Air carrier requests different runway than assigned due to excess tailwinds.

Attributes
ACN	173407
Time
Date	199103
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : oak
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1800 msl bound upper : 1800
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : oak tower : crg
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : circling
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 130 flight time total : 15200 flight time type : 7300
ASRS Report	173407
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation other

Narrative:

ATIS information oak indicated runway 29 in use, wind 120/10. At OM, tower reported wind 130/15. Cleared to land. First officer replied that 15 KTS was too much tailwind and and we would need runway 11. Tower cleared us to, 'circle to the left for runway 11.' on downwind, the tower said, 'you were expected to be west of runway 29, not east. Cleared to land.' the circling clearance should have been more concise and we should have questioned it to get the tower to state exactly what they expected. After landing there was confusion about the taxi clearance. For the outbnd arwys clearance, we were cleared via 290 degree heading for vector to the oak 3 departure, rbl, and as filed. We questioned the use of the oak 3 departure, since it is for use with runways 29, 27L and 27R, not runway 11. After 2 inquiries the controller finally said it was a worthless departure anyway, since it is just a vector. It seems the various controllers at oak were reluctant to change to a runway 11 operation, even though the wind was too strong for runway 29. When they did make the change, it was not handled as well as it might have been, in my opinion.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR REQUESTS DIFFERENT RWY THAN ASSIGNED DUE TO EXCESS TAILWINDS.

Narrative: ATIS INFO OAK INDICATED RWY 29 IN USE, WIND 120/10. AT OM, TWR RPTED WIND 130/15. CLRED TO LAND. F/O REPLIED THAT 15 KTS WAS TOO MUCH TAILWIND AND AND WE WOULD NEED RWY 11. TWR CLRED US TO, 'CIRCLE TO THE LEFT FOR RWY 11.' ON DOWNWIND, THE TWR SAID, 'YOU WERE EXPECTED TO BE W OF RWY 29, NOT E. CLRED TO LAND.' THE CIRCLING CLRNC SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CONCISE AND WE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED IT TO GET THE TWR TO STATE EXACTLY WHAT THEY EXPECTED. AFTER LNDG THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT THE TAXI CLRNC. FOR THE OUTBND ARWYS CLRNC, WE WERE CLRED VIA 290 DEG HDG FOR VECTOR TO THE OAK 3 DEP, RBL, AND AS FILED. WE QUESTIONED THE USE OF THE OAK 3 DEP, SINCE IT IS FOR USE WITH RWYS 29, 27L AND 27R, NOT RWY 11. AFTER 2 INQUIRIES THE CTLR FINALLY SAID IT WAS A WORTHLESS DEP ANYWAY, SINCE IT IS JUST A VECTOR. IT SEEMS THE VARIOUS CTLRS AT OAK WERE RELUCTANT TO CHANGE TO A RWY 11 OPERATION, EVEN THOUGH THE WIND WAS TOO STRONG FOR RWY 29. WHEN THEY DID MAKE THE CHANGE, IT WAS NOT HANDLED AS WELL AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, IN MY OPINION.

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.