Narrative:

Cleared for an ILS 12R approach to stl. Approach control handed us off to stl tower. Inside the OM the tower controller advised us to change to runway 13. Our approach charts, which are current, indicated that '13' had the following restrictions: 'VFR, sunrise, sunset, aircraft not to exceed 12500#.' the PNF advised me of the restrictions and we advised the tower that we could not accept runway 13. The controller then asked for reasons, wing span, etc. We advised the controller of the chart restrictions and them being definitely against our company operating policies. Also the runway is 75' wide, was wet and is a recently converted taxiway, of which we have personally witnessed some near intrusions of that runway space from parking ramp. We felt that operation on that runway was not the safest at that time. Also, the conversation from the controller was very disruptive at a point on the approach when our attention needed to be solely on getting our aircraft and passenger on the ground safely. We were finally cleared to land on runway 12L. Once on the runway, we were advised to standby for a phone # to call tower. On our rollout, another aircraft was advised to go around because we weren't clear of the runway. We were never advised that we had another aircraft that close in trail or to expedite clearing the runway at a particular taxiway. We cleared runway 12L as soon as was practical, contacted ground control and were given our phone # and cleared to parking. Upon contacting tower supervisor by phone, we were advised that we were required to comply with the controller's clearance to land on runway 13 (we disagree). We do not agree with the safety of operating on runway 13 under the conditions we were operating in. Also, final approach is not the time or place to be discussing reasons for not accepting a situation that we consider unsafe. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states, 'I have been into stl several times since this incident and the tower controller has been very agreeable when we request the longer runways with no weight restriction. Reflecting upon how we got into such a discussion on close in approach with tower controller exuding antagonism as much as to allege we were creating a confrontation I can only say we honestly believed we were illegal for the 13 runway and simply could not accept that runway assignment. My statement that tower supervisor indicated we were required to accept the runway assignment comes to me secondhand. My female copilot was the one that talked to the supervisor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF LTT CPR JET ASSIGNED A RWY AT STL FOR WHICH THEY WERE TOO HEAVY.

Narrative: CLRED FOR AN ILS 12R APCH TO STL. APCH CTL HANDED US OFF TO STL TWR. INSIDE THE OM THE TWR CTLR ADVISED US TO CHANGE TO RWY 13. OUR APCH CHARTS, WHICH ARE CURRENT, INDICATED THAT '13' HAD THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS: 'VFR, SUNRISE, SUNSET, ACFT NOT TO EXCEED 12500#.' THE PNF ADVISED ME OF THE RESTRICTIONS AND WE ADVISED THE TWR THAT WE COULD NOT ACCEPT RWY 13. THE CTLR THEN ASKED FOR REASONS, WING SPAN, ETC. WE ADVISED THE CTLR OF THE CHART RESTRICTIONS AND THEM BEING DEFINITELY AGAINST OUR COMPANY OPERATING POLICIES. ALSO THE RWY IS 75' WIDE, WAS WET AND IS A RECENTLY CONVERTED TXWY, OF WHICH WE HAVE PERSONALLY WITNESSED SOME NEAR INTRUSIONS OF THAT RWY SPACE FROM PARKING RAMP. WE FELT THAT OPERATION ON THAT RWY WAS NOT THE SAFEST AT THAT TIME. ALSO, THE CONVERSATION FROM THE CTLR WAS VERY DISRUPTIVE AT A POINT ON THE APCH WHEN OUR ATTN NEEDED TO BE SOLELY ON GETTING OUR ACFT AND PAX ON THE GND SAFELY. WE WERE FINALLY CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 12L. ONCE ON THE RWY, WE WERE ADVISED TO STANDBY FOR A PHONE # TO CALL TWR. ON OUR ROLLOUT, ANOTHER ACFT WAS ADVISED TO GO AROUND BECAUSE WE WEREN'T CLR OF THE RWY. WE WERE NEVER ADVISED THAT WE HAD ANOTHER ACFT THAT CLOSE IN TRAIL OR TO EXPEDITE CLRING THE RWY AT A PARTICULAR TXWY. WE CLRED RWY 12L AS SOON AS WAS PRACTICAL, CONTACTED GND CTL AND WERE GIVEN OUR PHONE # AND CLRED TO PARKING. UPON CONTACTING TWR SUPVR BY PHONE, WE WERE ADVISED THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CTLR'S CLRNC TO LAND ON RWY 13 (WE DISAGREE). WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SAFETY OF OPERATING ON RWY 13 UNDER THE CONDITIONS WE WERE OPERATING IN. ALSO, FINAL APCH IS NOT THE TIME OR PLACE TO BE DISCUSSING REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING A SITUATION THAT WE CONSIDER UNSAFE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES, 'I HAVE BEEN INTO STL SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THIS INCIDENT AND THE TWR CTLR HAS BEEN VERY AGREEABLE WHEN WE REQUEST THE LONGER RWYS WITH NO WEIGHT RESTRICTION. REFLECTING UPON HOW WE GOT INTO SUCH A DISCUSSION ON CLOSE IN APCH WITH TWR CTLR EXUDING ANTAGONISM AS MUCH AS TO ALLEGE WE WERE CREATING A CONFRONTATION I CAN ONLY SAY WE HONESTLY BELIEVED WE WERE ILLEGAL FOR THE 13 RWY AND SIMPLY COULD NOT ACCEPT THAT RWY ASSIGNMENT. MY STATEMENT THAT TWR SUPVR INDICATED WE WERE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE RWY ASSIGNMENT COMES TO ME SECONDHAND. MY FEMALE COPLT WAS THE ONE THAT TALKED TO THE SUPVR.

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.