Narrative:

My widebody transport en route hnl/stl was cleared by mkc ARTCC direct ftz VOR, descend to 10000', stl ATIS -X 2GF wind 110/4 ILS 30L. A request was made to stl approach at XA10 CST via mkc ARTCC for an ILS to 12R. This request was made because of aircraft weight. More favorable wind on landing and approach. On initial contact with stl approach, this request was restated. Stl approach immediately cleared us to maintain 12000', proceed to stl VOR, hold, efc XB30Z. The time of this clearance was was about XA25Z. This clearance was received when we were leaving 11700', 3500 FPM descent, 340 KTS IAS. With all of these conditions present a level off was not completed until 10800'. Stl approach stated he saw we were at 11000', so he cleared us to maintain 11000'. At this point I accepted an ILS 30L and received immediate clearance to 8000' and a radar vector. The landing was normal but the INS wind reading at 500' was 135 degrees/17 KTS and over the threshold INS showed a 9 KT tailwind. Tower wind was 110/5 KTS. I knew our flight was #1 approaching from the west. At XA30 we were probably the first air carrier operation that morning period. I felt my request for a runway into the wind was reasonable, since we were close to maximum landing weight. I feel it was unreasonable of the controller to issue the change in altitude clearance when he must have noted our rate of descent, ground speed and have known the previous clearance to 10000'. Once again I think we have an example here of 2 different priorities and both parties not fully understanding the other's operational problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR REFUSED REQUEST FOR LNDG RWY 12 VERSUS RWY 30.

Narrative: MY WDB ENRTE HNL/STL WAS CLRED BY MKC ARTCC DIRECT FTZ VOR, DSND TO 10000', STL ATIS -X 2GF WIND 110/4 ILS 30L. A REQUEST WAS MADE TO STL APCH AT XA10 CST VIA MKC ARTCC FOR AN ILS TO 12R. THIS REQUEST WAS MADE BECAUSE OF ACFT WT. MORE FAVORABLE WIND ON LNDG AND APCH. ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH STL APCH, THIS REQUEST WAS RESTATED. STL APCH IMMEDIATELY CLRED US TO MAINTAIN 12000', PROCEED TO STL VOR, HOLD, EFC XB30Z. THE TIME OF THIS CLRNC WAS WAS ABOUT XA25Z. THIS CLRNC WAS RECEIVED WHEN WE WERE LEAVING 11700', 3500 FPM DSCNT, 340 KTS IAS. WITH ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS PRESENT A LEVEL OFF WAS NOT COMPLETED UNTIL 10800'. STL APCH STATED HE SAW WE WERE AT 11000', SO HE CLRED US TO MAINTAIN 11000'. AT THIS POINT I ACCEPTED AN ILS 30L AND RECEIVED IMMEDIATE CLRNC TO 8000' AND A RADAR VECTOR. THE LNDG WAS NORMAL BUT THE INS WIND READING AT 500' WAS 135 DEGS/17 KTS AND OVER THE THRESHOLD INS SHOWED A 9 KT TAILWIND. TWR WIND WAS 110/5 KTS. I KNEW OUR FLT WAS #1 APCHING FROM THE W. AT XA30 WE WERE PROBABLY THE FIRST ACR OPERATION THAT MORNING PERIOD. I FELT MY REQUEST FOR A RWY INTO THE WIND WAS REASONABLE, SINCE WE WERE CLOSE TO MAX LNDG WT. I FEEL IT WAS UNREASONABLE OF THE CTLR TO ISSUE THE CHANGE IN ALT CLRNC WHEN HE MUST HAVE NOTED OUR RATE OF DSCNT, GND SPD AND HAVE KNOWN THE PREVIOUS CLRNC TO 10000'. ONCE AGAIN I THINK WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE HERE OF 2 DIFFERENT PRIORITIES AND BOTH PARTIES NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE OTHER'S OPERATIONAL PROB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.