Narrative:

I had received a WX briefing and left jax on an IFR flight plan to teb. I was alone in my own plane. WX from jax to teb was clear, smooth and VMC all the way to about 50 mi south of teb at which time the conditions remained mostly clear but the winds became very gusty. A storm had passed through earlier in the day. I was flying the ILS 6 approach. As the runway came into sight, about 10 mi out, I noted that the runway was covered with snow. Winds were increasing. A final wind check indicated that winds were 310 degrees at 19 KTS gusting to 26 KTS. I asked tower about braking conditions and was told first third was fair last 2/3 were poor. Runway 1/19 had been closed all day and had been notamed in my morning briefing and on the ATIS. Runway 6 was being used because the opposite end (which would have been runway 24 and would have put me into a quartering headwind) had, I assumed, not been plowed and simply had too much snow. Upon landing, the plane veered to the left and started to run off the runway. I applied right rudder, gently trying to return the plane to the center of the runway but the winds which were now directly behind and gusting very strongly drove the plane to the right and the plane came to a halt in a snowbank on the right side of the runway. The runway was extremely slick. The snow was covering a solid sheet of ice. Upon reflection I should have aborted the landing and gone to another airport where wind and runway conditions would have been more favorable. What caused me not to make that decision was that I have had a lot of experience landing in xwinds and planes had been lined up landing in front and were lined up behind. No one seemed overly concerned in listening to the tower/pilot conversations. What I was not aware of was that all the planes landing that day had been jets which were much heavier. There apparently had been almost no piston planes that had landed. A high ranking individual told me, off the record, that he felt the airport should have been closed if runway 24 could not be opened. I'm sure the reason it was not was due to the heavy amount of corp jet traffic and the inconvenience that would be caused. Is it not possible that an airport like teb should on rare occasions like this be closed to piston plane or planes under a certain gross weight and only open to turbine and heavier craft? Is it discriminatory to simply say this airport and these conditions are safe for certain types of aircraft and not for others? And if pilots do not wish to give up this decision process, would it not be practical to note this on the ATIS: wind and runway conditions make landing aircraft under XXXX pounds gross weight inadvisable. Yes, I should have looked at the information copied from the ATIS perhaps more carefully, and yes when the tower told me the winds on my final wind check and reported the poor braking conditions I should have aborted but I was deceived by the calm banter between pilots in front and behind. If I had heard a statement on the ATIS that landing was not advised for planes under 7000 pounds I would have perked up faster and planned my missed approach and request to another field.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C310 HAS LOSS OF ACFT CTL ON LNDG ROLLOUT DUE TO RWY CONDITION OF SNOW AND ICE. ACFT SLIDES INTO SNOW BANK.

Narrative: I HAD RECEIVED A WX BRIEFING AND LEFT JAX ON AN IFR FLT PLAN TO TEB. I WAS ALONE IN MY OWN PLANE. WX FROM JAX TO TEB WAS CLR, SMOOTH AND VMC ALL THE WAY TO ABOUT 50 MI S OF TEB AT WHICH TIME THE CONDITIONS REMAINED MOSTLY CLR BUT THE WINDS BECAME VERY GUSTY. A STORM HAD PASSED THROUGH EARLIER IN THE DAY. I WAS FLYING THE ILS 6 APCH. AS THE RWY CAME INTO SIGHT, ABOUT 10 MI OUT, I NOTED THAT THE RWY WAS COVERED WITH SNOW. WINDS WERE INCREASING. A FINAL WIND CHK INDICATED THAT WINDS WERE 310 DEGS AT 19 KTS GUSTING TO 26 KTS. I ASKED TWR ABOUT BRAKING CONDITIONS AND WAS TOLD FIRST THIRD WAS FAIR LAST 2/3 WERE POOR. RWY 1/19 HAD BEEN CLOSED ALL DAY AND HAD BEEN NOTAMED IN MY MORNING BRIEFING AND ON THE ATIS. RWY 6 WAS BEING USED BECAUSE THE OPPOSITE END (WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN RWY 24 AND WOULD HAVE PUT ME INTO A QUARTERING HEADWIND) HAD, I ASSUMED, NOT BEEN PLOWED AND SIMPLY HAD TOO MUCH SNOW. UPON LNDG, THE PLANE VEERED TO THE L AND STARTED TO RUN OFF THE RWY. I APPLIED R RUDDER, GENTLY TRYING TO RETURN THE PLANE TO THE CTR OF THE RWY BUT THE WINDS WHICH WERE NOW DIRECTLY BEHIND AND GUSTING VERY STRONGLY DROVE THE PLANE TO THE R AND THE PLANE CAME TO A HALT IN A SNOWBANK ON THE R SIDE OF THE RWY. THE RWY WAS EXTREMELY SLICK. THE SNOW WAS COVERING A SOLID SHEET OF ICE. UPON REFLECTION I SHOULD HAVE ABORTED THE LNDG AND GONE TO ANOTHER ARPT WHERE WIND AND RWY CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE FAVORABLE. WHAT CAUSED ME NOT TO MAKE THAT DECISION WAS THAT I HAVE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE LNDG IN XWINDS AND PLANES HAD BEEN LINED UP LNDG IN FRONT AND WERE LINED UP BEHIND. NO ONE SEEMED OVERLY CONCERNED IN LISTENING TO THE TWR/PLT CONVERSATIONS. WHAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF WAS THAT ALL THE PLANES LNDG THAT DAY HAD BEEN JETS WHICH WERE MUCH HEAVIER. THERE APPARENTLY HAD BEEN ALMOST NO PISTON PLANES THAT HAD LANDED. A HIGH RANKING INDIVIDUAL TOLD ME, OFF THE RECORD, THAT HE FELT THE ARPT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED IF RWY 24 COULD NOT BE OPENED. I'M SURE THE REASON IT WAS NOT WAS DUE TO THE HVY AMOUNT OF CORP JET TFC AND THE INCONVENIENCE THAT WOULD BE CAUSED. IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT AN ARPT LIKE TEB SHOULD ON RARE OCCASIONS LIKE THIS BE CLOSED TO PISTON PLANE OR PLANES UNDER A CERTAIN GROSS WT AND ONLY OPEN TO TURBINE AND HEAVIER CRAFT? IS IT DISCRIMINATORY TO SIMPLY SAY THIS ARPT AND THESE CONDITIONS ARE SAFE FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF ACFT AND NOT FOR OTHERS? AND IF PLTS DO NOT WISH TO GIVE UP THIS DECISION PROCESS, WOULD IT NOT BE PRACTICAL TO NOTE THIS ON THE ATIS: WIND AND RWY CONDITIONS MAKE LNDG ACFT UNDER XXXX LBS GROSS WT INADVISABLE. YES, I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE INFO COPIED FROM THE ATIS PERHAPS MORE CAREFULLY, AND YES WHEN THE TWR TOLD ME THE WINDS ON MY FINAL WIND CHK AND RPTED THE POOR BRAKING CONDITIONS I SHOULD HAVE ABORTED BUT I WAS DECEIVED BY THE CALM BANTER BTWN PLTS IN FRONT AND BEHIND. IF I HAD HEARD A STATEMENT ON THE ATIS THAT LNDG WAS NOT ADVISED FOR PLANES UNDER 7000 LBS I WOULD HAVE PERKED UP FASTER AND PLANNED MY MISSED APCH AND REQUEST TO ANOTHER FIELD.

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.