

(3) Contaminant drag (rolling resistance and impingement drag), which increases with contaminant depth, impedes acceleration during a take-off.

(4) For runways that are wet, or covered by a contaminant that has no appreciable depth, the slipperiness of the surface adds to the stopping distance during a rejected take-off.

(5) Under field length limiting conditions, a rejected take-off conducted on a wet or contaminated runway, using a V1 that was calculated for a dry runway, will likely result in a runway overrun.

(6) The risks associated with take-off on a wet or contaminated runway can be mitigated through the use of appropriate take-off performance data which accounts for these conditions.

F.3 Maximum allowable take-off weight

(1) The maximum allowable take-off weight for a Transport Category aeroplane is determined with reference to:

(a) the applicable operating regulations in the CARs (i.e. regulations respecting aeroplane performance in subparts 705, 704 and 604); and
(b) aircraft flight manual (AFM) limitations, including structural, field length, climb, obstacle clearance, tire speed, brake energy and return to land requirements.

(2) Field length limitations are defined by requirements for:

(a) Accelerate-Stop;
(b) One-Engine Inoperative Take-off Distance; and
(c) 115% of the All-Engine-Operative (AEO) Take-off Distance.

F.4 Effects of wet or contaminated runway surface conditions on take-off performance

(1) Runway surface conditions can have a significant effect on aeroplane take-off performance since they can affect both the acceleration and deceleration capability of the aeroplane.

(2) There are two principle groups of contaminants:

(a) Solid contaminants such as compacted snow and ice; and
(b) Loose contaminants such as water, slush, wet snow, and dry snow.

(3) These two groups of contaminants have various effects on aeroplane performance:

(a) Solid contaminants are slippery, which results in decreased brake effectiveness (stopping ability); and
(b) Loose contaminants are also slippery. In addition, they produce additional drag due to the combination of displacement of the contaminant by the aircraft’s tires and impingement of the contaminant spray on the airframe. This contaminant drag provides a force which impedes acceleration during a take-off, and also effects deceleration during a rejected take-off.

(4) When calculating the maximum allowable take-off weight, some aircraft may be more restricted by loose contaminants than by solid (slippery) runway conditions. Conversely, other aircraft may be more restricted by solid contaminants. Which contaminant is most limiting is dependent upon the specific aircraft type as well as the performance methods provided by the manufacturer.

F.5 Relevant Information in RSC NOTAM

(1) Pilots and flight dispatchers utilize the reported runway surface description (condition or contaminant type and depth) when determining the aeroplane’s maximum allowable take-off weight and performance.

(2) When reporting by runway thirds, up to two runway surface descriptions can be reported. Similarly, when the runway is reported by full runway length, up to two runway surface descriptions can be reported. This allows pilots and flight dispatchers to accurately determine the maximum allowable take-off weight – since the limiting contaminant is not the same for all aeroplanes (as explained in Section F.4).

(3) Although landing performance can be based on a runway condition code (RWYCC), this method is not able to capture the contaminant drag effects (from loose contaminants) on aircraft acceleration during take-off.

F.6 Aeroplane performance data to address wet or contaminated runways

(1) In general, aeroplane performance data to address wet or contaminated runway conditions can be provided:

(a) in the approved aircraft flight manual (AFM); and/or
(b) as supplementary (advisory) data which may be provided in an AFM supplement or flight crew operating manual (FCOM).

(2) The take-off performance data listed above may or may not include accountability for the one-engine inoperative condition. Additional information appears in paragraph (4), below.

(3) Take-off performance data that accounts for the one-engine inoperative condition typically has the following characteristics:

(a) weight penalties are applied to the maximum allowable take-off weight;
(b) a reduction in V1 (in most cases);
(c) a 15 foot screen height (which as a method to allow a reduced V1, thereby minimizing the penalty applied to allowable take-off weight); and
(d) credit for thrust reversers, if they are installed and operative.

(4) For some older aircraft types, manufacturers typically provided take-off performance information for wet or contaminated runways which only addressed the all-engine-operating take-off distance requirements. Some of these manufacturers may also be able to provide performance data which also includes accountability for the one-engine-inoperative condition.

(5) Because of the specific characteristics of various aeroplane types, it has not been possible to create generic factors for calculating take-off performance on wet or contaminated runways.

F.7 Regulations

(1) Although the current regulations do not require operators accounting for wet or contaminated runway conditions, in view of the above, accounting for these conditions is highly recommended.

(2) The use of a 15 foot screen height may appear to contradict the established requirement for a 35 foot screen height. However, Section 705.54 of the CARs provides for an exception if the air operator is authorized in an air operator certificate and complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS).

Note: Details respecting the use of contaminated runway performance data – including the use of a 15 foot screen height – are found in Section 725.54 of the CASS.

F.8 Recommended actions

(1) For take-offs on wet or contaminated runways, operators are strongly encouraged to utilize AFM data which accounts for these conditions, if it is available.

(2) When AFM data for wet or contaminated runways is not available, operators are strongly encouraged to utilize advisory data which is produced or approved by the aircraft manufacturer.

(3) When available, take-off data which accounts for the engine-inoperative condition should be utilized.

(4) For take-offs on wet or contaminated runways, operators should respect any guidance from the aircraft manufacturer regarding the maximum crosswinds for these conditions. This guidance is typically provided in a flight crew operating manual (FCOM), flight crew training manual (FCTM) and/or quick reference handbook (QRH).

(5) Operators should take appropriate action to address the safety concerns, information and guidance discussed in this appendix. It should be reviewed and considered for inclusion in the operator’s:

(a) Company Operations Manual (COM);
(b) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs);
(c) training programs for pilots and flight dispatchers; and/or
(d) any other established means of conveying safety and operational information within their organization (bulletins, notices, etc.).

Global Reporting Format (GRF) for Runway Surface Conditions: Guidance for Flight Operations
(PDF, 1,57 MB)

Advisory Circular (AC) No. 700-057

Subject: Global Reporting Format (GRF) for Runway Surface Conditions: Guidance for Flight Operations

Table of contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Applicability

1.3 Description of changes

2.0 References and requirements

2.1 Reference documents

2.2 Cancelled documents

2.3 Definitions and abbreviations

3.0 Background

3.1 General

3.2 Structure of this Advisory Circular

4.0 Components of the Global Reporting Format (GRF) in Canada

4.1 General

4.2 Aircraft Movement Surface Condition Report (AMSCR) and runway surface condition (RSC) NOTAM.

4.3 Runway condition assessment matrix (RCAM)

4.4 Runway condition code (RWYCC)

4.5 Runway surface conditions

5.0 Runway surface condition (RSC) NOTAM

5.1 General

5.2 NOTAM information

5.3 Runway surface condition (RSC) information

5.4 Runway surface conditions

5.5 Runway condition code (RWYCC)

5.6 Condition or contaminant(s) within the cleared width

5.7 Percent coverage

5.8 Contaminant depth

5.9 Runway surface descriptions

5.10 Number of runway surface descriptions that may be reported

5.11 Condition of unpaved and partially paved runways

5.12 Cleared width

5.13 Snow drifts, windrows and snow banks on the runway

5.14 Localized conditions

5.15 Treatments applied to the runway surface

5.16 Conditions on remaining width of the runway

5.17 Snow banks adjacent to the runway

5.18 Runway remarks

5.19 RSC validity period

5.20 Canadian Runway Friction Index (CRFI) information

5.21 Taxiway and apron conditions

5.22 General remarks

5.23 Examples of completed RSC NOTAMs

6.0 Conclusion

7.0 Information management

8.0 Document history

9.0 Contact us

Appendix A – Reporting by runway thirds

A.1 Overview

A.2 Discussion

A.3 Recommended actions

Appendix B – Runway condition codes

B.1 Overview

B.2 Runway condition codes

B.3 Runway condition assessment matrix

B.4 Assessment criteria

B.5 Runway surface description

B.6 Runway condition code (RWYCC)

B.7 Control/braking assessment criteria

B.8 Determination of the RWYCC for the RSC NOTAM

B.9 RWYCCs: a decision support tool not a decision-making tool

Appendix C – Risks associated with wet conditions and standing water

C.1 Overview

C.2 Risk of runway overruns associated with wet and standing water conditions

C.3 Reporting wet runway conditions

C.4 Reporting standing water conditions

C.5 Runway characteristics

C.6 Rainfall intensity

C.7 Recommended actions

Appendix D – Low friction “slippery when wet” runways

D.1 Overview

D.2 Runway minimum coefficient of friction requirements

D.3 Reporting runway surface descriptions for a low friction (slippery when wet) runway

D.4 Reporting RWYCCs for a low friction (slippery when wet) runway

Appendix E – Landing performance assessments at time of arrival

E.1 Overview

E.2 Reasons for making a time of arrival landing performance assessment

E.3 Conducting the assessment: timeliness and considerations

E.4 Sources of aeroplane performance information