Narrative:

Winds at abq were ranging between 160v210 at up to 10 KTS. We closed out 700 pounds heavy planned at maximum power. Runway 8 was the runway selected by ATC for departure. It allows for no tailwind. As the winds were variable to give both runway 8/26 an equal chance of tailwind, I asked for (in the interest of safety and professional judgement) runway 17. The controller informed me that it was 'noise sensitive.' in short, I said that my nearly 150 passenger, lap babies, jump seat riders, and crew depended on me and that 20000 pounds of jet-a fuel furthered my premise. She again replied that it was 'noise sensitive.' I asked if it was closed and would speak to the tower supervisor. After a few mins we got taxi clearance and the admonition that the company would get a punitive letter from the city. As we sat at the end of the runway, a city vehicle questioned my command decision as captain of a commercial jetliner using basic airmanship rule one -- always use a headwind when available. If abq gets a letter of any kind I want a copy sent to me directly. Show me in the far/aim where safety and the PIC's fiduciary responsibility are subordinate to noise abatement procedures. How can an ATC facility be so entrenched in their myopic local view of operations deny anyone the use of a wind favorable and terrain free runway?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MD80 FLC RPTS THAT THEY REQUESTED TO USE AN AVAILABLE RWY BASED ON THE WINDS AND ACFT PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS. THEIR INITIAL REQUEST WAS DENIED DUE TO NOISE RESTRS. WHEN THE FLC INSISTED, THE TWR CTLR ADVISED THAT THE ACR WOULD RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE CITY AND A CITY VEHICLE QUESTIONED THE NEED FOR RWY 17.

Narrative: WINDS AT ABQ WERE RANGING BTWN 160V210 AT UP TO 10 KTS. WE CLOSED OUT 700 LBS HVY PLANNED AT MAX PWR. RWY 8 WAS THE RWY SELECTED BY ATC FOR DEP. IT ALLOWS FOR NO TAILWIND. AS THE WINDS WERE VARIABLE TO GIVE BOTH RWY 8/26 AN EQUAL CHANCE OF TAILWIND, I ASKED FOR (IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT) RWY 17. THE CTLR INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS 'NOISE SENSITIVE.' IN SHORT, I SAID THAT MY NEARLY 150 PAX, LAP BABIES, JUMP SEAT RIDERS, AND CREW DEPENDED ON ME AND THAT 20000 LBS OF JET-A FUEL FURTHERED MY PREMISE. SHE AGAIN REPLIED THAT IT WAS 'NOISE SENSITIVE.' I ASKED IF IT WAS CLOSED AND WOULD SPEAK TO THE TWR SUPVR. AFTER A FEW MINS WE GOT TAXI CLRNC AND THE ADMONITION THAT THE COMPANY WOULD GET A PUNITIVE LETTER FROM THE CITY. AS WE SAT AT THE END OF THE RWY, A CITY VEHICLE QUESTIONED MY COMMAND DECISION AS CAPT OF A COMMERCIAL JETLINER USING BASIC AIRMANSHIP RULE ONE -- ALWAYS USE A HEADWIND WHEN AVAILABLE. IF ABQ GETS A LETTER OF ANY KIND I WANT A COPY SENT TO ME DIRECTLY. SHOW ME IN THE FAR/AIM WHERE SAFETY AND THE PIC'S FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY ARE SUBORDINATE TO NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS. HOW CAN AN ATC FACILITY BE SO ENTRENCHED IN THEIR MYOPIC LCL VIEW OF OPS DENY ANYONE THE USE OF A WIND FAVORABLE AND TERRAIN FREE RWY?

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.