Narrative:

Abq ATIS reported winds at 160 degrees at 15 KTS with gusts to 25 KTS, with runway 26 in use. I requested my first officer to ask for runway 17 because of the crosswind and reported windshear. He was told that runway 17 was not available because of noise. I transmitted 'who says?' ATC replied, 'the city.' I replied, 'I want runway 17 because of the winds.' ATC said, 'there will be a delay,' and then started 'punishing' us by vectoring us south of the field. When I questioned the delay, I was told that they had to call the city to get permission to use runway 17, and they wouldn't allow it if the crosswind was less than 30 KTS! I stated that a crosswind of that magnitude exceeded mine and several aircraft's crosswind limitations. They then assigned us runway 8, and reported the wind as 160 degrees at 10 KTS. Because I was getting low on gas, I landed on runway 8. I estimated the actual (vice reported) wind to be at least a 15 KT direct crosswind with +/- 10 KTS windshear all the way down. Abq is an accident waiting to happen. The air carrier's 10-7 page states that runway 17/35 is 'for emergency use' and states, 'do not declare 'operational necessity' without strong justification. Written details will be requested....' with this 'threat,' solely because of locally-implemented noise procedures, and the 'punishing' of crews with delay vectors who want/need a more favorable runway, they are pushing crews into a situation where they may elect to land at or above their crosswind limitations. This is totally unsafe and not only can't I believe that abq is allowed to get away with this, but I find it mind-boggling that our air carrier thinks that this is acceptable. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter was familiar with operating his B727-200 in abq. He felt that with the crosswind being at or above the demonstrated maximum and with moderate turbulence on approach he should have been free to use runway 17. He said that he had reviewed the statement on the company supplied briefing page beforehand and when the controller initially refused his runway request he felt that he could not rely on his company's support if he insisted on landing on runway 17. The captain was upset with the noise restrs and their effect on his operational decisions. He said that he called the tower supervisor and he was told that the noise abatement committee was very active and allegedly, the mayor was running for higher office and was seeking the committee's support.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B727 FLC REFUSES A RWY BECAUSE OF A STRONG XWIND AND REQUESTED A RWY MORE ALIGNED WITH THE WIND. THIS SECOND RWY WAS REJECTED BY THE CTLR BECAUSE OF NOISE CONSIDERATIONS AND EVENTUALLY A THIRD RWY WAS AGREED UPON.

Narrative: ABQ ATIS RPTED WINDS AT 160 DEGS AT 15 KTS WITH GUSTS TO 25 KTS, WITH RWY 26 IN USE. I REQUESTED MY FO TO ASK FOR RWY 17 BECAUSE OF THE XWIND AND RPTED WINDSHEAR. HE WAS TOLD THAT RWY 17 WAS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF NOISE. I XMITTED 'WHO SAYS?' ATC REPLIED, 'THE CITY.' I REPLIED, 'I WANT RWY 17 BECAUSE OF THE WINDS.' ATC SAID, 'THERE WILL BE A DELAY,' AND THEN STARTED 'PUNISHING' US BY VECTORING US S OF THE FIELD. WHEN I QUESTIONED THE DELAY, I WAS TOLD THAT THEY HAD TO CALL THE CITY TO GET PERMISSION TO USE RWY 17, AND THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW IT IF THE XWIND WAS LESS THAN 30 KTS! I STATED THAT A XWIND OF THAT MAGNITUDE EXCEEDED MINE AND SEVERAL ACFT'S XWIND LIMITATIONS. THEY THEN ASSIGNED US RWY 8, AND RPTED THE WIND AS 160 DEGS AT 10 KTS. BECAUSE I WAS GETTING LOW ON GAS, I LANDED ON RWY 8. I ESTIMATED THE ACTUAL (VICE RPTED) WIND TO BE AT LEAST A 15 KT DIRECT XWIND WITH +/- 10 KTS WINDSHEAR ALL THE WAY DOWN. ABQ IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. THE ACR'S 10-7 PAGE STATES THAT RWY 17/35 IS 'FOR EMER USE' AND STATES, 'DO NOT DECLARE 'OPERATIONAL NECESSITY' WITHOUT STRONG JUSTIFICATION. WRITTEN DETAILS WILL BE REQUESTED....' WITH THIS 'THREAT,' SOLELY BECAUSE OF LOCALLY-IMPLEMENTED NOISE PROCS, AND THE 'PUNISHING' OF CREWS WITH DELAY VECTORS WHO WANT/NEED A MORE FAVORABLE RWY, THEY ARE PUSHING CREWS INTO A SIT WHERE THEY MAY ELECT TO LAND AT OR ABOVE THEIR XWIND LIMITATIONS. THIS IS TOTALLY UNSAFE AND NOT ONLY CAN'T I BELIEVE THAT ABQ IS ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS, BUT I FIND IT MIND-BOGGLING THAT OUR ACR THINKS THAT THIS IS ACCEPTABLE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR WAS FAMILIAR WITH OPERATING HIS B727-200 IN ABQ. HE FELT THAT WITH THE XWIND BEING AT OR ABOVE THE DEMONSTRATED MAX AND WITH MODERATE TURB ON APCH HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO USE RWY 17. HE SAID THAT HE HAD REVIEWED THE STATEMENT ON THE COMPANY SUPPLIED BRIEFING PAGE BEFOREHAND AND WHEN THE CTLR INITIALLY REFUSED HIS RWY REQUEST HE FELT THAT HE COULD NOT RELY ON HIS COMPANY'S SUPPORT IF HE INSISTED ON LNDG ON RWY 17. THE CAPT WAS UPSET WITH THE NOISE RESTRS AND THEIR EFFECT ON HIS OPERATIONAL DECISIONS. HE SAID THAT HE CALLED THE TWR SUPVR AND HE WAS TOLD THAT THE NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE WAS VERY ACTIVE AND ALLEGEDLY, THE MAYOR WAS RUNNING FOR HIGHER OFFICE AND WAS SEEKING THE COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT.

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.