Narrative:

Due to informal noise abatement procedures, the landing runway in use was 04. Several aircraft (air carrier large transport and air carrier widebody transport) reported wind at 300' above ground as 230 degrees at 25 and 38 KTS. 1 pilot even referred to the runway of arrival as dangerous. When the pilot reports were relayed to the supervisor in charge, he stated that west/O 50 operations per hour (the magic #), we would not be able to land on a runway more aligned with the wind, and would continue to land on runway 04. He did agree to land on runways 29R and left; however, the surface wind was 130 degrees at 9 KTS (illegal to land on runway 29's). It is my opinion that due to the wind, the only safe choice would have been to land on runways 11R and left. While I am all for noise abatement, I do believe safety should be the #2 priority. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter advised that he was the tower controller in charge controller, and that the information was passed on to him by the local controller. The supervisor was the area manager in the TRACON. A noise sensitive community is located northwest of the airport, and arrs to runways 11 are discouraged. An informed noise abatement policy exists and specified that if 50 or more aircraft (arrival and departure) per hour, then runways most aligned with the wind are to be used. If there are less than 50, they will attempt to avoid landing aircraft on runways 11. A formal runway use program is being developed at this time by the airport managed. The pilot complaints were made by the aircraft on the ground after landing.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SEVERAL ARR ACFT COMPLAINED ABOUT LNDG ON A RWY WITH A TAILWIND COMPONENT.

Narrative: DUE TO INFORMAL NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS, THE LNDG RWY IN USE WAS 04. SEVERAL ACFT (ACR LGT AND ACR WDB) RPTED WIND AT 300' ABOVE GND AS 230 DEGS AT 25 AND 38 KTS. 1 PLT EVEN REFERRED TO THE RWY OF ARR AS DANGEROUS. WHEN THE PLT RPTS WERE RELAYED TO THE SUPVR IN CHARGE, HE STATED THAT W/O 50 OPS PER HR (THE MAGIC #), WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LAND ON A RWY MORE ALIGNED WITH THE WIND, AND WOULD CONTINUE TO LAND ON RWY 04. HE DID AGREE TO LAND ON RWYS 29R AND L; HOWEVER, THE SURFACE WIND WAS 130 DEGS AT 9 KTS (ILLEGAL TO LAND ON RWY 29'S). IT IS MY OPINION THAT DUE TO THE WIND, THE ONLY SAFE CHOICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO LAND ON RWYS 11R AND L. WHILE I AM ALL FOR NOISE ABATEMENT, I DO BELIEVE SAFETY SHOULD BE THE #2 PRIORITY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR ADVISED THAT HE WAS THE TWR CIC CTLR, AND THAT THE INFO WAS PASSED ON TO HIM BY THE LCL CTLR. THE SUPVR WAS THE AREA MGR IN THE TRACON. A NOISE SENSITIVE COMMUNITY IS LOCATED NW OF THE ARPT, AND ARRS TO RWYS 11 ARE DISCOURAGED. AN INFORMED NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY EXISTS AND SPECIFIED THAT IF 50 OR MORE ACFT (ARR AND DEP) PER HR, THEN RWYS MOST ALIGNED WITH THE WIND ARE TO BE USED. IF THERE ARE LESS THAN 50, THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO AVOID LNDG ACFT ON RWYS 11. A FORMAL RWY USE PROGRAM IS BEING DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME BY THE ARPT MANAGED. THE PLT COMPLAINTS WERE MADE BY THE ACFT ON THE GND AFTER LNDG.

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.