Narrative:

Cleared for visual 35L; north flow. Assigned 35L visual by regional approach. Took handoff to dfw tower; who cleared us to land 35L. Over FAF named beggo (2300 feet crossing altitude for the ILS; 1693 feet afl visually); tower advises 'change runway; cleared to land 35R.' as the captain acting as pilot monitoring; I advised 'unable.' I looked to my first officer (first officer) (pilot flying) and he was also shaking his head 'negative.' the aircraft was configured with final flaps; ready to land. Tower controller queried if our aircraft was 'unable to make right turns.' I advised dfw tower that the maneuver they assigned us would destabilize our approach. I told tower we could execute a missed approach if they needed; but we were unable to maneuver for a visual landing to runway 35R. Dfw tower then re-cleared us to land 35L. Upon taxi in after landing dfw ground control advised me to call dfw tower supervisor. After safely parking aircraft at the gate and finishing post-flight duties; I called the phone number provided and spoke with the supervisor. I was queried why I couldn't land on 35R. I explained that per company SOP and policy; I had to be stabilized to land no later than 1000' afl and that a maneuver to line up on 35R; over one mile to the east and with a closer threshold; would destabilize the aircraft. The supervisor unprofessionally attempted to dress me down; telling me that my inability to 'help out' was the cause of a delay for thirteen aircraft. Apparently the true cause of the delay was the inflexibility of dfw ATC to delay their runway inspection operations. Dfw tower held 13 aircraft to allow vehicles to enter the runway and conduct inspections. It's important to note operations had been conducted to 35L all morning. In my professional opinion; it is not my responsibility to manage flow control for other aircraft. My job is the safe operation of a passenger aircraft; and my opinion; which ATC seems to forget; is that they support my operation...not the other way around. As a side note; 35R is significantly shorter; and had not been briefed...we did not have any electronic aids to help identify the landing runway or give proper glide path information while executing a continued descent and two large turns required to lineup for the 35R threshold. I also advised the tower supervisor that even though I have local dfw knowledge; closed runway 35C would have been a natural sidestep target for an unfamiliar aircrew attempting to execute a visual approach. In fact my first officer advised that the reason he disagreed with the runway change was because he couldn't even see runway 35R; although 35C was plainly visible. This is obviously a huge safety hazard. Runway 35C was NOTAM'd closed. I feel that the FAA tower cab at dfw needs to be counseled in the strongest terms that they are there to de-conflict traffic and not dictate the operation of part 121 air carriers. I would suggest that dfw ATC realize that runway inspections take a lower priority than active takeoff and landing operations; and plan accordingly. I also suggest that the tower controller [that I talked to] receive remedial training to understand that it is patently unacceptable to attempt to bully flight crews into thinking they must conduct unsafe unstable operations in order to support the FAA ATC mission. I also strongly suggest that the duty dfw tower controller be counseled about professional ATC communications. It is unacceptable to broadcast sarcastic remarks on working frequencies. I requested the appropriate ATC tape recordings be marked for review and accuracy.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-800 Captain reports being cleared to land Runway 35L at DFW. At the FAF the landing runway is changed to 35R which the Captain does not accept and the runway is changed back to 35L. The Captain cites the runway length and the one mile sidestep required as reasons for not accepting the runway change. The Ground Controller provides a telephone number to call.

Narrative: Cleared for visual 35L; north flow. Assigned 35L visual by Regional approach. Took handoff to DFW tower; who cleared us to land 35L. Over FAF named BEGGO (2300 feet crossing altitude for the ILS; 1693 feet AFL visually); tower advises 'change runway; cleared to land 35R.' As the Captain acting as pilot monitoring; I advised 'unable.' I looked to my First Officer (FO) (pilot flying) and he was also shaking his head 'negative.' The aircraft was configured with final flaps; ready to land. Tower controller queried if our aircraft was 'unable to make right turns.' I advised DFW tower that the maneuver they assigned us would destabilize our approach. I told tower we could execute a missed approach if they needed; but we were unable to maneuver for a visual landing to runway 35R. DFW tower then re-cleared us to land 35L. Upon taxi in after landing DFW ground control advised me to call DFW tower supervisor. After safely parking aircraft at the gate and finishing post-flight duties; I called the phone number provided and spoke with the supervisor. I was queried why I couldn't land on 35R. I explained that per company SOP and policy; I had to be stabilized to land no later than 1000' AFL and that a maneuver to line up on 35R; over one mile to the east and with a closer threshold; would destabilize the aircraft. The Supervisor unprofessionally attempted to dress me down; telling me that my inability to 'help out' was the CAUSE of a delay for thirteen aircraft. Apparently the true cause of the delay was the inflexibility of DFW ATC to delay their runway inspection operations. DFW tower held 13 aircraft to allow vehicles to enter the runway and conduct inspections. It's important to note operations had been conducted to 35L all morning. In my PROFESSIONAL opinion; it is not my responsibility to manage flow control for other aircraft. My job is the safe operation of a passenger aircraft; and my opinion; which ATC seems to forget; is that they SUPPORT my operation...not the other way around. As a side note; 35R is significantly shorter; and had not been briefed...we did not have any electronic aids to help identify the landing runway or give proper glide path information while executing a continued descent and two large turns required to lineup for the 35R threshold. I also advised the tower supervisor that even though I have local DFW knowledge; closed runway 35C would have been a natural sidestep target for an unfamiliar aircrew attempting to execute a visual approach. In fact my FO advised that the reason he disagreed with the runway change was because he couldn't even SEE runway 35R; although 35C was plainly visible. This is obviously a huge safety hazard. Runway 35C was NOTAM'd closed. I feel that the FAA tower cab at DFW needs to be counseled in the strongest terms that they are there to de-conflict traffic and NOT dictate the operation of Part 121 air carriers. I would suggest that DFW ATC realize that runway inspections take a lower priority than active takeoff and landing operations; and plan accordingly. I also suggest that the Tower Controller [that I talked to] receive remedial training to understand that it is patently unacceptable to attempt to bully flight crews into thinking they must conduct unsafe unstable operations in order to support the FAA ATC mission. I also strongly suggest that the duty DFW tower controller be counseled about professional ATC communications. It is unacceptable to broadcast sarcastic remarks on working frequencies. I requested the appropriate ATC tape recordings be marked for review and accuracy.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.