PLT OF LGT ACR ACFT COMPLAINT REF RWY USED DURING ARPT RWY CONSTRUCTION.

Narrative

THE CLEVELAND HOPKINS ARPT HAS BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN SOME WAY; SHAPE OR FORM; SINCE I BEGAN FLYING THERE. THERE IS A PARTICULAR COMBINATION OF RWY CONSTRUCTION AND NAVAID OUTAGES AT THIS TIME THAT I FEEL DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ATTN. ON A DAY WITH GOOD VISIBILITY; NO SNOW ON THE GND; ALL RWYS PLOWED; AND FAVORABLE WINDS; THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM. THE CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT LED ME TO WRITE THIS LETTER IS THIS: UPON OUR ARR TO CLE WE WERE FORCED TO MAKE AN APCH TO THE SHORTEST RWY; WITH A TAILWIND; AND SNOW ON THE RWY. IT WAS AN UNEVENTFUL APCH AND LNDG DUE TO GOOD PLANNING; A COORDINATED CREW; AND A CAPT WHO HAD EXCELLENT FLYING SKILL. MY SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDED SAFETY ARE: IN SNOW CONDITIONS KEEP THE LONGER RWYS OPEN; AND THE ONES FAVORING THE WIND. IN OUR CASE; RWY 28 WAS THE ONLY RWY CLRED ABOVE FAIR-POOR. IT WAS OUR BEST OPTION. OUR FIRST OPTION WAS RWY 23L. BUT THE GS WAS OUT; THRESHOLD DISPLACED; AND BRAKING FAIR TO POOR. IT WAS IN OUR OPINION QUESTIONABLE THAT A SAFE LNDG COULD BE MADE EVEN THOUGH THE WIND WAS FAVORING IT. OUR SECOND OPTION WAS SIDESTEP TO 23R. BUT IT WAS NOT PLOWED. IN GOOD RWY CONDITIONS 23R IS POSSIBLE; BUT NOT IN POOR BRAKING CONDITIONS. OUR THIRD OPTION WAS RWY 28. I MUST ADD THAT WE CONSIDERED OUR 4TH OPTION; AND THAT IS NOT TO LAND AT ALL. IN CONCLUSION; MY POINT IS; SHORTENING RWY 5R/23L IS A NECESSARY EVIL FOR A BETTER ARPT IN THE FUTURE. BUT NOW WHY ISN'T 5L/23R KEPT IN EXCELLENT CONDITION SO A LOC APCH BE PERFORMED WITH A SIDESTEP MANEUVER TO THAT RWY? IN AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT; WITH HVY JET ACFT; THIS IS A BAD SITUATION WAITING FOR AN ACCIDENT TO HAPPEN.