Narrative:

Flight operated to stl via the rivers arrival. ATIS advertised all 3 runways (11; 12L; 12R) and no runway closings were noted. Approach control advised us to plan approach to runway 11 to which I requested either runway 12L or runway 12R. My request was turned down and the only reason given was that the runways were not available for landing. Approach control 'waffled' a bit stating that we could use tower for either of the 12's. Approach control assigned us a speed and was slow to allow us to descend out of an intermediate altitude and by the time we were allowed to descend we were showing close to 2 dots high. We extended flaps and lowered the gear; but were unable to achieve the company procedure to be stabilized at 1000 ft AGL. As I saw that we would not achieve a permissible stabilized approach; I advised tower that we would be unable to continue the approach to landing on runway 11 and that we required missed approach instructions or a landing on runway 12L or runway 12R. After a pause of some 15 seconds or so; tower cleared us to land on runway 12R which we did uneventfully and fully complied with company procedures. During taxi in; tower provided us with a telephone number to call and after the flight I spoke to tower supervisor who; when he heard my explanation responded with; 'is that your story?' to which I replied; 'yes!' from his point of view; I am sure that it appeared that I had manipulated the approach to achieve my goal of receiving runway 12R or runway 12L. This was not a deliberate act on my part. We got high and I was fully prepared to execute a missed approach and vector around to return to a proper landing profile when stl tower cleared us to land on runway 12R. I mentioned to the supervisor that if he checked my altitude he would see that I was; indeed; not in a position to execute a safe landing. The conversation gradually became more agreeable and the supervisor and I parted on what I felt was positive terms. I think I understand the politics of a new and expensive runway and the desire by some to show usage. I also know that runway 11 does not normally contribute to a more efficient operation. I still assume that; as PIC I can request any runway I wish and that ATC/approach/tower should try to accommodate my request but in many cases; we pilots are coerced into fitting into a plan that does not necessarily benefit us operationally or safely. I felt that; in this case; approach and tower could have been more forthcoming with a reason why runway 12L or runway 12R was not available and then I would have been less insistent with my requests for runway 12L/12R. I do try to fit in the plan; but ATC does not always communicate the plan to us pilots. As to the high approach; I consider my preoccupation with the 12/11 a contributing factor to our being high and that is poor judgement and poor priority balancing on my part. I take that portion of this event as a reminder to me as to the most important aspect of our job -- safety over efficiency! The runway 11 problem will probably continue to present itself as most of us would prefer not to use the new runway 11 and stl will probably try to insist that we do; even if they are not busy (which was the case on this day). Supplemental information from acn 698737: during the vector by approach control; we were kept high and at assigned speeds. Once cleared for an approach; I configured for landing and realizing I was going to be high; we configured for flaps 40 degree landing (flaps 30 degrees was briefed). Approaching 1800 ft MSL; I advised the pilot monitoring we would not meet stabilized approach criteria. The pilot monitoring advised tower we were going to do a go around unless we could get runway 12L or runway 12R. Tower advised us we were cleared to land on runway 12R.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 FLT CREW HAS A HIGH UNSTABILIZED APCH TO RWY 11 AT STL AND FLT CREW REQUESTS AND IS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 12R.

Narrative: FLT OPERATED TO STL VIA THE RIVERS ARR. ATIS ADVERTISED ALL 3 RWYS (11; 12L; 12R) AND NO RWY CLOSINGS WERE NOTED. APCH CTL ADVISED US TO PLAN APCH TO RWY 11 TO WHICH I REQUESTED EITHER RWY 12L OR RWY 12R. MY REQUEST WAS TURNED DOWN AND THE ONLY REASON GIVEN WAS THAT THE RWYS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR LNDG. APCH CTL 'WAFFLED' A BIT STATING THAT WE COULD USE TWR FOR EITHER OF THE 12'S. APCH CTL ASSIGNED US A SPD AND WAS SLOW TO ALLOW US TO DSND OUT OF AN INTERMEDIATE ALT AND BY THE TIME WE WERE ALLOWED TO DSND WE WERE SHOWING CLOSE TO 2 DOTS HIGH. WE EXTENDED FLAPS AND LOWERED THE GEAR; BUT WERE UNABLE TO ACHIEVE THE COMPANY PROC TO BE STABILIZED AT 1000 FT AGL. AS I SAW THAT WE WOULD NOT ACHIEVE A PERMISSIBLE STABILIZED APCH; I ADVISED TWR THAT WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO CONTINUE THE APCH TO LNDG ON RWY 11 AND THAT WE REQUIRED MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS OR A LNDG ON RWY 12L OR RWY 12R. AFTER A PAUSE OF SOME 15 SECONDS OR SO; TWR CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 12R WHICH WE DID UNEVENTFULLY AND FULLY COMPLIED WITH COMPANY PROCS. DURING TAXI IN; TWR PROVIDED US WITH A TELEPHONE NUMBER TO CALL AND AFTER THE FLT I SPOKE TO TWR SUPVR WHO; WHEN HE HEARD MY EXPLANATION RESPONDED WITH; 'IS THAT YOUR STORY?' TO WHICH I REPLIED; 'YES!' FROM HIS POINT OF VIEW; I AM SURE THAT IT APPEARED THAT I HAD MANIPULATED THE APCH TO ACHIEVE MY GOAL OF RECEIVING RWY 12R OR RWY 12L. THIS WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ACT ON MY PART. WE GOT HIGH AND I WAS FULLY PREPARED TO EXECUTE A MISSED APCH AND VECTOR AROUND TO RETURN TO A PROPER LNDG PROFILE WHEN STL TWR CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 12R. I MENTIONED TO THE SUPVR THAT IF HE CHKED MY ALT HE WOULD SEE THAT I WAS; INDEED; NOT IN A POS TO EXECUTE A SAFE LNDG. THE CONVERSATION GRADUALLY BECAME MORE AGREEABLE AND THE SUPVR AND I PARTED ON WHAT I FELT WAS POSITIVE TERMS. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE POLITICS OF A NEW AND EXPENSIVE RWY AND THE DESIRE BY SOME TO SHOW USAGE. I ALSO KNOW THAT RWY 11 DOES NOT NORMALLY CONTRIBUTE TO A MORE EFFICIENT OP. I STILL ASSUME THAT; AS PIC I CAN REQUEST ANY RWY I WISH AND THAT ATC/APCH/TWR SHOULD TRY TO ACCOMMODATE MY REQUEST BUT IN MANY CASES; WE PLTS ARE COERCED INTO FITTING INTO A PLAN THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY BENEFIT US OPERATIONALLY OR SAFELY. I FELT THAT; IN THIS CASE; APCH AND TWR COULD HAVE BEEN MORE FORTHCOMING WITH A REASON WHY RWY 12L OR RWY 12R WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS INSISTENT WITH MY REQUESTS FOR RWY 12L/12R. I DO TRY TO FIT IN THE PLAN; BUT ATC DOES NOT ALWAYS COMMUNICATE THE PLAN TO US PLTS. AS TO THE HIGH APCH; I CONSIDER MY PREOCCUPATION WITH THE 12/11 A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO OUR BEING HIGH AND THAT IS POOR JUDGEMENT AND POOR PRIORITY BALANCING ON MY PART. I TAKE THAT PORTION OF THIS EVENT AS A REMINDER TO ME AS TO THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF OUR JOB -- SAFETY OVER EFFICIENCY! THE RWY 11 PROB WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO PRESENT ITSELF AS MOST OF US WOULD PREFER NOT TO USE THE NEW RWY 11 AND STL WILL PROBABLY TRY TO INSIST THAT WE DO; EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT BUSY (WHICH WAS THE CASE ON THIS DAY). SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 698737: DURING THE VECTOR BY APCH CTL; WE WERE KEPT HIGH AND AT ASSIGNED SPDS. ONCE CLRED FOR AN APCH; I CONFIGURED FOR LNDG AND REALIZING I WAS GOING TO BE HIGH; WE CONFIGURED FOR FLAPS 40 DEG LNDG (FLAPS 30 DEGS WAS BRIEFED). APCHING 1800 FT MSL; I ADVISED THE PLT MONITORING WE WOULD NOT MEET STABILIZED APCH CRITERIA. THE PLT MONITORING ADVISED TWR WE WERE GOING TO DO A GAR UNLESS WE COULD GET RWY 12L OR RWY 12R. TWR ADVISED US WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 12R.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.