Narrative:

Dispatched to cmh with runway 10R as intended landing runway. No NOTAMS out for closure (that I was aware of). ATIS indicated ILS to runway 10R and also landing 10L (a short runway for a DC9). Briefed ILS runway 10R and upon contact with approach control, gave ATIS code and was given a vector. About 5 or 6 NM from intercepting final we were advised it was for the left (shore one) and right was closed for snow removal. Uncomfortable, we executed a missed approach about 6 mi from field to check/double-check legality. Upon checking we determined we were just barely legal for the tailwind (6 KT tailwind component) and braking action mu meter reading translated to good. Previous aircraft reported fair. We landed and experienced poor braking and used almost all of runway. Brap was reported to tower along with the fact we needed every bit of runway. Another air carrier MD80 landed mins later and went off the end of runway. Problems: 1) no report (NOTAM) of intended runway closures (the tower said they were 'cycling' runways all day). 2) tailwind was unnecessary with localizer back course available to runway 28R. 3) I assumed that tower passed the report but even if they did I doubt that the importance of 'using all the runway' was passed. If so, I'm sure they would have reconsidered their approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH AND LNDG PROCS CRITICIZED BY ACR FO. RWY CONDITION ICE WITH BRAKING ACTION RPTED GOOD FAIR POOR.

Narrative: DISPATCHED TO CMH WITH RWY 10R AS INTENDED LNDG RWY. NO NOTAMS OUT FOR CLOSURE (THAT I WAS AWARE OF). ATIS INDICATED ILS TO RWY 10R AND ALSO LNDG 10L (A SHORT RWY FOR A DC9). BRIEFED ILS RWY 10R AND UPON CONTACT WITH APCH CTL, GAVE ATIS CODE AND WAS GIVEN A VECTOR. ABOUT 5 OR 6 NM FROM INTERCEPTING FINAL WE WERE ADVISED IT WAS FOR THE L (SHORE ONE) AND R WAS CLOSED FOR SNOW REMOVAL. UNCOMFORTABLE, WE EXECUTED A MISSED APCH ABOUT 6 MI FROM FIELD TO CHK/DOUBLE-CHK LEGALITY. UPON CHKING WE DETERMINED WE WERE JUST BARELY LEGAL FOR THE TAILWIND (6 KT TAILWIND COMPONENT) AND BRAKING ACTION MU METER READING TRANSLATED TO GOOD. PREVIOUS ACFT RPTED FAIR. WE LANDED AND EXPERIENCED POOR BRAKING AND USED ALMOST ALL OF RWY. BRAP WAS RPTED TO TWR ALONG WITH THE FACT WE NEEDED EVERY BIT OF RWY. ANOTHER ACR MD80 LANDED MINS LATER AND WENT OFF THE END OF RWY. PROBS: 1) NO RPT (NOTAM) OF INTENDED RWY CLOSURES (THE TWR SAID THEY WERE 'CYCLING' RWYS ALL DAY). 2) TAILWIND WAS UNNECESSARY WITH LOC BACK COURSE AVAILABLE TO RWY 28R. 3) I ASSUMED THAT TWR PASSED THE RPT BUT EVEN IF THEY DID I DOUBT THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF 'USING ALL THE RWY' WAS PASSED. IF SO, I'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE RECONSIDERED THEIR APCH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.