CFRI .50

[Gannet167]

I landed at an airport that had a runway surface reported 90% trace loose snow, 10% compact snow. However, it was bare and dry. I would rate it 100% good to go, just the surface of it was cold. The reported CFRI was .50. Another aircraft landed and commented on the reported CFRI because with the crosswind, they were close to limits - and they too agreed that the runway was bare and dry and .50 was very conservative. The answer over the radio was that .50 is the highest value the machine can measure. I'm pretty sure if you could measure it, the runway would have been far above .50 - probably like .70 etc. By publishing .50, the crosswind limits can come into play. Was this normal or should the airport have removed the .50? I thought they only reported it if it was .50 and below. It seems to me that if the runway wasn't contaminated it should not have a CFRI published.

[YYZatcboy]

I've seen higher CRFI's, but lots of airports have in their NOTAM that they won't report it if it's over .5. YHZ is the worst for posting CRFI's when the runway should not be contaminated though, for example a 80% bare and dry 20% loose snow trace CRFI of .46.

[Dagwood]

Read the section in the AIM on CRFI (AIR 1.6). The CRFI is an average of the entire runway. Furthermore, the crosswind limitation is not restrictive, only recommended.

This chart provides information for calculating headwind and crosswind components and the vertical lines indicate the recommended maximum crosswind component for reported CRFI.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to link it...

[True North]

Read the section in the AIM on CRFI (AIR 1.6). The CRFI is an average of the entire runway. Furthermore, the crosswind limitation is not restrictive, only recommended.

This chart provides information for calculating headwind and crosswind components and the vertical lines indicate the recommended maximum crosswind component for reported CRFI.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to link it...

The CRFI chart and indeed most manufacterer's performance charts are "advisory". None of them are prohibitory although they all may be "restrictive". You just ignore them at your peril.

That said, the way CRFI is reported is a joke. There is a national standard but each airport applies whatever method is convenient for them.

[Adam1100]

Ive seen the machine, it does report over .5 but if it does it is considered to be "not applicable" and left out of the report.

[GARRETT]

Furthermore, the crosswind limitation is not restrictive, only recommended.

Lol! I have a sneaking suspicion that if you run off the side of the runway while choosing to ignore the "recommendations", the prosecuting lawyer will have a hay day with your "I've done it a thousand times" defense. If the chart says I need .40 then I will wait till I get .40. Cover your arses guys, the Keystone case made it very clear that we need to.

[Gannet167]

Where I work, if the crosswind chart says CRFI/JBI X, we don't take off unless it's X or better for those winds.

I just found it odd that this runway was effectively bare and dry, and yet reported as if it was somewhat slippery. This can cause crosswind limit problems for some guys (at least, if their operation requires them to pay credence to the chart) We generally treat a wet runway as .45 to .50 for takeoff and landing calculations. This runway was no where near the level of 'sliperiness' of a wet runway, and the cross wind was substantial.

[Dagwood]

I have a sneaking suspicion that if you run off the side of the runway while choosing to ignore the "recommendations", the prosecuting lawyer will have a hay day with your "I've done it a thousand times" defense.

I agree with that. I was just simply quoting the rules.

[mattedfred]

It is my understanding that a CRFI is not required if the RSC is reported as 50% B&D or more. Perhaps they were obligated to report the CRFI because the RSC was reported as less than 50% B&D?

I would rather land on a runway that had a RSC/CRFI that I felt was too conservative rather than one that I felt was not conservative enough. This is also why I always use brakes while rolling out on a contaminated runway, even though I normally do not require the use of brakes, in order to provide a braking action report for the next pilot.

[frankfrank]

mattedfred, don't you fly a Dash 8 for Jazz? Aren't brakes on a Dash only meant for parking at the gate? I was under the impression that as long as it's not .1 CRFI in front of the marshaller a Dash is fine on any surface.

[Snagmaster E]

How old was the report? I've heard CRFI reports that are 3+ hours old and no where near indicative of the runway.

[FICU]

CRFI is definitely not an accurate science and braking reports are very subjective.

I have landed on a runway with an RFI of .46 and then reported braking action as poor to the tower and I have landed on a runway with an RFI of .25 and reported braking action as fair to good. With a good RFI, above 5, I have had a similar type land ahead and report braking action as poor and after landing 15 minutes after that aircraft I reported braking action as good.

[mattedfred]

mattedfred, don't you fly a Dash 8 for Jazz? Aren't brakes on a Dash only meant for parking at the gate? I was under the impression that as long as it's not .1 CRFI in front of the marshaller a Dash is fine on any surface.

We made A4 exit landing on 6R then Rwy10 landing on 6L in YUL the other day. I thought the brakes needed a workout.

and the Crosswind charts starts at .20 by the way.

[Cat Driver]

I understand deep snow stops a Dash 8 fairly fast.

[Doc]

I understand deep snow stops a Dash 8 fairly fast.

Bad Cat! Back to your litter box!

[frankfrank]

We made A4 exit landing on 6R then Rwy10 landing on 6L in YUL the other day. I thought the brakes needed a workout.

and the Crosswind charts starts at .20 by the way.

Nice! I love that airplane!