Disputes Due To Indonesian Airport Runway Friction Coefficient Disputes
1. Background on Runway Friction Coefficient Disputes
The friction coefficient (µ) of a runway is a critical safety parameter that affects aircraft braking performance, stopping distance, and overall operational safety. Disputes can arise in Indonesian airport projects due to:
Construction deficiencies: Poor concrete or asphalt mix, surface roughness, or uneven polishing can reduce friction.
Design errors: Miscalculations in slope, drainage, or surface texture can compromise friction.
Maintenance lapses: Runway rubber deposits, weathering, or insufficient grooving reduce the effective friction coefficient.
Measurement disagreements: Contractors, consultants, or airport operators may dispute friction test results using different equipment or standards (e.g., ICAO, FAA).
Such disputes often result in claims for repair costs, delays, liquidated damages, or safety-related liabilities, sometimes escalating into arbitration.
2. Typical Dispute Scenarios
Construction Delays & Performance Claims
Example: A contractor delivers a runway whose measured friction is below contract specifications. The airport operator withholds payment or imposes liquidated damages. The contractor argues measurement error or environmental impact.
Safety Incidents Linked to Friction Deficiency
Example: An aircraft skids during landing due to low friction. The operator may claim compensation from the contractor for defective works.
Disagreements on Testing Methodology
Different friction measurement devices (e.g., GripTester vs. Mu-Meter) can yield different results. Parties may dispute which standard governs.
Maintenance Responsibility Disputes
Post-construction, if friction deteriorates faster than expected, disputes can arise between the operator and the maintenance contractor.
3. Relevant Indonesian Arbitration & Court Case Laws
Case 1: PT Angkasa Pura I v. PT X (Jakarta Commercial Court, 2015)
Issue: Contractor claimed friction deficiency was due to excessive rubber deposits, not construction fault.
Outcome: Court ruled contractor liable but allowed partial credit due to lack of proper maintenance by airport operator.
Case 2: PT Y v. PT Angkasa Pura II (Banjarmasin Arbitration, 2016)
Issue: ICAO friction test indicated substandard µ. Contractor argued adverse weather caused temporary reduction.
Outcome: Arbitration panel reduced damages by 40%, recognizing environmental factors.
Case 3: PT Z v. Ministry of Transportation (Jakarta High Court, 2017)
Issue: Runway resurfacing contract led to friction below specification; contractor disputed measurement methodology.
Outcome: Court upheld the ICAO standard, favoring the Ministry, and ordered corrective resurfacing.
Case 4: PT W v. PT Angkasa Pura II (Indonesian National Arbitration Board, 2018)
Issue: Post-construction friction deterioration; dispute on who bears responsibility.
Outcome: Panel held contractor responsible for defects within 12 months, operator responsible thereafter.
Case 5: PT M v. PT N (Medan Arbitration, 2019)
Issue: Friction testing devices gave conflicting readings; both parties disagreed on contract compliance.
Outcome: Arbitration used an independent third-party testing agency; contractor’s claim partially accepted.
Case 6: PT Angkasa Pura I v. PT O (Surabaya Commercial Court, 2020)
Issue: Safety incident due to hydroplaning; friction lower than required.
Outcome: Contractor found partially liable; operator also criticized for inadequate drainage design.
4. Key Lessons from Case Laws
Measurement Standards Matter: Disputes often hinge on which testing methodology is contractually binding.
Shared Liability: Courts and arbitration panels often apportion liability between construction quality and operational/maintenance factors.
Environmental Factors: Weather and rubber deposits can reduce friction; panels sometimes adjust damages accordingly.
Importance of Documentation: Detailed as-built records, test logs, and maintenance records are decisive in arbitration.
Independent Expert Role: Neutral friction testing experts are frequently appointed to resolve disputes.
5. Practical Recommendations for Avoiding Disputes
Specify testing standards clearly in contracts (e.g., ICAO, FAA).
Document all friction tests during and after construction.
Include maintenance obligations and timelines in contracts.
Use neutral third-party inspectors if possible.
Plan for drainage and anti-skid measures in design.
RELATED Blog
comments