Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PGV.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Snow
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF PGV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Winter weather plaguing the South. Worked with Operations extensively throughout the day; flight was initially delayed two hours due to unfavorable weather at PGV; -RA; SN; FZRN; low vis; low ceilings. Arrived at gate nearly 45 minutes prior to departure. Took almost an hour to obtain releases and get pushed from gate; during this time talked with Dispatch regarding PGV weather and runway conditions. The TAF was showing warming temperatures and nothing worse than -RA; reported MU's were all well above 40. Enroute contacted Dispatch to verify conditions; first message stated everything well above 40; and that he would have another update in a few minutes. With approximately 20-30 minutes of flight time remaining we received MU's; with the lowest being 56 averaging 61; leaving us no room for concern. Winds (050/6) were favoring Runway 2; so we planned/briefed the GPS 2; knowing the ceiling was marginal. We CRMed the situation extensively; and planned to treat the airport as a special 'winter ops' airport due to the 6;500 foot runway; unfamiliar station; and night operations. We also planned to treat the runway as it was contaminated; even though we had nothing to suggest it was anything different than wet. After getting established on the GPS 2; the ceiling was holding steady at 500; lower than required. We CRM'd the situation and decided to utilize ILS 20. The winds were showing a slight quartering tailwind; within limits for a wet runway. Again; we CRM'd the decision extensively and determined we could safely utilize this approach; knowing we had sufficient fuel and two alternates if we needed to go-around and divert. The approach itself was light/moderate turbulence; winds at 1;000 FT were over 40 KTS (crosswind).  We monitored the winds; and they remained primarily as a crosswind; not much of a tailwind; and subsided as we approached the runway; although still bumpy. At approximately 40 FT it was evident the runway was worse than wet; but thrust was at idle and we were committed to landing. The airplane being light; I applied forward pressure to get the airplane on the runway. The mains touched on/near the 1;000 foot markers; and the nose touched one second later. I immediately applied max (pedals to the floor) braking and max reverse; and full forward control column pressure. It was immediately evident the airplane was sliding; I didn't really feel the antiskid cycling because the tires weren't gripping any pavement.   As the airplane began to slow (below 40 KTS); the nose drifted slightly right of center; and I was unable to correct. I utilized max reverse until the airplane came to a complete stop; with approximately 750 FT of runway remaining.  Braking action poor. The runways/taxiways/ramp all had at least two inches of slush covering every surface. Not wet as reported; and there is no possible way the MU's were accurate; or even close. Talked with station personnel and MU readings; and they seemed generally unaware of the purpose of the reading; or what the numbers meant. They said they were out approximately 10 minutes to our arrival obtaining readings. When asked how they could report the runway as wet; they didn't have an answer or seem to understand the difference between wet and slush. After this situation; the First Officer and I worked extensively with the Duty Pilot/Dispatch/Operations to make a plan to depart safely.  Bottom line; had we had accurate conditions and runway conditions we would have never attempted a landing at PGV.  The situation was completely unsafe; and we were approximately 750 FT from departing a paved surface. My crew was set up for failure.  Suggestions; must have accurate weather and field conditions.  Dispatch/Operations/Duty Pilot were extremely helpful throughout the entire day; and we were never once pressured into taking that flight. However; the conditions provided to everyone led us to believe that operating the flight would be routine and safe.




Synopsis: Medium Transport flight crew landing PGV reported a near runway excursion event when the reported runway conditions were inaccurate.