Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Weather; Human Factors
We operated Aircraft X from ZZZ to MDW; and the majority of the flight was uneventful. Mr. Y was my Captain and PF; and we had setup well in advance for the RNAV RNP Y approach for Runway 22L at MDW according to their latest ATIS. Later we received an ATIS update showing that the ILS for Runway 31C was active; so we re-configured and briefed that; still with plenty of time. We had discussed the possible need of diverting to ZZZ1 rather than our filed ALT1 of ZZZ2 and ALT2 of ZZZ3; but the visibility at MDW stayed above the minimums we needed for either the RNAV or ILS approaches to 22L/31C respectively.Fast forward to our first approach attempt: we're established on the ILS to 31C; fully configured well before the FAF and I was thinking we've got it made. We broke out at around 1;700 MSL and inflight visibility was not an issue and better than reported. From around 2;000 feet and down we experienced constant light and moderate turbulence; but no icing or precipitation. Captain had turned the autopilot and autothrottles off to help deal with the winds that were gusting from 260 degrees at 21 to 39 knots. We were also landing with stall protection ice speeds; adding 10 knots to our Vref and Vapp speeds.Everything was going great until somewhere between 1/2 to 1 mile from the approach end of 31C we got multiple 'WINDSHEAR' automated call outs from the airplane. Captain elected to go-around which we did; re-configuring as needed and I let MDW Tower know at around 400 feet AGL per the SOP. They gave us a heading and altitude to fly; asked us the reason for the go-around and handed us back off to Chicago Approach. We cleaned up the airplane and got vectored in for another ILS approach to 31C behind an Air Carrier Y.The second ILS approach was almost identical to the first; albeit with slightly less wind and turbulence. This time; even though we were ready for the conditions and knew more of what to expect; we managed to catch a gust of wind right in the flare and didn't touch down on Runway 31C until between the first third and the midpoint of the runway. Captain did a great job of thinking quick and performed a rejected landing; setting and calling 'TOGA' almost immediately after touchdown and off we went. We reconfigured again; got vectored around and handed off to Chicago Approach again and came around for a third attempt at Runway 31C.The third time Captain was able to land normally and well within the touchdown zone; but when he applied the brakes we found out that the '5/5/5' runway condition codes advertised for 31C were optimistic at best with the airplane noticeably sliding and skidding as we rolled out. We also noticed that there was blowing snow obscuring at least 50 percent of the runway surface. Captain advised MDW Tower of the braking action we experienced; calling it 'poor' and; to their credit; they immediately directed the broom and plow teams out to clear Runway 31C again. The rest of the flight was normal as we taxied into our gate.If there's anything I learned tonight; it's that just because you're on short final that doesn't mean you're going to land. Also: just because the Air Carrier Y flight that landed ahead of you reported 'braking action good' doesn't mean you will. I remember being on short final during our first ILS approach to 31C feeling complacent that we 'had it made' being on the ILS rather than RNAV RNP approach with its higher minimums and having broken out early at 1;700 feet. My go-around call outs also could have been crisper and more prompt; but that was mostly due to the 'startle' factor which was my own fault.My one suggestion would be for the airport operations crews at MDW to conduct their own braking action tests more often and with a more pessimistic eye. When the ATIS states RCCs are '5/5/5' the Air Carrier Y flight that landed ahead of you reports 'braking action good' and yet you experience significant wheel slip/skid due to icy runway surface conditions upon landing; thatindicates someone is being either dishonest or overly optimistic on their own braking action reports. If we or our Dispatch had known that the 'real' RCCs for 31C at MDW were actually 3/3/3 or even 2/2/2; we most likely would not have had the required landing performance numbers that we needed to land at MDW's shorter runways and would've gone to ZZZ1.
Air carrier First Officer reported having to go-around/missed approach several times due to weather at MDW airport.  When they finally landed the crew experienced some sliding and skidding due to braking action being 'poor' contrary to the reported 'good braking action.'