COMPLAINT REGARDING RWY USE WITH STRONG XWIND AND ICY RWY.

Narrative

DURING THE MORNING HRS; THE RWYS AT DTW WERE SNOW COVERED WITH A THIN LAYER OF ICE UNDERNEATH. THIS WAS THE RESULT OF ABOVE FREEZING WX THE PREVIOUS DAY; FOLLOWED BY A 1-2 INCH SNOW FALL AND A HARD FREEZE OVERNIGHT. WE WERE ON A FLT FROM GRB TO DTW AND LEARNED FROM ATIS THAT DTW WAS LNDG ON RWY 21R; WIND WAS 290 DEGS AT 18 KTS; AND THE BRAKING ACTION WAS RPTED POOR BY A DC-9. ALTHOUGH THIS XWIND WAS WELL WITHIN FLT MANUAL LIMITS FOR A DRY RWY; THERE IS NO GUIDANCE FOR ICY RWYS. WE KNOW THAT THE ABILITY TO ROLLOUT IN XWIND CONDITIONS IS DEGRADED ON ICY RWYS. I AM FRUSTRATED THAT ATC AND ARPT MGMNT AT DTW DO NOT MAKE USE OF THE PARALLEL RWYS 27R/L. IN THE 18 MONTHS SINCE RWY 27L WAS COMPLETED; I'VE LANDED ON IT ONLY TWICE. BUT DURING THIS TIME; XWIND NEAR THE XWIND LIMITS OF THE AIRPLANE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS AND OPS CONTINUED ON RWY 21R/L/C WITH RWY 27L/R CLR AND DRY. WHILE ANY PLT SHOULD BE ABLE TO CTL THE AIRPLANE AT AND BELOW XWIND LIMITS; I DRAW THE LINE ON ICY RWYS; WHERE NO LIMITS OR CORRECTIONS ARE PUBLISHED. WITH HUNDREDS OF OPS PER DAY AT DTW WITH NUMEROUS TYPES OF ACFT; POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR A XWIND/ICY OR WET RWY MISHAP. IN THIS CASE; ATC AND/OR ARPT MGMNT DECIDED TO CLR AND TREAT RWYS 21R/C/L RATHER THAN RWY 27L/R; EVEN WITH AN EXISTING STRONG XWIND. THERE IS NO EXCUSE; NOT COST; NOT NOISE; NOT TAXI TIME TO THE GATE; OR PLT ACCEPTANCE OF THIS HAZARD; FOR A MISHAP OF THIS TYPE. PROCS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED NOW (A PRIORITY APCH TO SAFETY) FOR OPTIMUM UTILIZATION OF RWYS 27L/R AT DTW. WE HAVE A TOUGH ENOUGH TIME AT ARPTS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL RWYS; AND DO NOT NEED A REGULAR TEST OF SKILLS TO AIRPLANE LIMITS AT DTW. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE DID NOT GO ANY FURTHER WITH HIS COMPLAINT AS HE DID NOT WANT TO BE PUT IN THE POS OF 'REPRESENTING' HIS COMPANY IN CASE COMPANY DID NOT AGREE. HE DID DISCUSS THE SIT WITH OTHER PLTS WHO INDICATED THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BUT THE ARPT MGMNT STONEWALLS. THEY CLAIM THAT BECAUSE OF NOISE COMPLAINTS THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT NOT TO USE THE RWYS 27 MORE THAN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS PER WK. RPTR QUITE UPSET AS THIS HAS NO CONSIDERATION REGARDING SAFETY AT ALL. HE DID TALK TO HIS UNION BEFORE SENDING THE RPT TO ASRS. THEY INDICATED THEY WILL USE HIS RPT AN AMMUNITION TO DISCUSS THE SIT. RPTR FEELS THE COMPANY MAY NOT BE SUPPORTIVE IN USING THE RWYS 27 BECAUSE OF A LONGER TAXI OUT AND TAXI IN FROM THAT RWY. RPTR SUGGESTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TFC FLOW PLAN TO HAVE TKOFS FROM ONE RWY SET AND LNDGS ON THE OTHER AS THEY DO NOT INTERSECT. FLC WAS RELUCTANT TO REQUEST RWY 27 AS THEY FELT THEY WOULD BE VECTORED WAY OUT AND ABOUT AND HAVE LATE ARR CHALKED UP AGAINST THEM. HE SEEMS VERY RELUCTANT TO ATTRACT ATTN TO HIMSELF WITH ANY FOLLOW-UP. ANALYST RECEIVED A CALLBACK FROM RPTR REGARDING A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON A NOISE DEMONSTRATION HOUSE SET UP FOR LCL RESIDENTS. ARTICLE ENCLOSED.