Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 7M5.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF 7M5
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We have used this airport (7M5/Ozark-Franklin County) on numerous occasions utilizing our small jet during VMC conditions with DRY runway conditions only. At the weights we fly into and out of this airport we require approximately 2;800 feet landing distance on runway 4 with a 1.3% slope to the northeast; calm winds. This is pretty much a one-way in and one way out airport in that you really need to land runway 4 and takeoff runway 22 due to runway slope.On this particular date I briefed the approach to the Pilot Not Flying (PNF) to include the fact we would be on a stabilized approach at Vref over the approach end with little to no float. I also advised the PNF that if he saw anything at all that he was uncomfortable with on short final; simply announce 'Go-around'. Approach to landing and touchdown was normal. Upon getting the nosewheel down the PNF deployed the speed brakes as I applied maximum braking while deploying thrust reversers. The anti-skid was working as if we were on a WET runway but combined with the thrust reversers we obtained safe decellerative forces to rollout at about 2800-3000 feet to a safe taxi speed and clear the runway; which is only 3302 feet.The surface appeared to have been resurfaced as myself and the PNF went back out to check the runway where we clearly observed the affects from our anti-skid. Also; there were clear and visible skid marks from another aircraft uniformly placed on the last 1;500 feet of the runway where it appears an aircraft had departed the end of the runway!My assessment subjectively was that although the runway was dry; it seemed slick possibly due to the surface treatment. This was brought up to the Aviation Manager after our trip and also at a recent pilots meeting where we discussed this and other issues that increases our risk exposure at this particular airport.We contacted the airport and found that the runway had been resurfaced in October 2013 with a Bituminous Pavement Rejuvenator. It is not clear as of this date whether requisite tests were conducted prior to or after the application of this treatment to ascertain the acceptable level of runway friction. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10G; Part 7; Item P-632; Para. 632-1.1 states in part that this treatment should only be used on surfaces where aircraft weighing less than 12;500 pounds operate. The Airport Facility Directory lists the weight for Single Wheel aircraft of 12;000 pounds. I feel this is one more reason NOT to fly this type of aircraft into this particular airport. Overall; the risks outweigh the benefits.As of today; it is recommended to the Aviation Manager that we terminate operations into 7M5 until further risk analysis is conducted so we can determine the effects of this treatment on our ability to use the landing and takeoff numbers obtained from the AFM.As a Corporate Flight Department; we have a unique operational requirement that often takes us into/out of smaller airports with runways normally between 3;500-4;500 feet or greater. Many have listed weight limits of less than 12;500 pounds for single wheeled aircraft and there could be numerous reasons for this that a crew may not be aware of; such as the impact of any runway maintenance and resurfacing treatments; ramp limits; etc. Before you trust the data obtained from the AFM; you must ensure that the runway is in a condition that offers normal friction and braking action between the aircraft tire and the runway surface. This is difficult to determine and not reasonable at a non FAR 139 airport. We often know a runway is either wet or dry; but as to actual friction test results? We don't know for sure and assume that dry means we will have normal braking effectiveness. However; this may in fact NOT be the case.I would also advise any similar Part 91 Flight Department to look at the airports they operate into and out of that are NON Part 139 airports; and conduct an appropriate and thorough 'Risk Assessment' to determine that airports suitability for any continued operations and under what conditions. Although we landed uneventfully; I feel this could have easily turned into a runway overrun situation if every relevant factor involved with landing certification numbers was not observed. That includes the actual runway surface and at uncontrolled non FAR 139 airports; you may not know the actual braking effectiveness of that surface until you hit the brakes!!




Synopsis: A corporate jet landed at 7M5 and had difficulty stopping. They discovered the runway was resurfaced with a Bituminous Pavement Rejuvenator; which FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10G recommends only be used on surfaces where aircraft weighing less than 12;500 pounds operate.