Narrative:

While taxiing in at jfk tonight ground control gave us a phone number to call; apparently to discuss our runway choice; or more specifically our refusal to utilize the runway of choice at jfk this evening. Wind 350 at 17 KTS gusting to 30; rain and wet runway; landing 4R; adding half the wind and all of the gust to our approach speed comes out to about 20 KTS and they were landing on a wet runway which is also the shortest runway on the airport. We declined and insisted on the longer 4L which was also the departure runway; hence their request for me to call ATC. I very much looked forward to this conversation.anyone flying into jfk for the last year or so has been dismayed at their ludicrous runway selections. Landing into the wind is a foreign concept these days at jfk; regardless of weather or runway conditions. Just two weeks ago jfk was landing 22L (the shortest runway on the airport) with an 8 KT tailwind and the runway was wet. We didn't accept that one either. Max crosswind landings are commonplace as are 31L intersection takeoffs with a tailwind! Why pilots continue to accept these runway assignments is beyond me but the vast majority of us seem to do so with no argument. Imagine trying to defend yourself at the hearing after going off the end of a wet runway with a tailwind. We; as always; are our own worst enemy.back to the conversation tonight with the ATC supervisor at jfk; they were more concerned with the communications regarding our desired runway rather than the fact that we didn't want to comply with the runway in use. On initial contact with approach; my first officer requested 4L; the longer runway. ATC replied with a gruff 'no' and then continued to work his other traffic. When we could get a word in; my first officer advised ATC that we were unable 4R. ATC asked why we couldn't comply and we replied 'for operational reasons.' in the subsequent conversation with the supervisor; he suggested that we; on initial call; advise approach of the runway needed for operational reasons. He said that 'everybody' wants 22R and 4L because it's closer. I suggested that that's mostly airline XXX guys that are always in a hurry and we really don't care where we land as long as it's safe. He actually stifled a chuckle. So I did learn something from this part of the conversation; and that's how to advise ATC on initial call up that we cannot accept the advertised landing runway.so while I had him on the phone; I had to ask about the logic and responsible authority regarding the ludicrous jfk runway assignments. He was very candid and frank in his reply. This is not driven by jfk ATC or the port authority but by agreement of the 'users' on what is the most efficient use of runways at jfk to maximize traffic flow! The 'users' are of; course; the airlines and--no surprise here--are not pilots but desk jockeys looking to push airplanes regardless of safety. They of course would deny this but please let them try to explain to me or any other professional pilot that landing on a wet 22L with an 8 KT tailwind is a safe way to operate. He also told me that after 'a few' flight crews raise an issue with a runway choice or opt out and request another runway; they would then consider changing runways. He also strongly suggested that any time I don't like the jfk runway choices; to report it in any manner available to the particular airline; in our case via a company safety report. If enough of these filter up to the people making these decisions it may get noticed. But; the big picture and easiest part is right in our hands; simply don't do it just because everyone else is doing it. As mentioned earlier; try talking your way out of the overrun incident at the hearing. I don't know what the rest of you guys are going to do but I know what I have repeatedly done and will continue to do. Fly safe. Nobody else can do it for you.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The Captain of a commercial fixed wing aircraft addressed his disdain for the manner in which departure and arrival runways are selected during inclement weather at JFK; a decision which he understands to be driven by cost efficiency concern of the airlines rather than safety of flight.

Narrative: While taxiing in at JFK tonight Ground Control gave us a phone number to call; apparently to discuss our runway choice; or more specifically our refusal to utilize the runway of choice at JFK this evening. Wind 350 at 17 KTS gusting to 30; rain and wet runway; landing 4R; adding half the wind and all of the gust to our approach speed comes out to about 20 KTS and they were landing on a wet runway which is also the shortest runway on the airport. We declined and insisted on the longer 4L which was also the departure runway; hence their request for me to call ATC. I very much looked forward to this conversation.Anyone flying into JFK for the last year or so has been dismayed at their ludicrous runway selections. Landing into the wind is a foreign concept these days at JFK; regardless of weather or runway conditions. Just two weeks ago JFK was landing 22L (the shortest runway on the airport) with an 8 KT tailwind and the runway was wet. We didn't accept that one either. Max crosswind landings are commonplace as are 31L intersection takeoffs with a tailwind! Why pilots continue to accept these runway assignments is beyond me but the vast majority of us seem to do so with no argument. Imagine trying to defend yourself at the hearing after going off the end of a wet runway with a tailwind. We; as always; are our own worst enemy.Back to the conversation tonight with the ATC supervisor at JFK; they were more concerned with the communications regarding our desired runway rather than the fact that we didn't want to comply with the runway in use. On initial contact with approach; my First Officer requested 4L; the longer runway. ATC replied with a gruff 'No' and then continued to work his other traffic. When we could get a word in; my First Officer advised ATC that we were unable 4R. ATC asked why we couldn't comply and we replied 'for operational reasons.' In the subsequent conversation with the Supervisor; he suggested that we; on initial call; advise approach of the runway needed for operational reasons. He said that 'everybody' wants 22R and 4L because it's closer. I suggested that that's mostly Airline XXX guys that are always in a hurry and we really don't care where we land as long as it's safe. He actually stifled a chuckle. So I did learn something from this part of the conversation; and that's how to advise ATC on initial call up that we cannot accept the advertised landing runway.So while I had him on the phone; I had to ask about the logic and responsible authority regarding the ludicrous JFK runway assignments. He was very candid and frank in his reply. This is not driven by JFK ATC or the Port Authority but by agreement of the 'users' on what is the most efficient use of runways at JFK to maximize traffic flow! The 'users' are of; course; the airlines and--no surprise here--are NOT pilots but desk jockeys looking to push airplanes regardless of safety. They of course would deny this but please let them try to explain to me or any other professional pilot that landing on a wet 22L with an 8 KT tailwind is a safe way to operate. He also told me that after 'a few' flight crews raise an issue with a runway choice or opt out and request another runway; they would then consider changing runways. He also strongly suggested that any time I don't like the JFK runway choices; to report it in any manner available to the particular airline; in our case via a company safety report. If enough of these filter up to the people making these decisions it may get noticed. BUT; the big picture and easiest part is right in our hands; simply don't do it just because everyone else is doing it. As mentioned earlier; try talking your way out of the overrun incident at the hearing. I don't know what the rest of you guys are going to do but I KNOW what I have repeatedly done and will continue to do. Fly safe. Nobody else can do it for you.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.