Narrative:

We had just rolled out on the localizer to 35R at den approximately 15 mi from touchdown. The tower had been reporting braking action of good in the touchdown zone and fair at rollout. A flight landed ahead of us and reported the braking action good at touchdown zone but poor to nil on the last 1/3 of the runway and nil on the turnoffs. We immediately asked approach for another runway (our operations manual prohibits operation on any surface reported as nil). We were told there was no other runway available and to state our intentions. We then asked if the runway would be sanded and were told it would take 20 mins to get the truck out and another 20 mins to do the sanding. At this point, we elected to divert to a holding pattern. Approach started vectoring us to cos and we contacted our dispatcher to advise him of our divert. The dispatcher said a 'reliable source' at the den TRACON said the braking action on 35R was fair (the tower had called it poor to nil) and wanted to know why we didn't land. We proceeded to the cos VOR and held for about 10 mins and were informed that the braking action was now fair to poor on 35R at den. We proceeded back to den and landed on 35R (braking was extremely poor!). After thinking it over, and talking with the captain, it seems to me that when an aircraft makes a report of nil braking the runway should be closed and sanded. It looks like maybe the tower was dragging their feet because closing the runway would have really backed things up. However, an airplane sliding off the runway would have messed things up a lot worse and for a lot longer than the time it would take to sand!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG CONSIDERS DIVERSION TO ALTERNATE ARPT AFTER RECEIVING AN UNSATISFACTORY RPT ON RWY CONDITION ICE AND BRAKING ACTION NIL RPTED. GAR EXECUTED FOR BETTER CONDITIONS ON RWY.

Narrative: WE HAD JUST ROLLED OUT ON THE LOC TO 35R AT DEN APPROX 15 MI FROM TOUCHDOWN. THE TWR HAD BEEN RPTING BRAKING ACTION OF GOOD IN THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE AND FAIR AT ROLLOUT. A FLT LANDED AHEAD OF US AND RPTED THE BRAKING ACTION GOOD AT TOUCHDOWN ZONE BUT POOR TO NIL ON THE LAST 1/3 OF THE RWY AND NIL ON THE TURNOFFS. WE IMMEDIATELY ASKED APCH FOR ANOTHER RWY (OUR OPS MANUAL PROHIBITS OP ON ANY SURFACE RPTED AS NIL). WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS NO OTHER RWY AVAILABLE AND TO STATE OUR INTENTIONS. WE THEN ASKED IF THE RWY WOULD BE SANDED AND WERE TOLD IT WOULD TAKE 20 MINS TO GET THE TRUCK OUT AND ANOTHER 20 MINS TO DO THE SANDING. AT THIS POINT, WE ELECTED TO DIVERT TO A HOLDING PATTERN. APCH STARTED VECTORING US TO COS AND WE CONTACTED OUR DISPATCHER TO ADVISE HIM OF OUR DIVERT. THE DISPATCHER SAID A 'RELIABLE SOURCE' AT THE DEN TRACON SAID THE BRAKING ACTION ON 35R WAS FAIR (THE TWR HAD CALLED IT POOR TO NIL) AND WANTED TO KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T LAND. WE PROCEEDED TO THE COS VOR AND HELD FOR ABOUT 10 MINS AND WERE INFORMED THAT THE BRAKING ACTION WAS NOW FAIR TO POOR ON 35R AT DEN. WE PROCEEDED BACK TO DEN AND LANDED ON 35R (BRAKING WAS EXTREMELY POOR!). AFTER THINKING IT OVER, AND TALKING WITH THE CAPT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN AN ACFT MAKES A RPT OF NIL BRAKING THE RWY SHOULD BE CLOSED AND SANDED. IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THE TWR WAS DRAGGING THEIR FEET BECAUSE CLOSING THE RWY WOULD HAVE REALLY BACKED THINGS UP. HOWEVER, AN AIRPLANE SLIDING OFF THE RWY WOULD HAVE MESSED THINGS UP A LOT WORSE AND FOR A LOT LONGER THAN THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO SAND!

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.