Narrative:

Bgm txwys 'C' and 'B' had been notamed closed due to recent ice storm. Runway 34-16 was reported braking action fair. 10-28 was closed. Ramp and txwys were reported braking action poor. We landed runway 34 from an ILS approach and decelerated normally for conditions as stated. Tower told us to 'left turn to the ramp.' we turned left at 'C.' upon encountering taxiway 'a' (the parallel for runway 34) we were unable to use any nose steering or braking. Nil control except for engine reversers. Aircraft slid approximately 20 ft forward and sideways until reverse thrust halted the slide and control was regained. We must emphasize that although 'C' was notamed closed (due to insufficient sanding/treatment), 'a' was not closed, yet we slid on 'a.' winter is hazardous. With as many hazards as there are, and yes pilots must be acquainted with the (1/2) to (full) page of all NOTAMS, I have a suggestion. Surely there is some sort of marking which can be added to closed hazardous txwys which will aid or 'jog' the memories of pilots after fighting their way through an approach and have successfully executed -- a winter landing. During approach ATIS had to be obtained from ZNY and no mention of the closed txwys was noted. Bgm approach and tower both made no mention of the closed, hazardous txwys. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter revealed that the approach had been busy as the first approach was to be a VOR approach. Approach controller said he issued that because he wasn't certain that the ILS was 'up and reliable.' after a missed approach an ILS approach was issued on flight crew's request. Reporter said that the NOTAM was obtained from ZNY because there wasn't a NOTAM on the air when the frequency was tuned in. Probably changing the information at that point. Suspect that since the crew said they had 'xyz' information the approach controller or tower controller did not mention the closed bravo and charlie txwys. (Reporter did admit that the NOTAM information regarding the txwys was on their paperwork. First officer admits to not reviewing it prior to the flight but thought the captain had.) tower asked the flight to turn off the runway but didn't say where. First officer says this was poor advisory service. Tower also failed to say taxiway alpha was poor. The flight crew/ATC review indicated that all of taxiway alpha was poor and had not been treated. Tower expected the aircraft to turn off at delta, just prior to charlie, because alpha taxiway from delta to the terminal was sanded. Braking action wouldn't allow the crew that option and nothing was said subsequently! Reporter concerned as bgm airport sits on a bluff and the aircraft could have slid off taxiway alpha and fallen down the embankment.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TXWY INCURSION. CLOSED TXWY. TXWY CONDITION ICE SNOW. LOSS OF ACFT CTL.

Narrative: BGM TXWYS 'C' AND 'B' HAD BEEN NOTAMED CLOSED DUE TO RECENT ICE STORM. RWY 34-16 WAS RPTED BRAKING ACTION FAIR. 10-28 WAS CLOSED. RAMP AND TXWYS WERE RPTED BRAKING ACTION POOR. WE LANDED RWY 34 FROM AN ILS APCH AND DECELERATED NORMALLY FOR CONDITIONS AS STATED. TWR TOLD US TO 'L TURN TO THE RAMP.' WE TURNED L AT 'C.' UPON ENCOUNTERING TXWY 'A' (THE PARALLEL FOR RWY 34) WE WERE UNABLE TO USE ANY NOSE STEERING OR BRAKING. NIL CTL EXCEPT FOR ENG REVERSERS. ACFT SLID APPROX 20 FT FORWARD AND SIDEWAYS UNTIL REVERSE THRUST HALTED THE SLIDE AND CTL WAS REGAINED. WE MUST EMPHASIZE THAT ALTHOUGH 'C' WAS NOTAMED CLOSED (DUE TO INSUFFICIENT SANDING/TREATMENT), 'A' WAS NOT CLOSED, YET WE SLID ON 'A.' WINTER IS HAZARDOUS. WITH AS MANY HAZARDS AS THERE ARE, AND YES PLTS MUST BE ACQUAINTED WITH THE (1/2) TO (FULL) PAGE OF ALL NOTAMS, I HAVE A SUGGESTION. SURELY THERE IS SOME SORT OF MARKING WHICH CAN BE ADDED TO CLOSED HAZARDOUS TXWYS WHICH WILL AID OR 'JOG' THE MEMORIES OF PLTS AFTER FIGHTING THEIR WAY THROUGH AN APCH AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY EXECUTED -- A WINTER LNDG. DURING APCH ATIS HAD TO BE OBTAINED FROM ZNY AND NO MENTION OF THE CLOSED TXWYS WAS NOTED. BGM APCH AND TWR BOTH MADE NO MENTION OF THE CLOSED, HAZARDOUS TXWYS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR REVEALED THAT THE APCH HAD BEEN BUSY AS THE FIRST APCH WAS TO BE A VOR APCH. APCH CTLR SAID HE ISSUED THAT BECAUSE HE WASN'T CERTAIN THAT THE ILS WAS 'UP AND RELIABLE.' AFTER A MISSED APCH AN ILS APCH WAS ISSUED ON FLC'S REQUEST. RPTR SAID THAT THE NOTAM WAS OBTAINED FROM ZNY BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A NOTAM ON THE AIR WHEN THE FREQ WAS TUNED IN. PROBABLY CHANGING THE INFO AT THAT POINT. SUSPECT THAT SINCE THE CREW SAID THEY HAD 'XYZ' INFO THE APCH CTLR OR TWR CTLR DID NOT MENTION THE CLOSED BRAVO AND CHARLIE TXWYS. (RPTR DID ADMIT THAT THE NOTAM INFO REGARDING THE TXWYS WAS ON THEIR PAPERWORK. FO ADMITS TO NOT REVIEWING IT PRIOR TO THE FLT BUT THOUGHT THE CAPT HAD.) TWR ASKED THE FLT TO TURN OFF THE RWY BUT DIDN'T SAY WHERE. FO SAYS THIS WAS POOR ADVISORY SVC. TWR ALSO FAILED TO SAY TXWY ALPHA WAS POOR. THE FLC/ATC REVIEW INDICATED THAT ALL OF TXWY ALPHA WAS POOR AND HAD NOT BEEN TREATED. TWR EXPECTED THE ACFT TO TURN OFF AT DELTA, JUST PRIOR TO CHARLIE, BECAUSE ALPHA TXWY FROM DELTA TO THE TERMINAL WAS SANDED. BRAKING ACTION WOULDN'T ALLOW THE CREW THAT OPTION AND NOTHING WAS SAID SUBSEQUENTLY! RPTR CONCERNED AS BGM ARPT SITS ON A BLUFF AND THE ACFT COULD HAVE SLID OFF TXWY ALPHA AND FALLEN DOWN THE EMBANKMENT.

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.