Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Manuals; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

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


Second narrative: Flight was enroute to EGE when ATC advised them that braking action CFM (Continuous Friction Measurement) values were .47/.59/.71. Crew advised me this via ACARS; stated that they were in the hold; and asked if I had 'an equivalent to Good and Poor.' I had previously gotten and advised them of a field condition report; based upon a statement by the Operations Agent at EGE; of a wet runway; with a MU value of 41; I do not know where that came from (it was probably CFM information from the airport). The FOM does not reference what CFM is. I called the Tower to confirm the information; and the Controller said that she didn't have a recent reliable braking action report from an airplane. I passed this on to the flight. Then I asked Tower to have the Airport Operations Manager contact me. I talked to the gentleman; who told me that those CFM values (I later found out; via the INTERNET; that CFM means Continuous Friction Measuring) are all that they are allowed to give out. He could not state whether those were equivalent to MU values. The flight landed shortly thereafter without responding to my ACARS message. If CFM is equivalent to MU values; or ICAO standard decimal values; can this information be put in the FOM?


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