Controller refused to sequence aircraft X to runway requested.

Attributes
ACN	159189
Time
Date	199010
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : bwi
State Reference	MD
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2000 msl bound upper : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : bwi
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Transport
Flight Phase	cruise other descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 40 flight time total : 1875 flight time type : 75
ASRS Report	159189
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

On approach to landing at the bwi airport (in contact with approach control), I had occasion to question the judgement of the controller and discovered what I believe to a be a problem at this facility. The airport operations were to the west (all flts were landing west) and the winds were 210 degrees at 10 (or 15) KTS. I was told to expect runway 33R (the runway assigned to GA and smaller airline--135, etc traffic). With the choice of a 120 degree tailwind or another runway, I asked why 33R over 15L or runway 28. I was told that operations were to the west, and that it was policy. She would bring it to the supervisor's attention, and if I had a problem with it, I could remain clear of the arsa and circle. I asked her to bring it to her supervisor's attention and indicated that it was my understanding that the interest of safety was paramount and that it was the aircraft/pilot in flight who they should be concerned about. She indicated that I was incorrect and then handed me over to the tower who gave me runway 28 (70 degrees quartering headwind). The problem here is 2-FOLD: 1) the implied threat of a hold, or possible refusal of or cancellation of a clearance into a TCA (or as in this case an arsa) due to the pilot of an aircraft questioning the judgement of the controller, and 2) that a controller or any other employee of the FAA would suggest that as a matter of policy, safety should be a secondary concern, especially where airline operations are concerned. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the reporter stated he made the request for a different runway after the controller sequenced him for runway 33. Analyst asked reporter if he had problems before when he requested a different runway. He said 'no, only with this approach controller.' analyst asked if reporter had contacted the facility about the incident. Reporter stated no that he was afraid of retaliation by the controllers if he caused problems. This analyst suggested the reporter call the facility manager and state the circumstances of the incident in an objective manner and ask for an explanation. It sounded to this analyst that the pilot and controller got into a conflict of wills.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR REFUSED TO SEQUENCE ACFT X TO RWY REQUESTED.

Narrative: ON APCH TO LNDG AT THE BWI ARPT (IN CONTACT WITH APCH CTL), I HAD OCCASION TO QUESTION THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CTLR AND DISCOVERED WHAT I BELIEVE TO A BE A PROB AT THIS FAC. THE ARPT OPS WERE TO THE W (ALL FLTS WERE LNDG W) AND THE WINDS WERE 210 DEGS AT 10 (OR 15) KTS. I WAS TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 33R (THE RWY ASSIGNED TO GA AND SMALLER AIRLINE--135, ETC TFC). WITH THE CHOICE OF A 120 DEG TAILWIND OR ANOTHER RWY, I ASKED WHY 33R OVER 15L OR RWY 28. I WAS TOLD THAT OPS WERE TO THE W, AND THAT IT WAS POLICY. SHE WOULD BRING IT TO THE SUPVR'S ATTN, AND IF I HAD A PROB WITH IT, I COULD REMAIN CLR OF THE ARSA AND CIRCLE. I ASKED HER TO BRING IT TO HER SUPVR'S ATTN AND INDICATED THAT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INTEREST OF SAFETY WAS PARAMOUNT AND THAT IT WAS THE ACFT/PLT IN FLT WHO THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT. SHE INDICATED THAT I WAS INCORRECT AND THEN HANDED ME OVER TO THE TWR WHO GAVE ME RWY 28 (70 DEGS QUARTERING HEADWIND). THE PROB HERE IS 2-FOLD: 1) THE IMPLIED THREAT OF A HOLD, OR POSSIBLE REFUSAL OF OR CANCELLATION OF A CLRNC INTO A TCA (OR AS IN THIS CASE AN ARSA) DUE TO THE PLT OF AN ACFT QUESTIONING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CTLR, AND 2) THAT A CTLR OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE FAA WOULD SUGGEST THAT AS A MATTER OF POLICY, SAFETY SHOULD BE A SECONDARY CONCERN, ESPECIALLY WHERE AIRLINE OPS ARE CONCERNED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE RPTR STATED HE MADE THE REQUEST FOR A DIFFERENT RWY AFTER THE CTLR SEQUENCED HIM FOR RWY 33. ANALYST ASKED RPTR IF HE HAD PROBS BEFORE WHEN HE REQUESTED A DIFFERENT RWY. HE SAID 'NO, ONLY WITH THIS APCH CTLR.' ANALYST ASKED IF RPTR HAD CONTACTED THE FAC ABOUT THE INCIDENT. RPTR STATED NO THAT HE WAS AFRAID OF RETALIATION BY THE CTLRS IF HE CAUSED PROBS. THIS ANALYST SUGGESTED THE RPTR CALL THE FAC MGR AND STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INCIDENT IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER AND ASK FOR AN EXPLANATION. IT SOUNDED TO THIS ANALYST THAT THE PLT AND CTLR GOT INTO A CONFLICT OF WILLS.

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.